Greenpeace threatens Crown Estate over offshore wind 'monopoly profiteering'
Greenpeace argues Crown Estate is abusing its key role in buildout of offshore wind farms in UK - seabed landlord counters that environmental campaign group has 'misunderstood' its duties
Greenpeace has threatened the Crown Estate with legal action, claiming the seabed landlord for England & Wales has engaged in “monopoly profiteering” at the expense of Britain’s offshore wind buildout.
In an announcement today, Greenpeace UK said it had warned the Crown Estate that it is “considering taking legal action unless the public body stops ‘monopoly profiteering’ at the expense of bill payers and offshore wind developers.”
Greenpeace argues that the Crown Estate has “exploited" its position to "charge hefty fees for leases of the seabed.”
It alleges that this has led to a pricing system that has “massively boosted the estate’s profits, as well as the pay of its executives and the Royal Household’s official income, while driving higher costs for the wind power sector and energy bill payers.”
The Crown Estate delivers the revenue it generates to the UK Treasury, which in turn sends a cut to Britain's royal family. Greenpeace highlighted that King Charles III’s official income is set to jump from £86m this year to £132m in 2025-6, almost exclusively because of the profits derived from offshore wind.
Greenpeace said that, “at the same time," the Crown Estate CEO Dan Labbard's pay has risen fivefold from around £385,000 a year in the period 2015-2020 to a "staggering" £1.9m in 2024/25.
Greenpeace said it wants a review of the way that seabed lease auctions are run and of the option fees that wind developers must pay.
Greenpeace argues the current system “risks loading unnecessary costs onto energy bills twice – both through higher option fees and by incentivising wind farms in Scotland, where fees are capped.”
The relative overbuild of wind farms in Scotland compared to England, given the lack of grid capacity connecting the two countries has resulted in surging levels of wind power curtailment – when turbines are paid to switch off.
The UK governments says it is addressing the grid bottlenecks with infrastructure spending, but British developer Octopus put the current cost at over £1bn ($1.33bn) this year.
Greenpeace UK co-executive director Will McCallum said: “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.”
Former Crown Estate chief executive Roger Bright told UK Parliament in 2010: “The first thing to say is that our Act expressly says that we may not take advantage of our monopoly position”.
"The Crown Estate is accelerating Offshore Wind in line with Government policy to move forward the energy transition at pace and improve energy security."
Adam Bell, director of policy at consultancy Stonehaven, said he believes that "by charging rents for land under its ownership the Crown Estate is very much pushing up bills."
"Greenpeace are right to highlight this issue, and it is incumbent upon the Crown Estate under their obligation to aid the sustainable development of the UK to consider whether by charging such rents they are in fact doing so."