Permit Granting in Practice - Viking Link - Views and experiences. presented by Antje Orths

Transcription

1 Permit Granting in Practice - Viking Link - Views and experiences presented by Antje Orths (ano@energinet.dk)

2 Viking Link interconnector 1400 MW high voltage Direct Current (DC) electricity link - approx. 760 km long Connecting the British and Danish transmission systems at Bicker Fen substation in Lincolnshire and Revsing substation in southern Jutland, Denmark. Converter station in each country and the installation of submarine and underground cables Crossing the EEZ of Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and the UK

3 Applying 4 national + 1 EU jurisdictions..involving : 4 NCAs, 4 UK LPAs 2 DK LPAs 1 DK national authorities, 2 DE national authorities; 2 NL national authorities. 15 authorities! plus X statutory consultees

4 Status on PCI for Viking Link PCI status ratified in Q1, 2016 and Q Viking coordinated a permitting schedule involving 15 authorities with a strong focus on understanding the TEN-E Regulation s requirements and how each of the 4 NCAs interprets its implications within its their permitting processes CPPs submitted to all four NCAs and accepted Public consultations held in all 4 countries during 2016 and 2017 As a result of this process, consenting applications were submitted in 2017 to relevant authorities in all territories and have received the permits and licences from the Dutch and Danish Authorities. All other applications are currently being assessed by the relevant authorities.

5 PCI for Viking Link our experiences LENGTH OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS: The effectiveness of implementation of TEN-E into national law has been mixed. NCAs have slightly different perceptions of the requirements and how to align with national legislation/processes. This can lead to ambiguity and parallel running between TEN-E and national processes which may create confusion for stakeholders. We have observed the possibility of perverse unintended consequences e.g. where prescribed timelines for process steps in accordance with Manuals of Procedures could lead to slower permitting than if TEN-E hadn t existed. Suggestion: Improve coordination regarding Mannuals of Procedure. Manuals of Procedures devised in isolation of neighbours can result in mutual incompatibilities making it difficult to find a project specific common timeline allowing a given project to comply simultaneously with multiple manuals.

6 PCI for Viking Link our experiences ONE STOP SHOP In some circumstances, interpretative differences and the parallel running phenomena described above, causes our permitting practitioners to view PCI status and TEN-E permitting requirements as a burden rather than a help. The OSS role can require considerable resources for co-ordination with other permitting bodies (e.g. local authorities(lpas)) and some OSS s funding model is to only undertake assessment of permit applications upon payment from the proponent. The conclusion is that that the permitting program s pro-active co-ordination still rests firmly on the shoulders of the proponents Suggestion: Create some clear EU guidelines that support the NCAs in navigating the TEN-E process with other permitting bodies and encourage proactive coordination among the permitting bodies

7 PCI for Viking Link our experiences TEN-E REQUIREMENTS ON THE ORGANISATION OF THE PERMITING PROCESS The spirit of TEN-E is well intended however the TEN-E division of the process might not be effective The TEN-E 2-month rule (Article 9(5)) has the potential to frustrate or delay the coordination of potentially very different consenting processes in different countries, without necessarily bringing any benefits. E.g. in a marine cross border project it is not obvious why consulting for the land based components at either end of the link with totally different stakeholder groups should be timed together with the offshore part. Suggestion: Greater discretion should be given as to how best to implement the intent of TEN-E into specific types of project and national settings. For example perhaps PCI projects could have flexibility to opt-out of the permitting provisions of TEN- E, or only the marine elements of sub-sea cross border projects should be subject to the co-ordinated permitting and public participation intent of TEN-E.

8 PCI for Viking Link Conclusions Despite the good intention, the TEN-E Regulations have not yet brought a perceived benefit of streamlining the consenting process across European states. TEN-E Regulation adds complexity, additional steps, and work to the existing permitting processes. Coordinating across territories and complying with TEN-E/national legislations is not easy - it tends to be two (or 5) parallel processes trying to comply, which creates confusion for stakeholders. Often the project promoter is required to directly undertake the level of coordination and streamlining understood to be envisaged by the Regulators TEN-E regulation is not clear and subject to interpretations. The NCAs have slightly different perception of the requirements and how to align with the national legislation/processes. Territorial guidance documents are also not fully aligned The effort trying to streamline and coordinate have put a hold to the general process within the national permission processes Suggestion to make TEN-E Regulation more flexible to follow the guidelines if no other process for is in place in the national legislation