A few weeks back, I woke up to dozens of social media notifications. As the communications manager for the Low Impact Hydropower Institute, this isn’t unusual—but the tone was different this time. A viral post claimed that LIHI was considering certifying an undeserving project. Some reposts even out right accused us of greenwashing, a deceptive practice of branding a company or product as environmentally friendly as a marketing ploy. By lunchtime, the post had gained traction, and I’d received a few messages from stakeholders, advisors, and others asking whether we needed to issue a statement. 

Transparency moment: it wasn’t the first time LIHI had received public backlash. And given the space in which we work, it likely won’t be the last. But this time, it inspired me to share what we do as an organization in a different way. 

Here’s what I wish our critics understood. Here’s what I wish I could tell journalists, environmental advocates who are skeptical of our certification program, and every person who genuinely wants to know if we’re making a difference or just another organization hiding behind industry jargon and keywords. So here it goes: the good, bad, ugly, and hopeful.

The Inconvenient Truth 

Let’s start with something that might surprise you: there is no such thing as zero-impact hydropower, solar, or wind. Every form of energy generation—renewable or otherwise—affects the environment and the communities around it.

Solar panel manufacturing requires mining rare-earth minerals, operations that scar landscapes and consume enormous quantities of water. Wind turbines kill birds and generate low-frequency noise that affects nearby residents. And hydropower—the renewable energy source humans have relied on for centuries—alters river ecosystems, affects fish populations, and changes water flow.

When LIHI was incorporated in 1999, the organization’s founders understood that hydropower dams aren’t just infrastructure—they’re woven into the fabric of communities. These facilities provide baseload renewable power for hospitals and schools. They support local tax bases that fund fire departments and road maintenance. In rural areas, they’ve been a source of employment for generations of families who’ve operated the same facilities for decades. In cities, hydropower provides reliable renewable energy that makes ambitious climate commitments possible. LIHI’s founders understood that calling for wholesale dam removal wasn’t realistic or necessarily desirable. Instead, they asked a different question: if these dams are going to continue operating, how do we ensure they operate responsibly? That pragmatic approach—acknowledging the legitimate role hydropower plays in communities while insisting on meaningful environmental standards—is what led the organization to take the position of “low impact.” 

While the Low Impact Hydropower Institute is admittedly a mouthful, it plainly lays out our mission in its name. The use of “low impact” was chosen deliberately as an honest modifier that acknowledges impact exists while committing to minimizing it. It sets realistic expectations that, though facilities may affect river ecosystems and natural flow patterns, we can also significantly reduce those impacts through science-based operational practices, meaningful stakeholder engagement, and continuous monitoring. 

The use of the word “impact” is also intentional, as we spend considerable effort documenting exactly what those impacts are and how facilities are addressing them.

LIHI isn’t promising the impossible; we’re defining an achievable standard that demonstrates measurable environmental improvements. By working at the intersection of hydropower operations and environmental advocacy, we’re advancing a conversation often forgotten amid the discord surrounding renewable energy. 

A Proven Process that Delivers on the Promise 

In an ideal world, every hydropower facility would qualify as low impact, but that’s not the reality in which we live. 

When a facility applies for certification, our team meets internally to determine how the project’s operations align with our program criteria. Qualified third-party reviewers further analyze applications before they are shared with the public for comments. The public comment period lasts a minimum of 60 days, during which environmental groups, Tribal Nations, resource agencies, and local communities are encouraged to share concerns, insights, and overall feedback.

Once the public comment period ends, our team reviews all input and publishes it in a comprehensive report. Every decision we make to certify is publicly available on our website. The applications, the stakeholder comments, the conditions we impose, the monitoring requirements—it’s all there.

Our standards were developed and are regularly revised based on science-driven research and discussions with environmental and tribal groups, hydropower operators, and regulatory agencies, resulting in certification program criteria that comprehensively define what qualifies a project as “low impact.”

Some facility applications meet our standards outright; others receive conditions to improve outcomes; and others withdraw because they can’t meet our standards, don’t want to comply with the proposed conditions, or can’t find a financial incentive to do so. But those who consider our recommendations and make improvements are where the real mission work happens. 

For instance, in 2015, Eagle Creek Renewable Energy entered into an off-license memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to meet certification provisions. The agreement stipulates monitoring of minimum flows for four of its projects in New Hampshire (LIHI #177, #118, #120, and #123), including fish passage implementation schedules and protections for northern long-eared bats. 

The Accountability Gap Nobody Talks About

Are you ready for another raw truth? 

Without LIHI, hydropower facilities would still operate. Sure, they’d still be subject to federal and state regulations—the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses, state water quality certifications, and Endangered Species Act consultations. Those regulations matter, and we don’t replace them. We complement them.

Still, regulatory compliance is often the bare minimum, focusing on enforcement rather than continuous improvement. Additionally, some projects are FERC-exempt and lack robust oversight beyond their initial authorization, which in some cases was issued 50 years ago. Monitoring happens, but data doesn’t always drive operational changes. This is where LIHI comes in. 

Facilities that want certification must demonstrate that they meet LIHI’s rigorous environmental and social performance standards. They must engage meaningfully with stakeholders. They must submit compliance verifications annually and must recertify every 10 years, which means the certifications aren’t static; they evolve as circumstances on the ground change.

We’ve seen facilities modify their operations to benefit downstream fish passage and negotiate agreements that have improved communication and relations with surrounding communities. 

Could we be doing more? Could our standards be stronger? Possibly, and we’re constantly working to do so. Are there legitimate criticisms of specific certification decisions? Sometimes, yes, and our team and governance board take those seriously. 

While I understand the skeptics of our mission and positioning, I challenge you to consider this: what if there wasn’t a LIHI? What would be the alternative? And what would that look like for ecosystems and communities throughout the country?

Approaching the Energy Transition in Realtime 

We’re in the middle of an energy transition that will require difficult trade-offs. The facts are that global electricity demand is growing, and climate change requires us to phase out fossil fuels. We need renewable energy—lots of it, deployed quickly. But every form of renewable energy affects landscapes, ecosystems, and communities. Solar farms consume land that could be habitat or farmland. Wind farms alter skylines and migration routes. Hydropower changes rivers.

These aren’t reasons to stop building renewable energy. These are reasons to build it thoughtfully, with transparency about impacts and genuine efforts to minimize harm - or, even better, to improve the status quo

LIHI exists because we believe the hydropower industry can and should do better than regulatory minimums. We believe stakeholders deserve a voice in how facilities operate. We believe transparency and accountability improve outcomes. And we believe that continuous improvement—not perfection—is the realistic goal.

Not everyone will be satisfied with that answer. For some, hydropower is irredeemably harmful. Others will claim that certified facilities have no positive environmental impacts. Yet, our documented process has proven to enhance transparency, public participation, and accountability. The process creates incentives for improvement, platforms for stakeholder engagement, and public accountability. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative? Yes.

Our work is messy, imperfect, and at times, thankless, but it’s necessary and is incrementally improving the industry. 

So if you’ve read this far, it’s safe to assume that you care about how hydropower facilities operate in your watershed, and we invite you to participate in our next public comment period. You have a voice in the process that strengthens our standards and makes our program more effective; I encourage you to use it because we want to hear from you.

To get updates and announcements about project certification in your state, click here to subscribe to LIHI’s email list. 

_____

Whitney Stovall is the Communications Manager for the Low Impact Hydropower Institute. The views expressed in this article are her own and reflect her knowledge and experiences navigating public perception and stakeholder engagement in the renewable energy sector.