Utility Week - authoritative, impartial and essential reading for senior people within utilities, regulators and government
Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/457279
20 | 6Th - 12Th FEbrUarY 2015 | UTILITY WEEK Policy & Regulation Analysis A t the end of last month, as the Infra- structure Bill was making its final scheduled passage through parlia- ment, significant amendments were made. The 11th hour adjustments came despite months of the government repeatedly saying the UK has one of the "most robust regula- tory regimes" in the world, and that this fact should be enough to calm public concern. But, without even forcing it to a vote in the Commons, energy minister Amber Rudd, who was leading the debate on this section of the Bill for the government, adopted the opposition's amendments in whole. This was greeted by cheers from the Labour benches. Shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint called it "a huge U-turn by the government and a big victory for the protection of Britain's environment". Yet a couple of days aer the statute paper had the new clauses added to it, the government, in the form of environment secretary Liz Truss, said the amendments that Labour pushed for and successfully got incorporated into the Infrastructure Bill were government policies all along. Truss said that, while not in legislation, the government was already implementing the "robust regulation" Labour called for in partnership with industry, the Environment Agency, and the Health and Safety Executive – on a voluntary basis. So, aer the last-minute adaptations to the Bill, which is now set for ping-pong as peers examine the amendments MPs have made to the entire Bill – including those on fracking – where does this leave the nascent shale gas industry? The list of "tighter regulations" (see box) sets out stricter rules aimed at protecting drinking water sources and, according to Flint, addresses "people's genuine and legiti- mate environmental concerns over shale gas". But while everything has changed, not that much has changed at the same time. The memorandum of understanding struck between Water UK and the UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG) group in November 2013 is a strong agreement whereby both parties will work together to "identify and resolve risks" around baseline monitoring require- ments as well as plans relating to site water management to assess the impacts of onshore oil and gas development on the quality and quantity of local water resources. The MoU also sets out provisions for shale gas companies and water companies to look at the impact on water demand at specific locations should fracking take place. The expected volumes and the chemical and biological composition of wastewater, as well as preferred disposal routes, will also be assessed. At the time, UKOOG chief executive Ken Cronin said the regulations surrounding fracking were "the most stringent in the world" and the MoU added "tough and transparent guidelines" on top of these. Water UK chief executive Pamela Taylor said the MoU "gives water companies a cru- cial extra layer of safeguards on top of the existing regulations". So while there were no complaints with the way things were in terms of regulations, Water UK's members were "unanimously" behind the drive to make them statutory consultees in fracking planning applications – something now achieved via the Bill. However, the key planning decisions will still be made by the local planning authori- ties – subject to the required permits being awarded to the fracking developer, as was the case before the amendments. Local communities hosting a drilling site will still get their benefits from the company doing the work, and well monitoring will continue to be obligatory. Some tougher elements of the Bill will push back the start of shale gas extraction – the 12-month monitoring period before any development can take place is a prime example of that. Indeed, Cronin pointed out that "most of the amendments agreed are in line with best practice in the industry or codify the directions of regulators, which the industry would naturally comply with". The tough and robust regulatory regime has essentially been formalised, aer the government failed to win the hearts and minds of middle England. Realising this, it has adopted Labour's changes, and will continue to go "all out for shale gas". The key to this is finding out and under- standing just how much shale gas the UK has, and how much can economically be extracted. This, rather than the minutiae of the regulations around shale, will be the determining factor for the future of fracking. As Cronin said aer the Infrastructure Bill le the Commons: "We now need to get on with exploratory drilling to find out the extent of the UK's oil and gas reserves." Safeguards against shale Without even forcing it to a vote, the government accepted all the amendments tabled by Labour concerning fracking before the Infrastructure Bill left the Commons, says Mathew Beech. The 13 amendments Labour's amendments, added to the Infrastructure Bill, state that any hydraulic fracturing activity cannot take place: • unless an environmental impact assessment has been carried out; • unless independent inspections are car- ried out of the integrity of wells used; • unless monitoring has been undertaken on the site over the previous 12 months; • unless site-by-site measurement, monitoring and public disclosure of existing and future fugitive emissions is carried out; • in land located within the boundary of a groundwater source protection zone; • within or under protected areas; • in deep-level land at depths of less than 1,000m; • unless planning authorities have consid- ered the cumulative impact of hydraulic fracturing activities in the local area; • unless a provision is made for commu- nity benefit schemes to be provided by companies engaged in the extraction of gas and oil rock; • unless residents in the affected area are notified on an individual basis; • unless substances used are subject to approval by the Environment Agency; • unless land is le in a condition required by the planning authority; • unless water companies are consulted by the planning authority.