D6.1 Case Study Methods v2.2 - INSPIRE-Grid Case Study Methods Page 3-23 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABBREVIATIONS 5! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

D6.1 Case Study Methods Page 1-23

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: 36 months

Deliverable 6.1

PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK FOR THE CASE STUDIES

Revision: v2.2

Submission date: 2014-12-05

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) (6)


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)

Submitted Author(s) Name Organisation E-mail Peter Schmidt PIK [email protected] Jon Lilley PIK [email protected] Guillaume Audard Armines [email protected] Stefano Maran RSE [email protected] Amélie Lafragette RTE [email protected] Vivien Monlinengo RTE [email protected] Marjorie Bastard RTE [email protected] Alessandro Luè Poliedra [email protected]

Abstract This deliverable provides a preliminary framework for the case studies, as well as background information which can be applied to the case study development to be undertaken in Tasks 6.2 and 6.3 of the INSPIRE-Grid project. This report begins by briefly introducing the three proposed case studies in France and Norway before outlining possible stakeholder engagement tools and assessment methods. The report concludes by suggesting a general framework for implementing the case study methods and a proposed timeline.

“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(s) Comments 16/06/2014 1.0 Schmidt Initial draft 23/07/2014 1.1 Lilley Internal PIK review 12/08/2014 1.2 Lilley Draft sent to WP6 partners for review 12/09/2014 1.3 Lilley, Audard, Maran Edits received from WP6 partners 24/10/2014 2.0 Lilley Revised draft 25/11/2014 2.1 Lilley, Lafragette, Monelingo, Bastard Edits received from RTE 05/12/2014 2.2 Lilley, Luè Final edits from Poliedra and final formatting

Status of deliverable Action By Date Verified Amélie Lafragette - RTE 05/12/2014 Approved (GC) Antonio Negri - RSE 05/12/2014


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 6 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 7 2 PROPOSED CASE STUDIES ................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Cergy-Persan (RTE) ....................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Bamble-Rød (Statnett) ................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Klæbu-Viklandet (Statnett) ............................................................................................ 8

3 CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 10 3.1 Tools for stakeholder engagement ............................................................................... 10

3.1.1 Stakeholder analysis and issue mapping ........................................................ 10 3.1.2 Semistructured interviews .............................................................................. 11 3.1.3 Focus groups .................................................................................................. 11 3.1.4 Workshops ...................................................................................................... 11 3.1.5 Public opinion survey ..................................................................................... 11

3.2 Assessment methods .................................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Multicriteria Analysis ..................................................................................... 13 3.2.2 Life Cycle Assessment ................................................................................... 13 3.2.3 Geographic Information Systems ................................................................... 13

3.3 Evaluation of assessment methods ............................................................................... 14 4 NEXT STEPS ......................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Case study framework .................................................................................................. 15 4.2 Case study timeline ...................................................................................................... 16

5 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 17 6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 18 ANNEX 1 – GLOSSARY OF INSPIRE-GRID KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMS .................... 19


LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Case study timeline ....................................................................................................... 16 Figure 2: How important theoretical concepts are connected ....................................................... 21


ABBREVIATIONS

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

Cf. Compare for instance

GIS Geographic Information System

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

MCA Multicriteria Analysis

TSO Transmission System Operator

VHV Very high voltage

WP Work Package


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This deliverable provides a preliminary framework for the case studies, as well as background information which can be applied to the case study development to be undertaken in Tasks 6.2 and 6.3 of the INSPIRE-Grid project. This report begins by briefly introducing the three proposed case studies in France and Norway before outlining possible stakeholder engagement tools and assessment methods. The report concludes by suggesting a general framework for implementing the case study methods and a proposed timeline.

At the very core of the INSPIRE-Grid project is the incorporation of stakeholder needs and concerns into the transmission infrastructure planning process. It is hoped that this will: 1) provide the TSOs with a better understanding of the values, beliefs that drive heterogeneous stakeholder interests; and 2) empower stakeholders to have an influence on the outcome of the decision making process.

The assessment methods proposed for the case studies are Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), Multicriteria Analysis (MCA), and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). These methods are classed as assessment methods as their main goal is to better explore and represent the impacts of grid infrastructure on environment and society. Nevertheless, these methods, or at least aspects of them, can also be used to incorporate stakeholder views and interests in the evaluation of new and/or adapted grid infrastructure. One hypothesis of the INSPIRE-Grid project, which will be tested in the case studies, is that these tools can make a difference if correctly applied. It is intended that, by using the theoretical framework and the handbook of guidelines to be developed in Work Package 5, we will be able to provide guidance and advice on how to use these assessment methods as tools for stakeholder engagement.


1 INTRODUCTION

European transmission grid planning is a complex matter and even more so is the actual implementation of new projects. One of the main barriers to new transmission lines is the lack of social acceptance ((ENTSO-E, 2010)). The project INSPIRE-Grid (Improved and eNhanced Stakeholders' Participation In Reinforcement of Electricity grid) aims at developing measures to better address this barrier. The general objective of INSPIRE-Grid (INSPIRE-GRID) is to devise a tailored methodology that can assist a project developer to improve acceptance for a transmission project.

Deliverable 6.1 represents a step towards this goal by devising a methodology for the INSPIRE-Grid case studies. It proposes a preliminary, general framework for the methods to be applied to the case studies which are selected and defined under Task 6.2 and analysed under Task 6.3 of Work Package (WP) 6. Deliverable 6.1 is intended to provide general background information, high-level guidance as regards the stakeholder analysis and the selection of engagement and assessment tools1 for the case studies of the INSPIRE-GRID project. Having said this, this report does not give detailed instructions concerning data collection, timing of the field work, and implementation of the engagement methods for a selected case study of INSPIRE-GRID. This will be done in the next step under Task 6.3 after the actual case studies will have been selected.

The overall goal of applying engagement and/or assessment methods in INSPIRE-Grid is to trigger a two-way communication flow between the INSPIRE-GRID case study team and the stakeholders affected by the impacts of a transmission project. On the one hand, this should help the INSPIRE-GRID project team to better understand what matters to stakeholders in the case studies and what methods are appropriate to interact with them. On the other hand, it should empower the stakeholders to have a real influence on the decision making process as well as its outcome, which we hypothesize is an important factor to ease public acceptance for new transmission lines.

It should be noted that the limitations of the INSPIRE-GRID case studies make it impractical to strictly adhere to the guidelines to stakeholder engagement laid out in Deliverable 5.2. Only certain transmission projects were available for INSPIRE-GRID researchers to investigate and, due to nature of real-world projects and the timeframe of the INSPIRE-GRID project, it was not possible to select three case studies that were at the beginning of the stakeholder engagement process. As such, key steps in engagement process, such as stakeholder identification, had already been completed by the TSO prior to the start of the INSPIRE-GRID fieldwork. Instead of testing the engagement guidelines proposed in Deliverable 5.2, the case studies will therefore primarily be used to assess the extent to which the proposed guidelines fit with real-world projects and the value that assessment methods such as LCA and MCA add to the engagement process.

The next section of this report lists the three proposed case studies. Section 3 presents the engagement and assessment methods that can be applied to the case studies and Section 4 details the next steps in WP 6.

1 For the sake of simplicity, the term tool, method and technique is used interchangeably here. This is in line with the


2 PROPOSED CASE STUDIES

At the June 2014 INSPIRE-Grid project meeting it was agreed that three case studies would be selected – one by RTE and two by Statnett. A full description of the cases studies will be provided in Deliverable 6.2.

2.1 Cergy-Persan (RTE) The first case study will focus on the Cergy-Persan project in Ile-de-France region, France. The project involves a voltage upgrade (225 kV to 400 kV) of an overhead line in north-west Ile-de-France. The line upgrade will allow for better integration of renewable energy in an area of high electricity demand (20% of France’s total demand). The stakeholder participation (collaboration) period has been achieved thanks to mainly the voluntary public debate with the guarantor. As for the stakeholder consultation period, it will have been closed at the time interactions with stakeholders will be organized to assess the relevance of LCA for stakeholder engagement.2 2.2 Bamble-Rød (Statnett) The second case study will investigate a project already under construction between the Bamble and Rød substations in southern Norway. The project involves the construction of a 34 km 420 kV overhead line through a rural area. Stakeholders include local village communities, farmers and people who use the area for outdoor activities. Approximately 150 landowners are affected by the project and key issues of concern include benefits and compensation, electromagnetic fields, noise and the potential impact of the landscape. In addition there are approximately 30 NGO and local interest groups involved in the project concerned with environmental and tourism issues. As with the Cergy-Persan case study, the public participation (in terms of collaboration) period has closed. 2.3 Klæbu-Viklandet (Statnett) The third case study, and the second in Norway, involves the rebuilding of a 130 km 420 kV line between the Klæbu and Viklandet substations in central Norway. The line will be built from rural/forest areas and affected stakeholders include local village communities and farmers. One notable feature about this project is that there currently exists a 420 kV line which was built in 2004 so many of the stakeholders will have experienced the construction process and be more familiar with Statnett and transmission lines in general than areas without an existing line. The line will pass through nine municipalities and two counties. As with the Bamble-Rød project, NGOs and local interest groups concerned with the environment and tourism have a stake in the process as well as

2 To be precise, a short consultation process still needs to be organized, likely during spring 2015. The public inquiry is managed by an investigating commissioner appointed by the administrative court overseeing the project. At the end of the process the commissioner proposes a report bringing together the various positions held by participants, some conclusions and personal recommendations. Finally, the decision of delivering the declaration of public utility is taken in light of the public inquiry by either the Ministry of Energy for 225-400 kV projects, or by regional State services. However, considering both the work that need to be done to develop the LCA and the understandable reluctance of a project manager to introduce innovative elements at such a crucial step, no interactions with stakeholders will be organized before the end of the public inquiry (around mid-2015).


forestry and village societies. Unlike the other two case studies, this project is at a much earlier stage of development and the public participation period is still open. It should be noted that the case studies identified here may be changed – with the agreement of all the involved partners – depending on new information regarding the approval status of these and other grid infrastructure projects in Norway and France.


3 CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY

As noted above, two of the three case studies (Cergy-Persan and Bamble-Rød) are in an advanced stage. As such, it will not be possible to test a wide range of stakeholder engagement tools as the public participation period has closed. Instead, in these two case studies, INSPIRE-Grid researchers (PIK) will seek to evaluate the stakeholder engagement process that was undertaken in order to compare the process with the theoretical framework and handbook of guidelines developed in WP 5. The extent to which additional stakeholder engagement tools and approaches can be evaluated in the Klæbu-Viklandet case study will depend on the timing of the project and the data that will be available to INSPIRE-Grid researchers.

In addition to collecting data regarding the stakeholder engagement process, the case studies will be used to test the extent to which assessment methods (Multicriteria Analysis (MCA), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) see Section 3.2) might be beneficial to the stakeholder engagement process. At the time of writing, LCA will be used in the Cergy-Persan case study and MCA in the two Norwegian case studies. Currently no plans exist to implement a GIS mapping tool as a way to engage stakeholders (see Section 3.2.3). It is important to note, however, that the ultimate decision regarding which tools to employ (and how) in the case studies rests with the TSO project managers, who know the better the context of the project and stakeholders’ needs and expectations so far.

3.1 Tools for stakeholder engagement There exists a wide range of tools that can be used for stakeholder engagement such as: newsletters; reports; presentations and public hearings; closed-door meetings; project websites; interviews, questionnaires and surveys; field visits and interactions; workshops; participatory mapping; focus groups; citizen juries; world cafés; role playing games; citizen helpline; project information offices; doorstep visits; and social media (Luyet, Schlaepfer, Parlange, & Buttler, 2012; Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, 2014). Despite the fact that the public participation period has closed in the Cergy-Persan and the Bamble-Rød case studies, it is expected that there will still be the opportunity for some level of interaction with the stakeholders and the tools best suited to the case studies are likely to be semistructured interviews, focus groups, workshops, and possibly public opinion surveys. These four tools are discussed in more detail below. It might be possible to implement additional tools in the Klæbu-Viklandet case study (e.g. participatory mapping, world cafés, or citizen juries) but, at the time of writing, that is still to be determined.

3.1.1 Stakeholder analysis and issue mapping When beginning a stakeholder engagement process for a new transmission project, the first step is typically an analysis of the relevant stakeholders. As discussed in Deliverable 3.2, accurate identification of all stakeholders, along with an understanding of the key issues of concern, is a vital step in the engagement process. Given that all three case study projects are underway, this step has already been carried out for the case studies, at least to a certain level. As part of the development of the draft handbook of guidelines in Deliverable 5.2, the stakeholder analysis undertaken in each case study project will be reviewed and the extent to which is matches the suggested process in WP 3 will be evaluated. Further, any mapping of issues of concern undertaken in the projects will be compared to the process developed in WP 2 in an attempt to ascertain whether conducting a more detailed stakeholder mapping exercise would have been beneficial to the stakeholder engagement process.


3.1.2 Semistructured interviews There are four different interviewing techniques can be used for in-person interviews – informal, unstructured, semistructured and structured. Although each method has its strengths, in situations where there will only be one opportunity to speak to a respondent, semistructured interviewing is generally held to be the preferred method (Bernard, 2002) and will be the type of interview used in the INSPIRE-GRID case studies. A written interview protocol will be developed and used during the interviews to provide structure to the conversations but all respondents will be encouraged, through the use of probe questions, to expand on their answers and to provide as much information as possible. While the interview protocol will keep the interviews on track and ensure that the same general areas are covered in each interview, the use of probe questions will allow for more in-depth discussions of specific issues and provided more complete data, resulting in a better understanding of people’s attitudes to both the transmission project in question and the stakeholder engagement process.

3.1.3 Focus groups Focus group method can be used to consult and elicit input from stakeholders when a small group of affected stakeholders needs to be approached. The method is ideally used for groups in the range of 5 to 12 selected people who are considered to be representative by all affected stakeholders. Focus group meetings usually take place one time and shouldn't be longer than 2-3 hours. It is considered to be a simple method used for examining attitudes and opinions by a diverse set of stakeholders affected by a transmission project. Focus groups are more suitable for projects that are still in the stakeholder engagement phase and therefore might be more appropriate for the Klæbu-Viklandet case study. The success of a focus group requires sound preparation for the meeting and an experienced facilitator.

3.1.4 Workshops A participatory workshop is an organised event which brings a group of people together to seek their opinions, extract their knowledge and to solve problems in a collaborative and creative environment. Its effectiveness depends by and large on the abilities of the facilitator, the willingness of the stakeholders to collaborate and the openness of the project developer to really consider stakeholder opinions in the decision making process. Workshop formats can be very different and the final design of the workshop should be in line with the concrete situation of the local case study. For workshops it is very important to have a clear goal that is understood by everyone. All participants as well as the facilitators should be able to speak in the same language. This is even more important if the workshop is used to introduce new, complex assessment methods. For the INSPIRE-GRID case studies, workshops could be used to present the results of the LCA (in the Cergy-Persan case study) and to potentially conduct an MCA (in the Klæbu-Viklandet project).

3.1.5 Public opinion survey Depending on results of the LCA, it should be possible to conduct a public opinion survey to evaluate the efficacy of using LCA data for stakeholder engagement. Whether such a tool is used will largely depend on the needs and wishes of the Cergy-Persan project manager. Implementing a public opinion survey in a scientifically-rigourous manner is labour-intensive and requires a significant financial investment. Steps in the process would likely include:

• Development of a representative sample of members of the public affected by the project • Construction of a survey questionnaire with translation into French


• Development and printing of the LCA results in French • Two separate survey mailings with follow-up reminders as multiple mailings increase the

response rate • Development of a database to store survey results • Collection of survey responses and data entry • Statistical analysis of the value of the LCA data

In order to provide a degree of scientific reliability, a control group would need to be established. This group would receive a similar survey questionnaire but not receive the LCA data. Levels of support among the two groups could then be compared to ascertain whether there is a statistically significant difference between people who are informed of the LCA results and people who are not. 3.2 Assessment methods Besides from the classical engagement methods that directly target at the involvement of stakeholders, the INSPIRE-Grid project also focuses on three assessment methods – Multicriteria Analysis (MCA), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). These methods are referred to here as assessment methods as their primary intent is to better explore and represent the impacts of grid infrastructure on environment and society. Within the context of this project, we propose to use at least two and possibly three (depending on the nature of the case studies) of these methods in the stakeholder engagement process. MCA can be used to incorporate stakeholder views and interests in the evaluation of new grid infrastructure and LCA and GIS can provide additional information to stakeholders to feed the discussions and the possible decisions during the engagement process. One hypothesis of the INSPIRE-Grid project, which will be tested in the case studies, is that these tools can make a difference if correctly applied. It is intended that, by using the theoretical framework and the handbook of guidelines developed in WP 5, we will be able to provide guidance and advice as to how to use these assessment methods as tools for stakeholder engagement.

Whatever assessment method is applied to either one or various case studies of the INSPIRE-GRID project, an important point to keep in mind is the fact that all assessment methods do inherently contain values. In other words, an assessment method is not simply a neutral tool but represents in itself a specific worldview (cf. (Gasparatos, 2010); (Gasparatos & Scolobig, 2012)). (Gasparatos, 2010)) reminds us that one of the main reason for distorted project assessments is that by choosing an assessment tool the analyst ‘subscribes to’ and ‘enforces’ a particular worldview as the legitimate measure. However, the philosophy represented by the assessment method (i.e. what should be measured, how it can be measured, what role is implicitly assigned to affected stakeholders) might be incompatible with the worldview of the stakeholders affected by the project. This is particularly important for the INSPIRE-GRID project because it is planned to deploy different assessment methods in ongoing case studies to engage with stakeholders. This means that the case study teams should not only focus on the attitudes of the stakeholders towards the project but also on stakeholders attitudes as regards the assessment tool. Therefore, in addition to the analysis of the stakeholder values towards the project the case study team should also try to get a feeling for the stakeholder attitudes towards the potential assessment method.

In the following, a brief description of such assessment methods is given. A more detailed description is given in Deliverable 4.1.


3.2.1 Multicriteria Analysis Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is a family of indicator-based assessment techniques whose development follows a procedure akin to that of composite indices. In contrast to reductionist approaches, such as Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), MCA is a set of non-reductionist assessment methods and has been used widely, for instance, in the fields of renewable energy, road and water management (Gasparatos, 2010). In general, MCA is concerned with structuring and solving decision problems characterized by conflicting criteria (e.g. economic, environmental, technical) and actors with different viewpoints. The analysis uses the preferences of all the actors involved (i.e. public authorities, TSOs, other stakeholder groups) to display the trade-offs among criteria.

In terms of practical implementation in the INSPIRE-GRID case study, the set of indicators needed to conduct an MCA will be defined. They will be applied to measure the impacts of the infrastructures on all the relevant aspects of the problem and will be defined to represent the level of satisfaction on the objectives (i.e. the needs and the wants) of the different stakeholders. The outcome of the MCA can be used to highlight the effects for the single stakeholders in order to take into account and measure the possible conflicts related with the stakeholders.

Ideally, MCA is not only used as an assessment method but also as a viable option for more stakeholder engagement in transmission infrastructure projects. It can practically be used for both ongoing and completed case studies in the INSPIRE-GRID project, though as an engagement method it can, of course, be used more vividly only in ongoing case studies. The usage of MCA makes most sense during the spatial planning phase.

3.2.2 Life Cycle Assessment The second assessment method planned to be used in the INSPIRE-GRID project is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA is a method that aims to evaluate the full environmental impact of a transmission project, “from cradle to grave”. In this sense, LCA conducts an evaluation of the effects of the transmission network reinforcement project, among other, regarding global issues, such as resource consumption, climate change, human health and biodiversity. Ideally, all the stages of the lifecycle of all material elements of a transmission project are considered, from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal or recycling. Usually, LCA can be deployed in both ongoing and completed case studies at the need definition stage. As shown in Deliverable 4.1, for many transmission grid reinforcement projects, LCA is likely to show some environmental benefits or impacts in most impact categories, and thus provides additional information to support decision-making. It can be used for two distinct purposes. First, to generate data that is directly feed into an MCA (although there is not the scope to test a combined use of LCA and MCA in the INSPIRE-Grid case studies). Second, as it is supposed to provide detailed information regarding environmental impact of new or adapted transmission infrastructure, the outcome of an LCA can also be used for direct communication with the public during the need-definition and/or spatial planning phase and feed the exchanges or the debates in the decision process. LCA makes stakeholders face different solutions for the project with different environmental issues (resulting from LCA) with the purpose of engaging them as much as possible in the decision-making process.

3.2.3 Geographic Information Systems The third method to be used in the case studies is Geographic Information Systems (GIS), which can be used during the spatial planning phase. GIS is a method for the study and assessment of spatial relationships. It is commonly used in spatial planning and environmental impact assessment.


For transmission planning issues, the method can be used at the spatial planning phase in both ongoing and completed case studies; though as an engagement tool its deployment is limited to ongoing projects. A web-based GIS allows to easily disseminate relevant information for communication and discussions with affected stakeholders. For instance, the routes of the proposed overhead lines can be visualised and intersected with protected areas; or the distance between lines and inhabited centres. Finally, recent web-GIS applications allow users to send feedback about the characters of the landscape, in line with the principle of the European Landscape Convention. The main goals of using web-GIS in the INSPIRE-GRID project is to develop a common knowledge about a region that might be affected by overhead lines in order to better assess impacts of the different project design options. Furthermore, the method can provide customised maps that can be used by stakeholders to better represent their main concerns on a spatial basis.

3.3 Evaluation of assessment methods In order to evaluate the benefits of using LCA and MCA (and possibly Web-GIS) in the stakeholder engagement process, data will need to be collected regarding the efficacy of the assessment methods. Feedback will be elicited from stakeholders involved in the development and/or presentation of the assessment methods. It is expected that questionnaires will be distributed to participants of the workshops where the assessment methods are used. For LCA, the questions will refer to the usefulness of the LCA in terms of the data themselves, how they are presented to stakeholders and to what extent LCA provides effective support to the decision-making process of the project. For MCA, such an approach will likely involve requiring workshop participant to provide feedback regarding their opinion of the value of MCA to a participatory process. Depending on how widely the LCA results are distributed, it might also be possible to conduct a broader survey of local stakeholders in order to assess the extent to which LCA data helps generate support for a new or adapted transmission project. For example, the results of the LCA could be published a newsletter or booklet and sent to interested parties with a short survey including asking about the value of the LCA data. To conduct such a survey would, however, require further resources in terms of logistical costs (printing the LCA information, supplies for the survey, postage costs, etc.).


4 NEXT STEPS

The discussion so far has provided an overview of the potential methods that could be applied by the case study teams. If further indicates which steps to follow during the case study implementation phase under Task 6.3. After the start of the project in October 2013, it became clear that initial ideas of applying all methods mentioned in Section 3.3 to all case studies would not be feasible given the practical limitations in real-world, ongoing projects. From a comparative research point of view, it would be interesting to see how different case studies react to the same methodological treatment. Yet, discussions throughout the INSPIRE-GRID project meetings in Milan (October, 2013) and in Paris (February and June, 2014) have clearly shown that the ongoing case studies, which are at the heart of WP 6, are very sensitive to any external stimulus. Put differently, the level of intervention in the ongoing case studies should be kept as low as possible. Understandably, TSO project managers are concerned that the process could become more difficult to coordinate, if the methods suggested are not applied appropriately. Furthermore, the willingness to support the implementation of methods in case studies also hinges on very country specific factors. For instance, whereas in Norway a TSO project manager is independent in deciding about which method or combination of methods to work with in a case study, in France the project manager still needs green light by the relevant State authorities, which are actually not part of the research project. These issues certainly restrict the scientific freedom and limit the possibility to apply the same methods in all case studies such as suggested in the INSPIRE-GRID project proposal.

4.1 Case study framework In order to maintain consistency across the three case studies, a similar methodology will be followed to the greatest extent possible. The general methodological structure for the case studies is as follows:

• Review of background material and literature relevant to the case study • Review and evaluate the stakeholder analysis and issue mapping conducted by the TSOs • Conduct further stakeholder and issue mapping (if needed) • Conduct interviews with TSO project managers • Conduct interviews with key stakeholders (example topics: attitudes toward stakeholder

engagement process, relevant values and beliefs, issues of concern, support/opposition to the project)

• Collect of data required for MCA/LCA • Perform MCA/LCA analysis (as regards MCA, this may include also a possible interaction

with stakeholders to elicit their preferences) • Present MCA/LCA results to stakeholders • Evaluate MCA/LCA tools

For the Cergy-Persan case study, Armines will apply LCA to evaluate the life cycle environmental impacts of the project. PIK and Armines will then work together on two aspects: defining the best way to present LCA results to stakeholders; and evaluating whether using LCA results during an engagement process is useful. For the two Norwegian case studies, it is intended that Poliedra and PIK will conduct research using MCA tools although it is understood that, as the Bamble-Rød project is already in the construction phase, it will not be possible to conduct a full MCA in this


case study. Unlike the Bamble-Rød project, the Klæbu-Viklandet case study is at a much earlier stage of development and Poliedra and PIK will seek to undertake an MCA for this project. However, at the time or writing, there still exists some uncertainty regarding whether the data required for the MCA will be available to INSPIRE-Grid researchers.

In addition, PIK will also undertake research in the Cergy-Persan and Bamble-Rød case studies to evaluate the stakeholder engagement process that has been conducted to date and, depending on the timing for the Klæbu-Viklandet project will look to test additional stakeholder engagement approaches. Furthermore, RSE has the capability to apply Web-GIS in a case study if the TSO project managers believe it to be helpful.

4.2 Case study timeline A proposed timeline for the implementation of the case studies is provided below. The timeline outlines the steps needed to implement the case studies, including the development of the assessment methodologies and the stakeholder interaction component of the research. Fieldwork for the case studies is expected to continue through month 28 (end of 2015) after which time the data will be analysed and reported in Deliverable 6.4 (results and integration). In the Gantt chart below, the three case studies are presented together, however, it should be noted that the exact timing of the stakeholder interaction component will vary among the case studies. In the Cergy-Persan project it is first necessary to develop the LCA before any interaction with stakeholders can occur. The stakeholder interaction component of the Cergy-Persan case study is therefore not expected to begin before the third quarter of 2015. Conversely, for the Norwegian case studies, engagement with stakeholders will be required to develop the MCA and, given planned timelines, it is expected that the stakeholder interaction component of Statnett’s case studies will begin in the first half of 2015.

Figure 1: Case study timeline

Tasks Aug ‘14

Sep ‘14

Oct ‘14

Nov ‘14

Dec ‘14

Jan ‘15

Feb ‘15

Mar ‘15

Apr ‘15

May ‘15

Jun ‘15

Jul ‘15

Aug ‘15

Initial discussions among IG researchers Development of case study methods Initial contact with TSO project mgrs. Present methods to TSO project mgrs. Revise methods Development of assessment methods Stakeholder interaction Results and integration

Tasks (cont.) Sep

‘15 Oct ‘15

Nov ‘15

Dec ‘15

Jan ‘16

Feb ‘16

Mar ‘16

Apr ‘16

May ‘16

Jun ‘16

Jul ‘16

Aug ‘16

Sep ‘16

Initial discussions among IG researchers Development of case study methods Initial contact with TSO project mgrs. Present methods to TSO project mgrs. Revise methods Development of assessment methods Stakeholder interaction Results and integration


5 CONCLUSION

The goal of this deliverable was to design a preliminary framework for the case studies and provide background information which can be applied to the case study development in Tasks 6.2 and 6.3. To fulfil this task, this report first briefly introduced the case studies before outlining available stakeholder engagement and assessment tools (LCA, MCA and GIS). Lastly, a draft timeline was proposed for the first phase of case study implementation.

The information contained within this deliverable should be seen as high-level guidance regarding the stakeholder analysis process and the selection of assessment tools for the case studies of the INSPIRE-GRID project. As noted at the outset, it was not the intent of this report to provide detailed instructions concerning data collection, timing of the field work, and implementation of the engagement methods for a selected case study of INSPIRE-GRID. This will be done in under Task 6.3 after the case studies will have been finalised with the TSO project managers.


6 REFERENCES

Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

ENTSO-E. (2010). Ten Year Network Development Plan 2010-2020 (pp. 287). Brussels. Gasparatos, A. (2010). Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their

implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1613-1622. Gasparatos, A., & Scolobig, A. (2012). Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment

tool. Ecological Economics, 80, 1-7. Luyet, V., Schlaepfer, R., Parlange, M. B., & Buttler, A. (2012). A framework to implement

stakeholder participation in environmental projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 111(0), 213-219. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.026

Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. (2014). Study regarding grid infrastructure development: European strategy for raising public acceptance (pp. 290). Munich, Germany.


ANNEX 1 – GLOSSARY OF INSPIRE-GRID KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMS

This document should be considered as a glossary for the INSPIRE-Grid project. It is divided in two sections. In the first section, we describe key theoretical concepts relevant to the project. Supporting references for the defined concepts are provided in the footnotes of this section. In the second part, we briefly depict key theoretical terms that are used by the members of the INSPIRE-Grid consortium. Given the trans-disciplinary character of the INSPIRE-Grid research goals, the second section aims at facilitating communication between the consortium members through jointly developed definitions that are particularly tailored to the INSPIRE-Grid project. Definitions of a more general character, derived from the scientific literature, are again cited in the respective footnotes. The document as such should be considered as a ‘living document’ subject to change on the basis of new research results, a deeper literature review and new terms that arise during the project.

I) Theoretical concepts

ATTITUDES: An attitude can be thought of as a learned, relatively stable tendency to respond to people, concepts, and events in an evaluative way. Attitudes are comprised of values and beliefs and are often driven by emotion. Attitudes can and do change through time but such change is typically a slow process. Unlike values, attitudes are always associated with an object (e.g. a transmission line). Attitudes grounded in personal experience tend to be stronger and more stable (and are therefore harder to change) but personal experience can alter existing attitudes. Attitudes that have a strong emotional component are also harder to change. Lastly, although attitudes tend toward consistency, they may not be consistent in themselves.

BEHAVIOUR: In psychological terms, behaviour is how an organism adjusts to its environment. Within INSPIRE-Grid, behaviour refers to the actions that stakeholders take regarding transmission lines and grid expansion.

BELIEFS: Whereas values refer to a normative understanding of the world (what people think should be the case) beliefs are more grounded in the current situation. Beliefs refer to what people think the world is like. In the context of INSPIRE-Grid, relevant beliefs might relate to climate change (e.g. that climate change will or will not have a direct impact on a person), renewable energy (e.g. that renewable energy generation will or will not mitigate the impacts of climate change), or transmission (e.g. that new transmission lines are or are not needed). It is important to note that while a person may hold inaccurate beliefs, that does not mean that that person’s beliefs should be discounted – incorrect beliefs can still affect a person’s attitude toward an issue or object.

COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE: Community acceptance describes the fact that local stakeholders, particularly residents, local authorities and local NGOs, accept a specific very high voltage (VHV) project and the siting decision, considering it as a legitimate compromise between the different interests involved and the result of a fair participatory process. Community acceptance differs from socio-political acceptance, namely in that the development and re-organization of the power grid would be accepted in


principle at a broader level by the general public, policy makers and national representative stakeholders, such as national NGOs.3

ENGAGEMENT: Engagement includes all forms of involvement (either in support or in opposition) of stakeholders in a project, from information (the least engaging process) to co-decision (the most engaging process). As such, any stakeholder receiving information from the TSO, being consulted by it, collaborating and/or co-deciding with it would be considered engaged. See also PARTICIPATION.

GOVERNANCE:4 The term governance is associated with different meanings and concepts (e.g. organizational governance vs. participatory governance). In the social science literature, it is often used for describing new patterns of interaction between government and society, partly as a result of liberalization and privatization of formerly public sectors since the early 1980s. It also describes the effort to find new ways of how to do things together; i.e. a sharing of tasks and responsibilities between private and public actors. For our purposes, governance relates in particular to “good” processes of decision-making related to the planning and implementation of transmission grid projects. It should be considered as a collective activity wherein those who are affected by the decisions participate in the transmission grid planning procedure. Good governance implies that people ultimately affected by the decisions regarding new transmission lines can directly influence the planning and decision-making process. In other words, good governance of transmission grid planning processes is inherently tied to the proper engagement of the stakeholders themselves. Stakeholders must be involved in decision-making processes in a range of different ways – from being informed of decisions, to being consulted, to actually helping to make decisions.

INFORMATION: Presentation of the project to stakeholders, with the purpose of efficiently transferring the most comprehensive information to the relevant recipients in an appropriate way (i.e. medium used, nature of the information).

PARTICIPATION:5 For INSPIRE-Grid, participation refers to the involvement of stakeholders in the transmission siting process. Participation can refer to a number of stakeholder engagement mechanisms that range from consultation at one end of the scale to co-decision at the other. Critically, the extent and nature of the power given to stakeholders varies between the different levels of stakeholder participation. Consultation: TSOs collect stakeholders’ opinions about an already defined project. TSOs do not commit to incorporating the results of this top-down discussion.

3 Based on Wüstenhagen et al. (2007), https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/export/DL/55157.pdf. 4 The definition is derived from the concept of ‘good community governance’ (http://www.futurecommunities.net/ingredient/53/what-do-we-mean-governance-engagement-and-accountability) and Koiman, Jan (1993): Modern governance: New government-society interactions, London: SAGE. 5 The following definitions are based on Luyet et al. (2012), http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/181649/files/2012PaperVLUYET_RSMPAB.pdf. For further information on public consultation/participation see Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J., (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values 30, 250-290.


Collaboration: presentation of the project to stakeholders to collect their suggestions and include them into the TSO’s decision-making process.

Co-decision: process through which the TSO and stakeholders dialogue to build together a solution for the project and find an agreement about its implementation.

Figure 2: How important theoretical concepts are connected

Information Consultation Collaboration Co-‐decision

TSO

Project

TSO

Stakeholders

TSO

Stakeholders

Participation

Level of engagement

Stakeholders

TSO

Stakeholders

Project

Project Project

PERCEPTION:6 Describes the way in which something is regarded, understood, and interpreted by a stakeholder. A stakeholder’s perception determines what s/he believes to be true or real, regardless of whether this is scientifically proven or not. Consequently, perception affects what actions are taken, if any at all, by an individual with regards to a transmission project.

STAKEHOLDERS: Groups or individuals who can affect or are affected (themselves or their interests) by a VHV project. Stakeholders differ depending on the phase of a project, in accordance with the general rule that the less advanced the project is (i.e. need definition phase), the less localized stakeholders are (i.e. national scale).7

6 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/perception 7 Based on the different existing definitions of “stakeholders” compiled by Bryson (2004), http://www.hhh.umn.edu/people/jmbryson/pdf/stakeholder_identification_analysis_techniques.pdf.


VALUES: In contrast to the economic understanding of value (where value is seen as a measure of the utility an actor can obtain from a particular good or service) in ethical theory and social psychology, values are understood to relate to deeper concerns about what people think is important, rather than simply focusing on immediate desires and wants. In essence, values can be thought of as abstract, moral principles that give meaning to behaviour and are applicable to a wide variety of situations (e.g. having a responsibility to protect the environment).

II) Technical terms:

DECISION TREE: A visual depiction of the factors and stages involved in the decision-making process developed under WP5. In the case of INSPIRE-Grid, the decision tree relates specifically to TSO stakeholder engagement and indicates which engagement tools are appropriate for which situations.

GUIDELINES: Generally, guidelines are rules, principles, pieces of advice, etc. grounded in the intermediate and final results of the project. They are the “general wish list” of tools derived from the toolbox that should be implemented in the case studies of WP6 and WP7. They contain all reasonable tools for communication and engagement with stakeholders and infrastructure assessment based on the INSPIRE-Grid researchers’ work undertaken in WP3, 4 and 5. They provide generic advice regarding which tools to use depending on a potential case study situation and are addressed to different end-users, thus including the key stakeholder groups involved in the electricity grid development, i.e. local authorities, TSOs, and NGOs.

LOCALLY SPECIFIC ACTION PLAN: A locally specific action plan (LSAP) is a catalogue of specific methods/tools for stakeholder communication and engagement to be implemented in an INSPIRE-Grid case study in WP7. It is a synthesis of the main tasks and a schedule for stakeholder involvement in WP7 fieldwork, allowing the project managers to follow the research development. The schedule will specify the timeline for the stakeholder procedure, including meetings, briefings and other events, lists of participants, goals and objectives for each. The locally specific action plan will be developed in close cooperation with local stakeholders, thus including the project developers, local authorities, NGOs or citizens groups affected by the decision at stake.

METHOD: In its most general sense, a method is an explanation of how to do something, ideally described in a way that it becomes replicable for others. It can be understood as a mental process that shapes the research process, starting from the interpretative choices of the person in charge.8 In the INSPIRE-Grid project, a method is an element of the toolbox and used interchangeably with the term tool. It is either included in the toolbox because of its proved relevance as regards the engagement and communication with stakeholders (WP3 and 5) or because of its ability to appropriately assess

8 Corbetta P. (1999), Metodologia e tecniche della ricerca sociale, Bologna, Il Mulino.


impacts of energy infrastructure (WP4). In this sense, we consider methods as formats to involve stakeholders, to communicate to them but also to assess impacts of infrastructure.

METHODOLOGY: In INSPIRE-Grid, a methodology refers to the systematic structuring of available methods for the purposes of the project. Typically the concept of methodology in social sciences entails not only operative aspects (i.e. the research design) but also the normative (i.e. reflection about the research practice) and epistemological ones (i.e. what we can research and how). There are two sets of methodologies developed in INSPIRE-Grid. First, the research methodology (WP6) that depicts the main pillars of the participatory research process for the case studies. Second, the methodology outlining the application of a selected number of methods to improve the stakeholder participation process (WP3, 4 and WP5). The latter consists of a combination of engagement methods as well as infrastructure impact assessment methods.

PRACTICE: Practice is the actual application or use of a legislative framework, a decision-making process, a theory, a methodology, a method/tool depending on the context. Practices will be analyzed and/or suggestions for best practices will be provided in WP3, 6 and 7.

TOOL: A tool is an element of the toolbox. In the INSPIRE-Grid project it is used interchangeably with the term method.

TOOLBOX: The toolbox describes the whole range of existing methods available to involve and communicate with stakeholders in electricity transmission planning processes. It provides a generic description of each of the methods and instructions on how to apply them on a general level, as well as information on their advantages and disadvantages with respect to engaging different types of stakeholders.

Documents

D6.1 Case Study Methods v2.2 - INSPIRE-Grid Case Study Methods Page 3-23 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABBREVIATIONS 5! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY