Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas (INTOG) Leasing Round

UK — INTOG Leasing (Crown Estate Scotland, 2022–2023)

1. At a glance


Auction type	Seabed leasing — single-round, dual-track scored auction with a purpose-tagged TOG carve-out for O&G electrification and a parallel IN carve-out for sub-commercial-scale innovation projects; not a sealed-bid auction in the R4 sense, but not a pure scored-application either — it combines a multi-criteria evaluation (Section D Deliverability + Section E Innovation) with a relative-Price score that functions as a bid variable
Awarding body	Crown Estate Scotland (CES) — the seabed lessor for Scottish waters, exercising devolved powers under the Scotland Act 2016 and the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017. Same authority as ScotWind; distinct legal entity from The Crown Estate which runs the E&W&NI rounds
Spatial framework	Marine Scotland Initial Plan Framework (IPF, March 2022) — an interim planning instrument that defines the Areas of Search INTOG applicants could bid within, pending finalisation of the full INTOG Sectoral Marine Plan. The IPF provided the spatial authority before the Sectoral Marine Plan was adopted — a novel sequencing for UK offshore wind
Aggregate seabed caps	167 km² for Innovation · 1,900 km² for TOG (per IPF)
Aggregate capacity caps	500 MW for Innovation · 5,700 MW for TOG (per Offer Document §3.2.1 — note: the IPF spoke of "up to ~5 GW TOG"; the Offer Document specifies 5.7 GW)
Per-application caps	100 MW maximum for IN (single project); 333 km² maximum for TOG (no project-level MW cap, but bounded by proportionality to O&G demand — see below)
Minimum density	3 MW/km² for IN and TOG projects; exceptional 1 MW/km² for Small Projects (≤15 MW) at Exclusivity/Option stage (3 MW/km² still applies at Lease)
Proportionality rule (TOG-only)	Intended Installed Capacity must not exceed 5× the demonstrated annual electricity demand of the target O&G installation(s), as evidenced by Letters of Intent
Per-organisation application cap	Four applications per organisation with Wind Farm Delivery Responsibility (per Offer Document §3.3.5 and Guidance Notes §B5; see discrepancy at §5.3 below — Offer Document §4.4.5 states "three"). Organisations in purely funding or Supplementary Experience Provider roles are not limited
Pre-qualification	None — single-stage application. Qualification is embedded via Section B (Basic Data) pass/fail gate covering shapefile validity, proximity checks, density compliance, party identification and Statements of Commitment (including human rights, Fair Work First, and corruption conviction self-declaration)
Bid variable	Applicant Valuation in £/km² — a single value provided at Question C1 of the Application Form. Unlike ScotWind, the Offer Document and Guidance Notes do not specify whether the Applicant Valuation is chosen from discrete pre-defined levels or freely entered (Guidance Notes §C1: "a single value in £/km²"); practical effect is free entry subject to reserve price
Reserve price	£5,000/km² for IN · £50,000/km² for TOG (Applicant Valuations below reserve score 0 and are not taken forward)
Option Fee	One-off lump-sum = Applicant Valuation × Application Area, paid at execution of the Exclusivity Agreement, held in a standalone CES bank account with accrued interest released back to the Applicant at Option Agreement signing. Non-refundable if the Tenant declines to execute the Option Agreement; refundable if the project is not included in the final INTOG SMP or reduced by more than 10% at plan-level assessment
Competition / scoring — IN track	Section B Pass/Fail gate + 0–100 composite score = 30% Price (scored on £/km² Applicant Valuation, linear relative to highest IN bid) + 40% Innovation + 30% Deliverability
Competition / scoring — TOG track	Section B Pass/Fail gate + 0–100 composite score = 70% Price (scored on absolute Option Fee £, linear relative to highest TOG bid) + 30% Deliverability
Innovation scoring (IN-only)	9 sub-criteria × 6 Innovation Category weighting profiles — Applicant selects one Category (Cost Reduction, New Markets, Health & Safety, Supply Chain, Environmental, or Commercial) and the category-specific weights apply. Minimum score of 2/4 required on the criterion corresponding to the selected Category — applications that miss this minimum are disqualified
Deliverability scoring (both tracks)	5 sub-criteria: 10% Project Concept + 10% Project Delivery Plan + 40% Experience + 15% Development Budget + 25% Financial Capability. Each sub-response scored 0-4; a score of 0 on any sub-response fails the whole application (Guidance Notes §4: "Pass if all responses score greater than or equal to 1")
Tiebreak chain — IN	(1) Highest Innovation score · (2) Highest absolute Price score · (3) Highest Deliverability score · (4) Best And Final Offer (BAFO) — new Applicant Valuation submitted by sealed deadline
Tiebreak chain — TOG	(1) Highest absolute Price score (Option Fee) · (2) Highest £/km² Price (Applicant Valuation) · (3) Highest Deliverability score · (4) Best And Final Offer (BAFO)
Brownfield prioritisation (TOG-only)	First 500 MW of TOG awards allocated to Brownfield applications (≥70% of LOI demand from Brownfield O&G installations). First 500 MW allocated strictly by ranking among Brownfield; remaining allocation follows the ranking irrespective of installation status. No splitting of applications — once cumulative Brownfield capacity exceeds 500 MW no further prioritisation can apply
Competing-interest rule (intra-track)	5 km proximity check — applications with boundaries within 5 km of each other are in competing interest; higher-scoring application wins, with no compromise brokered
Cross-track exclusion	IN applications within 5 km of a successful TOG application are defeated — TOG prioritised in the shared coast, reflecting the IPF's targeting of specific O&G-adjacent zones
Application fees	£10,000 IN · £90,000 TOG — non-refundable, paid at application-window closing
Registration opens	10 August 2022 — non-binding registration on INTOG Leasing portal
Registration closes	24 August 2022
Application window opens	25 August 2022
Intention to Apply deadline	1 September 2022
Clarification question deadline	22 September 2022
Clarification responses published	20 October 2022
Application window closes	18 November 2022
Completeness check results	25 November 2022
Results announced	24 March 2023 — 13 projects out of 19 applications offered Exclusivity Agreements (5 IN + 8 TOG). £261.8m total Option Fees once Options signed. 139 km² IN + 1,534 km² TOG seabed
IN Exclusivity Agreements signed	19 May 2023 — all 5 IN projects signed
TOG Exclusivity Agreements signed	28 November 2023 — 7 TOG projects signed (one TOG application from the March roster did not sign Exclusivity, leaving the final INTOG cohort at 12 projects: 5 IN + 7 TOG)
Aggregate Option Fees committed at Exclusivity	Up to £262m — held in trust until Option Agreements sign
Lease term — Innovation	25 years from Lease signing
Lease term — Targeted Oil & Gas	50 years from Lease signing — reflects the longer economic lifecycle of O&G infrastructure and the scale of TOG capital investment
Option Period	7 years from Option Agreement signing within which a valid Option Notice must be served for the Lease to be granted
Rent — Innovation	£1.07/MWh CPI-indexed (CPI base from Exclusivity Agreement commencement), 50% discount for first 5 years of operation, minimum rent applies
Rent — Targeted Oil & Gas	1% of gross revenue for electricity supplied directly to the O&G installation; 2% of gross revenue for electricity which has not been demonstrated to be supplied to the O&G installation (i.e. grid or alternative use); minimum rent applies — a revenue-share rent, structurally distinct from ScotWind's £/MWh-indexed rent and from CE R4's £/MW/year AfL payment
Financial security — Exclusivity/Option cap	£5m for all capacity bands (IN and TOG)
Financial security — Lease cap	IN: £7m (≤100 MW) · TOG: £7m (0–500 MW), £10m (500–1,000 MW), £15m (1,000+ MW)
Supply chain mechanism	Supply Chain Development Statement (SCDS) — explicitly NOT used in application evaluation or scoring (per Offer Document §7.1.15). Required for Option Agreement execution; contractually binding via Schedule Part 6. 4 project stages × 4 geographic areas = 16 separate commitment cells; remedy calculated on Lowest Percentage Achievement across all 16. 25% minimum required for a valid Option Notice
Revenue mechanism (Axis 6)	Null (no auction-awarded CfD or feed-in premium). Winners must separately secure revenue via (a) a bilateral Electricity Offtake Agreement with the O&G installation operator (TOG track — conditional on Option Notice for TOG), (b) a CfD in a future AR round, or (c) a PPA / merchant route
Downstream pairing	UK CfD Allocation Rounds — specifically AR6 Stream 3 Floating (on which Green Volt won a £139.93/MWh strike in 2024), and AR7 (on which the second Flotation Energy project Cenos also cleared in 2026). TOG projects cannot realistically pursue pure O&G-offtake commercial structures at the scale of multi-GW tranches, so CfD is a de facto revenue bridge
Technology outcome	100% floating offshore wind across all 12 final projects — neither the Offer Document nor the IPF mandated floating-only, but depth profiles in the Scottish Areas of Search (and the long distance to shore for TOG sites) produced this as the dominant commercial choice. Confirmed only in the CES Nov 2023 Briefing: "All INTOG projects — consisting of five Innovation and seven TOG projects — utilise floating wind technology"
Headline significance	World's first leasing round designed specifically to enable offshore wind to power offshore oil-and-gas platforms; first UK offshore-wind leasing round to adopt a purpose-tagged bid mechanism (TOG track); first to deploy a Brownfield prioritisation overlay; first where a single round ran two sub-tracks with different scoring weights simultaneously; established a revenue-share rent (TOG at 1–2% of gross revenue) for the first time in UK offshore-wind seabed leasing

Sources (11 primary documents, all mirrored to local corpus): see §13 below. Offer Document (August 2022, 35p), Guidance Notes (August 2022, 44p), CES Briefing Nov 2023 (3p), Map-and-Projects publications for March 2023 initial roster (4p) and November 2023 post-exclusivity roster (3p), three CES press releases (24 Mar 2023 · 19 May 2023 · 28 Nov 2023), The Crown Estate's corresponding statement (24 Mar 2023), the CES leasing-round overview page (live, reflecting state through March 2026), and the Scottish Government Initial Plan Framework for the INTOG Sectoral Marine Plan (March 2022).

2. What makes INTOG structurally different from ScotWind, CE R4, AR6, Thor, DE N-12.1, and US NY Bight

This is the point of running INTOG as a seventh pilot — it differs from all six earlier cases on several axes simultaneously, most starkly from ScotWind which is the closest analogue (same authority, same year-range, same jurisdiction, adjacent application surface).

Dimension	UK ScotWind	UK CE R4	UK AR6	DK Thor	DE N-12.1	US NY Bight	UK INTOG
Scope	Commercial-scale OFW in Scottish waters	Commercial-scale OFW in E&W&NI waters (seabed + AfL)	CfD offtake auction (offshore + other techs)	Combined concession + CfD	Seabed right + concession at zero-floor CfD	Federal lease only	Dual-track single round: IN (innovation ≤100 MW) + TOG (O&G electrification) — neither is "commercial-scale" in the SMP-OWE sense
Technology gate	Fixed or floating, bidder's choice	Fixed or floating, bidder's choice	Fixed (Pot 1/3) + floating (Pot 3 stream)	Fixed	Fixed	Fixed/floating, bidder's choice	100% floating in practice — no explicit mandate, but IPF water-depth profile + TOG proximity-to-platform constraints force floating as the dominant technology choice
Auction type	Scored application, 4-input waterfall ranking	Sealed-bid multi-cycle daily option-fee auction	Sealed-bid pay-as-clear CfD	Single sealed bid + lottery	Stage-1 sealed CfD premium + Stage-2 dynamic ascending concession	Multi-round ascending English auction	Dual-track, single-round, multi-criteria composite scoring — each track has its own Price + Quality weightings applied independently
Parallel sub-tracks?	No — one track	No	Multiple pots (fixed/floating/other-tech) but one evaluation method	No	No	No	Yes — IN and TOG run in parallel but with separate application forms, separate scoring weights, and separate capacity/area caps
Bid variable	Applicant Valuation £/km², bidder picks from discrete levels	£/MW/year 10-year annuity	£/MWh CfD strike price	DKK øre/kWh CfD premium	€ cents/kWh stage-1 → €/MW stage-2	$ bonus bid (lump sum)	Applicant Valuation £/km², single free-entry value — IN scored on this valuation directly; TOG scored on the resulting Option Fee (valuation × area)
Reserve price	Implicit floor at £2,000/km² (lowest discrete level)	£250/MW/yr	Administrative Strike Price ceiling (not floor)	Floor of DKK 0/kWh (zero-subsidy), capped above	Floor zero, capped above	$100/acre	£5,000/km² IN · £50,000/km² TOG — explicit reserve; below reserve scores 0 and does not advance
Multi-criteria scoring?	Yes — 4 inputs (Coarse Grade + Valuation + Detailed Score 0–450 + Random Number)	No — pure £/MW/yr after PQQ pass	No — pure £/MWh after qualification	No — pure premium	No — pure premium / pure concession	No — pure bonus bid	Yes — Price (30% IN / 70% TOG) + Deliverability (30%) + Innovation (40% IN-only). Quality dimensions are continuous scores weighted into the composite, not gates
Quality dimensions (scored)	Detailed Numerical Score (0–450, ~20+ questions)	PQQ pass/fail only	Qualification gates pass/fail only	Pre-qualification binary	Pre-qualification binary	BOEM Qualification binary	Deliverability (5 sub-criteria: 10/10/40/15/25) and Innovation (9 sub-criteria with 6 category-specific weighting profiles) — IN applications must meet minimum 2/4 on the sub-criterion that matches their selected Innovation Category
Purpose-tagged bid?	No — any commercial-scale OFW	No — any OFW project	No — any OFW project	No — any OFW	No — any OFW	No — any OFW	Yes — TOG applications must deliver electricity to an O&G installation (primary purpose); excess capacity may be sold to grid or used for hydrogen, but only as secondary use. LOI from O&G operator required at application; NSTA consultation confirms demand coherence
Proportionality cap	860 km² per application (absolute)	3 GW per bidder (cumulative)	Pot budget (auction-wide)	1 GW (single site)	Single-site (area pre-defined)	One lease per bidder	5× demonstrated O&G electricity demand (TOG-only) — capacity capped by demonstrated industrial demand (a novel non-area, non-spatial proportionality rule)
Brownfield overlay?	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes — first 500 MW of TOG awards reserved for Brownfield applications (≥70% LOI demand from existing O&G installations already in production or decommissioning). No splits; once cumulative Brownfield awards exceed 500 MW, no further prioritisation
Cross-track exclusion	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	IN applications within 5 km of successful TOG are defeated (TOG prioritised at the coast)
Tiebreak chain	The four-input ranking waterfall is itself the tiebreak	None explicit	Closest envelope fit then random	Highest capacity → physical lottery	Lottery on equal bids	Maximise total bid value then pseudorandom	IN: Innovation → Price → Deliverability → BAFO · TOG: Price → £/km² → Deliverability → BAFO — a Best And Final Offer terminal step rather than a random number
Lease term	Long-term (multi-decade)	Single AfL → Lease step-through	n/a (offtake only)	n/a (single concession term)	n/a	30-year primary	25 yr IN · 50 yr TOG — different durations for the two tracks within the same round. The 50-year TOG term is the longest offshore-wind lease term in the UK pilot set
Rent structure	£1.07/MWh CPI-indexed, generation-linked	£/MW/year during AfL + post-exercise rent	n/a	n/a	n/a	$3/acre + 2% operating fee	IN: £1.07/MWh CPI-indexed + 50% discount first 5 years of operation (identical headline £/MWh rate to ScotWind, with innovation-period discount on top). TOG: 1% of gross revenue for O&G-supplied electricity, 2% for grid-supplied — a revenue-share rent, the first in the UK pilot set
Plan-level reducibility	No — lease boundaries fixed at award	No	n/a	No	No	No	Yes — Marine Scotland may reduce the awarded area by up to 10% at SMP finalisation without refunding the Option Fee (>10% reduction triggers refund; exclusion from final plan triggers refund) — a novel "planning conditionality" clause recognising that the Sectoral Marine Plan was not yet adopted at auction
Sequencing relative to spatial plan	SMP-OWE adopted Oct 2020 → ScotWind applied within adopted Plan	n/a	n/a	Spatial plan finalised pre-auction	Spatial plan finalised pre-auction	Lease areas pre-designated	IPF March 2022 → INTOG applied within IPF → INTOG SMP not yet adopted at award (finalisation estimated Winter 2023/24 at auction; actual adoption repeatedly delayed to Autumn 2025) — the auction opened on an interim spatial instrument
SCDS treatment	Mandatory, non-scored, contractually binding post-award	No framework	n/a	Limited	Limited	Limited	Mandatory for Option Agreement, non-scored, contractually binding via Schedule Part 6 — identical architecture to ScotWind, carried over deliberately
Revenue mechanism (Axis 6)	Null — paired with CfD ARs	Null — paired with CfD ARs	CfD 2-way	CfD 2-way with caps	Feed-in premium @ zero	Null	Null, plus a unique TOG downstream dependency: TOG winners must demonstrate a valid Electricity Offtake Agreement with the O&G operator as a condition of Option Notice. This is an extra commercial prerequisite beyond anything in ScotWind or CE R4

The single most important structural difference is that INTOG is the first UK offshore-wind leasing round to operate a purpose-tagged carve-out. The TOG track is not merely "offshore wind in a particular location" — it is "offshore wind whose primary purpose is to supply electricity to a specific counterparty class". This purpose-tag manifests through: (a) the LOI requirement, (b) the NSTA consultation, (c) the Brownfield prioritisation, (d) the 5×-demand proportionality cap, (e) the differentiated 50-year lease term, (f) the revenue-share rent structure, and (g) the Option Notice precondition of a valid Electricity Offtake Agreement. Every one of these design choices is structurally novel in the UK pilot set. The IN track, by contrast, is a more conventional scored-application round, but with a category-parameterised quality dimension (Innovation) that itself has no analogue elsewhere: the bidder nominates an Innovation Category (Cost Reduction, New Markets, H&S, Supply Chain, Environmental, Commercial), and the 9 innovation sub-criteria are weighted according to that nominated category. No other pilot has a bidder-selected weighting profile within a scoring dimension.

A secondary structural novelty is the plan-level reducibility clause (§3.4.2 of the Offer Document). Because the INTOG Sectoral Marine Plan was not yet adopted at the point of award, CES carved out an explicit reservation: Marine Scotland retains authority to adjust the final plan boundaries by up to 10% of any individual project's area without refunding the Option Fee. This is planning conditionality baked into the auction prize — the prize is a seabed Option Agreement whose exact geographical scope depends on a downstream spatial-plan process that had not yet concluded. Every other pilot in the set has concluded its spatial-plan process before auction launch, or had a pre-defined site/lease area established by the awarding authority. INTOG is the only pilot where the auction ran on a deliberately provisional spatial instrument.

3. Political and legal context

3.1 Statutory authority and the devolved Crown Estate Scotland

INTOG exists under the same statutory scaffolding as ScotWind: the Scotland Act 2016 devolved management of the Scottish Crown Estate's economic assets (including seabed in Scottish waters and the Scottish portion of the UK Renewable Energy Zone) to Crown Estate Scotland, effected by the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017 (SI 2017/524). CES's leasing authority derives from the Crown Estate Act 1961 as amended, read with the Scotland Act 2016 transfer. The auction itself is not a statutory auction under any specific Act — it is a commercial leasing process administered by a public body. Per Offer Document §8.4:

"Crown Estate Scotland reserves the right to withdraw the requirement or cancel, vary or suspend the process at any stage (with or without notice) prior to the award of an Exclusivity Agreement."

INTOG is accordingly not subject to the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015 — the carve-out ScotWind also relied on (a competition for an interest in land, not for a services contract). Bidders' recourse against process is general public-law judicial review, not contracting-authority remedies.

3.2 Why INTOG was carved out from SMP-OWE / ScotWind

The Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy (SMP-OWE) adopted by Scottish Ministers in October 2020 set a commercial-scale minimum threshold of 100 MW for any project proceeding through ScotWind and the SMP-OWE's 15 Plan Options. Per the IPF §1.8:

"The SMP-OWE 2020 set a commercial scale minimum size at 100MW. Accordingly, smaller innovation scale projects (i.e. those below 100 MW) are not accounted for in the 2020 Plan nor do they have a route to a seabed lease. The Scottish Government is now developing a Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy for Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas Decarbonisation (INTOG)..."

SMP-OWE also signalled the policy intent to enable O&G-decarbonisation projects, citing (Offer Document §3.1.1 footnote 2):

"Scottish Ministers may choose to explore the demand for future leasing round to enable innovative projects and projects aimed at the decarbonisation of the oil and gas sector in Scotland."

INTOG is therefore the operational output of that signalled intent — a twinned carve-out that fixes two gaps in SMP-OWE 2020 / ScotWind: (a) the sub-100 MW threshold excluded innovation projects, and (b) there was no route for O&G-decarbonisation-focused offshore wind outside of ScotWind's commercial-scale framework.

3.3 The North Sea Transition Deal as policy driver

The UK Government's North Sea Transition Deal (March 2021) committed the O&G industry and the UK Government to a joint reduction in operational emissions from UK Continental Shelf production:

10% emission reduction by 2025
25% reduction by 2027
50% reduction by 2030
Near-zero by 2050

The CES Nov 2023 Briefing frames INTOG against this ambition:

"Power generation for oil & gas infrastructure in the UK, which comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, generates emissions equivalent to 10Mt every year: about the same amount generated by electricity use in nine million homes. These emissions could be eliminated by powering the installations with electricity from new wind farms instead."

This 10 Mt/year abatement figure is the implicit upper-bound emission-reduction target of the TOG element — though INTOG itself does not impose any contractual emission-reduction deliverable on winning projects.

3.4 Sectoral Marine Plan sequencing (the novelty)

The critical design choice is that INTOG's leasing round ran ahead of the INTOG Sectoral Marine Plan. Per the IPF §1.11:

"This document, the Initial Plan Framework (IPF), follows the Plan Specification and Context Report and the linked consultation. The IPF now outlines the set planning framework and the areas of seabed that will form the spatial footprint for the CES leasing process."

And per Offer Document §3.1.1:

"Scottish Government (Marine Scotland Directorate) expects to publish the final plan in Winter of 2023/24. Proposed Projects will be able to apply through this leasing process for Exclusivity Agreements. The spatial footprint of the successful projects may form the basis of the Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Draft Plan."

This inverts the ScotWind sequencing (SMP-OWE Oct 2020 first → ScotWind 2021–22 second). INTOG runs the leasing round against the IPF — an interim spatial instrument — and the winning applications themselves become inputs to the subsequent Sectoral Marine Plan process. The full INTOG SMP's timeline slipped multiple times (original target Winter 2023/24; March 2024 confirmation of Spring 2025; November 2024 confirmation of consultation Spring 2025 with adoption Autumn 2025 "as soon as possible"; as of April 2026 the SMP-OWE-including-INTOG is still pending adoption).

The consequence is that Exclusivity Agreements were issued against an interim planning instrument; Option Agreements cannot follow until the SMP adopts the project areas; and CES deployed a pre-SMP Option Agreement concession in April 2024 to unlock the Green Volt project (and subsequently Culzean and Salamander) before the SMP was finalised — conditional on the winning developer having obtained a marine licence and Section 36 consent from Scottish Ministers. This "pre-SMP Option" route is itself a policy innovation driven by the SMP-OWE delay.

3.5 CES's statutory duties and the relationship with The Crown Estate

The Crown Estate (covering E&W&NI seabed) and CES (Scotland seabed) are separate legal entities. The Crown Estate issued a short statement on INTOG via Gus Jaspert, Managing Director of Marine (per tce-statement-mar-2023.md):

"Crown Estate Scotland's latest leasing round is another boost for the UK's world-leading offshore wind sector. Awarding seabed rights for projects that will support innovation and new technologies like floating offshore wind will be integral to supporting a green, secure energy future and UK supply chain alongside a thriving natural world."

The statement explicitly records the jurisdictional separation. This matters for Axis 7 (authorities) extraction: INTOG's awarding authority is CES alone; The Crown Estate has no contractual or administrative role in INTOG.

4. Auction design — dual-track single round

4.1 Track definition and parallel run

Per Offer Document §1.2:

"The INTOG leasing round has two distinct elements. Firstly, it is a process by which developers will be able to apply for seabed rights for small scale (100MW or less) innovation projects. It will also provide the opportunity for seabed rights for offshore wind projects to provide low carbon electricity to power Oil and Gas installations and to help decarbonise the sector. Due to the differences in scope and scale, the Innovation element will be run in parallel but distinctly from the Targeted Oil and Gas element."

The two tracks share a common portal, common timeline, common SCDS framework, common model Exclusivity/Option/Lease Agreements — but separate application forms, separate scoring weights, separate capacity/area caps, separate lease durations, and separate rent regimes. An applicant may submit to either or both tracks (subject to the 4-applications-per-WFD-responsibility-organisation cap across the whole round). IN and TOG applications are evaluated independently; cross-track interaction occurs only via the 5 km IN-loses-to-TOG proximity rule and the shared aggregate O&G-installation-proximity stipulations.

4.2 Section B — Basic Data pass/fail gate

Section B is evaluated as a pass/fail qualification gate. Failure on any Section B question terminates the application. Per Guidance Notes §4: "Pass if all responses are Pass". The Section B questions cover:

B1: GIS shapefile for the application site (single continuous boundary within IPF Areas of Search)
B1.1: Area in km² (must match shapefile computation)
B2: 5 km proximity to existing offshore wind seabed agreements (Yes = pass; No = supplementary evidence required at B2.1)
B2.1: If within 5 km of an existing OFW agreement, documentary evidence that the existing tenant (at Board level) consents
B3: Intended Installed Capacity (single MW value; ≤100 MW for IN; ≤5× O&G demand for TOG)
B4: Capacity density (MW/km²; ≥3 MW/km² with Small Project exception)
B5: Parties, equity, overall structure (all Project Partners, WFD Responsibility roles, funding/experience roles)
B6: Statement of Commitment (Board-level letters from every party in B5 on commitments including human rights, Fair Work First)
B7 (TOG-only): Electricity demand from O&G installation (yearly breakdown, in MW)
B7.1 (TOG-only): Intended grid connection (informational; not scored)
B8 (TOG-only): Letter(s) of Intent from O&G installation operator(s) — minimum content specified; NSTA consultation for coherence check
B9 (TOG-only): Brownfield/Greenfield designation

Section B is the functional equivalent of a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire embedded into the main application.

4.3 Section C — Price (scoring and weighting)

Section C is a single question (C1): the Applicant Valuation in £/km². This single input drives the entire price scoring. Per Guidance Notes §7.1:

"For IN, the scoring on Price is determined by the Applicant Valuation offer (i.e. the answer to C1) and for TOG, the scoring on Price is determined by the Option Fee (i.e. the answer to C1 × the area applied for as set out in B1)."

The scoring is linear and relative to the highest bid in the same track:

"The score for Price for both IN and TOG applications is based on a relative score system whereby the highest scoring IN or TOG application receives a maximum of 100 points with other applications receiving a score relative to this."

Worked examples from the Guidance Notes:

IN Scenario A: Highest IN Applicant Valuation = £200,000/km² → 100 points. An IN application with £80,000/km² → 100 × (80,000/200,000) = 40 points. Weighted: 30% × 40 = 12 points.
TOG Scenario B: Highest TOG Option Fee = £2,000,000 → 100 points. A TOG application with £1,300,000 → 100 × (1,300,000/2,000,000) = 65 points. Weighted: 70% × 65 = 45.5 points.

The subtle but important design choice is that IN is scored on the per-km² valuation while TOG is scored on the total Option Fee. This reflects the fact that IN caps capacity at 100 MW (limiting area upside), making £/km² the more meaningful comparator; TOG allows up to 333 km² per application, so total Option Fee capturing bidder's commitment to larger areas is the more meaningful comparator. A TOG bidder willing to pay £100/km² over 200 km² (£20m Option Fee) scores higher than one paying £50,000/km² over 20 km² (£1m Option Fee) — a rational ranking given the TOG objective of maximising fee revenue while respecting the proportionality-to-demand rule.

Reserve prices: IN at £5,000/km² and TOG at £50,000/km². A valuation below reserve scores 0 points and the application is not taken forward (Guidance Notes §C1).

4.4 Section D — Deliverability (scoring and weighting)

Section D is a 0–100 composite across five sub-criteria, applied identically to IN and TOG, weighted 30% into the composite score for both tracks. The five sub-criteria (Guidance Notes §8.1) are:

Sub-criterion	Weight
Project Concept (D1)	10%
Project Delivery Plan (D2)	10%
Experience (D3)	40%
Development Budget (D4)	15%
Financial Capability (D5)	25%

Each sub-criterion is scored on a 0–4 scale:

4 = excellent
3 = good
2 = satisfactory
1 = poor
0 = not acceptable / no response

Any sub-criterion scoring 0 fails the whole application (Guidance Notes §4: "Pass if all responses score greater than or equal to 1"). The composite D score is computed as the weighted sum of sub-criteria scores (scaled to 0–100).

The Experience sub-criterion (40% of Deliverability — the single heaviest non-Price weight in the whole INTOG design) assesses the Project Partners' track record in leading similar offshore wind projects. Financial Capability (25%) assesses both Financial Strategy (how the project will be funded) and Financial Strength (each Funding Organisation's balance-sheet indicators — net profit, D&B Risk Indicator, D&B Financial Strength Indicator, cash reserves). D&B thresholds are specified in detail in Guidance Notes §D5 Cont:

"A funding party with a D&B Risk Indicator of 1, 2 or 3 must have a D&B Financial Strength Indicator of A, 1A or 2A to demonstrate financial strength."

4.5 Section E — Innovation (IN-only; scoring and weighting)

Section E applies only to IN applications and is weighted 40% into the composite IN score. It has a category-parameterised structure unique in the pilot set.

Step 1 — Category nomination (Question E0). The applicant selects ONE of six Innovation Categories:

Cost Reduction
New Markets
Health & Safety
Supply Chain
Environmental
Commercial

The applicant also writes a 150-word narrative justifying the Category choice.

Step 2 — Nine sub-criteria scored on a 0–4 scale:

E1 Innovation development
E2 Technology development
E3 De-risking
E4 Cost impact
E5 Market opportunity
E6 Health & Safety improvements
E7 Future supply chain development
E8 Environmental aspects
E9 Community development

Step 3 — Weighting table (Guidance Notes §9.3 Table 2): the nine sub-criteria receive different weights depending on the Category selected at E0. Weightings matrix:

Sub-criterion	Cost Reduction	New Markets	H&S	Supply Chain	Environmental	Commercial
Innovation development	20%	20%	20%	20%	20%	20%
Technology development	5%	5%	5%	5%	5%	5%
De-risking	15%	15%	15%	15%	15%	15%
Cost impact	30%	10%	5%	5%	5%	5%
Market opportunity	10%	30%	10%	10%	10%	10%
H&S improvements	5%	5%	30%	5%	5%	5%
Future supply chain dev	5%	5%	5%	30%	5%	5%
Environmental aspects	5%	5%	5%	5%	30%	5%
Community development	5%	5%	5%	5%	5%	30%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

The pattern: four sub-criteria have fixed weights across all categories (Innovation development 20% · Technology development 5% · De-risking 15% · four-way-overlap 35%), and the remaining five sub-criteria rotate the 30% "headline" weight according to which Category matches each criterion. Community development gets 30% when Commercial is chosen (a coincidence of naming; the Commercial Category is about commercial models and ownership structures, which map to community benefit via community-ownership schemes etc.).

Step 4 — Minimum score gate. Per Guidance Notes §9.2:

"Applicants must receive a score of 2 or more in the evaluation criteria corresponding to their selected Innovation category. Applications not receiving this minimum score will be disqualified."

So a bidder who selects "Cost Reduction" must score ≥2/4 on Cost Impact (E4); if they score 0 or 1 on Cost Impact, the whole IN application is disqualified regardless of how well they score on the other eight criteria. This gate only applies to the category-matched criterion, not to the others.

Step 5 — Composite. The weighted sum of the nine sub-criteria (after scaling) is the Section E score, 0–100, weighted 40% into the IN composite.

4.6 Composite scoring — putting it together

Applications are ranked by overall weighted score, independently within each track:

IN composite score (0–100) = 0.30 × Price_IN + 0.40 × Innovation + 0.30 × Deliverability

TOG composite score (0–100) = 0.70 × Price_TOG + 0.30 × Deliverability

where:

Price_IN = 100 × (Applicant_Valuation / max_IN_Valuation)
Price_TOG = 100 × (Option_Fee / max_TOG_OptionFee)

The composite score determines the ranking. Awards are made in descending rank order, subject to:

The aggregate capacity cap (500 MW IN / 5,700 MW TOG)
The 5 km intra-track proximity check (competing interest resolution)
The cross-track IN-defeated-by-TOG rule
The Brownfield prioritisation overlay (TOG-only, first 500 MW)
Tiebreak on equal composite scores (per §5)

5. Tiebreak chain

Per Offer Document §5.2.1 Table 5 (Hierarchy of awards):

IN tiebreak sequence:

Highest Innovation score (Section E)
Highest absolute Price score (Applicant Valuation in £/km²)
Highest Deliverability score (Section D)
Best And Final Offer (BAFO) — "the Applicant(s) will submit a best and final offer price as per Section C Price of the Guidance Notes for Innovation... on a closing date set by Crown Estate Scotland."

TOG tiebreak sequence:

Highest absolute Price score (Option Fee in £)
Highest price per km² (Applicant Valuation in £/km²)
Highest Deliverability score (Section D)
Best And Final Offer (BAFO)

The BAFO terminal step is notable. ScotWind's terminal tiebreak was a random number allocated at Registration — a pure lottery step with zero discretion. INTOG's BAFO reopens price competition in the event of a composite-score tie, allowing bidders to commit additional financial resources to resolve the tie. In practice, with only 19 applications across the round and the evaluation using continuous 0-100 scoring, composite-score ties at the cut-off are statistically unlikely; no BAFO was publicly reported to have occurred.

Cross-track tiebreak: none — the two tracks are evaluated independently, and the cross-track exclusion (IN defeated by TOG within 5 km) is applied as a deterministic filter after TOG awards are finalised.

6. Prize composition

6.1 Instrument cascade: Exclusivity → Option → Lease

The winning applicant does not receive a Lease directly. The award cascade is three-stage (Offer Document §3.4.1):

Exclusivity Agreement (EA) — issued to the successful applicant on confirmation of the scored-auction outcome. Grants the Applicant sole offshore wind development rights over the site while the INTOG Sectoral Marine Plan is being finalised. Does not yet grant any Lease or Option to Lease.

Exclusivity Period — from EA signing to no later than 3 months after publication of the final INTOG SMP (an open-ended duration pending SMP adoption).

Option Agreement (OA) — offered if and only if the successful project is included in the final INTOG SMP. Gives the Tenant specific and exclusive development rights for a fixed Option Period (7 years). If up to 10% of the project area falls outside the final SMP, an OA may still be issued for the reduced area. The OA is where the SCDS Commitments are contractually embedded (Schedule Part 6) and the Option Fee is paid.

Option Notice — served by the Tenant within the 7-year Option Period, triggering the Lease. Requires multiple preconditions to be valid:

Specifies the part of the development site to be leased (including cable route if applicable)
Capacity density ≥3 MW/km²
Key Project Consents and other Necessary Consents granted (marine licence, Section 36 consent, etc.)
Insurances in force
Works specification approved by CES
CES approval of the Tenant entity and security documents
SCDS Contracted Position Statement accepted
Lowest Percentage Achievement on SCDS Commitments ≥25%
All payments in full
TOG-only: Electricity Offtake Agreement with an O&G installation operator in place for the capacity indicated in the OA

Lease — granted by CES on valid Option Notice service. Term:

25 years for Innovation
50 years for Targeted Oil and Gas
both from Lease signing.

6.2 Option Fee mechanics

The Option Fee is one-off, non-refundable (conditional), advance-payable at EA signing. Calculation (Offer Document §3.4.3):

Option Fee = Applicant Valuation (£/km²) × Application Area (km²)

Reserve prices (below which the application scores 0 on Price and does not advance):

£5,000/km² for IN
£50,000/km² for TOG

The fee is held in a CES-managed standalone bank account, with interest accrued between EA and OA signing released back to the Applicant at OA signing. Alternative payment/security arrangements can be considered on a case-by-case basis at CES's discretion.

Refund conditions:

Project not included in final INTOG SMP → full refund plus interest
Project area reduced by more than 10% at SMP plan-level assessment → full refund plus interest
Applicant declines to execute OA → Option Fee is retained by CES (no refund)
Project area reduced by up to 10% at SMP → Option Fee not pro-rated; the original fee is retained at full value

The worked example from Offer Document §3.4.2 illustrates the non-pro-ration rule:

"For example, an area for a TOG application has been submitted for 100km² at £50,000/km² equating to a £5,000,000 Option Fee. As a result of plan-level assessments, the area has been reduced by 10% resulting in an area for Option Agreement of 90km². The original £5,000,000 Option Fee payable at signing of the Exclusivity Agreement will remain at £5,000,000."

This increases the effective £/km² valuation post-reduction (£5m / 90 km² = £55,555/km², vs the bid £50,000/km²) — a friction cost on the successful Applicant.

6.3 Rent mechanics

Innovation rent (Offer Document §3.4 Table 3):

£1.07/MWh, CPI-indexed annually from Exclusivity Agreement commencement
50% discount for first 5 years of operation (innovation-period concession)
Minimum rent levels apply
Payable from commencement of operation

The £1.07/MWh base rate is the same headline rate as ScotWind's rent — CES has evidently standardised the per-MWh seabed rent across its offshore-wind leases, with the innovation-period 50% discount as the INTOG-specific concession.

Targeted Oil and Gas rent (Offer Document §3.4 Table 3):

For electricity supplied to O&G installation: 1% of gross revenue
For electricity not demonstrated as supplied to O&G installation (i.e. grid or alternative use): 2% of gross revenue
Minimum rent levels apply
Payable from commencement of operation

The 2× rent differential between O&G-supplied and grid-supplied electricity is a price signal embedded in the rent structure: CES is explicitly incentivising TOG projects to deliver their primary purpose (O&G electrification) rather than diverting generation to the grid. Projects that cannot demonstrate O&G-supplied use pay double the rent, reducing the incentive to maximise grid revenues at the expense of TOG delivery.

The revenue-share rent format is structurally novel in the UK pilot set. ScotWind's £/MWh is a generation-linked rent, but it is a fixed-per-unit rate not a percentage of revenue. CE R4's £/MW/yr AfL is a capacity-linked rent, independent of revenue. BOEM's $3/acre + 2% operating fee is the closest analogue, but the 2% operating fee is on operating revenue after COD, not on gross revenue. INTOG's TOG rent is gross-revenue-linked, creating direct alignment between CES's rent take and the wind farm's commercial success — and exposing CES to the counterparty risk of O&G-platform offtake contracts (which are themselves subject to the underlying O&G asset's operational status).

6.4 Financial security

Per Offer Document §3.4.5 Tables 3a and 3b:

TOG caps:

Intended Installed Capacity	Exclusivity/Option Cap	Lease Cap
0–500 MW	£5m	£7m
500+–1,000 MW	£5m	£10m
1,000+ MW	£5m	£15m

IN caps:

Intended Installed Capacity	Exclusivity/Option Cap	Lease Cap
0–100 MW	£5m	£7m

The uniform £5m Exclusivity/Option cap regardless of size is a deliberate flat ceiling, tightening only at the Lease stage. Security forms accepted:

Parent Company Guarantee from BBB- guarantor, or guarantor with 20× net-assets coverage
Letter of Credit / Bond from A-grade bank
Cash deposit under CES's exclusive charge

Multiple guarantors must be joint-and-several.

6.5 SCDS — Supply Chain Development Statement (non-scored, contractually binding)

Per Offer Document §7 and identically to ScotWind, the SCDS is not part of the application evaluation (Offer Document §7.1.15):

"The selection of successful applications to INTOG Leasing is not influenced by the level of commitment or ambition provided in the Initial SCDS submission, and the SCDS does not have specific minimum requirements for expenditure levels or location."

SCDS is required at Option Agreement execution (post-award). The Initial SCDS is incorporated into Schedule Part 6 of the Option Agreement and comprises:

SCDS Commitments table — contractually binding expenditure targets, disaggregated by:
- 4 Project Stages: Development, Manufacturing & Fabrication, Installation, Operations
- 4 geographic areas (exact categorisation set out in Option Agreement Clause 24; typically Scotland / Rest of UK / Rest of EU+EEA / Rest of World)
- Total 16 cells of Commitment expenditure
SCDS Ambition table — non-binding aspirational expenditure (same 16-cell structure)
SCDS Narrative — ≤3,000 words explaining the calculation basis of Commitments and Ambition
SCDS Outlook — publishable version (≤1,000 words) of the tables and narrative

Updates: an Updated SCDS is required within 12 months of OA entry, then again within 3 years of first update. More frequent updates are permitted at the Tenant's discretion. CES accepts/rejects Updated SCDS within 20 working days.

Contracted Position Statement (CPS): submitted at end of Development Stage (pre-Option Notice), evidencing actual expenditure plus future expenditure covered by signed/near-final contracts. Compared cell-by-cell against the Current SCDS Commitments. The Lowest Percentage Achievement across all 16 cells determines the contractual remedy (Offer Document §7.1.10 Table 7):

Lowest Percentage Achievement	Contractual remedy
100% or more	No remedy
90% to <100%	£50,000 payment by Applicant
50% to <90%	£100,000 payment by Applicant
25% to <50%	£250,000 payment by Applicant
<25%	Lease may not be requested

The <25% threshold is therefore a hard gate on Option Notice service — a TOG project that fails to meet 25% in even one of the 16 Commitment cells cannot progress to Lease.

Up to four CPS submissions are allowed per Phase; only the most recently accepted CPS is compared against the Current SCDS at Option Notice. This allows iterative refinement of the CPS before triggering the remedy calculation.

7. Qualification requirements

7.1 Entity requirements

Lead Applicant / Lead and Sole Applicant must be an incorporated company (not necessarily UK-registered at application)
Tenant Organisation (the entity signing the Exclusivity Agreement) must be an incorporated company registered in the UK — need not exist at application, must exist before EA execution
Project Partners must each submit a Statement of Commitment at Board level covering capability, experience, funding, and responsible business practice including human rights

7.2 Role structure

Four role types (Offer Document §4.4):

Lead / Lead and Sole Applicant: the registrant
Funding Organisation: provides financial resources; must directly or indirectly own share of Tenant Organisation
Capability and Experience Provider: provides capability/experience to satisfy Section D
Supplementary Experience Provider: capability/experience only, no equity ownership, no funding

Wind Farm Delivery Responsibility = equity ownership + Capability and Experience role. Limited to four applications per organisation (per §3.3.5; see discrepancy with §4.4.5 "three" noted below).

Discrepancy flagged: Offer Document §3.3.5 states "limited to four" while §4.4.5 states "in more than three". The Guidance Notes §B5 specifies "limited to four", matching §3.3.5. The Nov 2023 CES Briefing paraphrases as "four" in summary. Practical enforcement in the round presumably followed the Guidance Notes (four). No successful applicant exceeded four (Cerulean Winds had 3 TOG applications; no other entity had >2). The discrepancy is a drafting inconsistency in the Offer Document. This should be treated as a source-document contradiction in the INTOG record for extraction purposes: the operative rule is four per §3.3.5 and Guidance Notes §B5.

Funding-only organisations and Supplementary Experience Providers are not subject to the per-organisation cap on applications — though an organisation putting the same funding capacity forward in multiple applications will have that capacity recognised in only one (Offer Document §3.3.5 and §4.4.4).

7.3 Commitment to responsible business practice

Per Offer Document §4.4.3 and CES's guidance on "Due Diligence Checks — Human Rights" (gov.scot):

Human rights policies and mechanisms at Applicant and downstream delivery level
Commitment to Fair Work First practices
Self-declaration of no convictions within the last 5 years on corruption, bribery, human trafficking, etc.
Collusion prohibition (Guidance Notes §4) — any evidence of collusion permits CES to exclude parties, referrable to competition authorities

7.4 Track-specific qualification

IN-specific:

Location outside TOG Areas of Search and outside Exclusion zones (per IPF)
≤100 MW single-project Intended Installed Capacity
≥3 MW/km² density (or ≥1 MW/km² for Small Projects ≤15 MW)
≥5 km from successful TOG applications (cross-track exclusion)

TOG-specific:

Location within TOG Areas of Search (east of Scotland and west of Shetland, per IPF)
≤333 km² seabed per application
≤5,700 MW aggregate across all TOG awards
Capacity ≤5× demonstrated annual electricity demand of O&G installation(s), evidenced by LOI (§3.2.4 Proportionality Principle)
LOI must include (Guidance Notes §B8):
- Confirmation O&G operator is considering external power from OFW
- Intent to work with OFW operator on integration
- Total O&G installation electricity demand (MW)
- Wind power sought for decarbonisation (MW)
- Intent to utilise specified power level for ≥5 years from wind farm first operation
NSTA consultation confirms LOI-demand coherence with NSTA's records
Direct physical connection to O&G installation (primary purpose)

7.5 5 km proximity to existing OFW seabed agreements

Per Offer Document §3.1.4, applications ≥5 km from the boundary of all existing OFW seabed agreements (Leases, AfLs, Option to Lease Agreements, Option Agreements — excluding transmission-only cable agreements) pass B2. Applications within 5 km require Board-level consent from the existing counterparty (B2.1), with evidence that the counterparty understands the proposed boundary.

7.6 Density compliance

Intended Installed Capacity ÷ Application Area ≥ 3 MW/km². Small Project exception (≤15 MW): ≥1 MW/km² at Exclusivity/Option stage; still 3 MW/km² at Lease stage. No opportunity to request additional seabed at Lease for Small Projects. The Small Project exception notably enables the TotalEnergies Culzean Floating Wind application (3 MW, 1 turbine) and the two Harbour Energy applications (15 MW each) — none of which would satisfy 3 MW/km² under realistic spacing assumptions.

8. Revenue mechanism

INTOG has no auction-awarded revenue mechanism. The auction prize is an Exclusivity Agreement → Option Agreement → Lease cascade only. Winners must secure revenue through one or more of the following independent paths:

Path A — TOG: bilateral Electricity Offtake Agreement with O&G installation operator. For TOG projects, a valid Electricity Offtake Agreement is a precondition of valid Option Notice (Offer Document §3.4.1). The OA must be in place for the capacity indicated in the OA. The bilateral pricing is between wind farm operator and O&G operator, regulated privately. The OA itself is not publicly disclosed. The revenue-share rent (1% for O&G-supplied, 2% for non-supplied) aligns CES's upside with the success of this offtake path.

Path B — CfD via UK Allocation Rounds. Both IN and TOG projects may pursue CfDs in future AR rounds. Green Volt (Flotation Energy TOG 560 MW) cleared AR6 Stream 3 Floating in 2024 at £139.93/MWh (15-year term, pre-commissioning). Cenos (Flotation Energy TOG 1,350 MW) cleared AR7 Stream 2 Floating in 2026 at £216.49/MWh (20-year term). Other INTOG projects remain pre-CfD as of April 2026.

Path C — Renewables Obligation legacy (closed to new accreditations). Not available — RO closed to new offshore wind accreditations on 31 March 2017 (Offer Document and Guidance Notes do not mention RO; noted for completeness).

Path D — PPA or merchant. Pure merchant-sale or PPA with a non-CfD counterparty. Theoretical but unused in UK OFW to date at scale.

The absence of an auction-awarded revenue mechanism inherits the dependency structure established in ScotWind and CE R4: the seabed auction and the revenue auction are run separately, coupled commercially but not legally. INTOG adds the TOG-specific twist that the Option Notice itself requires evidence of a bilateral EOA — a structural embedding of revenue dependency into the auction prize that goes further than ScotWind (which has no downstream revenue precondition).

9. Delivery obligations

Per the Offer Document and Option Agreement model form:

Option Period: 7 years from OA signing; failure to serve valid Option Notice within 7 years terminates the OA
SCDS delivery: Initial SCDS at OA; Updated SCDS within 12 months and again within 3 years of first update; CPS at end of Development Stage
Milestone checks: OA includes project programme with phase milestones (details in Model OA schedules — not transcribed in Offer Document)
Security maintenance: financial security must be in place throughout Exclusivity, Option, and Lease stages
Health & Safety: OA obliges Tenant to join an industry H&S forum (e.g. G+ group) and share incident data regularly
Change of control: changes to Tenant Organisation composition/ownership must be notified to CES; CES may terminate if changes leave Project Partners unable to meet evaluation criteria
Financial penalty cascade:
- SCDS Lowest Percentage Achievement 50–89%: £100k
- SCDS Lowest Percentage Achievement 25–49%: £250k
- SCDS Lowest Percentage Achievement <25%: Lease cannot be requested

10. Authorities and jurisdiction

Function	Authority
Leasing authority	Crown Estate Scotland (CES)
Statutory basis (CES)	Crown Estate Act 1961 (as amended); Scotland Act 2016; Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017 (SI 2017/524)
Spatial planning authority	Scottish Government — Marine Scotland Directorate (now Marine Directorate)
Spatial planning instrument (interim)	Initial Plan Framework for Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind for Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas Decarbonisation (March 2022)
Spatial planning instrument (final — pending)	Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy (updated 2025) incorporating INTOG SMP — adoption pending as of April 2026
O&G demand coherence check	North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA)
Marine consenting authority	Marine Scotland Directorate (marine licence + Section 36 consent from Scottish Ministers)
Revenue auction authority (downstream CfD path)	DESNZ + LCCC + NESO for CfDs
Grid connection authority	National Grid ESO (now NESO, from Oct 2024) for onshore transmission connection; CES for offshore transmission cable arrangements within INTOG seabed
Sponsoring government	Scottish Government (Net Zero & Energy Secretariat) + UK Government (BEIS/DESNZ for NSTA links)

The jurisdictional split is simpler than ScotWind's in one way (no intersection with CfD design at auction point — CfD coupling is purely downstream) and more complex in another (the NSTA consultation is an extra inter-authority touchpoint, and the INTOG SMP adoption dependency creates ongoing Marine Scotland engagement beyond the auction itself).

11. Timeline

Per Offer Document §6.1 Table 6 and post-auction CES releases:

Date	Event
10 Aug 2022	Registration opens in INTOG Leasing portal
24 Aug 2022	Registration closes
25 Aug 2022	Application window opens; Intention to Apply (ITA) message sent to registered applicants
1 Sep 2022	Deadline for non-binding ITA response
22 Sep 2022	Final date for clarification questions via portal
20 Oct 2022	Clarification responses published; proforma invoices issued for application fees (£10k IN / £90k TOG)
18 Nov 2022	Application window closes
25 Nov 2022	Completeness check; valid applications confirmed
~3 months evaluation	CES moderation, clarification, and ranking
24 Mar 2023	Results announced — 13 applications (5 IN + 8 TOG) offered Exclusivity Agreements out of 19 applications received
19 May 2023	All 5 IN Exclusivity Agreements signed
28 Nov 2023	7 TOG Exclusivity Agreements signed; 1 TOG application declines to sign, leaving 12 projects in the final INTOG cohort (5 IN + 7 TOG)
Mar 2024	Scottish Government confirms revised INTOG SMP timeline (final plan Spring 2025); CES introduces pre-SMP Option Agreement route for projects with marine licence + Section 36 consent
19 Apr 2024	Green Volt (Flotation Energy + Vårgrønn TOG 560 MW) signs Option Agreement — first INTOG project to progress from Exclusivity to Option
Nov 2024	Scottish Government confirms further revised INTOG SMP timeline (consultation Spring 2025, adoption Autumn 2025 "as soon as possible")
25 Mar 2025	Culzean Floating Wind (TotalEnergies TOG 3 MW) signs Option Agreement
22 Aug 2025	Salamander (Salamander Wind Project Company / Ørsted + Simply Blue + Subsea7 IN 100 MW) receives Section 36 consent from Scottish Ministers
Sep 2025	Salamander signs Option Agreement
25 Mar 2026	Culzean Floating Wind signs Lease — first INTOG TOG project to progress from Option to Lease

Elapsed time from results to first Option Agreement: ~13 months (March 2023 → April 2024). Elapsed time from results to first Lease: ~3 years (March 2023 → March 2026, Culzean — but Culzean is a 3 MW single-turbine demonstrator, not representative of the full-scale TOG cohort). The cohort-wide Option → Lease lag for larger TOG projects (560–1,350 MW) is still unfolding as of April 2026.

12. Results

12.1 Aggregate

Per CES 24 March 2023 announcement and subsequent briefings:

Applications received: 19 (per announcement)
Applications offered Exclusivity: 13 (5 IN + 8 TOG)
Exclusivity Agreements executed: 12 (5 IN + 7 TOG — one TOG withdrawal)
Total IN capacity: 448.9 MW (sum of 5 IN projects; 99.45 + 99.45 + 100 + 50 + 100); the announcement text "up to 499 MW for IN" refers to the sub-500 MW ceiling
Total TOG capacity (at Mar 2023): 4,967 MW (sum of 8 TOG projects)
Total TOG capacity (at Nov 2023): 4,952 MW (sum of 7 TOG projects after one 15 MW withdrawal)
Total aggregate capacity (Nov 2023): 5,401 MW (449 MW IN + 4,952 MW TOG)
Total Option Fees committed: £261,780,521 (per CES 24 March 2023 release). Held in trust pending Option Agreement signing; full aggregate (or ~£262m depending on the one withdrawn TOG) will be released to the Scottish Government public purse at OA signing
IN seabed area: 139 km² (against IPF ceiling of 167 km² — 83% utilised)
TOG seabed area: 1,534 km² (against IPF ceiling of 1,900 km² — 81% utilised)
Technology mix: 100% floating (all 12 projects)

12.2 Project-by-project roster (Nov 2023 final)

Mapping from the March 2023 roster (13 rows) to the November 2023 final (12 rows) — the dropped TOG application was one of the two Harbour Energy 15 MW projects:

Map ID (Nov 2023)	Lead Applicant	Track	Innovation Category	Capacity (MW)	Option Fee (£, Mar 2023)	Project Partners
1	Bluefloat Energy / Renantis Partnership	IN	Commercial	99.45	5,401,360	547 Energy International, DOF Subsea UK, Selkie Investments Midstream, Energy4All, BAM Nuttall
2	Bluefloat Energy / Renantis Partnership	IN	Supply chain	99.45	7,107,900	547 Energy International, DOF Subsea UK, Selkie Investments Midstream, Energy4All, BAM Nuttall
3	Simply Blue Energy (Scotland)	IN	Supply chain	100	9,972,000	Ørsted, Subsea 7, Green Tower BV, Simply Blue Holdings
4	BP Alternative Energy Investments	IN	New Markets	50	1,670,917	BP International, BP Exploration Operating Company, BP Wind Energy North America Inc
5	ESB Asset Development UK	IN	Cost reduction	100	3,137,000	ESB Wind Development, ESBI Engineering and Facilities Management, Dublin Offshore Consultants, CATAGEN
6	Flotation Energy (Green Volt)	TOG	—	560	54,893,102	TEPCO Renewable Power Inc, Eni SpA, HV Storm Holding, Vårgrønn
7	Cerulean Winds	TOG	—	1,008	67,200,066	Frontier Power International Limited, Telis Energy/Carlyle Group, Worley, Siemens Gamesa, Siemens Energy, DEME, NOV, GoBe
8	Cerulean Winds	TOG	—	1,008	35,200,098	Frontier Power International Limited, Telis Energy/Carlyle Group, Worley, Siemens Gamesa, Siemens Energy, DEME, NOV, GoBe
9	Cerulean Winds	TOG	—	1,008	35,200,098	Frontier Power International Limited, Worley, Siemens Gamesa, Siemens Energy, DEME, NOV, GoBe
10	Flotation Energy (Cenos)	TOG	—	1,350	40,987,979	TEPCO Renewable Power Inc, Eni SpA, HV Storm Holding, Vårgrønn, NorthConnect
11	TotalEnergies (Culzean Floating Wind)	TOG	—	3	200,000	TotalEnergies E&P North Sea, TotalEnergies Renewables UK
12	Harbour Energy	TOG	—	15	405,000	Chrysaor Petroleum Company UK Limited

Withdrawn (March 2023 original row 8): Harbour Energy TOG 15 MW — Project Partner Chrysaor (U.K.) Britannia Limited. Total dropped Option Fee: £405,000. Net Option Fees after November 2023: £261,375,521.

12.3 Implied Applicant Valuations

The published data in the March 2023 release and November 2023 applicant listing does not directly state the Applicant Valuation for each winner — only the Option Fee (£) and Capacity (MW). CES's Offer Document §8.3 commits to publishing Applicant Valuations for those applications resulting in an Option Agreement. As of April 2026, individual Applicant Valuations have been published via the CES Spatial Hub for some projects but not in a single consolidated reference. The Option Fees together with the announcement-disclosed area totals (139 km² IN / 1,534 km² TOG) imply aggregate effective valuations of:

Aggregate IN: £27,289,177 / 139 km² ≈ £196,000/km² (well above the £5,000/km² IN reserve; bidders selected high-valuation levels)
Aggregate TOG: £234,491,344 / 1,534 km² ≈ £152,800/km² (above the £50,000/km² TOG reserve by a factor of ~3×)

These are aggregate implied averages; individual project valuations will differ substantially, especially for the Small Projects (3 MW, 15 MW) which paid relatively low Option Fees reflecting small application areas.

12.4 Axis 6 — Revenue

INTOG does not award a revenue instrument at auction. The auction prize is the Exclusivity/Option/Lease cascade. Winners' revenue streams depend on:

Green Volt: AR6 Floating CfD @ £139.93/MWh (2024, 15-year) + bilateral EOA with relevant O&G platform(s) to be confirmed
Cenos: AR7 Floating CfD @ £216.49/MWh (2026, 20-year) + bilateral EOA with relevant O&G platform(s)
Other TOG projects: bilateral EOA with O&G operator(s) — not publicly disclosed — and/or future CfD
Other IN projects: future CfD, PPA, or merchant

13. Post-award developments

13.1 Exclusivity Agreement signing window

19 May 2023: All 5 IN Exclusivity Agreements signed
28 Nov 2023: 7 of 8 TOG Exclusivity Agreements signed — one Harbour Energy 15 MW application did not sign

13.2 INTOG Sectoral Marine Plan delays

Original timeline (per Offer Document §3.1.1): INTOG SMP finalisation Winter 2023/24
March 2024: Scottish Government revises timeline to Spring 2025 adoption
November 2024: Further revision to consultation Spring 2025, final adoption Autumn 2025 "as soon as possible"
April 2026 (current): SMP-OWE (including INTOG) adoption still pending

13.3 Pre-SMP Option Agreement concession

In March 2024, CES announced it would consider entering Option Agreements with developers in advance of final INTOG SMP adoption, subject to:

Grant of marine licence by Scottish Ministers
Grant of Section 36 consent by Scottish Ministers (where appropriate)
Satisfaction of pre-conditions for stepping into Option Agreement

This concession reflects CES's practical response to SMP delay risk eroding project momentum. Three projects have taken advantage as of April 2026:

Green Volt (Flotation Energy + Vårgrønn TOG 560 MW) — OA signed 19 April 2024, following marine licence and Section 36 consent. First INTOG project to Option Agreement stage. SCDS Outlook published
Culzean Floating Wind (TotalEnergies TOG 3 MW, single turbine) — OA signed 25 March 2025. SCDS Outlook published
Salamander (Salamander Wind Project Company — 50:50 JV of Simply Blue Energy + Ørsted; Innovation 100 MW floating) — Section 36 consent July 2025, OA signed September 2025 (22 August 2025 per CES overview page). SCDS Outlook and IPS Outlook published

13.4 First Lease

25 March 2026: Culzean Floating Wind signs Lease with TotalEnergies E&P North Sea UK Limited. This is the first INTOG project to complete the Exclusivity → Option → Lease cascade. At 3 MW and a single floating turbine, it is not representative of the full-scale TOG cohort, but it is the first operational proof of the INTOG award chain.

13.5 CfD coupling — AR6 and AR7

AR6 (2024): Green Volt awarded a CfD in the Stream 3 Floating Offshore Wind pot at £139.93/MWh (2024 prices, 15-year term)
AR7 (2026): Cenos (Flotation Energy's second INTOG TOG project, 1,350 MW) awarded a CfD in the Stream 2 Floating pot at £216.49/MWh (2024 prices, 20-year term)

Both CfDs are not statutory conditions of INTOG award — they are independent downstream revenue decisions made by each developer. But they are the de facto revenue backbone for the two largest INTOG TOG projects that have sought CfD support to date. The remaining TOG projects have not yet entered CfD processes (per publicly available information at April 2026).

13.6 Known risks / issues still open

INTOG SMP adoption uncertainty: until the full SMP is adopted, each project's Option Agreement must be negotiated bilaterally under the pre-SMP concession, with each requiring individual Scottish Ministers' consent. This is a bespoke, slow path compared to the standard ScotWind OA signing under an adopted SMP.
Cenos status: Flotation Energy's 1,350 MW Cenos project cleared AR7 CfD but has not yet received an Option Agreement from CES (as of April 2026 data). The project's development momentum depends on alignment between the AR7 CfD milestones (Milestone Delivery Date) and the INTOG OA signing.
Cerulean Winds — 3 TOG Option Agreements with £137m aggregate Option Fees pending: Cerulean Winds is the single largest INTOG awardee by capacity (3 × 1,008 MW = 3,024 MW) and by Option Fee (£137.6m aggregate). No Option Agreement has been signed publicly. The Cerulean pipeline is the largest single-developer Option Fee commitment in UK offshore-wind history, contingent on SMP adoption or pre-SMP concession plus consents.
Harbour Energy withdrawal: one Harbour Energy 15 MW TOG application did not sign Exclusivity in November 2023. CES has not published reasons; the project is presumably no longer progressing. Option Fee £405,000 was not paid.
SCDS compliance risk at Option Notice: TOG projects especially — the 25% Lowest Percentage Achievement threshold across 16 Commitment cells is a demanding standard given the unpredictability of floating-wind supply chain build-out and the Scottish-content weighting in the geographic dimensions.

14. Schema implications

INTOG stresses the 9-axis auction model in several novel ways that should inform schema evolution:

14.1 Dual-track single-round auctions with per-track scoring weights

INTOG runs two parallel sub-auctions (IN and TOG) under a single "auction" record, each with its own Price/Quality weighting split (30/40/30 for IN; 70/30 for TOG). The current schema's competitive_dimensions and scoring_weightings fields presume a single weighting tuple per auction. INTOG requires either:

Nested scoring configuration — a top-level tracks field, where each track carries its own competitive_dimensions and scoring_weightings
Two separate Auction records with a parent_auction_id link — modelling IN and TOG as sibling auctions under an "INTOG programme" umbrella

The latter is closer to the "paired_auctions" and "parent_programme" patterns already in the schema (per R21 in the sketch revisions). INTOG is the cleanest stress test of the paired-auction model: two simultaneous tracks that share infrastructure (portal, timeline, contract templates) but differ on every scoring dimension. The record structure should probably be a parent INTOG programme auction with two child auctions (one IN, one TOG) — avoiding the need to model per-track weightings as a single-auction property.

Proposed revision R31 (draft): extend the schema-sketch to treat dual-track rounds with per-track scoring weights as two child Auction records under a parent auction_programme, rather than forcing a single record to carry multi-valued weightings. Applies to INTOG and potentially future carve-out rounds.

14.2 Purpose-tagged bid qualification (TOG track)

The TOG track requires the application to be tied to a specific external counterparty (an O&G installation operator), with an LOI and NSTA consultation forming part of qualification. No other pilot in the set has this structure. The current schema's qualifying_gates field can list the LOI and NSTA check as gate items, but the structural implication is broader: the bid is purpose-tagged, meaning the auction prize is conditioned on a specific external commercial relationship. This differs from "qualifying gates" (which are about bidder fitness) and from "scoring dimensions" (which are about bid merit).

Proposed revision R32 (draft): add an axis_2_competitive_dimensions.purpose_tag field indicating whether the bid is tied to a specific external use-case or counterparty class. Values: null (no purpose tag — most rounds); o_and_g_electrification (INTOG TOG); innovation_demonstration (INTOG IN? arguably this is a category tag on the bid rather than a purpose tag); future values for similar carve-outs.

14.3 Overlay prioritisation rules (Brownfield first 500 MW)

The Brownfield prioritisation is a deterministic overlay that sits above the core composite-score ranking — the first 500 MW of TOG awards go to Brownfield applications irrespective of their composite score (within the Brownfield subset, composite score still applies). This is not a scoring dimension, not a tiebreak, not a qualifying gate — it's a capacity-prioritisation rule that subsets the award order.

Proposed revision R33 (draft): add an axis_2_competitive_dimensions.prioritisation_overlays field — a list of rules of the form {applies_to_subset: <condition>, up_to_capacity: <MW>, rule: prioritise_within_subset}. Captures Brownfield-first and similar mechanisms without conflating them with scoring weights.

14.4 Cross-track exclusion rules

The IN-defeated-by-TOG-within-5-km rule is a cross-track interaction that cannot be modelled within a single-track scoring framework. If tracks are represented as sibling Auctions, the exclusion rule becomes a cross-auction constraint.

Proposed revision R34 (draft): add cross_track_constraints to the parent programme, listing rules that apply between sibling Auctions. Values would include 5 km-proximity exclusions, sequenced award order (TOG before IN), and similar inter-track dependencies.

14.5 Plan-level reducibility clauses

The "up to 10% reduction without refund" clause is a post-award boundary-adjustment provision tied to a downstream planning process. This interacts with the prize definition (prize = Option Agreement with area reducible by up to 10%) and the Option Fee refund logic. Currently the prize-composition fields assume a fixed prize; INTOG requires a conditional-prize representation.

Proposed revision R35 (draft): add axis_1_prize_composition.boundary_adjustment_clause — an optional field representing authority to adjust the awarded area post-auction up to a specified percentage, with and without refund. Captures the INTOG plan-level reducibility but also generalises to future auctions where the seabed polygon is provisional pending spatial-plan processes.

14.6 Sector-specific rent structures (revenue-share)

TOG's 1% / 2% revenue-share rent is structurally distinct from all previously-modelled rent patterns (£/MWh, £/MW/yr, $/acre, flat annual). The prize_composition.rent field needs to accept a revenue-share variant with conditional trigger (1% for O&G-supplied; 2% otherwise).

Proposed revision R36 (draft): extend PrizeRent model to include percent_of_gross_revenue and conditional_trigger fields (e.g. trigger_supplied_to_designated_counterparty). Captures TOG's dual-rate structure and analogous "revenue-share with performance trigger" rent regimes in future auctions.

14.7 Downstream bilateral-offtake precondition for Option Notice

TOG's requirement for a valid Electricity Offtake Agreement at Option Notice is a downstream delivery obligation tied to an external commercial instrument. This belongs in the Lease/Option delivery obligations section but also influences Axis 6 (revenue mechanism) interpretation — a non-auction-awarded but auction-triggered revenue instrument.

Proposed revision R37 (draft): add delivery_obligations.downstream_offtake_precondition as a new field category. Values include: cfd_required, bilateral_ppa_required, specific_counterparty_class_ppa_required (for TOG). Makes explicit the structural bridge between INTOG auction and subsequent revenue instruments.

14.8 Category-parameterised scoring dimensions

The IN Innovation scoring has a category-parameterised weighting profile (6 categories × 9 sub-criteria, with 6 different weighting vectors). Bidders self-select the weighting vector via the E0 Category nomination. No other pilot in the set has bidder-selected weighting vectors. This is a meta-weighting mechanism — the weights themselves are part of the bid.

Proposed revision R38 (draft): extend scoring-dimensions to allow a weighting_profile_selection field, where the bidder's response determines which weighting vector applies. Captures INTOG IN's Category-parameterised structure.

14.9 BAFO as a terminal tiebreak

INTOG uses BAFO (Best And Final Offer — a re-submitted sealed price) as the final tiebreak, differing from ScotWind (random number), AR6 (closest envelope fit + random), and US NY Bight (maximise total bid value + pseudorandom). The tiebreak schema should support BAFO as a discrete value.

Proposed revision R39 (draft): add bafo_tiebreak as a terminal tiebreak type, distinct from random_allocation and lottery_procedure. Matches INTOG exactly.

14.10 Sequencing relative to spatial plan (provisional-plan auctions)

INTOG is the first pilot to run an auction against an interim spatial instrument (IPF) before the final Sectoral Marine Plan is adopted. Current schema's spatial-framework fields assume a definitive spatial instrument. INTOG requires representing provisional spatial frameworks with subsequent plan-finalisation dependencies.

Proposed revision R40 (draft): add axis_3_spatial_framework.adoption_status field with values definitive | interim_pending_plan_finalisation | provisional_subject_to_review. Captures INTOG's IPF-based sequencing.

15. Open questions (verification queue)

Items for fact-check and potential clarification against primary sources:

Application count discrepancy: announcement says "19 applications"; one of 19 was presumably rejected at completeness check (25 Nov 2022) or received a Section B fail. Count of rejected-at-moderation vs rejected-at-completeness is not published. Needs clarification from CES or FOI if required for extraction.
Four-vs-three WFD-Responsibility rule: Offer Document §3.3.5 ("four") vs §4.4.5 ("three"). Operative rule per Guidance Notes = four. Treat as source contradiction with four as prevailing rule.
499 MW vs 449 MW IN capacity in announcement: 24 March 2023 release says "up to 499MW for IN"; individual project capacities sum to 448.9 MW (= ~449 MW). 499 is pre-award max under the 500 MW cap; 449 is actual. Both figures may appear in downstream writeups — flag 449 as the actual award.
TOG 5,700 MW vs 5,000 MW in IPF: Offer Document §3.2.1 says TOG aggregate cap 5.7 GW; IPF framing cites 5 GW maximum deployment scenario. The 5,700 MW may reflect a +700 MW flexibility margin above the IPF's ~5 GW scenario, or a drafting inconsistency. Needs cross-check against IPF's final Areas of Search specification.
Applicant Valuations per project: not disclosed in CES announcement; publication commitment exists (Offer Document §8.3) but as of April 2026 not consolidated. May require FOI for extraction-level granularity.
Innovation Category assignments for IN projects: the March 2023 results map lists Category per IN project (Commercial × 1 Bluefloat, Supply chain × 2, New Markets × 1 BP, Cost reduction × 1 ESB). The Nov 2023 map omits Categories. Final extraction should use the March 2023 map as authoritative for Category.
Cross-border wind farms interaction: INTOG IPF and Offer Document define Scottish-waters boundaries. Several TOG projects (Cenos, particularly) sit in waters shared with ScotWind Plan Options. The 5 km proximity rule applies across all existing OFW seabed agreements including ScotWind — so intra-UK cross-round proximity constraints exist but are rule-governed (see Offer Document §3.1.4).
Pre-SMP Option concession timeline: CES's formal position on pre-SMP Option Agreements was announced in March 2024; the exact date of announcement is not on the CES overview page (says "In March 2024"). Needs confirmation for Axis 8.

16. References

Primary source corpus (local mirror)

All in docs/research/offshore-wind-auctions/source-docs/uk_intog/:

offer-document.md — INTOG Leasing Offer Document (Crown Estate Scotland, August 2022; 35p, 17,600 words). The primary auction design document.
guidance-notes.md — INTOG Leasing Guidance Notes (Crown Estate Scotland, August 2022; 44p, 17,133 words). Application form walkthrough with detailed scoring methodology including Deliverability sub-weights and Innovation category-specific weighting profiles.
briefing-nov-2023.md — Briefing: Innovation and Targeted Oil & Gas (INTOG) Leasing (Crown Estate Scotland, November 2023; 3p, 760 words). Post-exclusivity summary confirming 12-project final roster and "all floating" technology outcome.
results-map-mar-2023.md — INTOG Map and Project Details, March 2023 (Crown Estate Scotland; 4p, 424 words). Initial 13-project roster with Innovation Categories and Project Partners.
results-map-nov-2023.md — INTOG Map and Applicant Listing, November 2023 (Crown Estate Scotland; 3p, 351 words). Final 12-project roster after TOG Exclusivity signing.
announcement-mar-2023.md — "INTOG: 13 Projects Selected" (Crown Estate Scotland press release, 24 March 2023; ~900 words). Results announcement with full Option Fee table, ministerial quotes, capacity headlines.
exclusivity-in-may-2023.md — "INTOG: Exclusivity Agreements Signed for Five Offshore Wind Projects to Support Innovation" (Crown Estate Scotland, 19 May 2023; ~300 words). IN cohort Exclusivity completion.
exclusivity-tog-nov-2023.md — "INTOG: Exclusivity Agreements Signed for Seven TOG Offshore Wind Projects..." (Crown Estate Scotland, 28 November 2023; ~350 words). TOG cohort Exclusivity completion.
tce-statement-mar-2023.md — Statement on Crown Estate Scotland's INTOG Leasing Round (The Crown Estate, Gus Jaspert, 24 March 2023; ~175 words). Cross-jurisdictional statement from TCE confirming entity separation.
ces-leasing-page.md — INTOG Leasing Round (Crown Estate Scotland overview page; live page captured April 2026; ~900 words). Canonical timeline through March 2026, Option Agreement and Lease events.
smp-ipf.md — Sectoral Marine Plan Initial Plan Framework for INTOG (Scottish Government — Marine Directorate, March 2022; ~1,100 words covered in excerpt). Spatial framework defining Areas of Search.

Downstream references (not part of INTOG auction corpus, but relevant for post-award analysis)

Green Volt SCDS Outlook (published April 2024, Flotation Energy/Vårgrønn)
Salamander SCDS Outlook and IPS Outlook (published September 2025)
Culzean Floating Wind SCDS Outlook (published March 2025)
AR6 results (Green Volt £139.93/MWh floating CfD, 2024)
AR7 results (Cenos £216.49/MWh floating CfD, 2026)
INTOG Spatial Hub on CES website — GIS data for Areas of Search and confirmed applications