Project no. 608472
INSPIRE-Grid
IMPROVED AND ENHANCED STAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPATION IN REINFORCEMENT OF ELECTRICITY GRID
Instrument: Collaborative project Thematic priority: ENERGY.2013.7.2.4 – Ensuring stakeholder support for future grid infrastructures
Start date of project: 01 October 2013
Duration: 40 months
Deliverable 6.3
RESULTS OF METHODOLOGIES IMPLEMENTATION IN CASE STUDIES
Revision: 1
Submission date: 05/12/2016
RTE (Réseau de Transport d’Électricité) (2)
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 1-16
Dissemination Level PU Public X PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Author
Name Organisation E-mail
Vivien Molinengo RTE [email protected]
Status of deliverable Action By Date Verified Andrzej Ceglarz - PIK 25-11-2016 Approved (GC) Stefano Maran - RSE 30-11-2016
Abstract This deliverable describes the implementation of Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) and the Web GIS tool developed in INSPIRE-Grid in the three case studies that were organized in Norway and France. The way fieldwork has produced results that will feed the final deliverables of INSPIRE-Grid, among which the final handbook of guidelines, is also described. This deliverable is not intended to describe the results of the case studies, but rather the process through which results have been produced.
“Version history” that will become “Revision history” when the final “version” is converted into .pdf format and submitted to the European Commission.
Date Version Author Comments
28-10-2016 0.1 Vivien Molinengo - New version integrating remarks and suggestions 15-11-2016 0.2 Vivien Molinengo from PIK and RSE 18-11-2016 0.3 Vivien Molinengo Integration of inputs from PIK, RSE and Statnett
30-11-2013 1 Vivien Molinengo Final version
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 2-16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 5
I. ELEMENTS THAT MAKE THE THREE CASE STUDIES DIFFERENT ...... 6 I.1 Diversity of the schedules and technical natures of the projects ...... 6 I.2 Diversity of the methodologies experimented ...... 7 I.3 Diversity of the categories of stakeholders involved ...... 7
II. ELEMENTS THAT MAKE THE RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDIES COMPARABLE .... 9 II.1 Organization of ranking exercises ...... 9 II.2 Organization of interviews with stakeholders ...... 14
CONCLUSION ...... 16
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 3-16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Diversity of the schedules of the power grid projects concerned by the case studies ...... 6 Figure 2 – Diversity of the technical natures of the power grid projects concerned by the case studies...... 7 Figure 3 – Diversity of the methodologies experimented in the three case studies ...... 7 Figure 4 – Number of stakeholders, by category, involved in the three case studies ...... 8 Figure 5 – Criteria (“effects”) used in the ranking exercises of the Aurland-Sogndal and Bamble-Rød case studies ...... 10 Figure 6 – Examples of pictures used to illustrate the visual effect that could result from a new power line project...... 10 Figure 7 – Examples of pictures used to illustrate the visual effect that could result from the decommissioning of an existing line ...... 11 Figure 8 – Commenting functionality of the Web GIS tool ...... 11 Figure 9 – Average scores resulting from the questionnaire used in the Aurland-Sogndal workshop about Web GIS ...... 12 Figure 10 – Chart of the results of questionnaire used in the Aurland-Sogndal workshop about Web GIS ...... 13 Figure 11 – Global and local effects proposed to stakeholders in the ranking exercise of the Cergy-Persan case study ...... 14 Figure 12 – Categories of stakeholders interviewed in the three case studies ...... 15
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 4-16
INTRODUCTION
In the INSPIRE-Grid project, case studies aim at both feeding and validating the theoretical research works conducted in the different Work Packages of the project. Three case studies were organized in 2015 and 2016: two in Norway and one in France. Concerning the two Norwegian case studies, the fieldwork related to the Bamble-Rød project was the first to be organized, in June 2015. It was followed by the Aurland-Sogndal case study, whose fieldwork was organized in May 2016. In France, the fieldwork of the Cergy-Persan case study was organized in September 2016. Previous deliverables of Work Package 6 (deliverables D6.1 and D6.2) designed the framework of the implementation of the three case studies and described in details how TSOs’ projects were selected to host the case studies, as well as the reasons why life-cycle analysis, multi-criteria analysis and the Web GIS tool developed in INSPIRE-Grid were chosen as appropriate methodologies in accordance with the characteristics of TSOs’ projects. The current deliverable describes the implementation of these methodologies in the three case studies and how, through the fieldworks, results were produced that will feed the final deliverables of INSPIRE-Grid, among which the final handbook of guidelines (deliverable D5.3). In other words, this deliverable is not intended to describe the results of the case studies, but rather the process through which results have been produced. Many elements have made the three case studies different, among which the diversity of the contexts of the TSOs’ projects that had been chosen for hosting the case studies, the methodologies experimented and the categories of stakeholders involved in each case study. Yet, despite these differences, it was of utmost importance that the results produced during the case studies could be eventually compared. Comparability of results was in fact a condition for making possible their proper integration in the final phase of the INSPIRE-Grid project and in the final deliverables. That is this effort to make the results of the three case studies comparable that is described in the current deliverable, whose structure is organized into two parts. - A first part dedicated to the elements that make the three case studies different; - And a second part that delves into the proceedings of the three case studies and the interactions with stakeholders that took place during the fieldworks.
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 5-16
I. ELEMENTS THAT MAKE THE THREE CASE STUDIES DIFFERENT
Three main elements have made the INSPIRE-Grid case studies different one from another: the schedules and technical natures of the projects that have hosted the case studies; the nature of the methodologies experimented; and the categories of stakeholders that took part in the case studies. I.1 Diversity of the schedules and technical natures of the projects Diversity of projects’ schedules: Projects’ schedules constitute a first major difference between the three case studies, with consequences on the way fieldworks were organized. In fact, while the Bamble-Rød project was a closed one, both Aurland-Sogndal and Cergy-Persan were ongoing projects at the time case studies were organized. More precisely, the Bamble-Rød power line was in operation when the fieldwork took place, while the Aurland-Sogndal project just had been subjected to public hearings (at that time, the TSO was expecting to obtain the proper authorization). The Cergy-Persan was also in its permitting phase at the time the fieldwork happened (the public inquiry on the basis of which the necessary authorizations would be provided to the TSO just ended). Figure 1 – Diversity of the schedules of the power grid projects concerned by the case studies
Aurland-Sogndal Bamble-Rød Cergy-Persan
Ongoing project Closed project Ongoing project Schedule of the In its permitting phase In operation In its permitting phase power line project when the fieldwork was when the fieldwork was when the fieldwork was realized. realized. realized.
These differences regarding projects’ schedules had an influence on the organization of the fieldworks and the possibility to interact with stakeholders. In fact, not only the administrative process of the projects could have provoked, in case of delays, subsequent delays in the organization of the fieldworks (as it happened in Cergy-Persan), but it also had an influence on the choice of the categories of stakeholders to involve and the selection of the topics to be discussed. As an example, when presenting alternatives to stakeholders about which they had to express preferences in the Bamble-Rød project, the zero alternative (or do-nothing option) was excluded considering that the decision to realize the infrastructure had already been taken at the need definition phase. Diversity of projects’ technical natures: The technical characteristics of the three projects were also different. In fact, while the two Norwegian projects consisted in building new power lines, both differed nonetheless due to the fact that while the Bamble-Rød line was built in a new route, the Aurland-Sogndal consisted in replacing an older 300 kV in an existing route. As for the French
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 6-16
power line project, it consisted in upgrading the voltage of an existing line while keeping the same route to a large extent. The diversity of the technical natures of the projects had an influence on the implementation and purposes of the methodologies experimented (life-cycle analysis, multi-criteria analysis and Web GIS). For instance, the scope of life-cycle analysis and the possibility to compare various alternatives by assessing the environmental effects related to them were strongly determined by the fact that life-cycle analysis was applied to a project which consisted in upgrading an existing line (and not building a new one in an area where no other power line would already have existed). Figure 2 – Diversity of the technical natures of the power grid projects concerned by the case studies
Aurland-Sogndal Bamble-Rød Cergy-Persan
New 420 kV power line Technical natures of the Upgrade to 400 kV of an New 420 kV power line (but replacing an existing power line projects existing 225 kV line 300 kV line)
I.2 Diversity of the methodologies experimented The diversity of the methodologies that were experimented in the three case studies constitutes another element that made them different. More precisely, while multi-criteria analysis was experimented in the two Norwegian case studies, life-cycle analysis was experimented in the French one. Furthermore, regarding the two Norwegian case studies, the Bamble-Rød one was only dedicated to multi-criteria analysis while in the Aurland-Sogndal case study, both multi-criteria analysis and a Web GIS tool were experimented. In addition, it is noticeable that Bamble-Rød, as a completed project, did not allow the implementation of a full multi-criteria analysis process that would have been used to feed the decision-making process on the siting of the transmission line. On the contrary, the Aurland-Sogndal project, as an ongoing one, allowed that to a certain extent (although in that case, it was important to make sure that the multi-criteria analysis did not interfere with the ongoing permitting process). Figure 3 – Diversity of the methodologies experimented in the three case studies
Aurland-Sogndal Bamble-Rød Cergy-Persan
Multi-Criteria Analysis Methodologies and Multi-Criteria Analysis Life-Cycle Analysis experimented Web GIS tool
I.3 Diversity of the categories of stakeholders involved Finally, while similar categories of stakeholders were initially expected to be involved in the three case studies (e.g. NGOs, local elected representatives and private landowners: these categories of stakeholders were identified mainly on the basis of deliverables D2.1 “Analysis of concerns and
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 7-16
needs: Stakeholder Map’’ and D5.2 “Preliminary handbook of guidelines”), differences also appeared. More precisely, mostly environmental non-governmental organizations were involved in the Cergy-Persan case study, but no private stakeholders (although several participants to the workshop who were related to the aforementioned environmental NGOs lived close to the area of the power line project). The situation was very different in the Bamble-Rød case study, were many private stakeholders were involved, but less representatives of environmental NGOs. As for the Aurland-Sogndal case study, representatives of non-environmental NGOs were involved in the case study, while this category of stakeholders was not involved in the two other case studies. Figure 4 – Number of stakeholders, by category, involved in the three case studies
Differences in the categories of stakeholders involved in the case studies could have resulted from the context of each project. For instance, in a controversial project, involving certain categories of stakeholders could have represented a risk for the project. Difficulties when working at involving stakeholders could also have been encountered, such as refusals of stakeholders to take part in the case study.
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 8-16
Due to the diversity of the schedules and technical natures of the projects as well as of the methodologies experimented and the categories of stakeholders involved, the INSPIRE-Grid case studies appeared as characterized by significant differences. Despite these initial differences, TSOs and researchers endeavoured to make the results of the case studies eventually comparable. This was done by following a same research approach in the three case studies, which was hinged on both ranking exercises and interviews with stakeholders.
II. ELEMENTS THAT MAKE THE RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDIES COMPARABLE In the three case studies, the fieldwork was always organized following the four same steps: - First, a presentation of the power line project that hosted the case study; - Then, a presentation of the methodology/ies experimented in the case study; - Third, a ranking exercise during which participants to the fieldwork were asked to rank different environmental effects on the basis of the importance that should, according to them, be granted to these effect in the decision-making process; - Finally, semi-structured interviews with participants. Despite the specificity of each case study, the organization of ranking exercises and of semi-structured interviews in the three case studies has paved the way to a possible comparison of the results produced.
II.1 Organization of ranking exercises Organized in the three case studies, ranking exercises aimed to elicit stakeholders’ preferences regarding various positive and negative effects that could derive from power line projects. Ranking exercises achieved in relation with multi-criteria analysis and Web GIS (Aurland- Sogndal and Bamble-Rød): In the case of multi-criteria analysis, ranking exercises can be used to rank different alternatives (routes) for the achievement of a power line project by giving to each of them an overall score. That is what was done in the INSPIRE-Grid case studies, when participants to the fieldworks were asked to prioritize numerous criteria in accordance with their values and beliefs. Participants had to distinguish effects of “outstanding relevance” as well as those considered as “definitely less relevant” / “almost negligible”, and then to group the remaining effects in three categories: Class A - most important effects; Class B - average importance; Class C - lowest importance. This ranking was achieved individually in the case of Bamble-Rød, and individually first and then in groups of three or four people in the case of Aurland-Sogndal.
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 9-16
Figure 5 – Criteria (“effects”) used in the ranking exercises of the Aurland-Sogndal and Bamble-Rød case studies
Aurland-Sogndal Bamble-Rød
Investment cost of the project Investment cost of the project Cost - Annual operation cost
Effects on biodiversity Effects on bird nesting
Proximity of the power line with houses Bird collisions
Ice fall on houses Effects on valuable / protected areas (2 types)
Houses to be removed Visual perception (from 7 types of points of view)
Effects on cultural heritage Environment and health Landscape and visual effect (3 alternatives)
Effects on recreational areas - Workers’ safety
Effects on agriculture
Noise
Socio- - Effects on tourism economy
For each effect, details were given to describe how it would appear for real in the projects studied. This was done notably on the basis of the content of the environmental impact assessments. Effects were also illustrated with pictures. In the Bamble-Rød project, the visual effect was for instance described by using pictures such as the two following ones: Figure 6 – Examples of pictures used to illustrate the visual effect that could result from a new power line project Current situation Future situation
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 10-16
The visual effect resulting from the decommissioning of an existing line was also presented to stakeholders. Below is an example taken from the Bamble-Rød project. Figure 7 – Examples of pictures used to illustrate the visual effect that could result from the decommissioning of an existing line Current situation Future situation
In the Aurland-Sogndal case study, the Web GIS tool developed in INSPIRE-Grid was used in relation with the multi-criteria analysis. While helping participants to better identify the different alternatives studied in the multi-criteria analysis, the experimentation of the Web GIS tool also aimed at determining to which extent it could contribute to improve public engagement in the decision-making process. This concerned in particular the possibility given to users to access relevant information by means of geographical criteria, and to submit comments and suggestions related to precise geographic locations. An interference indicator was also included to the INSPIRE-Grid Web GIS tool (for more details about the specific functionalities of the INSPIRE-Grid Web GIS tool in comparison with classical Web GIS tools, see Deliverable D4.5). Figure 8 – Commenting functionality of the Web GIS tool
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 11-16
During the workshop, the functionalities of the Web GIS tool were described to participants, who were encouraged to experiment the tool themselves (due to the presence of possible sensitive data related to the power grid project, the access to the Web GIS was protected through a system of usernames and passwords). At the end of the session, a questionnaire was distributed to the participants so that they could express their degree of agreement regarding the following statements: - “I am satisfied with the Web GIS presentation”; - “Web GIS makes it easier to access the project documentation”; - “It is valuable to use Web GIS to make simple elaborations and to extract customized data”; - “Web GIS enables users to submit comments and suggestions, specifying very precisely the location to which they refer”, - “Web GIS could allow decision makers to elicit preferences of the general public about some aspects (i.e. value of the landscape)”; - “Web GIS could contribute to the improvement of public engagement in the decision-making process about grid expansion projects”. Average scores resulting from this questionnaire are reported in the following table (using a Likert scale from 1 to 5, 1 corresponding to “strongly disagree” and 5 corresponding to “strongly agree”). Average scores that were obtained in some other similar workshops organized in INSPIRE-Grid are reported in the right column. Figure 9 – Average scores resulting from the questionnaire used in the Aurland-Sogndal workshop about Web GIS
Aurland-Sogndal Average results of Statement workshop other workshops
1 1. I am satisfied with the Web GIS presentation 4.25 3.73 2. Web GIS makes it easier to access the project 2 3.40 3.79 documentation 3. It is valuable to use Web GIS to make simple 3 4.20 3.69 elaborations and to extract customized data 4. Web GIS enables users to submit comments and 4 suggestions, specifying very precisely the location to 4.00 3.98 which they refer 5. Web GIS could allow decision makers to elicit 5 3.80 3.63 preferences of the general public about some aspects 6. Web GIS could contribute to the improvement of 6 4.20 3.80 public engagement
In general, a more positive attitude towards the tool was observed in the case of the Aurland-Sogndal case study, except about how Web GIS could give an easier access to the project
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 12-16
documentation. The opportuneness to use Web GIS in order to improve public engagement and to elicit people’s preferences was also emphasized. Figure 10 – Chart of the results of questionnaire used in the Aurland-Sogndal workshop about Web GIS
It must be noted that the differences observed cannot be considered statistically significant due to the small number of participants in the Aurland-Sogndal workshop. Then, differences must be considered only in a qualitative way, as providing indications about possible differences in the way stakeholders could perceive the Web GIS tool.
Ranking exercise achieved in relation with life-cycle analysis (Cergy-Persan): When achieved in relation with life-cycle analysis, the ranking exercise did not aim at comparing different alternatives on the basis of a panel of criteria, as it was the case in the two Norwegian case studies, but rather at classifying local and global effects that could result from a power line project. More precisely, the purpose of the ranking exercise was, in the case of life-cycle analysis, to identify toward which categories of effects (either local effects, as assessed by the environmental impact assessment, or global effects, as assessed by life-cycle analysis) stakeholders’ preferences go. Fifteen global and local effects were proposed to stakeholders.
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 13-16
Figure 11 – Global and local effects proposed to stakeholders in the ranking exercise of the Cergy-Persan case study
Global effects Local effects
Investment cost of the project Cost - Effects on power generation costs
Effects on ecosystems Effects on biodiversity
Effects on the climate change Effects on landscapes
Effects on primary energy consumption Noise Environment Effects on human health (global scale) and health Effects on mineral source depletion - Effects on water consumption
Effects on radioactive waste
Effects on the security of supply Effects on local agricultural economy Socio- economy - Effects on property value
As it was done in the ranking exercises conducted in the two Norwegian case studies, details were given for each effect and pictures were shown. Participants achieved the ranking exercise individually.
II.2 Organization of interviews with stakeholders Interviews have constituted the second approach that was followed by researchers to make comparable the results produced in the three fieldworks. Twenty-three interviews were achieved to that end, all conducted with a similar purpose: to better understand stakeholders’ values and beliefs regarding power grid projects, how stakeholders have been connected to such projects in the past, notably at the need definition phase, and to get a better knowledge of how the methodologies experimented in the three case studies were understood and accepted by stakeholders and could therefore be integrated into the public participation and decision-making processes. Interviews followed a semi-structured character with open-ended questions. That allowed gathering better insights and stakeholders’ perceptions about the discussed issues (Yin 2003)1. All of them were organized according to the logic of starting with a general question about the project itself, and afterwards shifting to more detailed questions. Questions were personalized for the different categories of stakeholders (local authorities, NGOs and the broad public).
1 Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 14-16
Figure 12 – Categories of stakeholders interviewed in the three case studies
Aurland-Sogndal Bamble-Rød Cergy-Persan
Officials 2 3 1
1 municipal representative 1 county representative Details 2 county representatives (local elected 2 municipal representatives representative)
Environmental NGOs 1 1 6
2 from a regional nature park Farmers and forestry Details Nature NGO 2 from a local NGO association 1 from a regional NGO 1 from a national NGO
Non-environmental 2 - - organizations
Local mountaineering club Details - - Hiking club
Energy companies - 1 -
Details - - -
Private stakeholders 1 6 -
Directly affected by the Directly affected by the Details - project project
TOTAL 6 11 7
Lasting generally between 30 to 60 minutes, all the interviews were conducted in English or in the native language of the interviewees with the help of interprets. Except in one case (in Bamble-Rød case study, where a couple was interviewed), all the interviews were individual.
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 15-16
CONCLUSION
When organizing the INSPIRE-Grid case studies, the main issue was to make possible, despite the specificity of each of them, the comparison of the results produced. To that end, TSOs and researchers endeavoured to implement in the three fieldworks two similar research approaches (rankings exercises and interviews with stakeholders) which, even if they were applied to different contexts, aimed at guaranteeing the comparability of the results produced. The data generated in the INSPIRE-Grid case studies will be analysed in respect to the appropriateness of relying, among other approaches, on multi-criteria analysis, life-cycle analysis and Web GIS when working at engaging stakeholders in TSOs’ projects. The results will also provide researchers with a better understanding of how stakeholders of power grid projects define their preferences and rank them regarding the issues related to these projects, general interest and their own private interests. This will be the purpose of the final deliverables of INSPIRE-Grid to shed light on these issues which, since the beginning of the project, are at its very core.
D6.3_Results of methodologies implementation in case studies_v1.doc Page 16-16