DOCSLIB.ORG

GOV13 Central London Infrastructure Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GOV13 Central London Infrastructure Study Central London Infrastructure Study Final Report Prepared for: Westminster City Council and Central London Forward Prepared by: URS Corporation Limited July 2009 44935320 Central London Infrastructure Study July 2009 Final Report Issue No 4 44935320 Central London Infrastructure Study Final Report Project Title: Central London Infrastructure Study Report Title: Central London Infrastructure Study Project No: 44935320 Report Ref: Status: Final Report Client Contact Name: Eric Sorensen Client Company Name: Westminster City Council and Central London Forward Issued By: Esther Howe Document Production / Approval Record Issue No: Name Signature Date Position 1 Anthony Batten 24/07/09 Project Managers Esther Howe Prepared by Elena Di Biase Research 24/07/09 Consultants Natalie Thomas Checked and Project Director Rory Brooke 24/07/09 approved by Document Revision Record Issue No Date Details of Revisions 1 09/01/09 Draft Report 2 06/03/09 Draft Report 3 15/06/09 Final Draft Report 4 24/07/09 Final Report July 2009 Central London Infrastructure Study Final Report LIMITATION URS Corporation Limited (URS) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Westminster City Council and Central London Forward in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by us. This Report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS. Unless otherwise stated in this Report, the assessments made assume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current purpose without significant change. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested. Information obtained from third parties has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report. COPYRIGHT © This Report is the copyright of URS Corporation Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. July 2009 Central London Infrastructure Study Final Report July 2009 Central London Infrastructure Study Final Report CONTENTS Section Page No ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................................... I REPORT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... I 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 25 1.1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 25 1.2. Objectives....................................................................................................................... 26 1.3. Central London Forward Projections.............................................................................. 28 1.4. Report Structure............................................................................................................. 35 2. INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY SCOPE AND APPROACH............................................. 37 3. HARD INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT................................................................. 42 3.1. Electricity ........................................................................................................................ 42 3.2. Gas................................................................................................................................. 51 3.3. Sustainable Energy: Heating, Cooling and Power......................................................... 57 3.4. Telecommunications ...................................................................................................... 80 3.5. Water.............................................................................................................................. 82 3.6. Sewers and Sewerage Infrastructure............................................................................. 85 3.7. Flood Risk ......................................................................................................................93 3.8. Waste Management ....................................................................................................... 98 4. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT................................................... 106 4.1. Baseline........................................................................................................................ 106 4.2. Forecast ....................................................................................................................... 111 4.3. Forecast Costs and Planned Investment ..................................................................... 116 4.4. Assessment of Existing Growth Strategies .................................................................. 122 4.5. Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 128 5. SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT ........................................................... 131 5.1. Adult Learning and Further Education ......................................................................... 131 5.2. Higher Education.......................................................................................................... 144 5.3. Primary Healthcare....................................................................................................... 153 5.4. Secondary Healthcare.................................................................................................. 166 5.5. Police............................................................................................................................ 171 5.6. Fire ............................................................................................................................... 176 5.7. Ambulance ................................................................................................................... 179 6. INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES............................................................................... 182 6.1. Infrastructure Assessment Summary Matrices ............................................................ 182 6.2. Summary of URS Model of Infrastructure Quantum and Costs................................... 183 July 2009 Central London Infrastructure Study Final Report CONTENTS Section Page No 6.3. Geographic Distribution of Growth............................................................................... 187 6.4. Infrastructure Priorities ................................................................................................. 187 6.5. Risks to Delivery........................................................................................................... 189 6.6. Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 189 6.7. Recommendations for Further Work............................................................................ 190 APPENDIX 1 - TECHNICAL INPUT APPENDIX 2 - APPROACH AND PARAMETERS APPENDIX 3 - URS CENTRAL LONDON INFRASTRUCTURE MODEL APPENDIX 4 - HUDU MODEL APPROACH July 2009 Central London Infrastructure Study Final Report LIST OF TABLES Table Page No Table 3-1: URS Assessment of Additional Demand for Electricity from New Development, kvA, 2006-2026 .................................................................................................... 48 Table 3-2: Annual Energy Consumption Projected Demand for Electricity from New Development, MWh, 2006 - 2026................................................................................................ 49 Table 3-3: URS Assessment of Additional Demand for Gas from New Development, m3/hour, 2006-2026 - Scenario 1................................................................................................ 53 Table 3-4: URS Assessment of Additional Demand for Gas from New Development, m3/hour, 2006-2026 - Scenario 2................................................................................................ 54 Table 3-5: Projected Annual Energy Consumption for Gas from New Development MWh, 2006 - 2026 ....................................................................................................................... 55 Table 3-6: Summary of the CHP Capacity and Possible CO2 Emissions Savings for the Four Schemes Identified.............................................................................................................. 68 Table 3-7: Summary of the CHP Capacity and Possible CO2 Emissions Savings for the Four Schemes Identified.............................................................................................................. 72 Table 3-8: URS Assessment of Additional Demand for Water from New Development, L/day, 2006 - 2026....................................................................................................................... 84 Table 3-9: URS Assessment of Sewer Flow Rates Compared to Thames Water Data, L/day, 2006.................................................................................................................................. 86 Table 3-10: URS Assessment of Additional Sewer Flow Rates from New
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lee Tunnel Pump Rag Test
    Maik Ulmschneider Lee Tunnel Pump Rag Test About the Project Thames Water Utilities Ltd is the UK’s largest water and sewerage company, serving 14 million customers across London and the Thames Valley. London’s 150-year-old Victorian network can no longer accommodate the excess sewage and rainwater. Therefore the 7.6 km Lee Tunnel is the first of two tunnels designed to capture and redirect 16 million tons of stormwater and sewage as part of the 25-km Thames Tideway Scheme. It will run beneath the River Thames through Central London. Buried 85 m underground six single-stage end-suction vertical waste water pumps (KSB SVP- 84) will lift the stormwater and sewage back to the surface, operating in a working range between 3,050 l/s at 87 m and 1,950 l/s at 17 m. Figure 1: Size Comparison Rag Test Requirements Clogging of pumps is a common problem for water companies. When fibrous material, plastics and other debris come together solid ropes can be formed which can lead to reduced pump performance and even pump failure. Then, there is the unpleasant matter of removing the blockage. For crucial pumping stations, such as the Lee Tunnel Beckton Shaft, it is essential to reduce the risk of pump clogging to an absolute minimum. MVB, the consortium comprising Morgan Sindall, Vinci Construction Grands Projects and Bachy Soletanche, which is working with Thames Water to construct the Lee Tunnel, have paid great detail to this aspect of the Lee Tunnel project. Lengthy comprehensive ‘Rag Tests’ Maik Ulmschneider have been performed on the SVP-84 Main Pump by its manufacturer KSB at its GIW Industries factory in Grovetown, Georgia USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026
    Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Prepared for: l Westminster City Council Prepared by: URS Corporation Limited November 2009 44935320 Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 November 2009 Issue No 3 44935320 Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report Project Title: Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Report Title: Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Project No: 44935320 Report Ref: Status: Final Client Contact Name: Mike Fairmaner, Sara Dilmamode Client Company Name: Westminster City Council Issued By: Document Production / Approval Record Issue No: Name Signature Date Position 1 Anthony Batten Prepared 09/11/09 Project Managers by Esther Howe Elena Di Biase 09/11/09 Research Consultant Natalie Thomas 09/11/09 Research Consultant Checked and Project Director Rory Brooke 09/11/09 approved by Document Revision Record Issue No Date Details of Revisions 1 March 2009 Original issue 2 October 2009 Revised draft 3 November 2009 Final report November 2009 Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report November 2009 Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report LIMITATION URS Corporation Limited (URS) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Westminster City Council in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by us. This Report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS. Unless otherwise stated in this Report, the assessments made assume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current purpose without significant change.
    [Show full text]
  • Examination in Public – Participant Responses Matter 7
    Examination in Public – Participant Responses Matter 7 Responses from: British Waterways Thames Water Transport for London (TfL) Westminster Property Association Organisation Name: British Waterways Reference Number: 1075 Matter 7 14 July 2010 Mr. R. Young Our Ref Westminster CS Programme Officer Your Ref 1075: British Waterways Westminster City Council Core Strategy Examination 11th Floor, Westminster City Hall 64 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QP Dear Mr. Young, WESTMINSTER CORE STRATEGY - MATTER 7 HEARING Thank you for the invitation to comment on the Main Issues for this Hearing session. We have a further comment to make with regard to Item 20: Is Policy CS36 likely to be effective, or is it too restrictive of new development and too protective of biodiversity interests? We feel that the justification that the proposed policy is consistent with the London Plan policy 4C.3 (to be superseded by policy 7.28 of the replacement London Plan) does not override our concerns. As part of our responsibility as owner and Navigation Authority of the Grand Union Canal, British Waterways is also charged with protecting biodiversity and are proud to have improved habitats and water quality across our network, which comprises Ramsar, Metropolitan Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. We therefore agree with the London Plan policy that development should not result in a net loss of biodiversity. However, we feel that the policy is rather restrictive in not supporting appropriate waterside development that is able to enhance biodiversity (through appropriate habitat enhancement measures such as green/brown roofs, timber fendering of the waterway wall and the installation of bird and bat boxes) at the same time as achieving other important social and economic aims and objectives that allow the waterways to contribute to a sustainable community.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesolithic Geoarchaeological Investigations in the Outer Thames Estuary
    Mesolithic geoarchaeological investigations in the Outer Thames Estuary October 2019 esse Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park Salisbury SP EB tel: 0122 2 fa: 0122 52 email: infowessearch.co.uk www.wessearch.co.uk wessexarchaeology Mesolithic geoarchaeological investigations in the Outer Thames Estuary by Alex Brown and John Russell with contributions by Catherine Barnett, Nigel Cameron, Rob Scaife, Chris J. Stevens and Sarah F. Wyles and illustrations by Kitty Foster Introduction This paper presents the results of geoarchaeological analysis of semi-terrestrial organic deposits recovered in three cores from the Outer Thames Estuary (Fig. 1). The cores are located up to 12 km off the current Kent coast, within an area that at the height of the last ice age formed part of a vast habitable plain connecting Britain with the rest of the European continent. Over the last 13,000 years this landscape (including the North Sea and English Channel) has been gradually lost to sea-level rise as the climate warmed and the ice-sheets retreated, with particularly rapid sea-level rise ~60m occurring during the early Holocene (11,500–7000 cal. BP). Marine geophysical surveying around the British Isles has transformed our understanding of these former palaeolandscapes, providing an increasingly detailed picture of the submerged palaeogeography of areas including the southern North Sea and English Channel (Gaffney et al. 2007; Bickett 2011; Dix and Sturt 2011; Tappin et al. 2011). Geophysical data, together with extensive borehole surveys, have been critical in identifying key locations for the recovery of deposits with geoarchaeological potential, and that may have formed a focus for past human activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Tunnel Infrastructure Projects in London
    Abstract: Active tunnel infrastructure projects in London Being the first of its kind worldwide, the metropolitan railway transport tunnel underneath the streets of London opened in 1863 in order to serve the Metropolitan Railway. Today, 150 years later, the London Underground system is serving approximately 3 million journeys per day. It has boomed again by activating challenging tunnel projects namely Crossrail, a series of London Underground upgrade projects, Thames Tideway scheme and High Speed 2 (HS2) railway project. This time however, NATM tunnelling (New Austrian Tunnelling Method)‐ known in the UK as Sprayed Concrete Lined tunnels (SCL)‐ the cutting edge tunnelling method of the still evolving tunnelling technology is employed. Crossrail is an ambitious railway project linking the east and west of London and providing connections to a number of existing London Underground stations. With total funding of approximately 16 billion GBP, Crossrail is currently the largest construction project in Europe. The upgrade and maintenance works for the London underground aims to deliver an increased capacity of the system by rebuilding and refurbishing lines and main stations, while also entailing arrangements for step‐free‐ access to the network. The speaker will present tunnel lining compositions, waterproofing system and the challenges encountered during the design, lessons learnt in terms of numerical modelling of tunnels, design management and health and safety. Moreover, the role of project‐specific guidelines and slightly tailored standards that assure client requirements in large scale tunnel projects are going to be discussed. In addition, an overview on where does the UK stand in terms of SCL and tunnelling practice are given by illustrating the successfully finished and on‐going projects that the speaker has been involved in, such as Bond Street Station, Tottenham Court Road Station Upgrade Project and Farringdon station (Crossrail project).
    [Show full text]
  • Barhale Today
    Autumn 2019 Elan Valley Aqueduct (EVA) Rehabilitation Project - final tunnel drive successfully completed The last of the tunnel drives on the EVA broke through in May. This breakthrough saw an end to the last 1.8km section of tunnel on the project, which has a total of 4.6km of 3.05m diameter tunnels. The site team worked tirelessly in delivering this difficult final drive, which was challenging from beginning to end. Despite the breakthrough being complete, we still have a lot of work to complete. We have to strip out and clean the tunnel, excavate and install a high level connection culvert and complete all the connections by the end of October 2019. This will allow us to divert the flows through the new tunnel and well house in the October isolation/shutdown. Following on from this, we have to restore the Welsh hillsides to their former glory! Barhale build on sector-leading position with pledge to ‘Time to Change’ Barhale has further committed to tackling stigma and improving workplace mental health and wellbeing with the formal signing of the Time to Change pledge. Barhale already established a reputation for its proactive and progressive approach to mental health and wellbeing. In recent years we have taken steps, which include the appointment of a board level director with a specific remit for mental health and wellbeing and the development of an NHS-backed training programme, which we are rolling out across our own workforce and also making available to partners. In the last 18 months, Barhale has also developed training specifically to build awareness and to help take on the problem of suicide in the construction sector.
    [Show full text]
  • To Download the Special Digital Transformation Supplement
    RAIL STRATEGY Network Rail’s David We look at some of the Waboso talks about key challenges facing the UK’s Digital firms as they contemplate Railway initiative digital transformation pages 12-13 pages 8-9 SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT 2018 Produced for the industry by the Association for Consultancy and Engineering Towards digital transformation MESSAGE FRO M THE EDITO R Welcome to this Infrastructure Intelligence special Digital Transformation supplement which is looking at the challenges facing consultancy and engineering firms as they grapple with the business and organisational implications of ‘going digital’. In this special supplement, we speak to senior executives from the leading technology providers whose are assisting professional services firms on the transition to a more productive digital environment. They offer their insights and advice on how firms working in infrastructure should best respond to today’s digital challenges. We also focus on some key sectors, including transport, and look at how increasing digitalisation is creating major opportunities for all companies. We also examine the crucial role of the chief information officer (CIO) and highlight how it is evolving more and more to become a key leadership position in consultancy and engineering firms. This evolution, from being regarded as the old IT department ‘guardians of the systems’ to being a strategic business leader helping their firms thrive in the new marketplace, will be a key topic at the European CIO Conference series, which the Association for Consultancy and Engineering is organising. What’s clear from all the interviews and articles in this supplement is that Produced for the industry by the Association professional services firms operating in the infrastructure sector will need to for Consultancy and Engineering work smarter and more efficiently in the future to keep up with the pace of Infrastructure Intelligence change.
    [Show full text]
  • Lee Tunnel and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Extension Scheme
    Lee Tunnel and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Extension scheme ODA Consultation Application Reference 08/01158/ODA Comments by CC Water London and South East Committee 13 August 2008 Lee Tunnel and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Extension Scheme Introduction 1. The Consumer Council for Water is the independent body that represents water and sewerage consumers throughout England and Wales. We have four regional committees in England and one in Wales. This representation is made on behalf of the Consumer Council for Water, London and South East Committee. Summary 2. The frequency and volume of storm overflows mixed with raw sewage at Abbey Mills accounts for half of the total overflows to the Tideway as estimated by the Thames Tideway Strategic Study Group. This clearly constitutes a major point source of pollution. 3. We support the action required to deal with this, and do not oppose any part of the present planning application in so far as it relates to the Lee Tunnel and expansion of capacity at Beckton to deal with the additional flows from the Lee Tunnel, and population expansion in the Beckton catchment. It makes good a clear inadequacy in the capacity of the Victorian infrastructure to move combined sewage and storm water from the main junction point of the northern interceptor sewers on to Beckton. 4. Our comments relate entirely to the value for money of the wider Thames Tideway Tunnel scheme, and are relevant to the present application only in so far as there is a necessary connection. We make them now so the planning authorities can consider how far it is necessary to address them in the context of the Lee Tunnel and Beckton planning applications, or how far they can be deferred for a full inquiry into the Tideway scheme as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan 2019 - 2024
    Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan 2019 - 2024 1 “It is written on the arched sky; it looks out from every star. It is the poetry of nature; it is that which uplifts the spirit within us.” John Ruskin – Lambeth Resident, Poet, Philosopher and Nature Lover 2 Contents Title Page Core Information 1. Summary Statement 4 2. Foreword 6 3. Introduction 8 4. What is Biodiversity? 9 5. Biodiversity in Lambeth – Challenges and Opportunities 10 6. The Benefits of a Biodiverse Lambeth 13 7. Why Does Lambeth Need a Biodiversity Action Plan? 14 7.1 Delivering On Our Priorities and Policies 14 7.2 Lambeth’s Priorities and the Borough Plan 14 7.3 National, Regional and Local Policies 17 8. The Benefits of a Biodiversity Action Plan 18 8.1 Ecological 18 8.2 Cultural 19 8.3 Economic 19 8.4 Health and Wellbeing 21 8.5 Community 22 9. Responding to Environmental Change 23 10. Providing for Biodiversity in Lambeth – Our Current Assets 25 10.1 Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) 25 10.2 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) 25 10.3 Conservation Areas 29 10.4 Registered Parks and Gardens 29 10.5 Metropolitan Open Land 30 10.6 Tree Preservation Orders 30 11. Delivering for Biodiversity in Lambeth – Habitat Action Plans 30 12. Monitoring 32 13. Resources and References 34 Habitat Action Plans 14. Built Environment 35 15. Parks and Open Spaces 41 16. Private Gardens and Growing Spaces 62 17. Railway Linesides 74 18. Rivers and Standing Water 85 19. Tidal Thames 97 20. Woodlands and Trees 107 Habitat Action Plans- Action Tables 126 Appendices 3 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Insideconstructionissue42.Pdf
    Online Construction Industry News INSIDE CONSTRUCTION www.buildersconference.co.uk BC LIVE WHO’S WINNING WORK IN CONSTRUCTION? 42 o Issue N | 2018 August | Est 2011 SEVEN MONTHS OF HS2 COULD DEFINE CONTRACTOR OF STABILITY THE FUTURE THE MONTH Published online by UK construction's Project could Kershaw positive set infrastructure Mechanical flat-line tone Services IC WELCOME Welcome LOOKING FOR SOME f someone had told me in January that, by the time August arrived, monthly contract awards would not have dipped below £4 billion in any month of the year, I would have laughed...and possibly Iquestioned their sanity. BILLS OF QUANTITIES? Yet here we are, seven months into the year and seven months into an unbroken run of unprecedented stability, the likes of which the BCLive league table has never seen before. Under any circumstances, such an achievement would be notable. But Then get in touch and let us take the pressure off you against a backdrop of growing uncertainty about the Brexit negotiations, such an accomplishment is almost miraculous; and it speaks volumes for the industry's remarkable resilience. We provide measurement support on an “as needs” basis and act as an extension Long may it continue. to your Estimating Division, responding quickly to your contract deadlines. Our philosophy is to provide clients with a professional and individual service in a CONTACTS straightforward and uncomplicated manner. Recognising that no two organisations Neil Edwards are the same, we adopt a consultative approach to support you when you need us. CEO The Builders’ Conference We can produce bills of quantities in SMM7, By using our services, you can be assured that NRM, MMHW and CESMM style in Excel your project is being handled by a professional, workbooks to your own template, or in a reputable, capable and experienced team CITE format if you prefer.
    [Show full text]
  • Anchor and Hope Lane Is Charlton's
    Our ref: APP/G6100/W/19/3233585 Gregory Markes Quod Ltd Ingeni Building 17 Broadwick Street London 3 June 2020 W1F 0DE Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY LEOPARD GUERNSEY ANCHOR PROPCO LTD LAND AT VIP TRADING ESTATE AND THE VIP INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANCHOR AND HOPE LANE, LONDON SE7 7TE APPLICATION REF: 16/4008/F 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Mike Robins MSc BSc(Hons) MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry from 19 November to 3 December 2019 into your client’s appeal against the decision of the Greater London Authority to refuse your client’s application for planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and erection of 11 buildings ranging from 2 to 10 storeys in height for Class C3 residential use, with flexible uses comprising Class B1 (Business), Class A1 – A3 (Retail/Restaurant), Class D1 (Community) and Class D2 (Leisure) at ground floor and first floor level, alterations to existing vehicular access and creation of new pedestrian access from Anchor and Hope Lane and the riverside, creation of new areas of open space and landscaping together with the provision of associated car parking, cycle spaces, refuse and recycling storage, plant and all other associated works, in accordance with application ref: 16/4008/F, dated 3 December 2018. 2. On 10 April 2019, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • The UK's Proposed RAB Financing Method for Nuclear Power Plants
    The UK’s proposed RAB financing method for nuclear power plants Professor Steve Thomas1 & Dr Paul Dorfman2 The rationale for the Regulated Asset Base (RAB), proposed initially by the UK government in its consultation paper of July 20193, for the Sizewell C project, is clear. One of the main factors behind the very high price (strike price) negotiated for the UK’s proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant is claimed to be the high cost of capital.4 If this could be reduced, the price of power from nuclear power plants financed using the RAB model would be correspondingly lower. Financiers would only offer a lower cost of capital if the risks (commercial and technical) falling on them were reduced. The model proposed raises a number of issues: What are the commercial risks and who will bear them under the RAB model? What are the technical risks and who will bear them under the RAB model? Why is the cost of capital high for the Hinkley project? Who are the potential investors? How will the energy be priced? Who will regulate the RAB and what will its function be? and Should investors recover costs before completion of the facility? The overall question is: will the RAB model produce power that is competitive with other options for reducing climate change emissions, such as energy efficiency, and onshore and offshore winds? The RAB model Under the RAB model investors would receive a ‘fair’ rate of return on the amount invested in the asset which would be annually adjusted upwards for inflation and downwards for depreciation, plus they would recover their operating costs.
    [Show full text]