Bridging the gap: from project-scale decisions to system-scale planning for rivers and energy
I’ve been writing for more than a decade about the potential for strategic and system-scale planning to deliver better outcomes for rivers and energy, with recommendations ranging from “hydropower by design” to integrated modeling of power-system expansion.
I’ve also written quite a few pieces about why this type of planning has not achieved broad uptake and how governments, funders and others can overcome obstacles to its implementation.
However, the current reality is that best-practices versions of system-scale planning remain uncommon, while proposals, plans and funds for individual projects surge forward.
While system-scale approaches to planning and management of power systems remain crucial, realistically, the pursuit of a sustainable energy transition cannot wait for system-scale approaches to become the norm. Thus, it’s imperative that diverse parties – from hydropower developers to conservation NGOs and communities – consider how far we can get with existing tools.
Here I’ll consider how some of those tools, including the Hydropower Sustainability Standard and its recent complement, HydroSelect, have the potential to unlock systems-scale insights and benefits in a world that remains largely project-focused.
The diverse benefits of system-scale approaches
But first a quick recap about why the system-scale dream remains one worth pursuing.
More than 20 years ago, a report from the World Bank reviewed various environmental mitigation measures to improve the sustainability of hydropower dams, concluding that “the single most important environmental mitigation measure for a new hydroelectric project is good site selection, to ensure that the proposed dam will be largely benign in the first place” (they also noted that other energy options should be pursued if all potential sites in the planning area have large environmental risks).
Considerable research has supported that foundational assertion, finding that system-scale planning offers the most effective route to good site selection. Moreover, a solid evidence base now supports the hypothesis that the best opportunity to increase the environmental and social sustainability of hydropower lies in planning and management at the scale of systems, such as a river basin, power grid or country.
Beyond environmental and social benefits, system-scale planning also offers benefits to developers, investors and governments. These benefits arise in part from the reality that hydropower generally does entail greater risk than other renewable energy projects, and its environmental and social impacts are one of the primary reasons for these risks. Thus, better performance across environmental and social outcomes – arising not least from better site selection that avoids problematic projects –reduces these risks and results in better options and investments.
A bridge to system scale
Despite these benefits, for a variety of reasons, system-scale planning remains relatively uncommon. For example, a primary new tool, the Hydropower Sustainability Standard, is most commonly applied at the scale of individual projects.
Two years ago, at the World Hydropower Congress, WWF and The Nature Conservancy released a report exploring how the Standard, despite its project-centric application, could serve as a “bridge” to achieving the insights and benefits sought from system-scale processes.
The Standard’s potential to serve as this bridge lies with two of its criteria: that a project should meet a “demonstrated need” and show that it achieves a “strategic fit” within an overall system of power and water management.
These are not idle phrases. If taken seriously, these criteria require that evaluation of an individual project fully consider its role in the broader system. In our report, we described what would be needed to realise the potential of these criteria and to have the Standard serve as a bridge to system-scale sustainability.
That potential bridge role moved closer to reality with the release last year of HydroSelect, an early-stage complement to the Standard.
Similar to the Standard, HydroSelect will often be applied at a project scale. But different from the Standard – and this is its crucial added value – HydroSelect should not be applied to a clearly defined project that is already moving forward.
As described in the press release accompanying its launch, HydroSelect is “a new decision-making tool designed to help developers, governments, and investors identify the most promising and sustainable hydropower project concepts at the earliest stages of development” (emphasis added).
Remember the primacy given to site selection from that World Bank report? The ability to influence site selection can be viewed as a minimum threshold for moving from a project-scale process to something incorporating system-scale insights. A review or assessment process that cannot influence site selection (because the site is already defined) cannot serve as an effective bridge to system-scale insights.
Even if that influence on site selection is as simple as flagging that a potential project should not be built, that replicates one of the major benefits of system-scale planning (avoidance of high-risk projects).
Assessments that are applied once a project is well underway have generally missed the window of time when a “no-go” signal can be easily followed. At that point, application of the Standard (or Environmental Impact Assessment) can improve many characteristics of a project – just not the most important one, site selection.
Strategic planning – for example, a Strategic Environmental Assessment that precedes project-level EIAs – can influence site selection. And that’s the stage in the development process that HydroSelect aims to influence.
The HydroSelect process includes criteria aimed at ensuring a potential project meets demonstrated needs and has strategic fit with broader systems – even requiring users to consider whether other renewable options are more appropriate. It also includes criteria that identify potential environmental and social risks that are difficult to mitigate, including impacts on communities, biodiversity and river connectivity. If a high level of one of those risks is present, the HydroSelect recommendation is to discontinue that project option.
The HydroSelect press release highlights this role in influencing site selection, indicating that it should be applied to ensure “consideration of a broader suite of locations”. It also emphasises that the tool is aimed at avoiding high-risk projects and ensuring projects have strategic fit, noting that its application will result in evaluation of “multiple project options before significant resources are committed… ensuring that only the most viable and responsible projects are pursued.”
Avoiding potential projects likely to have high environmental and social risks will result in better outcomes for people and river ecosystems. In their blog post on HydroSelect, Helen Locher and Alain Kilajian emphasise that avoiding such projects will also deliver clear business benefits for hydropower developers and the overall sector.
Strengthening the bridge
HydroSelect is not a substitute for comprehensive strategic planning but, by screening out high-risk projects, its application could provide considerable improvements over current practices. Further, while some may use the tool for insight on a single prospective project (or a few options), there is potential for HydroSelect to be applied at the system scale, such as a river basin, a company’s inventory of potential new projects, or a country or grid. Although application at this scale is just emerging, this role can be developed and refined.
An early example of a system-scale application comes from Tajikistan, where a team recently used HydroSelect to assess power system options for the province VMKB. The assessment filtered among hydropower options – but also wound up recommending expansion of solar PV and pumped storage hydropower within the scenario identified as most sustainable.
While HydroSelect is brand new, the Hydropower Sustainability Standard has been in effect for five years and is now coming up for a review process. Potential valuable changes could include improvements in how demonstrated need and strategic fit are assessed.
As noted above, the Standard is often applied to projects after they are well under way. In other words, when there is no ability to influence site selection or to deliver a “no go” assessment that can be easily followed. This timing could be addressed during the review process – or a strong and complementary relationship between the Standard and HydroSelect, which is intended to influence early decisions and site selection, could be established.
The world needs a rapid transition to low-carbon power systems. But – for people, nature and investors – we simultaneously need a careful transition. With the launch of HydroSelect, and the opening of the review process of the Standard, members of the Hydropower Sustainability Alliance have the opportunity to position these tools as a bridge to that rapid and careful future.
AUTHOR
