legal frame for the use of offshore wind energy in...

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. 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

II. 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? 14

1. Defining scope and requirements for licensing 14 2. Options for action 14

a) General considerations 14 b) Licensing requirements 14

3. How is it done in Germany? 15 a) General considerations 15 b) Licensing requirements (EEZ) 15

aa) Overview: Maritime Facilities Ordinance 15

bb) Safety of navigation 17

cc) Marine environment 19

dd) Other public interests 19

ee) Technical aspects 20

ff) Collateral clauses 21

4. Conclusions 21 a) General considerations 21 b) Licensing requirements as such 22

V. Competent authorities and proceedings 22

1. "Establishing formalities" 22 2. Options for action 22 3. How is it done in Germany? 23

a) Competent authorities 23

3

b) Proceedings 23 aa) Before licensing 23

bb) Execution of a permit 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:

� 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

2 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.


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.


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.


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



� 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, operation, and decommissioning are addressed. They include, among others:

� 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


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.


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.


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.


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


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_A-

Z/Netzausbau/studie_dena_zus-fass.pdf

Information about the study and summary report in English is available at http://www.dena.de/en/topics/thema-

reg/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.

legal frame for the use of offshore wind energy in...

Documents