Arvamus eelnõu kohta

ESTONIA LATVIA LITHUANIA www.tgsbaltic.com Saatja: Magnus Brogaard Larsen <[email protected]> Saadetud: 30.08.2022 19:43 Adressaat: MKM info <[email protected]> Koopia: Timo Tatar <[email protected]>; Jaanus Uiga <[email protected]>; Regina Rass <[email protected]>; Liis Kilk <[email protected]>; Kristi Talving <[email protected]>; Liina Roosimägi <[email protected]>; Megan Alieh Mahdi <[email protected]> Teema: CIP Comments on draft Estonian Offshore Wind Legislation Lugupeetavad Esitan hoonestusloa taotleja CI NMF Estonia Sea I OÜ nimel arvamuse ja küsimused majandus- ja taristuministri määruse „Konkureerivate hoonestusloa taotluste hindamise tingimused ja kord, hoonestusloa menetluse konkursi korras algatamise kord ja enampakkumise alghinna määramise metoodika&quot; eelnõu kohta. Vajadusel oleme valmis oma ettepanekuid selgitama täiendavalt, sh suuliselt. Austusega Magnus Brogaard Larsen ------------ English version --------------------- Dear Madams/Sirs, On behalf of the applicant for a building permit, CI NMF Estonia Sea I OÜ, I hereby submit comments on the draft Regulation of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Infrastructure on the conditions and procedure for the assessment of competing applications for a building permit, the procedure for initiating the building permit procedure by competitive tendering and the methodology for determining the starting price of the auction. If necessary, we are ready to clarify our proposals further. Best regards, Magnus Brogaard Larsen _________________________________________ Magnus Brogaard Larsen Director Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners Amerika Plads 29 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø Denmark E-mail: Mobile: &#43;45 2027 3609 Main: &#43;45 7070 5151 Web: This e-mail is from Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners I K/S (CVR-no. 34729069), Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners II P/S (CVR-no. 35682775) and/or Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners P/S (CVR-no. 37994006) all domiciled Amerika Plads 29, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. This e-mail and any attached files may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and return the e-mail without copying, distributing or disclosing any of its contents. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this e-mail which may arise as a result of the transmission. CONFIDNETIAL Application overview Estonia July 2022 Only the right/intended addressees are allowed to access and read this document. This document may contain confidential information and shall not be disclosed to any third party, referred to or published without CIP’s prior written approval.  CONFIDNETIAL Overview of current applications within Estonia’s wind energy development and innovation areas as of 08.07.2022 Number of areas to publish if current applications for areas are not merged – See next pages for suggestion of alternative project-sized approach 29 31 30 32 33 34 35 6 7 36 5 8 4 13 3 37 38 39 11 12 14 16 40 41 44 Example of area 2 10 that developers will 9 15 have to reapply for 42 43 1 17 19 18 22 23 24 20 26 27 • Currently 21 applications in the Ministry of Environment’s GIS-viewer 25 (xgis.maaamet.ee), where 17 applications have overlaps and 4 have 21 none ‒ Not including CIP’s and other future applications • 17 applications with overlaps result in 40 areas where resubmittal is required due to overlaps 28 • In total 44 areas across offshore wind zone with 7GW capacity equals an average project size of 159 MW Outcome Outside • Time and resource intensive process for CPTRA if not altered of MSP • Uncertainty of achieving an area of feasible size will likely decrease developer interest and result in lack of competition for areas and sub- optimal allocation of Estonian offshore wind zones 2  CONFIDNETIAL Overview of areas in Estonia with +1GW capacity A total of 8 areas with sizes accommodating +1 GW 29 31 30 32 33 34 8 35 6 7 36 5 8 7 4 13 3 37 38 39 11 12 14 16 4 40 41 44 Example of area 2 10 1 that developers will 9 15 have to reapply for 2 3 43 42 1 17 19 18 5 22 23 24 20 6 26 27 • Areas clustered based on existing applications avoiding to splitting them 25 up but requiring applicants to cluster their applications to some degree 21 Outcome • Achieving project-sized areas allow developers to apply for areas which can stand alone, which is expected to: 28 ‒ Increase applicants per area i.e. competition ‒ Ensure smooth and fast development of Estonian offshore wind Pros: Scale advantages and lower LCoEs + Allocation of all areas Cons: +1 GW-sized areas could potentially disable local developers to obtain areas alone. Local and international developers could combine local expertise with offshore wind experience and financial capability 3