The EA has published supplementary notes replacing sections of the GPG1 guidelines in advance of the publication of GPG2 now promised "in the third quarter of 2013": email from the EA follows:
Dear Colleagues, When I wrote to you at the end of September, I explained that we were preparing some supplementary advice notes, covering a limited range of topics. I am pleased to be able to tell you that these are now available on our website and can be downloaded from http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/126575.aspx. The topics covered are: LIT 7511 Screening requirements LIT 7513 Fish passage LIT 7515 Weirs LIT 7517 Competing schemes At the same time, we have edited the current edition of the Good Practice Guidelines to include references to these advice notes where appropriate and to delete sections that are now superseded, to prevent confusion. This is also available via the link above. The advice, which largely reflects current practice, is effective immediately and should be incorporated into applications for new schemes as applications are submitted. For schemes where we have accepted applications and these are in the process of determination, our staff will consider whether the new advice justifies seeking amendments and will contact applicants, if necessary, to discuss the issues. Meanwhile, we are making good progress with the preparation of the supplementary consultation on flow and abstraction options, which we will be publishing in the New Year. I will write to you again to lety you know our plans for the consultation. --------- (from Tony Grayling, Head of Climate Change and Communities, Environment Agency)
2 Comments
A survey of industry members of the Micro hydro Association (many thanks to those who responded) has confirmed that red tape is hampering development of small scale hydropower schemes and that there is overwhelming support for a simplified registration process.
However, if this is to happen, there will still need to be appropriate safeguards to avoid poorly designed (or fraudulent) installations which are the main concern of electricity, planning and environmental regulation. I have set up this discussion thread together with links to the survey summary and detailed findings (please zoom in to read the comments and summary figures in this .pdf file). I am now inviting all readers of this site to read the summary and to comment on whether the proposed registration criteria would be suitable. My aim is to provide evidence to back up a submission to Government to introduce a registration process. Please include in your comment a brief description of your role in the micro hydro world, whether as a supplier of services or products or as a potential or current generator. The EA has advised the consultees of interim arrangements and provisional revised timescales here. They expect to recommence hydropower working group meetings in 2013
You may have read or heard about an article in the Spectator magazine. entitled "Something’s fishy: Hydroelectric power is bad for the taxpayer and bad for the environment. Why does no one say so". The British Hydropower Association has written a balanced response to this article which I endorse.
Proposals for an Integrated Framework of environmental regulation (SEPA)
I have drafted a response to the consultation here. Please comment on the blog if you have any changes to suggest and please submit your own responses to SEPA directly to this email address using this form. Responses must be received by 4th August 2012 - see alo previous blog entry The EA has now confirmed how it proposes to re-activate the consultation by issuing the following to the hydropower Working Group:
"Programme
Both the BHA and the mha have expressed concern at the way flow/abstraction standards have been addressed during the consultation and have asked to meet senior EA management to discuss a satisfactory way forward. I will post developments on the mha website. The Environment Agency (England and Wales) have released some of their internal documents which provide guidance to their staff in carrying out abstraction and impoundment licensing processes. I am publishing this list on the mha website here as it is not currently available for access on the EA website and may be useful for applicants, particularly those with high head sites which are not currently covered in the external EA guidelines "GPG1". I have heard from the Environment Agency (EA) that they plan a further limited consultation on flow standards before finalising the consultation process on the Hydropower Good Practice Guidelines (GPG) on which work started 15 months ago.
As a result of the delay in revising the guidelines, the EA has decided that only the present GPG1 low head guidance (link currently here) will apply until further notice. More details and advice on licensing of high head schemes are on the Blog page. The EA have also said that they will provide access to all the documents currently being used by EA staff for permitting hydropower so as to avoid confusion when applications for licences are being prepared and discussed. The position regarding “high head” schemes remains unclear in the mean time. The EA advise that early contact should be made to their local staff as part of the pre application process. They will use their local knowledge and expertise to advise on local environmental requirements. In the absence of EA guidelines for high head schemes, the publicly available guidelines provided by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) may provide a useful starting point for discussions. While there has been no decision by the EA to adopt these standards, they have been considered during the consultation process as candidates for use for schemes in England and Wales. For this purpose I would suggest that “high head” schemes are taken to be those involving diversion of water into a penstock with a net head of 10m or more. The SEPA guidelines are available at this link: http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/idoc.ashx?docid=eb64480b-e4d8-434a-82fe-f8a6490d6676&version=-1. In particular they contain checklists in “Annex A to Part A” (page 5) to assess provisionally acceptable schemes and to indicate standards where SEPA believe there is some risk. The proposals covered by this Scottish Government Consultation on Proposals for an Integrated Framework of Environmental Regulation have the potential to improve regulation of micro hydro schemes in Scotland. Given current delays in reforming regulation for England and Wales, this may also in due course have an impact on the Environment Agency's procedures.
Follow these links for the consultation proposals and the response form. I shall post a draft mha response on this page and invite comments from members before final submission. The Scottish Government's introduction follows: "The proposals outlined in this consultation will deliver a simpler legislative framework which will enable SEPA to focus greatest effort on the environmental problems that matter most. It will provide a more consistent range of enforcement tools so that, proportionate and effective action can be taken against those who would damage the environment." . . . . "We are inviting written responses to this consultation paper by 4 August 2012. Please send your response with the completed Respondent Information Form . . . . to: EQCAT@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or Environmental Quality Division Scottish Government Area 1-H Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH6 6QQ Responses may also be faxed to 0131 244 0211. We would be grateful if you could clearly indicate in your response which questions or parts of the consultation paper you are responding to as this will aid our analysis of the responses received. We aim to issue a report on this consultation process before the end of 2012." Contact: Neil Ritchie Address: 1-H North, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh Email:EQCat@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Telephone: 0131 244 7250 An update on the status of the EA consultation on hydropower regulation
The EA has been facilitating a year of meetings around their consultation on hydropower regulation (see previous news items) prior to issuing an updated “Good practice guidance for small and micro-scale hydropower”. The meetings have included stakeholders from the hydropower industry (BHA and mha), fisheries and other habitat interests, heritage organisations, and government departments. The revised guidelines (“GPG2”) were due to be published in early 2012. At a meeting on 24th February, the EA presented a proposal describing options for managing flow regimes in all types of watercourse. This has been a topic of hot debate but the latest proposal was firmly rejected by the hydropower stakeholders as being a step backwards from the existing guidelines and from what had been discussed, for both low and high head schemes. There were also concerns from fisheries interests on the proposals for on-weir schemes. The result is likely to be a delay in the publication of the revised guidelines (the EA will in due course have the final say in what regime they will operate), and the EA response to the consultation. The concerns from the mha have been around the lack of a proportionate approach to licensing micro hydro schemes and about the EA’s interpretation of the applicability of the Water Framework Directive to small scale watercourses. These have not yet been resolved either. This is a disappointing result after so many meetings and paper reviews over the last year. DEFRA and DECC are now taking an increasing interest in the consultation exercise and there may need to be more political involvement. |
NEW
To have changes to the News pages notified to your email account we suggest you might sign up to Blogtrotter here. Simply copy the link (URL) below and paste it into the appropriate field in Blogtrotter and add your email address. www.microhydroassociation.org/1/feed
AuthorThis is a blog to replace the Latest News Page for the Micro Hydro Association so that you can use the RSS feed below. Previous News is still kept on the Home Page. From Administrator. Archives
May 2017
Categories
All
|