AR6 Contract Awards to Hornsea Project 3 Under Permitted Reduction Scheme

Dear National Energy System Operator,

Orsted’s Hornsea Project Three was awarded CfD contracts with a total capacity of 1,080MW under the Permitted Reduction Scheme. However, the original capacity of Hornsea Three awarded in AR4 was 2,852MW and 1,080MW represents 37.9% of the original capacity. When the AR4 contracts were awarded, the limit for permitted reductions was supposed to be 25% of the original capacity (see contract condition 6.2 on p82 of the AR4 contract: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk... ).

On the face of it, Hornsea Project 3 was awarded contracts in AR6 above the limit for Permitted Reductions allowed under its original AR4 contract. As I understand it, NESO is the body that checks developers are compliant with eligibility requirements following submission of applications.

I would therefore like to request:

1) Transcripts of all forms of contact (including but not limited to meetings, emails, electronic messages and telephone calls) to and from NESO regarding the award of the contracts under AR6 to Hornsea Project 3.

2) Copies of all internal working papers regarding the checking, approval and award of the contracts under AR6 to Hornsea Project 3.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours faithfully,

David Turver

Dear National Energy System Operator,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of National Energy System Operator's handling of my FOI request 'AR6 Contract Awards to Hornsea Project 3 Under Permitted Reduction Scheme'.

I note you have turned down my request under Regulation 12(5) (d) and (e) of the EIR and Regulation 54 of the CfD Regulations, citing the need to maintain confidentiality and be fair to participants. However, given there is prima facie evidence that Hornsea Project 3 was awarded contracts in AR6 under the Permitted Reduction Scheme in excess of the reductions permitted in AR4 contracts, it is unfair on other market participants to not know how this decision was made. Moreover, it is unfair on the general public for a larger part of Hornsea 3 to be re-bid at higher prices than is allowed in AR4 contracts and for the decision-making process to be kept confidential. I therefore contend that it is in the public interest for this information to be released.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

Yours faithfully,

David Turver

Dear .Box.InformationRights, NESO,

Re: FOI/24/0038

I am writing to gently remind you that the deadline of 20 working days that you set to respond to my request for an internal review has passed.

I would be very grateful if you would respond now by return. Thank you for your help.

Yours sincerely,

David Turver

Dear .Box.InformationRights,

Thank you for your somewhat tardy response. I am grateful that you have released some of the information I requested, but I am far from satisfied that all the relevant information has been released.

We are now in the somewhat ridiculous position where Hornsea Project Three is now benefitting from CfD contracts with a combined capacity some 374MW more than the 2,852MW actually being built and yet passed all of NESO's checks, see image with these calculations here:

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_14....

Something has plainly gone awry because consumers will be paying more for their energy and other offshore wind farms may well have been disadvantaged as a result. Accordingly, I have referred this matter to the ICO, along with other similar FOI requests I made to DESNZ and LCCC.

Yours sincerely,

David Turver