On January 23, 2004, FERC ruled on HRC's rehearing request for the agency's new licensing regulations establishing the new Integrated Licensing Process. The Commission addressed HRC's rehearing request in its entirety. It also ruled on rehearing requests from the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Urban Water Coalition. Here is a quick breakdown of how FERC ruled on our major arguments:

• Good Cause to Approve Use of Traditional Process: After July 22, 2005, the ILP will become the default licensing process, however, a potential license applicant can apply to use the traditional process or alternative licensing process for " good cause shown." HRC argued the " good cause" standard was ambiguous and made suggestions for clarification. FERC declined HRC's petition for clarification.
• Pre-Application Document: The PAD is the first step in ILP process and a tool for identifying issues and information needs. HRC requested that the rule be modified to include disincentives for filing and distributing a deficient PAD and provided specific ideas for addressing this issue. FERC declined to adopt the recommendation.
• Dispute Resolution Panel: The ILP process establishes a formal study dispute resolution process where resource agencies or Indian tribes with mandatory conditioning authority can dispute elements of the Commission-approved study plan. Under this process, the potential applicants are afforded the right to submit comments and information to the advisory panel. HRC argued that other interested parties should be able to submit information to the advisory panel. FERC declined HRC's request on the matter.
• Additional Information Requests: The rule as adopted by FERC does not allow parties to make additional information requests after the filing of a license application. HRC argued that because there could be significant changes between the preliminary license proposal and the filed application, interested parties should be able to request additional information. Also, the new rules only allow for additional information requests after the issuance of the revised study plan in " extraordinary circumstances." HRC also argued that " extraordinary circumstances" should better defined. The Commission declined to agree with HRC on both matters.
• Draft NEPA Documents: The new ILP procedures allow for the issuance of an EA rather than and EIS. HRC argues for changes to the regulations that would articulate very limited circumstances under which an EA would be filed. The Commission declined on this issue.

The rehearing order also addressed the Edison Electric Institute's argument that study plans are final Commission order subject to immediate rehearing and judicial review. EEI also argued that if a study plan was not subject to immediate rehearing requests, then the rule should be revised to make the study plan advisory in nature. FERC denied EEI's request to make the study plan advisory in nature. In addition, the Commission said that when the Director makes a study plan determination pursuant to the authority delegated in federal regulations, the determination can be appealed to the Commission in a request for rehearing.