Small Hydropower Statistical Release 2012

STATISTICAL RELEASES D. 3.3. ENERGY D.4.3. MARKET D. 5.3. POLICY

SHP Stream Map project Year of Implementation: 2009-2012 Web: http://streammap.esha.be/ A project supported by

Project Consortium:

Advisory Board:

For questions, please contact: European Small Hydropower Association (ESHA), Rue d’Arlon 63-67, 1040 Brussels, BE info@esha.be , Tel.: +32 2400 10 67

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ENERGY ......................................................................................................................................3 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................3 1.2. Small hydropower..................................................................................................................5 1.2.1. Remaining potential .......................................................................................................5 1.2.2. Number of plants, installed capacity, electricity generation ..........................................6 1.3. Large hydropower..................................................................................................................8 1.3.1. Remaining potential ......................................................................................................8 1.3.2. Conventional hydropower schemes .............................................................................10 1.3.3. Pumped storage power ................................................................................................12 1.4. Total hydropower contribution ............................................................................................16 1.5. Assessment of the indicated trajectories of the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) .......................................................................................................................................17 1.5.1. Small hydropower ........................................................................................................17 1.5.2. Large hydropower ........................................................................................................18 1.5.3. Renewable electricity generation in mixed pumped storage power plants ..................19 1.6. New developments ..............................................................................................................21 1.6.1. Small hydropower ........................................................................................................21 1.6.2. Large hydropower .......................................................................................................21 2. Market .........................................................................................................................................23 2.1. Background ..........................................................................................................................23 2.2. Industrial overview ..............................................................................................................23 2.2.1. General .........................................................................................................................23 2.2.2. Analysis of Market Data – Industrial ...........................................................................24 2.3. Economics overview............................................................................................................25 2.3.1. General .........................................................................................................................25 2.3.2. Analysis of Market Data – Economics .........................................................................26 3. Policy ..........................................................................................................................................29 3.1. Support schemes ..................................................................................................................29 3.1.1. Price-based instruments................................................................................................29 3.1.2. Quantity-based market instruments ..............................................................................30 3.1.3. Common remarks .........................................................................................................31 3.2. Concession ...........................................................................................................................32 3.3. Legislation ...........................................................................................................................33 3.3.1. Impact of WFD on hydropower development..............................................................33 3.3.2. Residual flow regulation ..............................................................................................34 3.3.3. SEA Directive ..............................................................................................................34 3.3.4. Technical approaches for good practice in hydropower use ........................................35 3.3.5. Conflict between river protection and hydropower development is rising ..................35 3.3.6. Difficulties related to electricity grid access ................................................................36 3.3.7. Lack of support of RES directive on hydropower development ..................................36 3.3.8. General comments about improvement of legislation..................................................36 3.4. Need for political, media and social incentive ....................................................................37 4. Annex ..........................................................................................................................................38 4.1. Methodological notes ..........................................................................................................38 4.2. Questionnaires .....................................................................................................................43 4.2.1. Energy ..........................................................................................................................43 1

4.2.2. Market ..........................................................................................................................44 4.2.3. Policy............................................................................................................................45 4.3. HYDI Data ...........................................................................................................................45

INTRODUCTION This study is based on the findings of the EU funded STREAM MAP project (2009 – 2012), coordinated by ESHA (the European Small Hydropower Association). One of the main outputs of this project has been setting up the European Hydropower database (HYDI) covering both large (LHP) and small hydropower (SHP). The HYDI database has been built on drawn up methodological notes and questionnaires completed by the project participants of 10 EU countries and institutions. Some of them were responsible for collecting data in the remaining countries in order to cover the entire EU. It has to be mentioned that so far such a database, covering all the EU hydropower sector statistics both for large and small hydro, including pumped storage power (PSP) has been absent. The HYDI database consists of three parts, namely: a) Energy; b) Market; and c) Policy.

For the small hydro sector, data was supplied by the countries’ national associations. For large hydro plants, data was provided by national statistic offices, power utilities and so on. Before entering data into this database and making them publically available, a checking for their consistency and accuracy was accomplished.

As data collection for the HYDI started in 2007, and the reference year for the EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) and National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) is 2005, this study extensively used the results of previous studies.

In many cases, for the sake of completeness, the authors have performed research in order to gain a comprehensive picture for the whole EU. The results of this project here are referred as to HYDI. Their parts are discussed below separately.

The HYDI database is publically available at: http://streammap.esha.be/1.0.html This report is not difficult to digest without context. It is therefore the intention of the authors to provide a document for the general public and specialists to facilitate them evaluating the hydropower sector in an aggregate way. This target audience consists of hydro community, national and European policy makers, press and media or other groups. The current report provides a general overview of the findings of the HYDI database, where some details have been omitted in order to assist the reader.

2

1. ENERGY 1.1. Background As a common practice, hydropower plants according to their installed capacity P are distinguished between small (P≤10 MW) and large ones (P>10 MW). They can be either conventional (pure) hydro or unconventional - pumped storage power plants. Conventional hydro is undisputable source of renewable energy, while PSP - only in certain cases when there is a significant natural inflow into the upper basin. The latter has not been clearly taken into renewable energy account so far.

A main source of the statistics of hydropower plants both large and small hydropower on a European scale is Eurostat, but this statistical office does not analyse hydropower development trends. The International Journal on Hydropower & Dams (HP&D), the European electricity industry - EURELECTRIC, and International Energy Agency are collecting and managing their hydropower databases, and producing reports mainly on large hydropower sector progress. Small hydropower development trends are usually analysed by EurObserv'ER. Recently a comprehensive study analysing the current role of hydropower in the European electricity sector and its remaining potential, with special attention paid to pumped storage facilities, was performed by EURELECTRIC (2011). Its report is part of the EURELECTRIC Renewables Action Plan. Just a year before this organisation published the EURELECTRIC statistical yearbook (Power Statistics 2010) that covers also the hydropower sector.

In 2009 the ABS Energy Research published a report containing the latest at that time available statistics of hydro power and hydro power plants, covering both large hydropower (LHP) and small hydropower (SHP) and representing regional and country hydropower profiles of Europe and other parts of the World. This report outlines the size of the hydropower industry, separately for large and small.

The European Small Hydropower Association - as it name suggests - collects statistical data on the small hydropower industry and analyses its trends. One of the latest studies is “The strategic study for development of small hydropower in the European Union” (2008).

Despite the above-mentioned statistical services, which are entirely or partially dedicated to collecting the hydropower sector data, it has to be noted that there is a gap in information on large and small hydropower statistics in the academic literature.

Based on the requirement of the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) each EU Member State was requested to provide a National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) according to a template to meet its 2020 target, including the technology mix and the trajectory to reach it. These Action Plans are publically available (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/action_plan_en.htm).

Hydropower, including pumped storage, has been also considered in the NREAPs. The NREAPs have been evaluated by a number of independent experts, including the European electricity industry association - EURELECTRIC. All the assessors recognise that the data presented in the NREAPs are not always precise and must be used with a certain caution. EURELECTRIC (2011) made a conclusion that hydropower contribution anticipated in the NREAPs is relatively low comparing with its currently available potential. The main reason lies in the imposed unjustified environmental restrictions. In the result, the hydropower sector will appear incapable to compensate effectively grid voltage variations due to the prospective surge of intermittent electricity sources.

With the advent of renewable energy sources (RES) of increased variability in electricity generation, such as wind and solar, a renewed commercial and technical interest in energy storage could have been observed recently. Hydropower with a reservoir and a pumped storage installation is a mature technology, being the oldest and the largest of all available energy storage technologies.

After a significant decrease in the number of commissioned installations during the previous 20 years, as compared to that of 1970s and 1980s, pumped storage power plants (PSP) are regaining its 3

significance. Current trends for the new PSP development show generally that the developers operating in liberalized markets are tending to repower or enhance existing schemes and to build ‘mixed’ PSP rather than traditional ‘pure pumped storage’. The existing water infrastructure, e.g., dams and associated reservoirs, is of particular interest when developing the new PSP schemes Not only large scale PSP plant development is needed. When technical and environmental conditions are favourable, small scale PSP plants can be developed in water streams, using the existing infrastructure.

According to the NREAP template the hydropower contribution is composed of two components – conventional (pure) hydro consisting of small and large schemes and pumped hydro. Both are represented in this template, though, pure pumped storage is not counted as electricity from a renewable energy source with the exception of mixed PSP plants which can produce electricity from natural inflow. Pumped storage power plants are called mixed, or combined, when they contain the elements of a pure pumped storage plant combined with a conventional hydropower plant.

The energy part of the HYDI database contains statistics on small and large hydropower including pumped storage schemes. The purpose of this report is to analyse hydropower energy data from 2005 to 2010, and up to 2020. To better reveal hydropower sector upcoming trends and prospects for future, information stemming from other data holders (e.g. Eurostat, EURELECTRIC, the International Journal on Hydropower & Dams) has been also used.

Based on the HYDI data a number of illustrative charts have been produced for each country dealing with a number of plants, installed capacity, electricity generation for small and large hydropower plants and totals for the entire EU calculated.

The HYDI database structure with the energy part details is shown in Fig.1.1. The energy questionnaire has been composed of 3 parts as follows: a) Hydropower plants basic statistics (number of hydropower plants in operation, installed capacity and actual generation); b) Forecast (short and medium term periods) and c) Hydropower potential (theoretical, technical, economically feasible and environmentally compatible potential).

HYDI DATABASE

ENERGY

Current Data

Number of plants Installed capacity Electricity generation Consumption (PHES) Normalised generation

Market

Forecast

Short term (1 to 2 years ahead) Long term (up to 2020) (plants under construction new and upgrade)

Policy

Potential

Gross theoretical Technically feasible Economically feasible Environmentally compliant Degree of development

Figure 1.1. The European hydropower database (HYDI) structures with the energy part details For the small hydro sector, data were supplied mainly by their national associations. Other sources, including energy agencies and energy regulatory offices were also used. For the large hydro plants data were provided by national statistic offices, energy agencies, energy regulatory offices, power utilities and power plant owners. Before entering data into this database and making them publically available, checking for their consistency and accuracy was needed. To do so a number of other data sources (Eurostat, the International Journal on Hydropower & Dams, Eurelectric, EurObserv'ER) as 4

well as material published in the open literature were employed. As data collection for the HYDI started in 2007, and the reference year for the EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) and National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) is 2005, this study uses extensively the results of previous studies. Attempts were made to calculate normalised electricity generation, but not in all cases, due to insufficient length of time series (less than 15 years). Hydropower plants construction (new and upgrading) progress for short term (1 and 2 years ahead) and medium term period (up to 2020) have been also evaluated.

1.2. Small hydropower 1.2.1. Remaining potential As a general rule hydropower potential diminishes from the gross theoretical to the economically feasible potential and finally the remaining potential or available for development (Fig.1.2).

Figure 1.2. Total SHP potential in the EU (TWh/year) The potential is unevenly distributed among the Member States. It can be best described by the water stream energy per unit of area, usually – 1 km2. Austria, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal are the countries with the most powerful water streams (Fig. 1.3). In contrary, the water stream specific energy in Denmark, Estonia and Hungary is relatively low. Hydropower has not been developed in Cyprus (only one SHP plant is operating) and Malta.

5

Figure 1.3. Density of the economically feasible potential in the EU countries (MWh/year/km2).

It is commonly known that the economically feasible potential is less stable than the technical one, and is subject to considerable fluctuations, mostly has a decreasing trend over the years. Changing the status of energy support and environmental legislation can greatly alter it.

The economically feasible potential for development of SHP plants amounts to some 93 TWh/year (Fig. 1.2). This estimate includes also the current SHP electricity generation - 44.1 TWh/ year. This fact shows that in average less than a half of this potential has been already tapped all over the EU. Taking into account all limitations imposed by legal provisions such as geographical designations, legislation and regulations that mostly exclude the SHP potential in specified areas, one can specify the environmentally compliant potential. Its value is estimated at some 55 TWh/year, if a positive component is taken into account: upgrading/modernisation of existing facilities, exploiting nonhydroelectric dams (up to 5 to 10% of actual power generation).

The HYDI study reveals that during the last ten years new SHP potential has been greatly affected by environmental legislation that fall under areas that are designated, such as Natura 2000, the Water Framework Directive and others.

Germany, the 4th largest country with regards to SHP installed capacity within the EU, experiences the biggest reduction of its hydropower resource; only 7% of the economically feasible potential can be realisable in the current situation. Heavy environmental limitations are imposed in Baltic countries (e.g., Lithuania 43%), Greece (35%) and Slovakia (38%). Slightly larger environmentally compliant potential has been identified in France, Italy and in the UK (some 50%). Similar restrictions are in power also in some other countries where environmental impact assessments are accomplished on a site by site basis and no statistical data are available.

A reasonable threshold of these limitations should not exceed 20 to 30% of the economically feasible potential. Despite these environmental constraints, a large number of SHP plants are operating nowadays successfully in environmentally sensitive areas.

1.2.2. Number of plants, installed capacity, electricity generation In 2010 nearly 21,800 SHP plants were in operation (Fig. 1.4). The biggest number of SHP facilities is run in Germany (more than 7,500). Then Austria (some 2,590), Italy (2,430), France (1,900), Sweden (1,900) and the Czech Republic (1,450) follow. It is expected that the overall SHP 6

number will reach the level of 24,000 by 2020. The average installed capacity of an SHP plant varies between 0.6 - 0.7 MW.

Figure 1.4. Number of SHP plants, their installed capacity and electricity generation between 2000 and 2020 in the EU. Within the period of 2005 to 2020 the installed capacity is expected to increase from 12.4 GW to 17.3 GW and electricity generation from 42.1 to 59.7 TWh/year. This will result in a growth of nearly 40%.

Taking a look at individual countries Italy is the country with the largest SHP installed capacity (2,735 MW) and electricity generation (10,958 GWh). In addition to that in the years ahead this country will be a clear leader in both of these fields (Fig. 1.5 and 1.6). It is followed by France, Spain and Germany. The lowest installed capacity and electricity generation are observed mainly in lowland countries (Eastern Baltic states, Hungary, Denmark, Ireland).

Figure 1.5. SHP installed capacity in the EU countries (MW).

7

Figure 1.6. SHP electricity generation in the EU countries (GWh/year).

The load factor determines the effectiveness of using SHP turbines for electricity generation and is a measure of a power plant output compared to the maximum output it could produce. It can be expressed by an average number of full load hours. For SHP plants operating in the EU it amounts to 3,252 hours (Fig. 1.7). The largest one is observed in Germany (nearly 4,900 hours) and the lowest value in Romania (1,810 h). According to the NREAPs the load factor is 2,000 hours for onshore and offshore wind plants, and 914 hours for solar installations. These facts shows that SHP is a stable energy source.

Figure 1.7. Calculated average number of full load hours for SHP plants in the EU countries.

1.3. Large hydropower 1.3.1. Remaining potential Table 1.1 compares the developed and remaining hydropower potential in line with a number of data sources/studies. The totals of hydropower potential include small hydropower as well. The latter makes in average more than 10% of actual hydropower generation in the EU. Neither the International Journal on Hydropower & Dams (HP&D) nor EURELECTRIC define clearly small 8

scale hydropower. The breakdown of the hydropower potential through the individual countries is given in Fig.1.8.

Table 1.1. Total hydropower potential in the EU Type of hydropower potential

HP&D (2011 World Atlas & Industry Guide)*

HYDI

349

EURELECTRIC (Hydro in Europe: Powering Renewables, 2011) 325

Potential developed (hydropower generation), TWh Technically feasible hydropower potential, TWh Percentage of development of technically feasible hydropower potential, % Remaining technically feasible hydropower potential, TWh Remaining economically feasible hydropower potential (environmentally compatible), TWh

629

-

630

55

≈50

55

280

276

286

-

-

139

344

*- calculated using countries profile data As one can see from this table, there is no significant difference for developed (actual electricity generation) and remaining (or additional) technically feasible hydropower potential according to the independent assessments. In contrast to the technically feasible hydropower potential, the value of the economically feasible hydropower potential is considerably lesser – more than 2 times and amounts to 139 TWh/year. Besides the uncertain fluctuating economic considerations this potential accounts for the environmental restrictions. E.g., protected or environmentally sensitive areas where hydropower development is completely excluded or hardly possible. And this type of the additional hydropower potential can be regarded as real one available for the future developments.

Large differences in the hydropower potential assessments are discovered for a number of the individual countries (Fig. 1.8).

Figure 1.8. Developed and remaining technically and economically feasible (environmentally compliant) hydropower potential in Europe per country in 2010.

For instance, in France the recent studies reported the remaining hydropower potential of some 10 TWh/year instead of the previously indentified 32 TWh/year. In Sweden the estimated 9

economically feasible potential amounts to about 90 TWh, out of which 68 TWh are currently developed. From a first sight the remaining potential would be at least 22 TWh, but in the reality, due to the present environmental restrictions its magnitude is slightly over 5 TWh/year.

There are countries where large hydropower development is completely forbidden by the national Environmental (Natural resources, Water) laws (e.g., France, Finland, Sweden, Lithuania) or excluded in strategic documents (the Czech Republic). In contrary to these countries, harnessing of large rivers in Hungary or Poland is not legally excluded. Large hydropower facilities are still under consideration in these countries. Given, however, the existing general framework, uses and restrictions, erection of further large hydropower plants is considered very problematic. For this reason this type of the additional potential for these countries has not been counted.

According to EUROLECTRIC and HYDI there is very little remaining hydropower potential in Germany, if upgrading and /or modernisation is not taken into account. The experts of this country declare that 2 to 3 TWh/year or an increase of 14-19% in total output can be achieved through modernisation and upgrading of existing larger hydropower plants.

Large, still not exhausted hydropower potential is available mostly in mountainous regions - Italy, Romania, Austria, Spain, Portugal with the exception of Sweden (Fig. 1.9).

Figure 1.9. Additional economically feasible hydropower potential (environmentally compliant) ranked by magnitude (extract from Fig. 1.8) 1.3.2. Conventional hydropower schemes According to HYDI, in 2010 there were approximately 1800 large “pure� hydropower plants with total installed capacity of 95.6 GW and electricity generation of 308.8 TWh in the EU. Italy (302), France (290), Sweden (200) and Austria (157) are on the top in terms of the number of plants.

These totals exclude mixed pumped storage.

Table 1.2 compares the totals of the installed capacity and electricity generation according to a number of data sources/studies. For the 2005 reference year Eurostat provides much lesser values, than the NREAPs and HP&D, both for installed capacity and production. The same trend is followed by the EURELECTRIC: it underestimates the data for 2010 as compared with other sources. Referring to the NREAPs and Hydropower & Dams the total installed capacity slightly diminishes from to 2005 to 2010. A conclusion can be made that huge uncertainties lie in data assessments. The HYDI data for 2010 more or less follow Eurostat data tendency. Consequently a marginal increase in hydropower development for this period can be confirmed.

10

Table 1.2. Large hydropower (>10 MW) installed capacity and electricity generation in the EU

94.2

102.6

90.9

316.7

293.5

273.2

99.1 (95.3) 291.8 (296.8)

HYDI

101.4 (95.9) 294.8 (295.6)

NREAP

293.9

EURELECTRIC (Power Statistics 2010 )

267.7

HP& D (2011 World Atlas & Industry)

102.8

Eurostat

90.1

2010

NREAP

HP& D (2007 World Atlas & Industry Guide)

Installed capacity, GW Electricity generation TWh/year

Eurostat

Reference year 2005

92.3

308.8

NB. Small hydropower was deducted from HP&D and EURELECTRIC data. In the brackets are corrected the NREAP data (lacking data were added) Significant differences in data assessments can be observed for a number of individual countries (Fig. 1.10 and 1.11).

Figure 1.10. Large hydropower installed capacities in the reference (2005) and current year (2010)

Figure 1.11. Large hydropower electricity generation in the reference (2005) and current year (2010) 11

1.3.3. Pumped storage power Three basic types of pumped storage power (PSP) schemes can be distinguished: Pure PSP. There is no renewable electricity generation here; Mixed (combined or pump-back) PSP plants contain the elements of pure PSP combined with those of conventional hydropower plants. In this case significant amounts of the turbine output are provided by natural inflow into the upper basin; Separated (water transfer or contributing) PSP plant may be featured by a natural inflow into either basin. Consequently, they may be representatives of pure or mixed pumped storage type.

Renewable electricity can be generated in mixed and separated PSP. A pre-condition for this is that there can be a significant natural inflow into the upper basin. This limit is usually assumed to be at least 3-5% of the turbine output (or 250 hours/year) provided by surface water (ASCE, 1989, UNIPEDE/EURELECTRIC, 1991) An advantage with mixed facilities is that the energy storage is generally much greater thus allowing plants to store large amounts of easily available energy. Plants with significant natural inflow may also operate as conventional hydroelectric installations during periods of inflow excess, increasing thus the economic competitiveness of the plant. A general comparison between mixed and pure PSP plants is provided in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3. Typical characteristics of mixed and pure pumped hydroelectric storage plants Type of pumped power storage plant Pure PSP Mixed PSP

Electricity counted as renewable energy

Capital cost

Market flexibility

No

High

Flexible

Yes

Lower

More flexible

Vice-versa transformation

Almost impossible Possible

Environmental performance

Dam is not obligatory Dam is obligatory

Operational characteristics

Similar

The HYDI study shows that neither considered database nor literature sources show the total number of PSP operating in the EU. Only Zuber (2011) provides their number amounting to some 170, including PSP installed in Switzerland, Norway and other non EU countries. According to HYDI, in 2010, there were around 140 operational plants (installed capacity exceeds 10 MW) in the EU of which 86 ones were the mixed type PSP (Fig. 1.12).

Figure 1.12. Number of PSP under operation

12

The largest number of PSP is to be found in Germany (31), Italy (21) and Austria (19). Largest number of the mixed PSP is operating in Austria (19), Italy (14) and Germany (11). In Austria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Romania and Sweden all PSP are of the mixed type. Only pure PSP are installed in Belgium, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxemburg and Slovenia. There are no installed PSP plants in Estonia, Hungary, Cyprus, Latvia and Malta. However, there are real plans to develop them in the first three countries.

The analysis shows, that despite some inconsistencies highlighted further in PSP data collected by Eurostat, these data are most coherent with regard to other reviewed databases (Fig. 1.13 and 1.14).

Nevertheless, it is highly likely that electricity generated by the natural inflow in the mixed PSP was included to the total amount of power produced by PSP plants. It must be pointed out that a decision was taken by Eurostat in 2010 to separate PSP capacities into mixed plants and pure pumped storage capacity.

Figure 1.13. Installed PSP capacity for the period 2005 to 2010 in the EU (Eurostat)

Figure 1.14. Electricity generated from PSP for the period 2005 to 2010 in the EU (Eurostat) According to HYDI there 11 mixed type PSP are operating in Germany with total capacity of 1200 MW that is included in the overall PSP capacity (6784 MW). The same situation happens in Poland, PSP are totalling to 1750 MW out of which 384 MW are of the mixed type. However, Eurostat provides only pure PSP capacity -1404 MW. Consequently, this facts lead to an improper energy balance and part of green electricity production in mixed PSP is not counted as renewable.

Over the period 2005 – 2010 PSP overall capacity was growing in Italy, Germany and Austria (Fig.1.13). However, the latter experiences a significant decrease – more than two times in 2010 while keeping the energy generation at the level similar to that in the previous years (Fig. 1.14).

The HYDI assessment is 3274 MW in 2010 in Austria.

13

When comparing the Eurostat, EURELECTRIC and HYDI data, significant differences are observed in the total installed capacities for Austria, Bulgaria, Germany and Poland (Fig. 1.15 and 1.16).

Figure 1.15. PSP (all types) installed capacity according to Eurostat and EURELECTRIC (EURELECTRIC values for 2010 are forecast and there is no data for France and Romania)

Figure 1.16. PSP (all types) installed capacity in 2010 A number of large differences can be also observed for the electricity generation (Fig. 1.17). For instance, in Austria the electricity generation differs more than 5 times and there are similar discrepancies for other countries.

14

Figure 1.17. Electricity generation from all types of PSPs according to Eurostat and EURELECTRIC (EURELECTRIC values for 2010 are forecast)

Installed pumped storage capacities MW

It must be pointed out that uncertainties for a proper evaluation of installed capacity of PSP arise also from the different modes of operation of these plants (Fig. 1.18). A bigger difference in the total installed capacities between pump and turbine modes indicates that there might be operational more mixed type of PSP (e.g., Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Romania, Spain). However this cannot be applied to Portugal, where all PSP plants are of the mixed type.

9,000 8,000

7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000

2,000 1,000 0

Turbine capacities

Pump capacities

Figure 1.18. PSP installed capacity in turbine and pump mode according to EURELECTRIC (lacking data for Italy, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden are HYDI estimates) Table 1.4 compares the totals of installed capacity and electricity generation proposed by a variety of the databases. It can be seen that NREAPs underestimates the energy from pumped storage comparing with other data providers. The causes are explained further in the text.

Table 1.4. Comparison of the current and projected total installed capacities and electricity generation of PSP in the EU Eurostat

EURELECTRIC

NREAP (2011)

HYDI

(2010)

Installed capacity GW Electricity generation TWh 1 2

2005

2009

2010

2007

20101

20201

2005

20101

20201

2010

20201

36.7

40.8

34.5

36.9

31.0

42.6

23.4

28.2

39.5

42.1(19.5)2

60.7(24.1)2

34.5

31.7

31.5

37.7

35.2

43.2

23.8

23.6

32.6

39.1(12.4)2

- Forecast – Numbers in the brackets indicate renewable electricity generation in mixed PSP 15

According to the Eurostat data, the total installed capacity of PSP was continuously growing over the considered period and reached 40.8 GW in 2009. In contrary to the above, in 2010 the installed capacity decreased dramatically – up to 34.5 GW. The cause of such decrease, that is a difference of above 6 GW (or 20%), is not known. A similar discrepancy is seen in the EURELECTRIC statistics when comparing the 2007 and 2010 data.

The HYDI assessment shows that the installed capacity of mixed PSP makes nearly a half of the overall pumped storage installed capacity (19.5 GW out of 42.1 GW). In 2010 they produced more than a quarter of renewable electricity out of the total PSP generation (12. 4 and 39.1 TWh, respectively).

The total installed capacity of all types of PSP broken down for the individual countries as anticipated by 2020 is shown in Fig. 1.19). EURELECTRIC (2011) estimates are not time specified. They indicate installations at an early planning stage or recently obtained licences and are well projected indications towards 2020. The EURELECTRIC data (2010) published a year before deviate significantly from the previous ones. The HYDI previsions are also indicated. One can conclude that all previsions vary a lot, but most coincidence is observed between the EURELECTRIC (2011) and HYDI data.

Figure 1.19. PSP development in terms of installed capacity (at an early planning stage or licences obtained –EURELECTRIC, 2011) and forecast for 2020 according to EURELECTRIC (2010) and HYDI estimations. There are also shown the countries where so far no PSP were built (Cyprus, Estonia and Hungary)

1.4. Total hydropower contribution In previous sections large hydro contribution is given separately for conventional (small and large) and PSP plants in which renewable electricity is generated from the natural inflow. The total hydropower contribution (HYDI - only renewable electricity) for the current year (2010) and the year 2020 is shown in Table 1.5.

It has to be noted that the totals provided by the NREAPs do not represent only renewable electricity.

Table 1.5. Actual and projected total hydropower capacity and electricity generation, broken down into capacity ranges and pumped storage.

16

SHP <10MW

LHP >10MW

PSP2

Total

(296.8)

Total

(45.1)

PSP2

342.7

LHP >10MW

23.6

SHP <10MW

291.8

Total

28.2

122.4

15.9 (16.3)

(107.8)

52.8

309.5

(54.1)

(314.5)

2020

PSP1

99.1

2010

LHP >10MW

(97.0)

46.0

SHP <10MW

(13.0)

Total

PSP1

TWh

12.8

HYDI 2020

LHP >10MW

GW

2010 SHP <10MW

GW and Electricity generation TWh

Installed capacity

NREAP

112.4

39.5

139.7

13.7

95.6

19.5

125.5

17.3

102.4

24.1

143.8

32.6

369.3

49.6

308.8

12.4

370.8

59.7

316.3

15.3

391.3

1

- all kinds of PSP (renewable and non renewable electricity) - only mixed PSP where renewable electricity is generated In the brackets are corrected the NREAP data (lacking data were added) 2

1.5. Assessment of the indicated trajectories of the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) 1.5.1. Small hydropower A comparison of independent assessments, the NREAPs and HYDI, exhibits that both data sets fall into the confidence interval (Fig. 1.20) showing that there is no large difference for SHP totals.

The HYDI assessment is more optimistic than the one given in the NREAPs. A forecast value for SHP installed capacity and electricity generation is larger by 6% and 9%, respectively. It turns to 17.3 GW in capacity and 59.7 TWh/year in generation for 2020. EurObserv’ER’ previsions are less optimistic for the period 2010-2020 in terms of the installed capacities.

Figure 1.20. Comparison of assessments provided by the NREAPs, EurObserv’ER and HYDI (note: lacking NREAPs data were completed or corrected) Despite the fact that SHP projected generation increases by 9% up to 2020 its contribution to the overall RES-E mix diminishes from 9 to 5% (Fig. 1.21). This can be explained by a spectacular increase in electricity generation of wind power, biomass and other RES-E.

17

Figure 1.21. SHP contribution to RES-E mix (% of total electricity generation in GWh/year).

(Other RES-E estimates according to the NREAPs) 1.5.2. Large hydropower Only conventional large hydropower is compared here. Table 1.6 provides the totals of the projected installed capacity and electricity generation according to NREAP, EURELECTRIC and HYDI by 2020. The reference data (2005) given by the independent databases are also shown. It is evident that estimates fluctuate a lot.

It can be seen that hydropower data projected by the NREAPs are more optimistic and the EURELECTRIC estimates are less optimistic. The HYDI data are in between. Referring to them a conclusion can be made that large hydro growth rate towards 2020 will be marginal.

Table 1.6. Anticipated large hydropower (>10 MW) potential in the EU Reference year 2020 2005 NREAP EURELECTRIC NREAP HYDI (Power Statistics 2010 ) Installed capacity, GW 95,9 (101.4) 94.6 112.4 (105.6) 102.4 Electricity generation 294.8 (295.6) 281.4 309. 4 (314.5) 316.3 TWh/year Note: Small hydropower was deducted from HP&D and EURELECTRIC data. Numbers in the brackets are corrected (lacking data were complemented) NREAPs data 18

The breakdown of the projected installed capacity and electricity generation through the individual countries is given in Fig. 1.22 and 1.23. For a comparing purpose the 2005 reference data are shown given in the NREAPs. A clear inconsistency can be observed in 2005 and 2020 electricity generation data for Italy given by its NREAP.

Figure 1.22. Projected large hydropower (>10 MW) installed capacity for the year 2020

Figure 1.23. Projected large hydropower (>10 MW) electricity generation for the year 2020 1.5.3. Renewable electricity generation in mixed pumped storage power plants Only part of electricity generated in mixed PSP from the natural inflow is counted as renewable energy. Therefore, further considerations within this subsection are focussed on the mixed pumped storage.

Fig. 1.24 provides installed capacity and electricity generation from operating PSP in the reference year 2005 according to the NREAPs. Fig. 1.25 shows a comparison between the independent assessments of the installed capacity and electricity generation within the individual EU countries.

It has to be noted that a number of the countries (Bulgaria, Ireland, Portugal, UK) did not provide 19

electricity production in their NREAPs. From this figure a significant scatter in capacities and renewable electricity generation in mixed PSP can be seen.

Figure 1.24. Installed capacity and electricity generation of PSP for the base year 2005 according to the NREAPs (some countries did not provide amounts of electricity) 6,000 5,000

8,000 NREAP_2010 MW

HYDI_2010 MW

NREAP_2010 GWh

HYDI_2010 GWh

7,000

6,000 5,000

4,000

4,000 3,000

3,000

2,000

2,000

1,000

Generation GWh

Installed capacity MW

7,000

1,000

0

0

Figure 1.25. Installed capacity and electricity generation of PSP for 2010 according to the NREAPs and HYDI assessments. HYDI takes into account only mixed PSP where renewable electricity can be generated.

Main shortcomings of the NREAPs regarding renewable electricity generation in PSP are as follows: None of the NREAPs clearly identified contribution of renewable electricity generated by PSP (capacity and production), with the exception of Italy and partially Portugal (no electricity amounts); Some countries presented a total capacity and electricity generation for all PSP (e.g., Germany).

However, there are mixed PSP operating in this country and their generation must be separated.

The same remark should be made for Slovakia and the UK. They have also mixed PSP, although their contribution, especially for the latter, is relatively low; There are involved countries with pure PSP (Ireland, Lithuania); Some countries having under operation mixed PSP did not indicate their renewable electricity contribution (the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania).

20

These facts shows, that many NREAPs, despite undertaken a thorough review process does not clearly represent renewable electricity generated by mixed pumped power storage.

1.6. New developments 1.6.1. Small hydropower According to the HYDI survey around 350 SHP facilities with a total installed capacity of 500 MW have been in the construction phase in 2011 (Fig. 1.26). SHP new construction makes less than a half of that capacity (some 220 MW), while the remaining capacity can be attributed to uprating/ rehabilitation of the old SHP.

Figure 1.26. Small hydropower capacity (in MW) under construction in 2011 (accounts for new development and/or uprating / rehabilitation) Most SHP developments (in the largest number) took place in Italy (88), Austria (46), Germany (75 –almost all fall under repowering or enhancement), Spain (21) and Romania (20). In the best case erection of a new SHP from its start to commissioning takes one year. Developing SHP plants with such an annual rate, i.e. 220 MW/year, would allow commissioning additionally 2000 MW of capacity in operation by 2020. However, this annual pace is approximately two times lower than that foreseen to reach goals presented in NREAPs and HYDI, that is 16.3 and 17.2 GW, respectively (Fig. 1.21). This SHP plant commissioning rate coincides well with the EurObserv’ER’ previsions (15 GW).

1.6.2. Large hydropower Some 50 large, conventional hydropower plants were under construction in 2011, totalling at nearly 3000 MW in capacity. New developments and upgrading, and /or rehabilitation share approximately the same percentage.

In terms of developing the highest total capacities Portugal (508 MW), Greece (495 MW) and Romania (437MW) are on the top (Fig. 1.27).

21

Figure 1.27. Large conventional hydropower capacity (in MW) under construction in 2011 (accounts for new development and/or uprating / rehabilitation) New hydropower plants have been constructed in Greece (5), Bulgaria (3) and Italy (3). According to the new facilities capacity the countries rank as follows: Greece (495 MW), Bulgaria (255 MW), Romania (221 MW), Spain (116 MW), the UK (100 MW), Slovenia (83 MW), Portugal (71 MW).

It is difficult to estimate large hydropower annual commissioning rate into operation. Taking into account the latest LHP capacity statistics this pace can be roughly estimated at some 500 MW/year.

This rate is at least 2 times bigger than that for SHP. Consequently, during the next ten years (starting from the base 2010) some 5000 MW could be additionally expected for large hydro.

22

2. MARKET 2.1. Background The market questionnaire is composed of 2 parts as follows: a) Industrial and b) Economics. The HYDI database structure with the detailed energy part is shown in Figure 2.1.

HYDI DATABASE

Energy

Policy

MARKET

INDUSTRIAL

Number of Companies

Total Hydro

ECONOMICS

Employement

Small Hydro

Small Hydro

Low Head

Equipment Suppliers Engineering Activities Operation & Maintenance Others Civil Works (estimate)

High Head

Large Hydro Pure Hydro

Pumped Sorage

Investment cost per MW Cost per kWh produced Operation & Maintenance cost Mechanical Equipment Lifetime Civil Works cost Internal Rate of Return

Figure 2.1. Structure of the European hydropower database (HYDI) with detailed Market part Data was collected initially during 2010 providing the status of both these topics up to and including 2009. For reasons given below, changes in the results have been negligible for 2010 and 2011.

The nature of the Market data was not straightforward for those asked to complete the questionnaire. In particular, the requests for the number of companies involved and employment in different types of hydropower was difficult to obtain. An attempt was made to limit employment to those companies that have only â&#x20AC;&#x153;directâ&#x20AC;? employment in hydropower. Comparisons with other data sets, e.g. "State of Renewable Energies in Europe" 11th EurObserv'ER report 2011, have drawn favourable comparisons so the data entered into HYDI is the best available.

In many cases, for the sake of completeness, research has been performed by the authors in order to gain a comprehensive picture for all over EU. 2.2. Industrial overview 2.2.1. General Because of the nature of the data collected, changes are slow in taking place and are completely reliant on the economic status of a country, its policies concerning Renewable Energy development and consequent market forces.

The general overall effects of each of these factors can be summarised as follows:

23

Economic status – the economic problems of all European states since 2007/8 are well known. The immediate effect on hydropower development was as a result of uncertainty caused by the economic conditions. Financing of projects was, and is, a major concern.

RE Policies – the economic problems are affecting, or will affect, individual country policies. This drives the rate of development. As a result of the RES directive and national renewable energy targets for 2020 the effects are somewhat cushioned but a worsening of the economic climate and radical government changes could easily cause dramatic changes to the size of the supporting industry and employment. It is unfortunately impossible to predict these changes and their consequences.

Market forces – the amount of manufacturing and services required for the hydropower market is a result of the two factors detailed above. It is further complicated by industry’s ability to serve the global market. For the last decade, the world hydropower market has been very buoyant and many of the larger European companies have benefited. As the world’s economy swings this has an effect on these companies and their need for support manufacturing and services. Most of the export market is for the large hydropower sector and it can be assumed that the effect of the global small hydropower market is considerably less important to European companies.

2.2.2. Analysis of Market Data – Industrial Following is a graphical analysis of the elements of the Market survey over the EU member states with key comments on the results.

10000 1000 100 10

Total Hydropower Companies

Denmark

Hungary

Belgium

Netherlands

Estonia

Luxembourg

Ireland

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Latvia

Slovakia

Finland

Greece

United Kingdom

Sweden

Portugal

Slovenia

Poland

Spain

Italy

Czech Republic

1 France

Number of companies

Number of Hydropower companies

Small Hydropower Companies

Figure 2.2. Companies in the Hydropower Sector There are 4893 companies occupied in the small hydropower sector. As could be expected, the original EU members (pre 2003) show the greater number of companies but, with the requirements of hydropower development under RES up to 2020, there should be new companies joining the list.

24

Hydropower Employment in EU 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Total Employment Small Hydropower

Figure 2.3. Employment in the EU Hydropower sector Total employment in the Hydropower sector all member states is 57,000 with 29,600 concentrating on Small Hydropower.

Total Hydropower Employment

8,06%

22,75%

Small Hydropower Employment

9,56%

Equipment Suppliers

20,17% 18,24% 30,77%

30,07%

29,48%

Engineering Activities

Equipment Suppliers Engineering Activities

Operation & Maintenance

Operation & Maintenance

9,41%

Others Civil Works (est)

21,48% Others Civil Works (est)

Figures 2.4 & Figure 2.5 EU employment by discipline in the total hydropopwer sector and in Small Hydropower only There is little percentage difference in each diciplineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s share of total employment in the overall figures against those for small Hydropower. Operation and Maintenance is the largest employer on estimated values provided by the members states.

2.3. Economics overview 2.3.1. General The same three factors affect the economics of a hydropower project. There are, however, two other unique factors which need to be accounted for when considering the economic efficiencies of hydropower development â&#x20AC;&#x201C; reducing viability and increasing costs: 25

Reducing viability – as a country’s hydropower facilities continue to be built, it is the “easier” ones which are developed first. The ease of development includes aspects such as site accessibility, distance from grid connection/load concentrations, working in more environmentally sensitive areas and reliable water availability.

Increasing costs – a part of which is directly proportional to the effect of reducing viability since the “harder” it is to build a project, the more costly it is. Added to these are general increases in labour and material costs which are common to any industry. Unique to the hydropower sector is the increasing cost of satisfying environmental directives and regulation. Increased monitoring before, during and after construction, increased mitigation measures for fish passage and screening and reduction in water availability all serve to drive up costs and reduce project viability. Other cost increases being experienced are in the areas of insurance, grid interconnection and “maintenance” due diligence, community charges/payments and rates.

The balance between policy and incentives is therefore critical for the development of hydropower projects and the consequent effect on industry and employment. Cost of building and generating from hydropower will naturally rise but some control over the unique costs of this technology and its implementation will be necessary to guarantee continued development.

One major misconception of many governments is that hydropower is just “another renewable technology” and can be dealt with in the same way as, say, wind and solar PV. Hydropower is dependent on topography and rainfall and, as such, has a wide range of scheme size and type. It must therefore be incentivised and regulated in a proportionate manner.

2.3.2. Analysis of Market Data – Economics Following is a graphical analysis of the elements of the Market survey over the EU member states with key comments on the results.

The three major data sets in this area which dictate the viability of hydro projects in European states are: • Average investment cost • Average cost per kWh produced • Internal rate of return In many countries a range of values were given. For the purposes of this general analysis, the average values for these ranges are shown.

Data shown here is for low head and high head plants. Many countries, owing to topography, do not have high head hydropower.

Low Head26 High Head

Greece

Spain

Estonia

Portugal

Lithuania

Latvia

Slovenia

Hungary

Romania

Denmark

Sweden

France

Bulgaria

Italy

Austria

Finland

Netherlands

Slovakia

Poland

Czech Republic

Belgium

United Kingdom

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Ireland

€/kW

Small Hydro Average Investment €/kW

Figure 2.6. Average small Hydropower investment cost per kW plant capacity Investment costs are the total investment costs divided by the total capacity planned or under construction. Costs for low head sites are, in all but two countries, greater than high head projects.

This is as expected since low head hydro is only cheaper when existing civil works are used for new of rehabilitated schemes.

A general figure for hydro investment in a recent DG Environment report was €2210 per kW capacity. This appears low in comparison to the data received for the Stream Map project.

The average investment costs overall are: Small Hydro (<10 MW) Low Head €4072 Small Hydro (<10 MW) High Head €2941 Large (Pure) Hydro (>10 MW) €3726 Large Hydro - Pumped storage (>10 MW) €1353

Average Cost per kWh produced €/kWh - SHP 0,16 0,14

€/kWh

0,12 0,1 0,08 0,06 0,04 0,02 0

Low Head

High Head

Figure 2.7. Average cost per kWh produced for small Hydropower Costs per kWh included in this analysis include, not only the initial set-up expenses and equipment costs, but the operating and maintenance costs throughout the life of the project.

The overall averages for costs per kWh produced are: Low head €0.691 High head €0.697

27

IRR %

Internal Rate of Return % - SHP 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Low Head

High Head

Figure 2.8. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for small Hydropower The overall averages for IRR are: Small Hydro (<10 MW) Low head Small Hydro (<10 MW) High Head Large (Pure) Hydro (>10 MW) Large Hydro - Pumped storage (>10 MW)

7.49% 8.96% 9.00% 10.00%

Viability of hydropower projects is generally acceptable at a low value between 6% and 8%. A value of 10% is much more acceptable and indicates a payback period of 7 to 10 years.

There is much more consistency in IRR than the other economic factors studied. This is a healthy result since it indicates that the overall costs and returns do, in fact, balance out and there is sufficient incentive to continue to build hydropower schemes. There is, however, the question of economic and political (policy) stability which can easily affect this situation and these must be the key areas to study over the coming years.

28

3. POLICY 3.1. Support schemes The main types of support existing in the Member States for small hydropower are: investment aid, tax (fiscal) incentives (deductions), green certificates or certificates for renewable electricity production, green bonus, net-metering, market based support systems. Existence of combined systems such as FIT and Premium are possible in certain countries.

Table 1. Resume of the support schemes for SHP in the EU AT

FIT Premium (FIP) Quota Obligation/ Green Certificates Investment Grants Tax Exemptions/ Deductions Fiscal Incentives Tendering

BE

x*

BG

CZ

DE

x

x x

x

DK

EE

ES

x

x x

x x

FI

FR

GR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PT

RO

SE

SI

x

x

SK

UK

x

x

X x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

PL

x

x

x

NL

x x

*Existing plants will continue having a FIT for another several years. But since ~ 2010, small plants will receive an investment support of up to 30%.

3.1.1.

Price-based instruments

Feed-in Tariff (FIT): AT, BG, CZ, EE, GR, HU, IE, LT ,LU, LV, SK, UK, FR, PT, ES, IT, DE Guarantees the generator of renewable electricity a certain price per kWh at which electricity is bought. The tariff is set over a long period of time, commonly 20 years.

This system gives very long-term visibility for investors (except in case of retroactive decisions that should be avoided). However, FIT are disconnected from market needs and could create competition distortions.

Feed-in Premium (FIP): CZ, DK, EE, SI, NL, ES Feed in premiums offer a premium above the average spot electricity market price.

Variable (e.g. based on the LCOE (levelized cost of electricity)) in BE or contract for difference in UK): Feed in Premium will vary according to market price. As the market price increases, the premium amount can be designed to decline (and vice versa). The risk is for the budget of the State.

Fixed: With a constant adder on the top of the spot market price (the bonus remains unresponsive to changes over time and continues to be offered even if electricity prices increase (but the State can introduce caps and floors). The risk is for the investor. This system gives long-term visibility for investors and with FIP; the operators shall react to market signals. In addition, FIP must be encouraged as they give an incentive to producers to be connected to the market price.

29

3.1.2.

Quantity-based market instruments

Green certificates/Quota obligations: LT, SE, IT, BE, PL, RO, UK Suppliers are obliged to show that a certain amount of electricity delivered to the end consumers stems from RES. Producers of electricity from renewable energy sources receive an electricity certificate, a so called green certificate, for every MWh of green electricity produced. However, in some cases it is also possible to put in place a banding mechanism, which facilitates the State to assign more or less than one certificate per unit of energy according to the production technology.

By selling these green certificates, the producer receives an extra income in addition to the sale of electricity. Green Certificates schemes usually include a penalty (or buyout price) that the entities under the obligation, have to pay if they fail to get or buy enough certificates by the end of the year.

In this way, the system is connected to the market and the price is based on supply and demand.

This approach gives investors a better perspective on better technologies to develop. But as designed today, the lack of European integration, in addition to States’ interventions, disturb the system. However to avoid a system’s collapse such as in Austria, or disturbance in wood industry as, for instance. In Poland, a need of careful supervision of the system by always keeping demand higher than the supply and avoiding unwanted effects resulting out of energy market distortion is inevitable.

Investment grants: FI, LU, GR, BE, CZ, PL, SK One main task of the investment support is not to improve energy production, but technologies as such. The state makes grants available for research and investment projects that involve the generation of renewable energy or the application of RES technologies. Among other costs, the preparation and planning costs and the cost of materials can be eligible for subsidies. Support is granted on a certain percentage rate of the investment, based on the planned investment of the application, not on the original investment, meaning that rising costs during project conduction are not eligible.

In Finland, costs for feasibility studies, licensing acquisition of ownership are not included in the term investment. Nevertheless, demands set by others than energy authorities, such as water authorities or museum officials are accounted as energy investment. Support of SHP has been applied to the full sector <10MW. The investment grant has proven to be non-sufficient for small plants with high unit investment costs (Euro/kW) and common technologies. The grant is sufficiently in use by the larger SHP sector (1-10 MW) or project serving direct use of the produced energy by the owner of the SHP plant.

In Belgium, investment grants are reserved for small and middle-sized companies, and limited to a certain number of sectors. With its range of eligible companies and investments (from 25.000€ upwards, with a limit of up to 1, 5 million€ in 4 years), it excludes a number of companies being eligible to this form of support, creating some distortion in the market. Due to demands from other administrations (fish passes), extra investment costs are not eligible to this support.

Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, use both, own resources and the Structural (Cohesion) Funds. In Poland, there are “Innovative economy” and “Infrastructure and environment” funds.

Similar funds exist also in two other countries. Grants from the Environmental Protection and Water Management Funds are generally available for environmentally oriented infrastructure (mainly fish paths and fish ladders).

Tax exemptions/deductions/ Fiscal Incentives: BE, GR, NL

30

The Energy Investment Deduction is a tax scheme offered by the State. In addition to the normal write-off, a certain percentage rate of the investment costs can be deducted from the taxable profits.

The income tax is therefore reduced.

Tendering: FR, BE Regulatory authority announces that it wishes to install a determined capacity of a given technology or suite of technologies. Project developers then apply to build the project and name the price at which they are willing to develop the project. Tenders commonly contain specific requirements (e.g. shares of local manufacturing, details of technological specifications, maximum price per unit of energy). The bidder with the lowest offer is selected and can go ahead with the project. Usually the parties sign a long-term contract (power purchasing agreement).

In Belgium, a tendering procedure is foreseen for some navigable waterways under public ownership. The system is equivalent to the French system: the developer who is able to develop the best project, and hence bid the higher price for a fee/kWh gets the concession. In this business plan, the developer takes all the financial incentives (listed above) into account that he has the right to.

This system is a good way for governments to avoid windfall profits and to give enough security to investors. It seems to be the best system for mature technologies but is more appropriate for large installations. For both main financial instruments that were identified above, fiscal incentives, tax exemptions or tax reductions are applicable as well. In general, these mechanisms exempt producers of renewable energy from certain taxes in order to incentivize the deployment of new and highly efficient technologies. The applicable tax rate in each Member State will influence on the effectiveness of such fiscal incentives.

3.1.3.

Common remarks

Need for stabilisation of the incentive schemes. An incentive system should be clearly set out and all changes should be scheduled and timed, so that producers can plan properly their investments.

Hydropower developers need to know the rules at an early stage, for instance how and under which conditions their projects will be sustained.

In the last months, a very strong barrier has been raised in some Member States: the regulatory risk, related to the latest legislative changes in the remuneration rules of the Special regime, the so called â&#x20AC;&#x153;moratoriumâ&#x20AC;? for new RES-E power plants, which includes even retroactive measures.

Banks have some difficulties financing plants. All the uncertainty is leading to a greater difficulty on achieving financial support for new projects.

Need for suitable incentive support for the rehabilitation and upgrading of old plants, to avoid in the future to loss the present energy production and, in many cases, to get the chance to increase it improving the schemes performances also from the environmental point of view.

Special need for the following issues: Regulatory stability and governmental support to help achieving financing for developing new projects; Adequacy of the FIT and the concession period in relation with the specificities of the country; Decrease the investment insecurity by stabilizing the prices within the support system on a long-term period and take care of the relatively low buy-back rate; Reducing the extremely bureaucratic licensing environment.

31

3.2. Concession Any Member State gets the same kind of authorisation procedure which consists of several individual procedures based on different legislation (water law, environmental law, electricity law, construction law, etc.). These procedures have to be passed consecutively and rather independently.

The licensing procedure of a SHP plant takes in average 0.5 to 12 years (there are inclusively cases of SHP that took two decades to be licensed), being quite costly and with an unpredictable outcome.

The main reason for this is the dependency from entities tutored by different Ministries which are not properly coordinated, implying a slow and bureaucratic process. Also a lack of authority of some states on decentralized administration services.

The classical power granting scheme is more or less the following: Inclusion on the regional spatial planning; Permit for the special use of water; Environmental impact assessment; License for the construction; Permit for use of construction works; Technical prerequisites; Inspection before commissioning; Assessment and attestation of conformity; Market license; Accession agreement with network utility; Power purchase agreement.

The procedure sometimes depends on the capacity, the height of the dam, the characteristics of the power plant, the civil engineering structure.

The administrative procedures have become more difficult due to additional requests from the governments executing the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that hinders significantly the exploitation of SHP and the duration of the procedure lasts for many years sometimes without any success.

The simplification of administrative procedure is needed at least for SHP plants located on irrigation channels, on water supply systems, integrated in existing dams or wastewater treatment facilities, and for the rehabilitation of the old schemes. Since these plants are located in artificial contexts, their environmental impacts are very limited. Moreover, they also guarantee a multiple use of water resource.

One main barrier is that many decision criteria or/and delays are not clear, or not binding, and result in delayed authorization (or no authorization at all), with extremely strict conditions. The authorisation procedure must be simplified, shortened and accelerated.

There is a specific need for the following issues; - Setting up clear rules and timeframes in the licensing process; - Better coordination between the national and regional authorities responsible for this process; - Simplifying procedure for small-scale power plant permits to reduce the administrative and bureaucratic burdens; - Establishment of solid criteria to concede licences to develop SHP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; example, the quality of the projects and the experience of the promoter; 32

-

-

Establishment of the “one-stop shop” type of procedure for SHP investors. The authorities may perform all necessary legal and technical actions with the potential sites in order to allow one-stop-shop type of procedure; Standardise the application forms and make possible the electronic applications and procedure follow-up, also to ensure transparency; In case of tenders, analysis of the already delivered requests for licensing, instead of launching new tenders taking advantage of the studies already produced on several locations.

3.3. Legislation

In many Member States, stakeholders complained about environmental requirements, in particular the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD).The criticism refers to the fact that the environmental benefits of the renewable energy systems are not taken into account properly.

The environmental requirements for SHP are too restrictive and do not apply criteria that considers its benefits; an incoherent implementation of the WFD has also become a strong impediment for the SHP sector, by assuming hydropower as a menace for the water bodies and their ecological status, and by imposing restrictive administrative and environmental requirements, that lead to a decreasing number of hours of production and therefore to a lower profitability. This can be dramatic, especially taking into account that the current tariff level is quite low, particularly for rehabilitation, and that there is a lack of knowledge about the water resources available; nevertheless, a diminishing of the water availability has been registered mainly affecting run-ofriver SHP, resulting in a decrease in equivalent operating hours. Member States should deliver a more proportionate programme of measures of implementation of WFD. 3.3.1.

Impact of WFD on hydropower development

Environmental issues have become the main barrier to the development of SHP, with sometimes very unbalanced consideration given to the global and environmental advantages of renewable energy development.

Implementation of the WFD has resulted in rising the environmental requirements and investment costs.

In the context of making improvements to water bodies via specific measures, a majority of European States has agreed national or local criteria for determining what impact on hydropower generation is acceptable (i.e. not a significant adverse effect). However, in many countries, no criteria on impact determination could be determined so far.

WFD is most of time currently only implemented in very general legislation, which gives the floor to interpretation of “prevent any supplementary degradation, preserve and improve the quality of the aquatic ecosystems”.

The obligation to comply with more stringent environmental requirements (for example, the imposition of more demanding environmental flows and significant compensatory measures, which often go beyond the dimension of the investments and the scope of activity of the promoters) leads to a limitation of the technical characteristics and potentially to a reduction in the profitability of SHP plants.

33

Concerning the main environmental topics like reserved flow and fish bypassing the requests from the government are continuously increasing and sometimes the consensus already reached is not stable and reliable. The planning process has become a kind of gambling.

In some member states a dogma of “river continuity” prevails on a well-balanced use of water.

There is a need for research and objective scientific approach and for sharing experiences about what is done in other European countries.

The energy losses of hydropower due to ecological improvements are in particular due to: -

3.3.2.

Minimum flow requirements; Fish pass and bypass installations discharges (typically combined with minimum flow requirements; Head loss at fish protection screens; Requirements on mitigation of surge operation (especially for peak load and storage plants); Turbine management: reduction of the operational time of the hydropower plant, for instance by putting the turbines out of operation for ten hours at twenty days of the year; Reduction of the utilizable height of fall caused by increased losses at mechanical fish protection barriers with small distance of bars.

Residual flow regulation

Some Member States are using fixed thresholds; others are more pragmatics and give more importance to the case-by-case study (hydro biological study).

WFD is in course of implementation and in general, its implementation causes higher residual flow for SHP and an increase in their operating costs.

There is a need for analysis and discussion of the imposition of minimum ecological flows and compensatory measures for the implementation of SHP - involving a joint force between national authorities and the promoters.

As far as exiting plants are considered, the increase of reserved flow values, not always justified from a scientific point of view, are causing the shutdown of some SHP and creating problems also to bigger plants.

Extensive research on minimum flows is being conducted in different EU Member States, but there are still gaps mainly as to the ecological responses to minimum flows and interaction with morphology. It is recognised that European standards at general level are needed.

3.3.3.

SEA Directive

One important issue is the application of the Strategic Environmental Assessment directive on certain plans and programmes, which is causing big delays in the implementation of a series of concessions given in 2009 and 2010.

It was reported that the EIA procedure is not conducted in a uniform way. A frequent request in the national reports is that clearer guidelines should be published, determining if and how an EIA has to be carried out.

There is a need to introduce in the composition of the commissions for environmental impact assessment of a delegate from the promoter (as an observer, with no voting rights).

Local administrations are identifying a lot of “no go areas” and an expensive and time consuming EIA is requested also for very small plants with negligible impacts.

34

3.3.4.

Technical approaches for good practice in hydropower use

For upstream migration, many solutions are available (e.g. fish passes and fish ladders, but also fish lifts, fish stocking, catch & carry programmes etc.) to mitigate the negative impact of migration barriers – but more work needs to be done on evaluation and monitoring of effectiveness. Much research leading to technical innovations has still to be undertaken, especially related to downstream migration in combination with turbine damage.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach. The use of compensating measures together with mitigating measures is recommended.

Standardisation at European level is desirable, but solutions for mitigation measures will have to be largely site-specific. Exchange of information should be promoted on standards that have been developed by different countries or organisations (e.g. for continuity).

3.3.5.

Conflict between river protection and hydropower development is rising

Many critics about the «go - no go» principle have been registered.

River classification is sometimes a dogmatic way to prevent from damming without any scientific approach. As each project is unique and does not have the same impact on the river, an environmental impact assessment of each project should be the base and the only one criterion to authorise or not a project.

It is incorrect to introduce general rules of absolute prohibition of establishment of RES in areas governed by any specific or general protection regime, without considering the specificities of the installation area and the proposed project at a time.

The introduction of these general exclusions is contrary to the RES Directive. It is required to review Management Studies of the protected areas to effectively take into account the special landplanning for RES. There is a need for completing the knowledge about the real status of the river and define clear methodologies to be used in the respect of the principles of cost and effectiveness of measures, ecologically acceptance and economically reasonable approach.

Likewise, there is a need to obtain adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements. There are no agreed guidelines on the elements considered sensitive for certain pressures.

It is essential to promote economic studies and cost-effectiveness analysis which are essential for WFD implementation. Authorities shall give attention to proportionality and cost-efficiency, be pragmatic, prioritize and motivate their demands. There is a need for more dialogue and pedagogy.

Make significant progress in administrative adaptations, data gathering and analyses, public information and stakeholders’ involvement, setting of monitoring networks, etc.

The re-evaluation of the SHP potential for all rivers is definitely a major issue. Not all Member States have studies that investigated the potential while considering technical, economical and environmental restrictions. Most data on forecasts for SHP are based on assumptions and are presumed to be relatively uncertain.

35

An important aspect to highlight is that the size of the project is not the most relevant criteria when assessing a hydropower project. The relevant approach is to assess if a given project will result in deterioration of the status of a water body. A cost-benefit analysis of the project is necessary to enable a judgement on whether the benefits to the environment and to society preventing deterioration of status or restoring a water body to good status are outweighed by the benefits of the new projects.

There are a great variety of restoration/ mitigation measures that can be applied to reduce (local) impacts from hydropower passes, fish protection facilities and downstream fish ways, minimum flows and debris and sediment management. Several mitigation measures have already been applied for a long time.

3.3.6.

Difficulties related to electricity grid access

With the increasing amount of intermittent renewable energy production by wind and solar energy facilities, energy storage and grid stabilization will become prominent issues.

There is a need to improve synergies between SHP and smart grids: hydropower has an increasing role in supporting transmission and distribution grids by his proper capability to regulate frequency and to integrate other discontinuous renewable sources like solar and wind. Besides large hydropower, also SHP can play a role, especially where is possible to combine it with small basins and integrate it in hybrid systems. More research should be promoted on this aspects and a dedicated regulatory framework should be enforced.

Reduce the barriers for development of very small hydro concerning technical requirements of grid connection and allow direct SHP-born energy deliveries to nearby users.

SHP role (standby energy, storage capacity) in future smart grids is not yet sufficiently recognized and therefore not supported by legislative and administrative activity.

3.3.7.

Lack of support of RES directive on hydropower development

Although the RES directive is implemented in national law the positive consequences are poor and the political support does practically not exist. There is no positive impact seen so far on RES directive but negative impact from WFD directive.

There is a need for clear recommendations on how to interpret the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC and the WFD that appears to be contradictory.

3.3.8.

General comments about improvement of legislation

There is a need for: - More cooperation among the Ministries when issuing new laws, decisions, regulations; - Reduction of the legal risk: a major problem in several countries is that everyone has the ability at any stage of the licensing process to appeal the investment in The Court of State, thus causing very long delays and with the great danger not only an investment to be cancelled but the investor companies and the manufacturers of these projects to suffer a serious economic damage or even an economic destruction. Change the procedure for example by setting high deposit amounts in order to do such an appeal that will be lost if the appeal is lost; - Many producers have to pay lawyers and sometimes go to the court in order to see their rights respected; - Further simplification and unification of administrative procedure; 36

-

Setting standards for project development; EU good practice guide to hydropower construction and operation; Integrated approach for refurbishment of old mills.

3.4. Need for political, media and social incentive

Some initiatives exist, like tenders for the development of SHP with new FIT incentives (like in Portugal and Spain). Developing hydropower cannot any longer be based only on individual initiatives. The state must support hydro development by determining favourable areas. Partnership with all stakeholders is a condition of success.

While pre-planning mechanisms allocating “no-go” areas for new hydropower projects is sometimes criticized, pre-planning mechanisms can facilitate the (proper location) identification of suitable areas for new hydropower projects. This designation should be based on a dialogue between the different competent authorities, stakeholders and NGOs. The use of such pre-planning systems could assist the authorisation process to be reduced and implemented faster. Small and large hydropower should be treated equally with regard to promotion.

The National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) do not always provide figures on the number of additional large, small and micro hydropower facilities which are intended by the Member States to be constructed in the coming years. There is a need in compiling the figures on potentials for different countries and keeping them up to date; State administrations shall do the job.

In several countries, the lack of specific expertise in dealing with renewable energies has been identified as an important barrier for their development. The civil servants dealing with the permitting procedures are not familiar with renewables. This leads to confusion, delays or unmotivated denials of authorisations. Member States shall invest the necessary resources to train and motivate their civil servants dealing with renewable energy authorisations. Specific guidelines and training programs could be envisaged.

Continuation of the process of giving access to the state owned dams to the hydropower investors and starting erection of new multitask installations within the framework of partnership between water management authorities and hydropower investors.

Introducing regulation redirecting the incomes resulting from green certificates in state owned hydropower plants to support investments within the sector.

Use socio-economic analysis to define a cost-effective programme of measures. This work should ideally be undertaken at a catchment or sub-catchment level, so as to maximise the ecological potential and the energy production.

Improve the understanding of both environmental concerns, given by the WFD, and the development of hydropower, encouraged by the RES Directive, and the possible approaches for a coordinated implementation of both this water protection policy and energy policy. In most of the Member States, the Ministry of Environment remains under strong influence of the “pro-ecological” lobby.

Opposition to SHP is concentrated within a few people and organisations, amongst anglers, civil servants and academics. Public has usually little interest in this subject. Media, including the public ones, usually sympathise with pro-ecological NGOs. There is also a lack of social approach of the sector.

37

4. ANNEX 4.1. Methodological notes PART I: ENERGY DATA 1. CURRENT Number of plants, Installed Gross Capacity And Generation Annual electricity gross generation (GWh): the quantity of electricity generated in reporting year (Y-1) by all hydropower plants of the MS measured in GWh, excluding production from pumped storage units using water that has previously been pumped uphill.

Installed gross capacity (MW): the total gross installed generating capacity of all hydropower plants of the MS at the end of the reporting year (Y-1), measured in MW. Annual Electricity Consumed for pumping (GWh): the quantity of electricity consumed in reporting year (Y-1) for pumping water in pumped storage units, measured in GWh. Normalised electricity generation from hydropower (excluding pumped storage plants): The effects of climatic variation should be smoothed through the use of a normalisation rule as set out in Annex II of Directive 2009/28/EC.

e.g.: In order to calculate the normalized electricity generation for the year 2005 the previous annual output back to 1991 is needed (i.e, annual electricity production and installed capacity data for the period 1991-2005 or 15 years period).

Run-of-river: Plants who have no or relatively small water storage capability. These installations normally operate on base load and use the cumulative flow continuously. D ≤ 2 hours. This criterion is based on the reservoir filling period “D” calculated using the annual characteristic mean flow. (source: UNIPEDE).

Storage: Hydro-electric installations with substantial capability of water storage in (elevated) reservoirs in order to produce electricity in time of higher demand. According to the filling period of a reservoir it can be defined as follows: Poundage: 2 hours < D < 400 hours Reservoir: D ≥ 400 hours (source: UNIPEDE) Pumped storage: Storage installations where water is pumped from a lower elevation reservoir to a higher elevation reservoir. It’s a method for accumulate and store water‘s potential energy.

38

Pure pumped storage plant: A plant with reversible turbines that usually generates electricity by using exclusively water previously pumped into an elevated storage reservoir with insignificant catchment area to generate natural inflow (5% below the average volume of water feeding the turbines in a year). There is no renewable electricity production.

Mixed pumped storage plant: A hydro power plant with reversible turbines, when the natural inflow which supplies a higher elevation reservoir is 5% above the average volume of water feeding the turbines in a year. Normally the upper reservoir has significant catchment area to generate natural inflow. There is a part of renewable electricity production resulting from natural inflow = green electricity production.

2. FORECASTS Plants under construction: Plants that have already obtained all permits and concessions and are under construction during the reporting period (Y-1).

- of which new hydropower plants - of which upgrading: plants that have incorporated some refurbishing or repowering intervention (such as change in energy conversion efficiency, change in installed power, change in civil works leading to the change of head, decrease of energy consumption for own needs, increase of power availability index, improvement of environmental conditions Planned plants (with concession): New Plants that have already obtained concession for water use but need to ask other permits like the permit to build and run the plant or the EIA during the reporting year (Y-1).

Planned plants (2020): gross estimation of the whole number, installed capacity and generation of all hydropower plants that will be in operation in 2020. They are cumulative values, coming from the sum of existing hydropower plants plus the new ones that will be realized from now to 2020.

3. POTENTIALS Gross Theoretical Potential: The annual energy potentially available in the country if all natural flows were turbined down to sea level or to the water level of the border of the country (if the water course extends into another country) with 100% efficiency. These data should if possible be estimated on the basis of atmospheric precipitation and water runoff.

Technically Feasible Potential: The portion of the Gross Theoretical Potential that could be exploited within the limits of current technology (should include output from currently installed capacity) Economically Feasible Potential: The portion of the Gross Theoretical Potential that could be exploited within the limits of current technology and under present and expected local economic conditions (should include output from currently installed capacity) Economically feasible potential with environmental constraints taken into account: The portion of the Gross Theoretical Potential that could be exploited within the limits of current technology and under present and expected local economic and environmental protection conditions (should include output from currently installed capacity).

Percentage (%) of economically feasible potential that has been developed in 2009. This is calculated as normalized generation in 2009 divided by economically feasible potential.

39

Data not available/not applicable: Where data are not available, please write “Not Available”; where the question is not applicable, write “Not Applicable”; where the answer is zero, put “0”; Please do not leave any answer boxes empty.

40

PART II: MARKET DATA 1. INDUSTRIAL DATA ď&#x192;¨ Number of companies (any company producing something for or working with hydropower) in hydro sector ď&#x192;¨ Employment: Direct and Indirect people employed (full time equivalent & percentage of SHP) in the sector for the different branches and works during the reporting period (Y-1). The following branches should be considered and specified when possible. a. Equipment suppliers: it includes Manufactures (Turbines, Generators, Gearboxes, Valves and gates, Trash-rack cleaners, Penstocks, Cranes, Electric panels, Automation facilities, Transformers) and Companies for Electromechanical equipment erection. b. Engineering activities: it includes Companies for technical assistance, plant and structures design, on site supervision, hydrology, geological and geotechnical survey, topographic survey, biologic survey and training. c. Maintenance services: it includes plant managing companies, postselling services companies. d. Others: Legal assistance, economical and environmental consultants, producers, promoters, administrators, researchers etc. e. Civil works (estimation): it includes Civil works companies, Special foundation works companies and Penstock erection.

2. ECONOMICS All the figures reported in this sections are an average value of the last five year time from the reporting year (Y-1).

Average Investment cost: The investment cost is the capital costs in terms of design cost, electromechanical equipment, civil works, grid connection and land purchase or rent and administration for investment cost.

Average Cost per kWh produced: The total cost per kWh produced (specific cost) is calculated by discounting and leveling investment and O&M costs over the lifetime of the power plant, and then dividing them by the annual electricity production.

Average Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs: O&M costs are related to water right costs, labor cost, insurance, maintenance, repair, spare parts, leases, rents, administration for O&M costs etc measured as a percentage of the total cost.

Average Lifetime of the mechanical equipment: The technical lifetime of the mechanical equipment represent the period during which it operates in technical sense without replacement of its major parts of investing more than 50% in refurbishing the equipment measured as an average.

Cost of civil works: Average cost of all civil works including foundation works, construction of powerhouse, intake, tunnel, penstock entrenchment, conduit channel, etc measured as a percentage of the total cost.

Energy Payback ratio: The energy payback ratio is the ratio of net energy production during plant life and the cumulative energy used for construction, operation and operating supply items IRR: The internal rate of return (IRR) is a rate of return used in capital budgeting to measure and compare the profitability of investments. It is also called the discounted cash flow rate of return (DCFROR) or simply the rate of return (ROR).

Low head and High head: The distinction between different heads can be measured as follows.

High head: 100 m and above Medium head: 20 - 100 m Low head: up to 20 - 30 m 41

PART III: POLICY DATA1 1. SUPPORT Current support mechanism: This includes, but is not restricted to, investment aid, tax exemptions or reductions, tax refunds, renewable energy obligation support schemes including those using green certificates, and direct price support schemes including feed-in tariffs and premium. All that promotes the use of energy from renewable sources by reducing the cost of that energy, increasing the price at which it can be sold, or increasing, by means of a renewable energy obligation or otherwise, the volume of such energy purchased.

Type Support and measurement : This includes two categories a) Regulatory price-driven strategies: producers of RES-E receive financial support in terms of: -

a subsidy per kW of capacity installed: financial support is given by investment subsidies, soft loans or tax credits usually per unit of generating capacity;

-

a payment per kWh produced and sold: financial support is a fixed regulated feed-in tariff (FIT) or a fixed premium (in addition to the electricity price) that a governmental institution, utility or supplier is legally obligated to pay for renewable electricity from eligible generators.

b) Regulatory quantity-driven strategies: The desired level of RES generation or market penetration â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a quota or a Renewable Portfolio Standard â&#x20AC;&#x201C; is defined by governments by tradable certificate systems: Green Certificate (GC) systems. In such systems, the generators (producers), wholesalers, distribution companies or retailers (depending on who is involved in the electricity supply chain) are obliged to supply or purchase a certain percentage of electricity from RES. At the date of settlement, they have to submit the required number of certificates to demonstrate compliance.

2. CONCESSIONS Concession: Regulation on the national law which regulates concession (= all needed permits and authorizations completed) of water use for new plants and the re-licensing of old ones and other permits needed. a) Type of permits needed & average time: List of the main type of permits needed to use the water and produce hydropower energy and average time needed to obtain all the permits. b) Number of plants granted during the reporting year (Y-1): Number of licenses granted during the previous year.

New permits: Number of licenses for new plants Refurbishment + relicensing: Number of plants who got a renewal of the old license or a license for a refurbishment.

1

Use national divisions between small and large hydro in this section

42

3. LEGISLATION This includes all kind of regulation/law at local, national and European level which is implemented and valid during the reporting year and its application affects the development of hydropower.

Some examples include the Water Framework Directive, all national laws which are concerned with the environment field, such as EIA, designated areas, fish protection law, eels, flood protection, Natura 2000 and other legislation coming from energy, development, economic and other areas.

4.2. Questionnaires 4.2.1. Energy PART I. Energy Data Questionnaire Country: 1. Number of hydroplants in operation, installed capacity and actual generation Large Hydro (>10) Small Hydro (<10)

Non Toatal, Renewable Large and Small (only Of which pure/renewa Mixed and natural inflow ble) pure in mixed pumping pumping

Renewable energy Year: ???? <1 MW

1-10 MW

Total ( â&#x2030;¤10 MW)

Total

a) Number of plants b) Installed (Gross) capacity (MW) c) Annual gross electricity generation (GWh/year) d) Annual electricity consumption by pumpedstorage powerplants (GWh/year) e) Normalised electricity generation by all hydropower plants in GWh, excluding production from pumped storage units using water that has previously been pumped uphill in 2007

2. Forecast

a) Hydro plants under construction of which New hydroplants of which Upgrading b) Planned plants

43

Green electricity production

Electricity production (GWh/year)

Capacity (MW)

Pumped storage

Number

Electricity production (GWh/year)

Capacity (MW)

Large Hydro (>10 MW)

Number

Capacity (MW)

Number

Year: 2012

Electricity production (GWh/year)

Small Hydro (<10 MW)

2. Forecast Green electricity production

Electricity production (GWh/year)

Capacity (MW)

Pumped storage

Number

Electricity production (GWh/year)

Capacity (MW)

Number

Large Hydro (>10

Electricity production (GWh/year)

Number

Year: 2020

Capacity (MW)

Small Hydro (<10

Planned plants 3. Hydropower potential Small hydro MW) GWh

Year: 2009, 2020 and 2030 a) Gross theoretical potential b) Technically feasible potential c) Economically feasible potential d) Economic potential with environmental constraints in 2009 e) Percentage (%) of economically feasible potential that has been developed in 2009. This should equal your answer to 1 (e) divided by 3 (c)x100 f) Percentage of economically feasible potential that will be developed in 2020. This should equal forecast generation in 2020 divided by 3 (c)x100 g) Percentage of economically feasible potential that will be developed in 2030.This should equal forecast generation in 2030 divided by 3 (c)x100 Notes:

1) Please state when hydropower potential (a, b, c) was re-evaluated (year): 2) These (a, b, c, d) should be TOTALS, including the potential of the hydro sites already developed. I. e, normalised electricity generation by all hydro plants excluding pumped-storage units

4.2.2. Market 1. Industrial data Year: ????

Total Hydro

a) Number of companies b) Employment Equipment suppliers Engineering activities

Operation & Maintenance services Others Civil works (estimation)

44

% of which SHP

(â&#x2030;¤10 MW

Large Hydro (> 10 MW) GWh MW

2. Economics Small Hydro (<10 MW) Year: 2005-2009

Low head

High head

Large Hydro (>10 MW) Of which pumped Pure Hydro storage

a) Average Investment cost (â&#x201A;Ź/kW) b) Average Cost per KWh produced (â&#x201A;Ź) c) Average O&M Cost (as % of total investment cost) d) Average lifetime of the mechanical equipment (number of years) e) Average Civil Works Cost (as a % of total investment cost) f) Internal Rate of Return (Average in %)

4.2.3. Policy 1. Support Year: ????

Measurement

Type

b) Small Hydro c) Large Hydro

2. Concessions Small Hydro (<10 MW)

Year: ????

new permits

Large Hydro (>10 MW)

Refurbishment+ Relicensing

new permits

Refurbishment+ Relicensing

a) Type of permits needed & average time b) Number of plants granted during the year

3. Legislation

Year: 2007 and before if it still in force

Reference

Type

in English and original language

Energy Environmental Other

Summary and Impact on developement of Hydropower

Year: ????

4.3. HYDI Data Due to the size of the tables, please consult the adjacent xls files or alternatively visit http://streammap.esha.be/6.0.html .

45