Windy times for offshore wind power support

Windy times for offshore wind power support

Windy times for offshore wind power support

01.07.2013 BE law

This newsletter sheds light on two recent evolutions regarding the Belgian support regime for offshore wind power. 

Firstly, the CREG has published a study on 26 June 2013 regarding the reform of this support regime. This study is composed of three parts: in the first part the CREG evaluates the Memorandum Dralans, in the second part it assesses the thesis of the State Secretary for Energy that a reform of the support regime for offshore wind power would lead to a significant saving, and in a final part the CREG presents its own proposal for a reform of the support regime. A second evolution concerns the amendment of Art. 7, §1 of the Electricity Act. With this amendment the federal legislator has set out further details and conditions regarding the offshore surcharge, setting inter alia a progressive reduction (“degressivity”) of and an annual cap for the offshore surcharge.

1. Existing legal framework

The current Belgian support regime for offshore wind farms is based on three pillars: (i) offshore green power certificates (hereafter “offshore GPC”) are awarded to installations that generate electricity in the waters over which Belgium has jurisdiction. These offshore GPC can be sold to the TSO at a fixed minimum price of 107 €/MWh for electricity generation from the first 216 MW installed and 90 €/MWh for additional installed capacity; (ii) the TSO must finance one-third of the cost of the submarine cable, with a maximum of €25 million; and (iii) there is a specific regime for production deviations that apply to offshore wind power (i.e. limited imbalance penalties).

The federal legislator has furthermore delegated to the King (i.e. a minister with countersignature of the king) the competence to create a mechanism of guarantees of origin for offshore electricity generation and/or to create a mechanism to finance all or part of the net burdens that arise from the mechanism of offshore GPCs (and offshore guarantees of origin). The latter may include a surcharge on the transmission tariffs (hereafter the “offshore surcharge”).

Two recent evolutions have taken place which resulted / might result in a (future) reform of the support regime for offshore wind power. Firstly, the CREG has published a study dated 26 June 2013 regarding the reform of the support regime for offshore wind power, evaluating also the Memorandum Dralans in this study. Secondly, the federal legislator has amended the Electricity Act whereby a progressive reduction of and a cap for the offshore surcharge have been laid down, among other things.

2. Memorandum Dralans and CREG Study regarding the reform of the offshore wind support regime

The just level of the support regime for offshore wind power has been a point of discussion for years in Belgium. To end the discussion, Mr Dralans, per the instructions of the Belgian Federation for Entrepreneurs (“VBO/FEB”), conducted a study which aimed to suggest an alternative support mechanism for offshore wind power. The results of this study, known as the Memorandum Dralans, were presented in March 2012.

The Memorandum’s goal is to reveal findings on how the support regime could be made more cost efficient. The Memorandum suggests that the starting point should be the establishment of a link between the electricity price and the support regime. Two alternative support regimes are developed to establish this link: one is the adjusted LCOE1  system, the other the classic LCOE system. The former would apply to the domain concessions of Norther and Rentel, and the latter to the domain concessions of Mermaid and Seastar. C-Power, Belwind, and Northwind would continue to enjoy the existing support regime because they have already started the exploitation or construction of their offshore wind parks.

Under the adjusted LCOE system, the LCOE starting point is 160 €/MWh for the first 216 installed MW and 143 €/MWh for additional installed capacity. There is also a yearly indexation. Under the classic LCOE system, the LCOE for offshore wind energy would be calculated every two years based on the costs of a technological reference framework, capital remunerations, and the expected electricity generation. This LCOE would be used as the base for all investments whose financial close will happen within the next two years.

In the first part of its June 2013 study (mentioned above), the CREG evaluated the Memorandum Dralans. The CREG favoured principally the link of the support regime for offshore wind power with the electricity prices, but it warned that there would be some side effects to this flexible type of support. The CREG also welcomed the proposal to abolish the current system for production deviations that apply to offshore wind power and to replace it with a general system of production deviations (“the general balancing mechanism”). However, the CREG formulated some remarks too. Its first remark was that the Memorandum Dralans was partially out-dated because the market conditions had changed. The CREG also noted that the Memorandum lacked clarity on some issues, such as: (a) Would the classic LCOE be calculated per wind park or would it be standardized? (b) Is there a wind guarantee (full load hours) or a volume guarantee (MWh) under the classic LCOE system? (c) Which return on equity and which leverage are used under the classic LCOE system? and (d) How would the shut down on Elia’s demand work? Furthermore, the CREG disliked the proposal of a wind or a volume guarantee because it would not help the bankability of the project. It also opposed the proposal for an indexation under the adjusted LCOE system because it would overcompensate the concession holders. Finally, the CREG made some remarks on the calculated impact of the “Plug at Sea” (also “Belgian Offshore Grid” or “BOG”) and of the state guarantee on the LCOE.

In the second part of its June 2013 study, the CREG assessed the thesis of the State Secretary for Energy that a reform of the support regime for offshore wind power would lead to a significant saving of €800 million a year compared to the baseline scenario. The CREG concluded that due to the Plug at Sea, there is a risk that there will be rather a shift in the costs than a significant saving. It estimated that a significant saving in the short term is not possible. Furthermore, the CREG warned that a reform of the support regime may not destabilize or render less favourably the investment climate.

In a final part of its June 2013 study, the CREG proposed itself a reform of the support regime for offshore wind power, taking into account future evolutions such as the Belgian Offshore Grid. The CREG proposed an LCOE of 145.70 €/MWh for the first 216 installed MW and an LCOE of 128.70 €/MWh for additional installed capacity. This LCOE would apply to the last four offshore domain concessions. The support per MWh would be determined monthly as the difference between this LCOE and the electricity reference price, being the PPA2  contractual price.

3. Progressive reduction (“degressivity”) and cap of the offshore surcharge

Art. 7, §1 of the Belgian Electricity Act gives the King the possibility to create a mechanism to finance all or part of the net burdens that arise from the mechanism of offshore GPCs (and offshore guarantees of origin), after consulting with the (Belgian) Council of Ministers and on the proposal of the CREG. This mechanism may include an offshore surcharge.

In the Programme Act of 28 June 20133, the federal legislator amended Art. 7, §1 of the Electricity Act, setting out further details and certain conditions which must be observed when imposing such offshore surcharge.

The offshore surcharge will henceforth be due by all final consumers on each kWh they take off the grid for their own consumption. The taxable base of the offshore surcharge will hence equate with the taxable base of the federal contribution on electricity. VAT remains applicable to the offshore surcharge.

For electricity consumptions from 1 July 2013 until 31 December 2013, a progressive reduction (“degressivity”) of the offshore surcharge is introduced to mitigate the impact of the offshore surcharge on the competitiveness of large consumers. The offshore surcharge is furthermore capped at €125,000 per consumption location.

This reduction and cap apply to all final consumers except those who could have concluded a branch agreement or a covenant, but have failed to do so, or those who have not respected the conditions set out in this branch agreement or covenant. Companies who would have enjoyed a reduction because of a branch agreement or covenant, of which they did not respect the conditions, will have to reimburse the CREG and will lose the reduction for the next year.

Elia will be responsible for the collection of the offshore surcharge by invoicing it to the holders of an access contract or the DSOs. The latter may pass on the offshore surcharge to their own customers. The CREG has an obligation to compensate the suppliers for the total sum of the reductions. In practice, the suppliers are thus used as “buffers”: they have to pay the full amount to Elia, but have to grant immediately the reduction to the final consumers, then to reclaim it from the CREG.

The reductions will be compensated with the money received from certain excises, and, if those sums were to be insufficient, with a part of the revenues from the company tax.

The CREG must report each trimester to the Chamber of Representatives and the Ministers for Energy, Budget and Finance on the payments that it has made.

In its advice, the Council of State indicated among other things that the Programme Act requires a consultation by the federal government of the Regional governments, and that the Programme Act must be notified to the European Commission for an assessment of its conformity with the state aid rules. It is unclear whether these measures have been taken.

Finally, it should be noted that the newspaper De Tijd announced on 3 July 2012 that the State Secretary for Energy intends to propose to the (Belgian) Council of Ministers to use part of the tax on the nuclear rent and part of the revenues from the opened access to the production capacity of the nuclear power plant Tihange I to finance the offshore wind parks and hence to lower the offshore surcharge for all final consumers.


  1. Levelised cost of energy.
  2. Power Purchase Agreement.
  3. Belgian Official Gazette 1 July 2013.

All rights reserved. Care has been taken to ensure that the content of this e-bulletin is as accurate as possible. However the accuracy and completeness of the information in this e-bulletin, largely based upon third party sources, cannot be guaranteed. The materials contained in this e-bulletin have been prepared and provided by Stibbe for information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice and readers should not act upon the information contained in this e-bulletin without consulting legal counsel. Consultation of this e-bulletin will not create an attorney-client relationship between Stibbe and the reader. The e-bulletin may be used only for personal use and all other uses are prohibited.



Related news

28.09.2018 BE law
Second Belgian Offshore Wind Farm Area to be tendered

Articles - At the Council of Ministers session on 31 August 2018, the principle memorandum Tendering offshore wind farms from 2020 onwards was approved. This memorandum sets out the actions and timing for the new area for offshore wind farm (1.7 GW). Very similar to what has happened in the Netherlands, the right to construct and operate new wind farms will be tendered in hope of not having to grant any subsidies at all.

Read more

Energy Charter Treaty arbitration clause cannot be relied on in intra-EU investment disputes, says EC

Articles - Following the Achmea judgement of the CJEU, the European Commission issued a new document providing guidance on the protection of cross-border EU investments. In this communication, which is not binding from a legal perspective but reflects the EU Commission’s view on this topic, the EU Commission confirms, among others, that the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) arbitration mechanism cannot be applied in a dispute between an EU investor and an EU Member State.

Read more

12.09.2018 NL law
Wetsvoorstel wijziging Crisis- en herstelwet (Transitiewet Omgevingswet) ingediend bij de Tweede Kamer

Short Reads - Op 5 september 2018 heeft de regering het wetsvoorstel tot wijziging van de Crisis- en herstelwet (Chw) (Kamerstukken II 2017/18, 35 013, nrs 1-3) ingediend bij de Tweede Kamer. Het wetsvoorstel beoogt onder meer te voorzien in snellere en gemakkelijker procedures om woningbouw te versnellen. Ook overbrugt het wetsvoorstel de periode tot inwerkingtreding van de Omgevingswet (vooralsnog 1 januari 2021) en kan daarom ook worden beschouwd als een transitiewet naar de Omgevingswet.

Read more

Conclusie AG programma aanpak stikstof: het PAS als instrument is veelbelovend, maar twijfel of het voldoet aan de Habitatrichtlijn. De ADC-toets als creatieve oplossing om het PAS in stand te kunnen houden?

Short Reads - Advocaat-Generaal ("AG") Kokott heeft op 25 juli 2018 een conclusie genomen over de vragen van de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak over het programma aanpak stikstof. Een dergelijk programma kan op zichzelf voldoen aan de Habitatrichtlijn. Knelpunt ziet de AG in het vooruitlopen op de positieve effecten van te treffen reductiemaatregelen. Verder geeft de AG als handreiking mee gebruik te maken van de zogeheten ADC-toets.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring