{"data":{"id":"sbm2e02045a9dae6dc8a2e63","short_id":79,"created":"2024-05-12T08:29:28.093Z","space_id":"spc2a200af26f256f907f0c3","project_id":"prj2a200ad763618a5e792b5","org_id":"org20ee740c8b3c21feb3566","content":{"zovp5q48":"Ørsted","upload-a-submiss_527a46":"fil2e0203f82daec4e404498"},"is_topic":false,"title":null,"count_replies":0,"closed":false,"reply_to_id":null,"last_activity":null,"reactions":{},"_files":{"fil2e0203f82daec4e404498":{"id":"fil2e0203f82daec4e404498","bucket":"files-au-climate","remote_path":"climate-au/p/prj2a200ad763618a5e792b5/submission/spc2a200af26f256f907f0c3/240512_Orsted_response_OEI_Exposure_Draft_consultation.cf62b2c0.pdf","filename":"240512 Orsted response OEI Exposure Draft consultation.pdf","transcribed":"Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 12 May 2024\n\nNgunnawal Country, 51 Allara St,\nCivic ACT 2601\nAustralia\n\nSent via email to offshorerenewables@dcceew.gov.au\n\nØrsted response to the Exposure Draft for supporting regulations under the\nOEI Act\nTo the Offshore Renewables team at DCCEEW,\n\nThank you for the chance to respond to the exposure draft on supporting regulations under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act (OEI Act). We are delighted to have been given the chance to proceed with our activities in Gippsland and are eager to get to work.\n\nØrsted are grateful for the kindness we have received during our interactions with\nGippsland and in Gunaikurnai Country, where we acknowledge and pay tribute to the elders past and present. Together, we will build an authentic relationship that enables their direct benefit. We will embrace the legacy of their ancestors by valuing the resilient culture they have maintained for thousands of years.\n\nWe are pleased to see supporting regulation now out for consultation and have warmly welcomed conversations and information sessions that have supported the views we present in this response. The exposure draft has provided clarity on the\nCommonwealth Government’s intended direction of travel regarding Management\nPlans. It sets out requirements for the details that would allow the Regulator to assess and hold projects accountable to delivering offshore wind projects in a responsible manner.\n\nIn addition to providing answers to the questions set out, we also wish to provide views outside of the questions, where we see some extra areas of attention.\n\nPragmatic Management Plans and processes for Feasibility Licences\nThe seven-year feasibility licence window requires efficient usage of the time available in order to perform all feasibility and permitting activities that include wind measurement and site investigations. For perspective, markets like the UK have ten- year periods for initial seabed leases to allow projects to mature.\n\nIn launching a new framework to support infrastructure that is new to Australia, we will need to see efficient processes that enable as much of the seven-year period to\n\nØrsted A/S Nesa Allé 1 2820 Gentofte Denmark Tel +45 99 55 11 11 orsted.com\nRegistered office: Kraftværksvej 53, 7000 Fredericia Denmark Company no. 36 21 37 28 1/20\nbe activated for feasibility activities, and reduce time spent for developers preparing for, and the Regulator in reviewing the relevant Management Plans.\n\nWe believe facilitating an efficient process would require:\n- The ability to appropriately submit Management Plans that reflect the\nvarious stages of feasibility activities (as opposed to requiring all activities to\nbe filed in one go)\n- Recognition of activities already undertaken in EPBC related activities that\navoids duplication of processes\n\nAs a result of taking these points on board, a 90-day consideration period would in practice be reduced. We are keen to also highlight how common some of the activities are in other sectors where these activities already exist, where:\n- Wind Measurement and metocean buoys are already in widespread\ndeployment across Australia\n- Geotechnical and geophysical site investigation activities in offshore wind\nutilise similar techniques as those used in investigating undersea cable routes.\n\nIn the wider regulatory environment outside of licencing, we also see overlaps with information, processes and stakeholder work that would be conducted under the\nEPBC Act and Cultural Heritage Management Plans. It would be prudent to recognise those activities and avoid repeating work for the purposes of meeting licencing requirements. This can also be applied in the instance of any requirements set by\nAEMO and for requirements under the proposed Transmission licences that are also currently under consultation.\n\nWe look forward to guidance from the Regulator which will help to clarify these points and create the necessary efficiencies.\n\nMore guidance for phased projects and resulting interactions.\nWe also wish to clarify any interactions the supporting regulations may have on\nSection 36 of the Act, and the effect of granting a commercial licence, and Section\n37, extending the term of a feasibility licence when it comes to delivering projects in phases.\n\nFor example, if state auctions procure in lot sizes less than the total potential of the site, clarity on how licences themselves and resulting Management Plans can be considered is welcomed. We see it as highly likely that the Regulator and Registrar will need to consider this situation sooner as opposed to later.\n\nWithin the questions proposed, we see broad scope for taking on efficiencies\nIn our detailed response we have described some risks of duplicating works or deviating from common international best practices. Broadly, the following themes in our response come through, where we see:\n\n- Scope for taking learnings from other jurisdictions and to adopt international\nbest practices and standards\n- Opportunities to recognise the risk of replicating and repeating common\nactions and processes in other OEI related activities (Management Plan\ninteractions between feasibility licence and commercial licence phases and\n\n2/20\ntheir review points), as well as other relevant frameworks (EPBC Act, state-\nrun processes etc) and to take steps to avoid duplications and unnecessary\nstakeholder fatigue.\n\nPlease see our Appendix for answers to the directly proposed questions. Lastly, please do not hesitate to reach out should you have any questions about our response.\n\nYours sincerely\n\n%REDACTED_TEXT%\n\n3/20\nAppendix - Our responses to the directed questions\n\nOn how the Management Plans are triggered\n\nQuestion 1:\nAre the revision triggers listed in subsection 53(2) of the proposed Regulations appropriate? Are there any triggers that should be added or removed?\n\nWe have no particular comments at this time.\n\nQuestion 2:\nIs 5 years appropriate for a periodic review? If not, what period of time do you consider is more appropriate?\n\nWe agree that periodic reviews are useful to both projects and regulators alike. The timeframe for periodic review requires close consideration with other process inside and outside of the OEI Act and Regulations to prevent over-burden and inefficiencies.\n\nWe note that there will likely be a period where Management Plans for Feasibility\nLicences may overlap with Management Plans for Commercial Licences where we would like to see an efficient process that minimises undue duplication of efforts and streamlining for the community to avoid confusion.\n\nFor example, we consider it likely that a five-year review trigger for a plan made under the Feasibility Licence creates overlapping work whilst a project prepares a\nManagement Plan for the Commercial Licence phase, or whilst a Design Notification is being filed.\n\nAt the same time, per Section 33 of the Act, the Registrar will still be in receipt of annual reports from licence holders that includes details of activities undertaken, and how merit criteria continue to be met. Whilst not the exact content as the\nManagement Plan, these reports serve to keep authorities informed on project activities that will need to fit inside Management Plans.\n\nAdditionally, Transmission and Infrastructure Licences may also be filed by developers. All of these components will create substantial documentation and have elements of duplication. This could create undue burdens on both developers to produce the documentation, and for the Regulator to review content from multiple developers at close to identical timeframes as projects progress under state-led procurement frameworks.\n\n4/20\nOn conducting consultations\n\nQuestion 3:\nThe Australian Government encourages the co-use of the offshore marine environment and ongoing collaboration between OEI licence holders and persons, communities, organisations, and groups affected by licence activities. Licence holders should be required to consult meaningfully with them. At the same time, consultation requirements must be practical and capable of being implemented by licence holders.\n\nIs the consultation process provided in the proposed Regulations appropriate?\nWhat changes (if any) do you recommend?\n\nYou should consider the following questions in drafting your response:\n\na) Is it appropriate for licence holders to consult representatives and\nrepresentative bodies where these bodies could reasonably be regarded as\nrepresenting the interests of individual persons, organisations, groups, or\ncommunities?\nb) Is it appropriate for the same consultation requirements to apply to all\ntypes of projects (for example, for research and demonstration projects\ncompared to commercial projects)? If not, what changes do you\nrecommend?\nc) Do you consider the proposed stakeholder engagement strategy described\nin the management plan, but separate to the management plan, to be\nadequately flexible and appropriate? If not, why, and what might be an\nalternative approach?\nd) Do you agree with the list of information that must be described in the\nmanagement plan in relation to the stakeholder engagement strategy?\nShould any other matters be described?\n\nWe believe the need to consult with stakeholders to be essential to obtain not only an approved management plan, but an overall social licence to operate in the communities that we serve.\n\nDuring the feasibility licence application process, we have heard about stakeholder fatigue. In practice, Gunaikurnai elders and leaders, and residents in Gippsland, particularly those across Giffard and Seaspray will be inundated with consultations from multiple licence holders. It may also be particularly difficult if information is extremely similar, for stakeholder groups to adequately find any points of differentiation and discussion.\n\nIn this context, we seek to implement efficient processes for consultation.\nRepresentative bodies are therefore appropriate to streamline the voice of the stakeholder group.\n\nOutside of licencing, we are also seeking to consulting on environmental and cultural heritage activities through other regulations outside of the OEI Act. These consultation activities should be accepted within licencing requirements in order to avoid multiple consultations for the same topics.\n\n5/20\nOn required contents of the Management Plans – matters that must be addressed\n\nQuestion 4:\nAre the content requirements for a management plan listed in Division 4 of Part 2 of the proposed Regulations appropriate? Are there any other matters that should or should not be addressed?\n\nAside from the points in Question 3 about stakeholder fatigue and optimisations in consultation processes, we believe most of the content requirements to be reasonable. We have comments in the following sections:\n\nDescribing activities and operations\n• Section 74 (2)(a): the timetable for the licence activities should be indicative\nand non-binding since the start of activities depend on when the\nManagement Plan is approved.\n• Section 74 (2)(b): If notifications require further approval before activities can\ncommence, an exemption should be made on the 30-day notification prior to\nactivities for time-critical activities such as (but not limited to):\no Deployment of wind measurements where full-data capture is\ncompromised through delays\no Ad-hoc / unplanned repair / service of equipment and emergencies\n(but substantiated with response/communication plan to relevant\nauthorities)\n\nDescription of management system\n• Section 77 (2)(f) is unclear on if it requires licence holders to identify\ncompliance roles within our organisation or simply individuals that may\ncovers parts of the regulations.\n\nNotification of events\n• Section 78 (2) suggests that the Registrar will hold powers that sit above the\nRegulator, and that the Registrar would not keep the Regulator informed on\nits decisions towards licence holders.\n\n6/20\nOn the public interest in Management Plans\n\nQuestion 5:\nThere is strong public interest in enabling public access to relevant and reliable information on OEI projects. Are management plan summaries an efficient and effective way to make information available to the community? If not, what are your concerns and how can they be addressed?\n\nIt is good to deliver summaries for general public use, where we can not expect impacted stakeholders to possess in-depth technical knowledge. In other markets we produce Non-Technical Summary (NTS) documents for this purpose of providing comprehensive, but simplified descriptions.\n\nThe test remains on how detailed, or how high level the summaries must be to satisfy the Regulator to be informative and complete, against the general public need to have an approachable, digestible format.\n\nGuidance on this would be welcome in order to produce a common summary format for public and developers to adhere to. This could be for example using common terminology across all projects to avoid confusion, to implementing page limits or allowing accessible formats other than word-processor based documentation (e.g., video, and other mixed media)\n\nQuestion 6:\nDo you think the alternative approaches of publishing management plans in full\n(with necessary redactions), or requiring licence holders to publish management plans themselves is more efficient or appropriate than the current approach in the proposed Regulations?\n\nWhere full publication is required, redactions for commercial and security reasons are reasonable.\n\nIn addition to publishing Non-Technical Summaries, we often publish full documentation (with appropriate redactions), or the relevant authority will have the documents available.\n\nQuestion 7:\nIs the list of matters that must be included in a management plan summary in section 71 of the proposed Regulations appropriate? If not, why?\n\nThe list of activities appears complete and comprehensive. We would like to see measures in the guidance which would balance the need to make a complete representation of the project with an accessible product for stakeholders.\n\n7/20\nOn design notification schemes\n\nQuestion 8:\nIs the list of matters that must be included in a design notification in subsection\n93(2) of the proposed Regulations appropriate? Do you think any other matters should be addressed?\n\nWe have no particular comments at this time on the general outline of the contents, but welcome further guidance and consultation on the manner and form of the design notification in order to make a clear design notification.\n\nQuestion 9:\nThe design notification scheme only applies to transmission and infrastructure licences and commercial licences. Should the design notification scheme be extended to all licence types, so that it would also include feasibility licences and research and demonstration licences? If yes, should it be mandatory or voluntary for these other licence types? Please outline your reasoning.\n\nWe believe the design notification scheme need only take effect for the commercial and transmission licences.\n\nGiven the documentation provided as part of the feasibility licence application, we believe that the effect of making the application itself and satisfying the merit criteria is an indirect form of design notification for the feasibility licence.\n\n8/20\nOn financial securities and financial arrangements\n\nWe acknowledge the need for the Commonwealth to ensure security that the cost of decommissioning will not be paid by the people of Australia.\n\nThis is in line with international standards for offshore wind projects. In Denmark, where offshore wind is a mature, well-understood technology, the most recently completed auction (Thor) required developers to post security only after 15 years of operational lifetime. We would encourage the consideration of a similar approach in\nAustralia. In our view, this would achieve a pragmatic balance between lowering the cost of building offshore wind (thereby lowering the cost for consumers/taxpayers) and ensuring financial security for the Commonwealth.\n\nQuestion 10:\nLicence holders will be required to provide verification of the method they have chosen for calculating the amount of financial security to be provided to the\nCommonwealth. What approaches to verification would be appropriate?\nYou should consider the following questions in drafting your response:\na) Should a certain level or standard for verification be prescribed? Why or\nwhy not?\nb) Should independent third-party verification be required in all cases, or is it\nappropriate to allow verification to match the scale of a project?\n\nQ10a:\nWe propose not to specify exact standards or levels of verification for decommissioning costs at this point in time. We are not familiar with such verification standards for offshore wind development projects internationally, and it could risk excessive administrative burdens that add little true value (especially when considering requirements whilst overall feasibility is still being assessed). In the UK, developers present their plans and estimates for decommissioning costs which form the basis of the financial security provided, subject to review by the authorities.\n\nQ10b:\nWe do not view it as required to have independent third-party verification of costs in all cases. Verification should be considered at appropriate times, where for example we would consider initial feasibility activities as not triggering a verification process.\n\nFor example, deployment of wind measurement equipment should not trigger a requirement for independent third-party validation. We are not aware of other markets requiring financial security to be issued for deployment of wind measurement equipment. We are also not aware of any instances internationally where wind measurement equipment has been abandoned at sea by offshore wind developers or suppliers. We further suggest considering whether financial security is required at all during the feasibility licence period given wind measurement equipment is likely to be the only “infrastructure” installed in this period.\n\n9/20\nQuestion 11:\nSubsection 102(1) of the proposed Regulations outlines a list of arrangements that may be treated as financial security. Is this list sufficient and appropriate? Are there any other arrangements that should be included in this list?\n\nWe suggest not to rule out a Parent Company Guarantee as a possible acceptable form of financial security. This would align with the approach taken in for example the UK and allow companies with strong balance sheets to provide the financial security themselves.\n\nQuestion 12:\nThe list of arrangements that may be treated as financial security in subsection\n102(1) of the proposed Regulations uses the term “financial institution”. The proposed Regulations define the term “financial institution” as “a corporation that is an authorised deposit-taking institution (ADI) for the purposes of the Banking Act\n1959”. Is this an appropriate definition? Is there another definition that would be more appropriate?\n\nIf not strictly necessary, we would propose not to define what constitutes a “financial institution” but to let it be up to the assessment of the Regulator and Minister on a case-by-case basis whether the financial security provided, including the proposed institution or company issuing it, is acceptable. Or consider reformulating the requirement such that it is directed at the issuer’s credit rating or similar financial strength measures rather than whether the institution is authorised for deposit- taking.\n\nQuestion 13:\nIs the list of arrangements that may not be treated as financial security in subsection 103(1) of the proposed Regulations appropriate? Are there any other arrangements that should be excluded?\n\nWe have no particular comments at this time.\n\nQuestion 14:\nSubsection 103(2) of the proposed Regulations prescribes minimum characteristics that an acceptable form of financial security must possess. Do you believe these prescribed minimum characteristics are appropriate? Are there any other characteristics that should be included?\n\nWe have no particular comments at this time.\n\nQuestion 15:\nShould the Commonwealth restrict eligible financial institutions to those that meet certain credit rating requirements?\n\nSome threshold of credit rating is probably advisable in order to ensure the value of the financial security for the Commonwealth.\n\n10/20\nQuestion 16:\nOnce an amount of financial security has been provided, it may only be adjusted\n(either upwards or downwards) through a revision to the relevant management plan, submitted to and approved by the Regulator. Is the revision of a management plan the appropriate process for managing changes to the provided amount of financial security, or should security adjustments be administered through a separate process?\n\nIt is reasonable to adjust financial security (upwards or downwards) through the management plan.\n\n11/20\nOn safety and protection zones\n\nQuestion 17:\nAre the procedures for applying for a safety zone appropriate? If not, why?\n\nYes, the process seems appropriate and in line with applicable rules in offshore wind found in other jurisdictions.\n\nHowever, a 90-day period to consider an application is not aligned with practice in markets such as the UK. A shorter time period (e.g., 28 days) would also be more practicable to facilitate weather and scheduling considerations.\n\nWhilst offshore wind construction may appear to be new to Australia, many processes within, such as deploying of metocean buoys to collect wind and wave data, installation of cables etc are found in other maritime activities. Where processes are already familiar, we would not expect a 90-day period to be required.\n\nQuestion 18:\nSection 113 of the proposed Regulations requires the Regulator to notify a licence holder if a safety zone application is made in relation to the licence holder’s licence area by a third party. Broadly, do you have any concerns with this arrangement?\n\nNo.\n\nQuestion 19:\nAre the procedures around applying for a protection zone appropriate? If not, why?\n\nWe understand that the period for refusing or approving an application for a safety zone or protection zone is 90 days and that this period of time can be extended by written notice.\n\nWe consider the 90-day period to consider the application to be relatively long.\n\nAdditionally, with no further clarification if the extended period is a further 90 days or left open-ended, we would prefer to see more clarity on timings so as to not affect project processes and avoid a build-up of avoidable costs that may arise from regulatory uncertainty.\n\nQuestion 20:\nSection 126 of the proposed Regulations requires the Regulator to notify a licence holder if a protection zone application is made in relation to the licence holder’s licence area by a third party. Broadly, do you have any concerns with this arrangement?\n\nNo.\n\n12/20\nQuestion 21:\nSection 120 of the proposed Regulations provides that the maximum area for a protection zone is 1,852 metres on each side around the infrastructure it will protect. The size of the zone will be minimised to the extent practicable and will be case-specific.\n\nIs 1,852 metres around each side of infrastructure an appropriate maximum size for a protection zone, considering that a protection zone may potentially prohibit or restrict the activities of other marine users? If not, what size would you consider appropriate?\n\nWhilst we understand 1,852 metres represents the maximum size, the common protection zone in the offshore wind industry is 1,500 metres.\n\nWhen viewed from this perspective, a further expansion by 352m on each side is therefore above the conventions we see elsewhere, which could create additional friction with other maritime users and stakeholders (unless one nautical mile is a convention also applied to other maritime activities in Australia)\n\nQuestion 22:\nUnder sections 144 and 145 of the OEI Act, the OEI Regulations may prescribe additional prohibited or restricted activities in a protection zone.\nThe proposed Regulations do not prescribe any additional activities. Do you consider any specific activities should be prescribed under the proposed\nRegulations?\n\nWe have no particular comments at this time.\n\n13/20\nOn diving standards\n\nQuestion 23:\nDivers and diving supervisors must hold appropriate qualifications under the\nAustralian Diver Accreditation Scheme (ADAS). Is an ADAS qualification an appropriate reference standard? Are there other qualifications that could provide proof of diving or diving supervision competency?\n\nØrsted recognises ADAS as an appropriate reference standard and Ørsted shall comply with Australian regulations regarding the training, certification & competence for the divers and diver supervisors to maybe used on a project.\n\nWe note that persons holding non-ADAS certification from relevant regulatory authorities or occupational diver training establishments recognised by ADAS, IMCA or IDSA may be able apply to ADAS for a crossover application.\n\nRef:\nAS/NZS 2299.1-2015 Occupational diving operations Part 1\nAS 2815 (Parts 1 – 6)\n\nQuestion 24:\nSubparagraphs 174B(2)(c)(i) and (ii) of the diving provisions of the proposed\nRegulations prescribe qualifications that demonstrate that a medical practitioner may conduct medical examinations for divers. Should any qualifications be added or removed?\n\nØrsted has no comments on the qualifications already set out by the Australian governing body regarding the qualifications a medical practitioner must processes to conduct medical examinations of divers.\n\nQuestion 25:\nSection 173A of the diving provisions in the proposed Regulations requires a licence holder to give a start-up notice to the Regulator at least 28 days (unless otherwise agreed) before diving work begins on a diving project connected with the licence.\nNoting that the Regulator will need time after receiving a start-up notice to review it and make further investigations, are there any concerns with the time period? If yes, what changes would you recommend?\n\nØrsted has no comments on the qualifications already set out by the Australian governing body regarding the qualifications a medical practitioner must processes to conduct medical examinations of divers.\n\nRegarding the 28-day startup notice, we note that project phases that require diving are generally not expected. Rather, any diving activity could mainly focus on unplanned events such as untangling fishing gear caught in vessels and dropped objects. We would welcome guidance that could deliver pre-approval for this subset of activities, as a start-up notice may not be appropriate for those activities.\n\n14/20\nQuestion 26:\nThe diving provisions are modelled on Chapter 4 of the OPGGS Safety Regulations.\nTherefore, there is an opportunity to further align the regulatory processes under both schemes. For example, it might be possible to provide that a DSMS accepted under one scheme was taken to be accepted under the other. Considering the similarities and differences between the schemes, are there any risks or benefits with this dual recognition?\n\nWe view dual recognition of the DSMS as a pragmatic approach to approval of the\nDSMS for diving operations.\n\n15/20\nOn WHS requirements and modifications\n\nQuestion 27:\nItem 49 of the WHS modifications prescribes certain events as dangerous incidents.\nDangerous incidents will require an incident notification under section 38 of the\nWHS Act. Noting there are some circumstances in section 37 of the WHS Act which may not be relevant to OEI activities, are there any additional incident types that should be included as dangerous incidents for OEI activities? Are the three new listed dangerous incidents appropriately categorised and described?\n\nThere are no incident types listed relating to offshore incidents like man-over-board, hypothermia, transfer from vessel to asset, where offshore business Emergency\nResponse plans build around scenarios such as these.\n\nQuestion 28:\nChapter 9 of the WHS Regulations regulates “major hazard facilities”, which are facilities where certain chemicals are present above predetermined threshold quantities. Schedule 15 of the WHS Regulations prescribes the relevant chemicals and threshold quantities. Are the types of chemicals and the quantities specified in\nSchedule 15 appropriate for the OEI context? Should any chemicals be added, and should any quantities be added?\n\nWhilst there are chemical substances involved in the construction and operation of a windfarm, these are not in quantities that would be characterized as major hazard facilities.\n\nAdditionally, in operations, any incidents would likely affect individual turbines as opposed to an entire facility and therefore not represent a large-scale incident.\n\nQuestion 29:\nRegulations under the OEI Act may prescribe codes of practice that apply to OEI work. The proposed Regulations do not prescribe any codes given the need to undertake detailed evaluation, in collaboration with industry and representatives, of the appropriateness of each code to be prescribed under the OEI Act.\n\nAre there any codes of practice currently under the WHS Act that could be adopted in the proposed Regulations (either as is or with minor modifications)? Should existing codes from other regimes be adopted? Alternatively, should bespoke codes tailored to the OEI context that are focused on specific issues (for example, diving, laying, or repairing subsea electrical cables, vessel-based construction work, etc.) be produced for OEI activities?\n\nYes, there should be a code tailored to the offshore wind industry. There are proven business standards that can be recognised and applied, and Australia’s framework could reflect standards from G+, IMCA etc.\n\nInternational standards and qualifications that align with Australian standards and maintain an equivalent level of safety should be used in an accelerated pathway for gaining equivalent local standards.\n\n16/20\nOn record keeping and data management\n\nQuestion 30:\nSubsections 134(1) and (2) of the proposed Regulations provide for certain types of records that licence holders must keep. Please note that the ability to prescribe types of records that must be kept is limited to the types of records mentioned in paragraphs 268(1)(a) and (b) of the OEI Act. Is it appropriate for licence holders to keep the certain types of records specified? Are there any other types of records that should be kept?\n\nOur internal policy on information management includes requirements to retain business critical documentation. This includes documents required to be retained to meet legislative requirements.\n\nQuestion 31:\nSubsections 134(3) and (4) of the proposed Regulations establish storage requirements for records that licence holders must keep. Are these appropriate?\nAre there any other storage standards that might be relevant?\n\nWe have expertise in physical filing. Among other things, there are several local\nØrsted archives around the world. We understand such a situation could be needed in\nAustralia.\n\nIf this proves necessary, we will be able to contribute with knowledge about how such an archive can be established and operated in relation to this. our internal requirements and best practices. This way we can keep key records in Australia.\n\nConsultation with Ørsted on further requirements would also be welcome if this extends to server locations for online/ soft copy documentation. We operate within markets that have robust cybersecurity and data privacy laws (UK, US, Europe) that are likely to be able to demonstrate a similarly robust security profile as may be required in Australia.\n\n17/20\nOn updates to the licensing scheme – data management\n\nQuestion 32:\nWould organisations benefit from geophysical and geotechnical data being made publicly available? If yes, which organisations would benefit?\n\nThere may be benefits to have data available for research purposes. For example, this kind of data could have value for academia, cultural heritage focused research.\n\nQuestion 33:\nHow regularly should licence holders be required to submit survey data to the\nCommonwealth? For example, should it be provided on an annual basis, or more or less frequently?\n\nWe interpret this question as broadly relating to all datasets (as opposed to just geo- data per question 32)\n\nRather than mandatory frequencies for data submission, close consideration needs to be given on the commercial nature of each type data, and when commercial sensitivities fade away.\n\nFor example, wind measurement data would hold higher commercial sensitivity above other data points, and we would want a mechanism that accounts for assessing the needs case for publication, and then deciding on how and when to appropriately release data, and how data can be accessed. Particularly if there is intent to use data to inform future licencing activities, there needs to be close examination to ensure that commercial boundaries are respected.\n\nWe elaborate on this in more detail on how data could be released in question 34.\n\nQuestion 34:\nFor survey data that may be commercially sensitive, should there be an embargo period in which the data would not be published until the embargo period has ended? If yes, what is a reasonable embargo timeframe or milestone that could trigger the release of data, either publicly or under licence?\n\nThe UK’s seabed manager, The Crown Estate (TCE), provides a good model when operating its Marine Data Exchange (MDE) that we think could be considered in\nAustralia:\n\nFor geo-related data, this is provided to TCE (/Commonwealth) within ‘a reasonable timeframe’. This timeframe can be flexible depending on the project and should be agreed with TCE prior to the survey being undertaken. Data does not have to made public immediately. The process for publishing data is proposed to be:\n1. Upon the delivery of survey data, a sensible ‘confidentiality review date’ for\neach series that is uploaded to the MDE is set.\n2. Once this review date arrives, a notification is sent to the MDE administrators.\n\n18/20\n3. A discussion between the data provider and The Crown Estate is triggered\nsurrounding the status of the data series.\n4. The decision of whether to publish the data or not is logged in the MDE and if\nnecessary, a new date for review is set.\n\n19/20\nOn local content\n\nQuestion 35:\nWhat offshore renewable energy supply chain components could be sourced from or manufactured in Australia and are there specific companies to support this?\n\nWe have already included a preliminary assessment as part of our feasibility licence application, and we will look to continue to investigate local industrial elements as part of feasibility activities.\n\nPer Section 33 of the Regulations, we will look to report annually on this element, which will need to remain confidential in the interim in order to maintain competitive elements in future state-led auctions for procuring offshore wind energy.\n\nQuestion 36:\nWhat approaches to maximising the use of local supply chains will support both the development of local suppliers and project economics?\n\nThe OEI Act and the licencing rounds represent the first steps to establishing an offshore wind industry and attracting project developers to invest. However, developers alone do not represent the entire industry, which also consists of suppliers and service providers.\n\nIn order to attract offshore wind suppliers, they will need commitments and procurement contracts beyond those that individual projects can make. A national target and national industrial strategy would greatly increase the ability to attract international suppliers to invest, and for complimentary local suppliers to also invest in developing goods and services to enter the offshore wind industry.\n\nCurrently, this momentum is provided by the state of Victoria’s own targets to install\n2GW by 2032 and 9GW by 2040. This is appropriate for the state, but Australia will need to compete with other countries to attract investments from suppliers, where regionally we see Japan targeting up to 45GW by 2040, and Taiwan targeting\n13/1GWy 2030 and up to 55GW by 2050.\n\nFurther afield, more established markets like the UK have a 50GW by 2030 target accompanied by industrial growth plans to continue to attract suppliers to the market.\n\n20/20","size":216921,"redacted":[{"index":5616}],"config":{}}}}}