Diagnostic Toolkit for Reducing Regulatory Barriers to Solar, Wind and Pumped Hydro Storage in the European Union

9. Offshore wind

Abstract

Offshore wind offers large-scale, high-capacity renewable generation with increasing technological maturity. This chapter examines the regulatory and governance frameworks shaping offshore wind energy deployment, identifying the principal barriers and emerging good practices across Europe. Its development is often constrained by complex maritime spatial planning, overlapping jurisdictional competences, and protracted permitting and environmental assessment procedures. The analysis further explores challenges linked to grid connection, offshore infrastructure coordination, and cross-border project governance. Together, these elements provide a comprehensive overview of the regulatory barriers affecting offshore wind deployment and highlight policy approaches that can enhance efficiency, investor certainty, and the timely integration of offshore capacity into Europe’s electricity system. A self-diagnostic questionnaire helps policymakers assess the legal framework through the main barriers identified.

9.1. The potential of offshore wind

Offshore wind energy is an important component of Europe’s renewable energy strategy, offering vast untapped potential, particularly in the North Sea, the Irish Sea, the Baltic Sea, and parts of the Atlantic. Stronger and more consistent wind resources at sea enable offshore wind farms to achieve higher capacity factors compared to onshore installations, making them a key element in meeting the EU’s climate goals.

Despite higher upfront costs compared to onshore wind, economies of scale and ongoing innovation are driving costs down, making offshore wind market competitive. While offshore wind was initially an emerging technology, there is now strong competition for available space for offshore wind farms, leading to a market for the development of such technology (Nieuwenhout, 2024[1]).

Offshore wind is expected to grow rapidly worldwide in the coming years (IEA, 2024[2]). According to the European Commission’s Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy, the EU aims for 300 GW of installed offshore wind capacity by 2050, a significant increase from current levels (European Commission, 2020[3]). Europe accounts for 45% (34 GW) of total installed capacity, making it the second-largest region in the sector, after Asia. Europe experienced a record year in 2023, commissioning 3.8 GW of new offshore wind capacity from 11 wind farms across seven countries. The Netherlands led with 1.9 GW of new capacity, making it the region’s largest market for new additions, followed by the UK (833 MW), France (360 MW), Denmark (344 MW), Germany (257 MW), Norway (35 MW), and Spain (2 MW) (Global Wind Energy Council, 2024[4]).

Recent technological advancements, such as floating offshore wind, have expanded deployment opportunities in deeper waters where traditional fixed-bottom turbines are not feasible. This allows for the exploitation of offshore wind resources that were previously inaccessible and may enable countries like Portugal and France to develop offshore wind farms beyond shallow seabeds. Europe leads the global floating offshore wind market, commissioning 37 MW in 2023 – 79% of global additions – bringing its total floating capacity to 208 MW, representing 88% of global installations. This growing segment, alongside expanding conventional offshore wind capacity, highlights Europe’s strong potential for further wind energy growth (Global Wind Energy Council, 2024[4]).

There is still a wide gap between capacity and potential in Europe. As of 2024, offshore wind capacity in the EU reached 21 GW, representing 2% of the region’s electricity demand (Wind Europe, 2024[5]). The Global Wind Energy Council forecasts that approximately 77 GW of new offshore wind capacity will be connected to the grid between 2024 and 2030, with an additional 84 GW expected between 2031 and 2033. However, this falls significantly short of the EU’s Offshore Renewable Energy targets (EMBER, 2025[6]). Countries where significant growth is expected include Ireland and Poland, which have both set high targets, as well as Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands (Global Wind Energy Council, 2024[4]).

This gap between potential and projected deployment underscores the need for investments and the relevance of regulatory reform to enable such developments. As offshore wind has the capacity to deliver low-carbon electricity in a way that is cost-competitive, but this potential is not yet widely seized, the regulatory environment needs to be adapted to the characteristics of offshore wind in order for the potential for offshore wind to be achieved. Awareness that the current policy context needs to be adapted to provide better conditions for investments in offshore wind led the European Commission in 2020 to present a dedicated EU Strategy dedicated to the sector (European Commission, 2020[3]).

Multiple regulatory dimensions need to be aligned with the needs and characteristics of offshore wind. Countries need to ensure that their regulatory frameworks are conducive to offshore wind exploration (whilst also taking account of other public interest objectives), and this includes the overarching comprehensive legal framework, but also maritime spatial planning, permitting processes, and grid integration frameworks (European Commission, 2023[7]).

This chapter explores the regulatory barriers for offshore wind. It focuses on three main barriers, spatial planning specific to offshore wind, notably the seabed allocation (Section 9.2.1), permitting, with issues specific to offshore wind (Section 9.2.2), and the challenges faced to connect to the onshore grid (Section 9.2.3).

9.2. Regulatory barriers for offshore wind deployment

9.2.1. Spatial planning, location choice and seabed’s allocation

(To undertake a self-assessment on spatial planning, see questionnaire in section 9.3)

One of the crucial aspects in the development of offshore wind energy concerns the choice of location of the wind farms. Maritime Spatial Plans (“MSP”s) are comprehensive maps of marine areas that define, both spatially and temporally, the types of activities permitted in different parts of the sea. They therefore define the general framework and rules for spatial planning at sea, and the legal instruments used for the actual selection of offshore wind sites. For good example of MSPs, see Box 9.1.

Maritime spatial planning is a tool that allows to manage trade-offs between clean energy and marine conservation. MSP serves as a key tool for managing marine resources coherently, ensuring the sustainable coexistence of clean energy development, marine protection, and adequate space for other activities such as transportation, fishing, and recreation (European Environmental Agency, 2024[8]). Contrary to onshore wind where spatial plans are often identified at local level (see Chapter on Onshore Wind), MSPs are developed at national level and may often affect neighbouring countries within the same sea basin (European Commission, 2024[9]).

Designating specific areas for development under MSP is important for offshore wind developers, as it reduces uncertainty and potential conflicts with other maritime activities. These plans allocate areas for various activities, including offshore wind, helping developers identify suitable sites and facilitating long-term planning. Whilst the EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive1 required coastal Member States to submit comprehensive Maritime Spatial Plans by 2021, only 6 Member States met the deadline to submit final MSPs2 even if many have in the meantime submitted first generation plans. The Directive also requires MSPs to be reviewed at least every 10 years.

Box 9.1. Preparing planning roadmaps

The example of the Netherlands and Romania

The Netherlands: An environmental pre-assessment of offshore wind sites is envisaged. The Dutch Ministry of Climate and Green Growth (formerly Economic Affairs and Climate) is conducting an Offshore Wind Ecological Program (Wozep), which was established to expand the knowledge base about how wind farms affect protected species. In addition, Wozep’s mandate is to strengthen the knowledge base on how wind farms affect protected species and allows policymakers to prepare future wind farm roadmaps (i.e. planned areas for wind development in the coming years) with a more robust understanding of potential ecological impacts, thereby enabling more accurate and sustainable planning decisions.

Romania: Romania's new Law on Offshore Wind Energy (Law No. 121/2024) which entered into force on May 30, 2024, establishes a comprehensive legal framework for implementing offshore wind energy projects, particularly in the Black Sea area. One of the key ways the Law reduces regulatory barriers is by streamlining the permitting process, but the Law also addresses maritime spatial planning. It mandated the Romanian Ministry of Energy to conduct a specialised study within three months of the law's enactment to determine suitable maritime perimeters for offshore wind development. This was undertaken with the publication of the new "Offshore Wind Roadmap for Romania" published by the World Bank in 2024 offering in-depth analysis and strategic insights and for developing a successful offshore wind industry, further supporting the realisation of Romania's estimated 76 GW offshore wind potential.

A key recommendation from the World Bank is for Romania to develop a proportionate Offshore Wind (OSW) spatial plan, incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in line with Good International Industry Practice (GIIP). This process should involve sensitivity mapping of environmental and social attributes, including consideration of avian migration routes. Additionally, it should assess the cumulative impacts of multiple wind projects to avoid unintended environmental consequences. Stakeholder engagement at every step will help ensure transparency and early identification of potential conflicts. This will help facilitate the early designation of offshore wind energy areas and build broad-based support for future development.

In parallel, the Ministry of Energy (MOE) ad the Ministry of Development, Public Works, and Administration should integrate offshore wind into the next revision of Romania’s National Maritime Plan, formalizing the spatial planning process. This approach will help provide a structured, transparent framework for future offshore wind development.

Source: https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/functies-gebruik/windenergie/ecologie/wind-zee-ecologisch-programma-wozep; (World Bank, 2024[10])

Coordination is critical in Maritime Spatial Planning to avoid conflicts and reduce delays in offshore wind development. Without effective coordination among stakeholders – such as energy producers, maritime industries, environmental agencies, and local authorities – projects risk overlapping with other marine activities, causing lengthy approval processes and costly setbacks (IRENA and GWEC, 2023[11]). A fragmented approach can lead to inconsistent decisions and regulatory bottlenecks, significantly slowing deployment. Clear and well-implemented MSP frameworks that involve wide participation ensure that offshore wind development is harmonised with other maritime uses, reducing uncertainty and enabling more predictable and efficient permitting processes.

Given the generation profile, size of offshore wind farms and the need to connect to infrastructure on land, these are often tendered. Complementary to MSP is therefore increasing information by countries regarding the plans for future tenders as this increases transparency for developers. In the EU, RED III requires Member States to publish information on the volumes of offshore renewable energy they plan to achieve through tenders, in order to provide greater planning predictability and certainty for investors.

Multiple countries often share the same sea basins, and it can create overlapping interests. This increases the importance of coordination of MSP, as without cross-border cooperation, fragmented approaches may lead to delays, inefficient use of space, and increased costs, ultimately slowing deployment.3 This is the reason that Regulation TEN-E requires Member States, the European Commission and TSOs to collaborate on the development of Offshore Network Development Plans (ENTSO-E, 2024[12]). A good example of existing coordination is the North Seas Energy Cooperation (NSEC) that includes 8 countries and supports coordinated planning and development of offshore wind beyond national borders and have just recently issued a tender planning for the 2023 to 2030 period.4

Member States adopt varying approaches to maritime spatial planning for offshore wind, ranging from fixed-location to more flexible systems. The fixed-location approach, used by Germany and the Netherlands, designates specific marine areas for offshore wind development to avoid spatial conflicts and promote sustainable resource use. Germany’s Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency defines wind energy areas in the North Sea and Baltic Sea under the Offshore Wind Energy Act, while the Netherlands’ 2030 Offshore Wind Energy Roadmap specifies new wind farm locations up to 2030. In contrast, the open-door approach allows developers to propose projects at any location not reserved for other uses, as seen in Belgium, where applications are subject to public competition. The zonal approach, employed in the UK, offers a middle ground by identifying strategic zones where developers can choose specific locations. Some countries, such as Denmark and France, combine these approaches, offering both centrally planned areas and open applications, balancing structured planning with developer flexibility (Nieuwenhout, Ceciel, 2023[13]).

Designating pre-assessed suitable areas for offshore wind provides additional legal certainty for developers and investors. The proactive assessment of areas that can be prioritised for development ensures that areas with high technical and economic potential, suitable grid infrastructure, and minimal environmental or social conflicts are identified. It can also be used to improve stakeholder acceptance. A study sets out the key steps that can provide for an efficient process in designating these areas (Directorate-General for Energy, 2024[14]).

Identifying and designating suitable or Renewables Acceleration Areas (RAAs) for offshore wind can play a key role in expediting deployment. Once these areas are selected, they can be targeted for expedited project approval processes given that prior strategic environmental assessments have already been undertaken. Under Article 16 of RED III, Member States shall ensure that the authorisation procedure does not exceed 2 years for offshore renewable energy. Similarly, the permit granting procedure for repowering of renewable energy power plants, for new plants with an electrical capacity below 150 kW, for co-location energy storage, including power and thermal plants, as well as for their connection to the grid, if located in RAAs, shall not exceed 12 months in the case of offshore wind energy. By streamlining administrative processes and offering greater predictability, this approach reduces legal uncertainties

9.2.2. Permitting

(To undertake a self-assessment on permitting, see questionnaire in section 9.3)

Key permits required before the construction and operation of offshore wind farms include several types of authorisations and concessions. These can include, but are not limited to, a seabed leasing permit or concession, an authorisation to exploit the energy resource or generate electricity, a grid connection agreement, and permits for onshore works necessary to support offshore turbine installations (Nieuwenhout, Ceciel, 2023[13]) (IRENA and GWEC, 2023[11]).

Establishing clear legal deadlines in the offshore wind permitting process is essential to enhance investment certainty. Setting legal maximum lead times – such as a two or three-year limit from the application for administrative authorisation following the concession of an offshore wind area – helps reduce regulatory delays and provides developers with greater predictability. Allowing some albeit limited discretionary extensions under exceptional and well-defined circumstances will ensure necessary flexibility while maintaining overall efficiency (IRENA and GWEC, 2023[11]).

The involvement of multiple authorities and the vast distances covered in the offshore wind permitting process also increases complexity and uncertainty for developers. As each ministerial department or agency operates under different regulations, timelines, and requirements, this leads to an atomised and often difficult process to navigate. This can be time-consuming and costly, with developers needing to comply with diverse procedures and pay multiple fees. This not only slows down project development but also makes it difficult to monitor progress and further compounding delays.

A streamlined permitting process can help reduce administrative burdens and accelerating offshore wind deployment. Examples from the Netherlands and Estonia demonstrate how combining multiple permits into a single, comprehensive permit managed by a single authority can minimise delays and provide greater regulatory clarity for developers (see Box 9.2). In the Netherlands, integrating construction, operation, and environmental permits into a single process has significantly shortened permitting timelines, enabling projects to move from tendering to commissioning in just a few years. Similarly, Estonia’s consolidation of various permits into a single building permit has reduced overlapping assessments. These approaches enhance predictability for investors in terms of timelines but also in terms of how the assessment is conducted.

Box 9.2. Using a Single permit system

The Netherlands and Estonia

The Netherlands - a single contact point for offshore wind energy permitting has been designated: the Netherlands’ Enterprise Agency (RVO). The government decided to combine permit for construction and another for exploration into one single permit. This permitting procedure is one of the shortest in the EU and the time between offshore wind site tender and commissioning takes up to 4.5 years. Right after winning the tender, the government grants the permit for the construction, operation and removal of the wind farm with which successful builder can start building the wind farm immediately. The wind farm must be built within, possibly 5 years and is valid for a maximum of 40 years.

Estonia - Previously, offshore wind developers had to obtain three separate permits – a building permit, an environmental permit for special use of water, and a construction permit. These permits have now been consolidated into a single building permit process for offshore wind farms, reducing administrative complexity. The streamlined process also optimizes the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) stages, eliminating duplicate preliminary assessments and shortening the permitting process by up to four months from the current average duration of two years. The Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority (CPTRA) now serves as the single decision-making authority. Developers must provide any additional data necessary for the building permit within 180 days after the EIA report is deemed compliant, while CPTRA has 90 days to issue the final decision. The building permit remains valid for five years, after which it may be revoked if construction is incomplete or usage permits are not obtained. The new framework allows ongoing building permit applications to transition into the unified process upon developer request, subject to a state fee and an assessment of special water-use impacts.

Source: (CAN, 2023[15]), (European Court of Auditors, 2023[16]), (European Commission, 2024[17]), https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2021/10/Dutch%20Offshore%20Wind%20Guide%202022.pdf

Another possible solution is the implementation of a one-stop-shop model for offshore wind permitting. A centralised authority could streamline the process by coordinating between different agencies and consolidating requirements into a single application. This approach reduces administrative burden, shortens timelines, and provides developers with a clear, predictable path to approval.This explains why RED III5 requires Member States to establish one-stop shops to streamline the permitting process, acting as single contact points to reduce administrative complexity and improve project predictability. The Netherlands provides a good example of how streamlined procedures can lead to reduced times, with the time between offshore wind site tender and commissioning averaging around four and a half years (European Court of Auditors, 2023[16]). This can be contrasted with France that had one of the longest lead-times in Europe for approving offshore wind installations, which could take up to 11 years (European Court of Auditors, 2023[16]). For good examples of such solutions see the example of Denmark Box 9.3.

The absence of obligatory streamlined digital processes in the permitting framework creates significant uncertainty and adds to the administrative burden for offshore wind developers. In many cases, authorities still rely on paper-based systems or manual data entry, which slows down the process and increases the risk of errors. Without digital tools, it becomes difficult for agencies to share data efficiently, track project progress, and collaborate with other stakeholders, such as local communities and private sector actors. This lack of integration can result in delays, limited access to real-time project information, and increased complexity for developers navigating the permitting process.

Box 9.3. One stop for offshore wind farm permitting

The example of Denmark

Denmark was one of the first EU countries to implement a one-stop-shop for offshore wind farm (OWF) permitting. The Danish Energy Agency (DEA) acts as the single national contact point under the Danish Act on the Promotion of Renewable Energy, which outlines its roles and the procedures for issuing OWF licenses.

Developers require three licenses from the DEA to establish an offshore wind farm:

1. License to carry out preliminary investigations – Allows initial site investigations by developers, valid for one year. The DEA OSS mobilises the necessary approvals from relevant authorities and grants the license.

2. Construction License – Grants rights to construct the wind farm at a specific location, detailing requirements for design, foundations, turbines, and construction processes. It is issued to applicants with proven technical and financial capacity.

3. License to produce electricity from the offshore farm– Authorises wind energy production for facilities exceeding 25 MW. This license is granted for 25 years with possible agreed extension, if the operator meets all conditions of the construction license and demonstrates the capacity to operate the wind farm.

The DEA collaborates with over eight public authorities, including the Ministry of Environment and the Danish Maritime Authority, to ensure a coordinated and transparent process. Detailed guidance for both businesses and public authorities is available on the DEA’s website, along with a checklist of information requirements.

Source: (Danish Energy Agency, 2021[18])

Lengthy legal challenges can significantly delay offshore wind projects, adding uncertainty and increasing costs for developers. Extended or uncertain legal disputes can slow progress on critical infrastructure, undermining deployment targets. One potential approach to mitigate such delays is the establishment of a clearing house mechanism dedicated to handling legal disputes related to renewable energy projects (IRENA and GWEC, 2023[11]). Such a mechanism could help streamline dispute resolution and improve efficiency (see Box 9.4) Another possible mechanism could be ensuring a structured and time-limited process for developers to present evidence, where necessary, could further reduce uncertainty while preserving procedural fairness.

Timeframes for offshore wind permitting can be shortened, providing greater legal certainty, by simplifying court procedures or establishing prioritization criteria for judges in law. Expedited judicial review mechanisms help resolve disputes preventing prolonged legal uncertainties. For example, fast-track procedures for renewable energy disputes in France limit the number of appeals and bypass lower courts, ensuring quicker rulings (European Commission, 2024[19]). In addition, specialised judicial panels for energy and environmental cases can improve expertise and efficiency. Germany and Finland have established specialized courts for renewable energy disputes, with Germany’s Essen and Bielefeld Regional Courts dedicated to handling such cases, reducing delays caused by complex litigation (Catherine Banet; Filippo Donati, 2024[20]).

Declaring offshore wind development as an ‘overriding public interest’ can help unblock stalled projects by allowing judges to balance renewable energy deployment with other public interests. Some Member States have already established a rebuttable presumption that offshore wind projects serve the overriding public interest and protect public health and safety. It presumes that the planning, construction, and operation of offshore wind farms, including grid connections and related infrastructure, are of overriding public importance6.This designation to include offshore wind reduces legal uncertainties by ensuring that administrative and judicial decisions take into account the urgency and necessity of renewable energy deployment.

Box 9.4. Priority status for offshore wind to speed up permitting

The example of Finland

Finland adopted legislation on Priority Processing for Green Transition Projects (2023–2028). As of 1 January 2023, new legislation grants temporary priority processing for specific green transition projects in the permit procedures of Regional State Administrative Agencies (2023–2026) and in administrative courts (2023–2028). Operators can request priority status for their water resource management or environmental permit applications, enabling faster processing at the Regional State Administrative Agency. The aim is to expedite permits essential for green transition projects and projects eligible for priority treatment include offshore wind farms and related water resource management projects.

Source: https://www.eoliennesenmer.fr/generalites-eoliennes-en-mer/cadre-reglementaire; https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-//1410903/guidelines-for-priority-treatment-of-green-transition-projects-completed

9.2.3. Connection to the onshore grid

(To undertake a self-assessment on grid connection, see questionnaire in section 9.3)

The concentrated energy feed-in from offshore wind at coastal areas poses a significant challenge, leading to risks of structural congestion in the onshore electricity grid – both now and for future expansion. How to scale connections, both in terms of the physical volume of offshore and onshore cables and the necessary infrastructure, while reducing connection waiting times, is a common challenge for large offshore wind markets (Global Wind Energy Council, 2023[21]).This may be even more important, as the transition may include plans for industries in the future relying on electricity grid. For example in the Netherlands where the expected growing use of offshore and onshore electrolysis for hydrogen means that the investments in offshore wind with possible future onshore hydrogen systems could be taken into account for grid planning (IEA, 2024[22]) and see Box 9.5 Indeed, for an investor who decides to invest in offshore renewable generation, it is important to have a clear understanding of the timing and plans for offshore and onshore grid infrastructure development.

Box 9.5. Wind roadmaps can help grid planning

The Netherlands has an Offshore Wind Roadmap

The government’s Offshore Wind Energy Roadmap sets a transparent framework for offshore wind deployment, outlining clear targets for installed capacity, site selection, and project timelines. This roadmap allows for coordinated development, with the TSO TenneT playing a key role in ensuring timely grid connections to the onshore transmission network.

It provides for:

• Targets: The 2013 roadmap set an initial target of 4.5 GW by 2023. In 2018, this target was raised to 11.5 GW by 2030, and further increased to 21 GW by 2032 in response to Europe’s energy crisis.

• A buildout of the transmission grid, coupled with transparent milestones, enabled successful competitive tendering and timely construction of offshore wind farms.

• Integrated planning with hydrogen production projections: The roadmap also awards additional points in auctions for projects integrating offshore wind with hydrogen production by connecting wind farms to electrolysers.

This approach, with a policy direction and integration of environmental and hydrogen market considerations, is an example for aligning national renewable energy targets with infrastructure planning and biodiversity protection.

Source: (IEA, 2024[22])

One of the main challenges at both EU and national level is the need to develop infrastructures linking offshore production with the network and onshore market. When offshore turbines produce electricity, this is carried through underwater cables to an offshore substation, where the voltage is stepped up to minimize transmission losses. From there, the so-called “export cables” – often buried underground for protection – transfer the electricity to an onshore substation, where the electricity is converted to the appropriate voltage and distributed into the grid, ensuring it can power homes, industries, and infrastructure efficiently. In particular, two main aspects need to be addressed: the development of offshore infrastructures (high-voltage direct current – HVDC – lines) and the expansion of the onshore network.

A relevant legal issue in offshore wind grid connections is determining which entity is responsible for developing and owning the export cables and related infrastructure, such as converter stations. Offshore wind farms must connect to the onshore grid to sell the electricity they generate. This connection can be established either directly from the wind farm to the onshore grid or through a hub where electricity from multiple offshore wind farms is pooled before transmission. In Europe, three main models are used (Nieuwenhout, Ceciel, 2023[13]). The first allows the offshore wind farm developer to build, own, and manage the cable linking the wind farm to the onshore grid, with the connection point located onshore, and the cable remaining unregulated. The second model designates the TSO as responsible for connecting offshore wind farms to the grid, with the connection point located offshore at the converter station. The TSO owns the cable from the converter station to the onshore grid, classifying it as a regulated asset.7 The third model involves other parties, such as investment companies, owning and operating the transmission infrastructure. This approach has been adopted in the UK, where transmission assets are owned by independent operators. Each model presents different regulatory and operational implications for offshore wind development.

There is no one-size fits all for offshore grid ownership. In practice, a solution that works well in one scenario may not be as effective in another, so assessing the optimal approach requires a careful evaluation of the circumstances surrounding each situation. For instance, where a centralised procedure and standardisation is implemented, a TSO-based model may be more effective, as in the case of the Netherlands, and may facilitate the bundling of OWFs, as in Germany. In addition, competition issues may arise between developers, particularly with regard to separate development and access rights (Nieuwenhout, Ceciel, 2023[13]). So whichever model is chosen given the national circumstances, this should be well defined to increase legal certainty.

9.3. Self-diagnostic questionnaire

9.3.1. Instructions for Use

The self-diagnostic questionnaire is designed as a practical tool for policymakers to assess the regulatory and administrative conditions affecting renewable energy deployment. Each question or set of questions targets a specific barrier identified – such as permitting delays, grid connection, and asks whether a legal or regulatory obligation exists to address it. Responses are scored on a simple 0–1 scale, with 0 representing best practice (clear legal obligation enabling efficient deployment) and 1 representing the most burdensome conditions (no enabling framework). This structure allows policymakers to systematically identify gaps, benchmark performance, and prioritise reforms based on areas where national, regional or local rules fall short of good practice.

The questionnaire is divided between questions relevant to national and sub-national authorities. In jurisdictions where energy, environmental, or planning powers are decentralised, certain national-level questions should be completed by the relevant regional or devolved authority. Sub-national questions are further distinguished between regional and local levels, depending on how permitting and infrastructure responsibilities are distributed within the Member State. Policymakers at all levels should consult internal legal frameworks to determine which authority is competent to answer each question and ensure coordination where competencies overlap.

The scoring

The questions in this section are meant to enable two types of scores:

A. A score specific to a barrier within a market segment (technology): a market segment/barrier-specific score. An example is a score for permitting for PHS; and

B. A score specific to a market segment, hence including all barriers for that specific market segment: a market segment‑specific score. An example is utility-scale solar PV. A market segment/barrier-specific score forms part of the technology-specific score.

A. Market segment/barrier-specific score

This score determines the importance of a barrier for this technology. The score can be determined through the following steps:

i. Select a barrier within a market segment for analysis

ii. Score each relevant question for that aspect of the analysis (at the relevant level of government). For this scoring, one designates a score between 0 and 1.

Please note, for a scoring of the barrier Spatial planning and permitting, one needs to score the questions in this section (excluding for this market segment the questions for “permitting for small installations”), and for grid connection and flexibility, one needs to score the questions in this section.

iii. Add up the scores for each question to obtain the Market segment/barrier total score: Market segment/barrier total score = Sum(all individual questions for that barrier)

iv. Scale the Market segment/barrier total score to arrive at a (weighted) Market segment/barrier score, namely a score between 0 and 6 (see Annex C):

Market segment/barrier score =

(Market segment/barrier total score) x $\frac{6}{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{q}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}}$

B. Market segment-specific score

The next step is to combine the (Weighted) Market segment/barrier scores to arrive at a Market segment-specific score. The score can be determined by adding up the Market segment/barrier scores and divide them by the number of barriers:

Market segment-specific score = $\frac{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{B}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{ }}{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{b}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{s}}$

Questions

 

Questions	Scoring of answers
National Level
Spatial planning (See Section 9.2.1)
Is there a national Maritime spatial plan in place to guide the development of offshore wind projects?	Yes, a legally adopted national Maritime Spatial Plan exists and includes clearly designated areas for offshore wind development	0
	A Maritime spatial plan exists but is either non-binding, under development, or lacks clear designation of areas for offshore wind.	0.5
	No national marine spatial plan exists to guide the development of offshore wind projects.	1
Is there a clearly defined Maritime Spatial Planning framework that facilitates coordination among stakeholders and integrates offshore wind development with other maritime activities?	Yes, there is a clearly defined and legally enforced Maritime Spatial Planning framework that ensures coordination among stakeholders and integrates offshore wind with other maritime uses (e.g. fishing, shipping, conservation).	0
	A Maritime Spatial Planning framework exists but coordination mechanisms are limited, non-binding, or integration with other maritime activities is only partial.	.5
	No such framework exists, or offshore wind planning occurs in isolation from broader maritime spatial planning and stakeholder coordination.	1
Does the regulatory framework ensure transparency and predictability by providing clear, publicly available information on future offshore wind tenders, including planned volumes and timelines, to help developers and investors plan ahead?	Wind farms are publicly tendered and tender plans for next 3-5 years are available	0
	Wind farms are publicly tendered but tendering planning is not available to developers	0.5
	Wind are farms are not publicly tendered and no plans are made available to developers	1
Permitting and Environmental Impact Assessments (See Section 9.2.2)
Are there clear legal or regulatory rules that streamline the offshore wind permitting process, including limiting the number of authorities involved and establishing a single contact point or one-stop shop?	Yes, clear legal rules define institutional responsibilities, minimise duplication, and establish a single contact point or one-stop shop to coordinate all permitting procedures.	0
	Some coordination rules exist and a contact point may be designated, but responsibilities are fragmented or not legally mandated.	0.5
	No rules exist to limit the number of authorities or to establish a single contact point; permitting is managed by multiple bodies without central coordination.	1
Does the one-stop-shop permitting entity have access to and make use of existing environmental data from impact assessments of other relevant activities (e.g., oil and gas) to improve the efficiency of offshore wind environmental impact assessments?	Yes, there are clear legal or regulatory provisions requiring the one-stop-shop entity to access and reuse relevant existing environmental data from other sectors to streamline offshore wind EIAs.	0
	Rules are unclear or only access to some relevant environmental data can be provided	0.5
	No legal provision ensures access to or reuse of existing environmental data from other activities	1
Is there a legal obligation to use digital tools and processes for the permitting of offshore wind projects?	There is a legal obligation to use digital tools for permitting processes and/or they are used	0
	Authorities have discretion to use digital tools, with a preference for digital processes, or no legal obligation is in place but they are sometimes used	0.5
	No legal reference or requirement for digital tools in permitting processes and they are not used	1
Can an offshore wind project be classified as being of overriding public interest?	Yes, there is a clear legal provision that allows offshore wind projects to be classified as being of overriding public interest, including for the purpose of balancing legal interests (e.g. nature protection, spatial claims).	0
	Offshore wind projects can potentially be treated as of overriding public interest, but the legal basis is unclear, discretionary, or inconsistently applied.	0.5
	No legal provision exists allowing offshore wind projects to be classified as being of overriding public interest.	1
Does your legal framework have permitting deadlines for offshore wind	Yes, the legal framework sets clear and binding deadlines for all key stages of the offshore wind permitting process of up to 2 years	0
	Yes, ppermitting deadlines exist, but they are non-binding, apply only to some stages, or are subject to broad exceptions or timeframes are more than 2 years	0.5
	No permitting deadlines are established in the legal framework for offshore wind projects.	1
Do the rules and regulations provide for a simplified procedure for repowering projects?	Repowering projects have a fully streamlined procedure, significantly faster and simpler than for new projects.	0
	A simplified procedure exists for repowering, reducing some administrative burdens but not all, and delays still occur.	0.5
	No differentiation exists between new projects and repowering; all projects face the same lengthy procedures.	1
Are there legal or regulatory rules in place that recognize and support the development of offshore wind hybrid projects (Offshore Hybrid Assets or multi-purpose interconnectors), including their integration into both national and cross-border grid planning?	Yes, the legal framework recognizes and supports OHAs through clear rules on permitting, grid integration, and cross-border coordination. These projects are planned for in national and regional grid development strategies.	0
	OHAs are recognized in policy or under consideration, but legal rules are underdeveloped or fragmented, and integration into planning is incomplete.	0.5
	No legal or regulatory framework exists to support OHAs; such projects are not recognized or planned for in grid or energy strategies.	1
Cross-border coordination
Is there a framework arrangement for coordinating offshore wind development with neighbouring countries with a set of criteria and steps for cooperation?	Yes, there is a formal legal or policy framework that sets out clear criteria and procedural steps for cross-border coordination on offshore wind development with neighbouring countries.	0
	Some cross-border coordination exists, but it is based on informal arrangements, lacks defined criteria, or is applied inconsistently.	0.5
	No framework or process is in place for coordinating offshore wind development with neighbouring countries.	1
Grid integration (See Section 9.2.3)
Are there legal or regulatory rules requiring the grid planning process to account for offshore wind expansion, including necessary infrastructure upgrades and integration with future connected industries (e.g. hydrogen, maritime electrification)?	Yes, legal or regulatory rules require grid planning to comprehensively consider offshore wind expansion, congestion risks, infrastructure upgrades, and integration with connected industries.	0
	Grid planning takes some account of offshore wind and related industries, but there is no clear legal obligation, or only partial aspects (e.g. congestion or infrastructure) are addressed.	0.5
	No legal or regulatory rules require grid planning to consider offshore wind development or integration with connected industries.	1
Are there clear legal or regulatory rules defining the offshore grid ownership model (e.g. TSO-based, hybrid, or developer-led), taking into account national circumstances and ensuring legal certainty for project developers?	Yes, the legal framework clearly defines the offshore grid ownership model, adapted to national circumstances and designed to provide legal certainty and avoid competition issues.	0
	A general model is followed in practice, but the legal framework is not fully defined or fails to address key aspects such as bundling, developer access, or competition concerns.	0.5
	No clear rules exist on offshore grid ownership; roles and responsibilities are undefined or vary case by case, creating legal uncertainty.	1

References

[1] Anchustegui, L. (ed.) (2024), “Relevant offshore electricity markets: energy hubs and hybrid solutions”, https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollbook/book/9781803922591/9781803922591.xml.

[15] CAN (2023), Guidelines to Faster and Fairer Permitting for Europe’s Renewable Energy Transition.

[20] Catherine Banet; Filippo Donati (2024), Speeding up renewable energy permitting in Europe: overcoming implemention challenges.

[18] Danish Energy Agency (2021), Fact sheet: One-stop-shop in Denmark.

[14] Directorate-General for Energy, D. (2024), Study on the designation of renewables acceleration areas (RAAs) for onshore and offshore wind and solar photovoltaic energy – Final report.

[6] EMBER (2025), EMBER European Electricity Review 2025.

[12] ENTSO-E (2024), Offshore Network Development Plans 2026 - Guidance Document, https://eepublicdownloads.blob.core.windows.net/public-cdn-container/tyndp-documents/TYNDP2026/ONDP/240722_ENTSO-E_Guidance_for_MSs_ONDP26_FOR_PUBLICATION.pdf.

[19] European Commission (2024), COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2024/1343 of 13 May 2024 on speeding up permit-granting procedures for renewable energy and related infrastructure projects.

[9] European Commission (2024), Commission Staff Working Document on Guidance to Member States on Good Practices to speed-up permit-granting procedures fore renewable energy and related infrastructure projects.

[17] European Commission (2024), Guidance to Member States on good practices to speed up permit-granting procedures, https://energy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/ad850f73-ab84-4ce1-9e66-7430f8f0c7e5_en?filename=SWD_2024_124_1_EN_autre_document_travail_service_part1_v3.pdf.

[7] European Commission (2023), Technical support for RES policy development and implementation – simplification of permission andadministrative procedures for RES installations (RES Simplify), https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/949ddae8-0674-11ee-b12e-01aa75ed71a1.

[3] European Commission (2020), Communication from the Commission - An EU Strategy to harness the potential of offshore renewable energy for a climate neutral future.

[16] European Court of Auditors (2023), Special report 22/2023: Offshore renewable energy in the EU – Ambitious plans for growth but sustainability remains a challenge, https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/SR-2023-22/SR-2023-22_EN.pdf.

[8] European Environmental Agency (2024), Harnessing offshore wind while preserving the seas, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/harnessing-offshore-wind-while-preserving-the-seas?activeTab=b6e6db3f-414d-47cf-9742-8f18de91c2b9.

[4] Global Wind Energy Council (2024), Global Offshore Wind Report 2024.

[21] Global Wind Energy Council (2023), Global Offshore Wind Report 2023, https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/GWEC-Global-Offshore-Wind-Report-2023.pdf.

[2] IEA (2024), Renewables 2024, https://www.iea.org/energy-system/renewables/wind (accessed on  2024).

[22] IEA (2024), The Netherlands 2024 Energy Policy Review.

[11] IRENA and GWEC (2023), Enabling frameworks for offshore wind scaleup: Innovations in permitting.

[13] Nieuwenhout, Ceciel (2023), Developing Offshore Wind Farms – A Comparison and Analysis of the Legal and Governance Frameworks of the North Sea Coastal States, https://brill.com/view/journals/ejcl/10/3-4/article-p518_009.xml.

[5] Wind Europe (2024), Latest wind energy data for Europe (Autumn 2024), https://windeurope.org/intelligence-platform/product/latest-wind-energy-data-for-europe-autumn-2024/.

[10] World Bank (2024), Offshore Wind Roadmap for Romania.

Notes

← 1.  Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014)

← 2.  https://windeurope.org/newsroom/news/maritime-spatial-planning-most-countries-late-offshore-wind-must-remain-a-priority/

← 3.  Recognizing this, the TEN-E Regulation obliges Member States to coordinate their offshore renewable energy targets and grid planning on a regional basis for 2030, 2040, and 2050: Articles 14 and 15 set out the legal framework for ENTSO-E’s legal mandate related to the development of offshore systems.

← 4.  The North Seas Energy Cooperation (NSEC) is a regional, non-binding framework aimed at promoting the development of offshore renewable energy across the North Seas region, including the Irish Sea and Celtic Sea. Current members are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and the European Commission, https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/infrastructure/high-level-groups/north-seas-energy-cooperation_en (last assessed 03.02.2025).

← 5.  Article 16

← 6.  In the EU this is required to be introduced into national law by Article 16f of RED III.

← 7.  In Belgium, operators must sign individual link contracts with the TSO, while in the Netherlands, TenneT is responsible for developing and operating both offshore and onshore connections under separate licenses.