Georgian Hydropower Debate Shifts Toward Smaller Projects

Georgia's hydropower strategy is shifting toward smaller projects as the government seeks to meet growing energy demand while navigating intense public opposition, environmental concerns, and investment challenges associated with controversial large-scale dams.

Georgia's government aims for energy self-sufficiency and wants to harness more of the country's significant hydropower potential, only about 20-22% of which is currently utilized. However, plans for large projects, such as the now-stalled Namakhvani HPP, faced years of widespread protests from local communities and environmental activists concerned about:

• Environmental impact: Potential damage to ecosystems, river flow disruption, and harm to fish populations.
• Social impact: Displacement of local populations and disruption of livelihoods and cultural heritage.
• Lack of transparency: Concerns over secretive government agreements with private investors and inadequate environmental impact assessments.

Shift Towards Smaller Projects

As a result of this sustained opposition and associated investment risks, the government and investors are increasingly considering smaller, run-of-the-river projects to bypass the major socio-environmental conflicts inherent in large dams.

Key aspects of this shift include:

• Feasibility: Smaller projects are often easier to implement and less likely to attract nationwide protests compared to large, high-profile projects like the 702 MW Khudoni dam.
• Meeting local needs: Developing small river hydro resources can help meet local electricity demands more directly.
• Regulatory focus: The government has pushed for a large number of small and medium HPPs, with some reports indicating plans for approximately 200 new facilities.
• New challenges: Despite being smaller, these projects still face scrutiny for potential cumulative environmental impacts and are a source of community conflict, with concerns over destroyed valleys and dried riverbeds.

Ultimately, the debate highlights a persistent conflict between the government's energy security goals and a powerful grassroots movement demanding a more sustainable and transparent approach to development.

‍