# What happened
# Why the fees matter
# What the modelling shows
Round 4‑style fees on project economics. It estimated a project that could bid around £95–97/MWh without option fees would need a strike price 30–59% higher if carrying the Round 4 fees. Under two scenarios the study produced fee-inclusive required strike prices of:
- £123.6/MWh (lower-impact scenario)
- £155.1/MWh (higher-impact scenario)
Both estimates exceed the AR8 administrative cap of £113/MWh. The authors conclude that, unless the cap is raised, developers will either accept lower returns, delay projects, or withdraw sites rather than pass fees onto consumers through higher administrative strike prices.
# Real-world example
The study cites EnBW and BP's Morgan project (1.5GW) as an example. Morgan returned its seabed rights after failing to secure a CfD. The brief notes option fees were only one of several pressures on Morgan, but its reported £231m-per-year option fee created a substantial cost without contracted revenue.
# Consumer cost trade-offs
# Policy recommendations
The authors recommend government reconsider the seabed leasing model before the next licensing round (LR6) in 2027. Specific proposals include:
- Return to fixed or capped seabed fees, or cap conditional fees.
- Require strict 'use it or lose it' terms on conditional fees to stop long holdings without progress.
- Speed up planning and consenting to shorten the time between paying fees and earning revenue.
A Crown Estate spokesperson said the organisation helped build the UK offshore sector and that its leasing has evolved with the market. They described Round 4 as a competitive process reflective of conditions at the time and said Round 6 will have a commercial model designed for the next phase of growth. They also said an update on that model will be supplied before year end.
# Bottom line
Uncapped Round 4 option fees significantly increase the strike price projects need to be viable. With AR8's £113/MWh cap in place, the modelling suggests developers may absorb fees into lower returns, delay projects, or withdraw sites—outcomes that could slow offshore deployment and prolong reliance on gas generation unless leasing or strike price policies change.