Legal frame for the use of offshore
wind energy in Germany
A background paper
prepared by RA’in Dr. Ursula Prall
For the 3rd Seminar on EIA for off shore wind farms vis-à-vis Natura 2000 and other land
uses:
“Which kind of legal frame we need?”
Riga, 15-16 April 2009
Baltic Environmental Forum 2009
2
Contents
I.
II.
The status of offshore wind farms in Germany
4
1. Situation and history of relevant developments in Germany
4
2. Why are there no offshore wind farms in Germany?
6
3. Conclusion
6
The "financial environment": Why should an offshore wind farm be
built?
7
1. Expensive projects - binding EU targets on renewable energy
7
2. Options for action
7
3. How is it done in Germany?
7
a) Feed-in tariffs
7
b) Grid connection to be supplied by transmission system operators
(TSO)
9
4. Conclusions
9
III. The location of an offshore wind farm: Where should it be built?
9
1. Conflicting interests
9
2. Options for action
10
3. How is it done in Germany?
10
a) 1999 - 2005
11
b) Identification of no-go areas in respect to nature conservation (Sept.
2005)
11
c) Identification of areas particularly suitable for offshore wind farms
(Dec. 2005)
11
d) Spatial planning (2005/2008)
12
4. Conclusions
13
IV. Under what circumstances should an offshore wind farm be licensed?
1. Defining scope and requirements for licensing
2. Options for action
a) General considerations
b) Licensing requirements
3. How is it done in Germany?
a) General considerations
b) Licensing requirements (EEZ)
aa) Overview: Maritime Facilities Ordinance
15
4.
bb)
Safety of navigation
17
cc)
Marine environment
19
dd)
Other public interests
19
ee)
Technical aspects
20
ff)
Collateral clauses
21
Conclusions
a) General considerations
b) Licensing requirements as such
V. Competent authorities and proceedings
1. "Establishing formalities"
2. Options for action
3. How is it done in Germany?
a) Competent authorities
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
3
b)
aa)
Proceedings
Before licensing 23
bb)
Execution of a permit
23
24
4. Conclusions
25
VI. Grid connection and capacity of onshore grid: Where would the
electricity go?
25
1. "No life without arteries"
25
2. Options for action
25
3. How is it done in Germany?
26
a) Grid connection offshore onshore
26
b) Capacity of onshore transmission grid
26
4. Conclusions
26
VII. What else is needed?
26
4
I.
The status of offshore wind farms in Germany
1. Situation and history of relevant developments in Germany
In Germany, a quite detailed legal framework for licensing installation and operation (and
decommissioning) of offshore wind farms is in place. Altogether, there are more than twenty
licenses in place, covering more or less all aspects of what could go wrong and how it should
theoretically be done.
But since not every problem is solved yet, in practice there is no offshore wind farm yet
installed. This should change in the very near future and most probably by the end of 2009,
36 turbines will be installed.
The licensing/application situation right now is as follows:
Fig. 1. Planned offshore wind farms in the North Sea1
1
Map in English available at
http://www.bsh.de/en/Marine_uses/Industry/CONTIS_maps/NorthSeaOffshoreWindfarmsPilotProjects.pdf
5
Fig. 2. Planned offshore wind farms in the Baltic Sea2
The objective of the Federal Government is that by 2030, approximately 25.000MW electrical
power shall be installed offshore. To this end, a strategy3 was developed and published in
2002. It envisaged a step-by- step approach:
2001 - 2003: preparation phase
2003 - 2006: at least 500MW
2007 - 2010: 2.000 to 3.000MW
2011 - 2030: 20.000 to 25.000MW
However, things went differently: In 2002 - or, rather, in 1998, when the first applications were
filed - the legal framework was not quite "ready" to cope with the eagerness of project
developers to engage in such visionary projects: Whilst the relevant "Marine Facilities
Ordinance" (Seeanlagenverordnung - SeeAnlV)4 was in place and supplied the essential - but
no more than just so - legal requirements, no spatial planning was (and is) in place, no
sensitive areas were identified, no methods for environmental impact assessment (EIA) or
risk analysis or technical standards were yet developed.
One might say that this triggered activities on all levels:
2
It cannot be said that project developers deliberately took advantage of this situation, but
planning activities were more or less unimpeded by this situation. The consequence is the
Map in English available at
http://www.bsh.de/en/Marine_uses/Industry/CONTIS_maps/BalticSeaOffshoreWindfarms.pdf
3
Available in German at http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/6890/20214/
4
Current version in German available at
http://www.bsh.de/de/Meeresnutzung/Wirtschaft/Windparks/SeeAnlV.pdf;
unofficial English translation of the 2002 version (some amendments entered into force in 2008!) available at
http://www.bmu.bund.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/offshore_ordinance.pdf)
6
approval and application situation, as shown, which suggests anything but a step-by-step
approach.
The competent authority, the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (Bundesamt für
Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie/BSH) worked hard and successfully developing a high
standard of concretising the legal requirements - sometimes using quite some legal
creativity to complete gaps in the legislation, which was designed for occasional single
structures, not several hundreds.
The competent authorities for nature conservation got to work as well: They supplied their
expertise for developing environmental standards, and they started research in order to
identify areas worth of protection (Natura2000), as well as research on the effect of
offshore wind farms on the marine environment (species, habitats, bird migration).
Also, the Water and Shipping Directorates got used to the idea that the Seas might be
used by others than vessels. By the end of 2005, harmonised parameters for risk
analyses were in place (which were now recently updated).
This process took several years, but since approximately 2005 it is safe to say that a certain
consented routine was established, between project developers, competent authorities and
other stakeholders.
2. Why are there no offshore wind farms in Germany?
Despite these efforts and consequent successes, the fact remains that no offshore wind farm
has as yet been realised, whilst in other countries things are moving forward. Simplified, the
reasons are:
The conditions are quite demanding. Most of the projected wind farms are situated more
than 80, sometimes more than 100 km from the shore, in water depths of 20 to 40m.
There is a scarcity of turbines (5MW), of foundations, of sea cables, transformer stations
and of installation equipment, such as jack-up platforms or vessels that are needed for
laying the cables. In fact, all fundamental elements are basically critical. The situation
started to improve now, though - there is a market, which triggers the necessary
investment by the relevant enterprises.
Until recently - i.e. until the beginning of 2009 - the incentive proved to be ineffective. Due
to rising prices for the necessary raw materials, such as steel and copper that are needed
in large quantities, the fixed price of 9.1Ct per kWh was insufficient; it would not have
been profitable and therefore unfeasible. This situation has now been fundamentally
improved, with 15Ct per kWh.
Also, until now only very few grid connections have been licensed. Obviously, without a
cable an offshore wind farm makes no sense but is nothing but a huge liability.
3. Conclusion
All this shows that the use of offshore wind energy in Germany is not, at least not yet, a story
of complete success. But it definitely will be one in the very near future - and Germany is well
prepared for that.
But the length of this preparation process shows just how much more is to be done than was
accounted for in the beginning. Therefore, it really makes sense to consider these
experiences.
However, this does not mean that all lessons learnt/all conclusions and achievements are
applicable everywhere else. It must be carefully examined which of the "German
experiences" could be transferred to another country/another geographical environment.
7
II.
The "financial environment": Why should an offshore wind farm be built?
1. Expensive projects - binding EU targets on renewable energy
The use of offshore wind energy by large-scale offshore wind farms is a financial challenge.
An offshore wind farm of 80 turbines, each with a capacity of 5 MW, means that more than €
1 billion need to be invested, and this does not include the grid connection. Also, it is an
undertaking, which is not free from risks, being a new technology, which is to be installed in a
comparatively rough environment.
This raises the question why anybody should engage in such a project; there must be a
reason for spending so much money for something so risky.
On the other hand, the new RES Directive (Directive on Electricity Production from
Renewable Energy Sources) - which will enter into force soon - proclaims that by 2020,
Latvia is supposed to have reached a target for the share of energy from RES in gross
final consumption of energy of 40%
Lithuania of 23%,
and Estonia of 25%.
In all countries, some work must still be done to reach these targets, and it is not up to the
national governments whether this work is to be done or not, but the targets are binding on
the EU level.
It is therefore necessary to make the use of RES happen - and offshore wind energy is
certainly a good way to do so, since it has an enormous potential.
2. Options for action
Putting these two aspects - risks and binding RES targets - together, it means that
either a strong incentive is needed, or
the use of RES must be compulsory.
The first option is reflected in the feed-in tariff system, the second in a quota system; these
two models are basically the most common options a Member State may choose: According
to the current and future RES Directive, it is up to the Member States which kind of promotion
system they establish. The Commission has yet abstained from suggesting a harmonisation.
The conclusion is that some kind of incentive - be it economic or compliance-based - needs to
be established.
3. How is it done in Germany?
a) Feed-in tariffs
The German EEG (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz/Renewable Energy Sources Act5) entered
into force in 1990 (called Stromeinspeisungsgesetz/StrEG). It was based on an initiative from
the German Parliament with strong support from the Green Party and the Social Democrats
5
The current (2009) version in German available at http://www.bgblportal.de/BGBL/bgbl1f/bgbl108s2074.pdf;
English translation available at
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/eeg_2009_en.pdf
8
as well as the then governing Conservative Parties in the Bundestag. Over the following
decade there were substantial amendments and a completely reformulated structure was
established with the introduction of the EEG 2000, with further modifications in 2004 and yet
another structural change and very substantial ameliorations in 2009 (it is a tradition that the
EEG is amended every four years, based on experiences of the near past).
The objective of the EEG - in its current version - is to provide for the sustainable
development of energy supply, especially with a view to climate protection, nature
conservation and environmental protection, to reduce the economic costs of the energy
supply by incorporating long-term external costs, to promote the development of the relevant
technologies and to spare fossil energy resources.
To this end, until 2020, 30% of all electricity shall be based on RES, and shall continue to
increase afterwards. These numbers are regularly amended. I.e., in the last version of the
EEG, which entered into force in 2004, it was foreseen that 12.5% should be reached until
2010 and 20% in 2020. That these figures went significantly up shows how well the
instrument worked - it is reasonable to assume that the target will be reached.
The regulatory instruments through which these objectives are to be achieved are a
combination of guaranteed prior grid access for RES and guaranteed minimum feed-in tariffs,
which are considerably higher than market prices, for twenty years. These tariffs differ from
source to source (wind, hydro, solar, biomass, ...) and partly also from location to location,
and they are subject to degression.
Addressees of these obligations are network system operators:
They are obliged to feed renewable sourced electricity into their network, regardless of
the net capacity needed for electricity generated by conventional sources.
They are also obliged to pay minimum price tariffs (above market-price) for every kWh
that is fed into their grid,
And finally, they are obliged to extend grid capacity in order to be able to comply with
these obligations.
The higher tariffs can be passed on to consumer prices, meaning that in the short term
electricity for the consumer is slightly more expensive, but - at least in Germany - they start
having a positive effect. This effect will increase the more expensive gas and oil become.
Anybody producing RES electricity within the scope of the EEG definition, be it a single
independent power producer, such as a farmer/private household or a big electricity
company, has access to this scheme. This scope of the EEG extends to RES electricity
generated by plants situated within German territory including the German EEZ.
For offshore wind farms, the following tariff applies:
For each kWh which is generated in an offshore wind farm - "offshore" being at least
three nautical miles away from the coastline - 15Ct are to be paid during the first twelve
years if the turbine (not the wind farm as a whole, but the single generator) starts
operating before the end of 2015;
it will only be 13Ct/kWh for the first twelve years if a turbine starts operating after the end
of 2015 ( incentive for accelerating realisation);
this will drop to 3.5Ct/kWh after twelve years of operation ( "political", but consensus
that a high tariff in the beginning is much more important than a middling one over a
longer period), for another eight years;
13 or 15Ct will be paid for a longer period than twelve years if the wind farm is situated in
more than 20m water depth, and if the distance from the coastal line is more than 12
nautical miles: it is another 0.5 months for each additional mile and another 1.7 months
for each additional meter of water depth ( compensation for difficult/more expensive
conditions for installation and maintenance/not really "extra": no incentive, but return).
9
There is no fixed, above-market price feed-in tariff for wind farms that are situated in a
nature conservation area ( negative incentive).
For each wind farm that starts operating in 2015 or later, a degression will apply of 5% of
the relevant tariff (15 Ct minus 5% for turbines that start operation in 2015, 13Ct minus
5% for WTG that start operating after 2015) ( incentive for acceleration to start before
2015, but also economies of scale: It is expected that it will be cheaper to install offshore
winds farm once the first ones started working and market prices will drop).
b) Grid connection to be supplied by transmission system operators (TSO)
Another incentive/advantage for offshore wind farm developers/operators is the responsibility
for grid connection offshore onshore:
Until the end of 2006, the installation of an offshore wind farm would include the connection to
the onshore grid. Depending on the distance, this would mean an extra investment of 25 40% of the costs of the wind farm itself. Also, the planning and licensing procedure was to be
conducted by each individual project developer. Besides the money and effort this involved, it
was definitely not the ideal solution in respect to efficiency and environmental impacts - it is
evident that approximately forty grid connections are more expensive and have more
negative impacts on the environment than fewer ones with a larger capacity that are bundled.
As a consequence, the responsibility for connecting offshore wind farms to the onshore grid
was shifted to the TSOs in December 2006. The objective of this move was to accelerate the
development.
That this effect did not occur is a specific problem - for the purpose of this presentation the
important point is that another relief of financial obligations was established, and it is felt as
such by the project developers.
4. Conclusions
The EEG has been a highly successful instrument for promoting the use of RES. It
establishes a fairly strong and very reliable positive incentive for both technical development
and for the installation of the respective plants, taking into account the different stages the
use of different sources are in. It has been copied in many other countries and many EU
Member States use it; it is widely held to be the best instrument.
In my opinion, quota systems make sense only if it is necessary to initialise the use of RES,
from the very beginning. Afterwards, it is not reliable, meaning that the incentive is not as
effective as a fixed feed-in tariff, which is to be paid whatever the amount of RES-based
electricity is. Also, studies show that electricity prices are higher if a quota system was
chosen.
But after all, this is a political discussion, not really a legal one.
It has to be decided whether grid connection is the responsibility of the project developer, of a
TSO or maybe even the state.
III. The location of an offshore wind farm: Where should it be built?
1. Conflicting interests
Offshore wind farms need a lot of space, and they are installed in a surrounding, which is
traditionally free of any kind of permanent structures above the surface and which is - mostly -
10
freely accessible. This means that there is a fairly high potential for conflicts with the following
uses/issues:
navigation,
marine environment,
air traffic,
landscape/tourism,
military usage,
fishery,
sand and gravel excavation,
existing structures, such as cables or pipelines.
All these interests are potentially compromised. This means that the location for an offshore
wind farm must be carefully chosen. In respect to the marine environment, the following EU
provisions need to be considered:
the Habitat Directive 1992/43/EEC calls for taking certain habitat types - notably reefs and
sandbanks - and certain species into account, meaning that areas of conservation might
have to be established and that species listed in Annex IV may not be disturbed;
the Bird Directive 1979/409/EEC demands that European bird species shall be protected,
by establishing the most suitable territories as special protection areas and by avoiding
disturbances;
also, wind farms are subject to an EIA, which calls for at least identifying and evaluating
the impact of the project on those factors listed in Art. 3 EIA-Dir. 1985/337/EEC, including
cumulative effects;
and finally, if some kind of plan or programme is to be put into place, it means that
Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of effects of certain plans and programmes on
the environment ( procedure and strategic assessment of spatial planning; SEA) must
be observed.
2. Options for action
Basically, there are four options how to cope with these potentially conflicting interests:
simply just let things happen, which means that the location would be the choice of the
applicant and the competent authority would have to decide whether anything speaks
against the situation in each single case;
to identify "no-go-areas", i.e. areas where no wind farms should be situated, because they
are, for example, always busy or for reasons of nature protection;
to identify "go-areas", i.e. areas where offshore wind farms should be built because little
conflicts are to be expected;
or to prepare comprehensive spatial planning, bringing all these interests into an
appropriate balance.
3. How is it done in Germany?
In Germany, we went through all these stages:
11
a) 1999 - 2005
As already touched upon, from the beginning of project developers activities in approximately
1999 until autumn 2005, there were no, at least no formal, provisions in place which would
steer the placing of an offshore wind farm.
Traffic routes were known by the competent Water and Shipping Directorates as well as
the risk analysts, but they were not formally published.
The situation was similar concerning nature conservation - potentially sensitive areas
were known but not fully investigated and no protection regime established.
Structures (cables and pipelines) as well as sand and gravel excavation areas were
known.
In other words: During the first years, the first option - "let things happen" - was "chosen". Due
to the readiness of BSH to extensively discuss the location of a project with the project
developer in each individual case and a general consensus that no project should have more
than 80 turbines, it was possible to limit the number of misplaced projects.
b) Identification of no-go areas in respect to nature conservation (Sept. 2005)
By September 2005, those areas, which should be part of Natura2000, were identified,
notified to the EU Commission and the relevant ordinances entered into force. They cover
approximately 30% of the German EEZ. Thus, all projects situated in such areas would be
subject to Art. 6 IV Habitat-Directive (exceptions), and it is highly unlikely that any authority
would license a project in such areas, since consequences of offshore wind farms on the
marine environment cannot yet be evaluated. Consequently, it would be a risky decision of
any authority from a legal point of view, and it might well be that the European Court of
Justice would put a stop to it.
Due to this consequence and in combination with the negative incentive mentioned earlier (
no fixed feed-in tariff for a wind farm situated in a Natura2000 area), no-go areas in respect to
nature conservation were effectively established.
Thus, some guidance where not to plan an offshore wind farm was in place.
c) Identification of areas particularly suitable for offshore wind farms (Dec. 2005)
Later that year (December 2005), a couple of areas that were deemed to be particularly
suitable for offshore wind farms were identified. This was related to both traffic and nature
conservation, meaning that areas were chosen where the least negative effect on these
interests was expected.
Relevant stipulations were positive incentives, as the project developers could be reasonably
sure that a project planned in one of these areas would be licensed. Also, some concessions
were implied in respect to the necessary planning documents and expert studies to be
prepared and submitted in the course of the proceedings: Since these areas were already
investigated during the identification process ( their being "particularly suitable" was based
on findings), requirements could be lessened.
The concept worked, but only for a fairly short period of time: The areas selected were too
small to accommodate the wishes and ambitions of all project developers.
12
d) Spatial planning (2005/2008)
Also in 2005 (summer/autumn), BSH started working on a comprehensive spatial planning for
the whole EEZ (12nm-zone lies within the responsibility of the Federal States).
Unfortunately it took three years for any outcome to be announced: Only last summer, in
2008, the draft was published.6
Its major points in respect to offshore wind energy were:
Priority areas for traffic (dark blue) were to be established, meaning that a couple of
major routes were to be permanently kept free of structures;
Priority areas for offshore wind farms (red) were to be established, and it was
foreseen that outside such areas an offshore wind farm should not be permissible. These
areas (including projects already licensed) covered space for approximately 10.000MW
and left hardly any room for the development of new projects. It reflected the project
planning situation of 2005 and did not account for the three years that had passed since
and the multitude of new projects developed since then, which would have "died".
Fig. 3. Draft spatial plan for German EEZ in the North Sea7
6
Materials in English available at BSH home page
http://www.bsh.de/en/Marine_uses/Spatial_Planning_in_the_German_EEZ/index.jsp
7
http://www.bsh.de/en/The_BSH/Notifications/Draft_map_North_Sea.pdf
13
Fig. 4. Draft spatial plan for German EEZ in the Baltic Sea8
The plan would have effectively steered "land" use in respect to offshore wind farms,
concentrating it in specified areas and not allowing it anywhere else. Steering land use is
indeed the whole purpose of spatial planning, so it did definitely make sense.
Still, the offshore wind industry was extremely concerned because it would have stopped the
development of the use of offshore wind energy. So although the plan would have made
sense from a "steering land use" point of view, it made no sense from a point of view, which
focuses on the promotion of the use of RES. So the wind energy industry and its lobbyists
managed to achieve fundamental changes, i.e. having priority areas but the possibility of
having projects licensed outside these areas, not only inside. BSH was/is very unhappy about
this.
The consequent amendments are drafted now, and it is expected that the ordinance will enter
into force soon.
4. Conclusions
Considering this development, the conclusions are as follows:
The best solution is to have spatial planning in place at the very beginning. Everybody
would profit if the different interests were considered early, fairly and thoroughly (which
implies that a lot of work needs to be done to generate the necessary knowledge for
sound decisions). Whether the demanding and time consuming process is really
necessary depends on quantity and quality of other interests and must be decided by
each country alone.
The second-best is to identify "go-areas", i.e. not forcing, but inducing project developers
to areas that have little potential for conflict.
8
http://www.bsh.de/en/The_BSH/Notifications/Draft_map_baltic_sea.pdf.
14
At the very least, no-go areas in respect to nature conservation should be identified
before even one offshore wind farm is permitted. Otherwise, one might end up with a
licensed project in the middle of an area, which should have been kept free.
The worst solution is to force the competent authority to make its decisions with nothing
but legal instruments designed for a few case-by-case decisions, with no possibility of
denying permission because a project does not fit into an overall structure of land use. In
Germany, this worked - for a certain period and a certain number of projects - only
because BSH and other authorities were extremely cooperative.
As can be seen, in Germany things were done the other way round: We started from the
bottom instead of the top of this list. As stated in the introduction, the reason is that project
developers were so much faster than legislation. They started their activities because of a
strategy, not because of provisions, and it was impossible to catch up designing provisions
without a serious rebound on the strategy.
The recommendation would be to start at the top (if comprehensive spatial planning seems
indeed to be necessary, which must be decided in the case of each individual country).
IV. Under what circumstances should an offshore wind farm be licensed?
1. Defining scope and requirements for licensing
The major legal aspect is defining the requirements for a permit, which have to strike a
balance between the project developers’ interests and the necessity of using RES, and
interests to be protected.
In respect to EU legislation, the Habitat Directive and the Bird Directive need to be taken into
account, and the findings of an EIA have to be considered in the decision making process.
2. Options for action
a) General considerations
First, a couple of preparatory decisions of a general nature need to be made:
Should the approval be a discretionary or a non-discretionary decision?
Should the regimes applicable in the EEZ and in the coastal zone differ (UNCLOS must
certainly be taken into account, though - only certain issues are relevant in the EEZ, it
might be more in the coastal zone)
Which elements of the project should be covered by the permit - should it be the wind
farm, transformer station and interconnecting cables and another permit for the grid
connection to the onshore transformer station (which would include an onshore part of
this cable), or should everything be integrated into one single permit?
b) Licensing requirements
Then, adequate requirements/conditions of licensing need to be chosen:
Should all potentially conflicting interests be protected?
Should only some be protected and others left out of the decision making process?
Should the technical details be already part of the licensing process or should these
matters be left to the execution status?
15
3. How is it done in Germany?
a) General considerations
In Germany, a permit is a non-discretionary act: A project must be licensed if none of the
reasons for refusal are fulfilled.
The legal framework for projects situated within the EEZ differs from the one for the
12nm-zone:
-
it is another competent authority,
-
the proceedings are slightly different,
-
the details of the permission requirements are slightly different,
-
and the items covered by the permit differ.
If a project is situated within the EEZ, it covers only the wind farm itself (including
transformer station and those cables connecting the turbines to the transformer station).
Another permit is needed for the cable connecting the wind farm to the shore, which
would again be split into the part running through the EEZ, the one running through the
12nm-zone and the one which leads from the coast to the onshore transformer station.
I.e., a whole bunch of permissions is needed and different authorities are involved in
issuing them). For a project situated within the 12nm-zone, the permission would include
everything. It might be split into several steps, but technically it is a "one stop-affair".
b) Licensing requirements (EEZ)
In this part the legal situation within the EEZ is described, since most of the German offshore
wind farms are planned to be installed there. Therefore, BSH has the most experience and
expertise, and other authorities have adopted some of their methods and standards. Since
the most important elements are basically the same, nothing is lost.
aa) Overview: Maritime Facilities Ordinance
The
relevant
legislative
frame
is
the
Maritime
Facilities
Ordinance
(Seeanlagenverordnung/SeeAnlV)9. It deals with licensing installation and operation of
structures in the German EEZ, such as wind farms, artificial islands, etc.10
The following is simplified, but should give an idea:
Its objective is to set up a legal frame for licensing requirements and licensing procedures
within the EEZ, allowing both installation and operation of the relevant object. Its purpose is to
make sure that this object does not impair safety of navigation, the marine environment or
other public interests. This means that in this one licensing procedure as foreseen in
SeeAnlV, all these aspects are integrated: As far as the wind farm is concerned (not included:
grid connection), the "one door, one key" principle was followed.
9
Current version in German available at
http://www.bsh.de/de/Meeresnutzung/Wirtschaft/Windparks/SeeAnlV.pdf; unofficial English translation of
the 2002 (some amendments entered into force in 2008!) version available at
http://www.bmu.bund.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/offshore_ordinance.pdf
10
All existing permits for offshore wind farms within the EEZ are - in German- available at
http://www.bsh.de/de/Meeresnutzung/Wirtschaft/Windparks/index.jsp
16
n.b.: The EIA is integrated as well: If a project needs an EIA, the EIA is to be conducted - in
accordance with the EIA Directive - in order to determine to what extent the marine environment
will be affected and whether the effect would be so strong as to cause a refusal. It is thus part of
the licensing procedure for installation and operation.
Other authorities are involved and invited to give an opinion, but - except the Waterways and
Shipping Directorates - their position is of no binding relevance. Their involvement is
important in order to find out about all different points of view and to come to a well-founded
decision.
The licensing conditions are phrased in the negative: The permission may only be denied if
one of the reasons of refusal is fulfilled. Positively phrased: An offshore wind farm (or
whatever type of structure) has to be granted permission if none of the reasons for refusal is
relevant. Those reasons for refusal are:
The project in question
would impair the safety and efficiency of navigation,
and/or would be detrimental to the marine environment,
and/or it would impair other public interests (since 2008),
and/or would be a contradiction to spatial planning (since 2008),
and if such effects cannot be either prevented or compensated by collateral clauses
("Nebenbestimmungen"), mitigating the negative effect to an acceptable level by prescribing
conditions, which need to be fulfilled.
The protection of other public interests than navigation and marine environment was added
only in 2008. Before that, it would not have been legally possible to deny a wind farm
permission because of, for example, military uses or negative impact on tourism, which would
be possible now (provided that they are strongly affected).
The right of application is not limited. The applicant does not have to be a citizen of Germany,
nor is it necessary that he/she has a certain profession: The licence refers to the features of
the object, not to those of a person. There is no way of controlling who ends up using the
permission - but the competent authority is certainly authorised to control whether all the
conditions are continually complied with, and, if necessary, to enforce these conditions.
There is an administrative fee, for conducting the procedure, but there is no user fee. There
used to be one for offshore wind farms within the territorial waters, but not within the EEZ:
The user fee would have its justification in the fact that a piece of "land" belonging to the state
is used, but since there is no property in the EEZ, a user fee cannot be imposed (a tax on
generated electricity is something else and constitutes a political decision).
N.B.: There has never been a discussion about the use of the seabed. In accordance with
UNCLOS, the respective state has the right to use the EEZ for generating energy, but there is no
property of the seabed; property ends with the territory of the state, i.e. 12nm from the coastline.
Licensing for installation and operation automatically implies the right to use the seabed for
(exactly) the licensed activities; there is no additional decision on the right to use it (otherwise, the
license would not make sense anyway). It does not "create" property (although the turbines
themselves certainly remain in the possession of the owner).
The licensing requirements - or rather, how to conduct the necessary investigations
concerning all these requirements in order to be able to judge the facts and come to a
conclusion - have been detailed and concretised by several Standards or papers the BSH has
issued over the last few years.11
11
All standards are available in English at http://www.bsh.de/en/Products/Books/Standard/index.jsp
17
bb) Safety of navigation
Offshore wind farms constitute obstacles in an open, "structureless" area. So traditionally,
ships are free to navigate and to take the shortest route possible. UNCLOS reflects this, by
forbidding all kinds of such artificial obstacles at a location where they would intervene with
the use of important, internationally recognised shipping routes.
Such routes need to be kept free, but since not all traffic is directed through such areas, other
ships might be coerced into making detours because of artificial structures "in the middle of
nothing".
It is therefore necessary to place wind farms where the least negative impact is to be
expected, i.e. traffic is as little hampered and can continue to be as smooth as possible (as
little additional turning points as necessary).
Efficiency of navigation is relevant mostly in respect to economic aspects (detours more
fuel consumption) and might require somewhat more attentiveness because of obstacles. As
far as all superfluous impediments are avoided, a negative impact is reasonable and has to
be put up with by the relevant stakeholders - the right to use the sea is not limited to
navigation; this is a tradition, but there is no legal priority.
The greater concern is safety:
A collision between a turbine and a vessel might lead to
casualties, which could amount to a very significant number of victims if, for example, a
ferry is involved,
oil contamination,
contamination of the marine environment with other toxic/hazardous substances (such as
chemicals),
great damage of both the vessel and the turbine.
Obviously, it is crucial that collisions are avoided. To this end, all kinds of safety measures
are prescribed in the numerous collateral clauses to the permission. They range from marking
of turbines, radar and Automatic Identification System (AIS), "collision friendly foundations"
and observation of the sea area to - in one case - the obligation of positioning an extra vessel
with significant towing capacity right inside the wind farm: If necessary, it might tow another
vessel right out of the dangerous area.
But before all this is done, it has to be decided what risk is acceptable, because despite all
these safety measures there is always the possibility that an (incapacitated) captain makes a
mistake, that the vessel is unable to manoeuvre or that there is a storm - or that all these
factors even come together.
Therefore, in order to come to a decision, two things need to be done:
(1) The first is of an abstract nature: Which probability of a collision is acceptable? This is a
decision, which concerns both political and legal aspects, and it must be made by the
competent authority or (if necessary) on a higher level. It cannot be up to the project
developer which risk he is willing to take, since it is mostly other interests that are
concerned, not his. These other (public) interests are not at the disposition of the project
developer.
In Germany it was decided a couple of years ago that the probability of less than one
collision in one hundred years would be an acceptable risk.
That does sound like a lot, but it has to be considered that this would include all "kinds of
contact" (like just touching) and all kinds of vessels (like leisure boats, small fishing
vessels, etc.). The risk analyses show that there might be a collision probability of, for
example, once in two hundred years, but the probability of a colliding oil tanker, which
18
breaks would be once in 20.000 years (it might still happen tomorrow). This would depend
on the predominant kind of traffic in the relevant area.
(2) The second step concerns the individual, specific project: what probability of a collision
exists at that particular site?
In order to find that out, it is necessary that the project developer submits a risk analysis
prepared by an independent expert. The expert would first analyse the traffic situation:
What kind of ships – are there a lot of oil or other hazardous substances transported
at that route? Is there a lot of roll on/roll off, which is relevant because they tend to
catch the wind and might drift into a wind farm if the vessel is unable to manoeuvre?
How dense is the traffic?
Is it directed or undirected?
Are there other obstacles already around - or planned? How do they influence traffic?
( cumulative approach!)
(Air traffic?)
etc.
All these factors are put together, and in some elaborate calculations using a probabilistic
approach a collision probability is found. Different scenarios are applied, such as wind
direction, current speed, probability of a vessel being disabled, and for how long, etc.
Since the different experts used different methods in the beginning, harmonised
parameters were found after a while which would make the analyses more reliable and
which improved comparability.
Once this risk analysis has been submitted, it has to be reviewed). If the risk is too high, it
might be possible to lower it by additional safety measures, such as - as mentioned - a safety
vessel positioned inside the wind farm (to be paid for by the operator). If "nothing works" and
the risk remains unacceptable from a legal (and political) point of view, the approval would
have to be denied. This has not yet happened in Germany, but was quite close last year.12
An additional requirement, which serves the interests of navigation, is that the Waterways and
Shipping Directorates, which have the sole purpose of looking after traffic's interests, have to
give their consent. Without it, a permit cannot be issued.
Finally, there is - in accordance with UNCLOS - the possibility of establishing safety zones of
500m around each turbine. This means that turbines should not be positioned in a distance of
more than 1.000m from each other, because only then it can be made sure that nobody is
allowed to enter. Otherwise, there would be narrow straits between the turbines, effectively
increasing the danger.
BSH made or triggered the following contributions to establishing rules and interpreting vague
legal terms in the context of safety of navigation:
establishing an abstract rule for acceptability of a risk, in collaboration with other bodies,
contributing to the methods to be used in preparing a risk analysis.
12
Some information about risk analysis methods is available - in German - at http://www.offshore-stiftung.de
Aktuelles: Abschlussbericht Offshore Windparks - Wirksamkeit kollisionsverhindernde Maßnahmen.
19
cc) Marine environment
In Germany, some very good guidance on EIA was provided, with a BSH Standard
Environmental Investigations Concept.13 Therefore, this background paper concentrates on
what to do with the findings of the study.
The purpose of an EIA is to collect facts on the environment of the proposed project, and to
evaluate the effects it will probably have, by an independent expert. Thus, the study on the
environmental impact of an offshore wind farm will tell the competent authority what the
consequences of the project will be. It will tell
which species are affected;
which/what kind of habitats are affected;
which other interests are affected (landscape, climate, people, etc., in accordance with
Art. 3 EIA Dir.);
the cumulative effects with other relevant projects.
It will also tell to what degree they will be affected:
little or negligible effects
middle,
or severe.
The EIA Directive gives no guidance on to how to decide, but it forces the competent
authority to consider the findings in its decision. The study is subject to public scrutiny, so that
third parties get an opportunity of questioning these findings and discuss them. The
competent authority has to take all statements, all findings, and the project developer’s rights
as well as the rights of third parties into consideration and weigh the pros and cons.
Also, an EIA will give the opportunity for optimising the project, because of the information it
provides. It might be possible to avoid damage by simply shifting the project location (slightly
or substantially), it might be possible to do with less lights, less turbines, less height,
greater/closer distance etc. Such compromises might be necessary/advisable to reduce the
impact on protected interests but without giving up the whole project.
However, even if those are "soft" requirements ("take the findings into account") on the
European level, there are other binding ones, which result from the Habitat and the Bird
Directive; also national legislation needs to be considered. The most relevant provisions,
which are "strictly supervised" by the Commission, are
Art. 6 and 12 of the Habitat Dir.,
Art. 4, 5 and 9 of the Bird Dir.
Also, there is a lot of ECJ jurisdiction on these Directives. Exemptions are possible, but the
requirements have to be fulfilled, obviously.
dd) Other public interests
The most important other public interests that might be concerned are
landscape,
military use,
fishery.
13
English version available at http://www.bsh.de/en/Products/Books/Standard/index.jsp.
20
Also, already existing other structures, such as cables and pipelines, need to be
considered.
Landscape is important for both people living at the coast and for tourism. Experience
(especially from Denmark) shows, though, that most communities can be reconciled: It is a
matter of "selling" the project. There are ways of mitigating the impact on landscape, by
refraining from bright lights, limiting height. Also, people usually need to be convinced that
because of risk management, there is no danger ( rather: an acceptable risk) that toxic
substances are spilled on the shore. It is also possible to create some sort of tourist
attraction. However, the fact remains that up to a certain distance, the turbines will be visible,
and it is very much the attitude of individuals how they respond to this, how much they
support the use of renewable energy sources.
Military use is relevant in respect to navy and air force. Unfortunately, it is usually very difficult
to say whether this issue is concerned, because very often such information is classified. It
makes sense to start early discussions with the competent bodies in each country, in order to
find out what is possible.
In Germany, the fishing industry is increasingly concerned because of the number of offshore
wind farms that are licensed. Since it will be forbidden to enter them, more and more space is
lost for the fishing industry. This concern is the greater the closer a wind farm is located to the
shore, because the small vessels do not go out as far as most wind farms are situated. On
the other hand, it is argued that offshore wind farms are some kind of a refuge for the
depleted fish stocks (contentious/not fully investigated). It might be necessary to prepare for
some kind of compensation soon, though.
It should be tried not to cross the existing pipelines or cables more often than absolutely
necessary. Crossing an existing structure is technically absolutely possible without causing
any damage, but it involves expensive work at the bottom of the sea. Also, repairs are more
difficult.
ee) Technical aspects
Finally, either during the licensing process or afterwards lots of technical requirements need
to be met.
First of all, geological site investigations are necessary. Before construction starts, each
single location must be investigated, in order to be able to determine the very specific
features of each single foundation - there are no ready-made solutions, but each foundation
has to be constructed individually because the soil might be different. Obviously, this has to
be determined before manufacturing the foundations.
BSH has developed a Standard on what investigations are necessary, and at what stage of
the whole process. The consequent studies have to be reviewed by an independent expert.
Second, the detailed technical features of each turbine and the transformer station need to be
looked at. All materials used, including the very last screw, and all construction methods,
must be suitable for offshore conditions. Again, all designs need to be reviewed and certified
by independent experts.
The same applies for installation logistics, which are a major challenge in themselves. Since
the costs of mobilisation and de-mobilisation of the installation equipment are high - let alone
the fact that the equipment is hard to come by - everything must be perfect.
BSH has developed yet another of its Standards, dealing with the design of offshore wind
farms. It covers design, construction and operation (regular inspections), and gives guidance
21
as to when a requirement has to be fulfilled during the whole - licensing and realisation process.14
ff) Collateral clauses
An important part of each permission granted by the BSH are the collateral clauses
("Nebenbestimmungen"), which are issued in a largely standardised form: A multitude of
collateral clauses cover all kinds of aspects to ensure that these requirements are constantly
complied with and that the problems that became apparent during the licensing procedure are
coped with.
They also ensure the technical safety of the structure.
Altogether, they reflect a "cradle-to-grave approach": installation,
decommissioning are addressed. They include, among others:
operation,
and
safety in the construction phase;
a state of the art geotechnical study (boreholes on all single locations);
use of state of the art methods in the construction of turbines, prior to start up;
presentation of a safety concept (covering, for instance, collisions or fire);
installation of lights, radar, and automatic identification system (AIS) on the turbines;
use of environmentally friendly materials and non-glare paint;
foundation design minimising collision impact;
noise reduction during turbine construction and low-noise operation;
environmental monitoring during operation;
the obligation of decommissioning and presentation of some kind of guarantee for
covering the costs of decommissioning.
Also, the permit is limited to 25 years (with the possibility of a renewal if the requirements are
still met).
These collateral clauses are very detailed. They refer to the BSH Standards already
mentioned, and meeting them was proved to be a real challenge during the last year when
the construction of the first wind farm (alpha ventus) was supposed to start. Nobody had
realized before how demanding they actually were - but also, it became obvious that they
were not taken as seriously by the project developers as they should have been!
4. Conclusions
a) General considerations
It is not conceivable that it is necessary to differentiate between the EEZ and territorial
waters, although it might certainly be done - but it makes more sense to differentiate between
onshore and offshore wind farms than between wind farms situated in the EEZ and wind
farms situated within the territory of a state.
A license should preferably cover all elements, i.e. wind farm and grid connection. This
reduces the risk of delay, and everybody knows what one is dealing with from the beginning.
A project developer has to invest a lot of money for obtaining a licence, since the
investigations - EIA, risk assessment, geological investigations - are expensive. Only after all
14
English version available at http://www.bsh.de/en/Products/Books/Standard/index.jsp.
22
these investigations have been carried out, all necessary facts will be known, and only then it
can be decided whether the license may be issued. Therefore, there is always the risk of
having spent the money for nothing. However, if all investigations are positive and there is no
reason for denying the permission, the project developer should have the right to be granted
the permission and it should not be a discretionary decision.
b) Licensing requirements as such
Navigation: Whilst some detriments to efficiency of navigation must be put up with, safety
may not suffer. It is advisable to establish an abstract rule of what risk would be acceptable.
Otherwise, there is no reliability as to when the requirement is fulfilled.
In respect to the marine environment, the EU legal frame needs to be observed. By that, all
necessary aspects should be covered.
In respect to other public interests, a balance must be struck between the use of offshore
wind energy, which is a matter of climate protection, independence of energy supply and
"general" energy policy, and other interests. Existing uses might have to suffer some
restrictions, in the interest of renewable energy use. What other interests need to be
preconditions for licensing depends on their relevance in each single country.
All BSH Standards have been extremely helpful. After a critical look in respect of their
applicability/their extent, they should provide very good guidelines!
Collateral clauses/specific and detailed conditions are a crucial part of each permission and
should cover all aspects, making sure that the licensing requirements are met during
installation, operation and decommissioning. Existing permissions might be a guideline.
Technical details should be dealt with at a later stage, not as a precondition for licensing.
Otherwise, money might be spent on a project, which might not be licensed after all.
V. Competent authorities and proceedings
1. "Establishing formalities"
Whenever an administrative act is to be issued, this must be done by the "right" authority,
which has the competence: It must have the "formal" competence, but also the expertise to
deal with the matter.
Also, a procedure must be established, defining the necessary, successive steps each party
involved (authority, applicant, other stakeholders/public) has to take. In the case of offshore
wind farms, the EIA Dir. prescribes certain steps, which need to be observed.
2. Options for action
It is possible to assign one authority for projects situated within the EEZ and one for those
situated within the 12nm-zone, or to assign one for both situations. Also, if more than one
permit is needed ( cable to onshore transformer station?), all those permits need to be
"covered".
Since an offshore wind farm needs an EIA, this can be integrated into the licensing procedure
(see above). The EIA Directive gives fairly detailed guidance as to which elements the
procedure must comprise and what information must be presented ( Art. 5 EIA Dir.). There
is not much freedom of choice ( Art. 6 EIA Dir.):
Other authorities that are likely to be concerned must be given an opportunity to express
their opinion on the information supplied;
23
the public shall be informed of the planned project and information must be made
available;
the public must be given early and effective opportunity to participate;
reasonable time frames shall be provided for this participation;
other Member States may have to be included.
In the EIA Directive, there are no specific forms prescribed for the participation of these
groups and bodies.
3. How is it done in Germany?
a) Competent authorities
In Germany, the competent authorities differ according to the project being situated within the
EEZ or within the 12nm-zone:
EEZ: BSH;
12nm-zone: the competent authorities assigned by the coastal States (Lower Saxony,
Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern).
b) Proceedings15
When describing the proceedings, not only the procedure before licensing is described but
also afterwards, when it comes to actually realising the project - since most of the detailed
work is to be done only then.
aa) Before licensing
In Germany, it was possible to build upon a detailed legal background for large infrastructure
projects, which was transferable. The following procedure emerged:
(1) Upon receipt of a planning application, the BSH first checks its completeness, i.e. basic
information about location, probable environmental conditions, probable traffic situation,
size, time frame, concepts for environmental expert studies etc.
(2) At the same time, in a first round of participation the authorities that are likely to be
concerned (Waterways and Shipping Directorate, Federal Environmental Agency, Federal
Agency for Nature Conservation, ...) are informed about the project application and asked
for comments.
(3) After an evaluation of these very first comments, a larger number of stakeholders takes
part in the second round of participation, which also involves associations, such as nature
protection, commercial shipping, fishery, wind energy associations, and individuals. They
have the opportunity for commenting as well.
(4) The next step is an application conference/scoping. Beforehand, the applicant is given the
opportunity of adjusting his application according to the comments resulting from the
participation. During the application conference, the applicant presents the project.
Conflicting interests and uses are discussed, and the scope of investigations required to
study possible effects on the marine environment is determined. On the basis of the
15
Information about approval procedure of offshore wind farms in Germany is available at BSH website
http://www.bsh.de/en/Marine_uses/Industry/Wind_farms/index.jsp
24
subsequent environmental studies, the applicant prepares the Environmental Impact
Assessment. Also, a risk analysis dealing with the probability of vessels colliding with
wind farm installations is mandatory.
Objective: Defining the scope of what has to be investigated, by identifying potential
areas of conflict.
(5) After having received all these documents (EIA, risk analysis, other necessary/technical
documents) from the applicant, the competent authority passes them on to other
concerned authorities, associations, the public etc. and they are made available for public
inspection and comment, on the basis of the findings of all these studies. This is followed
by another discussion open to the public/other authorities etc., during which these findings
and the comments and information concerning the marine environmental features and
safety of navigation and other interests are discussed.
Objective: identifying actual conflicts and - if possible - finding solutions.
(6) Afterwards, the BSH takes all this into consideration and reviews whether the
requirements for granting approval have been met. At the same time, the Waterways and
Shipping Directorate reviews whether consent can be granted in respect to the safety and
efficiency of navigation. Their consent is necessary; otherwise, an approval could not be
issued.
If everybody is really fast, the whole process takes about two years and a half. Partly, this is
because it just takes time to perform the environmental studies ( Standard for EIA foresees
two years of baseline survey; at least one of them completed before EIA report can be
written), also, public and other authorities need to be given time, and last, it is a complex
issue, which cannot be handled in a short time. In the beginning, it took even longer, and if
applicants are very slow it might still take about three or four years.
bb) Execution of a permit
Even after the permit is granted, a lot of questions are still unsolved. This is because the
requirements - as stated to be valid for Germany - say no more than that the wind farm as a
whole and when finished does not constitute a danger to the subjects of protection.
This is because before all discussions about these fundamental issues have been concluded,
nobody can be absolutely sure that approval will be granted. It is therefore in nobody's
interest to spend money for certifications, expensive geotechnical investigations etc. before
this certainty has been obtained.
But the detailed technical issues are still open, such as constructional safety.
Geotechnical investigations are still to be carried out for each single location in order to
determine the specific features of each foundation,
and even the last screw needs to be certified for offshore use.
Also, a waste management concept is needed, a concept for emergency/disaster
management (collisions; fire), health and safety etc.
Because it is in everybody's interest that an offshore wind farm is installed without any
disturbance/problems and that it stays operational until the permit expires after 25 years (or
longer/shorter, whatever is foreseen in the permit), every little detail needs to be reviewed
and certified.
This means that the realisation process is probably even more demanding than the licensing
process - and this was seriously underestimated in Germany. It has to be added, though, that
it is easier nearer to the shore and in shallower waters (it is generally expected that the
Baltic Sea is a little bit "friendlier" than the North Sea),
25
and it will be much easier once the first experiences are gained.
4. Conclusions
Regarding the limited space available it seems to make sense that only one authority should
be named, which should deal with all offshore wind farms, regardless of their location within
or without territorial waters: BSH, for example, built up a lot of expertise, which makes it much
easier to thoroughly discuss this complex matter. If only a limited number of wind farms is
possible due to limited space, it seems superfluous to reinvent the wheel over and over again
and assign more than one authority.
The proceedings are partly predetermined by the requirements of the EIA Directive. They
might seem to be slightly long winded, but they constitute an excellent way of discussing all
problems and of finding solutions or compromises. The more people/stakeholders are
involved, the better the chances for agreement and support.
Decisions should not be rushed - but they should certainly not be artificially prolonged.
VI. Grid connection and capacity of onshore grid: Where would the electricity go?
1. "No life without arteries"
Obviously, an offshore wind farm makes no sense if the generated electricity cannot be
transmitted to where it is needed.
So, first, the connection between the wind farm and the onshore transmission grid must be
planned and licensed. Its course should avoid (if possible) sensitive areas, streets, train lines,
rivers to be crossed etc., and contracts with private landowners must be concluded.
Second, it must be ensured that the onshore transmission grid has the capacity of
transporting the electricity to places where electricity is actually in demant - as known, it is not
really possible to store electricity. The question, therefore, is, whether the capacity of the
onshore grid suffices to transmit the generated electricity. Is there a need for extension, of
power lines or of nodes? This should be addressed early in the process. It should be
considered that maybe some other power plant will be decommissioned/taken out of
operation within a certain time horizon, so that some capacity will be obtainable, etc.
2. Options for action
In respect to the connection between an offshore wind farm/offshore transformer station and
the onshore transformer station, it must be decided who shall be responsible for this task.
"Responsibility" means the planning and licensing process as well as realisation and financial
coverage.
Would it be the project developer?
Should the connection be the responsibility of the TSO?
And who shall pay - the project developer/operator, the TSO, or should ultimately the
electricity consumer pay?
For the onshore grid, it is - probably - necessary to identify whether more capacity is needed,
and whether the legal framework in place for licensing new power lines is sufficient or
whether any adjustments should be made.
26
3. How is it done in Germany?
a) Grid connection offshore onshore
In Germany, since 2006 the TSOs are responsible for supplying the grid connection.
However, this obligation is in fact more or less ignored, or done in a very dilatory manner,
seriously endangering the fast realisation of some wind farms, which would otherwise be
ready to trigger investments.
b) Capacity of onshore transmission grid
Germany has a difficult starting position since offshore (and onshore) wind electricity will be
generated in the North whilst most electricity is needed in the south or the middle part. Also,
wind electricity is constantly increasing and will be a significant factor when it comes to
distributing: The grid needs restructuring, in order to be able to cope with decentralised
electricity generation.
From 2003 - 2005 a comprehensive technical study ("dena-Studie I")16 identifying the
consequences of offshore and onshore wind generation was conducted. It was concluded
that some 850km of new power lines at very specific places were necessary.
Another technical study ("dena-Studie II")17is under way, which concentrates on another later - time frame than the first.
Also, legislation for accelerating the planning and licensing process for those power lines
already identified as being necessary is under way.
It can be observed, though, that TSOs seem to be reluctant to do anything for renewable
energy sources.
4. Conclusions
Transferring the costs of grid connection to the TSO and, ultimately, to the consumer relieves
the project developer of substantial costs. However, experience in Germany tells that such
obligations must be made absolutely clear and enforceable, also concerning the distribution
of the costs.
In respect to the overall capacity of the onshore grid, early action is advisable, i.e. identifying
demands and meeting them if necessary. It would not do to have expensive projects, which
could not really be used because the necessary downstream infrastructure is not in place.
VII. What else is needed?
Here a couple of points are mentioned that are not so much legal issues but are of practical
relevance and need to be addressed. Partly, they are of major relevance and will not be
solved within days:
16
Short German version available at http://www.wind-energie.de/fileadmin/dokumente/Themen_AZ/Netzausbau/studie_dena_zus-fass.pdf
Information about the study and summary report in English is available at http://www.dena.de/en/topics/themareg/projects/projekt/grid-study-i/
17
Information in English available at http://www.dena.de/en/topics/thema-reg/projects/projekt/grid-study-ii/
27
Where do the turbines come from? Where are they manufactured, how are they
transported to the location? Can they be stored at the quayside? They are huge and
heavy.
Where do the transformer stations come from?
Where do the cables come from?
As mentioned at the very beginning, there is a certain scarcity of all these components; the
market situation starts to relax only now.
Where do the vessels come from that can lay the cables?
Where do jack-up platforms for installation of turbines and transformer stations come
from?
Another point is operation & maintenance - even access to the turbines is an issue not to be
underestimated; it concerns health and safety of personnel in potentially difficult weather
conditions.
Then there is emergency management:
How to avoid a collision if a vessel comes dangerously close to an offshore wind farm and
seems to be out of control/unmaneuverable or is unresponsive? What shall be done in
such cases, and what is the chain of command?
Is some sort of surveillance of the area already in place that can be used for monitoring
the traffic and spotting such cases? If not, what needs to be done and how can it be
established?
In the worst case of a collision with a chemical/oil tanker: What is supposed to be done?
There will be no time for discussing strategies/the best ways when accident has
happened. Emergency action plans must be in place that only need to be activated.