Greenpeace threatens to sue Crown Estate for driving up UK energy prices
Greenpeace UK claimed the Crown Estate viewed the seabed as “an asset to be extracted for profit and exorbitant bonuses” and warned it could take the public body to court.
The campaign organization accused the Crown Estate of “monopoly profiteering”, claiming it was inflating energy bills and increasing costs for offshore wind developers and ratepayers.
The intervention comes days before a high-stakes auction in which energy companies will compete for the rights to build new wind farms on the seabed.
The Crown Estate, which manages land and property owned by the King and provides income to the Treasury and the Royal Household, controls the leasing of seabeds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, though not Scotland. By paying option fees and rent to secured sites, developers generate significant income for the property.
Stating that the property generated over 1 billion pounds in revenue in 2024-2025 and that profits have increased rapidly in recent years, Greenpeace said that it has turned the seabed into the most lucrative source of income.
The group also said the King’s official income would rise from £86.3 million this year to £132.1 million in 2025-2026, “almost entirely due to profits from offshore wind”.
Greenpeace said the threat of legal action followed a “lengthy correspondence and face-to-face meeting” with Crown Estate management. The campaign group is now calling for an urgent review of the tender process, which in its current form places a heavy burden on billpayers in the UK.
The group said the current system risks “double charging” bill payers; firstly due to higher rental costs and again because operators are being paid to switch off turbines because the energy produced by turbines in Scotland cannot be transmitted south to England where demand is higher.
The UK’s drive to expand offshore wind will be hobbled by unnecessary costs and inefficiencies unless the sector is reformed, Greenpeace warns.
“The Crown Estate must manage the seabed for the benefit of the nation and the public, not as an asset to be acquired for profit and excessive bonuses,” said Greenpeace UK co-executive director Will McCallum.
“We must leave no stone unturned in seeking solutions to reduce energy bills that cause misery to millions of households. Given how important affordable bills and clean energy are on the government’s agenda, the chancellor should use his direction powers to call for an independent review into how these auctions are run.”
He added: “If the issue is not resolved before the next round, we may have to let the court decide whether what happened was legal.”
Greenpeace also called for “excess profits from the last round of auctions to be invested in marine recovery, i.e. restoring damaged marine habitats to a healthier state.”
In an email IndependentThe Crown Estate said it did not recognize the basis for Greenpeace’s concerns.
“Greenpeace misunderstood the Crown Estate’s legal duties and leasing processes,” the organization said. “Option fees are not fixed by the Crown Estate. They are set by developers through open, competitive auctions and reflect market appetite at the time.
“As our net proceeds are returned to the Treasury, the option fees help ensure that taxpayers benefit from the necessary value from the development of our scarce and valuable seabed resource.”
The statement added: “Crown Estate is accelerating offshore wind in line with government policy to rapidly advance the energy transition and improve energy security.”
The debate follows news that more than 100 countries have reduced their dependence on fossil fuel imports and saved hundreds of billions of dollars by continuing to invest in renewable energy sources. International Energy Agency last week.
