The introduction of the free electricity market inNorway from 1990 followed a decade of exten-sive work, during which Norwegian hydropow-

er potential was mapped, and a feasibility study wasdone for all the schemes to document the energy andpower potential, as well as economic and environmen-tal impacts. During this period, decisions were taken inthe Norwegian Parliament on two conservation plansfor watercourses. The activities in the late 1980sresulted in very few applications for hydropowerlicences. The creation of the Nordic electricity marketoperated by Nord Pool then turned the hydropowersector upside down. Dedicated development for a spe-cific industry or for specific regions ended, and duringthe period of the enactment of the Energy law in 1991,some of the largest hydropower schemes in Norwaywere commissioned. Years with heavy precipitationfollowed, which allowed for high levels of electricitygeneration, and this was released into the market.Prices fell to levels far below the cost for newhydropower, and Norway started a support scheme forupgrading of the oldest hydropower plants. From themid-2000s, energy prices rose as a result of increasedoil prices and future expectations for energy prices; thesystem price is shown in Fig. 1.

Influenced by the global financial crisis, pricesdropped again from 2011 because of stabilized elec-tricity consumption and increased electricity genera-tion from other renewable resources.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the develop-ment of small hydro has been preferred in Norwaymostly for political reasons, and because of nationalscreening and studies for small hydro. Studies between2002 and 2004 by [NVE, 20152] showed that 25TWh/year could be generated. The trend for ‘small isbeautiful’ provided a lot of incentives for small hydrodevelopment, and the significant rise in energy pricesshown in Fig. 1 led to a new era for hydropower devel-opment. According to Skau [20113] this trend resultedin the construction of 25 new hydropower plants annu-ally from 2005. The implementation of the EUDirective on Electricity Production from RenewableEnergy Sources [EU, 20054] in Norway in 2005 trig-gered more activity to fulfil the commitment of increas-ing the electricity production from renewable resourcesto 13.2 TWh/year by 2020, which is equivalent to theSwedish commitment in the same energy market. Toachieve that goal, certificates for renewable energywere introduced. The value of the certificates is set inthe stock market, this works together with the electric-ity market. The Renewable Electricity Certificate mar-ket is technology neutral, and has boosted activities inthe development of all kinds of hydropower.

The increasing average age of large hydro plants anddams in Norway, currently 46 years, is meanwhile trig-gering upgrade projects throughout the country. Manyprojects are extended during the upgrade and accord-ing to Aas [20145], a potential increased generation of10 to 60 per cent has been gained by upgrade programmes over the last 15 years. From an environ-mental point of view, upgrading is considered the mostfavourable kind of project, as the environmentalimpact is small. Projects related to the upgrading ofdams are now significant in number, and these arestimulating a great deal of activity in the business.

As a result of climate change, Norway now has morerain in its river systems than in the past. This increasedprecipitation has clearly had consequences forhydropower generation. The precipitation data forrecent years has been analysed to calculate new pre-dictions for runoff in rivers, based on the precipitationlevels in 2000 and 2010. The latest 30-year hydrologyperiod demonstrated an increase in mean annual gen-eration of 4.7 TWh by 2000, and another 4.3 TWh by2010. This suggests that the national generation capac-

Hydropower & Dams Issue Three, 2015 37

The current status of hydropowerdevelopment and dam construction

in NorwayL. Lia, NTNU, Norway

T. Jensen, K.E. Stensby and G. Holm Midttømme, NVE, NorwayA.M. Ruud, Statkraft, Norway

With a topography characterized by high mountain plateaux, numerous natural lakes, steep valleys and short distances to the sea, Norway is, almost perfectly, made for hydropower. As is the case in many other industrialized countries, Norway had a peak for hydropowerdevelopment after the second world war up to the early 1980s. Political support for renewable energy, with a view to limiting releases ofCO2, the potential for power exchange with other countries, changing market conditions and the requirement to upgrade old hydropower

plants are triggering a new busy period for hydropower development in Norway. Hydro development is still the main reason for damconstruction in Norway.

Fig. 1. Electricity prices for the Nordic market in the period2000 to2014 [Nord Pool Spot, 20141].

ity will achieve security of supply. Today, the totalhydropower generation capacity based on the averagedrunoff of the 1991 to 2010 normal period is approxi-mately 132 TWh/year which is about 95 per cent oftotal generation. The flexibility of the hydropowergenerating capacity is guaranteed by a total reservoirstorage capacity equivalent to 86 TWh/year. Thismeans that one dry year is not critical: inflow one yearof less than 90 TWh/year of production can be com-pensated by using the reservoirs, and inflow anotheryear equivalent to 155 TWh/year means that water canbe stored.

Because of the durability of hydropower and thefuture trend for renewable energy, foreign investorsare now positioned for investments in hydropower.New investors will probably increase the value of thehydropower and new projects may be released despitethe strict legal limitations for foreign ownership ofhydropower in Norway. Investments in projects < 10MW will rarely be influenced by such limitations.

Hydro plants currently under contruction in Norwaywill produce 1.4 TWh/year. Small hydro projects dom-inate in number, but schemes to upgrade existingplants dominate in terms of capacity. Of the projectswith capacities > 10 MW, only about 30 per cent arenew schemes.

1. Small hydroSmall hydro in Norway is defined as < 10 MW, and inthis article very small projects (< 1 MW) are not cov-ered. As explained above, increasing energy prices andpolitical support boosted development from 2004,when NVE launched the country-wide mapping forpotential small hydro sites. Development activity ispredicted to increase significantly up to 2020, whenthe period for electricity certificates expires.According to Skau [20113] and Norwegian WaterResource and Energy Directorate, NVE [20152], 234new small hydro projects were commissioned between2001 and 2010. The actual numbers of projects in sub-sequent years were 34 in 2011, 41 in 2012, 25 in 2013and 27 in 2014. During the same period, 397 new proj-ects larger than 1 MW were commissioned.

The usual design of small hydro plants, with shallowintakes, penstocks and outdoor powerhouses, is basedon well proven technology. Fewer than 5 per cent ofthe new small hydro projects are licensed for storageand there will consequently be a number of run-of-river projects. Most small hydro projects are designedfor high heads, and therefore to be equipped with onePelton unit or two high-head Francis units. Dams are

constructed with site-specific features, to reduce envi-ronmental impacts, reduce costs, with an intake pondto address ice problems, the withdrawal of air, block-ing of trashracks, stability for the turbine governor,and so on. Most dams are constructed as concretegravity, flat slab dams, or as arch dams because of therequired spillway capacity in the case of a narrow damsite. So far no large dams (> 15 m) have been con-structed for new small hydro projects in the period2010 to 2014. Typical construction work for a newintake dam is shown in Photo (a).

Hydropower schemes with intakes in small pondsrequire a high level of understanding of hydrology, andthey involve construction and operation constraintswhich can be addressed through research. Since 2000,NVE has supported studies on new hydrological mod-els and maps to enhance the planning of unregulatedhydropower. New construction technology has beendeveloped, for example, drilling technology to replacesurface penstocks. There has also been research intoenvironmental issues, such as fish migration.

An example of recent innovation is the constructionof low-cost penstocks based on longitudinal anchor-ing of divided pipelines. A typical methodology, withburied penstocks, is shown in Photo (b). The longestpenstock without any surge chamber was constructedin 2013 at the Usma powerplant, with a length of5400 m.

To increase the reliability of new small hydro proj-ects, innovative intake concepts are being used, forexample, Coanda screen intakes, as well as variousnew concepts based on backflushing of trashracks[Nøvik, Rettedal, Nielsen and Lia, 20146]. The focuson reliable intakes is currently increasing, becauseabout 400 to 600 new small hydro projects are expect-ed to be constructed over the next five years.

The situation today is slightly different comparedwith previous years. The electricity certificate marketwith Sweden started in January 2012 and this addsapproximately 0.15 to 0.25 NOK/kWh to the price onthe power market. Both markets will fluctuate, and forthe time being, they are both low. The consequence ofthis is that many schemes are licensed, but have notbeen built so far. This is the case for 406 projects, and488 projects are still in the pipeline for licensing byNVE.

The commitment to the idea ‘small is beautiful’ hasalso had some negative consequences. During the peri-od from 2004 to 2012, many plants were built based oncheap technical designs and technology. The resultsare now showing, with more operational constraints

38 Hydropower & Dams Issue Three, 2015

(a) Dam andintake structure forthe Væla hydroplant.

(b) Typical construction of a penstock for small hydro.

than previously anticipated, particularly with intaketechnology and mechanical and electro-technology inthe powerhouses. The trend is that too many schemes(although not the majority) will have shorter technicallifetimes than expected, which will create a problemfor insurance companies. The large number of projectswith a licence which are not under development can beexplained by the difficulties of obtaining loans, for acombination of reasons, including: conditions forgranting the licencse; difficulties in getting insurance;and, low prices in both the electricity certificates andthe energy market. A typical powerhouse for smallhydro is shown in Photo (c).

As a result of the commitment given by theNorwegian Government to introduce 13.2 TWh/yearof renewable energy to the European market by 2020,it is likely that developments will go ahead.

2. Upgrading and extension of existing hydro plantsThe Norwegian hydropower system has been devel-oped during a period of more than 100 years. Thecapacity growth in MW per decade is shown in Fig. 2.

As shown in this Figure, considerable capacity wasinstalled between the 1950s and the end of the 1980s.Hence, many powerplants have reached an age whenupgrading and extension are becoming relevant. Thisis, among other factors, because of the state of theexisting mechanical and electrical equipment. Newmarket requirements and design philosophies also trig-gered the uprating of capacity through upgrades andextensions. Power companies are continually consid-ering new opportunities for renewable energy produc-tion, and the upgrading of existing plants can make animportant contribution to increased production. Theseprojects often have less environmental impact thannew powerplants on unexploited watercourses. It is apolicy of the Norwegian authorities to promote theseopportunities. The economic potential as a result ofupgrading and extension is estimated to be approxi-mately 6 TWh/year.

Upgrading is defined as the implementation of meas-ures relating to the mechanical and electrical equip-ment, to increase efficiency. Other types of upgradeprojects involve tunnels, for instance reducing headlosses by extending the cross-sectional area, providinga new parallel tunnel or penstocks, or other measures.Extension projects are more wide-ranging, for exam-ple including new catchment areas, increasing the sizeof reservoirs or increasing the overall size of installa-tions.

In many cases it is found to be profitable not only toupgrade, but also to combine the upgrade with exten-

sion. The various economic and design criteria are nowdifferent from those which prevailed decades ago, andthere are often incentives for extending the plants, andthen upgrading with the installation of modern equip-ment or sometimes even by improving the layout.

Some examples of upgrading and extension projectsin Norway are given next.

2.1 Hol 1Mechanical upgrading has taken place at the Hol Ihydro plant in Hallingdal, in the southern part ofNorway. The plant originally began operation between1949 and 1956, with four Francis units. The totalcapacity at that time was 190 MW. As a result of age-ing of the plant, and hence wear and tear, the ownerdecided to implement a comprehensive upgrade of thegenerating equipment. New turbine runners, (see pho-tos below) have increased both efficiency and thedesign discharge, and the total capacity is now 34 MWhigher than before. Increased production is 20GWh/year. The unit cost for the additional production(NOK/kWh) is high, but the investment is consideredto be favourable for the future because with noupgrade, maintenance and rehabilitation costs would

Hydropower & Dams Issue Three, 2015 39

(c) A powerhouse for small hydro. Photo: Småkraft.

Fig. 2. Installedgeneration capacityin Norway [NVE,20152].

(d) The old runnerbeing taken out, andthe new one on itsway in, at Hol 1.Photo: ECOVannkraft.

have increased considerably within several years. Thisdemonstrates the point that it is important to find theappropriate time for upgrading. No new or renewedlicence was necessary in this case, which is commonpractice for such projects in Norway.

2.2 KongsvingerA new parallel project was implemented at theKongsvinger plant on the River Glomma (Norway’slargest river) in southeast Norway, see Photos (e) and(f). The original plant was commissioned in 1975 withone 21 MW bulb generating unit, and a design dis-charge of 250 m3/s. This is a run-of-river plant operat-ing with a head of 10 m. The installation was quitesmall as regards mean inflow, but this was partly foreconomic reasons and power requirements at the timeof the original construction. Following the owner’s re-assessment of opportunities for additional production afew years ago, the capacity was more than doubled to43 MW in 2011 with the installation of one new unit(also involving a doubling of the design discharge).This reduces flood losses and provides 70 GWh/yearof additional production. The necessary civil construc-tion and assembly works were carried out while theold unit remained in continuous operation, in otherwords, without any production losses. As environmen-tal impacts were very minor, a new licence was notrequired.

2.3 IvelandThe Iveland plant in southern Norway was commis-sioned during the period 1949-1955; it had threeFrancis units with a total capacity of 45 MW in a sur-face power station, and is now a similar example of a‘parallel project’. As at Kongsvinger, the design dis-charge was quite small. However, the capacity andproduction were sufficient to cover needs at the time of

commissioning. Fifty years later, the owner decided toconsider possibilities to increase production. Twomain alternatives were evaluated. The first wasupgrading, with the installation of new turbine run-ners. Increased mean annual production was estimatedto be 20 GWh, with a low unit cost. The second optionwas to double the capacity, with a new headrace tunneland a new underground power station, in parallel withthe existing ones. The original scheme will still be inoperation, with upgraded generating equipment. Thisalternative provides 150 GWh/year of additional pro-duction. The cost per kWh is higher than for alterna-tive 1, but the net present value (NPV) is also higher.Alternative 2 is now at the construction stage.

This project demonstrates that extension in combina-tion with an upgrade can be a good solution. Paralleltunnels and powerhouses reduce risks and enablepower production to continue during the constructionperiod.

3. New large scale hydroFor political and environmental reasons, new largehydro development on undeveloped rivers is rare. TheNorwegian Government is strongly commited to theprotection of rivers. This commitment has beenrevised five times by the Government, which under-lines the strength of the desire to protect rivers. Butsome rivers can still be developed with large-scalehydro. During the past few years, new projects havegone ahead, for example, at Øvre Otta (680

40 Hydropower & Dams Issue Three, 2015

(e) The Kongsvingerhydro plant. Photo:Eidsiva Energi.

(f) Draft tubeconstruction atKongsvinger. Photo:Eidsiva Energi.

Fig 3, Illustration of the old (left) Iveland powerplant and thenew parallel powerplant (right) with the respective tunnels.

(g) Sarvsfossen dam during construction.

GWh/year) and Kjøsnesfjorden (250 GWh/year). Themost recent project is Skarg (70 GWh/year) whichinvolved the construction of the 50 m-high doublecurved arch dam in Sarvsfossen (see also p44), 11 kmof new tunnels and six secondary intakes. The projectwas completed in 2014. The dam during constructionis shown in Photo (g).

An example of a large ongoing project on anuntouched river section is the Rosten scheme (190GWh/year) in the upper reach of the river Glomma.This project has a typical Norwegian design, with along headrace tunnel, an underground powerhouse.

The most common large hydro projects, however,are on rivers which have already been utilized forhydropower. Current new hydro schemes on riversalready developed include Lysebotn, (370 MW, 1500GWh/year) close to Stavanger, which has a com-pletely new powerplant and tunnels; and, Røssåga(300 MW, 2150 GWh/year) in northern Norway,which involves a 7.2 m-diameter tunnel bored by aTBM, see Photo (h), and an additional powerhouse,see Photo (i). The third largest scheme at present isMatre, (180 MW, 610 GWh/year) close to Bergen, onthe west coast. Those projects can be classified asupgrades, because they involve replacing existinggenerating units.

New large projects in the pipeline to be constructedin the future are Smibelg and Storåvatn in northernNorway (> 200 GWh/year), Nedre Otta (350GWh/year, not yet licensed), Blåfalli Fjellhaugen (325

GWh/year, not yet licensed) as well as several others.The replacement of existing dams is becoming more

and more common, examples being the 23 m-high and800 m-long Stolsvatnet rockfill dam (2009) and theMøsvatnet dam (2006), a 28 m-high and 260 m-longrockfill structure. The latter is shown in Photo (j).These two dams represent a modern way of upgradingdams, involving the construction of a new dam andspillway downstream of the older one. This procedureallows for continuing power production during theconstruction period and reduces the risk of failure dur-ing construction.

There are some current projects involving the con-struction of new dams, for example the Skjerkevatnetdam project. This includes two large rockfill damswith asphaltic cores: the 50 m-high and 450 m-longSkjerkevatnet dam, and the 30 m-high and 590 m-longHeddersvika dam. The new dams form one large reser-voir, by increasing the water level in the downstreamreservoir. The dams are replacing one former archdam, two multiple arch dams, and two flat slab damsin the reservoir area. The project, currently under con-struction, is shown in Photo (k). The 25 m-high and330 m-long Namsvatnet rockfill dam is a similar proj-ect, also under construction.

Another growing realization is that many smallplants with little or no reservoir capacity at all proba-bly have higher environmental impacts per GWh thanlarge hydro. Many small schemes with high heads,exploiting rivers from mountain plateaux, must com-pete with alternative solutions, for example divertingpart of the river flow to existing hydro plants withreservoirs, thus increasing the storage capacity. Thegeneration from these large plants has much highervalue for society than generation which depends on theavailability of adequate river flow at any particulartime.

Hydropower & Dams Issue Three, 2015 41

(h) The 7.2 m-diameter tunnel driven by TBM at Røssåga.Photo: Leif Lia.

(i) The new 225 MW powerhouse at Røssåga.

(j) Møsvatnet dambefore demolitionof the existingconcrete dam.Photo: Øst-TelemarkensBrukseierforening.

(k) Simulatedimage of new damsat Skjerkevatnet. Image: SwecoNorway.

4. Upgrading of existing damsThere are 345 large dams (higher than 15 m) inNorway, the oldest dating back to 1890. Many ofthese are rockfill dams built between 1950 and 1990,as this was the most intense period for hydropowerdevelopment in Norway. There are few new largedams, but many of the old ones have been upgradedbecause of a combination of ageing and the develop-ment of a stricter legal framework for dam safety.The majority of large dams were built before the firstnational dam safety regulations were issued in 1981,and new methods and improved data have causedchanges in theoretical loads, such as the designflood.

Compulsory regular dam safety reassessmentswere introduced in 1995. Since then, 59 per cent ofthe large dams have been reassessed, and 26 per centhave been rehabilitated or upgraded. No dam failureshave occurred, but some of the upgrading projectshave been extensive, as the dams were built longbefore the introduction of modern safety analysesand requirements. Climate change is already takeninto account, to some extent, in the current flood cal-culations, but the regulations have not yet includedrequirements with respect to predicted futureincreases in the design flood. However, dam ownersare advised by the regulatory authorities to accountfor any predicted increase, if a dam needs to beupgraded for other reasons. Three examples ofupgrading are presented below.

The Venemo dam is a 64 m-high rockfill dam withan upstream asphalt concrete facing, built in 1964. Areassessment in 1998 resulted in the conclusion thatthe dam did not meet current safety requirementswith respect to crown width, freeboard and down-stream drainage capacity. New riprap cover wasplaced on the downstream slope, as shown in Photo

(l), and a downstream drainage toe was constructedduring the summers of 2005 and 2006. The upstreamasphaltic facing was heightened, and all the monitor-ing instrumentation was upgraded.

Svartevatn dam is a 129 m-high rockfill structurewith a sloping moraine (till) core, built in 1976. Thedownstream slope as constructed was 1.0:1.35.

During a reassessment of the dam in 1999, deviationsfrom the current dam safety regulations were found: • the crest width and the freeboard above the highestregulated water level were too small; and,• the dam had undergone larger deformations thanexpected during design, affecting both the slendermoraine core and the downstream slope.

Upgrading work was carried out, which involvedflattening the downstream slope to an inclination of1.0:1.5, and the dam toe was moved 20 m down-stream. Furthermore, the core was raised to the levelof an extreme flood situation. Transport of the con-struction material during upgrading of the dam isshown in Photo (m). The transport road had a gradi-ent of up to 1:3, which is very steep, but this provedto be satisfactory, as briefly described by Hiller et al.[20147]. The upgrading will be completed this year.

The Votna dam is a composite 55 m-high arch damwith a buttress (flat slab) section and a gravity sec-tion in the right abutment, built in 1960, see Photo(n). Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) was observed onthe dam from 1987, but with alarming consequencesfrom 2003. In the buttress sections, the concreteslabs had been displaced, reducing the contactbetween the slab and the pillars/buttresses. The ASRhad affected the arch section by reducing the resist-ing capacity of the thrust blocks and increasingstresses to the thrust blocks as a result of expansionsin the arch sections.

In the buttress dam section, the existing verticaljoints in the concrete slab have been widened to pro-vide room for further expansion of the concrete as aresult of the ASR. To increase the shear capacity,new reinforced concrete slabs have been constructedonto the old concrete slab. The thrust block has alsobeen strengthened. Furthermore, future load scenar-ios from the arch sections up to the years 2025 and2045 have been taken in to account in redesigningthe thrust block, as ASR can be a continuousprocess.

5. Current situationOver the past five years there has been experience ofunregulated rivers flooding, causing damage to

42 Hydropower & Dams Issue Three, 2015

(l) The Venemo damduring upgrading.Photo: Statkraft.

(m) The Svartevatndam duringupgrading. Photo:Sira-Kvina.

(n) The Votna arch dam. Photo: Hydro Energi.

houses and other properties. This could lead to deci-sions to collect excess flow in the rivers (over thenatural mean flow) and diverting the flood waters toexisting hydropower reservoirs, or in a few casesbuilding new reservoirs with hydropower plantswhich can then partly finance the flood protectionelement of the schemes. Climate change thereforerepresents a new driver for hydropower develop-ment. Climate change will also have an influence ongeneral energy consumption, but not necessarily onelectricity consumption.

With more than 200 power companies and well dis-tributed hydropower resources, there is currentlyhydro development activity in most regions ofNorway. Several engineering companies are workingclosely with developers, and the business has attract-ed large numbers of new engineers over the last fewyears. The number of Norwegian suppliers of elec-tro-mechanical equipment is quite modest, but sev-eral manufacturers of small hydro turbines, togetherwith Rainpower Ltd, are playing a major role in thebusiness.

Construction work is mostly carried out by nation-al construction companies, but because of the cur-rent high level of activity, other European companiesare also sometimes awarded contracts on the largeprojects. Research and education often run in paral-lel with construction activities. Launching theNorwegian Hydropower Centre (NVKS) at theNorwegian University of Science and Technology(NTNU) will improve hydro education and increasethe number of Master’s Degree and PhD candidatesgraduating in the field of hydropower. NTNU is alsoproviding education on hydropower as part of vari-ous international programmes.

Recognition of the value of renewable electricityand the importance of exploiting untappedNorwegian hydro resources (both new and upgradingprojects) has been enhanced by the two markets forelectricity: the Electricity Market and the RenewableElectricity Certificate Market. Both these marketswork together in Norway and Sweden. Many of thehydro plants are publicly owned (Municipality,County and the State) and as with privately ownedschemes they like to take out the economic benefitfrom generation.

The next five years, up to 2020, are expected to bethe busiest period for hydropower since the 1980s.Then, after 2020, the upgrading and redesigning ofhydro plants will maintain a high level of activity inthe profession. ◊

References1. Nord Pool Spot, “Market Data”, 2014.2. NVE, “Database for Energy”, www.nve.no, 2015.3. Skau, S., “Norway has big plans for small hydro”, Water

Power & Dam Construction, Yearbook 2011.4. EU, “Directive on Electricity Production from Renewable

Energy Sources”, EU directive 2001/77/EC; 2005.5. Aas, M.N., “Upgrading and extension of hydropower”,

Project report, NTNU, Norway; 2014.6. Nøvik, H., Rettedal, B., Nielsen, L.E. and Lia, L.,

“Hydraulics of backflushing for efficient cleaninghydropower trashracks”, Canadian Journal of CivilEngineering, Vol. 41, 2014.

7. Hiller, P.H, Lia, L., Johansen, P.M. and Guddal, R.,“Dam Svartevatn - An example of challenging upgrading ofa large rockfill dam”, International Symposium on Dams ina Global Environmental Challenges, ICOLD, Bali,Indonesia; 2014.

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank Seming Skau, Kjell Molkersrød and ØysteinGrundt at NVE for providing data for the paper, Kaare Høegfor guiding and review of the paper and Donna Whittington forimprovement of the written language.

Hydropower & Dams Issue Three, 2015 43

Leif Lia is a Professor in Hydropower Structures at theNorwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU,in Trondheim. He has been a full time professor for thelast six years and before that a part-time AssociateProfessor in Dam Safety for nine years. He has 11 years ofexperience in planning and engineering for hydropowerand as department head in the consulting company. He iscurrently Vice President of ICOLD, Vice President ofNNCOLD and a member of the local OrganizingCommittee for the ICOLD Congress in Stavanger.

NTNU, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway.

Torodd Jensen is Chief Engineer in the EnergyDepartment, at the Norwegian Water Resources andEnergy Directorate (NVE). He has an MSc in CivilEngineering from the Norwegian University of Scienceand Technology, having specialized in hydropower,hydrology and economic analyses. His professionalexperience ranges from a mechanical workshop, tohydropower strategies in Norway and in severaldeveloping countries, as well as developing research anddevelopment strategies for the Norwegian ResearchCouncil. His present work includes activities associatedwith the electricity certificate market in Norway andSweden, and strategy planning for meeting climate changechallenges in Norway’s energy sector. He is Chairman ofthe Hydropower Implementing Agreement under IEA.

Kjell Erik Stensby obtain his MSc degree in CivilEngineering from the Norwegian University of Scienceand Technology, in 1976. As a Senior Engineer at theNorwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate he isan ‘all-rounder’ in hydropower. He is working with hydropower resources, such as potential and projects inupgrading and extension of existing hydro powerplants, aswell as new power schemes. He is currently also engagedin IEA Hydropower, specifically on the renewal andupgrading of hydro projects.

Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, P.O.Box 5091 Majorstuen, N-0301, Oslo, Norway.

Anne Marit H Ruud obtained her MSc degree in CivilEngineering from the Norwegian University of Scienceand Technology, in 1989. She is working on the operationand maintenance of dams and watercourse structures withStatkraft, Nordic. She is a Board Member of NNCOLDand member of the local Organizing Committee of theICOLD Congress in Stavanger.

Statkraft Energi AS, P.O. Box 200 Lilleaker, NO-0216Oslo, Norway.

Grethe Holm Midttømme is Head Engineer at the DamSafety Section, The Norwegian Water Resources andEnergy Directorate (NVE). She has been working in thefield of dam safety since 1989, mostly at NVE, and hasbeen a part time professor in dam safety at NTNU,Trondheim, for three years. She obtained a PhD in DamSafety (Civil Engineering) from NTNU in 2002. She iscurrently a Board Member of NNCOLD and member ofthe ICOLD Technical Committee on Dam Safety.

NVE, Vestre Rosten 81, N-7075 Tiller, Norway.

G.H. Midttømme

A.M.H. Ruud

K.E. Stensby

T. Jensen

L. Lia