1 | Program Name or Ancillary Texteere.energy.gov Water Power Peer Review Integrated Basin Scale Hydropower Opportunity Assessment Initiative Simon Geerlofs.

1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov

Water Power Peer Review

Integrated Basin Scale Hydropower Opportunity Assessment Initiative

Simon GeerlofsPNNLSimon [email protected] 1, 2011

2 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov

Purpose, Objectives, & Integration

• Signed in March 2010, MOU highlights 7 key areas for interagency collaboration.

– Assessments of energy generation potential and analysis of potential climate change impacts to energy generation at federal hydropower facilities

– Green Hydropower Certification

– Exploring opportunities for collaboration across entire river basins to increase generation and environmental conditions

– Federal Inland Hydropower Working Group

– Joint development and demonstration of advanced technologies

– Renewable Energy Integration and Energy Storage

– Facilitate permitting for federal and non-federal projects at federal facilities

Slide 2

MOU for Hydropower among DOE, DOI and DOA


Partners (to date)—It’s a big tent…

• MOU Agencies Leads—DOE, USACE, BOR– Kerry McCalman, CJ McKeral, Mike Pulskam—BOR– Hoyt Battey, Gina Krump, TJ Heibel, Gary Johnson—DOE– Kamau Sadiki, Lisa Morales—USACE

• National Steering Committee: – Jeff Leahey, Linda Church Ciocci—NHA– Julie Keil—Portland General Electric– John Seebach—American Rivers– Richard Roos-Collins—Natural Heritage Institute– Fred Ayer—Low Impact Hydropower Institute– Jeff Opperman—The Nature Conservancy

• Case Study Stakeholder Involvement– Logistics Team—PGE, BOR, BOC, TU, USACE…– Site Visit and Interviews—20+– Stakeholder Workshops—40+

• Technical Team: PNNL, ORNL, ANL• Outreach Team: Kearns and West

3


• Develop (in collaboration with stakeholders) an approach for basin scale identification and analysis of sustainable hydropower and environmental protection/restoration opportunities, while protecting other water uses.– Stakeholder engagement—what are the key issues in the basin?

Identify clear opportunities for hydropower/environmental improvements, identify potential opportunities that require additional analysis, identify potential barriers to realizing opportunities.

– System-scale analysis—leverage existing tools at National Labs and other partners for analysis of opportunities or issues identified by stakeholders.

– Data Aggregation, Display, and Dissemination—leverage GIS and data management capabilities at national labs for transparent/interactive illustration of opportunities and scenarios.

– Inform—Opportunity assessments are meant to inform; not interfere with ongoing regulatory or planning processes.

4

Purpose, Objectives, & Integration


Technical Approach

Key Issues

• Assessment at the basin (or system) scale to inform hydropower planning processes (not create new planning processes)

• Identify opportunities to increase both hydropower and environmental services above current baselines, within context of other basin uses

Technical Approach And Methods:• Collaborative, stakeholder driven—National and in-basin

• Begin with Initial Pilot Basin (Deschutes Basin, OR)—opportunity screening analysis and stakeholder needs assessment

• Develop opportunity assessment toolbox (water balance system simulation, GIS-decision support, stakeholder engagement)—rapid assessment of environmental and hydropower opportunities

• Final Product: A rapid system scale assessment of opportunities for environmental and hydropower improvements in initial pilot—Deschutes Pilot underway, complete at end of FY 12.


Technical Approach—Project Process


Technical Approach—Pilot Study


Plan, Schedule, & Budget

Schedule• Initiation date: March 24, 2010• Planned completion date: September 2012• Milestones for FY11-12: Select pilot basin (Feb 2011), Assemble

Opportunity Assessment Toolbox (April 2011), Deschutes workshop (June 2011), complete preliminary assessment and draft report (September 2011). FY 12—Finalize preliminary report through stakeholder review (November 2011), refine opportunity scenarios (January 2012), assess opportunity scenarios (Q2,3,4 2012), complete pilot assessment (Sept. 2012), select additional basins.

Budget: • PNNL, ORNL and ANL are partners in this projectBudget History

FY2010 FY2011 FY2012

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share

$75K (ORNL) $0$270K (PNNL)$190K (ORNL)

$40K (ANL)$0

$625K (PNNL)$325k (ORNL)

$50k (ANL)$0


Accomplishments and Results

• Deschutes Pilot Basin Selection—Feb. 2011

• Assembled Opportunity Assessment Toolbox—April 2011

• NHA Panel on Deschutes Pilot—April 2011

• Literature and Stakeholder Review—April-May 2011

• Technical Team Site Visit—June, 2011

• Opportunity Identification Interviews—June, 2011

• Workshop on Opportunities and Research Needs—July 2011. Workshop Report Rreleased in August.

• Completion of Initial Deschutes Opportunity Assessment and FY 12 Research Proposal—Submitted to DOE Sept. 30, Initiated Stakeholder Review.


Accomplishments and Results

Outcomes

1.Established collaborative networks and active stakeholder participation in Deschutes Basin.2.Identified preliminary opportunities for Hydro/Environmental improvements that protect existing water rights and other important uses.3.Assembled tools for collaborative analysis of opportunity scenarios—selected appropriate tools for FY 12 research agenda. (MODSIM, RiverWare, NHAAP, PNNL/ORNL Decision Support and Collaborative Analysis, Stakeholder Mapping, Workshops, ANL Optimization Toolbox in future years)4.Met all milestones in AOP


Challenges to Date

• Managing scope and expectations—Not basin scale planning or integrated water resource management

• Collaboration is the strength of this initiative, but collaboration is difficult, time consuming and expensive– Essential that activities provide value to stakeholders, as well as

meet national objectives of MOU

• Using existing tools and datasets is necessary given scope and budget; requires much digging and discussion about what has occurred or is occurring in the basin.

• Managing a complex/multi party/stakeholder driven process is difficult in a CR, with funds trickling in slowly and unpredictably.


Next Steps

• October-November: Stakeholder review of preliminary assessment and second workshop

• November-August 2012: – Refine opportunity scenarios– validate monthly MODSIM model and sensitivity analysis of

groundwater response unit functions– Disaggregate MODSIM monthly to daily RiverWare model to allow for

opportunity scenario modeling.– Stakeholder mapping– Develop decision support and visualization package for collaborative

exploration of scenarios.

• Third workshop—with stakeholders to interact with modeling data.

• September 2012: Conclude case study


Touchstones and Final Thoughts

Lessons Learned to Date from Stakeholder Interactions:

• Hydro + Environment + Other Water Uses• National Goals and Audiences + Local Goals and

Audiences• Stakeholder Process + Modeling and Analysis• Think system scale and/or system impact• Pilot Study: limited time, limited funding—”Rapid”

assessment approach• Identify and clarify feasible opportunities—Not here to

make recommendations or set plans for the basin

13

1 | Program Name or Ancillary Texteere.energy.gov Water Power Peer Review Integrated Basin Scale Hydropower Opportunity Assessment Initiative Simon Geerlofs.

Documents