OFFSHORE WIND FARM

Arcadis Ost 1

Baltic Sea, Germany – 348 MW

April 2015

Project owner KNK Wind GmbH

Shareholders

WV Energie AG, Frankfurt/Main, GermanyKNK Ocean Breeze GmbH, Frankfurt/Main, GermanyIKB Innsbrucker Kommunalbetriebe AG, Innsbruck, AustriaSBV Stadtwerke Bad Vilbel, Bad Vilbel, Germany

Financial/Commercial advisor PwC PricewaterhouseCoopers AG, Hamburg, Germany

Number of wind turbines 58 wind turbines of 6.0 MW each, total capacity 348 MW

Hub height 100 m above sea level

Grid connection capacity 350 MW

Net energy production 1,463 GWh p.a.

Energy tariff EEG compressed tariff of EUR 184/MWh for 8 years plus EUR 149/MWh for 3.3 years

3

THE PROJECT AT A GLANCE

4

• The Project is located approximately 19 km offshore, northeast of the island of Rügen. It is placed just inside of the 12-mile-coastal-zone of Germany in particular Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

• The plot has been indicated as site for wind turbines within the land development plan of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern from 2005.

• The general approval of the state (Raumordnungsverfahren) has been granted at the beginning of February 2013.

• The construction permit (BImSchG Genehmigung) has been granted on September 9th, 2014.

• The plot shows an average water depth of 43 m. The site investigations have shown first a layer of mud (5 to 10 m) followed by soft sediments (20 m), bolder clay (10 m) and finally chalk.

• A wind study has been undertaken by DNV-GL Garrad Hassan Deutschland GmbH and has been confirmed by anemos GmbH.

• A full met-ocean report has been provided by COWI and Ice Conditions have been submitted by Karna Research.

• As per the regulations of the Infrastructure Planning Acceleration Act („IPAA“), 50Hertz Offshore GmbH is obliged by law to connect the project to the power grid. A pre-engineering study concerning the electro technical infrastructure (HVAC substation & internal grid) has been executed by DNV KEMA GmbH Dresden.

• The position of the project in the Baltic Sea so close to Rügen implies a number of advantages compared to the well known sites in the North Sea.

SUMMARY/OVERVIEW

5

SUMMARY/OVERVIEW

6

Characteristics Arcadis Ost 1 General NorthSea conditions Advantages Arcadis Ost 1

Mean significant wave height 0.8 – 1.3 m 1.2 – 2.8 m• More flexibility for installation and service• Greater variety in vessel concepts• Less weather down times

50 year wave height 12.6 m 20 m• Less loads for design• Less steel for foundations• Reduced access height (lower transition peace)

50 year extreme wind speed 36.6 m/s (3 sec.) 50 – 70 m/s (3 sec.) • Less max loads• Increase of weather window

Current No relevant current 2.0 – 4.5 m/s (4-9 kn)

• No scour protection necessary• More flexibility for installation and service• Easier access to WTG• Increase of service window• Less impact on foundation structure• Positive impact on use of bubble curtain

Wind speed (hub height) 9.6 m/s App. 10 m/s • Only marginally lower wind speed and revenues

Ice conditions No formation of ice Low risk of ice• Normally ice is a big issue in the Baltic sea• Arcadis site has no historical ice production• Floating ice though has to be considered

SUMMARY/OVERVIEW

Advantages Arcadis Ost 1 vs. North Sea position

8

Project location

• The project is located app. 19 km northeast of the island of Rügen. The site plot is such that it stays exactly inside the German coastal border line (12-mile-zone)

• The project will be vaguely visible at the horizon seen from the northern coast of Rügen (Cap Arcona)

• The project lies between two major shipping routes and touches the northern border of a submarine testing area.

• All these restriction have given the special shape of the wind farm area.

• On the right the location of wind turbines, the Offshore Substation (OSS) and the helicopter area (green corridor) is shown corresponding to the survey of DNV KEMA.

Position of Arcadis Ost 1 (red marked). Position wind turbines and USP with helicopter corridor.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION – Wind farm AO1

16

=

= 1 54º51'13,77"N

Arc O1/ I2

=3

=4

=

13º33'19,75"E54º50'34,75"N 5

== 7

= 8

== 10

= 11= 12

=Arc O1/ IV =

18

=19

=

29

=30

=31

=

=33

=34

=35

=36

=

37

=

=

44

=45

=

=47

=48

=49

=50

=51

=

1=

=

=

59

=

213º45'57,9"E54º47'1,68"N

13º41'35,86"E54º47'51,14"N

60 17

54

53

52

46

38

32

Arc O1/ V

Arc O1/ III=57

=

13

= 14

=

15

=

=21

=

Arc O1/ I=I=

24

=

55

=

25

=

=27

=

28

=

5 =40

3º33'49,74"E =41

=42

=43

=

56

=

58

=

4

3

4º49'55,47"N

13º36'48,94"E

9

6

39

26

23

22

20

9

Wind farm layout

The wind farm layout has been optimised to maximise energy yield. A turbine spacing of close to 1 km reduces wake effects and extends the product life of the turbine due to turbulences.

The wind farm layout also had to respect:

• an existing data / telephone cable

• access corridor to the substation via helicopter

• avoidance of radar reflections for the military radar station at Putgarten

• international ship traffic routes incl. safety zone

The wind farm layout and positioning could be selected regardless from any other wind farm. At present there is only one wind farm shown close-by in the BSH overview. Although this wind farm is colliding with a ship route its external wake effect has been considered 4 years after the start-up of Arcadis Ost 1.

Site characteristics

Water depths of the project area are in the range of between 41 and 46 m below LAT with a mean water depth of 43 m below LAT.

Site investigations have been carried out by FugroDeutschland GmbH in 2011. 5 drilling points have been selected to represent a section through the site as a whole.

Furthermore a multi channel seismic investigation has been executed at all 58 wind turbines location (incl. OSS location) by Fraunhofer-IWES in 2013.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION – Wind farm AO1

Wind conditions

• The wind study has been conducted byDNV-GL Garrad Hassan Deutschland GmbH.

• Its results have been confirmed independently by anemos GmbH.

• The average annual wind speed under the P50 scenario comes to 9,7 m/s at the hub height of 100 m.

• As the main direction is from West / Southwest there is almost no wake effect from other wind farms.

1 0

PROJECT DESCRIPTION – Wind farm AO1

11

PROJECT DESCRIPTION – Wind farm AO1

Electro technical infrastructure and grid connection

• DNV KEMA engineering has finalised a pre-engineering study concerning the electro technical infrastructure of the offshore wind farm including the internal grid as well as the HVAC substation.

• As per the regulations of the IPAA, 50Hertz Offshore is obliged by law to connect the Project to the power grid. The connection to the German grid will be realised by a high voltage AC cable running across the island of Rügen. The metering point will be on the substation, thus no transmission losses must be taken into account. As 50 Hertz Offshore is building up a 220 kV offshore grid in the Baltic Sea there will be no AC7DC converters necessary, which always have been the bottleneck for the grid in the North Sea being realised by TENNET. In addition 50HERTZ OFFSHORE only has to install 3 grid connections until 2019, all of them within 60 km from the shore. The AO1 connection will be the shortest one. Thus the risk of cable failure will be reduced considerably. DNV KEMA is coordinating the technical interfaces between the Project and 50Hertz Offshore on a regular basis.

• The public planning and permitting process of the grid cable is on-going.

1 2

Financial Advisors PwC PricewaterhouseCoopers, Hamburg, Germany

Legal Advisors Dr. Thyssen, Hamburg, Germany (public right, permitting) Norton Rose Fullbright LLP, Hamburg, Germany (contracts)

Project Management Arcadis Deutschland GmbH, Potsdam, Germany

Environmental Impact IfAÖ, Rostock, Germany

Wind Assessment DNV-GL Garrad Hassan Deutschland GmbH, Hamburg, Germany anemos GmbH, Reppenstedt, Germany

Electrical Design DNV KEMA, Dresden, Germany

Structural Design IMS / COWI Joint Venture, Hamburg, Germany

Geotechnical Consultants Arcadis Deutschland GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany Grundbauingenieure Steinfeld und Partner, Hamburg, Germany

Soil Investigation Fugro Deutschland GmbH, Berlin, Germany

Maritime Risk Studies DNV, Denmark

Radar Analysis EADS Cassidian, Bremen, Germany

Advisory Team / Major Consultants

PROJECT DESCRIPTION – Wind farm AO1

1 3

Project status

• Regional Zone Planning (ROV) permit has been granted • Preliminary soil investigation completed• Design basis completed• Completed pre-design based on the Alstom Haliade turbine• Construction Permit (BImSchG Genehmigung) has been granted on

September 9th,2014• Execution 2016 - 2019

Overall time plan

The time plan has been divided in 3 phases:

• Phase 1: until financial close in Q1/2016• Phase 2: for production and installation from 2016 until 2019• Phase 3: for operation and maintenance

Details of the planning are shown on the next page.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION – Timeline

20151. HY

20152. HY

20161. HY

20162. HY

20171. HY

20172. HY

20181. HY

20182. HY

20191. HY

Financial close

Design phase

Formation + WEA Design process

Design certification

Design process – Cable

Design process – USP

Production phase

Steel-Order

Production – Pile

Production – Jackets

Production – USP

Production – Cable

Installation phase

Installation – Pile

Installation – Jackets

Installation – USP

Installation – Cable

Installation – WEA

Startup

PROJECT DESCRIPTION – Timeline

The Project has undergone a detailed financial analysis. This analysis has been conducted in close cooperation with PwC.

Alstom has given a firm bid for the supply of their 6 MW Haliade turbines, with a life cycle of 25 years.

The foundation has been designed and priced by the JV COWI_IMS. The prices have been derived from the numerous offshore projects both JV partners are currently involved in.

The logistics and the installation procedures have been undertaken and priced by COWI_IMS andvan Oord. A 30 % downtime for bad weather has been considered, which is a high value for the Baltic Sea.

The pricing for the internal grid as well as the substation has been calculated by DNV KEMA. It has been aligned with the present costs of similar parks in addition.

A contingency of 60 M€ on top of the CAPEX of 1.14 bn € should be considered.

1 5

FINANCIAL VIABILITY