1. Address disproportionate cost issues
Illustration
Working Group 2
8 May 2006, Bonn
TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
14/11/2018
Unit of WFD implementation
French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development

2. TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
The activity
A dam which supplies an electricity turbine generator
Generation of electricity during periods of peaks consumption (winter)
And
Operation on daily basis to face up to peak consumption of a large town located in the vicinity
TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
14/11/2018

3. TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
Solutions to meet the good status
Present impacts :
Eutrophication
Modifications to the composition and abundance of species
Accumulation of sediments, obstacles for migration populations – difficulties in ensuring ecological continuity
TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
14/11/2018

4. TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
Meeting the good status and restoring the ecological continuity
need the removal of the two existing structures.
Such measure adversely affects the economic activity.
Can the activity be fully or partially maintained on the site ?
 Possibility of an adapted objective of good ecological potential needs to be assessed.
TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
14/11/2018

5. TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
Which possible alternatives to the generating activity ?
Present generating capacity : 30 GWh
Due to power generation in peak periods, sole alternative is priority use of peak-load generation means :
gas turbines, oil-fired plants, etc.
TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
14/11/2018

6. TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
Environmental assessment
Cost-benefit analysis of achieving the good status and replacing hydroelectricity by thermal power generation
Environmental benefits of meeting the good status
Environmental costs of going over to thermal power
Increase in draught and range of salmon fishing :
14 M€
Asset value of salmon for riperian populations :
32 M€
TOTAL : 46 M€
Additional production of CO2 : 9 M€
TOTAL : 9 M€
TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
14/11/2018
> >

7. TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
Can the alternative be implemented at a non-disproportionate cost ?
 Need to assess the total cost of the alternative
Environmental benefits of meeting the good status
Environmental costs of going over to thermal power
Increase in draught and range of salmon fishing :
14 M€
Asset value of salmon for riperian populations :
32 M€
TOTAL : 46 M€
Generation cost : 33 M€ (includes generation surcharge)
Additional production of CO2 : 9 M€
TOTAL : 42 M€
TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
14/11/2018
 No disproportionate cost 

8. TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
No disproportionate cost compared to benefits 
No justification for designation of HMWB
Environmental objective = good ecological status
TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
14/11/2018

9. TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
Assessment of the period needed to meet the good status :
Possible achievement from 2015 or much later ?
 Need to respect article 4.4 and 4.5 of the WFD
Technical feasibility
Duration of works including preliminary studies and surveys : 5 to 7 years 
TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
14/11/2018
Disproportionate costs
NO compared to advantages expected
 No justification
Natural conditions
Period of 5 to 10 years between setting-up of the means and complete restoration 

10. TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
Environmental benefits of meeting the good status
Environmental costs of going over to thermal power
Increase in draught and range of salmon fishing :
14 M€
Asset value of salmon for riperian populations :
32 M€
TOTAL : 46 M€
Cost of work implementation  demolition costs : 5 M€
Cost of implementing the alternative : 42 M€
TOTAL : 47 M€
TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
14/11/2018
 No disproportionate cost 

11. TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
Conclusions
No justification for designation of HMWB
Objective of good status
But difficult to achieve as early as 2015 for reasons of technical feasibility and time needed for restoration of piscicultural populations
The objective of good status could be achieved between 2017 and 2024
TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION
14/11/2018