Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Attracting and Maintaining Institutional Investment: Offshore Wind

1,206 views

Published on

Slides from Offshore Wind workshop at the Eversheds event: Attracting and Maintaining Institutional Investment in Renewable Energy - 2nd July 2012

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Attracting and Maintaining Institutional Investment: Offshore Wind

  1. 1. Natural Power Consultants LTDEversheds, Institutional Investor workshop2nd July 2012
  2. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Natural Power Consultants 2. Capex comparative analysis 3. Offshore WTG technology 4. Foundations 5. Cables 6. InstallationTuesday, July 03, 2012 2
  3. 3. NATURAL POWER CONSULTANTSRenewable energy consultancy, management • Energy yield analysis and technical risk reductionservices and product innovation. • Project design, ecology surveys, EIA and permitting managementOnshore wind, Offshore wind, Wave & Tidal andBiomass energy • Construction, ground surveys and contracts managementFounded in 1996 300 Employees 14 Offices 7 • Operational A&M and performance analysisCountries • 360o project due diligence • Owner and Lender’s Engineering & Technical Advisors Tuesday, July 03, 2012 3
  4. 4. CAPEX COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS1M£/MW 4.00 3.50 3.40 3.46 3.42 3.30 3.00 3.05 2.76 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Natural Power data base of 49 OWF, in 7 European countries • From 2006 to 2009 Capex (M£/MW) has grown, the increase has been driven by cables and foundations costs, in 2010 Capex started to come down • Key factors: distance from the shore, supply bottlenecks, raw materials, installation costs, cable routes 1. Capital expenditures have been collected from our confidential data base, reinforced with trade journals, company websites, public data bases and academic and government reports Tuesday, July 03, 2012 4
  5. 5. OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE TECHNOLOGY After 3-4 MW before 2009, the technology is being oriented to 5-6 MW turbines  Suppliers are now working on:  Reducing the weight with less components (DD or semi-integrated solutions), in order to ease foundation design, installation and maintenance  Larger diameters (150-164 m) with same power output  Blades :  Diameter is increasing from ac. 90 m (2009 ) to 164 m (2015)  Higher bending moment due to larger rotor affects design of the substructure  Blades suppliers are now mostly in-house (Siemens, Vestas, Repower, Areva)  Generator technology :  Power output from 3-4 MW (2009) to 5-6 MW (2012-2014)  Smooth transition from DFIG to DD generators (head mass reduction/power output management)  Gearboxes tend to be removed to reduce maintenance and failures  Use of permanent magnets leads to high risks on Neodymium supply chain Tuesday, July 03, 2012 5
  6. 6. WTG SUPPLY AND INSTALLATIONMarket shares – Turbines suppliers Number of suppliers for the 6 MW+ will% MW installed to date – source EWEA January 2012 increase Areva, REpower are the only leaders with 5-6 MW WTGs but with still a low track record  Historical suppliers have delayed their entrance in this category: Siemens 6 MW focuses on a DD technology, diameters 120 -154m and 50% fewer parts than comparable geared WTG; serial production targeted for Q1 2015, Vestas V164-7.0 MW prototype has been postponed, the first turbine is scheduled for installation in 2013, with series production starting from 2015 New entrants in Europe (Alstom “pure torque” DD 6MW Halliade 150, Gamesa G128-5.0 MW) will be in competition with Asian suppliers (Golwind, Sinovel) Before new entrants will start to produce, the offshore WTG industry will remain a bottleneck in the supply chain Tuesday, July 03, 2012 6
  7. 7. OFFSHORE FOUNDATIONMarket shares – Foundations installed in 2011 Monopiles is the most installed typology of% MW installed – source EWEA January 2012 foundation Wind farms currently under construction show the same trend: monopiles maintaining an over 60% share Jackets and Tripods show similar shares (20% and 18% respectively) Currently, no gravity based foundations have been identified in the under construction pipeline. This structure is generally used in wind farms close to shore Tuesday, July 03, 2012 7
  8. 8. MONOPILES’ ISSUES• Monopolie made for: soft seabed, up to medium water depth, up to mediumWTG weight (e.g. the actual monopile designed to support 6.0MW WTG varyfrom 6.5m to 7m in diameter)• Grouted connection: 65% of all the monopile installed in UK is facing problemssubjected to a complex state of stress• Installation (mechanical hammer vs drilling): insufficient wind industryexperience to guarantee required pile verticality of <0.25° (bolted flangerequirement) during driving operations.•Few players represent a bottle neck in the supply chain Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8
  9. 9. FOUNDATIONS: NEW TRENDS Jacket Gravity BaseEmphasis on cost of fabrication: Emphasis on:• use of materials • noise emission to avoid limitation• pre-assembled manufacturing process during installation • transportation Tuesday, July 03, 2012 9
  10. 10. OFFSHORE CABLE TECHNOLOGY Ex Cable Supply Copper price 2009 -2012 0.90 0.80 0.70Cost in M£/Km 0.60 0.53 0.50 0.40 Market Players 0.30 Market Average 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Ex Cable lenght in Km Array Cable Supply Main issues: 0.35 0.30 • Cable Laying: regulation, and natural condition (e.g. saltCost in M£/Km 0.25 marsh) 0.20 0.20 0.15 Market Players • Supply chain bottlenecks: reluctant cable makers to 0.10 Market Average scale up manufacturing capacity 0.05 • Scarcity of skilled personnel 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 Array Cables Lenght in Km Tuesday, July 03, 2012 10
  11. 11. INSTALLATIONLatest trends:• Players are developing vessels (e.g. Nordic Yards), whichcan install every type of foundations, towers, nacellesand turbines as a single unit• In order to reduce installation time and costs, thevessels are designed to deploy the whole wind turbine inan upright position Tuesday, July 03, 2012 11
  12. 12. INSTALLATION RATE Offshore Wind Farm WTG Installation Rate Offshore Wind Farm Foundation Installation 10 Rate 1 vessel 1 vessel 9.00 Inst. Rate (days/foundation) 8 8.00Inst. Rate (days/WTG) 2 vessels 7.00 2 vessels 6 Average 1 6.00 5.7 4.8 vessel 5.00 4.44 Average 4 Average 2 4.00 Mopopile 1 vessel 3.00 vessel 2.75 2 2.00 Average 1.00 Mopopile 2 0 vessels 0.00 0 50 100 0 50 100 N. of WTG N. of foundations Main observations: • No trend, scattered results • Main drivers: weather and sea conditions, water depths, integration of services, cost reduction, crane capacity Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12
  13. 13. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONTuesday, July 03, 2012 13
  14. 14. Offshore Wind in UK –Funding Round 3June 27, 2012
  15. 15. Agenda Funding requirement in UK Conditions for investment Funding sources Utilities and other investors Investor models Conclusions 2
  16. 16. Siemens is market leader in offshore turbines with2.5 GW installed, of which nearly 1 GW in UKBurbo Banks, UK Vindeby, DK→ 25 x SWT-3.6-107 (2007) → 11 x 0.45 MW (1991)Lynn / Inner Dowsing, UK Middelgrunden, DK→ 54 x SWT-3.6-107 (2008) → 20 x SWT-2.0-76 (2000)Gunfleet Sands, UK Samsø, DK→ 48 x SWT-3.6-107 (2009) → 10 x SWT-2.3-82 (2002)Rhyl Flats, UK Rønland, DK→ 25 x SWT-3.6-107 (2009) → 4 x SWT-2.3-93 (2002)Walney, UK Rødsand/Nysted, DK→ 51 x SWT-3.6-107 → 72 x SWT-2.3-82 (2003)→ 51 x SWT-3.6-120 Frederikshavn, DKPori, FIN → 1 x SWT-2.3-82 (2003)→ 1 x SWT-2.3-101 (2010) Horns Rev II, DKBaltic I, DE → 91 x SWT-2.3-92 (2009)→ 21 x SWT-2.3-93 (2010) Rødsand II, DK → 90 x SWT-2.3-93 (2010) Lillgrund, SE → 48 x SWT-2.3-93 (2007) Hywind, NO → 1 x SWT-2.3-82 (2009)Source: SWP 3
  17. 17. Many projects to come, some with Siemens equity Greater Gabbard, UK Anholt, DK → 140 x SWT-3.6-107 → 111 x SWT-3.6-120 Sheringham Shoal, UK Baltic 2, DE → 88 x SWT-3.6-107 → 80 x SWT-3.6-120 London Array, UK Borkum Riffgat, DE → 175 SWT-3.6-120 → 30 x SWT-3.6-107 Lincs, UK Dan-Tysk, DE →69 x SWT-3.6-120 → 80 x SWT-3.6-107 →25% Siemens Project Ventures (Centrica 50%, Dong 25%) Borkum Riffgrund 1, DE Gwynt Y Mor, UK → 77 x SWT-3.6-120 →160 x SWT-3.6-107 →10% Siemens Wind Power (RWE Meerwind Sud Ost, DE 60%, SWM 30%) → 80 x SWT-3.6-120 West of Duddon Sands, UK → 108 x SWT-3.6-120 Teesside, UK → 27 x SWT-2.3-93Note: SPV also own 50% of SmartWind consortium with MainstreamRenewables, developing UK Round 3 Rudong Intertidal, CHNHornsea zone (4 GW). First GW → 21 x SWT-2.3-101being developed with Dong. Source: SWP 4
  18. 18. Offshore Wind Roadmap and FundingRequirement 18 GW by 2020 under DECC Roadmap £8-10bn annual funding required Based on £3m/MW capex, straight line roll out from 2015, excludes OFTOs and capital recycling Depends on build out which should generate economies of scale to lower construction costsSource: DECC UK Renewable Energy Roadmap July 2011 5
  19. 19. Conditions for investment Utilities cannot finance construction of Round 3 on their own and need to tap new investors and banking market Conditions for entry of new capital  Revenue certainty (FITs, ROCs)  Regulatory certainty (EMR, OFTOs)  Profitability & risk adjusted returns  Visibility on long-term market growth  De-risking projects  Stable macroeconomic climate 6
  20. 20. Funding Sources in Offshore Wind Development Cycle Point in time – decreasing risk and required return over project life cycleProject risk Development Pre-construction (c.24+ months c.£50- Construction Operation (c. 48+ months, c£10-50m) 200m) (c. 24+ months, c£1Bn) (c. 20+ years) • Turbine order • Civil construction • O&M + Warranty • Site search • Balance of plant • BOP • Zero emission cash • Feasibility study (BOP) Long-lead • Turbine • Environmental studies items • Grid connection • Licenses (production / installation) • Design • Permits • Met mast • Land lease • Geotech • Commitment to grid • Grid connection Funding source Development Pre-construction / Construction Operation Utilities, Infrastructure Funds, Utilities, Venture Capital, Utilities, Oil & Gas Cos, Private Equity, Equity Direct Financial Investors, Public Developer Contractors Equity Markets Project Finance with Sponsors, Debt Capital Markets, Utility Senior debt Not available Multilateral & ECA support Bonds, Govt Sponsored Bonds 7
  21. 21. Utility Investors UK projects have historically been developed by utilities in contrast to Continental Europe where independent developers are more prevalent UK projects have generally been financed by utilities on balance sheet unlike Continental Europe where limited recourse project finance is more common. Utilities don’t like project finance as it is expensive and often treated as on balance sheet by rating agencies Utilities have to find alternative funding sources if they want to maintain ratings & preserve dividends. They are forming partnerships with other utilities and new types of investors to share funding and risks We estimate of total annual capex of 10 largest European utilities of €40bn about €10bn could go to offshore wind with maybe half of this allocated to UK 8
  22. 22. R3 Funding Sources 12.000 10.000 Estimated annual construction costs of £8-10bn 8.000 High case – 75% total£ million per year offshore wind budget allocated by European 6.000 utilities to UK ; £1.4bn l/r equity; £2.1bn l/r debt Base case – 50%; £1bn l/r 4.000 equity, £1.5bn l/r debt Low case – 30%, £0.6bn l/r equity; £0.9bn l/r debt 2.000 Utility balance sheet 0 Ltd recourse equity High case Base case Low case Source: Siemens Ltd recourse debt Majority of funding from utility balance sheets unlevered Balance from limited recourse equity (40%) and debt (60%) More utility funding available → more other funding likely to be available Additional funding from capital recycled from operational projects not shown 9
  23. 23. Other Investors• Financial/private investors •Private equity / infra funds – SPV / Blackstone / Ampere / Marguerite / Ventizz •Private investors – Colruyt / Kirkbi Group / Oticon Foundation •Pension funds – Pension Danmark / PKA / PGGM •Japanese trading houses – Marubeni •Sovereign wealth funds – Masdar• Strategic investors • Oil & gas companies – Statoil / Repsol • EPC companies – Fluor / Strabag / Hochtief• Financial/private investors generally have limited appetite for construction or development risk but there are exceptions: • Masdar / SPV / Blackstone / Colruyt / Marguerite / Ventizz• EPC companies often take development risk and then sell permitted project before construction 10
  24. 24. Co-Funding Model Costs shared but project risks stay with utility Sale of minority stakes to private investors  Operating assets  Assets in construction with EPC wrap De-risking  Opex  PPA  Bridge financing Stakes sold for premium due to risks assumed by utility Investments stay on balance sheet of utility Examples: various deals involving Dong11
  25. 25. Limited Recourse Model – Project Finance Limited recourse financing by investors Banks take construction risk  Common in Germany and Benelux, but not in UK  Lincs is first UK PF deal with construction risk Banks requirements  Higher pricing  Significant contingency  Debt reserve accounts  Lower gearing and high coverage ratios Support from multilaterals/development banks and ECAs Examples: Lincs (Centrica/Dong/SPV); Meerwind (Blackstone)12
  26. 26. Limited Recourse Model – Minority Stakes Limited recourse financing of acquisition of minority stakes by investors Banks do not take construction risk Same guarantees as under Co-Funding model Issues for banks  Limited step-in rights  No direct security over operating assets/contracts  Change of control  More equity required Support from multilaterals/development banks and ECAs Example: Gunfleet Sands (Marubeni)13
  27. 27. Conclusions Utilities will play lead role in funding Round 3, but balance sheet pressure means they will not be able to do this alone Utilities are setting up JVs with other utilities & investors to share funding & risks. Dong leading way bringing in new investors New investors will require revenue and regulatory certainty, improved profitability, project de-risking & stable macroeconomic conditions Most financial investors currently have limited appetite for construction risk, but there are exceptions Limited recourse lending by commercial banks and public financing institutions will be critical, both at the project level and the financing of minority stakes in projects 14
  28. 28. Thank youPeter WestonGlobal Head of Finance & InvestmentSiemens Wind Power+44 7808 824 390peter.weston@siemens.comGlobal Wind Power Finance & investment CongressJune 26-27, 2012, London
  29. 29. Morgan StanleyInstitutional Investors WorkshopJuly 2, 2012
  30. 30. Morgan Stanley Project Finance TransactionsPower Approx. $300 MM $740 MM $45 Bn $740 MM $11 Bn $1.65 Bn $950 MM $950 MM West Deptford MACH Gen Project Construction/Term Construction Acquisition Debt Construction Acquisition Debt Acquisition Financing Financing Financing Refinancing Refinancing Financing Refinancing Financing November 2011 May 2008 February 2007 February 2007 June 2006 March 2006 September 2005 September 2005Natural Resources $750 MM $300 MM $240 MM $1 Bn $900 MM $240 MM $1.55 Bn $378 MM EGPC EGPC EGPC EGPC Drillship FPSO Debt Receivables Pre-Export Credit Acquisition Financing Financing Financing Monetization Facility Financing FSA Monetization FSA Monetization March 2012 November 2011 June 2011 December 2010 October 2009 February 2006 July 2005 June 2007Infrastructure $600 MM $1.3 Bn $100 MM $494 MM $213 MM $162 MM $1Bn $1Bn HANGZOU RING ROAD Infrastructure Construction Railway Lease Securitization Financing Financing Financing April 2007 Toll Road Financing Toll Road Financing Railroad Financing Toll Road Financing November 2010 March 2010 October 2007 August 2006 February 2006 December 2005 December 2005Renewables $290 MM $466 MM $319 MM 10-Year $200 MM 10-Year $117.5 MM $132 MM Canadian Hills Arlington Valley Loraine Wind Wind Project Solar Energy II Project Construction Construction / Term Wind Equity Construction Construction Construction Commodity Offtake Commodity Offtake Financing Financing Financing Provider Investment Provider Financing Financing March 2012 January 2012 December 2011 December 2011 February 2010 July 2009 July 2009 August 2008 2
  31. 31. Financing Sources For Greenfield Offshore Wind Past Projects and Projections Bloomberg New Energy Finance Projections: Annual Investment Annual Investment in Offshore Wind 2012-2020 By Year of Commissioning and Investor Type; 2012–2015 by Existing Commitments and 2016–2020 Forecast Country € Bn € Bn Germany 39.2 5.6 10.2 13.8 14.2 12.3 14.4 16.1 18.6 21.3 100% UK 38.6 0.7 1.2 France 18.8 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.8 3.5 3.2 Belgium 6.6 0.4 1.0 Denmark 3.9 80% 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 Netherlands 3.5 0.3 0.4 2.7 0.3 3.9 Rest of EU 16.3 3.2 5.2 0.9 3.2 7.1 Total 126.9 60% 0.3 9.0 1.0 Sources Bloomberg New Energy Finance; Rabobank 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.8 0.3 0.4 0.1• Q: Do you believe that 40% 1.3 4.0 2.0 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 1.6 2.0 0.9 Multilateral agencies will 0.4 0.7 1.3 2.1 provide an aggregate value 6.1 1.7 2.1 of €22Bn in capital over the 1.9 next 8 years? 20% 1.3 2.3 2.6 3.9 3.2 1.2 3.1 2.8 2.1 2.5 2.1 0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Equity-Primary Utility Equity-Secondary Utility Equity-Developer Equity-IPP Equity-Institutional Investor Equity-WTG Equity-Private Equity Debt-Commercial Debt-Multilateral Sources Bloomberg New Energy Finance; Rabobank 3
  32. 32. Banks Project Finance Participation Glass Half Empty Or Full?• Q: Do you believe that Banks in Project Finance Offshore Wind Transactions commercial banks will Number of Transactions provide an aggregate value of €35Bn in capital over the 1 12 12 next 8 years? – Average of ~€4.5Bn per 2 7 19 year 3 4 23• Approximately 70% of bank lenders into the offshore 24 4 1 wind sector have only participated in 2 transactions 5 1 25• Alternatively, could argue that banks with 2+ 6 1 26 transactions makes ‘a knowledgeable market’ 7 1 27 – 16 banks 8 1 28• Even assuming ‘knowledgeable market’ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 doubles to 32 banks, a €4.5Bn average capital requirement would require an “Our discussions with industry participants suggest there are around 15-20 commercial lending average ticket size of banks currently active in offshore wind financing, and that there is appetite to fund €2-2.5Bn of approximately €140MM per projects per year” bank Morgan Stanley Equity Research – Concentration concerns? 4
  33. 33. Institutional Investors as Debt Capital Providers• Pension funds have played a • Renewable sector: interest by institutional debt investors in European renewable sector is increasing, role in investing in the equity however it is still early stages of offshore wind projects – Several funds have dedicated pools of capital for infrastructure investment, which includes renewables• Given the scale of the – Judgment based upon limited transaction flow and unhelpful precedents (i.e. Breeze) and stability of anticipated build out, expect regulatory regimes that the institutional debt capital markets will play • Favourable markets: offshore wind predominately located in “core” Northern European markets some role – Likely only when Investor Concerns – Not Unsurprising operational • Business model - Future incentive / regulatory support risk • Technology risk: evolving so why invest now? • Resource risk – Weather risk (“black swan” winter storm damaging turbines) How / When To Invest? • Unlikely that institutional investors would be willing to take construction risk of an early stage technology without sufficient guarantees or a wrap from an independent party – Renewable wind power not currently permitted under EU/EIB Project Bond Initiative – Investment grade? • Initially, expect that construction financing will be provided by banks with a potential bond takeout post-construction • In line with broader European PF bank market, which we expect will morph towards a more formal mini-perm structure 5
  34. 34. Offshore Wind Financing StrategiesCurrent Developer / ‘IPP’ Model Future Utility Model? Asset Debt Export Credit Equity/Cash Debt Asset Agencies Utility Commercial Banks Equity (50% +/-) 3rd Party Equity Equity (50% +/-) Sponsor(s) Equity Investors Debt • No “On” vs. “Off” balance sheet considerations • Depending on equity investor / structure, debt consolidation could be relevant to Utilities • Rating agencies (or public ratings) not necessary • As Utilities expand their offshore wind portfolios, • Continued appetite of the ECAs / commercial additional debt burden puts pressure on balance banks critical for this funding approach sheets and ratings –While selling down an equity stake recycles capital to allow for further development, it may not reduce the Utility’s debt burden 6
  35. 35. Industry Wide Financing Solution? Legal / Ownership Likely to Pose Problems Utility 1 Utility 2 Utility 3 Other [X]% [X]% [X]% [X]% FiTUtility 1 FiTUtility 2 Debt Proceeds Banks / Institutional IssuerCo Security Investors FiTUtility 3 FiT Other Utility 1 Utility 2 Utility 3 Asset Asset Asset 7
  36. 36. Institutional Investors Workshop2 July 2012Ryan Trow
  37. 37. Forewind • Forewind is a consortium comprising four leading international energy companies: RWE, SSE, Statoil, and Statkraft. • The consortium members joined forces to bid for the Dogger Bank Zone Development Agreement as part of The Crown Estate’s third licence round for UK offshore wind farms (Round 3) in 2010. • Forewind combines extensive experience of international offshore project delivery and renewables development, construction, asset management and operations, with UK utility expertise spanning the complete electricity value chain. • Together as Forewind we have the experience and expertise to deliver the extraordinary challenges facing Round 3 developers. • Forewind is committed to securing all the necessary consents required for the construction and development of Dogger Bank, the first of which is anticipated around 2015. • The Crown Estate is Forewind’s partner in the development of Dogger Bank. 2
  38. 38. Forewind Overall Strategy• Forewind’s mission is to deliver development consents for safe, viable offshore wind capacity• Priority to secure & consent early projects to build momentum & confidence in Forewind for the full zone potential• We aim to deliver low LCOE projects that maximise value in the Dogger Bank development option Dogger Bank key facts: • Capacity: Agreed target 9 GW, with the potential for c.13 GW. • Area: 8660km2 ; equivalent to size of North Yorkshire. • Distance: 125-290 km from shore. • Depth: 18-63 m; c.4 GW in <30m water depth, c.8 GW in <35m water depth; shallow compared with other Round 3 zones. • Wind: High wind speeds of >10 m/s average wind speed across the zone. Middlesbrough • History: A "dogger“ was a type of Dutch fishing boat that commonly Hull worked in the North Sea in the seventeenth century. 3
  39. 39. Unincorporated Joint Venture Structure repeated for each 1GW project Funding & guarantees SPV SPV SPV SPV SPV SPV SPV SPV • UJV owns assets + Bizco • Bizco has legal personality for UJV licences and land agreements etc. Operator 4
  40. 40. Eight or more individual ProjectsFirst 6 Projects have signed grid agreements Connection point Connection date P1 – Creyke Beck Yorkshire Apr 2016 P2 – Lackenby Teesside Apr 2017 P3 – Lackenby Teesside Apr 2018 P4 – Creyke Beck Yorkshire Apr 2019 P5 – Tod Point Teesside Apr 2019 P6 – Tod Point Teesside Apr 2020 • Each Project will have • Around 200 turbines with a cumulative capacity of about 1.2GW • AC collector transmission substations • HVDC transmission offshore platform and equivalent onshore station • Approx. 200km * 2 of transmission cables to connect to shore • Each project will cost £3bn to £4bn to construct. About £30bn needed in total • Forewind has accepted grid agreements for first 6 projects in anticipation of an appropriate regulatory environment evolving 5
  41. 41. Post Consent Risk:• Regulatory risk – current uncertainties include EMR and transmission charging. What regulatory risks will there be when finance is needed?• Political risk – how much offshore wind is wanted and when?• Supply chain risk – For example, current global cable manufacturing capability cannot supply Dogger Bank’s current programme. Many other examples of supply chain pinch points• Finance: • If pre-construction finance only comes from offshore wind farm developers it will take a long time to recycle funds and slow down overall deployment of offshore wind • Availability of post construction finance will impact on ability to recycle funds • Utilities may not want to take on £4bn construction projects on their own. Also, they may not have the capacity and strategic interest in being a non-operating investor 6
  42. 42. Institutional Investors Workshop2 July 2012Ryan Trow

×