Current onshore plans are misguided, destructive and a security concern

SEAS along with many other groups (OFFSET MPs, RSPB etc.) reject current plans for East Anglia including Sea Link, Nautilus and LionLink, as not in the UK’s best interests, involving unnecessary onshore infrastructure via landfall sites on the Suffolk coast; we reject current plans not because we are NIMBYs, but because we advocate a better solution (see below) and East Anglia has not been afforded the same holistic design process as the rest of the country. They are based on outdated thinking and for the purpose of maximising profits for National Grid, without due consideration of the devastating cumulative impact on the countryside, as opposed to using a holistic network design that considers the whole of the UK. SEAS and our partner organisations will fight all the way through DCOs (Development Consent Orders), until better solutions are considered. The MPIs (multi-purpose interconnectors e.g. LionLink) are a tactical response to a flawed overall strategy, and do not answer the principal question of how best to get offshore wind energy to where it is needed, evaluating costs and benefits over the lifecycle of these projects. SuperHubs should be sited at brownfield sites closer to where power is needed (e.g. Isle of Grain or Bradwell), giving an economic, social & environmental impact that is regenerative not destructive, but National Grid is not encouraged to use these sites, so this needs to change immediately. For energy security reasons alone, it makes no sense to have 25-30% of the UK’s energy capacity transported via East Anglia.

A better solution exists now

A better solution involving an Offshore Grid using the North Sea Corridor to transport power closer to demand is realistic and viable now and this should have been designed by this stage. Other European countries, with similar 2030 and 2050 aims to ours, are moving ahead with their plans with confidence and it can be no coincidence that all of the leading players (Belgium, Holland, Germany and Denmark) have chosen modular offshore grids (MOGs) for their offshore spatial design strategies. Current delays offer a golden opportunity to pivot to a better and more efficient overall solution, with major energy capacity goals still achievable in the 2030-2032 window (we have had this confirmed by National Grid). Better solutions will receive greater buy-in from all parties including ourselves and ensure project delivery timelines can be achieved with greater certainty.

All plans face constraints / Our plan offers greater certainty and is better for the UK

We understand that a new plan would be constrained by contracts signed pre-2020, and would require negotiated compensation for developers, however it is important to remember that current plans also involve very considerable constraints, practical hurdles to delivery and risks to timetable/completion, and when evaluated in the round, our proposed plan is still the most deliverable and cost effective choice across the lifecycle of these projects. The greatly reduced negative cumulative impact on East Anglian countryside & communities, combined with levelling-up regeneration of brownfield sites should be seen as a positive opportunity for government.

The best way ahead has to meet the needs of all stakeholders

To play their part in meeting government goals, developers are calling for greater stability of regulatory environment, more clarity around government priorities and greater certainty of future long-term commercial arrangements. Current plans risk government goals as they don’t satisfy the needs of all stakeholders and any solution has to achieve this. A significant reason for where we find ourselves is a lack of active leadership and innovative thinking from National Grid Electricity System Operator (NGESO) it is instead being led by developers, however to be fair to them unlike their continental counterparts, their ability to act strategically and decisively is being compromised by their continued ownership by National Grid.

We have told the DESNZ Secretary of State Grant Shapps:

• The FSO (Future System Operator) needs to be created as early in 2023 as possible. In terms of 2030 targets, this is a pivotal 6-12months for developers so no time can be wasted. The new FSO would have the independence, expertise, resources and authority to give (along with Ofgem) regulatory stability, a strategic and holistic vision for network design for the whole UK, and clarity of future commercial contractual frameworks that the market is crying out for. This will in turn encourage developers to commit short and longer-term risk capital to these projects.

• In parallel with the HNDFUE process (Holistic Network Design Follow Up Exercise), East Anglia must be included in the overall holistic network design for the UK, with objective comparative analysis of current plans vs solutions involving brownfield sites, such as Isle of Grain and Bradwell. DESNZ (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) needs to initiate this comparative assessment employing an independent team using HND criteria (we formally requested this on 9 September 2022 and are disappointed by the inaction since then). This assessment cannot be delegated to developers or others who have any conflict of interest.

• Whilst anticipatory investment ideas will be welcomed, for developers to commit, the FSO needs to design, in discussion with industry, longer term commercial financial arrangements across project lifecycles that include a fair sharing of the risks and rewards involved. The Offshore Coordination Support Scheme is a sticking plaster, where surgery is required.

• Government should consider its involvement in these strategic projects financially, whether through commitment of risk capital (e.g. Denmark are making their energy island happen through 51% government funding), or risk/revenue sharing, which would in the medium term be better for UK taxpayers and give greater stability of energy prices.

Fiona Gilmore, SEAS Founder confirms:

“Offshore platforms offer a more strategic solution and greater efficiencies, taking wind-farm electricity along the North Sea Corridor, first to offshore platforms where it can be pooled and then taken to Holland if required, avoiding huge negative impact to countryside onshore. Modular offshore grids are available now and being implemented by other European countries’ North Sea wind farms. Cost synergies are attractive and it is simply the will of Government that is now the barrier. This should be a win-win choice, good for government, tax-payers, the countryside, environment and levelling up.”