$0.00 – $6.00
Jonathan Raab and Lavinia Hall
Five-person facilitated negotiation among environmental, industry, public utility, and government representatives to revise a proposed rule incorporating environmental costs into electric utility rates
Due to increased public pressures, the Public Utility Commission (PUC) has had several meetings with three coalitions to assess the environmental impacts of electricity production. The coalitions representing environmental organizations, the electric utilities, and industrial electricity users, along with the PUC and a neutral facilitator must meet to review and improve a preliminary draft of a proposed rule that incorporates environmental costs into electric utility rate setting decisions.
- Negotiation benefits rule-making processes: This exercise illustrates how negotiation can enhance the process of rule-making by identifying what interests should be served by a particular rule and how those interests can be met.
- Benefits of multiple iterations of this game: When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. The range of possible agreements is wide; by comparing agreements the usefulness of generating options should emerge.
- Identifying success: Attitudes toward success can change when players in the same role compare outcomes across groups. Seeing what the same party at a different table achieved opens up discussion of the meaning of both winning and fairness.
- Potential roles of the facilitator: It is interesting to observe and discuss the role of the facilitator. The facilitator's instructions are rather vague, therefore the role may develop into a mediator's role, a process manager's role, or the parties may choose not to have the facilitator take part in the negotiation at all.
- Impact of meeting design: The design of the meeting is created by the players. How the discussion are initiated and what process is chosen to redraft the agreement is up to the parties. They can either set a cooperative or a competitive tone.
- Impact of private caucusing: Caucusing can lead to the formation of blocking coalitions. The effects of caucusing on the prospects of reaching agreements can be compared across groups.
- Single Text Tool: The usefulness of a single negotiating text is illustrated. This gives parties a focal point for discussion and a tool for recording the evolving agreement. This can clarify differences and help parties structure packages or trade-offs more creatively.
This exercise is written to include 5 roles, however, more than one player may be assigned to any role.
Estimated Time Requirements:
Reading and preparation: 15 minutes
Parties having the same role may caucus to review their strategies prior to the beginning of the actual negotiation: 35 minutes
Negotiation and Review of the draft: 60 minutes
Debrieft: At least 45 minutes
Total: 2.5-3 hours.
For all parties:
- General Information
- Draft of Proposed Rule
Confidential Instructions for:
- Electric Utility Negotiator
- Environmental Negotiator
- Industrial User Negotiator
- Public Utility Commission Negotiator
- Confidential Advice to the Facilitator
- All of the above
Negotiated rule-making; Rate setting negotiation; Electricity rate setting; Environmental dispute resolution; Agenda control; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus building; Creativity; Decision analysis; Drafting; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Issue control; Joint gains; Legitimacy; Meaning of "success"; Mediation; Meeting design; Negotiation entry; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Risk aversion; Single-text procedure; Yesable propositions
Dirty Stuff II
Negotiated Rulemaking for Electric Utilities Attributes
|Time required:||2-3 hours|
|Number of participants:||5|
|Neutral third party present:||Facilitator|
|Teaching notes available:||No|