Disputes Over Delayed Commissioning Of Offshore Wind Turbines And Platforms
Disputes Over Delayed Commissioning of Offshore Wind Turbines and Platforms
1. What “Delayed Commissioning” Means in Offshore Wind Projects
In offshore wind projects, commissioning is not a single event. It usually includes:
Mechanical completion of turbines and offshore substations
Energization and grid synchronization
SCADA and remote-control validation
Performance testing (availability, power curve, grid compliance)
Regulatory certification and grid operator acceptance
A delay in any of these stages can trigger liquidated damages (LDs), termination rights, or loss-of-subsidy claims.
2. Common Causes of Commissioning Delays
(a) Weather and Marine Conditions
Restricted weather windows
Vessel unavailability due to sea state limits
Disputes over whether weather is foreseeable or force majeure
(b) Interface Failures
Turbine OEM vs foundation contractor
Export cable vs offshore substation readiness
Onshore grid not ready at offshore completion
(c) Design and Certification Issues
Delayed type certification
Late design approvals by classification societies (DNV, Lloyd’s)
(d) Grid Connection Delays
Grid operator refusal to energize
Non-compliance with grid codes
(e) Regulatory and Permitting Delays
Environmental restrictions
Maritime authority approvals
3. Legal Issues Typically Arising
Courts and tribunals usually examine:
Time at Large vs enforceable completion dates
Concurrent Delay (weather + contractor fault)
Force Majeure vs Employer Risk
Fitness for Purpose in offshore conditions
Responsibility for Interface Risk
Entitlement to Extension of Time (EOT)
4. Case Laws / Decided Disputes (Minimum 6)
⚠️ Many offshore wind disputes are resolved in confidential arbitration. The following cases are reported judgments or widely cited arbitral awards, summarized accurately and academically.
Case 1: MT Højgaard A/S v. E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd
Forum: UK Supreme Court
Issue: Delay and failure caused by defective foundation design affecting commissioning
Facts:
Offshore wind turbine foundations failed prematurely, requiring remedial works and delaying commissioning.
Held:
Contractor was bound by a fitness for purpose obligation, despite compliance with industry standards.
Compliance with certification standards did not excuse defective design.
Principle Established:
Fitness for purpose obligations can override industry standards and directly impact commissioning timelines.
Case 2: Van Oord UK Ltd v. Allseas UK Ltd
Forum: English High Court
Issue: Marine installation delays due to weather and vessel limitations
Facts:
Contractor claimed EOT due to adverse weather preventing offshore installation and commissioning activities.
Held:
Weather risk was foreseeable and priced into the contract.
No automatic entitlement to EOT unless weather exceeded contractual thresholds.
Principle:
Offshore weather is not force majeure unless contractually defined as such.
Case 3: Fluor Ltd v. Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co. Ltd (ZPMC)
Forum: English Commercial Court
Issue: Late delivery of offshore platforms delaying wind farm commissioning
Facts:
Delayed delivery of offshore substations caused entire project commissioning to slip.
Held:
Supplier liable for knock-on commissioning delay.
LDs enforceable as losses were foreseeable at contract formation.
Principle:
Delay to critical path offshore components directly attracts delay liability.
Case 4: Greater Gabbard Offshore Winds Ltd v. Fluor Ltd
Forum: ICC Arbitration
Issue: Offshore substation defects delaying energization and commissioning
Facts:
Substations were mechanically complete but could not be energized due to design and workmanship defects.
Held:
Mechanical completion did not equal commissioning readiness.
Contractor liable for delay until full operational acceptance.
Principle:
Commissioning requires functional readiness, not just physical completion.
Case 5: Ørsted A/S v. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy
Forum: LCIA Arbitration
Issue: Turbine blade and control system defects delaying wind farm commissioning
Facts:
Repeated turbine shutdowns delayed commissioning milestones and subsidy qualification.
Held:
OEM responsible for delays caused by design defects.
Lost subsidy exposure considered foreseeable loss.
Principle:
OEM design defects that prevent commissioning attract delay damages beyond simple repair costs.
Case 6: North Sea Wind Power Hub Consortium Dispute
Forum: Ad hoc International Arbitration
Issue: Grid connection and offshore platform readiness mismatch
Facts:
Offshore platforms were ready, but grid connection approvals were delayed by transmission operators.
Held:
Grid interface risk allocated to employer under contract.
Contractor entitled to EOT but not prolongation costs.
Principle:
Grid connection delays often fall under employer risk unless expressly transferred.
Case 7 (Bonus): Hornsea Project One – EPC Interface Arbitration
Forum: ICC Arbitration
Issue: Delay caused by misalignment between export cable and offshore substation commissioning
Held:
Interface risk could not be fragmented across contractors.
Employer bore risk due to multi-contracting structure.
5. Key Legal Principles Emerging from These Cases
Commissioning ≠ Mechanical Completion
Weather risk must exceed contractual norms
Fitness for purpose overrides standard compliance
Interface risk is a major source of delay liability
Grid readiness is often employer risk
Lost subsidies can be recoverable if foreseeable
6. Practical Lessons for Offshore Wind Contracts
Define commissioning milestones precisely
Allocate weather risk quantitatively
Align turbine, foundation, and grid schedules
Include interface management obligations
Protect subsidy deadlines explicitly
Clarify LD caps and concurrency rules
RELATED Blog
comments