Hydropower has an acknowledged pedigree as a sustainable long term resource of renewable energy. Water power, for energy purposes, has been in existence for centuries developing from the use of water wheels to the present highly efficient water turbines. History lays record to the advances and benefits that this industry has brought to Man, ranging from a basic quality of life to world respected service providers and technical specialists.

  Unfortunately, hydropower (small to large scale) in England and Wales is under threat of being relegated as a world leader to a relic of the past, due to the over prescriptive application of regulatory powers and bigotry by the Environment Agency.

  By way of a brief introduction to the hydropower industry and in order to substantiate certain claims against the Environment Agency, the following points are considered worthy of note:

—  Turbines in their present form have been producing energy for over a hundred years. From the turn of the century through to the early 1950's, there have been thousands of turbines in operation on the rivers of England and Wales. Coincident with the hydro operators, thousands of salmon rod licences were also in use. Following the decline in the associated industries, many of the hydro plants on these rivers had gone by the 1950's with only a few left in operation today. The remnants of the industry remain viable on mainly salmonid rivers. Ironically, the decline in salmon stocks has coincided with reduced numbers of licences and hydro plants. No causal links have been established. Many emotive and unsubstantiated claims manate from the present day fishing/fisheries fraternity regarding the worse case anticipated impacts associated with both HEP and abstraction in general. Such prejudice is based on limited facts but is significant in the political debate. These politics act as a primary driver for the Environment Agency which influence the approach taken to hydropower and warrent the demise of these sustainable and renewable energy sources.

—  The diversity of schemes can range from development of new, to refurbishment of existing and restoration of historic sites that have an industrial archaeological value. They can also vary in size from a few kilowatts, to a many megawatts. Irrespective of size, all sites are at risk from rafts of regulation and biased interpretation of the rules by the Agency. The influence of local politics is to force inconsistency by the regulator.

—  Viability and Sustainability:  Hydro plant represents a long term investment, but also a sound long term return. Equipment and structures are capable of operating for many years; 60 to 80 years are quite common. Unlike other renewables (land gas and wind) hydro requires extensive infrastructure; hence capital costs are high. Also, it can take many years to get the necessary licences, authorisations and contracts in place to secure finance, before construction can take place. It is quite common for investments to be discounted over 25 to 30 years. However in the new Abstraction Licence Policy, the Agency is promoting a maximum of 15 years and the removal of all historic Licences of Right. Proper consultation with the industry would have highlighted these two areas of concern, together with others. Hobbyists and micro hydro in rural communities must retain rights and their needs must not be jeopardised by the scale of unit and the short licence/return period. Prescriptive application of generic rules by the numerous regulators, with academic qualifications and no applied perspective, are condemning micro and small hydropower out of hand. Without any defined hydropower policy, and strong links to sustainability in any of its vision statements, then the single function mentality is to "crash and burn" all proposals before a balanced holistic view can be established. Dictatorial and "holier-than-thou" attitudes result in too many schemes being discarded with no avenue for recourse. With no real world responsibilities the Agency must be made to operate in a more transparent manner in its dealings with all issues and must be accountable through public examination, if needed. Access to a national independent arbiter is considered essential.

—  The Environment Agency has an inherent preconception that all hydro is detrimental to the environment. Viewed from the hydro industry, hence holistically, then the hydro industry has, many benefits to offer, for both energy production and environment. This whole-life value of hydro adds significantly to the worth and must not be dismissed by the regulators. Benefits of hydro adds value to local and global needs, but are now at risk due to the Agency approach:

(a)  Reduction in emissions of oxides of Carbon, Nitrogen and Sulphur, associated with Climatic Change. At present, hydro sits easily in the Government's vision for the future benefits of renewables; but not for long thanks to the Agency;

(b)  Sustainability of Resources:  Employment overall, but also to continue to ensure "social and economic well-being of rural communities". Hydro with little/no known environment impacts is sustainable; if a site has a known track record of X years then why change?

(c)  Trade and Export opportunities. To retain and build extensively on a sound industry base which gives benefits to trade and ensure a national expertise turbine manufacture and refurbishment;

(d)  Flood control and water level management;

(e)  Improvement to water quality;

(f)  Flow management and environmental gain:  release patterns designed to the known flow needs of the target species and environment objective to give habitat enhancements, assist in fish migration, etc. Essential to emphasise that NFFO agreement or similar must give sufficient flexibility to enable operator to implement novel flow regimes;

(g)  Industrial Archaeology and Heritage—many sites (currently in operation and historic) contain unique designs of infrastructure and construction that are highly prized and have a major conservation/preservation worth in heritage, educational and tourism terms;

(h)  Renewable energy adds significantly to the quality of life in the rural communities.

—  The regulators have a significant influence throughout the life of any scheme; progressing from planning, conceptual design, construction and operation. Long life, consistency and fairness are essential to the viability and sustainability of any hydro development. Prior to the Agency, the regulatory influence has been both straight-forward and simple (quantity and abstraction licence driven). However the regulators new remit is broader and not constrained by a clear Policy on Renewables and HEP. This condition increases the risk of scheme failure due to non-viability (whether existing or proposed schemes). Non consistent and unrealistic interpretation of the regulations results in prescriptive application of the rules. Too often, theoretical concerns are raised by the "pool of academic regulators" which over-ride the pragmatism and reality needed to consider any proposal fairly. This negative approach must be eradicated and avoided at all costs. This can influence both existing and new plant seriously affecting their viability during the whole life of the plant.

—  The potential consequences of this "negative" approach by the Agency are endless, hence ensuring an effective web to stifle any hydropower development and include:

(a)  Resulting closure of existing installations.

(b)  Inhibit the development of new sites.

(c)  Inhibit the restoration of historic sites.

(d)  Delays meeting the reduction in emission targets as agreed internationally.

(e)  Recession and unemployment in the hydropower production industry of the UK.

(f)  Resulting significant environmental impact both locally and globally.

(g)  Failure of sustainable development objective: understand linkages and complexities within the holistic framework.

—  the Abstraction Licensing Policy contains many issues of direct relevance to the hydropower industry, including:

—  Time-limited authorisations

—  New requirements for authorisations

—  Licences of Right

—  Revoking of damaging consents

—  Liability for environmental damage

—  Abstraction charges

—  New duties on abstractors

—  Economic instruments

—  LEAPS

Unfortunately the degree of consultation by the Agency with the hydropower industry was poor. Lip-service was paid to the issues raised by a document that was written primarily by Agency staff but fronted by DETR. The same "lip-service" is being taken by the Agency in the next sequel to the implementation of the above policy relating to consultation over the Abstraction Management Strategy [AMS]: October 1999. Such tokenism must be condoned, with the current attitude of the Agency of "beyond reproach" having to be replaced by a more radical, yet professional perspective.

—  The lack of openness is evident throughout the Agency. One current concern relates to the implementation of methodologies, guidelines and policy without consultation. Excessive use of computer simulation model (many of which have limited application and the constraints of which are ignored) and untried methodologies are common. Often the R&D reports underpinning these tools are produced by the Agency using public funds, but many of these reports remain confidential and are not available to the public. Such a "squirrel" mentality must not be condoned; simply from a freedom of information perspective. Unfortunately, this approach has more significant ramifications. These documents are being used to drive policy within the Agency. For example, the "Surface Water Abstraction Licence Policy", SWALP document was produced some four years ago but has remained confidential within the Agency. Requests for access to this document have been denied. There has been no consultation and critical peer group review of the report. Even so, the Agency is using it to drive AMS/LAMS in an attempt to manage catchments, as well as to constrain hydropower development. Openness and transparency are key words which should have real meaning for the Agency. Such an approach, should begin with public access to the volumes of documentation covering all Abstraction Licensing Guidelines, and support reports.

—  The Agency has a standard fail safe procedure that is encapsulated in the precautionary principle. Prescriptive use of this generic phrase gives comfort to the regulator by denying the need to take responsibilities for actions and to make decisions that can be justified/substantiated. The "cry-wolf" attitude is used to give greater protection to the individual and organisation than the environment. Liberal adoption of the fail safe precautionary principle has a direct effect on scheme costs and viability of the operation. The Agency must assess the implications of its actions and take responsibility for decisions within the framework of the scheme and throughout each phase of decision making tree. Iteration of decisions on viability should, with an open mind, add reality to the Regulators perspective. The Agency cannot ignore the cost and responsibility issues.

[Note: The Precautionary Principle is acceptable as a tool provide that is used fairly. Unfortunately, this "no-risk shield" linked with political concerns have a significant effect on business; the costs of which should be identified.]

—  The Agency develops new policy ad hoc. The recent screening policy has been implemented with no consultation, but even worse is the fact that it involves a subjective assessment process, no advice is given and no responsibility taken. Would the public expect the police to operate under such a code!!

—  The Agency is awash with data and reports regarding "nice-to-know" issues rather than "need-to-know". When applied to a hydropower scheme, this extended "shopping-list" mentality has a significant and often unnecessary cost. Regarding small hydropower, this attitude is used to reduce the viability of the scheme.

—  The role and structure of the Environment Agency should be radically reviewed by professional external assessors. If a new self regulating culture is promoted with the Agency in an audit role only, then major changes will be required. The present culture and ethos is wrong. Unfortunately, the HMIP mould has not been pursued but should be resurrected in an attempt to reduce the ever expanding bureaucracy, implement cost efficiencies and to adopt many of the changes to make it a more respected and professional regulatory body.

—  The British Hydropower Association (BHA) has discussed many of these issues in open debate with the Agency. In the presence of a government body, ETSU, the BHA promoted a real Way Forward to which the Agency signed up at the time. Unfortunately, this real consultation and dialogue was too much for the regulator and no progress has been made in the last 12 months. In summary, the Way Forward comprised:

WAY FORWARD

1.   BHA and Agency Forum

(a)

Engage in consultation process between the EA and the hydro industry.

(b)

Regular meetings with parties from both sides to discuss key issues—dissemination of information within:

EA

Hydro industry

Government

Interested consultees/stakeholders

(c)

Promote understanding of hydro—through marketing, education, a proactive approach to making it work as part of the drive for increased energy production from Renewables and support through the LEAPS.

2.   Establish a common document: "Best practice guidelines"

  Live, focused and robust, for all parties to use across the UK.

  Guidelines to be developed in partnership through a joint working group. Two clear aims:

(a)  Targeted R&D

(b)  Production of the Guidelines

  Essential that an embargo period is established whereby the Joint Working Group can deliver the agreed package of measures. A period of less than two years is recommended. During this period the regulator will defer from undertaking a major assessment of hydro in Great Britain.

3.   Government direction

(a)  Government support through real hydro targets

(b)  Government support through DETR and DTI

(c)  European perspective

  Finally, by way of bullet points, the concerns of the small scale hydropower operator in relation to the Environment Agency can be summarised as:

—  Entrenched views: no appreciation of hydro benefits and whole-life worth;

—  No accountability and no transparency; include responsibility;

—  Impractical, unrealistic and inconsistent local and national;

—  Local politics influence agency: hence obstructive and biased weighting against hydro industry;

—  No independent arbitration;

—  No appreciation of whole-life worth.

September 1999