PESTEL and SWOT PP06
Factors
P
E

olitical
conomic
European Union
European Regional Development Fund
The offshore wind energy is considered very costly and as such is not preferred solution of
renewables.
 Poland is strongly opposing EC’s drive towards zero-emission policy, due to the fact that
Polish energy industry is mainly coal-driven.
 There are goals setup for 2020 (19,3% of renewable energy in total electricity consumption),
but as so far Poland is concerned no great hope it can be achieved and there is suspicion on
getting transition period.
 Different parties have different views on what should be major part in renewable or low
emission energy mix – biomass, biogas, wind, nuclear.
 There is strong trend to reduce external dependency on energy sources, however the obvious
‘winner’ is shale gas, as being more economical than renewable energy sources
 Current government is mostly trying to do as less as possible with renewable energy sources
in order not to increase price of the energy mix.
 Potential money for innovation only through general funds – no special space for OSW
industry and innovation – unlike in other renewables – biomass, biogas, which have
Technological Platforms or National Development Centres.
 Politicians tend to like to shake hands with businessmen who succeeded in offshore industry,
but all has to be done without structural political support, or even against mainstream.
 No idea how to attract turbine manufacturers to Poland – with political instability even more
difficult to promise anything (no goals on OSW targets, except 0.5 GW in 2020).
 No real support to Maritime Spatial Planning as a tool to limit risk of investors going through
costly development process to be ceased at the very end of the development process.
 Internal competition for grid connection with nuclear power plants onshore.
 Internal competition for grid connection with onshore “ghost” projects – reserved projects,
which might not be implemented finally.
 There is no reliable information on how much Polish companies benefits from OSW industry,
however well-known are spectacular contracts (like CRIST Shipyard contracts for Hochtief,
HGO for construction of heavy-lift vessels and jack-ups, GSG Towers contracts to Enercon for
S
ocial
T
echnological
E
nvironmental
construction of wind mill towers.
 So far no special programs to support local manufacturers towards OSW industry both on
national and regional level – it is supposed to be changed in the new programming period of
EU – 2014-2020
 PSE-Operator – Polish TSO has not enough money for investment to bring energy from North
to South (where historically most of it has been utilised).
 No incentives/support system in place so far makes it difficult for investor to make business
models
 Assumption of Green Certificate as an incentive systems gives a high uncertainty tag in
business risk models
 Businesses in OSW industry in Poland mostly for high material/low technology/high labour
tasks like towers and foundations – hopes only for part of investment to be spent directly in
Poland
 Expectations of 1 GW in 2020, 2-3 in 2025 and up to 6 GW in 2030 in OSW.
 There is strong opposition against onshore wind farms and with limited PR activities it is
extrapolated for offshore wind farms.
 Typical uses of sea – navigation, fishery, environment protection and military – are
threatened of competition over the are they supposed to be granted them historically
 Some of the old uses (like fishery) are diminishing and being under stress of anyhow being
reduced, creating a symptoms of ‘surrounded fortress’ with limitation of acceptance of facts
and arguments
 It is anticipated that construction of 6 GW until 2030 would create direct 9 000 jobs in OSW
industry in Poland, with 60% of it being permanent jobs after 2030.
 Good physical conditions: relatively low sea depths with strong winds, low currents.
 Historical supply chain for heavy industry.
 Long tradition of shipbuilding – can be converted to foundations and towers production.
 Strong R&D in fluid mechanics, hydrotechnical engineering, steel construction, etc.
 Strong human resources base.
 Existing national and foreign investments in tower and foundation construction industry.
 Lack of grid connection infrastructure.
 Baltic Sea is highly protected under HELCOM, is announced as IMO’s Particularly Sensitive
Sea Area making it very difficult to go through with projects.
 All Polish projects, regardless of location, considered eligible for Transborder EIA under ESPO
Convention by countries like Sweden, Denmark and Finland.
 A lot of marine areas under Natura 2000 network protection.
 Concerns for migration of wildlife.
 Sparse data makes it difficult to use previous data in EIAs.




L

egal





High costs for environmental monitoring programmes – spiral of requirements growing by
neighbouring countries trying to stop investments).
Some of the species (like harbour porpoises) so low in population being over exposed to the
public making them almost ‘no-go’ criteria.
Limited practice in compensation activities makes it very difficult to accept any loses in biotic
environment.
Environmental surveys will be biggest opportunity to quantify marine environment in Polish
EEZ ever.
No strict requirement on TSO to connect renewables jeopardizes all renewable energy
projects.
Certain deadlines (like for construction permit – 6 years from location permit) are not realistic
in the legal environment (need for grid connection contract before construction permit).
There are deficiencies in marine law and energy law making renewables in Poland high risk
investment, with possibly no benefit for this high risk in budgetary terms of incentives
system.
Lack of incentives for renewables at all and slow approval process with many versions being
180 degrees changing one from the other.
So far 8 location permits granted for almost 8 GW and more than 50 projects waiting for
decisions, real miss from what is realistically possible and can be connected to national power
grid.
Complicated procedures to be followed including different jurisdictions both at sea and on
land
Strengths

In your region









Good physical conditions: relatively low sea depths
with strong winds, low currents
Harbours and shipbuilding industry in place, although
requiring re-fit
Historical supply chain for heavy industry
Long history of shipbuilding industry
Strong human resources base
Existing national and foreign investments in tower
and foundation construction industry
Lower public concerns due to distance from the shore
(at least 12 Nm)
Strong R&D in fluid mechanics, hydrotechnical
engineering, steel construction, etc.
Experience in export of solutions for OWSs (like
gravity foundations, towers, elements of electric and
control systems)
System of special economic zones with companies
setup for production in wind energy
Weaknesses








No turbine manufacturer
So far little activity in OSWs construction in Poland
No subsidy/incentives systems in place so far
Internal competition for grid connection with nuclear
power plants onshore
Internal competition for grid connection with onshore
“ghost” projects – reserved projects, which might not
be implemented finally
Most valuable human resources ‘outsourced’ to other
countries (like shipbuilding industry in Norway)
Complicated procedures to be followed including
different jurisdictions both at sea and on land
No positive PR – most is based on very negative
perception of onshore wind industry
Outside your region
Opportunities









Creation of new jobs, reinstatement of old ones
Possibility for emigrants for return
Economic growth
Relatively lower salaries makes it possible to compete
in deliveries to other countries
Regional governments willing to foster industry
Building energy source independence
Technical potential for up to 10 GW of installed power
Enhance technological and R&D base
Use of experience from others
Threaths







No stable political support – depending very much on
political preferences of Minister of Economy
To low incentives/support system
Regional governments to slow and not explicit/strong
enough in expressing OSW industry as a natural
leader
Offshore ‘shale gas’ dream
Environmental concerns of neighbouring countries
(some not being interested in OSWs at all)
No foreign investment capital attracted so far to
Polish OSWs – mostly driven by stated-owned utilities
in Poland
Use of products and services developed somewhere
else