FUTURE OFFSHORE
Update on the Consultation
Nigel Peace
Licensing & Consents Unit
27 March 2003
ENERGY GROUP
Purpose of talk
•
•
•
Highlight main issues arising from the consultation
Indicate how they will be taken forward
In particular, report progress on SEA
ENERGY GROUP
107 responses received
•
•
•
•
•
•
Developers, including trade associations – 23
Marine users – 12
Environmental, heritage & countryside organisations
– 26
Local authorities, regional organisations – 16
Electricity companies, regulatory bodies – 10
Others, including academics & legal firms - 20
ENERGY GROUP
New legislation – consultation views
•
•
•
Strong support for early legislation to enable
developments to take place outside territorial waters
Environmental groups would prefer legislation to be part
of a comprehensive and integrated framework for the
marine environment
White Paper confirms that legislation will be brought
forward as soon as possible
ENERGY GROUP
Items expected to be covered in new
legislation
•
•
•
•
Setting up a “Renewable Energy Zone” beyond
territorial waters for renewable energy projects;
Giving responsibility to the Crown Estate for the
issue of sea bed licences in the Zone;
Extending the legal framework in territorial waters to
the Zone eg section 36 Electricity Act consents;
Providing a statutory regime for safety zones;
possibly extinguishing rights to navigation in the
Electricity Act.
ENERGY GROUP
The allocation of rights in Round 2 &
future rounds – consultation views
•
•
•
•
General support for the tender assessment process
outlined in Future Offshore.
Developers concerned about the proposal to offer leases
in fixed, geographically defined regions, following SEA.
Others – eg environmental groups, NGC – support this
proposal.
Miscellaneous points made on the proposed boundaries
of the 3 strategic regions.
ENERGY GROUP
The allocation of rights – consultation
views (continued)
•
•
•
No clear view on the frequency of rounds: environmental
groups tend towards a three year cycle whilst developers
favour greater frequency
General agreement that leases should specify timetables
for implementation of projects
No consensus on whether other renewable technologies
should be covered within the same planning framework.
ENERGY GROUP
How will next rounds proceed?
•
•
Round Two will be based on the three strategic areas
(subject to small extension of Greater Wash boundaries)
Design of the Round will be agreed between Crown
Estate and DTI, taking into account
– Responses to consultation
– Registrations of interest
– SEA Environmental Report
ENERGY GROUP
How will next rounds proceed?
(continued)
•
Once Round Two under way, DTI & Crown Estate will
discuss with BWEA, SEA Steering Group, etc
– Taking forward SEA process
– Timing and geographical areas of subsequent rounds
ENERGY GROUP
SEA – views of environmental
groups
•
•
•
•
Concerns that the process is being implemented too
quickly
Widely held view that a national scale SEA is needed
to inform decisions on the best strategic areas for
development
Only a few calls for a moratorium on further
development, but wide support for a precautionary
approach to sites where data is unavailable and
impact uncertain
Analysis of cumulative impact seen as crucial
ENERGY GROUP
SEA – views of wind industry
•
•
•
•
Value of SEA process recognised
Do not want the timetable to slip
Believe rigid application of precautionary principle would
be counterproductive
Concern that positive environmental benefits of wind
energy may not be adequately recognised
ENERGY GROUP
SEA – Timetable
•
•
•
Environmental Report will be published in draft at the end
of April. Four week public consultation during May.
Report will be finalised at end of May in order to inform
Round 2 which will follow in June.
Progress can be monitored on
http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/offshore-wind-sea/
ENERGY GROUP
Responsibility for offshore cables
Consultation clarified that there are three options:
1.
2.
3.
Offshore developers remain responsible for offshore
connections to onshore, as now.
Extend responsibilities of onshore network operators to
offshore, but maintain existing charging arrangements.
Offshore developers would then have choice of
providing connections themselves or receiving regulated
cost-reflective connections.
As 2, but adjust the regulatory charging regime so that
network operators could recover costs from other
customers.
ENERGY GROUP
Responsibility for offshore cables
(continued)
•
•
•
•
No consensus of views on the best way forward
Similarly no consensus on whether a new regulatory
regime is needed for third party access.
A few respondents call for a co-ordinating strategy for
offshore network infrastructure
Clear that this is a key issue for the future
ENERGY GROUP
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consultation response generally supports the proposed
way ahead although much comment on detail
Summary of responses, and Department’s conclusions,
will be published in the summer
SEA process is well under way
Round Two is in active preparation
Legislation will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary
time allows
Key issues for longer term include taking forward the SEA
process; the design of future rounds; and responsibility
for offshore cables.