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

1. Natural Power Consultants LTD
Eversheds, Institutional Investor workshop
2nd July 2012

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Natural Power Consultants
2. Capex comparative analysis
3. Offshore WTG technology
4. Foundations
5. Cables
6. Installation
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 2

3. NATURAL POWER CONSULTANTS
Renewable energy consultancy, management • Energy yield analysis and technical risk reduction
services and product innovation.
• Project design, ecology surveys, EIA and
permitting management
Onshore wind, Offshore wind, Wave & Tidal and
Biomass energy • Construction, ground surveys and contracts
management
Founded in 1996 300 Employees 14 Offices 7 • Operational A&M and performance analysis
Countries
• 360o project due diligence
• Owner and Lender’s Engineering & Technical
Advisors
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 3

4. CAPEX COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS1
M£/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. 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. WTG SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION
Market 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. OFFSHORE FOUNDATION
Market 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. MONOPILES’ ISSUES
• Monopolie made for: soft seabed, up to medium water depth, up to medium
WTG weight (e.g. the actual monopile designed to support 6.0MW WTG vary
from 6.5m to 7m in diameter)
• Grouted connection: 65% of all the monopile installed in UK is facing problems
subjected to a complex state of stress
• Installation (mechanical hammer vs drilling): insufficient wind industry
experience to guarantee required pile verticality of <0.25° (bolted flange
requirement) during driving operations.
•Few players represent a bottle neck in the supply chain
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8

9. FOUNDATIONS: NEW TRENDS
Jacket Gravity Base
Emphasis 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. OFFSHORE CABLE TECHNOLOGY
Ex Cable Supply Copper price 2009 -2012
0.90
0.80
0.70
Cost 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. salt
Cost 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. INSTALLATION
Latest trends:
• Players are developing vessels (e.g. Nordic Yards), which
can install every type of foundations, towers, nacelles
and turbines as a single unit
• In order to reduce installation time and costs, the
vessels are designed to deploy the whole wind turbine in
an upright position
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 11

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 8.00
Inst. 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. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 13

14. Offshore Wind in UK –
Funding Round 3
June 27, 2012

15. Agenda
 Funding requirement in UK
 Conditions for investment
 Funding sources
 Utilities and other investors
 Investor models
 Conclusions
2

16. Siemens is market leader in offshore turbines with
2.5 GW installed, of which nearly 1 GW in UK
Burbo 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, DK
Pori, FIN → 1 x SWT-2.3-82 (2003)
→ 1 x SWT-2.3-101 (2010)
Horns Rev II, DK
Baltic 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. 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-2.3-93
Note: SPV also own 50% of Smart
Wind consortium with Mainstream
Renewables, developing UK Round 3 Rudong Intertidal, CHN
Hornsea zone (4 GW). First GW → 21 x SWT-2.3-101
being developed with Dong.
Source: SWP
4

18. Offshore Wind Roadmap and Funding
Requirement
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 costs
Source: DECC UK Renewable Energy Roadmap July 2011
5

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. Funding Sources in Offshore Wind Development Cycle
Point in time – decreasing risk and required return over project life cycle
Project 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Dong
11

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. 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. 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. Thank you
Peter Weston
Global Head of Finance & Investment
Siemens Wind Power
+44 7808 824 390
peter.weston@siemens.com
Global Wind Power Finance & investment Congress
June 26-27, 2012, London

29. Morgan Stanley
Institutional Investors Workshop
July 2, 2012

30. Morgan Stanley Project Finance Transactions
Power 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 2005
Natural 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 2007
Infrastructure $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 2005
Renewables $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. 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. 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. 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. Offshore Wind Financing Strategies
Current 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. Industry Wide Financing Solution?
Legal / Ownership Likely to Pose Problems
Utility 1 Utility 2 Utility 3 Other
[X]% [X]% [X]% [X]%
FiT
Utility 1
FiT
Utility 2 Debt Proceeds
Banks / Institutional
IssuerCo Security Investors
FiT
Utility 3
FiT
Other
Utility 1 Utility 2 Utility 3
Asset Asset Asset
7

36. Institutional Investors Workshop
2 July 2012
Ryan Trow

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. 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. 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. Eight or more individual Projects
First 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. 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. Institutional Investors Workshop
2 July 2012
Ryan Trow