Geoforum 56 (2014) 6676

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Micro-hydro politics: Producing and contesting community energy

in the North of England
Andrea Armstrong , Harriet Bulkeley
Department of Geography, Durham University, Lower Mountjoy, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Analyses of the politics of energy production have traditionally focused on issues of resource extraction
Received 13 October 2013 and large scale generation. Yet questions of politics are just as critical when it comes to considering the
Received in revised form 20 June 2014 development of small energy variously referred to as micro-or distributed generation and frequently
Available online 17 July 2014
associated with the growing role of communities in the production of renewable energy. In this paper, we
focus on a resource a local river to examine the ways in which a community-based project sought to
Keywords: produce it as a viable and legitimate source of energy production. Such an initiative, we nd, is fraught
Community energy
with challenges. In particular, we identify three facets of the production of micro-hydro power that have
Micro-hydro
Energy resources
been critical to its deployment and contestation. First, the means through which the hydro resource is
Politics of community energy production calculated and valued. Second, the ways in which recasting the river in energy resource terms serves
Hexham River Hydro to challenge established notions of the river. Third, the identication of hydro power as a low carbon
North of England energy resource has at once served to create new discourses about the role and responsibilities for using
the river as an energy resource, whilst also calling into question its viability in the long term under con-
ditions of climate change.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
One of the key contributions emerging from the renewal of
social scientic interest in questions of energy has been a challenge
to the assumption that energy resources are simply there to be
discovered, transformed and used. Instead, drawing on the long
history of studies of political ecology, researchers have interro-
gated the ways in which energy resources are socially and
materially produced in geographically uneven ways and with
signicant political, economic and environmental consequences
(Bridge and Wood, 2010; Bridge and Le Billon, 2012; van der
Horst and Evans, 2010). Such perspectives critically illustrate
how the politics and economics of energy are not conned to the
ways in which such resources are shared or their externalities
are distributed and contested but are integral to the means
through which different resources are produced as viable forms
of energy. For the most part, this research has tended to focus on
the production of big energy of the mining of uranium, oil explo-
ration, transhipment of gas, coal mining, and the development of
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: andrea.armstrong@durham.ac.uk (A. Armstrong), h.a.bulkeley
@durham.ac.uk (H. Bulkeley).
large scale hydropower (Bartle, 2002; Bridge, 2004a,b, 2010; Egre
and Milewski, 2002; Fletcher, 2011; Gabriel et al., 2013; Koch,
2002). In this paper, we argue that attending to the politics of
energy production is just as critical when it comes to considering
the development of small energy variously referred to as
micro-or distributed generation and frequently associated with
the growing role of communities in the production of renewable
energy.
Indeed, the deployment of micro-generation technologies
requires that various, sometimes unlikely, materials, entities and
sites are recast as containing the potential for energy production,
from roofs for solar power to hillsides for wind turbines, wood-
lands and waste streams for biofuels, and gardens for ground-
source heat pumps. In this paper, we focus on one such resource
a local river to examine the ways in which a community-based
project sought to produce it as a viable and legitimate source of
energy production. Such an initiative, we nd, is fraught with chal-
lenges. While a great deal of research has now been gathered that
focuses on the organizational, institutional and political issues that
confront the development of community-based energy projects,
we suggest that including an analysis of the socio-material ways
in which energy resources are produced and contested through
such interventions provides additional insights into how and
why such projects (fail to) realize their potential. In particular,
we identify three key sources of contestation . First, the means

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.015
0016-7185/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Armstrong, H. Bulkeley / Geoforum 56 (2014) 6676
through which the hydro resource is calculated and valued, which
in turn shapes the nature of investment and return that are sought
to make such an intervention viable. Second, the ways in which
recasting the river in energy resource terms serves to challenge
established notions of the river as a resource for shing, leisure
and ecology, and in so doing existing social orders and political
economies. Third, the identication of hydro power as a low car-
bon energy resource has at once served to create new discourses
about the role and responsibilities for using the river as an energy
resource, whilst also calling into question its viability in the long
term under conditions of a changing climate. Using the river
responsibly is no longer a clear cut matter of stewardship, or even
of restoration to a previous healthy ecological condition (Eden
et al., 2000), but instead requires an engagement with both social
and environmental futures.
In the remainder of the paper, we rst examine the key insights
from existing research into the development of community energy
projects, and suggest that this body of work could usefully be
extended by engaging with the literature on the political and geo-
graphical nature of energy production. Second, using the case study
of Hexham River Hydro, a community-based micro-hydro project in
the North of England, we analyze the projects development by
exploring the ways in which the processes of calculation, contesta-
tion and the continual repositioning of climate change shape both
the development and ultimate demise of the scheme. Finally, we
conclude by considering the key implications for community-based
energy projects using micro-generation technologies.
Producing community energy?
In many developed economies during the 1950s and 60s a cen-
tralized system for energy generation was created with limited
space for localized energy generation (Graham and Marvin, 2001;
van Vliet et al., 2005). Unlike some countries, where governments
supported decentralized, cooperative energy development models,
such ideas and approaches were an anathema to UK energy policy
for most of the twentieth century (Walker, 1997). However, the
introduction of new concerns about climate change and targets
for the development of renewable energy, during the early 2000s
a range of government supported programmes were established
which led to a surge in local project development (Walker,
2007, 1). Policy support, innovative nancial models, and the
development of feed-in-tariffs have meant that community-energy
projects are now a prominent and growing feature of the UK
energy landscape (Adams, 2008; Walker, 2008).
Despite increasing interest and improved technologies, nanc-
ing opportunities and community governance arrangements aimed
at encouraging community energy projects, the literature on the
emergence of community energy projects in the UK details a num-
ber of formidable barriers that hinder prospective schemes
(Bomberg and McEwen, 2012). In particular, three related sets of
issues are often identied: organizational issues, relating to the
capacities and ownership of community energy projects; institu-
tional factors, the technical, nancial and legal aspects of govern-
ment policy and of partnerships with non-state actors that
enable and constrain community energy projects; and the politics
of local energy generation schemes, contestation that is regarded
as particularly acute in relation to local wind energy projects. How-
ever, to date relatively little focus has been given to the ways in
which particular energy resources come to be fashioned as the sub-
ject of community intervention, and the ways in which the social,
material and ecological dimensions of such resources in turn
shapes the ways in which community-based energy projects come
to be understood and contested. Drawing on the literature that has
examined the political economy and political ecology of the
67
production of energy resources can, we suggest, enable us to
engage with the specicities of particular projects and places,
and enhance our understanding of the nature and implications of
community-based energy projects more broadly.
Identifying the barriers to community energy generation
A diverse range of interventions to develop renewable energy
resources, or to use energy more efciently, are termed commu-
nity energy projects (Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008). The term
is applied to a wide range of development models, from technical
projects located in a local place that comes to stand for community
to projects wholly owned and managed by a group who consider
themselves as a community and everything between and within
these categories. As Walker (2008, 4402) argues, establishing a
community energy project involves many complexities, whichever
model of development is adopted. In the face of this complexity,
much of the literature has sought to understand how and why
community energy projects come to be established. Issues of
capacity, including a lack of expertise, knowledge or equipment
(Walker, 2008), and the existence of knowledgeable local individ-
uals with expertise (such as retired engineers, accountants, law-
yers and community workers) is seen as critical in shaping the
initial organization of renewable energy projects (Smith and
Seyfang, 2011). Projects often need expert advice and support
and learning from experience (Adams, 2008; Walker et al., 2007).
The ability to sustain the level of organization achieved at the start
of projects is another challenge because knowledge and skill may
dissipate over time (Walker, 2008).
Research also identies some signicant technical barriers, for
example: the lack of incentives for network operators to connect
to small networks; the costs of trading and the difculty of access-
ing green certicates; the lack of market incentives for heat pro-
duction; and the challenge of setting up a local heat networks
which require collective management, billing and metering that
are unfamiliar in the UK context (Walker, 2008; Watson et al.,
2006). These technical challenges can be complex and impact
directly on the projects nancial capacity. For example, barriers
to market entry and network connection can mean that commu-
nity projects struggle to realize the income generating potential
of their project (Hain et al., 2005). In the UK, nancial resources
for community energy have shifted from grants and pilot projects
to incentives such as Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) and the Renewable Heat
Incentive (RHI) (Smith and Seyfang, 2011). Grants involved a com-
petitive bidding process, a pre-determined level of funding (a
lump sum) for a specic time period that was enough to start
the process (e.g. conduct a feasibility study) but not enough to
cover long term or unexpected costs. In contrast, incentives such
as FITs (launched in 2010) and the non-domestic RHI scheme
(launched in 2011) provide a way of generating income from
energy production once the scheme is built. The shift in funding
is to encourage communities to develop their own energy projects
however, this presents challenges for the UK community energy
sector because co-operatives and community schemes and inde-
pendent commercial developers nd it harder to access nance
than schemes backed by large utilities. That makes development
costs higher, returns lower and puts communities and other small
developers at a signicant disadvantage (Hansard, 2013). The
challenge of raising funds to cover capital costs at the high risk
pre-planning stage has been identied as a major constraint by a
number of commentators (see Middlemass and Parrish, 2010;
Walker, 2008; Jaffe and Stavins, 1995).
There are further barriers identied in terms of fostering the
organizational capacity to support the development of energy
projects, especially in their early stages. Further institutional
challenges are shaped by the structural resources available to
68 A. Armstrong, H. Bulkeley / Geoforum 56 (2014) 6676
community energy projects, in other words the level of state sup-
port and the wider political opportunity structures that can both
facilitate or hinder the mobilization of community energy pro-
jects (Bomberg and McEwen, 2012, 435). The legal conditions
under which a community energy scheme must operate to estab-
lish its economic and technical viability has also been identied
as a critical issue (Dunning and Turner, 2005) because it involves
engaging with a vast array of regulations such as complying with
UK and EU legal frameworks (e.g. the Water Framework Directive),
seeking permits and planning applications. Micro hydro projects,
for example, may require up to four permits from the Environment
Agency and planning permits may be required from the local
authority and consultation with the local community and other
river users is a necessary process (Environment Agency, 2013).
Accomplishing micro hydro requires the development of specialist
expertise (e.g. consultant engineers, river morphologists, ecologists
etc.) to navigate the technical landscape. Given the political, nan-
cial and legal complexity and expertise required to develop com-
munity energy projects, many have found it necessary to open
up structural resources beyond the state. Partnerships are a key
feature in initiating and then developing projects and this requires
partners who are willing to work together, on the one hand, and
gaining a broad constituency of support on the other. Partnership
working is not without its challenges and gaining support beyond
those in favor of pursuing community energy projects is a chal-
lenge faced by community activists, local authorities and private
developers (Aitken, 2010; Peters et al., 2010).
Even where community renewable energy projects are being
undertaken in partnership with a range of different organizations,
many have been marked by controversy. In analyzing such contro-
versies, the primary focus has been on large scale community
energy projects such as wind power, which has been widely con-
tested in the UK and elsewhere (Pasqualetti, 2011). Here, the pol-
itics around the issue of community benets features as a major
challenge in the literature (see Aitken, 2010; Bristow et al., 2012;
Cass et al., 2010; Munday et al., 2011). The perception of commu-
nity benets can evolve and be contested over the course of a com-
munity energy project and the reluctance of some developers to
share details about benets leads to suspicion amongst the public
and at worst some see a benets package as a bribe (Aitken, 2010).
Controversies have also arisen around the politics of landscape and
aesthetics (Firestone and Kempton, 2007; Warren and Birnie, 2009;
Zografos and Martinez-Alier, 2009). While this has been labeled
the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) stance, at stake in such contro-
versies are different forms of value about who takes decisions
and which sorts of interventions should be accepted by whom
and to what ends (Devine-Wright, 2009). At the same time,
research has found a more muted politics has also arisen concern-
ing the impact of the development of wind power on bird popula-
tions with arguments including turbine blades killing birds,
effecting migration routes and nesting sites (Fox, 2011).
Narratives of the politics of such controversies tends to be
dominated by analysis of the social dimensions of conicts over
community energy resources, in terms of the competing dis-
courses, coalitions, and interests that are at stake. However, from
a different conceptual viewpoint the contestation over commu-
nity wind energy projects reveals the critical importance of the
socio-material resources through which wind energy is gener-
ated, landscapes and coastal areas, and the ways in which com-
peting uses for such resources whether this be for leisure,
birdlife, or wind energy, are critical to the ways in which the pol-
itics of community energy unfold. Drawing on the wider litera-
ture on the political economy and ecology of the production of
energy resources can, we suggest, offer additional insights into
the politics of community energy.
Generating energy resources?
The conceptualization of resources and their politics have ben-
eted greatly from recent work calling for a more nuanced and
sophisticated framework that moves away from the tired debates
about the production of or social construction of nature (Bakker
and Bridge, 2006, 20) and instead draws on the notion of material-
ity to consider a way to unpack apparent permanencies and sta-
bilities, and to show how the competencies and capacities of
things are not intrinsic but derive from association (Bakker and
Bridge, 2006, 16). This opens up possibilities for understanding
how the socio-materiality of other resource spaces particularly
those so readily naturalized in physical terms as the resources
of oil elds, watersheds or hot spots of bio-diversity are produced
topologically rather than being inherent or contained within those
spaces (Bakker and Bridge, 2006, 17). Within the energy and
water domain, research in this eld has included analysis of the
politics of large-scale hydropower, drought, urban water provision
and the issue of privatization (Bakker, 1999a,b, 2000, 2001, 2003),
on the socio-ecological production of waterscapes including sani-
tation and irrigation (Swyngedouw, 1999, 2004, 2006), the ways
in which global production networks are established through
exploration, extraction, and exchange each of which is imbued
with complex calculations that weave together science, technol-
ogy, economy and politics to produce energy resources such as
oil and gas (Bailey et al., 2010; Bridge and Le Billon, 2012) and bio-
mass (van der Horst and Evans, 2010).
Rather curiously, less attention has been paid to the ways in
which such processes and practices are at work in the micro-scale
production of energy resources. As state and non-state actors, have
sought to encourage the production of community-based energy,
solar, biomass, wind and water resources at multiple scales have
come to assume a greater importance within and between local,
regional and national networks. As with energy production at other
scales, any community renewable energy project is an insertion
within existing socio-material ows, and in the process it enters
into an entanglement of calculation, negotiation, commodication,
circulation and contestation. In the case of micro-hydro, existing
water resources come to be regarded not only in terms of their
existing resource use, but as a potential source of energy genera-
tion. The community-based organization and mobilization of par-
ticular resources is critical in shaping what constitutes a legible
and legitimate form of local energy source. Equally, the materiality
of energy resources in turns shapes how such interventions unfold,
shaping what constitutes community (in terms of inclusion,
extent, ownership, engagement and so on) and how this comes
to be contested and recongured.
In seeking to understand these dynamics in the production and
politics of micro-energy resources, two different sets of insights
from the existing literature are particularly useful. First, much of
the research in this eld points to the importance of techniques
of calculation in creating productive resources. As Bridge (2010)
argues, the problem of calculation both underpins and under-
mines debates around the nature of oil reserves, and in particular
the issue of peak oil. This is because oil reserves are far from stable
yet robust numbers are sought for calculation and such gures are
both political instruments (calculating national reserves) and arte-
facts of the scientic and technical networks that constitute them
and within which they continue to be embedded (Bridge, 2010).
Bringing resources into productive use requires calculation, manip-
ulation and commensuration of a wide range of data, and the
emergence of new renewable energy technologies has been accom-
panied by a plethora of new techniques (see Gerbens-Leenes et al.,
2009; Lasourd, 2001). Understanding how, why and by whom
calculation takes place, and what is and is not included in such
 A. Armstrong, H. Bulkeley / Geoforum 56 (2014) 6676
processes, is therefore critical in understanding how resources
come to be constituted.
Second, the literature reveals the ways in which the socio-
materialities of resource production and use are central to the
ways in which contestation and conict unfold in these domains.
Political ecologies of water provision (see Gandy, 2004; Kaika,
2005; Swyngedouw, 2007) reveal how water engineering is
turned to as a means of developing the moral, cultural, and politi-
cal legitimacy of certain forms of rule (Ekers and Loftus, 2008,
709). Similarly Bakker (1999a,b), in a study of large scale hydro-
power development on the Mekong River, identies how state con-
trol turns an uncommodied resource into a commodied resource
and in the process redirects revenue away from local people. Con-
testations can span a broad range of apparently separate instances
such as engineering, politics, economics, culture, science, nature,
ideology, and discourse through which the tumultuous reordering
of sociophysical space is shaped and transformed, and out of which
a new socioenvironmental landscape emerges (Swyngedouw,
1999, 260-1). The means through which such re-ordering of
socio-physical space is undertaken and contested through the
development of micro-energy resources is therefore critical in
terms of understanding the means through which community
energy is (and is not) being produced.
However, and for all of the active processes of calculating and
contesting socio-materialities of resources documented in the
eld, the politics and dynamics of (global) environmental change
rarely feature. On the one hand, the resources under consideration
are conceived in relatively static bio-physical terms such that their
availability or attributes are largely seen as a matter of social or
technical intervention. On the other hand, the wider environmen-
tal political contexts within which such issues are located are fre-
quently put to the background, as frames or canvasses across
which the politics of particular resources play out. For example,
Bridge (2010, 523) discussing the geographies of peak oil, opens
with the statement that The twin concerns of energy security
and climate change now increasingly frame the space in which
environmental futures will be worked out but climate change
remains in the background to the analysis of how peak oil has been
constituted. Resource management literature similarly uses cli-
mate change as a given, for example, to explore whether adaptive
and community-based resource management can enhance resil-
ience to climate change (Tompkins and Adger, 2004). Here, we sug-
gest that it might be productive to think through the ways in which
such social, political and biophysical dynamics play out in the con-
stitution of resources themselves, so there is no ready separation
between the local energy resource being constituted and the glo-
bal problem of climate change which it is intended to address, but
rather that such global dynamics come to play an important role in
constituting the socio-materiality of the resources themselves. This
in turn means that it is imperative to understand how the physical
and social dimensions of climate change shape and are re-shaped
through the development of, in this case, community-energy pro-
jects, and come to be used, discarded or morphed in conjunction
with the different interests of the other agencies involved.
Turning water into energy: the Hexham River Hydro project
Understanding the development and implications of commu-
nity-based micro-generation schemes, we suggest, requires an
engagement not only with the organisational, institutional and
political dimensions of such initiatives, but also with the socio-
materialities through which such processes take place. In this sec-
tion, we analyze the development of a micro-hydro scheme in the
North of England, Hexham River Hydro (HRH), in order to explore
the ways in which such dynamics come to be worked through the
69
Fig. 3.1. The scheme intended to harness the water ow under Hexham Bridge.
(Photo Source: BBC (2013) Hexham River Hydro scheme shelved due to cost, http://
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-22884896).
development and, in this case, disbanding, of community-based
energy projects.
Located on the River Tyne, to the west of Newcastle upon Tyne
and Gateshead, Hexham is a town of approximately 11,000 inhab-
itants. In the autumn of 2010 Hexham Community Partnership, the
Transition Tynedale Energy Group and Hexham Town Council
established a working group to explore the potential for a commu-
nity owned hydroelectricity scheme on the River Tyne in Hexham
(Fig. 3.1). The actors involved in the initiation of the scheme came
together around the loosely dened problematic of creating com-
munity-based responses to climate change and energy challenges.
At this time, the formation of the problem space and the ideas gen-
erated within the group were heavily inuenced by the local tran-
sition initiative (Transition Tynedale), part of the international
Transition Network. The research identied three key drivers that
shaped the development of the community energy project in
Hexham (Table 3.1).
Micro-hydro is regarded in this context as a means of address-
ing climate change and the challenges associated with responding
to issues of energy security and peak oil on the one hand, and as a
particular form of intervention that can yield community benet
on the other. The idea of Hexham River Hydro (HRH) emerged from
the dialogue generated in this context. The aim was to build a
100KW community hydro power generation scheme using the
modern version of the Archimedes Screw. The proximity of the
groups involved, their professional expertise, and shared interests
in addressing climate change and energy vulnerability in the town
provided the basis for the initial collaboration and conception of
micro-hydro as a possible means through which to address these
common concerns. In 2011, HRH entered the large project category
of the Energyshare1 competition, and in May 2011 began working
with Carbon Leapfrog to develop a business plan. Winning the Ener-
gyshare competition provided 100,000 to fund the next stage of the
process and enabled the partners to access a wider network of exper-
tise. However, as the project progressed it became clear that there
was signicant opposition to its development from other river users,
especially those involved in the angling/shing industry. Despite the
momentum and publicity behind the scheme, its nal demise came
about (according to HRH) because of nancial risk. Capital costs were
initially estimated at 1 m by a feasibility study but a detailed design
study conducted later in the process revealed the costs would be
1
The Energyshare scheme was launched on the 26 May 2011 by its founding
partners British Gas (an energy company) and River Cottage a more than prot
organisation started by the chef, food writer and campaigner Hugh Fearnley
Whittingstall in 1998. The scheme aims to bring people together in person and
online who would like to source, use and generate their own energy. The partnership
with British Gas ended in 2012 but the scheme continues, see http://www.
energyshare.com/about-us/ accessed August 2013.
70 A. Armstrong, H. Bulkeley / Geoforum 56 (2014) 6676

Table 3.1
Key drivers shaping the development of Hexham River Hydro.

Driver Examples of how this is articulated in the discourse of HRH

Community energy project To develop a hydro-electric generation scheme thus securing long-term generation of renewable electricity from the River Tyne at
Hexham. To use the hydro-electric generation facility as an educational and an environmental awareness raising tool, both for residents
of the area and visitors to Hexham. To demonstrate that generating renewable electricity is compatible with protection and even
enhancement of the amenity value of a major river. To attract more visitors to Hexham (hydro power schemes even small ones have
proved to be popular visitor attractions elsewhere (Hexham Community Partnership, 2011:1)
Example of a low carbon To promote community engagement in securing a low carbon future (Hexham Community Partnership, 2011:1)
community
Secure nancial resources To utilise the resulting income to secure long-term funding for the low carbon and regenerative activities of HCP (Hexham
Community Partnership, 2011:1)
We plan to use the income generated to promote and develop local community projects in and around Hexham and the Tyne Valley
(HRH Leaet, version 16 April 2012)
The income will be an important and sustainable funding stream for a wide range of community projects focused on social and
economic regeneration such as Hexham East End Regeneration Project; Green Energy Fairs; public events such as Spook Night and
Farmers Marketsa
For the rst 20 years of the scheme we expect to receive the appropriate Feed In Tariff for a hydro scheme of this size. For the
remainder of the life of the scheme we expect to receive income from the sale of the electricity we generate. We expect the scheme to
generate an annual surplus of at least 30,000 per annum, to be spent on community projects in and around Hexham (Hexham
Community Partnership, 2011:4)
a
Source: Hexham Community Partnership website: Frequently Asked Questions see http://www.hexhamcommunity.net/pages/projects/hexham-river-hydro/hexham-
river-hydro-faqs.php Accessed March 2013.

Table 3.2
Hexham River Hydro Timeline.a

Time Activity
Autumn 2010 Working group explore the possibility of a community energy scheme
April 2011 Pre-feasibility study conducted by Inter Hydro Technology Ltd.
Detailed nancial models produced by HRH core team (ongoing throughout the period)
May 2011 Application to Energyshare competition
JulyAugust Stakeholder consultation started
2011
September Support from Carbon Leapfrogb to develop a business plan
2011
November Shortlisted to the nal round of Energyshare
2011
December Winners of Energyshare large project category, securing 100,000
2011
January 2012 Design tenders requested
March 2012 Meeting between the project leaders, the Environment Agency and interested parties such as anglers and Tyne Rivers Trust, chaired by the local MP
April 2012 Catriona Mulligan (HRH) keynote speaker at Highlighting Hydro event alongside Karen Keast from Mott MacDonald (global environmental
consultants) held at Hexham Golf Club
May 2012 Meeting with key representatives from major canoeing and rowing water sports clubs (e.g. Tyne Green Water Sports Association) to explain HRH
plans and listen to their concerns and receive their advice
June 2012 Lead consultants appointed Cundall Johnston & Partners LLP (consultant engineers) to produce a detailed feasibility report
Key advisors appointed, working with the lead consultants Mann Power Consulting Ltd. (hydrology); Fishtek (specialist sheries) and local ecologist
Ruth Hadden from Ryal Soil and Ecology
September Public consultation public display and two public meetings arranged (one focusing on shing and the other on wider community interest)
2012
January 2013 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA, scoping assessment) by Cundall presented to Northumbria County Council (NCC)
February 2013 Detailed feasibility report completed by Cundall
June 2013 Public announcement that HRH will not proceed as a standalone community project
a
Timeline collated from publicly available materials (Hexham Community Partnership Website, local newspapers and the Transition Tynedale blog).
b
Carbon Leapfrog merged with Pure the Clean Planet Trust in 2013 to form Pure Leapfrog which is a business led charity a social investment provider within the
community energy sector.

closer to 2.5 m. This meant the level of nancial risk compared
with the forecast nancial return is too great for a community group
of volunteers with no underlying nancial backing and the discrep-
ancy in costs were attributed to the civil engineering challenges and
the state of the existing weir (Energyshare Website, 2013) and in
June 2013, HRH announced that the project would not go ahead
(see Table 3.2).
Hexham River Hydro formed one case study of a wider research
programme (funded by the Leverhulme Trust) that sought to
examine how climate change was being governed at different sites
and scales across the UK, and that as such the focus was on those
who were designing and implementing interventions to govern cli-
mate change. The methods were mixed and used a range of sources
of evidence in which to explore the rationalities and practices of
governing micro-hydro including a desk-based study of websites,
social media (such as blogs) and media reports (e.g. online local
and regional newspapers) related to Hexham Hydro and hydro
governance (e.g. the Environment Agency). This generated infor-
mation about the Hexham Hydro project from the perspective of
core/key members and from other organizations and individuals
who were either in favor or objecting to the scheme, such as the
local MP (supportive) and organizations with objections such as
the Tyne Rivers Trust and the angling community. The Environ-
ment Agency was also a source of initial background information
regarding their perspective on hydro and their role as regulator.
Interviews were conducted with six stakeholders, two from
 A. Armstrong, H. Bulkeley / Geoforum 56 (2014) 6676
organizations involved with the HRH project directly and four with
organizations with a wider stake in the issues at hand between
MayJuly 2012. Prior to each interview, information about the
project was provided and issues of consent, condentiality and
anonymity were discussed and a consent form signed. Each inter-
view was recorded on a digital recorder and transcribed before
being analyzed using coded themes selected to address the core
issues of the case-study and more general issues relating to the
overall research project. Additional insights were gained through
participant observation at the Micro-hydro workshop in May
2012 that gathered a range of local stakeholders involved with
micro-hydro in the region and an interdisciplinary group of
researchers working on the topic.
In the rest of this section, we discuss three areas that we have
identied as critical when turning water into energy the politics
of calculation; contesting the river as an energy resource and align-
ing climate change and micro-hydro power. These are the three
areas of contestation that shape the development of the project
and its ultimate failure.
Making hydro a valuable energy resource: the politics of calculation
Harnessing the resource of water from a river to generate
energy is the core feature of any hydropower project. As Trussart
et al. (2002, 1251) argue, speaking about large-scale hydro pro-
jects, Hydropower raises specic environmental issues related
to the transformation of land use and of river ows, as well as spe-
cic socio-economic issues related to the transformation of local
and regional living conditions (Trussart et al., 2002, 1251). Navi-
gating environmental and socio-economic issues is also a signi-
cant and challenging process for proponents of micro hydro
projects. Different types of expertise are required because of the
nature of the resource. HRH, for example, to bring the idea of
micro-hydro to fruition needed an engagement with a vast array
of micro hydro related expertise such as regulation (e.g. to comply
with UK legal frameworks, seeking permits, planning applications),
specialist technologies and techniques (e.g. engineering, river mor-
phologists, ecologists) and economic expertise to seek funding for
capital costs and for feed-in tariffs. The environmental dimensions
of micro-hydro, for example, are detailed on the Environment
Agency website2 and it becomes clear when examining this process
of calculation, why specialist consultants are required (Table 3.3).
Securing micro-hydro as a viable project, in short, requires that
an array of forms of calculation are undertaken and assembled in
order to produce micro-hydro as a resource. Requiring expert
authority, calculation also entails entraining a whole host of actors
beyond the initial protagonists in the work of securing micro-
hydro as a viable project:
We also nd the community often have a lack of expertise in
hydro and also may also lack the understanding of the complex-
ity of hydro so everybody thinks hydros is a good idea in terms
of renewable energy but people dont recognize the impact it
can have on the river (Environment Agency Interview, 2012).
This is an interwoven process, where forms of calculation under-
taken by expert consultants in one dimension effect the others. Sys-
tems of regulation and professional expertise are critical to the ways
in which calculation takes place, establishing the issues with which
calculation must be concerned and the ways in which it needs to be
practiced. The economic calculations can be the ones that make or
break a projects viability, especially in the early stages when
funding is required to assess the feasibility of a site in terms
of economic costs and returns, the science and engineering as well
2
Environment Agency Hydropower http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/
business/topics/water/32022.aspx Accessed March 2013.
71
as broader environmental and social assessments. With HRH, the
100,000 gained through EnergyShare helped them to undertake
appropriate forms of calculation, and in this manner create a
(potentially) feasible project. Interestingly, this nance was not
used to support the capital costs of the purchase of the hydro
plant itself, but instead to support a further round of calculations
through engaging design consultants to undertake the detailed
design (including all relevant environmental work), planning and
licensing for a 100 kW low head hydro-electric scheme at Hexham
Bridge.
Calculation is of course not only a technical exercise, but the
means through which the project itself and its place in the commu-
nity come to be understood. We found that expert calculations
served to move HRH from a project that has been envisaged to
one that is made practical. However, calculation is not easily con-
ned, and in resolving issues, new problems are also opened up
that have to be calculated and managed. Calculation serves to try
and contain the project within particular boundaries, but it often
also leads to these boundaries being exceeded. Furthermore, calcu-
lation is not conned to the project initiators and the specialists
they may consult, other river users, who view the resource differ-
ently according to their interests (e.g. for shing, swimming, wild-
life) conduct their own calculations employing their own experts
to legitimize their claim to the river. Recasting the river as an
energy resource challenges established notions of the river, as we
explore in further detail below.
Contesting the river as an energy resource
Like large scale hydropower (Bakker, 1999a,b), the contestation
around micro-hydro revolves around the water resource (the river)
and the value attributed to it by the various interested parties:
Schemes can have an impact on other users including water
abstractors, anglers, canoeists or those who enjoy the natural
beauty of an area (Environment Agency, 2010, 9).
Once a potentially viable scheme has been calculated into being
from its initial ideal, community energy projects require a means
of making them public. In the case of HRH, making hydro public
involved two processes. The rst involves making hydro engaging
to the public to secure votes for the Energyshare competition and
the second involves the process of engaging/consulting with the
public, including other river users. The process of making hydro
public means that HRH shifted from a position of invisibility (as
a project not yet built and with limited traction in the public con-
sciousness) to becoming visible. Becoming visible involves actively
raising the public prole of the project and attempting to engage
the public imagination with what such a project might become,
which at once serves to garner public support and create potential
for conict. The process of engaging with the public involves vari-
ous actions and activities such as maintaining a web presence with
information about the project plans and progress; compiling a
database of community organisations that use the river in order
to consult them as well as arranging a series of meetings. For
example, HRH arranged a number of meetings involving the local
MP, the Environment Agency, various consultants and local organi-
zations who use the river Tyne as well as landowners who have
riparian rights. In contrast to the Energyshare competition process
(of making hydro engaging to the public) where the focus was gen-
erating support; the engaging with the public process also creates
space for objections from other river users and HRH had to negoti-
ate, counter-argue and attempt to work with a public who contest
the hydro scheme. Most prominent amongst the objectors were
those with interests in shing/angling.
The sh issue, common to many micro-hydro schemes, means
not only engaging with various forms of public but also brings into
72 A. Armstrong, H. Bulkeley / Geoforum 56 (2014) 6676

Table 3.3
Summary of the Environment Agency Pre-Application Form.

Category Non-specialist Specialist

Contact details 
Site details
Site name 
Name of watercourse 
Location details (10 gure national grid reference for six locations relevant to scheme) 
Length of any depleted reach of river created 
What type of turbine do you propose to use? 
Proposed turbine ows 
Calculation of quantities 
Raising the level of an existing impoundment? 
Access 
Planning permission 
Scheme details
Gross head 
Net head 
Estimated generating potential 
Annual generating potential 
Control of the scheme 
Water resource considerations
Assessment of existing hydrology 
Flow duration statistics 
Prescribed ow 
Fisheries considerations
Fish screening at intake and outfall 
Bywash channel 
Alternative screening methods 
Fish passes 
Flood risk considerations
Flood risk assessment and ood consequences assessment 
Planning considerations
Contact with your local planning authority 
Environmental Impact Assessment 
Screening opinion 
Land contamination 

the project new materialities and ecologies. While the river
appears to provide a free source of energy to those seeking to
exploit it, for anglers the river and the sh species living in it are
already a commoditized resource because angling generates tour-
ism and provides jobs for the local economy. The insertion of a
micro-hydro scheme within the river potentially risks disturbing
the current socio-material order:
Hydropower schemes can be complex and need to be designed
and managed carefully to avoid unacceptable impacts on com-
munities and the river environment. For example, changes to a
river can increase the risk of ooding and have signicant
impacts on wildlife, especially sh (Environment Agency,
2010, 6).
Although any sh species can be affected by the proximity of
hydro, it is the risk to migratory sh such as salmon, sea trout, eels
and shad and non-migratory species such as trout and coarse sh
species that was of most concern to opponents. Angling communi-
ties were concerned with the impact micro-hydro had on local sh
populations and/or river ow because their opportunity to sh
may be disrupted thus harming a valuable economic resource.
Fish are such a valuable resource for the River Tyne that once the
sh issue gathered momentum amongst opponents of micro-
hydro, it posed real problems for the project team (HRH) on how
to negotiate the emerging hydro politics.
HRH faced strong opposition early on from the Tyne Rivers
Trust (TRT) who were responsible for the River Tyne (and in partic-
ular its sh stocks). TRT pre-dates the HRH project and their work
had already exposed problems for migratory sh at the Hexham
Bridge site. Following a feasibility study TRT made plans to replace
the existing sh pass with a new one (Henderson, 2011). TRT
issued a position statement making clear that they operate using
scientic and best evidence and their concern was for the rivers
ecological and economic assets (the diverse range of migratory
and coarse sh). The micro-hydro project should only go ahead,
they argued, if there is certainty that it will not damage the river,
its sh stocks and associated wildlife. While they were not against
hydro technology per se they did expect calculations of potential
impacts to be scientic.
We found similar arguments in discussions with a representa-
tive from the Rivers Trust the umbrella body of the rivers trust
movement who spoke in general about their position on micro
hydro. Stressing that the Rivers Trust movement is science-led,
they argued that the rather piecemeal, opportunistic approach of
micro-hydro development was awed and might in lead to rivers
that were less resilient to the impacts of climate change (Rivers
Trust Interview, 2012). There are similarities between the TRT
and the Rivers Trust in that science is regarded by both as the
authoritative means through which to contest the HRH project,
and micro-hydro in general. There are also differences in that the
Rivers Trust frame their scientic arguments around the river
and climate change (and do not mention sh) whereas the TRT
regard sh ecologies and the associated economic benets this
brings to the community more central to their argument.
Swyngedouw (1999) similarly noted the multiple and often contra-
dictory narratives that surround water resources, which:
span a broad range of apparently separate instances such as
engineering, politics, economics, culture, science, nature, ideol-
ogy, and discourse through which the tumultuous reordering
of sociophysical space is shaped and transformed, and out
of which a new socioenvironmental landscape emerges;
 A. Armstrong, H. Bulkeley / Geoforum 56 (2014) 6676
landscapes that are simultaneously physical and social, they
reect historicalgeographical struggles and social power
geometries, and they interiorize the ux and dynamics of socio-
spatial change (Swyngedouw, 1999, 261)
For several months, the contestation over the impact of the
micro-hydro scheme on migratory sh was played out as a matter
of opposition between TRT and HRH. However, there was a shift in
the relationship when HRH brought in the Tyne Rivers Trust as
consultees over their plans for a sh pass (Daniel, 2012). Professor
Malcolm Newsome, Director of Tyne Rivers Trust is quoted as
saying:
We have been pursuing the construction of a sh pass at Hexham,
and our designs are about to be approved by the Environment
Agency. The Hexham hydro has included its own sh pass as part
of its design, one which we believe requires upgrading to be
appropriate for this stretch of river, and we are happy to advise
the hydro project as a consultee. As the hydro raises signicant
river issues, we are proposing for the time being to reserve the
funds earmarked for a sh pass to help with our catchment-wide
river improvements. This is the best way for Tyne Rivers Trust to
ensure it acts in the interests of the whole Tyne system (Professor
Malcolm Newsome, quoted in Daniel, 2012).
Central to the reworking of this relationship was the need to
compromise over the sh pass, a compromise negotiated by the
regulatory requirements of the Environment Agency. Working
together in this way is a pragmatic compromise by both TRT and
HRH. HRH benet from TRT expertise on rivers and sh ecologies
and TRT may get the new sh pass without any nancial input;
therefore, they can use the money for other river improvements.
However, just as the public interest around the HRH project
appeared to have stabilized in this manner, a more organized
and higher prole objection from the local angling community
arose. Later in the same month (October 2012) there was a report
in the local media River groups urge delay in Hexham Hydro plans
(Tully, 2012). With the movement of the HRH project to the plan-
ning approval stage, the anglers sought to reopen the question of
the impact of the hydro project on the sh pass again through
recourse to whether the scientic calculation of the project had
been adequately undertaken (see Tully, 2012).
The angling network was well organized and included the
Angling Trust the voice of angling and their legal arm Fish
Legal. The Angling Trust explicitly developed a campaign aimed
to Fight the Hydropower. Their website included a position paper
and a guide to objecting to such schemes for example, guidance
about how to inuence the granting of planning permission
(Angling Trust, 2011). Like the Rivers Trust, the Angling Trust used
climate change as a discourse to object to low-head hydropower,
We care passionately about climate change, but low-head
hydropower will make a negligible contribution to reducing
carbon dioxide emissions and will damage river systems for
everyone, not just anglers! (Angling Trust Website, 2013).
Here, objections to micro-hydro are mobilized around climate
change especially by those concerned with the river and sh ecol-
ogies. While at the outset, HRH used climate change as a rationale
for the need to develop the project, climate change also came over
the course of the project to shape arguments against hydro and for
the river and sh ecologies, a shift generated by the material
politics of the hydro-scheme.
Aligning climate change and micro-hydro power
From the outset the notion of creating a local response to cli-
mate change through the development of community-based, low
73
carbon energy schemes was central to the formulation of HRH.
Early on, HRH sought to mobilize their response to climate change
by claiming that their micro hydro initiative was an exceptional
community energy project that could act as a test bed:
the rst community hydro project in our region and means new
generation on the Tyne in many ways: electricity generation;
social regeneration; idea generation; economic development;
education; and tangible inspiration for all generations in our
region, young and old (Hexham Community Partnership, 2011).
one of the really interesting aspects of the project is that it is
testing the aspiration to use a participatory approach to sustain-
able development (HRH Interview, 2012).
The claims here, that the case was the rst test in the Tyne Valley,
placed emphasis on HRH as an innovative and exceptional project. Of
course, it was not the rst hydro scheme in the country but because
each potential hydro location has locally specic features (for exam-
ple, hydrological, ecological, geological and geographic) to consider
there are perhaps advantages in claiming an exceptional status. In
the background document on HRH produced in 2011 the exceptional
nature of the project is framed quite prominently in terms of climate
change, stating, for example, that this local project will contribute to
the overall reduction of CO2 emissions:
Our scheme will reduce Hexhams CO2 emissions by up to
400 tonnes/year (Hexham Community Partnership, 2011:1).
They then go on to situate the project within the context of glo-
bal and national emission targets, emphasizing the legal basis of
such measures and making the connection with UK renewable
energy targets,
It is now widely accepted that the empirical evidence of
increasing global temperatures is the cumulative effect of
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). There is cur-
rently a global challenge to reduce GHG to mitigate against
the effects of climate change and limit the temperature rise to
2 C, in line with the Copenhagen accord goal. In 2008 the UK
Climate Change Act set legally binding targets for the UK to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, set
against a 1990 baseline. To assist these reduction targets the
Government has pledged to generate 15% of all energy con-
sumed, by 2020, from renewable sources. Renewables currently
supply only 6.7% of total UK electricity demand (Hexham
Community Partnership, 2011:2).
Mobilizing their community energy project as an exception and
an exemplar came to be particularly important when trying to win
the Energyshare competition because they had to stand out from
the crowd,
we went into the large category you know a little town of ele-
ven thousand competing with Shefeld and Manchester so we
were totally and utterly paranoid which is why we were frozen
in that market square at every opportunity because we thought
we were going to lose, we just thought wed lose at the last min-
ute (HRH Interview, 2012).
Despite the prominence of climate change in the background
document produced by the HRH team, after winning the Energy-
share competition climate change began to disappear from the
projects rhetoric. Climate change came to be regarded as unhelpful
to the project because it was a difcult issue to communicate and
in reality a 100KW scheme contributes very little to greenhouse
gas emissions savings locally. Taking advice from communications
experts it was decided to adopt the more fuzzy concepts of par-
ticipation and sustainable development to articulate and defend
their claims to legitimacy as an example of a hydro project:
74 A. Armstrong, H. Bulkeley / Geoforum 56 (2014) 6676
both those words participatory approach and sustainable devel-
opment are huge, great funny concepts, woolly concepts but its
actually something in practice here in the town with something
very demonstrable thats being discussed (HRH Interview,
2012).
Its denitely not about climate change, its just that climate
change is a difcult concept, so is sustainable development
but thats so woolly you can actually explain the story a bit bet-
ter (HRH Interview, 2012).
Yet at the same time, climate change came to be made visible
and material to the project through those who sought to contest
the viability of the scheme:
Hydro] is completely opportunistic and just where there hap-
pens to be a structure. The biggest structures which provide
opportunities for hydro are also the biggest structures that are
compromising our rivers ability to be resilient to climate change
so youve immediately got a trade-off between people doing,
addressing climate change for carbon reduction and people
who are addressing the impacts of climate change for river
resilience. If that was an equal trade-off you could have a good
discussion but the fact is micro hydro does not generate enough
electricity or provide enough carbon offset to make up for the
impact that those structures are making on the river in terms
of climate change resilience (Rivers Trust Interview, 2012).
This interview extract highlights a tension between perspec-
tives on how energy in rivers is conceptualized. On the one hand,
proponents of micro hydro value river energy as something to be
harnessed (and extracted), while on the other hand those who
argue for the preservation of river ecologies regard the rivers
energy as something that supports and creates river habitats. They
argue that micro-hydro would divert energy away, consequently
damaging the river ecosystem,
the process of actually taking energy out of a river where energy
creates habitats. . .. . ..water may be renewable but rivers are
not. . .. . . if you are taking energy out of a river system you know
the river system is losing energy that it uses for creating habi-
tats and supporting life and people forget that (Rivers Trust
Interview, 2012).
The case study of HRH demonstrates that the problem that
micro-hydro is intended to address is continually being reworked
and contested. Climate change shifts from been visible in the early
stages to becoming abandoned or even normalized in the process
of making hydro public where micro-hydro becomes a matter of
delivering community benet. However, climate change also
returns through this process as a discourse of objection, question-
ing whether local benets will be forthcoming, pointing to poten-
tial harms, and using the global issue of climate change to raise
questions about the extent to which any one scheme might con-
tribute or may even create challenges in adapting to climate
change. In this manner, climate change is enrolled, hidden and
contested throughout this process, both fundamental to the project
but also somehow outside it.
Conclusions
we dont think theres any winwins with hydro power, theres
only a compromise, its not the same thing (Rivers Trust Inter-
view, 2012).
This paper has focused on small energy production and used
the case study of a community-based micro-hydro project in
Northern England (Hexham River Hydro) to argue that the socio-
materiality politics are just as important to understand as those
of big energy production. Concerns about climate change mean
that small, community-based energy production is a growing phe-
nomenon in the UK (and elsewhere) and community energy pro-
jects are increasingly embraced in the move towards a low
carbon transition. In the UK, the change in government in 2010
(from New Labour to Conservative-Liberal Coalition) did not
change the emphasis on community energy as it was taken up by
the incoming government too. Speaking at the Liberal Democrat
Autumn Conference in 2012, Ed Davey, the UK Secretary of State
for Energy and Climate Change, said that he wants nothing more
than a community energy revolution (Bridge, 2012). Furthermore,
in a parliamentary discussion about support for community energy
projects, Greg Barker MP, Minister of State, said community
engagement in the energy sector will be vital to our vision of the
development of energy in the UK in the coming decades
(Hansard, 2013) and the Department of Energy and Climate Change
(DECC) has committed to publishing a Community Energy Strategy
in 2013. Other factors such as FITs, new models of community gov-
ernance (e.g. community benet societies) and nancing (e.g. com-
munity shares) have facilitated the growth of community energy
projects in the UK.
In contrast to other papers on community energy that focus on
the organizational, institutional and politics, in this paper, we have
sought to extend the debate to focus on the socio-material pro-
cesses and practices at work in the production of small-scale com-
munity energy. We have demonstrated that when the process of
engendering and mobilizing a community around micro-hydro
takes place, the challenges of what it includes and what it excludes,
who/what might benet and lose, becomes critical. We see that the
boundaries of micro-hydros community shifts in response to con-
testation over river ecologies, particular sh species, and the pub-
lics who seek to confront it. We found that in the context of
community energy, it is the water resource that competing groups
struggle over. In many ways this is also a struggle over a future
vision of what the water resource (a river) is for; who controls it
and who decides?
Climate change (often taken as a given in other literature about
big energy) is a constant but uid partner to both proponents and
opposers of micro-hydro energy production. The global dynamics
of climate change are played out in the local community with pro-
ponents of micro-hydro concerned with energy and the low carbon
transition and opponents concerned with sh and river ecologies.
Both use and discard climate change according their interests
and how the project develops. Looking through the lens of climate
change to understand community energy also reveals how the
socio-materiality of projects shifts with these debates and chal-
lenges. Starting simply as a project to benet the local community
and help meet low carbon targets progressed over time to become
an entanglement with multiple contested socio-materialities e.g.
the river, sh, the turbine, the bridge and weir, the landowners,
and other river users.
Ironically perhaps, the project failed; despite numerous calcula-
tions by a variety of experts employed in different specialisms it
was the nancial risk - the capital costs to build the micro-hydro
project far exceeded the possible returns that led to failure. Risk
is a signicant feature of all community energy projects. The whole
process, from initiating a project to making it a reality means not
only thinking about risks but understanding and making them leg-
ible by attempting to calculate the complex landscape of social,
technical, environmental, material and nancial risks. Risk in this
instance, is uid - the risks can change from being high, medium,
low or no-risk at any stage in the process. Proponents of the project
have to be able to understand and negotiate this risky landscape.
As the negotiator the power balance can be uncertain and change
over time and as this case demonstrates micro-project does not
necessarily mean micro-politics or micro-contestation. Indeed,
 A. Armstrong, H. Bulkeley / Geoforum 56 (2014) 6676
compared to conventional energy production, it does appear from
this case that community energy encounters distinct political
dynamics. The materiality of micro hydro as an insertion in a
local community makes it particularly vulnerable to challenges.
Micro hydro has the capacity to disrupt entities associated with
the river i.e. those with a clear sense of ownership, particularly
over sh species but also over the river ecosystem more broadly;
plus interventions into river ecosystems can have wide-reaching
effects, upstream and downstream, which rather problematizes
the micro tag.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to those who gave up their time to speak to
us about community-based micro hydro, hydro in the UK and the
Energyshare initiative. We would especially like to thank Hexham
River Hydro, the Environment Agency and the Rivers Trust. We
would also like to thank the Leverhulme Trust without the
funding from Professor Bulkeleys Leverhulme Fellowship this
project would not have been possible. Thank you also to the three
anonymous referees for their encouraging and constructive com-
ments that helped develop the paper.
References
Adams, S., 2008. Low carbon communities: a study of community energy projects in
the UK. In: Rural Community Carbon Network <http://www.ruralgateway.
org.uk/sites/default/les/Low%20Carbon%20Communities.pdf> (accessed May
2013).
Aitken, M., 2010. Wind power and community benets: challenges and
opportunities. Energy Policy <http://www.centre-cired.fr/IMG/pdf/Wind_
Power_Community_Benets.pdf> (accessed May 2013).
Angling Trust, 2011. Hydropower: an Angling Trust guide to objecting <http://
www.anglingtrust.net/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=2630&letitle=
Angling+Trust+Guide+to+Help+Object+to+Hydropower+Applications> (accessed
March 2013).
Angling Trust Website, 2013. <http://www.anglingtrust.net/page.asp?
section=496&sectionTitle=Fighting+Hydropower> (accessed August 2013).
Bailey, I., Hopkins, R., Wilson, G., 2010. Some things old, some things new: the
spatial representations and politics of change of the peak oil relocalisation
movement. Geoforum 41 (4), 595605.
Bakker, K., 1999a. The politics of hydropower: developing the Mekong. Polit. Geogr.
18 (2), 209232.
Bakker, K., 1999b. Deconstructing discourses of drought. Trans. Br. Inst. Geogr. New
Ser. 24, 367372.
Bakker, K., 2000. Privatizing water: producing scarcity: the Yorkshire drought of
1995. Econ. Geogr. 76 (1), 427.
Bakker, K., 2001. Paying for water: water charging and equity in England and Wales.
Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. New Ser. 26, 143164.
Bakker, K., 2003. An Uncooperative Commodity Privatizing Water in England and
Wales. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bakker, K., Bridge, G., 2006. Material worlds? Resource geographies and the matter
of nature. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 30 (1), 527.
Bartle, A., 2002. Hydropower potential and developmental activities. Energy Policy
30 (14), 12311239.
BBC, 2013. Hexham River Hydro scheme shelved due to cost <http://
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-22884896>.
Bomberg, E., McEwen, N., 2012. Mobilizing community energy. Energy Policy 51,
435444.
Bridge, G., 2004a. Gas, and how to get it. Geoforum 35 (4), 395397.
Bridge, G., 2004b. Contested terrain: mining and the environment. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 29, 205259.
Bridge, G., 2010. Geographies of peak oil: the other carbon problem. Geoforum 41
(4), 523530.
Bridge, T., 2012. Davy announces support for community energy revolution,
<http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=107040>
(accessed October 2013).
Bridge, G., Le Billon, P., 2012. Oil. Polity, Cambridge.
Bridge, G., Wood, A., 2010. Less is more: spectres of scarcity and the politics of
resource access in the upstream oil sectors. Geoforum 41, 565576.
Bristow, G., Cowell, R., Munday, M., 2012. Windfalls for whom? The evolving notion
of community in community benet provisions from wind farms. Geoforum 43
(6), 11081120.
Cass, N., Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., 2010. Good neighbours, public relations and
bribes: the politics and perceptions of community benet provision in
renewable energy development in the UK. J. Environ. Planning Policy Manage.
12, 255275.
75
Daniel, B., 2012. Experts called in over Hexham Hydro River plan. The Journal 5,
October 2012.
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), 2013. Public attitudes tracking
survey: wave 5 <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/le/198722/Summary_of_Wave_5_ndings_of_Public_
Attitudes_Tracker.pdf> (accessed June 2013).
Devine-Wright, P., 2009. Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and
place identity in explaining place protective action. J. Commun. Appl. Soc.
Psychol. 19 (6), 426441.
Dunning, J., Turner, A., 2005. Community-owned wind farmsaspirations,
suspicions and reality. Power UK 131, 4245.
Eden, S., Tunstall, S.M., Tapsell, S.M., 2000. Translating nature: river restoration and
nature-culture. Environ. Plann. D 18, 257273.
Egre, D., Milewski, J.C., 2002. The diversity of hydropower projects. Energy Policy 30
(14), 12251230.
Ekers, M., Loftus, A., 2008. The power of water: developing dialogues between
Gramsci and Foucault. Environ. Plann. D: Soc. Space 26, 698718.
Energyshare Website, 2013. <http://groups.energyshare.com/hrh/> (accessed
August 2013).
Environment Agency, 2010. Hydropower: a guide for you and your community
<http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho1010btdn-e-e.pdf> (accessed
October 2012).
Environment Agency, 2013. Hydropower regulation <http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/126575.aspx> (accessed June 2013).
Firestone, J., Kempton, W., 2007. Public opinion about large off-shore wind power:
underlying factors. Energy Policy 35 (3), 15841598.
Fletcher, R., 2011. When environmental issues collide: climate change and the
shifting political ecology of hydroelectric power. Peace Conict Rev. 5 (1), 115.
Fox, A.D., 2011. Eco-energy and urbanisation: messages from birds about wind
turbine proliferations. Boreal Environ. Res. 16 (B), 1425.
Gabriel, S., Baschwitz, A., Mathonniere, G., Eleouet, T., Fizaine, F., 2013. A critical
assessment of global uranium resources, including uranium in phosphate rocks,
and the possible impact of uranium shortages on nuclear power eets. Ann.
Nucl. Energy 58, 213220.
Gandy, M., 2004. Rethinking urban metabolism: water, space and the modern city.
City 8 (3), 371387.
Gerbens-Leenes, W., Hoekstra, A.Y., van der Meer, T.H., 2009. The water footprint of
bioenergy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (25), 1021910223.
Graham, S., Marvin, S., 2001. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures,
Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. Routledge, London.
Hain, J.J., Ault, G.W., Galloway, S.J., Cruden, A., McDonald, J.R., 2005. Additional
renewable energy growth through small-scale community orientated policies.
Energy Policy 33 (9), 11991212.
Hansard, 2013. Parliament discussion on support for new community energy
schemes, 22 January 2013 <http://www.brightonenergy.org.uk/2013/02/
parliament-discussion-on-new-support-for-community-energy-schemes/>
(accessed May 2013).
Henderson, T., 2011. Hexham road bridge weir is a threat to salmon. The Journal
(1st July).
Hexham Community Partnership, 2011. Hexham River Hydro, <http://
www.hexhamcommunity.net/media/HRH%20Background%20Document%20
Nov%202011nal.pdf> (accessed September 2012).
Hexham River Hydro Leaet, 2012. Version 16 April.
Jaffe, A.B., Stavins, R.N., 1995. Dynamic incentives of environmental regulations: the
effects of alternative policy instruments on technology diffusion. J. Environ.
Econ. Manage. 29, S43S63.
Kaika, M., 2005. City of Flows: Modernity, Nature and the City. Routledge, London.
Koch, F.H., 2002. Hydropower the politics of water and energy: introduction and
overview. Energy Policy: Special Issue Hydropower, Soc. Environ. 21st Century
30 (14), 12071213.
Lasourd, J.B., 2001. Solar photovoltaic systems: the economics of a renewable
energy resource. Environ. Model. Softw. 16 (2), 147156.
Middlemass, L., Parrish, B.D., 2010. Building capacity for low-carbon communities:
the role of grassroots initiatives. Energy Policy 38 (12), 75597566.
Munday, M., Bristow, G., Cowell, R., 2011. Wind farms in rural areas: how far do
community benets from wind farms represent a local economic development
opportunity? J. Rural Stud. 27 (1), 112.
Pasqualetti, M.J., 2011. Opposing wind energy landscapes: a search for common
cause. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101 (4), 907917.
Peters, M., Fudge, S., Sinclair, P., 2010. Mobilising community action toward a low-
carbon future: opportunities and challenges for local government. Energy Policy
38 (12), 75967603.
Smith, A., Seyfang, G., 2011. Challenges and opportunities for community energy,
Community Innovation for Sustainable Energy <http://sd.defra.gov.uk/2011/01/
challenges-and-opportunities-for-community-energy/> (accessed April 2013).
Swyngedouw, E., 1999. Modernity and hybridity: nature, regeneracionismo, and the
production of the Spanish Waterscape, 18901930. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 89
(3), 443465.
Swyngedouw, E., 2004. Social Power and the Urbanization of Water-Flows of Power.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Swyngedouw, E., 2006. Power, Water and Money: exploring the nexus. United
Nations Human Development Report Ofce, UNDP <http://hdr.undp.org/en/
reports/global/hdr2006/papers/swyngedouw.pdf> (accessed June 2013).
Swyngedouw, E., 2007. Technonatural revolutions: the scalar politics of
Francos hydro-social dream for Spain, 19391975. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 32
(1), 928.
76 A. Armstrong, H. Bulkeley / Geoforum 56 (2014) 6676
Tompkins, E.L., Adger, W.N., 2004. Does adaptive management of natural resources
enhance resilience to climate change. Ecol. Soc. 9(2), article 10, <http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10/> (accessed October 2013).
Trussart, S., Messier, D., Roquet, V., Aki, S., 2002. Hydropower projects: a review of
most effective mitigation measures. Energy Policy 30 (14), 12511259.
Tully, P., 2012. River groups urge delay in Hexham Hydro plans. The Journal, 25
October.
Van der Horst, D., Evans, J., 2010. Carbon claims and energy landscapes: exploring
the political ecology of biomass. Landscape Res. 35 (2), 173193.
Van Vliet, B., Chappells, H., Sove, E., 2005. Infrastructures of Consumption:
Environmental Innovation in the Utility Industries. Earthscan, London.
Walker, G., 1997. Renewable energy in the UK: the Cinderella sector transformed?
Geography 82 (1), 5974.
Walker, G., 2007. Harnessing community energy, Innovation Brief 11, Sustainable
Technologies Programme <http://geography.lancs.ac.uk/cei/Downloads/
111.pdf> (accessed May 2013).
Walker, G., 2008. What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned
means of energy production and use? Energy Policy 36 (12), 44014405.
Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., 2008. Community renewable energy: what should it
mean? Energy Policy 36, 497500.
Walker, G., Hunter, S., Devine-Wright, P., Evans, B., Fay, H., 2007. Harnessing
community energies: explaining and evaluating community-based localism in
renewable energy policy in the UK. Global Environ. Polit. 71, 6482.
Warren, C., Birnie, R., 2009. Re-powering Scotland: wind farms and the Energy or
Environment? Debate. Scot. Geogr. J. 125, 97126.
Watson, J.W., Sauter, R., Bahaj, B., James, P.A., Myers, L., 2006. Unlocking the Power
House: Policy and System Change for Domestic Micro-Generation in the UK.
SPRU, University of Sussex.
Zografos, C., Martinez-Alier, J., 2009. The politics of landscape value: the case study
of wind farm conict in rural Catalonia. Environ. Plann. A 41 (7), 17261744.