Αρχική Διατάξεις για την απλοποίηση της περιβαλλοντικής αδειοδότησης, των περιβαλλοντικών επιθεωρήσεων και την προστασία του περιβάλλοντοςΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟ Η’ ΠΛΑΙΣΙΟ ΑΝΑΠΤΥΞΗΣ ΥΠΕΡΑΚΤΙΩΝ ΑΙΟΛΙΚΩΝ ΠΑΡΚΩΝ (άρθρα 59-75)Σχόλιο του χρήστη BlueFloat Energy | 13 Ιουλίου 2022, 07:48
  • Σχόλιο του χρήστη 'BlueFloat Energy' | 13 Ιουλίου 2022, 07:48

    This submission is made following the release of the draft legislation issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy "Provisions for the simplification of environmental licensing, environmental checks and environmental protection, urgent forest, spatial and building provisions, establishing a framework for the development of offshore wind farms, addressing energy crisis and cyclical economy issues" ("the Draft Law"). BlueFloat Energy is pleased to provide feedback to the articles of the Draft Law related to offshore wind and welcomes ongoing dialogue between the Ministry and industry participants. About BlueFloat Energy BlueFloat Energy is developing offshore wind projects in various regions of the world, where it can implement its vision: to accelerate global deployment of offshore wind as a key enabler for the energy transition and economic growth. Founded by renewable energy professionals, BlueFloat Energy brings together remarkable team expertise in the design, development, financing, construction and execution of offshore wind projects. BlueFloat Energy is supported by 547 Energy, the Quantum Energy Partners’ platform dedicated to clean energy investments. 547 Energy aims to partner with innovative companies who drive the growth of the green energy economy. Quantum Energy Partners is one of the world’s leading dedicated energy investment funds, with a portfolio of over $ 17 billion of assets under management since its inception in 1998. www.bluefloat.com We have extensive experience in this sector, and we are currently developing projects in more than eight different markets, including the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Colombia, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand. We are keen on supporting policy makers in shaping the regulatory framework for floating offshore wind and providing thought leadership in the wind industry through unique perspective and strategic thinking. Our Submission Having reviewed the relevant articles of the Draft Law (an informal translation into English of the draft document, which was published by the Ministry of Environment and Energy on the 6th of July in Greek) and based on our experience in the development of offshore wind projects in various markets, we would like to share some initial comments that we deem important at this stage. We appreciate that the Draft Law is intended to provide a general framework for offshore wind deployment in Greece and as such will need to be subsequently detailed and substantiated through secondary regulation. General comments BlueFloat Energy appreciates the efforts of the Ministry of Environment and Energy in terms of seeking to set up a fit- for-purpose regulatory framework for the development of an offshore wind industry in Greece. According to the Draft Law, to be able to develop and execute an offshore wind farm a developer would have to obtain a number of licenses and certificates, as well as participate in and win a competitive bidding process organized by the OWF Operator. Whilst we appreciate the importance of intermediate milestones, we believe that a clear and detailed licensing process with a realistic timeline are of utmost importance for the development of the offshore wind projects. Indeed, based on our experience in other markets, a successful offshore wind regulatory framework is designed in a way that is accessible and transparent for all relevant stakeholders and developers. To ensure an effective competition in the market and a timely delivery of the best offshore wind projects, it is important to clearly define all the relevant steps of the development process, while adopting an open, pragmatic and flexible approach to the pre-qualification criteria. Please find below detailed comments to the specific articles and paragraphs of the Draft Law aligned with these general considerations. Article 63 – Applications for the granting of an Offshore Wind Farm Research License Article 63 defines the use of the OWF Research License and the pre-qualification criteria that a developer must meet to obtain the license and proceed with its developing activities. According to paragraph 1 and 3, the OWF Research Licence will allow developer to conduct research and conduct the technical studies and measurements necessary for the planning, development, installation and operation of OWFs in each OWFODA. Moreover, a developer will be able to apply for a OWF Research License in more than one OWFODA. In this case, we believe it would be helpful to clarify if the OWF Research License will allow the developer to carry out its research and studies covering the whole OWFODA or a specific site within the greater area of OWFODA. In any case, it will be important to specify the process in the case two or more developers apply for the same OWFODA since this is not clear from the current draft. In other markets, developers apply for a seabed lease or maritime concession for a clearly defined polygon within a wider area designated by the government for offshore wind development. In fact, in some jurisdictions, policy makers set a limit to the surface that could be made available to a developer for a wind farm development to avoid speculation and ensure effective competition. According to the Draft Law, in order to apply for an OWF Research License, each developer will have to demonstrate that it meets a set of prequalification criteria (technical and financial criteria) as described in paragraphs 5 and 7. In general, we agree on the need of objective criteria that will give confidence to the government that the projects can actually be delivered within the relevant timeframe. We believe that the prequalification process should be more flexible so as to take into consideration the variety of specific circumstances and to enable the participation of new players, which are actively developing offshore wind around the world. By establishing a set of very restrictive criteria catered only to the established incumbent players, policy makers limit the competition and undermine the possibility of reaching their decarbonization targets, by preventing nimble and agile players with unique expertise and investment acumen from participating in the process and contributing towards timely delivery of the projects. Similar logic would apply to the scoring of applications, which should enable these new players to demonstrate their technical expertise and their ability to deliver through a process based more on a “beauty contest” concept as opposed to price-only criteria. Technical criteria Looking in particular at paragraph 5, to guarantee fair competition in the market, we propose the following alternatives to the technical criteria currently included in the draft. A first option would be to enable bidders to prequalify based on the number of projects that have been awarded in public tenders for offshore wind power in an OECD country in the last 3 years and for more than 1 GW of capacity. This criterion could be demonstrated through success in competitive processes based on rigorous criteria linked to the merits of the projects and the capabilities/expertise of the proponent (“beauty contest”), as is the case, for example, of the recent Scotwind contest. Alternatively, for floating wind projects bidders could prequalify by demonstrating their experience in floating offshore wind projects, with installed power of at least 25 MW connected to the grid, which at the date of delivery of the offer are in operation, or under construction or under development. Bearing in mind that very few floating offshore wind farms are currently in operations or under execution compliance with these technical criteria may be accredited via the individual experience of the team members (ie experienced gained by the employees of the bidder during their previous employment) or via corporate experience of the bidder, including the references of the affiliated companies. Bidders could also demonstrate their technical capabilities by including track record in other renewable energy projects (onshore wind, fixed offshore wind, floating offshore wind, wave, photovoltaic, solar thermal, biomass, mini-hydraulic, biogas, geothermal, waste recovery), with an installed aggregate capacity of more than 200 MW, which is in operation at the delivery date, or which has been built or developed in recent years. Bidders should also be able to bring in Supplementary Experience Providers to fill in specific gaps in terms of capabilities and experience (similar to what was envisaged in the Scotwind process). These Supplementary Experience Providers could be partners in the project but not necessarily equity investors. If we understand correctly this is already envisaged in the Draft Law by making reference to “borrowed experience.” Financial criteria The economic and financial criteria (paragraph 7) should include the economic and financial requirements that prove the solvency and seriousness of the offer, and the presentation of adequate guarantees for the presentation of the offer and its subsequent award. These criteria must guarantee the availability of the necessary financial resources to be able to undertake the development of the projects, or the demonstrable financial experience to have the necessary capital to undertake the construction of the project. According to our experience in other markets, developers that can demonstrate access to $1B of capital (either equity or debt) should be able to prequalify for the tenders. The use of this broader criterion (compared to the current threshold for the turnover) minimizes the risk of market dominance and restriction of competition, and allows access to the bidding process to new players with technical experience and with the financial support of private capital funds, with extensive experience in attracting capital and debt, and with a structure of financial statements different from the traditional agents of the electricity market. There are a number of examples from other markets, where offshore wind tenders are being carried out, that apply financial criteria for prequalification in line with the one outlined above, and that are not limited to the thresholds based strictly on billing or EBITDA of the bidders or affiliated companies. Using turnover or EBIDTA as the sole criterion and the only way to demonstrate financial capability, in our opinion, does not guarantee that the capital will be available to fund the projects, for example if the companies have high leverage or restrictions in the investment policy, and it discriminates against companies with financing structures and access to capital, which is different from the traditional utility model, such as investment funds and private capital. Article 66 – Competitive bidding process for selecting an investor for Offshore Wind Farms We would recommend that the competitive bidding process is not based solely on price but takes into account other criteria, including socio-economic aspects, such as a credible and robust local supply chain development plan, early engagement and transparency with the local stakeholders, integration of innovation elements into the project concept. It would be beneficial to have a more detailed and clear explanation of the What does Feed-in Premium Operating Aid means and how it will look like in practice. We understand that in a certain way, this operating aid is conceived to be similar to a two-way CfD but it is not really very clear from reading the document. We would also appreciate having further details regarding this remuneration scheme (e.g., indexation, negative prices, max price, etc.). We hope these comments are useful to you. We remain at your disposal in case of need.