Page 371 - ePaper
P. 371
Energy Union Networks New Private The UK government is committed to Yes and the >5 3.9 Barriers: i) Interconnectors operating under the
Interconnectors sector, increasing interconnection; an additional EU Ten Year "merchant exempt" route are very risky which is
(other key 6GW has been identified as European Network causing investment hiatus ii) Regulatory and political
bodies Projects of Common Interest under the Development coordination between the countries in the two
include TEN-E regulation. The pipeline of Plan connected regions creates uncertainty for developers
Ofgem, projects include: Eleclink (to France, iii) Long term visibility on EU's regulatory framework for
DECC, EU 1GW), Greenlink (to Ireland, 500MW), interconnection iv) access to finance during
energy NSN (to Norway, 1.4GW), Project Nemo development and construction of project Solutions: i)
regulators, (to Belgium, 1GW), FAB (to France, To mitigate risk and funding costs to developers, EU
EU energy 1GW), IFA2 (to France, 1GW), Viking should provide financial guarantees or debt facilities
ministries (to Denmark, 1GW), Icelink, (to Iceland, (e.g. via EIB-like instituions) for key strategic
and EU 1.2GW) Scottish Island Links between interconnection projects. ii) Greater grant funding for
transmission Lewis (450Mw) Shetland (600MW) and European Projects of Common interest, targetted for
system Orkney (200MW). All these projects are elec interconnector projects iii) More visability on
operators) looking to reach financial close by end medium and long tem regulatory framework for
of 2017. The mature projects may interconnectors in EU.
benefit from debt finance support
provided through EU institutions
(potentially with greater risk appetite
than EIB), depend on individual project's
size and gearing. This will be
particularly valuable for independent
project financed projects such as FAB
or Eleclink. The less mature projects
may benefit from feasibility etc study
grants.
Interconnectors sector, increasing interconnection; an additional EU Ten Year "merchant exempt" route are very risky which is
(other key 6GW has been identified as European Network causing investment hiatus ii) Regulatory and political
bodies Projects of Common Interest under the Development coordination between the countries in the two
include TEN-E regulation. The pipeline of Plan connected regions creates uncertainty for developers
Ofgem, projects include: Eleclink (to France, iii) Long term visibility on EU's regulatory framework for
DECC, EU 1GW), Greenlink (to Ireland, 500MW), interconnection iv) access to finance during
energy NSN (to Norway, 1.4GW), Project Nemo development and construction of project Solutions: i)
regulators, (to Belgium, 1GW), FAB (to France, To mitigate risk and funding costs to developers, EU
EU energy 1GW), IFA2 (to France, 1GW), Viking should provide financial guarantees or debt facilities
ministries (to Denmark, 1GW), Icelink, (to Iceland, (e.g. via EIB-like instituions) for key strategic
and EU 1.2GW) Scottish Island Links between interconnection projects. ii) Greater grant funding for
transmission Lewis (450Mw) Shetland (600MW) and European Projects of Common interest, targetted for
system Orkney (200MW). All these projects are elec interconnector projects iii) More visability on
operators) looking to reach financial close by end medium and long tem regulatory framework for
of 2017. The mature projects may interconnectors in EU.
benefit from debt finance support
provided through EU institutions
(potentially with greater risk appetite
than EIB), depend on individual project's
size and gearing. This will be
particularly valuable for independent
project financed projects such as FAB
or Eleclink. The less mature projects
may benefit from feasibility etc study
grants.
