Of course, the most direct avenue for those left out of the negotiation process is to officially intervene. The history of FERC's acceptance and rejection of intervention petitions is so varied as to make prediction very difficult. Often, finding and responding to their concerns during the negotiation process is far less costly than subsequent project delays and attorney's fees. Each party should have the means to prevent unilateral action by any other party. The FERC consultation rules legally establish this balance.
Power is lost only by ignoring requirements or deadlines.
However, a great deal of negotiating parties' perceived power, in these consultations, was found in the current trend in FERC decisions. Conversely, in one case study, each party complained that FERC was moving in their opponent's direction. Parties in our case studies derived power from physical control of the resources, statutory authority, expertise, and agenda control. We found that relative power in these FERC consultations tended to ebb and flow markedly. Those parties who recognized the timing of their own power ascendance were effective in accomplishing their most important objectives.