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

8. Onshore wind

Abstract

This chapter examines the regulatory and administrative frameworks governing onshore wind energy deployment, identifying key barriers and good practices across Europe. Onshore wind remains one of the most mature and cost-effective renewable technologies, yet its development is frequently constrained by spatial planning restrictions, environmental authorisation procedures, and lengthy permitting processes. Together, these elements provide a comprehensive overview of the regulatory and barriers affecting onshore wind deployment and the measures that can enhance investment certainty. A self-diagnostic questionnaire helps policymakers assess the legal framework through the main barriers identified.

8.1. The potential of onshore wind

Onshore wind represents a mature and well-established technology supported by a wide-ranging global supply chain. This technology has evolved greatly over the past decades, and it scaled significantly over the past 5 years (IEA, 2024[1]) (IEA, 2000[2]). In fact, data from autumn 2024 (WindEurope, 2024[3]) show that 5.7 GW of new wind power capacity have been installed in the EU-27 in the first half of 2024, of which 83% onshore. Full-year data are estimated at 13 GW, with similar onshore as in the first half of the year (EMBER, 2025[4]). While this data marks a reduction in capacity additions with respect to the 16 GW of 2022 and 2023, reflecting challenges due to inflationary pressures only partly offset by regulatory changes, they are still higher than any other value ever recorded, before 2022. The lower cost of onshore wind with respect to thermal electricity generation is expected to remain a key driver of strong capacity increases. Better macroeconomic conditions (especially with respect to inflation), continued technological advances, and the implementation of ambitious policies developed at the European level, can help accelerate this development (EMBER, 2025[4]).

While onshore wind installations will need access to new land area, repowering is particularly impactful for onshore wind farms in Europe, where many early wind farms, built in optimal wind locations, could now benefit from modern technology to maximize electricity generation. Repowering wind farms involves upgrading older turbines with advanced, more efficient models, significantly boosting energy production. Over the next decade, more than 20 GW of onshore wind farms are expected to undergo repowering, highlighting its crucial role in enhancing renewable energy efficiency and output (WindEurope, 2022[5]).

This chapter explores the regulatory barriers for onshore wind. It focuses on four main barriers, spatial planning (Section 8.2.1), permitting (Section 8.2.2), Environmental Impact Assessments ( Section 8.2.3), and setback rules (Section 8.2.4).

8.2. Regulatory barriers for onshore wind deployment

Developing onshore wind projects in the EU requires obtaining a range of permits, which can vary according to national and local regulations. Typically, developers need to obtain permits relating to environmental impact assessments (EIAs), land-use and construction permits. In Estonia, for example, the process first requires the local government to prepare a designated spatial plan (with a mandatory public consultation), then developers must apply for a building permit and a use and occupation permit for the construction and operation of onshore wind turbines or wind farms.1

Recent work has shown that these administrative authorisations are the most problematic step in most of EU countries (European Commission, 2023[6]). This comprehensive report sets out that more than half of the Member States faced moderate to severe barriers from administrative authorisations (European Commission, 2023[6]). This has also been considered the primary obstacle to growing wind energy in Europe by the industry (WindEurope, 2024[7]). The process is considered slow and complex, with various regulations like spatial planning limitations, height restrictions, and exclusion zones. Multiple layers of administration further complicate matters, and most countries do not have a simplified, one-stop system to accelerate the approval process.

It is estimated that 80 GW of wind energy capacity is going through permitting procedures across the EU, i.e. five times more than the total wind deployment in 2022 (European Commission, 2023[8]). The Commission notes, for example, that for onshore wind, the duration of the permitting process varies from 3 to 9 years (European Commission, 2024[9]), with differences not only between Member States, but sometimes also between different regions within the same country.

While planning and permitting are distinct processes, they can be mutually supportive in facilitating renewable energy deployment. Projects that align with spatial use, environmental, natural resource, and grid plans have a higher likelihood of a quicker approval. Ensuring consistency between these plans and permit applications therefore allows authorities to streamline decision-making. Beyond alignment, effective planning can proactively address key concerns, such as local environmental impacts, and in this way, authorities can enhance transparency, improve local acceptance, and reduce conflicts at the permitting stage, ultimately accelerating project deployment (Catherine Banet; Filippo Donati, 2024[10]).

8.2.1. Spatial planning

(Chapter 3 has a full description of the barriers that may arise from spatial planning and permitting rules, as well as self-diagnostic tool questions related to those. To undertake a self-assessment of spatial planning regulatory barriers, refer to self-diagnostic tool)

The identification of suitable areas via spatial planning is crucial for determining where renewable energy projects can be placed. Spatial planning sets regulations and frameworks for where and how infrastructure can be developed. Planning law and regional planning, respectively, have a visible and powerful guiding effect. A recent comparison of spatial and legal analysis of spatial planning for wind turbines in different regions in Germany has shown that the more restrictive the planning in a federal state, the less likely wind energy will expand in those areas (Bunzel et al., 2019[11]).

Spatial planning can act as a significant barrier to onshore wind deployment. In some cases, the absence of spatial plans or outdated frameworks slow deployment. Spatial planning has been considered to restrict or prevent wind power projects in a number of Member States, with examples in Austria, Czechia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, the Netherlands, and Portugal (Eclareon; Oeko-Institut; WindEurope; SolarPower Europe, 2023[12]). Even where spatial planning aimed to facilitate development, delays in the process posed challenges, as reported in Austria, Denmark, Finland, and Germany (Eclareon; Oeko-Institut; WindEurope; SolarPower Europe, 2023[12]). Additionally, misalignment between regional, local, and national planning objectives can hinder project approvals, with Italy, Spain, and Ireland illustrating these conflicts (Eclareon; Oeko-Institut; WindEurope; SolarPower Europe, 2023[12]).

8.2.2. Permitting

(Chapter 3 has a full description of the barriers that may arise from spatial planning and permitting rules, as well as self-diagnostic tool questions related to those. To undertake a self-assessment of spatial planning regulatory barriers, refer to self-diagnostic tool).

The permitting process refers to all administrative permits issued for the construction, repowering and operation of plants to produce energy from renewable sources. These administrative steps range from the acknowledgment of the reception of the complete application by the relevant authority to the notification of the final decision on the outcome of the process by the relevant authority. Depending on the country, it may also involve various authorities, from national authorities to regions and municipalities. Hence, the process of obtaining permits acts as an effective gateway to develop onshore wind projects.

About 80 GW of wind power capacity has been reported to having been blocked in permitting procedures across Europe in 2023, of which at least 59 GW is onshore (WindEurope, 2023[13]). Onshore wind projects, on average, took 6 years to obtain approval, with shorter approval times in Latvia (2 years and 8 months) and Finland (3 years), while the longest delays have been observed in Greece and Ireland (process can take 8 to 9 years) (Draghi, 2024[14]) (EMBER, 2022[15]). Permitting for onshore wind lead time is 5 years or longer in more than half of the countries, reaching even 10 years in some instances. Nevertheless, significantly more authorisations for onshore wind power were registered in Germany, Spain and France in 2023 compared to 2022 (WindEurope, 2024[3]).

In most EU countries, decisions on permitting operate across two levels of government, but some have three, leading to coordination complexity. Most countries have a central (national / state) and local (municipal or city) level. A smaller number of countries also have a regional level. Both public and private stakeholders frequently invoke coordination across multiple levels of government is frequently cited as a significant barrier due to the complexity it creates.2 France has a two-level administrative framework for wind energy planning, involving both central (national/state) and local (municipalities and cities) governments (Catherine Banet; Filippo Donati, 2024[10]). In Spain, EIA processing depends on project capacity: projects over 50 MW are handled at the national level, while those below fall under the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Communities, but also require local permits, including an urban license and authorisation for exceptional uses on rural land. In Denmark for rural zones, new constructions such as wind turbines generally require a rural zone permit from the municipal council. In Portugal, for projects outside sensitive or protected areas, permits need to be obtained from the municipality of the region where the project will be built.3

8.2.3. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs)

(Chapter 3 has a full description of the barriers that may arise from EIA rules, as well as self-diagnostic tool questions related to those. To undertake a self-assessment of spatial planning regulatory barriers, refer to self-diagnostic tool).

EIAs are an important component and need to be well targeted to avoid unnecessary timing uncertainty and costs. An individual EIA may be required, especially if not already done during the spatial planning step. EIAs provide a structured framework for evaluating the environmental impacts of onshore wind systems. An effective EIA should balance the need for streamlined permitting to accelerate renewable energy deployment while ensuring environmental protection.

EIAs are essential for onshore wind projects to ensure that potential impacts on the environment are carefully evaluated and mitigated. Wind farms can affect local ecosystems, particularly birds and their migration routes, while also increasing environmental noise. Member States apply varying approaches to determine when an EIA is required, often using screening thresholds based on the number of wind turbines, their capacity, or their height. In some countries, projects with as few as two turbines require screening, while others set the threshold at five turbines or a capacity exceeding 1 MW. Full EIAs may be mandated for large wind farms – those with more than 50 turbines or a capacity of over 30 MW – or if located within 2 km of another wind farm. In protected areas, these thresholds are lower. Additionally, cumulative impacts from multiple small wind farms in proximity are considered, particularly in regions where many smaller projects already exist, requiring a more comprehensive assessment (European Commission: Directorate-General for Environment, 2024[16]).

Simplifying processes can help to make EIAs more efficient. This may be achieved through integrated permitting systems or a one-stop-shop approach, where all required approvals are consolidated under a single competent authority and a single procedure includes all the relevant assessments. For good examples of simplified procedures for onshore wind EIAs, see the case of France and Portugal. Further analysis and examples can be found in Chapter 3: Spatial Planning and Permitting.

Box 8.1. Simplifying procedures for onshore wind EIAs

France has introduced several reforms to simplify the approval of onshore wind projects, including several changes to simplify Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures for onshore wind projects. These reforms focus on thresholds for changes in turbine number and height. An increase of up to 10% in the number or tip height of turbines is not considered a significant modification, requiring only an EIA on noise and biodiversity impacts. For increases exceeding 50%, the modification is classified as substantial, necessitating a full EIA. When the increase falls between 10% and 50%, a case-by-case assessment is conducted by the competent authorities, considering factors such as comprehensive environmental monitoring and local acceptance.

Further, since 2017 (Loi Grenelle 2), onshore wind farms with at least one turbine generator and a mast height of 50 meters or more, or turbines between 20 and 50 meters with a capacity of at least 20 MW, fall under an integrated permitting regime for environmental authorisation. This streamlined process enables the Prefect to issue multiple approvals in a single procedure, simplifying key permits.

Portugal: The requirement for mandatory EIAs in wind power projects has been reduced in several cases, particularly for new wind farms and repowering projects. An EIA is no longer required for wind farms with up to 20 towers or those within 2 kilometers of similar farms, provided the combined total remains at 20 towers. Repowering projects are also exempt if the original wind farm was not previously subject to an EIA and the final project, including prior non-EIA repowering, does not exceed 20 towers or fall within 2 kilometers of another similar farm. For repowering outside the existing wind farm area where an EIA was previously conducted, the exemption applies if the final total remains under 30 towers.

In sensitive areas, however, the EIA remains mandatory for wind farms with at least 10 towers or those within 2 kilometers of similar farms reaching that threshold. This exemption framework may accelerate wind deployment but raises concerns about significant impacts on nature conservation areas.

Source : Code de l’Environnement, Chapitre III – Eoliennes, L515-44 ; (CAN, 2023[17])

8.2.4. Setback rules

(To undertake a self-assessment on setback rules, see questionnaire in section 8.3)

As referred to above, administrative authorisations and rules that limit onshore wind deployment may serve legitimate public policy objectives. For instance, setback distances are used in wind energy planning to help reduce noise from turbine operations and blade movement, safeguarding nearby residents and sensitive natural areas. These regulations also protect against rare hazards, such as ice being thrown from blades or turbine failures that could scatter debris, and help mitigate shadow flicker, where moving turbine blades cast shifting shadows on buildings (European Commission: JRC, 2025[18]). Public acceptance of onshore wind power can also be affected by concerns about noise, shadow flicker, visual impact, and property value losses and setting minimum setback distances from residential areas is one approach to address these issues.

Regulations on setback distance have been assessed for their effect on potential, with results showing significant reductions in wind energy production when stringent distances are in place (European Commission: JRC, 2025[18]). Four scenarios were considered, with 500 m representing the most lenient and 2,000 m the most restrictive: for the 500 m scenario, the estimated installable capacity is approximately 8,100 GW, with an associated annual electricity generation of 22,500 TWh; for the 1,000 m scenario, these figures are reduced to 4,150 GW/10,800 TWh, and for the 2,000 m scenario, they are reduced to 1,600 GW/3,900 TWh (European Commission: JRC, 2025[18]). Consequently, administrative and policy decisions on this legitimate policy goal of setting setback distances, if not set in a proportionate way may have substantial consequences for Europe's onshore wind energy potential.

Therefore, whilst these rules may be necessary, they can also go beyond what is strictly necessary and proportionate. The example of how to set minimum distances can be illustrative of its effects on onshore wind deployment. For example, Poland enacted the 2016 '10H rule', which required a minimum distance of 2,000 m from residential buildings and nature reserves, while the European average is around 500m (CANEurope et al., 2024[19]). This rule arguably blocked 99.7% of the country's land from onshore wind and was lifted in 2023; since then, onshore wind capacity is expected to quadruple.4

Mandatory minimum distances between wind turbines and residential areas should be carefully assessed to ensure they are achieving their objectives whilst not being overly restrictive. Minimum distances usually vary between height-based regulations (e.g., in Scotland, Poland, and Bavaria) and fixed-distance rules (CAN, 2023[17]). The impact of minimum distances on social and environmental factors is not always clear. In some cases, excessive setbacks can push projects into remote areas, increasing environmental disruption rather than reducing it (CAN, 2023[17]). Setting laws or guidelines at either national level may help increase legal certainty and support decision making by local authorities.

8.3. Self-diagnostic questionnaire

8.3.1. 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.

To ensure a comprehensive evaluation of barriers to deployment in your jurisdiction for this market segment or technology, to the results from the current questionnaire, users should also use the Spatial Planning and Permitting chapter and complete the relevant questionnaires, taking into account the analysis contained in the current chapter. Cross-referencing these sections will provide a complete picture of the regulatory environment and help identify priority areas for reform.

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
All levels of goverment (depends on jurisdiction)
Are there clear legal and regulatory provisions supporting long-term commercial arrangements – such as PPAs or equivalent contracts – for onshore wind projects, including guidance on contract types, standardised templates, and rules for accounting and taxation, thereby ensuring regulatory certainty for market participants?	Yes, onshore wind projects are supported by clear legal provisions for PPAs (or equivalent contracts), with comprehensive guidance and financial rules in place.	0
	Onshore wind arrangements are generally permitted, but rules or guidance only exist on some of these: contract terms, accounting and taxation, creating some regulatory uncertainty.	0.5
	No clear legal framework exists for commercial contracts for onshore wind, or key uncertainties remain regarding contracts, accounting, or taxation, inhibiting deployment.	1
Setback Rules (See Section 8.2.4)
Are there any national or sub-national l rules setting setback distances above 500m?	No, rules do not mandate setback distances above 500m or allow for flexibility based on case-by-case assessments based on clear guidelines about their application (e.g. through noise or shadow flicker modelling).	0
	Setback distances above 500m exist but can be waived or adjusted based on discretionary conditions.	0.5
	Yes, rules impose mandatory setback distances above 1000m in all circumstances.	1
Are setback distance rules harmonised across national and regional levels?	Yes, there are clear rules in place, including detailed guidelines with criteria for local circumstances	0
	No, but there are guidelines allowing for local circumstances, but they do not define precise criteria for taking those into account	0.5
	No, and there are no guidelines	1
National Level
Environmental Impact Assessments (See Section 8.2.3)
Can a wind project be classified as being of overriding public interest?	Wind projects are automatically granted "overriding public interest" status.	0
	Wind projects can be classified as "overriding public interest," but this is not automatically granted and requires additional documentation or justification	0.5
	Wind projects cannot be classified as overriding public interest	1

References

[11] Bunzel, K. et al. (2019), Hidden outlaws in the forest? A legal and spatial analysis of onshore wind, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618312945?via%3Dihub.

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

[19] CANEurope, B. et al. (2024), Overview of Renewable Energy Spatial Planning and Designation of Acceleration Areas in Selected EU Member States, https://caneurope.org/content/uploads/2024/05/RE-Spatial-Planning-Acceleration-in-EU-MS_13052024.pdf.

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

[14] Draghi, M. (2024), The future of European competitiveness – In-depth analysis and recommendations, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ec1409c1-d4b4-4882-8bdd-3519f86bbb92_en?filename=The%20future%20of%20European%20competitiveness_%20In-depth%20analysis%20and%20recommendations_0.pdf.

[12] Eclareon; Oeko-Institut; WindEurope; SolarPower Europe (2023), RES Simplify.

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

[15] EMBER (2022), “Ready, Set, Go: Europe’s Race for Wind and Solar”.

[9] 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.

[8] European Commission (2023), European Wind Power Action Plan, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52023DC0669&qid=1702455143415.

[6] 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.

[16] European Commission: Directorate-General for Environment (2024), Interpretation of definitions of project categories of annex I and II of the EIA Directive.

[18] European Commission: JRC (2025), The Onshore Wind Potential of the EU and Neighbouring Countries, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC139999.

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

[2] IEA (2000), Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/0f978c6b-f610-45e1-86e4-8ea43a102abc/ExperienceCurvesforEnergyTechnologyPolicy.pdf.

[7] WindEurope (2024), EU Member States must take urgent action on NECPs and overriding public interest, https://windeurope.org/newsroom/news/eu-member-states-must-take-urgent-action-on-necps-and-overriding-public-interest/.

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

[13] WindEurope (2023), Revised EU Renewables Directive set to speed up wind permitting, https://windeurope.org/newsroom/news/revised-eu-renewables-directive-set-to-speed-up-wind-permitting/.

[5] WindEurope (2022), Repowered wind farms show huge potential of replacing old turbines, https://windeurope.org/newsroom/news/repowered-wind-farms-show-huge-potential-of-replacing-old-turbines/.

Notes

← 1.  European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy, “Administrative authorization process,” Clean energy for EU islands. Available at: https://clean-energy-islands.ec.europa.eu/countries/estonia/legal/permits-and-authorisation-processes/administrative-authorization-process

← 2.  Factual Summary report of the Stakeholder Consultation by the European Commission in 2022 on “Renewable energy projects – permit-granting processes & power-purchase agreements”.

← 3. See Chapter 14 on the Algarve as well as European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy, “Administrative authorisation process,” Clean energy for EU islands. Available at: https://clean-energy-islands.ec.europa.eu/countries/estonia/legal/permits-and-authorisation-processes/administrative-authorization-process

← 4.  https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2024/11/Poland-wind-law-commentary-English.pdf