Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Water Power Technologies Office”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

CMIP6-based Multi-model Hydroclimate Projection over the Conterminous US, Version 1.1

This dataset presents a suite of high-resolution downscaled hydro-climate projections over the conterminous United States (CONUS) based on multiple selected Global Climate Models (GCMs) from the Coupled Models Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6). The CMIP6 GCMs are downscaled using either statistical (DBCCA) or dynamical (RegCM) downscaling approaches based on two meteorological reference datasets (Daymet and Livneh). Subsequently, the downscaled precipitation, temperature, and wind speed are employed to drive two calibrated hydrologic models (VIC and PRMS), enabling the simulation of projected future hydrologic responses across the CONUS. Each ensemble member covers the 1980-2019 baseline and 2020-2059 near-future periods under the high-end (SSP585) emission scenario. Moreover, utilizing only DBCCA and Daymet, the projections are further extended to the 2060-2099 far-future period and across three additional emission scenarios (SSP370, SSP245, and SSP126). This dataset is formulated to support the SECURE Water Act Section 9505 Assessment for the US Department of Energy (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO). For further details on this dataset, please refer to Kao et al. (2022) and Rastogi et al. (2022).

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Open-Loop and Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower

Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) capabilities are generally characterized as either open-loop or closed-loop. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defines open-loop PSH as “continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature,” and closed-loop PSH as “not continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature.” All the PSH projects constructed in the United States to date are open-loop, so the potential environmental effects of closed-loop systems are not as well documented as the effects of open-loop systems. To address this knowledge gap, the DOE Water Power Technologies Office, under its HydroWIRES Initiative, has prepared this report to: (1) compare the potential environmental effects of open-loop PSH projects with those of closed-loop PSH projects; (2) describe how these effects are being avoided, minimized, or mitigated at existing projects in other countries and proposed projects in the United States; and (3) discuss the relative significance of the environmental issues. The report begins with a brief introduction on the current status of PSH development in the United States. Next, the report describes the current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licensing process, emphasizing some recent regulatory changes that affect closed-loop PSH development. The report then provides a summary comparison of the environmental effects of constructing and operating open-loop and closed-loop PSH systems and discusses the relative significance of those issues. This comparison and discussion are based on the results of a literature review and a review of FERC licensing records. The literature review includes journal articles, technical reports, and presentations on the environmental effects of PSH systems. It includes literature from the United States as well as countries where closed-loop PSH projects have been constructed. The FERC records review examines the FERC licensing record (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act documents and license orders) to identify the environmental effects anticipated and mitigation measures proposed for six of the closed-loop PSH projects currently licensed or permitted in the United States. For comparison, the FERC records review also discusses the environmental effects and mitigation measures for four open-loop PSH projects proposed or currently operating in the United States. The comparison of effects between open-loop and closed-loop projects is relative; that is, it characterizes the impacts of each project type as generally lower or higher than another project type. The comparison reflects general trends among project types because there are sometimes exceptions to the examples cited. The comparison is based on both spatial (location) and temporal (duration) factors and reflects both the severity and likelihood of effects. The report concludes that the environmental effects of closed-loop PSH projects are generally lower (i.e., more localized and of shorter duration) than those of open-loop PSH projects because they are located “off-stream,” minimizing aquatic and terrestrial impacts, and often have greater siting flexibility than open-loop PSH projects. For certain closed-loop project designs, however, impacts to groundwater may be higher relative to open-loop projects and should be considered in any environmental review.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hydropower Geotechnical Foundations: Executive Summary on Current Practice and Innovation Opportunities for Low-Head Applications

The following content provides a companion executive summary of Hydropower Geotechnical Foundations: Current Practice and Innovation Opportunities for Low-Head Applications (DeNeale et al. 2020), a technical report developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Knight Piésold Consulting, with funding from the US Department of Energy (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO). This executive summary provides a brief synopsis of the broader information contained in the technical report. This study (and the associated technical report): (1) covers background information on hydropower; (2) describes various characteristics relevant to hydropower foundations for undeveloped US streams; (3) presents the current state of practice in foundation development; (4) provides a representative assessment of conventional hydropower foundation costs and timelines; (5) addresses key challenges facing conventional hydropower foundations; and (6) presents opportunity areas and examples for innovative hydropower foundation technologies while highlighting some advances in non-hydropower industries.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH) FAST Commissioning Prize Technical Analysis

The US energy landscape has undergone major changes over the past 10 years and will continue to see significant changes in future decades as the power grid increases its reliance on variable renewable energy resources. Because of the inherent variability of these resources, renewable energy growth may require additional energy storage capacity to provide flexible load-following capabilities and other grid services that can quickly adjust to changes in energy demand and generation. Pumped storage hydropower (PSH)—one such energy storage technology—uses pumps to convey water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir for energy storage and releases water back to the lower reservoir via a powerhouse for hydropower generation. PSH facility pump and generation cycling often follows economic and energy demand conditions. Across the United States, 43 PSH facilities are in operation and 55 projects are in various permitting or licensing stages. Altogether, the 43 operational projects provide the wide majority (95%) of utility-scale electricity storage in the United States. These facilities also provide significant power and nonpower grid benefits, including large-scale electrical system reserve capacity, grid reliability support, and electricity supply-demand balancing through quick-response capabilities and operational flexibility. PSH systems can accomplish these at a scale (e.g., size) and cost that makes these systems highly attractive from a technical standpoint. Although these research concepts are still in their infancy, they demonstrate promising potential as future PSH energy storage technologies. Although PSH has many advantages, development in the United States has effectively stalled since the 1990s, partially because of the magnitude of project costs and financing interest during development and construction, the length of time from project investment until project revenue begins, permitting challenges, construction risks, competition from other storage technologies (e.g., batteries, hydrogen storage), and electricity market evolution and uncertainty. In short, the time, cost, and risk associated with modern PSH development have resulted in limited growth in the United States recently, despite the growing energy storage demand stemming from increased wind and solar power deployment. Technology innovation is needed to help reduce PSH commissioning time, cost, and risk, particularly during the post-licensing phase of project development. To address challenges facing the PSH industry and to improve PSH commissioning timelines, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) initiated the PSH Furthering Advancements to Shorten Time to (FAST) Commissioning Prize project.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Powering the Blue Economy - Ocean Observing Use Cases Report

The "Powering the Blue Economy" (PBE) Report identified ocean observing and autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) recharge as near-term markets with significant potential for marine energy integration when specified qualitative and quantitative assessment criteria were used. The ocean observing market (including AUVs) scored high relative to other markets analyzed in the PBE Report with respect to market size, marine renewable energy (MRE) compatibility with functional requirements, competitive positioning (i.e., MRE versus other power sources), path to market, and alignment to the Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) and other agencies' objectives. Based on this scoring, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) pursued the development of five use cases that represent a spectrum of ocean observation platforms, fixed and mobile, to explore the present and future power needs that might be satisfied by marine energy. The use cases were described and analyzed for this potential by examining current missions and future needs, evaluating the mix of renewable energy sources that might satisfy those needs at sea, and understanding the overall cost drivers that might enable this application.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Pumped Storage Hydropower FAST Commissioning Technical Analysis

This report is designed to address barriers and solutions to modern pumped storage hydropower (PSH) development by establishing baseline project development knowledge, defining key aspects of project development, and identifying opportunities to reduce project timelines, costs, and risks. This report’s scope includes post-licensing activities and excludes factors related to permitting or licensing. The U.S. PSH fleet is composed of 43 projects providing the majority (95%) of utility-scale electricity storage in the US. However, only one new PSH facility has become operational in the past 20 years. Several factors contribute to diminishing PSH growth in the US, including the magnitude of project costs and financing interest during development and construction; the length of time from project investment until project revenue; permitting challenges and construction risks; competition from other storage technologies; and unrecognized energy storage valuation. Although innovative PSH concepts (including underground, small, and modular systems) have been investigated, widespread application has yet to occur. In short, the time, cost, and risk associated with modern PSH development has resulted in limited recent growth in the United States, despite the rising energy storage demand from increased deployment of variable renewable technologies. To address these challenges, the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office initiated the PSH Furthering Advancements to Shorten Time to (FAST) Commissioning project, aimed at catalyzing new solutions, designs, and strategies to accelerate PSH development. This report uses available data from previous license applications, ongoing project cost data, and other global PSH project information based on a typical closed-loop PSH project.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Pumped Storage Hydropower Valuation Guidebook: A Cost-Benefit and Decision Analysis Valuation Framework

As an energy storage technology, pumped storage hydropower (PSH) supports various aspects of power system operations. However, determining the value of PSH plants and their many services and contributions to the system has been a challenge. While there is a general understanding that PSH resources provide many services and benefits for the operation of power systems, estimating the value of these services—and especially the monetary value of some of those services—has been a challenge. The objective of this project, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO), is to advance the state of the art in assessing the value of PSH plants and their contributions to the power system. The specific goal is to develop detailed, step-by-step valuation guidance that PSH developers, plant owners or operators, and other stakeholders can use to assess the value of existing or potential new PSH plants and their services. The specific goals of this project are: (1) to develop comprehensive and transparent valuation guidance that will support consistent valuation assessments and comparisons of PSH projects or project design alternatives, (2) to test the PSH valuation guidance and its underlying methodology by applying it to two selected PSH projects, and (3) to transfer and disseminate the PSH valuation guidance to the hydropower industry, PSH developers, and other stakeholders. The authors believe that the application of a consistent, transparent, and repeatable valuation process will advance valuation assessments and allow stakeholders to compare valuation analyses performed for different PSH projects or design alternatives. It will also increase the acceptance of valuation results and enable better understanding of the true value that PSH technology brings to the grid.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Furthering Advancements to Shorten the Time (FAST) to Commissioning for Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH) Prize (Penn State-PNNL): Cooperative Research and Development Final Report, CRADA Number CRD-19-00842

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) initiated a Prize with support from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office (DOE WPTO) to encourage ideas to reduce the time to commissioning for PSH projects. As a result, nine finalists have been chosen to develop their concepts in advance of the FAST Prize Pitch Contest to be held on October 7, 2019. The national labs will provide technical and business advisement to the noted FAST Prize finalists in preparation for this Pitch Contest.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Use of Modern Tunnel Boring Machines for Underground Pumped Storage (CRADA 464)

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory initiated a Prize with support from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office (DOE WPTO) to encourage ideas to reduce the time to commissioning for PSH projects. As a result, nine finalists have been chosen to develop their concepts in advance of the FAST Prize Pitch Contest to be held on October 7, 2019. The National Labs will provide technical and business advisement to the noted FAST Prize finalists in preparation for this Pitch Contest.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Furthering Advancements to Shorten the Time (FAST) to Commissioning for Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH) Prize (CRADA Final Report)

NREL initiated a prize with support from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office (DOE WPTO) to encourage ideas to reduce the time to commissioning for PSH projects. As a result, Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) was chosen as one of nine finalists to develop their concept in advance of the FAST Prize Pitch Contest held on October 27, 2021. The National Labs provided technical and business advisement to SWRI in preparation for this Pitch Contest.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Workshop on Materials & Manufacturing for Marine Energy Technologies (Summary Report: October 5, 2021)

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) enables research, testing, development, and commercialization of emerging technologies to advance marine energy, as well as next-generation hydropower and pumped storage systems, for a flexible, reliable grid. This report summarizes the results of a WPTO-sponsored public workshop held virtually on October 5, 2021.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Non-Powered Dam Retrofit Exemplary Design for Hydropower Applications

Non-powered dams (NPDs) represent complex systems, situated at the intersection of natural stream environments and the built environment. The presence and operations of NPDs affect stream constituents (e.g., fish, recreational craft, sediment, water) and serve one or more engineered purposes (e.g., recreation, flood control, water supply, irrigation, tailings and debris control, navigation). By definition, NPDs do not provide hydropower generation. However, every NPD contains some untapped hydropower resource potential, represented by the pre-existing hydraulic head created by the dam and presence of flowing water. Adding power generation to an NPD requires retrofitting the NPD, which could involve the addition of any new component or function beyond that currently installed. Because this research is funded by the US Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office, adding hydropower to NPDs is among the primary objectives for research investment. However, NPD retrofitting extends beyond the purview of hydropower additions. This report provides background information regarding NPD development in the United States, including an overview of the US NPD population, development potential, and recent development. It also summarizes challenges and opportunities facing NPD retrofit development, highlights the importance of maintaining or improving stream and dam functionality, notes key NPD characteristics, describes NPD retrofit methods, and identifies innovation areas for spurring future NPD retrofit development. Section 4 describes retrofit exemplary design principles and concepts that could apply to a wide range of NPD projects. These principles and concepts inform an NPD Retrofit Exemplary Design Specification (REDS), as included in Appendix A. The NPD REDS is heavily influenced by prior work under the standard modular hydropower technology acceleration research initiative, especially the work documented in the Exemplary Design Envelope Specification for Standard Modular Hydropower Technology (Witt et al., 2017). Whereas this prior work focuses on a particular technology class that applies most intentionally for new stream-reach development (i.e., greenfield sites), the NPD REDS contained herein applies more broadly to the NPD resource class and is technology-agnostic (i.e., the specific technologies intended to be described are not explicitly prescribed). This report serves as a part of early-phase research on NPD retrofit development, aimed toward spurring additional, follow-on efforts to specifically address development challenges, capitalize on development opportunities, and inspire innovation. As documented in the landmark “Hydropower Vision” report (DOE 2016), “transformative technical innovations able to meet the co-objectives of environmental sustainability and low-carbon energy will be critical to enabling additional hydropower growth.” This report serves as an important step in steering transformation of US non-powered dam infrastructure.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Price Formation in Zero-Carbon Electricity Markets: The Role of Hydropower

In April 2019, Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) launched the HydroWIRES Initiative to understand, enable, and improve hydropower and pumped storage hydropower’s (PSH’s) contributions to reliability, resilience, and integration in the rapidly evolving U.S. electricity system. The unique characteristics of hydropower, including PSH, make it well suited to provide a range of storage, generation flexibility, and other grid services to support the cost-effective integration of variable renewable resources. The U.S. electricity system is rapidly evolving, bringing both opportunities and challenges for the hydropower sector. While increasing deployment of variable renewables such as wind and solar have enabled low-cost, clean energy in many U.S. regions, it has also created a need for resources that can store energy or quickly change their operations to ensure a reliable and resilient grid. Hydropower (including PSH) is not only a supplier of bulk, low-cost, renewable energy but also a source of large-scale flexibility and a force multiplier for other renewable power generation sources. Realizing this potential requires innovation in several areas: understanding value drivers for hydropower under evolving system conditions, describing flexible capabilities and associated tradeoffs associated with hydropower meeting system needs, optimizing hydropower operations and planning, and developing innovative technologies that enable hydropower to operate more flexibly.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hydroelectric Cybersecurity Response and Recovery Overview

Protecting hydroelectric plants from incidents that adversely impact their cyber-physical systems presents unique challenges due to the plants’ widely dispersed geographic locations and varied configurations as well as the relative nascent nature of the cyberattacks targeting these facilities. To help hydroelectric plants better respond to and mitigate cybersecurity incidents, this Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office Cyber Response & Recovery Overview document discusses the process of defining how a hydroelectric plant might respond to and recover from an anomalous event. In addition to this product, there are three other products meant to be distributed to a hydroelectric plant to assist in their cyber incident response and recovery. The first, a handy flip book that guides an operator in the midst of a cyber event through the R&R process of the incident and if the event warrants, through an emergency action plan to recover the plant itself. The second, a handy guide of hydroelectric and cyber guidance in responding to the cyber and physical systems within a hydroelectric plant. And the third is a correlated alignment of the steps an hydroelectric plant operator would take for both a cyber incident as well as an emergency response process if the event rises to a cyber incident affecting the safe and reliable operations of a hydroelectric plant.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Small Hydropower Interconnections: Small Hydropower in the United States

Small hydropower projects, which we define as generators below 20 MW in capacity have been the predominant source of hydropower growth over the past decade and create the most cost-effective and environmentally permissible avenues for new hydropower installation in the United States (DOE 2016; Johnson et al. 2018). Small hydropower developers across the United States have found that interconnecting these projects with the grid can be challenging due to unexpected costs and schedule overruns. Understanding the interconnection challenges and improving the process may allow more small hydropower projects to be successful. Noting these challenges, the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office enlisted Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to investigate the small hydropower interconnection landscape across the United States. To begin to analyze the existing interconnection processes and challenges facing small hydropower, the state of small hydropower development in the U.S. must first be described to understand the characteristics of the industry. The first in a series, this paper presents the state of small hydropower projects in the U.S. to describe their type, location, and size based on data extracted from the HydroSource database (ORNL 2020). The following papers in the series will detail the variety of state interconnection processes to connect power generators with the grid (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: State Interconnection Processes”), analyze these interconnection processes (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: Analysis of Interconnection Processes”), and present best practices in interconnection processes (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: Best Practices”) that will help overcome barriers to future small hydropower development.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Small Hydropower Interconnections: State Interconnection Processes

Small hydropower projects with rated power output between 0 to 20 MW have been the predominant source of hydropower growth over the past decade in the United States (DOE 2016; Johnson et al. 2018). However, interconnection to electricity distribution and transmission grids is a persistent barrier. Interconnection of an electricity generating unit is overseen by the distribution or transmission owner, who use interconnection standards and requirements that vary by state. The differences between standards in standards may affect the final cost, timeline, and success of a small hydropower project. Small hydropower project developers across the United States have found interconnection procedures to be fraught with cost surprises and schedule overruns. System operators have struggled to understand impacts to overburdened or rapidly evolving transmission and distribution grids. The results of these shortcomings have been stranded costs and unrealized small hydropower potential. Though regulatory actions and policy recommendations at the state level have increased the situational awareness of interconnection challenges, the remote locations of small hydropower resources and the relatively small revenues associated with energy production through small hydropower facilities continue to make interconnection processes and requirements confusing and costly. Noting these challenges, the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office enlisted Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to investigate the small hydropower interconnection landscape across the United States. The second in a series, this paper investigates the interconnection process in each state in the U.S. to compare their attributes. Subsequent papers in the series will analyze these interconnection processes (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: Analysis of Interconnection Processes”) and present best practices (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: Best Practices”) that will help overcome barriers to future small hydropower development. The first paper in the series examined the state of small hydropower projects in the United States (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: Small Hydropower in the United States”) to understand the industry characteristics.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Small Hydropower Interconnections: Analysis of Interconnection Processes

Small hydropower projects have faced the challenge of navigating the process to interconnect their generation source to electricity distribution and transmission grids. Small hydropower developers have found interconnection procedures to be opaque and ultimately result in unexpected cost surprises and long timelines. Noting these challenges, the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office enlisted Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to investigate the small hydropower interconnection landscape across the United States. After reviewing the status of small hydropower (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: Small Hydropower in the United States”) and the interconnection procedures across the United States (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: State Interconnection Processes”) in the first two white papers of this series, this paper uses recent data from small hydropower interconnection applications to benchmark the efficacy of the process. Using data from interconnection queues hosted by utilities, balancing authorities, independent system operators (ISOs), and regional transmission organizations (RTOs), this paper provides context for the costs, timelines, and types of upgrades required for small hydropower projects. Interconnection applications and study reports for small hydropower projects were analyzed to collect key pieces of information about the interconnection process, timeline, costs, and type of upgrades required for interconnection. Information sourced from the reports was entered into an Interconnection Benchmarking database (IBdb), which may be found in Appendix A.1. Information from this database was used to evaluate the performance and challenges associated with interconnecting small hydropower projects. This white paper presents a description of the sources contained in the interconnection database (Section 2.0), an analysis of the interconnection timeline (Section 3.0), an evaluation the cost of interconnection upgrades (Section 4.0), and a description of the types of infrastructure upgrades (Section 5.0). The final paper in this series (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: Best Practices”) will use the analysis described here to outline best practices for interconnection processes that will help overcome barriers to future small hydropower development.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Small Hydropower Interconnections: Best Practices

Small hydropower projects have been the predominant source of capacity growth of U.S. hydropower for more than a decade, and they present the most cost-effective and environmentally permissible avenues for hydropower growth (DOE 2016; Johnson et al. 2018). However, interconnection to electricity distribution and transmission grids is a persistent barrier due to cost surprises and schedule overruns. As a culmination to research into the status and requirements of small hydropower interconnection across the United States, this paper presents the best practices for setting interconnection standards that can improve the process for small hydropower developers. As part of the analysis, the interconnection costs are compared between small hydropower, solar, and wind. The analysis of the small hydropower interconnection landscape across the United States was carried out by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) with support from the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office. The research team was guided by a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and gleaned data from publicly available sources, such as the HydroSource database (ORNL 2020) and interconnection queues hosted by utilities, balancing authorities, independent system operators (ISOs), and regional transmission organizations (RTOs). The results of this work are shared in a series of papers detailing the state of small hydropower in the United States (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: Small Hydropower in the United States”), the variety of state interconnection processes to connect power generators with the grid (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: State Interconnection Processes”), and an analysis of the interconnection processes (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: Analysis of Interconnection Processes”). In this, the final paper in the series, best practices for interconnection processes (“Small Hydropower Interconnections: Best Practices”) are identified from the solar energy and distributed wind energy industries that are transferrable to small hydropower development. This information will help overcome barriers to future small hydropower development.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗