Greenpeace UK has taken a firm stance against the Crown Estate, threatening legal action unless the organisation ends what it describes as “monopoly profiteering” at the expense of bill payers and offshore wind developers. The campaign group argues that the Crown Estate has exploited its monopoly position by charging excessive fees for seabed leases, creating a pricing system that inflates profits for the estate and increases executive pay and Royal Household income. This, Greenpeace claims, drives up costs for developers and ultimately consumers.
The group is calling for a review of the seabed auction process and the option fees paid by developers, which now total over £1bn from the 2021 Round 4 process. Greenpeace argues that the current system risks pushing up costs twice—first through higher auction fees and again through increased curtailment payments when Scottish wind farms, where fees are capped, are forced to power down due to grid constraints.
Will McCallum, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, stated, “The Crown Estate should be managing the seabed in the interest of the nation and the common good, not as an asset to be milked for profit and outrageous bonuses. We should leave no stone unturned in looking for solutions to lower energy bills that are causing misery to millions of households. Given how crucial affordable bills and clean energy are to the government’s agenda, the Chancellor should use her powers of direction to ask for an independent review of how these auctions are run. If the problem isn’t fixed before the next round, we may need to let a court decide whether or not what’s happening is lawful.”
The warning follows months of correspondence and a face-to-face meeting between Greenpeace and Crown Estate representatives. Greenpeace is demanding an immediate review of the auction system and for profits from the last leasing round to be redirected into marine recovery. In its letter to the Crown Estate Commissioners, Greenpeace argued that the estate has a legal duty to support the UK’s climate targets and to remove monopoly value from its seabed leasing. However, Crown Estate managers have maintained that their duty is to maximise profit rather than assist in meeting government climate goals—a position Greenpeace says contradicts previous parliamentary testimony from 2010, when the estate stated that it “cannot exploit [its] monopoly position.”
This development could significantly shape the future of offshore wind development in the UK. If Greenpeace’s claims hold weight, the sector may face increased scrutiny over pricing transparency and fairness. A review of the auction process could lead to more competitive pricing, benefiting developers and, ultimately, consumers. Additionally, redirecting profits towards marine recovery could align the Crown Estate’s activities more closely with environmental goals, potentially enhancing its reputation and public trust.
The Crown Estate has been contacted for comment, and its response will be crucial in determining the next steps. If the estate refuses to act, legal action could set a precedent for how monopolistic practices are handled in the energy sector, potentially influencing other areas where similar concerns arise. This situation underscores the delicate balance between profit motives and public interest in critical infrastructure and energy development.