Good afternoon or good morning, everybody, depending on where you're connecting from, and welcome to Iberdrola's webinar on offshore wind energy. My name is Diego Morón , Investor Relations of the Iberdrola Group, and I will be your host today. First of all, we sincerely hope you're keeping in good health and coping with the lockdown measures the best way possible. In today's session, we would like to share the view of our company on the offshore industry, the future of the technology, the prospect for the sector, and our plans and business opportunities that will lead to reaffirm Iberdrola as one of the leaders in the field. For that purpose, I'm delighted to be joined today by three of the people that are heading our efforts in this area.
Mr. Xabier Viteri, Group CEO of the Renewable Energy Business, Mr. Pedro Azagra, our Chief Development Officer, and Mr. Jonathan Cole, Managing Director of Iberdrola Renewables Offshore Wind division. After the presentation, we will give you the opportunity to ask questions to our panel of experts. As a reminder, you can only ask questions through the phone and not through the webcast. In order to give as many people as possible the opportunity to participate, we would kindly request that you ask a maximum of two questions. Lastly, I would like to remind you that the reply of this webinar will be available at our webpage, www.iberdrola.com, in a few days. Now, without further ado, I will leave the virtual floor to my colleagues. Please, Xabier, the floor is now yours.
Thank you very much, Diego. As you said, good evening or morning. Thanks for attending this webinar. I hope that it will be interesting for you. We are fully involved, as you know, in the energy transition for the decarbonization of the economy. There is no doubt that renewables-based electrification is the most effective and efficient way to achieve it and reach a more sustainable industry and society. Why are we talking about offshore today? Very simple. To underline the key role of offshore wind in this electrification process and remark Iberdrola's outstanding position to be the industry leader. Wind associations, whether we talk about Europe, Asia, or the U.S., everyone predicts massive new offshore wind capacity needs to comply with the policy targets.
Our internal assumptions, based on different outlooks, shows offshore capacity in year 2030 multiplying by 6, the capacity available in 2020 or by 30 when looking to 2050. This meaning huge investment, a lot of job creations and o bviously big CO2 emission savings. There is room enough for all the offshore players, from which Iberdrola, as a global integrated utility, is uniquely positioned based on its renewable-driven strategic focus since more than 20 years ago and the key track record that we have. Let me elaborate a little bit on this unique position. Iberdrola is one of the largest vertically integrated utilities in the world, with assets worth EUR 122 billion, having been anticipating and leading the energy transition for the last 20 years, investing in cleaner and more reliable power systems, optimizing its portfolio, maximizing efficiency, and pushing for innovation.
Iberdrola's sustainable business model with innovative, flexible, and efficient-driven execution in the three businesses, renewables, networks, and retail, has proven to work, moving from a traditional local utility in 2000 to a global diversified group. For next decades, based on our new energy context and the climate actions momentum growing all around the world, Iberdrola plans more renewables, more grids, more storage, and more energy solutions for customers. With EUR 75 billion investment in the 2020-2025 period, out of which EUR 34 billion in renewables, and more than EUR 90 billion investment in the 2026-2030 period, more than EUR 40 billion in renewables. As part of this wider group, our offshore business can benefit from the experience in networks, from the huge client base and market understanding, as well as the access to capital, as we will describe later. Sorry.
Iberdrola's renewables footprint today shows a wide geographical and technological diversified renewable operation asset based of 35 GW and a pipeline of 75 GW for future growth. Traditionally present in hydro since more than 20 years ago, the business has been, step by step, incorporating new renewable technologies. Offshore wind, bottom-fixed offshore wind, large-scale PV, standalone and co-located batteries, being now a global leader in renewable operation and asset management. With operating assets in 13 countries, more than 4,300 employees, 11,400 wind turbines, and four control centers in U.S., Spain, U.K., and Brazil.
In addition, cross advantages such as hybrid projects of onshore wind, solar PV, and/or storage are specific to Iberdrola and other integrated players and difficult to replicate for the rest. Offshore has been playing a growing role in our last 10 years, resulting in a key growth vector, as I will explain to you in the next slides, complementing the expected onshore and wind PV growth. Our strategic plan, presented in the Capital Markets Day back in November 2020, targets to double the existing capacity and EBITDA by 2025 and triple by 2030. Offshore wind plays a key role in this plan, increasing its contribution to a 25% of the target EBITDA in 2025, approximately EUR 1.2 billion, and 30%-35% of the target EBITDA in 2030, more than EUR 2 billion.
Thanks to the new offshore capacity to be installed and the higher EBITDA per megawatt contribution of this technology, which is 3x higher than onshore wind and higher than solar PV as an average. All of our offshore projects in the plan until 2025 are already defined and under construction, with returns complying with our investment standard, 200 basis points spread and secure route to market. The second-decade period growth is supported by our pipeline, as described in the next slide. Iberdrola Renewables pipeline, as I said before, amounts to 75 GW for future growth, of which 22 GW, 1/3, is offshore wind, based in attractive markets with established support mechanism, where the seabed leases and cost are at reasonable levels. Over the last months, Iberdrola has enlarged its offshore wind pipeline, entering into a number of new markets.
As you can see in the slide, half of the pipeline projects are in Iberdrola's traditional markets, where we can leverage on our local and global experience to achieve efficiencies for operations and the development of future projects. We are also taking early-stage position in new growing markets at a low cost that will give us future growth opportunities and flexibilities. All this through a winning strategy based in creating hubs, first mover in the U.S., now looking forward a huge hub in the Baltic Sea, also into a Japanese market in early-stage, which has, by the way, high floating offshore wind potential, and without forgetting more traditional areas such as North Sea or Irish Sea. Let me underline, first, the high value of the pipeline in terms of capacity by all stages of development.
Second, Iberdrola's different strategies to market for renewables that include tariff through auctions, PPAs, and the ability to match demand profiles against existing retail customers' portfolios. Jonathan Cole will enter later into more details about the project status.
Finally, try to mention that to take advantage of the huge growth opportunity that the offshore markets offer and be able to succeed, unique experience, capabilities, and innovations are constantly required. First driver, improvement of project's competitiveness, driving permanently the LCOEs down, because this is key. Main drivers for this are in-house construction using our experience to always select state-of-the-art equipment. Using our global sourcing capabilities to achieve economies of scale in purchasing equipment, either across Iberdrola, across multiple offshore projects, or within super scale projects. Using also our significant in-house projects delivery team to optimize the contract strategy and manage risk during the project execution phase.
Finally, using our knowledge, experience, tools, and data systems as the largest owner/operator of wind turbines globally to optimize the asset management and achieve best-in-class operational efficiency. A second success factor is the capability to properly understand and manage the market challenges, market design, access to grid, spatial planning, and industrialization. We take advantage of our in-house global energy management capability to optimize offtake arrangements, working with our networks business in deregulated markets to optimize the design, build, finance, and operation of the offshore transmission assets. In third place, leadership and investment in technological innovation, bigger, more efficient turbines, and with higher capacity factors. Increased focus on innovation beyond the turbine technology, logistics, installation, digitalization, operational maintenance, vessels. Finally, floating, area of opportunity set to reach commercialization by 2030 or earlier. Last but not least, the access to the capital.
Due to the huge investment levels and the cash profile of these projects, where Iberdrola is the leader in green finance. All these projects will be further delivered by my colleagues, who will describe much more in detail the main ideas that I have tried to convey to you. Thank you. Now it's your turn, Diego.
Thank you very much for your presentation, Xabier. Let's move on to the next chapter of the agenda. Please, Jonathan, the floor is now yours. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Diego, and thank you, Xabier, and hello everyone, and thank you for joining us in this webinar today. I'm going to follow the comments from Xabier and elaborate a bit more on our pipeline, and then talk about some of the challenges and the key features of success for our offshore business going forward, and then finally make some comments on the prospects for floating offshore wind. Starting first with our pipeline. On the slide, what you can see is that we are already working with a very large and very well-diversified global pipeline of projects. In fact, if you add together all of the projects we currently have in our pipeline, including partner shares, we're working on a portfolio of projects now, which is almost at 40 GW across the world in offshore wind. Our pipeline size is enormous.
The other thing that you will see is that our pipeline is very concentrated on what we would call core markets, core markets for the offshore wind sector generally, and also core markets for the Iberdrola Group. All of these areas where we are pursuing offshore projects are areas with excellent growth potential. The other thing you may have noticed if you've been following our progress is that over the past 12- 18 months, we have also been very busily adding to this pipeline, anticipating the fact that the market was becoming a very attractive one and more and more players were becoming very hungry to enter the market. What we've done is we've spent the past 12- 18 months adding to our pipeline, taking early positions in what we see being key markets for growth.
What you've seen over the past year or so is pipeline coming up in Brazil, in Sweden, in Poland, in Ireland, and in Japan. It is a very large and a diversified pipeline. I think it's fair to say it's also quite a carefully planned pipeline, and each of these markets have been quite well-chosen. The process that we usually go through to decide on a market is one where we look at a number of key factors. We look at the macroeconomic position in the market, given how long-term these projects are, we're looking for stable macroeconomic markets. We're also looking at the energy fundamentals. Is it a market that really needs the new power? Maybe because of the phasing out of nuclear or thermal power and the drive towards renewables. We look at the regulatory support.
Is it a market which is already offering stable regulatory mechanisms to develop and then take to the market renewable energy? We also consider what our own strength is in that market. You can see in our pipeline, we've tended to concentrate a lot on markets where we already have a very strong position within the Iberdrola Group. Then we look at things like the industrial capability, the supply chain capability in the market, and of course, whether we can secure projects in that market at reasonable cost. That's basically the methodology that we have employed in order to arrive at this quite significant pipeline of opportunities. Once we have identified a location as being one in which we want to participate, really the next thing that we are trying to do is achieve scale.
Probably you know from the Iberdrola Group that when we go into a market, we don't go in playing in millions of euros and megawatts, we go in with billions and gigawatts, that's exactly the approach that we're taking with this offshore wind pipeline. What we see is scale is vitally important to driving up industrialization and driving down cost, also vitally important to moving forward the technology and indeed moving forward the regulatory landscape to keep the market on track. With that in mind, we have developed what we call a hub concept in our global strategy. If you look at our pipeline, what you can see is some key hubs that have emerged. In the U.K., we have the Southern North Sea hub, where we have the East Anglia projects, nearly 4 GW of projects.
In the Baltic region, we have a hub there which started with a 1 GW hub of German projects, which at that time, many years ago, seemed like a large hub. Of course, what we've done in the past year is added more than 10 GW into that hub with projects in Sweden and in Poland and looking at other projects as well in that region. We've taken steps into the U.S., again, a market where we already have a very strong capability within the Iberdrola Group, and that's one of the reasons why we chose to become one of the early movers in that market. We've got two large hubs there, a hub of nearly 5 GW off the coast of Massachusetts and 2.5 GW off the coast of North Carolina.
We're also now moving into Asia, and our first step in Asia is in Japan, which is a very attractive market with a 45 GW offshore wind target. It's the largest single country target in the global offshore wind space. Again, we've went in there at scale, and we've already got a hub of more than 3 GW of potential projects to be working on there. Really the key feature of our pipeline here is that we've got large scale in very attractive markets that we've managed to secure at an early stage at a reasonable cost, and that's very important for setting the right foundations for our growth in future. Sometimes when you talk about a pipeline of 40 GW, it can be quite difficult to digest and really understand how that gets put into practical implementation.
What we're showing here on this slide is a more simple timeline, which shows you the projects that we see being the most promising projects over the course of this decade. Okay. The years that you see on this slide are the years in which FID, so the final investment decision, is envisaged for each of these projects. What you can see here is quite a credible, progressive plan where we have a succession of projects coming through in a relatively stable, continuous fashion. Starting this year with the Vineyard project in the U.S., we're expecting the permit to be issued in the next month or so and the FID to come this summer. That will be the first large-scale U.S. project, and it will be done by us and our partner.
We're also working on the East Anglia Hub project, which is a 3,000 MW project opportunity in the U.K. That we will be taking to the next auction process in the U.K. that should open later this year, taking the FID next year. We have another large U.S. project, another 800 MW in Park City, which already has secured the PPA and it's going through the permitting process. We expect to have that permitted into FID by 2023. We have a German project called Windanker, which will go through a process this year in Germany. What's relevant there is that we actually have a last call right on that project. Whatever the outcome of the auction is, we will be given the opportunity to take that project forward.
We're beyond that working on a series of other projects in the U.S. with our Kitty Hawk projects in North Carolina and more of our Massachusetts projects being brought forward as and when they secure their route to market and the permits. I mentioned our Japanese portfolio, we've got projects there eligible to go into auctions in 2022, 2023, and 2024. We're expecting the first of those projects to succeed and get through FID by 2025. We're also looking to get our first Irish project through an auction process by the middle of the decade, and built by the end of the decade. What we expect to see towards the end of the decade is more projects from our Japanese credible but quite significant buildup of projects there in that timeline.
If you added all of that together, that's around 18 GW of projects being worked on between now and the end of the decade. That gives us a lot of flexibility and opportunities for growth and acceleration. The other thing that's worth noting is that around 80% of the projects shown on this timeline are in markets where there's some kind of price stabilization or price support mechanism being issued. The vast majority of these projects have very limited market risk or merchant risk. It's also quite well known in the offshore wind sector that over the next year or two, there's going to be a lot of auctions, tenders, processes coming up around the world. I think the good thing to point out here is that our pipeline and our capability correlates very nicely with those processes.
Within our own pipeline, we have more than 3 GW of projects eligible to go and compete in processes that will be run in the U.S. and Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York. We also, as I mentioned, have projects in the U.K. ready for the next auction there, in Germany for the next auction there, and for the next three auctions in Japan. We are also looking at bidding into processes for new pipelines. We will be participating this year in the Polish processes to try and secure a pipeline there. We are planning to participate in the French processes which are running to build upon the existing projects that we have got in construction in France. As we have announced, we are in a partnership with Total to bid into the Danish process as well.
On top of that, there are other processes that are quite well reported, like the process in the Netherlands and in Taiwan, and we are eligible to participate in those if we wish to do so, and a decision on that is pending. What you can see is that as well as that very strong pipeline we've got having the opportunity to go and secure its position, we've also got the opportunity to gather even more projects in other markets on top of that as well. Giving us a very strong growth opportunity across our global pipeline. If I move on then, just to talk about some of the things that Xabier touched on around the key success factors that will be necessary to deliver a pipeline like that in a successful way.
I think probably when you think about these success factors, it probably reminds you why this is a market that has quite a high barrier to entry because there are certain key attributes you really have to have that are not easy to obtain. One of the most important is this ongoing need to drive down the levelized cost of energy. Yeah, I think sometimes we take for granted the phenomenal progress we've made in offshore wind already, driving about 75% out of the cost of offshore wind over the past 10 years. That's something that we need to keep pushing forward with. We see a number of key factors to that. One of those key factors is scale and technology.
I've already mentioned this when we're talking about the reason why we go for these super hubs, but also the reason why our projects themselves tend to be large scale projects or aiming to be around the gigawatt mark or more. In the case of things like East Anglia Hub, 3 GW . The economies of scale that you can get from that, the operational synergies you can get, the industrial step change that you can stimulate, the technology change that you can stimulate is really important for continuing to drive down the cost.
By having these large scale projects and by having a portfolio of projects being done in tandem allowing you to get scale across the portfolio, and of course, being a company like Iberdrola, which is one of the largest procurers of electrical equipment across the world, we are able to drive scale across our entire value chain and also make sure we're always staying at the cutting edge of technology. That's something which is vitally important, and that's how we will continue to drive the CapEx down, drive the operating cost down, and drive the efficiency up. It's also very important in a market like this that you have a global presence on the supply chain. As I said, Iberdrola is one of the largest purchasers of electrical equipment.
We're probably the most significant and sophisticated buyer of wind turbines in the global market, and we've procured around 12,000 wind turbines in our history. No one knows more about doing that than we do. We have very good long-term relationships with key suppliers. What that allows us to do is stay at the cutting edge of technology. In fact, each time we have chosen a turbine for each of the offshore projects that we're building, that turbine either didn't exist or only existed in prototype at the time we chose it. That was a very well-managed process using our expertise to allow us to make those decisions in a very sound, rational way. By working very closely with the key technology suppliers, we are able to stay at the cutting edge of technology.
We are able to help them stay at the cutting edge of technology and make sure we are developing projects that are fully taking account of technological advancements of the future. That's a very important factor. The other thing which is very important is your ability to execute mega projects. Across Iberdrola, not just in our offshore business, but in our hydro business, in our networks business, that's something we've been living and breathing for decades. We have a very strong track record in our offshore business of delivering big projects on time, on budget, with a good health and safety record. That's what we've done with our West of Duddon Sands, Wikinger, and East Anglia ONE projects to date. Of course, with the systems and processes and people we've got in place, we see that being a recurring feature of our business going forward.
What's important is we have 600 full-time professional staff working within our offshore business every day living and breathing offshore wind projects and delivering offshore wind projects. We have a huge amount of knowledge and expertise in-house. We're not relying on external parties. We're not relying on partners. We can do this ourselves, and that's really important as the market grows exponentially, that you have that control in-house of those key resources. The final thing on driving down cost and in some ways this is the next big frontier of cost reduction in offshore wind, and it's probably an area that hasn't been fully exploited to date. That's in the area of asset management, where there's an awful lot of opportunity for improvement. One of the things that we are I think quite proud of is our track record in asset management.
This is not something that's easy to obtain. New entrants to this market cannot just acquire this kind of knowledge and expertise. It takes a long time to build up the kind of capability you need to be best in class in this area. We think that we have that. Using our hub concept, we are able to develop huge operational synergies, big operational centers that drive a lot of efficiency, but also we are able to tap into the global expertise of our global renewables business. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that we are operating over 12,000 wind turbines across the world. No one is gathering more data about turbines than we are, and we are able to take that know-how, take that data and put it to good use in developing best in class systems and processes for operating our wind farms.
Of course, we are investing in technology, digitalization, AI, robotics, et cetera, in order to really move to the next stage. A stage where we're moving away from time-based maintenance models to condition-based maintenance models, where you're using data to diagnose issues long before they happen so that you're actually hardly needing any reactive maintenance. You're doing your maintenance in a planned way, which is about 2.5x cheaper than doing it in a reactive way. These are all the types of things that we are working on in order to continue driving the efficiency of our business up and the cost of offshore wind down. The other things, as Xabier mentioned, are market related issues that will affect offshore wind in every market. Now, probably not any need to go into these in much detail, but just to touch on those.
Every market in the world that wants to have a large scale offshore wind sector has to deal more or less with these four issues. What is the market going to look like in the future? In a market driven by renewable energy. What is the price setting methodology? What is the route to market? That's an area that needs to be addressed. How do you integrate this power into the transmission system? How do you design a strategically planned, resilient, interconnected transmission system? These are issues that need to be addressed. We have a lot of expertise in that area, of course, because of the size of our networks business with Iberdrola. As the sector gets bigger, how are we dealing with spatial planning issues and working with other users of the sea, in particular, fishermen in the maritime sector?
Again, that's something that we're already very engaged in. This concept of the just transition. Not everyone will benefit from the energy transition initially, because a lot of people learned their livelihoods from the fossil-based industries. What we need is a sensitive way to try to make sure that industrialization is happening in the right place. Really, the key thing here is that you have to be taking a very long-term view. You can't just be in this market to do a project. You have to be here to support the industry. We are a very long-term asset owner operator working with governments to help solve these problems in the long term, and that's what's making our pipeline all the more sustainable and all the more deliverable.
Final thing to say then is on technology of the future. I think when we talked earlier on about the size of offshore wind, as Xabier mentioned, 1,000 GW of potential capacity by 2050. I think it's fair to say that if that's going to be the reality, a substantial amount of that has to be floating. About 70% of the resource out there is floating offshore wind. Floating has to be taken seriously if we're going to achieve the potential of offshore wind. It's fair to say that right now, today, floating is more expensive than fixed. It's also true to say that a floating structure, whilst the first of the kind is very expensive, is much more prone to standardization and therefore to industrialization and economies of scale.
When you take that into account and you consider that floating projects can be easier to install, when you consider that they can be installed in areas that capture more wind, what you can see is if you can get to a sufficient level of scale in the floating market, you can really drive down the cost. We've been quite quietly active in floating for about 10 years now, working on various demonstration projects. Right now, we're most publicly active in the FLAGSHIP project, which is a European Union part-funded project being installed in Norway quite soon. We're working on the demonstration side of this, getting the technology ready. What we really want to do is get to commercial projects as quickly as possible, because that's where you get scale and that's where you get cost down.
In our pipeline already in Japan and in Ireland, we have floating projects. We're going to be looking to get floating projects in Scotland and in France, and the process is being run over the next year or so. We're also actively trying to get floating projects running in Spain as well, because that's how we see the market being developed. Our aim, if we can get that scale, if we can get some of these projects up and running, is by the end of this decade to have floating offshore wind capable of competing with fixed offshore wind. Okay. Final thing, just to quickly recap then on what Xabier and I have been saying. Iberdrola has been a pioneer in the energy transition for more than 20 years.
We've been living and breathing the energy transition and in particular growing a leadership role in the renewable sector. We've grown a big pipeline in offshore wind with good opportunities in the short, medium, and long term. It's a pipeline in good markets that we've managed to obtain at reasonable cost. Because of our strong capabilities in the Iberdrola Group and in this offshore business, we're able to deliver best in class in terms of project delivery, asset management, et cetera. We're also using that expertise to pioneer new technologies to grow the market. I think that however you look at it, this market's going to be a big one, and we feel with what we're showing you today that we are very well positioned to play a significant role in that market. Thank you very much. Diego, I'll pass back to you.
Thank you very much, Jonathan, for your presentation. Now Pedro Azagra will cover the third and last part of our agenda. Please, Pedro, now the floor is yours. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, Diego, and thank you, Jonathan and Xabier and everybody. I think you know the presentation I'm going to be making today. I want to kick off with a little bit of an introduction, which is why we are here and how we managed to get here. I like always to say and compliment different parts of my company. All of you that you're listening to this presentation and today and in general or you're listening to us on a daily basis, I think you understand that this is not we happen to be here. I think the first thing is, we have the leadership and the vision and the strategy of the chairman and CEO. I think that's something that is clear there for 20 years. We have been doing a lot of things ahead of a lot of people.
When suddenly something becomes the hot topic for today, we've been there for many years. Not only the vision and the leadership and the strategy that he has, but also the day-to-day of focusing the business 24 hours a day. You have the financing and the investor relations angle. We've been there communicating at the right time, in the right way for many years. Finally, you have the operations that I think is definitely where we have to deliver in order to run these assets appropriately. Within that framework, I think the first page I'm going to be presenting to you is a little bit the history. There are many times that we work as a machine. We are very well prepared, each of us, to contribute.
I think when you look at what I call the 2010s until the 2020, as you can see, each of these potential assets has a history. We did not start in an auction paying a lot for something, did not start in a negotiation the day before yesterday, did not start with a huge premium being paid. I think we're back to almost 2003. We were started with a JV ahead of a lot of people in terms of moving into this potential dynamic called offshore. As you know, in Wikinger, that was acquired in 2010. If you remember East Anglia, we closed around 2010 also a joint venture with Vattenfall. In the case of the joint venture with Vattenfall, it's very interesting because we moved into a demerger. You take care of something, we take care of something.
Very interesting where we are and where other people are. I think after that, as you see, we already have one asset in operation, more to come. We even sold a stake to crystallize the value. Saint-Brieuc, we did a joint venture long time ago. There was a moment, I think one of our partners was really not there for the long term, for whatever reasons. We took them out. I think Baltic Eagle, we acquired them at the right time, in the right place. Vanguard, I think if you compare that with other transactions going in the U.S., I think it's definitely 2017, the right moment with the right partner to acquire the right assets.
From that point of view, if you look at the 2010s, we did probably around 1,400 MW of offshore, either real or potential, which is now, and you can see, and Jonathan presented that very well, a reality. I can tell you, the acquisition per megawatt is quite small. If you are referring to the fixed payments that all of this cost to us, and we're excluding the acquisition of the stake in Saint-Brieuc that we did from our partners, I think we're talking probably well below the EUR 30,000 per MW. I think where you're speaking about the total cost of all these 1,400 MW, including the potential earn-outs, variable payments in all these assets, I think we're probably below EUR 50,000 per MW. I think those are numbers that show how comfortable we are as a good machinery.
Some of us need to bring some of these projects and acquire them and these companies at the right time, then we have the right teams to deliver them and bring them to the finish line. I think this is probably the first example. I think now, we are in a different moment. Okay, we got to the 2020s. Where are we? Same thing. I think suddenly, in the middle of the virus, in the middle of different things going on globally, we did not stop. We thought it was the right moment to give another push. Okay. It's a push that is going to be there for the next 10 years. I think we focused in Japan in two transactions, one, as you know, with Macquarie, another one with Cosmo. I think we focus in Sweden, we focus in Poland, we focus in Ireland.
Again, when I'm thinking about how many megawatts, we are in excess of 10,000 MW. When you're thinking about the cost per megawatt, I think we're speaking probably below EUR 5,000 per MW of fixed payment in all these assets. Then you're speaking probably around below EUR 40,000 per MW, including any other potential variable payments. Those amounts for more than 10,000 MW, as you can see, is we're doing things and developing and buying at the right time, at the right price to prepare ourselves again for what's to come next. As you know, is the next 10 years ahead of us. I think one probably, and I'm moving more into the valuation potential impact in the withdrawal of some of the parts and other value considerations as we usually do with all of you, following Ignacio Cuenca, Pepe Sáinz, and Diego's guidance, is very simple.
We have right now in the EBITDA of the company, probably in excess of 75% more or less, of EBITDA coming from A, AA, or AAA rated countries. Okay? I think that's something that when you look at the offshore development, I don't think we're going backwards. I think if you see most of the countries where we are, as you can see, they are all A or above. From that point of view, or A- and above, but most of them AAA, AA, as you can see. When you think about our discount rate, when you think about the risk of our businesses, I think the country risk, the impact that it may have in the discount rate potentially to be used for valuation purposes, I think we're very comfortable we're doing on a material basis, putting the eggs in the right place.
The next page, I'm using a research by Global Investment Bank on the 5th of March of 2021. I think we've tried to show here two things. I think there are many companies right now going on and potentially doing IPOs. If we were to split Iberdrola in 23 different small renewable companies, we probably are worth EUR 300 billion or something like that, okay? Just comparing that with those small companies going public. I tried to compare here. We tried to show to all of you a little bit things that other people explain very well, but I think we don't have anything to hide. I think right now, using that research, you have Iberdrola with almost 19 GW of potential pipeline right now.
You have probably 1.7x, 2x , 4x , 5x more than most of the other people who are involved in this business. I think when you look at the presentation that we have just seen and some more details I'll give now, I think there is an additional 19 GW available right now for us of additional pipeline. If you see the numbers, compare with our main competitors, it starts to be 3x -10x more than those competitors of pipeline. I think in terms of what we want to do ahead of us, I think it's a clear picture that this is absolutely something we feel very comfortable with.
One comment here that I'd like to do, I think, when you think about probably one of our major U.S. competitors, one of our major European competitors, and we think about the strategy and the future, some of these people have said, "I don't want to be in offshore." Well, when you already have EUR 500 million EBITDA in offshore, what you see ahead of us, this beautiful pipeline of projects and value creation ahead of us, I think, to have by 2030, zero in assets in offshore, zero in EBITDA, seems to us something that is probably not adding a lot of value for the future of a company, sum of the parts and potential value creation. I think it's very clear for us that we believe we are in the right place, not today or we started paying a premium yesterday to buy 50% of something.
As you can see, we've been there for 20 years. I think in the next page it's very interesting that the sum of the parts right now, and we just focus on saying analyst one, analyst two, analyst three. More or less right now, they are assuming that 8% of our enterprise value is coming from offshore. That's more or less around EUR 10 billion of enterprise value allocated to that business. I just want to use this number because I think we're going to be comparing that. As I said, many companies going public, small companies, many companies doing transactions paying some numbers. I think we're going to see potential gaps of value that we see and we have there. We've been with this business for a long time.
It's probably the right time to make use of those benchmarks that other people are using for themselves, also for us. When we see at Ørsted, one of the leading companies in the sector right now in offshore, and that's where they focus, as you very well know. We just use seven analysts. We try to do an average of them. It's a very consistent sum of the parts. They do some operational assets. They have over 4 GW of existing assets, and they apply a multiple more or less of EUR 6 million enterprise value, into megawatts that they have. When they refer to advanced construction, also very consistent, probably around 2.7 GW being in advanced construction.
As you know, looking at the numbers being showed in this sum of the parts valuation by analysts, I think you're getting to a conclusion around EUR 5 million, more or less enterprise value per MW. When you look at the pipeline announced until 2030, I think it's also around 20,000 GW. Sorry, 20 GW. Usually, same thing for the rest of the pipeline beyond 2030, which is around 25 GW. I think we're referring probably a little bit less than EUR 500,000 per MW, okay, in terms of enterprise value. That's a very simple way of explaining the sum of the parts of Ørsted. I think when you go into us, and I think we're going to see here some very simple numbers. When we look at the operational assets and we just apply those values, I think it's very simple.
We get to almost in excess of EUR 7 billion enterprise value. When you think about what we call the advanced construction, and as you can see, COD 2023, we have around 0.5 GW there available. We're talking about EUR 2.5 billion, more or less. When you think about the pipeline below 2030 or until 2030, again, we have 17 GW. That's another EUR 7 billion of value. When we think about the additional 6.7 GW that we have ahead of 2030, I think we're going to EUR 2.7 billion of value. I think something very interesting, we are already in this presentation referring to an additional pipeline of 13 GW, which is not even considered in these numbers we are showing. I think when you look at that, you get very comfortably to a EUR 19 billion enterprise value based on these peers, sum of the parts multiples.
I think, as you can see, there is probably EUR 9 billion of gap in value that I think is being allocated to some of our competitors. In our case, we're missing that. I think if we go to say, "Well, let's look at EBITDA numbers," okay, because again, some of our competitors seem not to have and will not have EBITDA in this business. That's okay. I think more for us, we're happy with that. I think some of these people that are already with that business, they are right now trading, as you know, at certain EBITDA multiples right now, probably in the case of Ørsted, 2020 around 25x . If you apply that to our EUR 500 million , almost EUR 600 million of EBITDA, I think that's giving you a EUR 15 billion value for the business.
Again, that's around EUR 5 billion above the average of the sum of the parts allocation of value given to our offshore business. Let's go into transactions. We've been analyzing more than 100 transactions. We've been there, as you've seen right now for 18 years in this business, and definitely for the last 12 years ahead of many people. Well, when you look at the transactions and we just go country by country, looking at different transactions at the same stages of construction, development, pipeline, et cetera, well, we happen to get again to around EUR 19 billion of value for this business, which compares with the EUR 10 billion we mentioned before. Again, more or less an additional EUR 9 billion of value versus the average of the sum of the parts that we have right now as Iberdrola.
I think the next page is probably something that we are asked many times. Why are you not doing this? Why are you not doing that? What you have done, other people do. I think we always try to follow what we think we should be doing. As you can see, I think there is something right now going on here, something, you're not doing networks well. We have been buying networks since 1998. I think everybody was focusing renewables, we were buying networks. I think everybody's focusing offshore. As you can see, we have been in offshore for many years, and doing the right acquisitions at the right time, and having the right team from an operational point of view to take those assets now into the finish line. I think, when you look at some value creations, let's look at three examples.
I think East Anglia, we monetized at that time with the highest multiple, with hours availability, CFD numbers, et cetera, a multiple in a transaction. That implies probably around EUR 1.6 billion of value creation. Okay. I think when you look at the U.S. pipeline, you know very well the little millions, and we're speaking about units of probably no more than in excess of EUR 10 million, what basically allowed us to go into having 50% and 50 plus one share when the assets are in operation in our joint venture in the U.S. I think when you look at recent transactions, very similar transactions. If you apply that just to what we have in the U.S., I think there's probably a EUR 3 billion value gap there.
When you look at East Anglia Hub, the current lease auction, the last one that has happened, you think about the gigawatts that we have there, again, in excess of EUR 1.5 billion of value creation. Very easily you get to potential EUR 6.3 billion value creation, which is something that also from a value point of view, when you compare to the sum of the parts of other people, potentially we're missing there. Just as a summary, if you look at the analyst peers, sum of the parts, probably EUR 9 billion, same thing for present transactions. If you think about the trading multiples that other people are having right now for this business, probably at least EUR 5 billion of gap. Again, with two or three transactions, you very soon reach EUR 6 billion value creation being there.
Just to finish, not to make this presentation very long. What we want is to show to you is, we believe we have been, as a very well-coordinated team, in Iberdrola, bringing the right transactions for many of these assets you see now as a reality at the right time in a very cheaply way. As you heard from me, is very low tens of thousands. I think that allows the business people, now the operational guys, to take that into reality. Second, very good rating in most of the countries where we do businesses in this arena. I think that also confirms no pressure in the discount rate. Finally, I think there is a significant gap valuation. No potential if you were to do something, just taking a look at sum of the parts that other people have right now. Different methodologies take you there.
I think we are very comfortable on this type of review to show you that we did the right things at the right time, and we always try to anticipate. We don't care if people follow us. We just try to do the best thing that we can for all of you at the right time. That's all, Diego. Thank you very much.
Well, thank you very much, Pedro, for your presentation. Now, I think that we can jump directly into the Q&A session. Please, operator, we are now open to questions. Thank you.
Thank you. The first question comes from Alberto Gandolfi from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Hi, it's Alberto. Thanks for taking the time for shedding light on this portion of your business. I'll stick to the two-question rule. The first one, I'm afraid is not on offshore, please bear with me. It's a big debate out there. You have a slide early on, I can pick up the number in the second of the slide, but I'll first give you the concept and the question I'm asking, which is, you are showing an EBITDA for the combined renewable business, I'm talking about slide seven, going from EUR 2.4 billion in 2020 to more than EUR 7 billion in 2030. You are talking about in, I think a couple of slides prior to that, if I'm not mistaken, yes, slide five, you talk about EUR 75 billion investments and clearly many more in the second half.
I was trying to ask you, there's about EUR 4.5 billion of increase in EBITDA over the period. Can you tell us how much capital employed you're using? Can you maybe give us a bit more detail about the EUR 4.5 billion increase? The EUR 4.5 billion is a net increase. You're going to have a gross increase much greater. I don't know if it's EUR 7 billion, EUR 8 billion, or EUR 10 billion. There's clearly incentives that expire. I don't know what power price assumption you have, but probably lower than the current levels. I think I was trying to understand incentives and power prices as a way to try and get to understanding how to calibrate basically, the actually offshore, sorry, EUR 2.5 billion- EUR 7 billion EBITDA versus the install base. Just to be clear, yes, sorry, this is offshore. I misread the slide.
What is the return on capital employed? What are the underlying assumptions on that? Trying to assess, basically gauge the IRR. The second question is on page 25. Very interesting slide here. I mean, 19 GW pipeline, 18.6 GW additional. Can you maybe bring this together with the slide 13? How can you have reasonable confidence that you're going to translate those 19 GW in that timeframe? What's the proper difference, I'm not sure I quite understood, between the 19 GW and the 18.6 GW, the incremental pipeline over there? That would be great. Thank you so much.
Okay. Thank you, Alberto. I think that on the first one, that was quite complex and long. I think if you can streamline to a couple, because it's capital employed and several things on the first one. I think that on that one, probably we have several things to be addressed, and I don't know if they remain all of them clear, no? If you can clarify on your first one what specifically your doubts are. Okay?
The reason is that I was wrong myself because I thought you were putting a slide about bigger portion of the business, but it's only offshore. My point is, you have an offshore there's an EBITDA going from EUR 2.4 billion-EUR 7 billion. I would like to know, please, what's the capital employed for those 10 years, and what adjustments should we do to the EBITDA? Because I suspect that there are some incentives that are expiring, and maybe you have a different power price assumption. If you can give me the elements, or you can just tell us, look, we estimate that over the next 10 years, the return on capital employed before taxes on this project is 8%, 9%, whatever. It's basically a question on the ROCE on your conversion of the offshore pipeline that I'm asking. Thank you.
Okay. The first one would be on Return on Capital Employed basically, and the second one would be translation of the pipeline basically into actual projects and megawatts.
Thank you. Yeah.
I don't know. On the one on the return on capital, I don't know, Xabier, probably you can address it. On the one related to the pipeline, I don't know if Pedro probably can address the second one. Okay?
I could give you the information, but not just now. Right? I need some time to give you this detailed information about what is the capital employed in this growth and what is the impact. The only thing that I can say is that obviously, when you look at the figures in different years, so 2025 and 2030, there are some investment that actually has not been producing during the whole year, during the last four years. I think that we can provide you with this information in detail, but not right now.
Okay. No, no.
In case, I don't know.
If I may follow up, maybe is there any idea on project IRR you can provide? What do you think the evolution of the returns of this? Whatever metric you want to use, can be IRR, can be EBITDA per megawatt hour, whatever you think is relevant, the way you look at it, would be very helpful to see how much value you can actually extract from those investments. Thank you so much.
No, the value that we are extracting, as I mentioned in my presentation, is fulfilling our, say, investment standards, and this is at a spread of around 200 basis points. Okay. Then depends on how much is our cost of capital in this moment. I actually understand that we are getting this 200 basis points, so we are around this moment in all of these projects, and depends on them, figures that could be from 6% onwards. Right. It will depends on what is the evolution of this cost of capital.
Thank you.
Nevertheless, I am very happy to provide you with the detailed information, but just some time with that. Right?
Hi, Alberto, it's Jonathan. Just one thing to clarify, though. The slide you're referring to, it's not suggesting EUR 7 billion EBITDA from offshore. It's suggesting EUR 7 billion EBITDA for the renewables business, of which 30%-35% is offshore, to around EUR 2.3 billion- EUR 2.5 billion. Just getting it clear, just so you're not misunderstanding the slide.
No, exactly. That's why, because I was trying to understand what was the total capital employed referred to that, but there's lots of bits and pieces moving. Happy to take offline, and apologies, I tangled myself at the beginning of the question. Thank you.
On the second one, Pedro, maybe on the translation of the pipeline?
I think on that one, just to help you on the numbers. When you think of the operational watts, Wikinger and East Anglia ONE, that's in excess of 1,200 MW . I think Saint-Brieuc, as you know, is 500 MW. That's the installed capacity plus under construction. I think before 2030, you have Germany, which is Baltic and Windanker. That's almost 800 MW. You have East Anglia Hub, that in excess of 3,000 MW. You have Sweden, which is in excess of 2,000 MW. You have the U.S., that you have Vineyard, Park City, Kitty Hawk, an additional Vineyard pipeline, that's probably in excess of 7,500 MW. You have Japan with Aomori and the Acacia wind farms, which is in excess of 3,000 MW . That gets you more or less to that pipeline before 2030 of approximately 18,000 MW.
I'm trying to compare that with that research that was mentioned. When you think about pipeline after 2030, I think you're speaking about Poland. We thought about 1,000 MW. I think you're thinking about Sweden, an additional probably 2,500 MW or in the sense of that. You're thinking about Ireland, let's say around 3,000 MW. I think that's going to take you to an additional 6,500 MW more or less. I think that's going to take those numbers to the 25,000 MW, more or less, that you were referring, that we were referring.
Now we have an additional potential upside. We're thinking about Sweden, an additional 4,000 MW , and we're thinking about Brazil, an additional 9,000 MW. I think those numbers are the ones that take you to an additional 13,000 MW in a potential pipeline. If you add that to what I said about the 6,500 MW on excess of that gives you the additional 1,900 MW.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you very much, Alberto. In any case, we can follow up at any time if you want. Next question, please, operator.
Thank you. The next question comes from Harry Wyburd from Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Hi, everyone. Thanks for taking my question. A couple of them, but they are actually totally unrelated. The first one is just, I guess seabed prices are a super hot topic at the moment. I just wondered if you could give us your view on where you think seabed prices are going to go globally. Obviously, there has been a specific U.K. case, but do you think there is going to be a sort of contagion risk here in that what is going to happen is that all governments globally are going to try and use this as a way to extract money from the development process? How would that scenario sort of impact your returns outlook? The second one is really a technical one, and again, sorry to come back to really a follow-up in many ways to Alberto's question on slide 25 on the pipeline.
One of the things that we've sort of struggled with is what is the definition of pipeline? I guess in the oil industry, there's sort of element of standardization for reserves. Certainly my perception is that there's no real objective definition of pipeline. Obviously for the legitimate big companies like you have a quite strict set of criteria. If you look around the industry, really some stuff can get classified as pipeline, even maybe when there's not maybe that much sort of real basis for it. How do you tackle that when you look at your peers, and how do you actually compare apples for apples with pipeline? Is there, or should there be an industry standard here as to what really is pipeline and what's not? Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Harry. Jonathan, maybe you can address on the trends for the seabed, and I think that given the fact that on 25 slide, I think it's on the side of Pedro. Okay? You will address that. Okay? That okay? Perfect. Thank you.
Okay. Hi, Harry. Thanks for the questions. The topic of how much money is being paid for seabed rights is obviously a hot topic just now. What we've seen recently in the U.K. is some parties very hungry to acquire seabed rights and therefore very willing to pay high prices. I think there's a couple of things you have to keep in mind there. Firstly, that was the first competitive process in the U.K. for more than 10 years. It's a market which has been undersupplied with seabed. It's not really an appropriate market test because the market's somehow been distorted by the lack of supply for such a long period of time.
I think that what we should see happening over the course of this decade is more regular processes for giving out seabed, which would then hopefully drive more rational and more market appropriate pricing. The other thing I would point out to you, though, just in terms of our own position, if you might, what happened in the U.K. was noteworthy, but what's also noteworthy is we've already got 3,000 MW of projects still to be built in the U.K. Our pipeline was already there, and we were somehow not affected by that process. Similarly, the next big auction might be in the U.S. We've already got 7,000 MW of pipeline secured there.
Even if over the next few years, there's still quite a frenzied approach to bidding, we have built up such a strong pipeline in these core markets already that that's not going to have any significant impact us in the short term. In the long term, as I say, I think the market will start to stabilize as you see a more regular process for giving out seabed being developed in each market.
Okay. In the second question, I think when you look at the pipeline, you already say, I think we struggle many times about these small companies and others that they are priced on a pipeline that you don't even know what it is. I think the first comment I would make is, where you are seeing what we are doing right now comes from three years ago, four years ago, five years ago. It's not something we are doing something right now for the first time or paying for something. I think the results are there, and that comes from many years ago. I think when you look at the pipeline, probably I'm going to focus on that one between now and 2030, I think we're referring to operational assets, that's okay, under constructions in Saint-Brieuc, that's okay.
When we review Germany, its Baltic and Windanker. I think in Jonathan's presentation, you can see very clear when that's expected to kick off. When you look at the East Anglia Hub, you know the new rounds, it's going to be there. I think we are in a very unique position to take care of that. When you think about the U.S., I think we have names. Vineyard, Park City Wind, Kitty Hawk, an additional Vineyard pipeline. I'm just giving the example, New York, we may not have won the first one, I think these guys want to go ahead either by the end of the year or next year with another one.
Since Sorry, Japan, we mentioned specific names, as also Jonathan mentioned, when we announced the transaction, we made it very clear that allows us to be in the second round and later in the third and fourth. I mean, early next year, then two, three years from now. Within 2030, I think we're speaking out of that, probably around 14,000 MW, 15,000 MW. I think we have added an additional 2,300 MW in Sweden because we are already there. I think we have in the right place, because long-term, as you know, the country need to substitute certain energy for new energy, and therefore, in the nine years ahead of us, seems quite realistic that that's something also potentially that should be there. Is this enough? No. Maybe there are more things to come.
I think we have heard different places like Brazil, we have heard Oregon. Okay, but in this case, I think it is probably something that allows you already to know very specific, around 15,000 MW, where we expect them to happen.
Okay. Many thanks.
Thank you very much, Pedro. Please, operator, next question.
Thank you. The next question comes from Rob Pulleyn from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Hi. Thank you. A couple of questions also from myself. Firstly, you mentioned cost reductions in the development of offshore wind so far. I think this is an area of significant misunderstanding as we look ahead over the economics for the next 10 years of investments. To the point of the journey so far and how much further we have to go, what innings are we in? What minute of the game? What percentage of further cost reduction or LCOE reduction would you be willing to venture we shall see over this decade in offshore wind? The second question is, you spend a lot of time making a compelling case that the valuation of the stock does not discount your offshore wind business.
The logical question is, if the market continues to not assign the value that you think is due to this business, would you look to crystallize it in other ways? For example, a minority listing or a structural partner or some other options? Thank you very much.
Okay. Thank you, Rob. I don't know the first one, you have done or Xabier. Xabier, you can discuss.
I can add to that. We're talking about what are the figures that we see in terms of LCOE reduction in this decade. I think that probably for the figures that we have now, projects with FID this year, to the projects that we can expect to have FID close to the end of the decade. I understand we are going to see an additional reduction of around 40%. Due to reduction in CapEx, due to reduction in OpEx, which actually, as Jonathan has mentioned, is going to be even more dramatic and very likely also due to the increase in the output in the capacity factors of the projects. It means the figure is around 40%, even a little bit more than the 40%, close to a 40% reduction in the coming years.
Okay. In relation with the question of valuation, I think the answer I want to give you is very simple. I don't think we are saying we are not reflecting down any value. We are trying to show that if you look at other people valuation right now, we're missing that. From that point of view, I think our first duty is what we are doing right now, which is explain it, show that we have assets when many people don't have assets, and we have pipeline when many people claim to have pipeline, and they don't have so much pipeline. I think we are always trying to show things that are certain.
I think what we are doing right now is the first step of many other road shows, one-on-ones and conversations we want to have with all of you just to make sure you understand that if we compare ourselves with other people, I think there is room for value in our company right now, as we have explained. I think, let us perhaps spend some time on the educational side, because I think there are reasons for that.
Thank you very much. If I may just a quick follow-up on that second point, is, I think you're right to try and educate the market, just hypothetically, if we have the same conversation in 12 months time, and the market treating Iberdrola as the diversified integrated utility it is, which has lots of things going on and lots of exciting stories, still has not, shall we say, closed this gap that you portray on the slide pack today. At what point do you believe it would be in shareholders' interests to crystallize this valuation through corporate action?
I think my answer will be, let's speak in 12 months from now. I think in the meantime, markets go up, go down. Valuation of our competitors, suddenly they lose 20% of their value. I think we're very comfortable we have room there. Let us explain to people what potentially we're missing right now compared to others, and I think let's see what happens.
Fair enough. Thank you very much. I'll hand it over.
Thank you, Rob. Next question please, operator.
Thank you. The next question comes from José Ruiz from Barclays. Please go ahead.
Yeah, good afternoon, everybody. The first question is a follow-up on the previous question. You were talking about the LCOE coming down 40%. Is the same drop in terms of CapEx per megawatt that you are expecting? The second question is basically is a clarification. Excuse me for this, but what did you acquire in all these pipelines in Poland, Japan, and so on, last year? Did you acquire leases? Did you acquire early stages of the project? Yeah. Thank you.
First one for Xabier, I think, okay? The second one probably for Jonathan, okay? Or Pedro, whoever you prefer. Xabier, I think you can address the first one.
I can just start with the first one.
Okay, great.
I was mentioning that the reduction in the LCOE or the figure was obtained by a decrease in the CapEx, a decrease over 30% in the CapEx. OpEx also have another decrease, basically over 20%, more than 20%, really close to figures around 30%. The capacity factor increase for the figures that we can see now over, say, 5% or together could bring you to this possibility of achieving 40%.
Thank you, Xabier. Jonathan, on the second one?
Yeah. Just for clarification then, so on the pipeline that we've shown on the global map, every project that's shown there is a project where we have already obtained some degree of development rights or leases to develop the projects. Okay? We've already got some kind of position there to be developing the project. In the case of what we've acquired in Japan, what we've acquired is a portfolio of projects, two of which are in quite an advanced stage and are almost about to be entered into an auction process, so quite advanced development rights. Another two or three projects are a bit less advanced and will take longer to develop. That's what we've acquired initially in Japan.
Only a week or so ago, we announced another acquisition, which again, is a project with quite advanced development rights, just about to go into an auction. In the case of Poland, what we've done is we've entered into a development partnership with a partner who has been working on Polish projects for some time. Because of the changes in the regulations in Poland, what's happening is effectively that there will be processes to allocate the seabed. What we will do is with our development partner and using all the information that they've obtained over the years, we will go and bid into and seek to win.
That's incidentally why you don't see the Polish project yet appearing on that global pipeline chart, because at this stage, it's not a secured right, and so we don't include it. At this stage, it's simply an opportunity that we're talking about for sure.
Thank you.
Thank you, José. Next question, please, operator.
Thank you. The next question comes from Mark Freshney from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for your presentation, and thank you for allowing me to take some or ask some questions, should I say. Firstly, on the Vattenfall projects in the U.K., which are adjacent to your own ones, it was a big shock when the courts removed the planning permission for Vanguard, which is a massive project, and it looks less likely Boreas can get planning permission, which is a big problem for the industry, the government, and Vattenfall. What are your thoughts on there, and have we hit a brick wall in the U.K. where it's very difficult to get planning permission? That's my first question.
Just secondly, on the returns that your colleagues in oil and gas are taking. On my modeling, given the big upfront lease payments, I think, the Crown Estate, some of your competitors are taking 3%-4% IRRs on development projects with development risk. What is your modeling showing for those projects? Thank you.
Maybe Jonathan, being an expert on the U.K., even more an expert on the U.K., you can address the first one. The second one, I don't know if between Xabier or Jonathan as well, whatever you prefer. All of us are wanting to answer, so we have a lot of experts willing to answer. Okay? It's your call, whoever wants to take the second one. Jonathan.
Okay, thanks for the questions, Mark. Starting with the position with permitting and the recent judicial review in relation to the Vanguard project. First thing to say is that's a very specific set of circumstances, very specific to that project, because of the way in which that project and an adjacent project were being permitted in two separate processes running six months apart, and there was questions about the extent to which they should have been considered cumulatively or separately. In relation to other projects, for example, our East Anglia projects, that's not a relevant issue because we are running those permitting processes as one conjoined process. I think that's quite a specific thing that's not going to read across to other big projects.
I think it's fair to say that spatial planning and development is becoming increasingly a hot topic in certain parts of the country because of the upscale and deployment of offshore wind. I think what you're seeing is government policy and other measures being taken to try to address that in the longer term and prevent that from holding back the industry. Reforms in the planning system, reforms in the grid planning system to try to take some of the heat out of those issues. I don't know. In relation to the second question, Xabier, do you want to answer or do you want me to?
Well-
I can't tell you what the oil and gas companies returns might be. What I can say is in relation to that recent U.K. process, some of those projects, depending on how long you expect them to be paying the option fees for, but let's just say it's quite a bullish assessment of around four years, are going to have to somehow deal with a payment of around GBP 1 billion. Okay. If you add GBP 1 billion onto the cost of an offshore wind project, you have to deal with that in one of three ways. Either you lower your returns, you increase your prices, or you squeeze your supply chain and make the project more efficient. That's the challenge that those project developers are now going to have to deal with.
How do they reconcile that in a very competitive market where pricing is set by a competitive process, and in a market where the supply chain is already being squeezed quite heavily? For us, that's not an issue because we are not carrying those types of costs in any of our projects, as Pedro has already mentioned.
Okay. Maybe Xabier can make a clarification.
If you allow me. Jonathan, in relation with the question, I think that maybe this payment, we cannot talk about returns in this case, but we can talk in terms of LCOE. In terms of LCOE, we are talking figures that could be important figures. Somehow, you have your tables. We are talking the figures of two digits, probably. It will depend on how much you are paying, is in the very low two digits or a little bit higher. These are important figures. Talking in terms of returns, when I mentioned to Gandolfi before that we were talking about over 6% upwards, obviously, I was thinking in the projects looking forward by the end of the decade. All right? The ones that are going to enter into a more, let's say, competitive and more important moments of where is going to be a higher competition. Right?
Obviously, the returns that we're obtaining for the existing portfolio, as it can be achieved clearly for the figures that Pedro has been showing and the ones that we are running nowadays are much higher figures.
Pedro, maybe you want to make a final comment as well.
Yes. On the oil and gas companies, I think probably the first thing to congratulate is that for many years, many companies in that sector and many networks, they were opposing a lot of green development in many countries, et cetera. To see those guys now supporting finally a green development in the economies and in many places is very welcome, because I think the countries and the world needs that. I think at the same time, that's a sector that has different metrics to be analyzed and valued. It has also different analysts, different investors. They look for different things that you have in our utility sector. I think from that point of view, probably once they have to disclose better the type of moves, investments, acquisitions, returns they are doing.
They may have some issues with perhaps different margins in the upstream business, different margins in the offshore business, different margins in renewable business. I think probably they're going to have to explain how different the business is going to be and why they're doing X and not Y. I think in general, I think great that finally these people, they're also on board, from a world point of view, supporting the green development.
Thank you, Pedro.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mark. Thank you as well. Thank you. Operator, please, I think we have just a couple more questions so people wanted to ask. Thank you.
Thank you. The next question comes from Jorge Alonso from Société Générale. Please go ahead.
Hi, good afternoon to everybody. My first question is regarding what made you think that you are very good position for the next tenders, in the sense that in the U.K., could it be because you have not paid for the seabed? Do you think you have better reserves? It could be because you have the hub and then you think the real, the CapEx per megawatt will be much lower than the peers? In the U.S. because of all the different reasons? Just to try to understand from a quality perspective, what makes you think in the three main different areas, the U.K., U.S., and the North Sea, that you will be winning the tenders to put the pipeline becoming into operating assets.
The second one will be related to the I know that you do not provide a CapEx figure, but on average, what could be the average for the CapEx in the U.S., U.K., and the North Sea? If you think you can materially beat that average in each of the regions, or you will be more close to the average CapEx in one particular region. Thank you very much.
Okay. For the first one, I don't know who wants to make kind of like a summary of the present. Okay. Jonathan will make a brief summary of the presentation to try to make a summary of it. For the first question, maybe Xabier, you want to take the second one on the CapEx. Is that right? Okay, perfect. Jonathan?
Okay. Thanks, Jorge. The reason why we think we would be competitive in each of these processes is a number of factors. One is that in each case, we are building in an area where we've already established an industrial footprint, and we've already established projects. We're getting a lot of industrial and operational synergies on top of that. Second is the projects that we're developing are at the right end of scale. They have large scale, which again improves efficiency in procurement and also in construction and operations. The third thing is that these projects have been developed with an eye on the future and new cutting-edge technologies. Again, because of the size of the projects, we're able to engage in conversations about being at the cutting edge of technology with our suppliers.
Then on top of that, we deploy our credentials in terms of project execution, asset management, the ability to finance in the most optimal way. You put all those factors together and yeah, we believe we would be as competitive as anyone else could be in this market at this time for those projects.
Yeah. Sorry to interrupt. Is there a particular reason because one particular project has, or you think you are in a better area because of the wind resource and that gives you Because in the U.S., the last one, I thought you have all these kind of skills and where all the projects are awarded and not yours. Just in order to understand if there is a really specific issue that you think gives you an advantage.
Well, in the U.K. scenario, the projects we've got, East Anglia Hub, we're talking about massive-scale projects in an area which is quite close to shore, excellent wind, good seabed. As good as you'll find anywhere else. All the boxes are ticked there. In relation to the U.S., I think if you're referring to New York, what we were doing there was taking a project from New England down to New York, and what eventually happened was the project local to New York was the one that won it. In the next few auctions coming up, they're coming up in New England, in Rhode Island, in Massachusetts. There'll be one in Connecticut as well. Again, I think that the competitive capability differs from auction to auction.
In the auctions coming up, we see that we've got all the right capabilities, and we've got the right projects in the right locations to be able to bid in and win in those processes.
Yeah. In relation to the CapEx, the difference the CapEx in each of the areas, I think it depends basically of two things. One is, how far the offshore industry has been developed in the area, right? Nowadays it's clear that Europe is some steps forward in comparison, for example, with the U.S., right? The second thing that makes difference from one sector to another, clearly is what are the local content that are required into the projects. This could, in some cases, make some projects more expensive or less expensive, depending on how broad the different opportunities of development of acquire or purchasing we can have.
Nevertheless, for us, we treat all our projects from the global basics, from our global design perspective, and also from our global procurement teams. In that ways, I think we feel as competitive as anyone else in any other areas where we are actually developing projects.
Thank you, Xabier. I think that we have time for a last question coming from Elchin, if I am not wrong. Please, operator.
Thank you. The next question comes from Elchin Mammadov from Bloomberg Intelligence. Please go ahead.
Thanks for taking my questions. I have two. The first one is on LCOE. You had a nice chart on LCOE reduction on page 15. Does that account for the fact that we could potentially see higher debt costs with a rise in bond yields, higher leasing costs, and permitting issues, potentially increasing the overall cost of the project? That's on LCOE. The second one is on ScotWind. My understanding that Iberdrola plans to participate in it. What do you think, will it be dominated by floating or fixed foundation projects? I'm not expert on Scottish seabed and their depths. If you could help figure it out, that would be great.
Thank you, Elchin. Jonathan, do you want to take on the first one on the LCOE factors that are considered? Maybe, Xabier, you want to touch on the second one on ScotWind. Is that correct? Okay.
Yeah. Okay. On the LCOE, our LCOE projections are mostly driven by technical factors or driven by a reduction in CapEx brought about by scale of projects and size of turbines. Brought about by a reduction in OpEx, brought about by technology, scale of projects, size of turbines, and operating efficiency, and then brought about by increase in capacity factor, which is again, driven mostly by technology and asset management practices. Those are the three main ingredients in us driving down cost of energy. There is, of course, a sensitivity in the levelized cost to cost of capital. The assumption that we are making is that through the course of these projects that we're talking about developing in this decade, that we can maintain a steady cost of capital with room to optimize if we need to.
In relation with the ScotWind, I will say just the first sentence, and I will leave Jonathan to finish because as a Scotsman, he probably knows a little bit more the scene over that area. Obviously, I think both fixed and floating, but very likely floating is going to be ahead of the fixed possibilities. Jonathan, please correct me if I am wrong or just be more precise in the answer.
Well, yeah, you're absolutely right. I think one of the key drivers for the Scottish process is to catalyze a floating offshore wind industry in Scotland. That's one of the reasons why there was a positive announcement about the auction going ahead more or less in the same format as previously described yesterday in Scotland, because they're keen to get the process going and get these projects going. I would expect it will be a combination, but there will be more floating projects in Scotland by the end of this process than you see probably in any other market.
Okay. Thank you very much. I think that Pedro has a final remark to be done before we say goodbye. Pedro?
Yes, Diego. As a general comment, I think based on some of the questions, I think we wanted to make sure that everybody knows that the chairman, Pepe Ignacio, Diego, all of us, we're always focused on value creation for shareholders. Okay? There should be no doubt about that. That's our main purpose all the time. I think this is another effort to be transparent, trying to put on the table information in a more detailed way. I think we have a long track record of crystallizing value. We have a track record of experience with partners, with sales, anticipating to be in the right place at the right time.
As you have seen, doing very many transactions many years ago that allow us to be at the right place 10 years later. From that point of view, I think count on us always on being available to be transparent, and the focus is 100% always on value creation.
Thank you, Pedro. Well, I think that this was the last question. I want to thank, before leaving, Xabier, Jonathan, and Pedro. Believe it or not, we've looked very coordinated, but Xabier is in Bilbao, Jonathan is in the U.K., Pedro is here with me in Madrid, so apologies if there has been some kind of whatever technical mismatch, but I think that it's been really great to hear you. Thank you very much, the three of you. We'll do the rest with this. We finish the session. We hope you found it useful and informative. I would like to thank you for your time. Please stay safe, and we really hope to see you soon. Bye now.
Bye-bye. Thank you.