Spatial planning and permitting are cross-cutting elements that affect all forms of renewable energy deployment. Each project, regardless of the specific technology employed, must undergo a permitting process that is intrinsically linked to spatial planning decisions. This chapter examines the key regulatory issues associated with both permitting and spatial planning, identifies common barriers, and highlights emerging good practices. This analysis supports authorities – especially at regional and local levels, who play a decisive role through their responsibilities for spatial planning and permitting – in diagnosing potential regulatory barriers and implementing targeted measures.
Diagnostic Toolkit for Reducing Regulatory Barriers to Solar, Wind and Pumped Hydro Storage in the European Union
Empowering Policymakers at National, Regional, and Local Levels
Abstract
Spatial planning and permitting are fundamental, cross-cutting elements that affect all forms of renewable energy deployment. Each project, regardless of the specific technology employed, must undergo a permitting process that is intrinsically linked to spatial planning decisions. This chapter examines the key regulatory issues associated with both permitting and spatial planning, identifies common barriers, and highlights emerging good practices. This analysis supports authorities – especially at regional and local levels, who play a decisive role through their responsibilities for spatial planning and permitting – in diagnosing potential regulatory barriers and implementing targeted measures.
Spatial planning frameworks significantly influence permitting efficiency, particularly since local authorities commonly make frontline decisions on land-use approval. By defining land-use and zoning rules, spatial plans establish the legal and procedural basis on which permitting decisions are made. Where such plans include clearly identified areas suitable for renewable energy – taking into account factors such as grid access, land availability, and environmental constraints – they can provide legal certainty, reduce conflicts, and shorten permitting timelines. Conversely, outdated spatial planning instruments or those lacking specific provisions for renewable energy can create delays, increase legal risk, and hinder local authorities from processing applications effectively.
Regional and local authorities can significantly impact renewable energy deployment timelines and outcomes. This is clear from both case studies undertaken by the OECD (see chapters Algarve and Apulia). Further, the example of Italian regions having exercised administrative powers, including veto rights, to impose effective moratoria on renewable projects, largely in response to perceived inadequacies in local consultation and public participation is also quite illustrative. Whilst such interventions are quite rare, they highlight well how sub-national governance plays a pivotal role, influencing not only the efficiency and speed of renewable energy permitting but also community acceptance and environmental safeguarding. Recognising and appropriately providing guidelines and involving regional and local authorities from the outset can therefore help mitigate such interventions and ensure a smoother, more predictable permitting process.
Complex and lengthy permitting procedures are widely recognised as one of the main barriers to renewable energy deployment. Consulted stakeholders consistently highlight the administrative complexity and delays associated with authorisation processes for both solar and wind energy projects. The (European Court of Auditors, 2019[1]) has identified slow and unpredictable permitting as a key obstacle, while the European Commission has taken several steps to address this challenge. In the EU Solar Strategy, the European Commission calls for streamlined, shorter, and more transparent processes (European Commission, 2022[2]). Similarly, the Wind Power Action Plan emphasises the need to improve permitting predictability and streamlining permitting processes (European Commission, 2023[3]). These efforts have been supported by legislative action, including revisions to the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II and III), which aim to simplify and accelerate permitting procedures across Member States.1
This chapter addresses the critical issue of spatial planning and permitting a cross-cutting issue across all market segments and technologies analysed throughout this report. It therefore serves as an important pillar for the whole report and should be used jointly therefore with each Chapter that follows. This Chapter begins by contextualising spatial planning and permitting (Section 3.2), then examines spatial planning rules that may constitute barriers to deployment and influence permitting (Section 3.3.1). It then explores permitting rules and procedures, including environmental impact assessments, and analyses in which circumstances they may constitute barriers to deployment of renewable energies (Section 3.3.2). Given that these aspects are mainly sub-national in scope, including at local level, together, these provide a structured overview of the barriers and opportunities for scaling solar, wind and pumped hydro storage. The self-diagnostic questionnaire is at Section 3.4.
Deploying new renewable energy projects have numerous phases, many of which can encounter delays. Typically, the phases include: (i) conceptualisation and feasibility, when the project is conceived and evaluated for its technical, economic, legal and financial merit; (ii) permitting, when the project is evaluated and approved by government authorities, typically sub-national and local authorities; (iii) financing and structuring, when the financing of the project is arranged and the risks are distributed among the various stakeholders; and (iv) construction and commissioning, when the project is built and tested for operation (Gumber, Zana and Steffen, 2024[4])).
Within the permitting phase, several administrative steps are typically required (European Commission, 2023[5]):
XI. Site Selection – Securing the project site, either through purchase or lease, checking legal suitability to host the installation, and conducting environmental assessments.
XII. Electricity Production Licensing – Obtaining the necessary license to produce electricity.
XIII. Administrative Authorisation (hence “permitting”) – Includes all the steps the developer must complete to obtain the license to construct a renewable energy installation. The permitting procedures are a necessary part of the process to ensure legitimate public objectives, such as safety and security of installations.
XIV. Grid Connection Permitting - Developers must seek permission to connect the installation to the electricity grid, as well as any additional processes necessary for the grid connection.
The permitting process refers to the full set of administrative procedures required for the construction, repowering and operation of renewable energy installations. It includes steps from the acknowledgment of complete application to the notification of the final administrative decision by the relevant authority2. The permitting process thus refers to the phase where projects are evaluated and approved primarily by sub-national authorities (regional and local) responsible for land-use, environmental, and construction authorisations and can act as the gateway for renewable energy projects.
While conceptually distinct, spatial planning and permitting procedures are often interdependent. Projects aligned with existing land-use plans are more likely to obtain approvals without delay (Banet and Donati, 2024[6]). In many jurisdictions, particularly for larger-scale solar or wind farms, consistency with zoning or environmental planning instruments is a prerequisite for permit approval.
Technology-specific permitting criteria and procedures that consider different needs and aspects add further complexity. For example, onshore wind projects face additional restrictions – such as setback distances, height limits, and aviation clearance – and often require multiple layers of approval across different authorities. This results in approval times ranging from 3 to 9 years, varying not only between Member States but also across regions (European Commission, 2024[7]). An estimated 80 GW of wind capacity was awaiting permitting across the EU in 2023 – five times the capacity installed in 2022 (European Commission, 2023[3]).
Technology-specific permitting issues are addressed in more detail in the relevant chapters of this report (where applicable). Readers are encouraged to consult chapters such as those on offshore wind, agrivoltaics, and pumped hydro for a more focused discussion of regulatory barriers to deployment.
Despite policy efforts to improve authorisation procedures, significant regulatory barriers persist. These include outdated spatial planning, inflexible or lack of permitting timelines, fragmented authority across governance levels, and other legal challenges. The cumulative effect of these barriers slows down deployment and undermines investment certainty.
3.3.1. Spatial planning
(To undertake a self-assessment on spatial planning regulatory barriers, see questionnaire in section 3.4)
Spatial planning defines the legal and procedural framework for where renewable energy infrastructure can be developed. It plays a foundational role in the permitting process. When well designed, spatial plans accelerate deployment by offering legal clarity and administrative predictability, particularly when they identify and zone areas suitable for renewables.
Across the EU, spatial planning is implemented through binding legal instruments at different levels of government. This is typically via ordinances, zoning laws, or land-use plans – that operate at national, regional, or local levels. These may include regional development strategies, building plans, spatial energy strategies, or municipal heating plans. Together, they define where and how infrastructure – including renewable energy – can be developed. Local and regional authorities use these instruments to set development restrictions, guide zoning decisions, and support long-term infrastructure planning. Local and regional authorities therefore have substantial responsibility that can directly affect renewable energy project feasibility and timelines.
Spatial planning frameworks vary considerably across EU Member States, reflecting national legal traditions, institutional arrangements, and governance structures. The EU does not have a general competence in spatial planning, but it influences national systems through sectoral legislation and guidance (e.g. on energy, environment, or transport). While most Member States operate with three tiers of spatial planning (national, regional, local), others operate with two or up to five. For example, Portugal involves national, regional, and municipal levels in spatial planning, with the regional level coordinating between national targets and local land-use plans. In Germany, a more decentralised model is used, but the federal government sets binding targets for land allocation to renewables, which the Länder must implement through state-level plans (See Box 3.1). These varying governance structures shape how local and regional authorities plan, approve, and manage renewable energy projects.
Four main models can be observed (Höftberger et al., 2024[8]):
Centralised systems (e.g. France) concentrate decision-making at national level, promoting consistency but limiting local flexibility.
Decentralised systems (e.g. Austria (see Box 3.1), give local and regional authorities significant planning powers, allowing responsiveness but leading to variability.
Cooperative systems (e.g. the Netherlands) involve collaborative planning across levels of government and civil society.
Integrative systems (e.g. Sweden, Norway) explicitly coordinate planning with environmental, housing, and transport policies.
Germany - The Länder (federal states) and local municipalities directly implement national renewable targets through state-level spatial plans and municipal zoning, demonstrating how crucial sub-national governance is in realising renewable energy objectives. Federal objectives have been established for the surface area needed to deploy onshore wind power by 2030, using a top-down approach. By 2026, the 13 largest Länder are required to designate, on average, 1.4% of their land for onshore wind power. By 2032, they must meet targets ranging from 1.8% to 2.2%, depending on factors such as wind conditions and the extent of protected nature areas. To achieve this, states are responsible for developing their own plans, following uniform rules and models provided by the federal government.
Austria - Municipalities bear significant responsibility by incorporating legally binding energy supply concepts into local development plans. This demonstrates the vital role local governments play in delivering renewable energy. For example, in the federal state of Styria, Austria, municipalities are required to develop energy supply concepts as part of their municipal development plans. These legally binding strategies cover a 10–15-year horizon and ensure that energy supply and demand – particularly for heat and mobility – are integrated into spatial planning. The planning process is based on detailed spatial energy profiling and supports energy-efficient zoning through the designation of “energy planning location areas.” This integration links settlement structure, energy efficiency, and long-term infrastructure development.
The Netherlands - local and regional authorities oversee spatial planning for energy projects, whilst through Regional Energy Strategies, each energy region identifies the potential wind power capacity and specifies suitable locations for its development.
Sub-national authorities, including regional governments and municipalities, play a critical role in enabling renewable energy deployment. Even where formal legislative competencies rest predominantly at the national level, subnational entities significantly influence outcomes through their involvement in spatial planning and permitting decisions. These authorities are uniquely positioned to balance three frequently competing imperatives: ensuring permitting processes are efficient and timely to meet EU and national deployment targets; safeguarding biodiversity and environmental resilience objectives; and facilitating robust community engagement to foster public acceptance and equitable outcomes.
Comprehensive and coordinated spatial planning is essential to meet renewable energy targets and identify areas suitable for deployment. Member States should therefore ensure alignment across governance levels, with regional authorities often playing a crucial coordinating role between national objectives and local implementation (Öko-Institut e.V, 2024[9]). This would include the assessment of the potential of different technologies – key factors would include projected energy demand, existing infrastructure capacity, and the feasibility of grid or storage expansion.
Integrated spatial planning can help balance competing priorities in land development. It depends on three principles: vertical integration ensuring coordination across government levels between national, regional, and local levels, aligning top-down targets (e.g. for renewable deployment) with local realities; horizontal integration between departments (e.g. energy, environment, transport), and territorial integration across functional areas such as energy catchment areas that may not align with administrative boundaries (Höftberger et al., 2024[8])).
The identification of land for renewable energy development requires close coordination across administrative levels and sectors, yet this is often lacking. In many Member States, spatial planning frameworks remain fragmented across national, regional, and local authorities, with insufficient integration of energy system considerations.3 This fragmentation can lead to gaps or overlaps in designated zones, inconsistent criteria for site suitability, and a disconnect between local plans and national renewable deployment targets. Early involvement of regional and local authorities, leveraging their detailed knowledge of local conditions and community concerns, can help address these issues by improving the coherence and effectiveness of spatial planning frameworks (see Box 3.2). Strengthening coordination across all governance levels, including planning, energy, and environmental authorities, is essential for ensuring spatial plans are realistic, consistent, and capable of delivering timely renewable deployment.
With its Regional Energy Strategy (RES), the Netherlands has opted for an inclusive approach that brings together many stakeholders to jointly decide on the implementation of renewable energy at a regional level. The approach recognises that social acceptance and support are crucial conditions for implementing renewable energy projects in society and places significant emphasis on social acceptance or even public participation.
The RES includes local and provincial authorities, social organisations, grid operators, enterprises and inhabitants to collectively make decisions on the implementation of renewable energy at a regional level. It facilitates the regional shaping of large-scale sustainable energy production, both within regions and between regions and the central government.
Clear national guidance can play a constructive role in promoting consistency in spatial planning across governance levels. While ultimate decisions typically remain with subnational authorities, national or regional guidance can help clarify expectations, support coherence with renewable targets, and reduce administrative burdens by providing a common reference point. This can also assist regional and local authorities in fulfilling their responsibilities more efficiently, particularly where institutional or technical capacities are limited.
Effective planning can accelerate permitting by pre-identifying areas where projects are more or less likely to be viable. A tiered classification system – such as (i) suitable areas (may be viable but require case-by-case assessments due to some constraints), (ii) very suitable areas (low environmental impact and strong gird access, can benefit from streamlined permitting), and (iii) protected areas are generally excluded due to environmental sensitivities. This can help enhance clarity and predictability for both permitting authorities and developers. However, its effectiveness depends on maintaining robust environmental assessments and ensuring meaningful community engagement to prevent unintended consequences or delays further down the process.
Approaches to designating permissible and restricted zones vary widely across EU Member States. The emphasis has been either in defining suitable areas to streamline deployment or on restrictions through non-suitable zones, depending on whether the emphasis of the jurisdiction is more or less towards fostering renewables deployment (Eclareon; Oeko-Institut; WindEurope; SolarPower Europe, 2023[11]). Developing a detailed mapping system that classifies zones based on development feasibility would enhance clarity and efficiency, see Box 3.1. While defining “unsuitable” areas may be complex, identifying "suitable" where permitting can be streamlined, ensuring faster project deployment, could be an important first step.
The Example of the Netherlands
The Netherlands undertook a coordinated mapping exercise to identify suitable areas for the renewable energies, involving spatial analysis of land suitability for different renewable technologies, consultations with provinces and municipalities as well as preliminary assessment of environmental impacts. The Ministry issued an explanatory guide for how these entities could conduct such analysis.
Further, the Environment and Planning Act, effective from 1 January 2024 introduce changes in spatial planning and enhances its flexibility through several key reforms:
Municipalities must now adopt a single environment and land-use plan covering their entire area, replacing previous plans and replacing traditional zoning plans. Municipalities are required to consider energy transition requirements in spatial decisions.
At the national, provincial, and municipal levels, an Environment Vision (Omgevingsvisie) is required, outlining strategic goals for future physical environment development, allowing for area-specific and adaptive planning.
The inclusion of such areas in planning documents signals to both authorities and investors where projects are more likely to be approved. This reduces the risk of negative permitting decisions or costly delays during permitting. This pre-zoning can also ease the administrative burden on local authorities by offering a pre-assessed basis for decision-making and enabling better coordination with national and regional objectives.
Mapping suitable areas is a critical first step in ensuring that spatial planning aligns with renewable energy deployment needs. This involves identifying where future renewable energy projects and associated infrastructure – such as grid connections, substations, and storage – can be most effectively located (See Box 3.4). Mapping exercises should consider existing installed capacity, projected deployment needs under national energy and climate objectives, and how these translate into concrete spatial requirements. Areas offering high renewable energy potential, strong proximity to demand centres, and access to infrastructure are particularly relevant for strategic planning.4 Given land-use pressures, spatial plans should also identify multiple-use solutions – such as agrivoltaics, floating solar, and PV systems integrated into transport or built infrastructure – where feasible.5
Several land categories offer potential for designation as very suitable areas for renewable energy deployment, due to their low environmental impact, existing infrastructure, or potential for co-benefits.
Transport infrastructure corridors: Areas alongside motorways and railways often exhibit low biodiversity value and benefit from proximity to grid infrastructure. Vertical and bifacial PV systems, as well as solar canopies over roadways or railways, present opportunities for dual land-use.
Industrial areas and former mines: These locations often offer existing grid access, flat terrain, and large plots of available land. Former coal mining sites are already being repurposed across several Member States for wind and solar projects. While stability and subsurface conditions require assessment, these areas reduce land transaction costs (e.g. less owners) and can accelerate permitting when pre-zoned.
Artificial water bodies and irrigation canals: Reservoirs, disused quarry lakes, and concrete-lined irrigation channels are promising for floating PV or canal-top solar projects. These installations offer dual benefits, such as limiting water evaporation and producing clean energy without displacing land-based uses.
Degraded or marginal land: Land unsuitable for agriculture due to contamination, erosion, or poor soil quality can be prioritised for solar development. With appropriate design, such areas can also contribute to biodiversity goals – for example, through pollinator-friendly solar parks that enhance ecological connectivity while supplying clean electricity.
Wastewater treatment facilities: These sites, often located in urban peripheries, offer potential for rooftop or ground-mounted PV systems that meet part of the facility’s energy needs. Their enclosed and managed nature can reduce land-use conflicts and simplify permitting.
When planning in these areas, national and subnational authorities can promote multiple uses of land and integrate local constraints and opportunities to ensure sustainable and socially acceptable deployment. These examples support the rationale for pre-zoning very suitable areas within spatial plans and RAAs.
Building on this initial mapping, designating areas where renewable projects can be deployed more rapidly, with simplified procedures is also critical. Within the framework of the Renewable Energy Directive, these are referred to as Renewable Acceleration Areas (RAAs). RAAs are intended to represent a sub-set of the broader pool of mapped land that is particularly well-suited for renewable energy development – areas where projects are expected to have low environmental impact and can and benefit from fast-tracked permitting procedures (See Box 3.5). Their designation requires strategic consideration of technical potential, infrastructure availability, and environmental screening, and serves as a legal tool to improve predictability, reduce permitting timelines, and signal priority zones for investment. See Box 3.5 for a national example of this approach.
Croatia
In Croatia, a pilot project conducted in Zadar County – “How Spatial Planning Can Accelerate Renewable Energy Uptake in Southeast Europe” – developed a structured methodology to inform the national designation of Renewable Acceleration Areas (RAAs). The method combines environmental sensitivity mapping with resource suitability assessment.
The process followed three main steps:
1. Exclusion zones were mapped where renewable development is legally prohibited (e.g. national parks, protected reserves).
2. Environmentally sensitive areas were identified using indicators covering biodiversity, economic land-use (e.g. agriculture), and social-cultural values.
3. Remaining areas were assessed through multi-criteria analysis, resulting in classifications of low, medium, or high sensitivity.
These classifications were then overlaid with technical suitability maps for wind and solar to identify priority areas – those combining low sensitivity with strong renewable potential. This overlay of sensitivity and suitability enabled the identification of priority areas that are both low in environmental conflict and technically viable for renewable energy projects This methodology now serves as a basis for Croatia’s national RAA mapping under RED III.
Effective spatial planning for renewable energy must be coordinated with grid infrastructure development to ensure feasibility and minimise future bottlenecks. Proximity to existing or planned transmission capacity significantly influences the viability of project sites. While distance from the grid should not automatically exclude areas – particularly where expansion is planned – failing to consider grid availability early in the planning process can delay deployment and increase system costs. Coordination between spatial planners and grid operators helps ensure that designated zones, including Renewable Acceleration Areas (RAAs), reflect realistic infrastructure capacity and can be connected efficiently. Without such coordination, there is a greater risk of congestion, higher expansion costs, and unintended environmental impacts linked to new grid development. Without coordinated geographical planning of renewable sites, grid infrastructure, and demand hotspots, there is a risk of grid congestion, increased expansion costs, and unintended environmental impacts linked to new grid development.
3.3.2. Permitting
Permitting remains a key regulatory barrier to renewable energy deployment across the EU. Despite a series of recent reforms, administrative authorisation remains an important challenging step in the project development process. (European Commission, 2024[12]) (see also Box 3.6). Permitting frameworks remain fragmented and insufficiently aligned with the requirements of RED III, in terms of length of time it takes for permitting decisions to be made as well as the complexity of the permitting processes and its requirements.6 The complexity and fragmentation of rules for permitting mean that regional and local authorities that already face capacity constraints have added complications to deal with, exacerbating those resource constraints further and to further delays.
The 2024 Draghi Report underscores permitting as one of the key bottlenecks for renewable energy deployment. It identifies issues such as complex site selection rules, lengthy environmental assessments, grid-connection issues, limitations on adjusting technology specifications during the permitting process, and staffing shortages within permit-granting authorities or grid operators. According to the Report, in some EU countries, the permitting process for large renewable energy projects can take as long as 9 years.
The Report also indicates that the permitting duration for rooftop PV projects varies significantly across EU countries, ranging from as short as 1.5 months in Malta to 10 months in Bulgaria. For ground-mounted PV systems, timelines extend from 1 year in Bulgaria to as long as 4 years and 6 months in Greece, with other countries such as Ireland and Spain also experiencing lengthy processes of 3 to 4 years or more. Onshore wind projects, on average, take 6 years to obtain approval. However, approval times are shorter in Latvia (2 years and 8 months) and Finland (3 years), while the longest delays are observed in Greece and Ireland, where the process can take 8 to 9 years.
Source: (Draghi, 2024[13])).
In response to these challenges several Member States have introduced reforms to accelerate permitting decisions. Since the European Commission’s Recommendation on permitting7, many Member States have adopted reforms to improve administrative procedures, including measures to introduce statutory permitting deadlines, simplify grid access and increase transparency on grid capacity (COWI, Eclareon and Prognos, 2024[14]). Notably, most Member States have implemented simplified procedures for small-scale installations (see paragraph 36), and several have begun efforts to reduce the duration of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). Despite these reforms, rigid permitting rules and limited procedural coordination continue and single contact points are often still not fully aligned with the Commission’s guidelines (COWI, Eclareon and Prognos, 2024[14]) and local permitting authorities continue to face significant procedural and coordination challenges.
Data shows the importance of reforms to ensure a more adapted permitting process. Many Member States have seen double-digit increases in the number of renewable energy permits issued following the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577. This Regulation helped fast-track permitting for renewables during the energy crisis. Examples from across the EU demonstrate the impact of streamlined permitting. In France, the amount of authorised wind capacity rose sharply in the first three quarters of 2023. The Flemish region of Belgium authorised 300 MW of wind power in the first eight months of 2023, already exceeding the total approved in 2022.8 In Germany, 13.8 GW of onshore wind was permitted in early 2024 – an 82% increase over the previous year (Deutsche WindGuard, 2025[15]).9 These developments illustrate how policy reforms can translate into accelerated project approvals and faster market deployment.
Timelines for permitting
(To undertake a self-assessment on permitting timelines, see questionnaire in section 3.4).
Clearly defined and enforceable permitting timelines are essential to accelerate project deployment. Introducing statutory deadlines at each stage of the permitting process – including maximum timeframes for environmental impact assessments – can improve developer planning and boost investor confidence. Early-stage measures, such as initiating public consultations and conducting preliminary assessments when site selection begins, can also help resolve potential conflicts before they delay approvals.10 These types of procedural reforms – when combined with strong administrative capacity – can reduce bottlenecks and help ensure that permitting frameworks are both predictable and proportionate to project risk.
Permitting timelines need to be short but reasonable and adapted to project size, location and impact. Small-scale installations – such as rooftop solar – typically have limited environmental and grid impacts, justifying simplified procedures and shorter deadlines (see below paragraph 0 et seq.). By contrast, larger or more complex projects may require more detailed scrutiny and longer timelines. Timelines should be set and reflect locational factors: projects situated within pre-designated suitable areas – particularly those covered by strategic environmental assessments – can reasonably benefit from expedited procedures. Adapting both permitting timelines and documentation requirements to the characteristics of each project type better reflects the relative risk, complexity, and environmental impact of each project type, thereby improving administrative efficiency and ensuring proportional regulatory oversight.
The European Commission has introduced differentiated permitting deadlines based on project type and location, reflecting the principles of proportionality and risk-based oversight. Under RED III, maximum durations are set for the administrative part of the permitting process, with shorter timelines applying to projects located in pre-designated very suitable zones, particularly RAAs, where prior environmental assessments may have already been conducted (see Box 3.7). These streamlined procedures aim to accelerate permitting where the potential for conflict is lower. However, progress remains uneven – many Member States have yet to identify suitable areas or designate RAAs, limiting the practical implementation of these tailored permitting timelines.
RED III introduces a more harmonised and accelerated approach to renewable energy permitting across the EU.
Article 16 - This article defines the permit-granting procedure as encompassing all administrative stages from the acknowledgment of a complete application to the final decision. Authorities must confirm completeness within 30 days for projects in RAAs and 45 days for those outside. Incomplete applications must be addressed without undue delay. Member States must establish one or more contact points to support applicants and ensure that all permitting procedures are fully digital by 21 November 2025.
Article 16a - RAAs are zones to be designated by Member States where permitting timelines are shortened to less than 1 year for new projects and less than 6 months for repowering.
Article 16 b - Outside RAAs, projects should be approved in less than 2 years, except for: (i) Offshore projects (3 years); (ii) Repowering, new installations with an electrical capacity of less than 150 kW and co-located energy storage, as well as connection of such plants, installations and storage to the grid, (1 year); and (iii) offshore repowering (2 years).
Article 16 d - An expedited 3-month process shall be applied by Member States to rooftop and building-integrated PV solar systems and co-located storage on existing or future artificial structures (excluding water surfaces), provided the primary function is not energy production. Exemptions from environmental assessments under Directive 2011/92/EU are also envisaged.
Source: Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652.
Well-defined and transparent permitting frameworks are essential to ensure compliance with permitting deadlines. In approximately half of EU Member States, specific deadlines are already in place for authorities to issue a decision following the submission of an environmental impact assessment by the developer. And in Bulgaria, Latvia, Malta, and Romania, these timelines are capped at one to two months (European Commission, 2024[12]). Such frameworks should clearly establish when permitting timelines begin, how they are calculated, and the consequences for non-compliance. Enforcing procedural discipline helps reduce uncertainty for developers and improves administrative accountability.
In parallel, simplified permitting procedures, particularly for low-risk projects, may help alleviate administrative burdens and accelerate approvals. Permitting requirements must be tailored to the actual risk posed by a project, ensuring that developers of low-risk projects are not subjected to unnecessary regulatory hurdles. Box 3.8 illustrates how regulatory streamlining in the Netherlands has contributed to shorter permitting timelines.
The example of the Netherlands
The Netherlands has introduced the Environment and Planning Act, a significant regulatory reform aimed at streamlining permitting procedures. The Act reduces administrative burdens and shortens timelines. It is supported by a digital platform - the Environmental Desk – which facilitates application submission and tracking.
One of the Act’s key features is to minimise the need for individual permits by replacing them, where appropriate, with general rules laid out in decrees and regulations. A default eight-week review period now applies to most permit applications, with 6 months for those that fall under the extensive procedure criteria, at which time decision are to be received from the municipality, province, regional water board or national government. A penalty payment may apply if deadlines are not respected.
For onshore wind exemptions are in place for wind parks below 3 turbines, while EIAs are mandatory for all projects with more than 20 turbines. For offshore wind, the Dutch government mitigates developer risk by conducting detailed site studies before launching tenders.
Despite these advances, implementation challenges remain. These include uncertainty around new concepts and procedures, extensive justification requirements, questions of proportionality in risk assessment, and the potential impact of shifting political priorities.
Source: (Addison et al., 2024[16])
Permitting for small scale installations and energy communities
Smaller installations typically have limited environmental and grid implications, justifying simplified permitting procedures. Differentiated timelines allow authorities to allocate resources more effectively, focusing detailed assessments on larger, more complex projects. This enhances administrative efficiency and can reduce permitting bottlenecks.
This means that small-scale installations may justify accelerated and simplified processes. Rooftop PV and other decentralised systems often have minimal spatial or environmental footprint. Where appropriate, permitting frameworks may include features such as administrative positive silence or exemption thresholds. In this context, recent EU legislation provides targeted procedural simplifications, including exemptions from EIAs. For rooftop solar and co-located storage installations on artificial structures, the administrative permitting process should not exceed three months. Where systems fall below 100 kW – such as those typically operated by self-consumers and renewable energy communities – the timeline is further shortened to one month.11In these cases, the absence of a response from authorities within the prescribed period may be treated as implicit approval through an ‘administrative positive silence’ mechanism, also known as “silence is consent”.
Several EU Member States have simplified permitting frameworks for small-scale rooftop solar systems to accelerate deployment. Countries such as France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Bulgaria, and Romania have removed construction permit requirements for rooftop PV installations. Some Member States – Portugal, Greece, Bulgaria, and Spain – have also introduced "positive silence" provisions for installations under a certain threshold (typically 10.8–50 kW), where lack of response by authorities within a defined period results in automatic approval (see Box 3.9).
In many Member States, installing rooftop PV on multi-apartment buildings requires consent procedures, whether for individual or collective self-consumption. One way to facilitate uptake is to ease these requirements, should this be a public policy objective. For instance, Portugal does not require consent for individual installations, while Spain allows collective self-consumption with a simple majority, compared to the unanimity or two-thirds majority or unanimity needed in other countries (European Commission, 2024[12]).
Bulgaria recent reforms have eliminated the need for both a construction permit and project submission for rooftop PV systems up to 20 kW for self-consumption. Instead, a simple notification to the municipality is required, and the project is considered approved if no objection is raised within 14 days. However, more complex procedures still apply for installations wishing to export surplus electricity to the grid.
Czechia - Recent amendments to the Energy Act raised the exemption threshold for electricity production licences from 10 kW to 50 kW. Systems up to 50 kW now also benefit from exemptions from zoning decisions, planning permissions, building permits, and notifications – provided they comply with applicable spatial plans.
Italy - Italy’s simplified enabling procedure (PAS) applies to PV systems between 1 MW and 12 MW, reducing permitting burdens and accelerating development timelines for mid-scale installations. It has also introduced reforms through Law 32/2022 to classify rooftop PV and thermal systems as ordinary maintenance – exempt from permitting – except in cases involving buildings or areas of significant historical value.
Portugal - Renewable energy communities benefit from streamlined procedures, with exemptions from prior control, registration, and operating requirements for smaller self-consumption systems. Installations below 30 kW are also exempt from licensing fees and certain charges of general economic interest.
Spain has further eased procedures by eliminating construction permit requirements nationwide as of June 2023. A prior notification is now sufficient in all Autonomous Communities.
The Netherlands - The new Environmental and Planning Act simplifies permitting for small renewable energy projects. Many installations – such as rooftop solar panels – are fully exempt from permitting requirements, enabling faster deployment.
Coordination between permitting authorities
(To undertake a self-assessment on coordination between permitting authorities see in section 3.4).
Fragmented and sequential permitting processes remain a significant barrier to renewable projects (Addison et al., 2024[18]). Local authorities, as the principal bodies processing permits, significantly benefit from coordinated procedures, which alleviate administrative burdens and streamline permitting decisions. When permits must be obtained in a step-by-step sequence across multiple authorities, this can prolong timelines and increases administrative burdens. A single, unified application process – where relevant permits are processed in parallel – can help streamline procedures and reduce unnecessary delays, reduce cost and improve coordination across authorities.
Given the number of authorities that may be involved and in order to benefit from the experience of others, the OECD case studies show that guidelines may be useful (See Chapter Case Studies). Implementing authorities may benefit from targeted guidance for each of the authorisations required in a particular country, including a template outlining the optimal permitting process for each project type, including the documentation needs. This would also provide increased transparency to potential developers. These guidelines could also be supported by links to relevant guidance documents and checklists, as well as case study examples of authorisations already made in the country.
Establishing a single point of contact, or “one-stop shop,” is one widely recognised way to improve coordination and avoid administrative bottlenecks. One-stop shops allow applicants to obtain all relevant information and complete required procedures through a single interface. One-stop shops can take different forms. A basic model facilitates communication between project developers and the various authorities involved in permitting and grid connection. A more advanced model empowers the contact point to issue all required permits directly. Countries may also establish multiple one-stop shops based on project size, technology type, or administrative level – whilst for each project there is only a single designated contact point (European Commission, 2024[12]).
One-stop shops also help reduce administrative complexity for local permitting bodies, enhancing their ability to process applications efficiently and consistently. Such models have been applied across sectors, helping to reduce compliance costs and improve procedural transparency. Evidence suggests they are particularly effective in simplifying licensing and permitting requirements (OECD, 2023[19]).
Designating the most appropriate authority to lead permitting coordination is critical to ensuring efficient and predictable procedures. The choice of lead body should reflect local administrative structures and be based on demonstrated capacity, resource availability, and the ability to ensure effective inter-agency cooperation.12 Where these conditions are met, one-stop shops can reduce duplication, improve coordination, and enhance user experience. Digitisation further strengthens their role by enabling integrated application portals that support submission, document sharing, and real-time tracking across permitting bodies. For practical examples, see Box 3.10.
To help ensure that permitting timelines are respected when multiple authorities are involved, one possible approach is to require formal coordination obligations among the responsible bodies. For example, where several administrative approvals are necessary – for construction, grid connection, or operation – national frameworks can establish duties for competent authorities to coordinate their procedures in a way that ensures overall compliance with statutory deadlines. Such provisions can enhance procedural discipline, reduce delays arising from fragmented responsibilities, and support more predictable permitting outcomes.
Estonia - the Estonian Building Registry has been significantly digitised since 2016, now serving as a complete digital one-stop shop for various stakeholders. Through the registry it is possible to request and process, for example, a building permit and use permit and energy label. According to the Ministry of Climate, the enforcement of deadlines by the system has allowed for important gains, especially as regards wind energy.
Denmark - The Danish one-stop shop for offshore wind permitting is a coordination mechanism led by the Danish Energy Agency (Energistyrelsen). The agency serves as the main contact point for developers, providing comprehensive guidance and issuing all the necessary licenses for offshore wind projects. This centralised approach streamlines administrative procedures and ensures that developers do not have to interact with multiple authorities.
Portugal - the Portuguese distribution system operator (DSO), E-Redes, in collaboration with national permitting authorities, has developed a digital platform to streamline the permitting process for renewable energy projects. The platform will enable complete digitalisation ("zero-paper" processing) and offers tools for real-time tracking of applications, coordination among relevant entities, and enforcement of response timelines. It also allows the lead permitting authority to impose deadlines or activate tacit approval mechanisms, improving accountability and reducing procedural delays.
In addition to improving coordination within national permitting systems, enhanced cross-border cooperation is increasingly important to ensure efficient renewable energy deployment within the EU internal market. In some cases, projects may be near borders and even cross them, as projects are developed in the most suitable locations, regardless of administrative borders. Effective cooperation between authorities in neighbouring countries is needed not only to streamline permitting processes but also to uphold the competitive and integrated functioning of the EU energy market.
Environmental Impact Assessments
(To undertake a self-assessment on EIAs, see questionnaire in section 3.4)
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are a key regulatory safeguard, providing a structured framework to evaluate the environmental consequences of wind, solar, and pumped hydro storage projects. When targeted and proportionate, EIAs support informed permitting decisions and help minimise adverse environmental impacts. For example, utility scale or onshore wind installations often require EIAs due to land area, ecological sensitivity, or proximity to protected zones (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[20]) (Solar Power Europe, 2023[21]).
The effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) depends on clear, standardised guidance and consistent application. Many Member States still lack precise definitions and thresholds for assessing renewable energy projects. For example, in Lithuania, ambiguity in national EIA legislation – specifically, the absence of a clear definition for “significant visual impact” – has resulted in inconsistent conclusions for ground-mounted solar authorisations, generating uncertainty and protracted approvals (European Commission et al., 2023[22]). To support efficient and predictable permitting, Member States should consider standardised methodologies and explicit criteria for evaluating environmental impacts, ensuring that EIAs are both robust and uniformly applied.
Unnecessarily complex or misaligned EIA procedures are particularly problematic for innovative or small-scale renewable energy solutions, such as Agrivoltaics. In these cases, regulators’ reliance on conventional solar farm criteria may not consider the dual-use agricultural and biodiversity benefits intrinsic to agrivoltaics, resulting in incomplete assessments, increased costs, and avoidable delays (see Chapter Agrivoltaics; (SolarPower Europe, 2024[23])). Streamlined, well-informed EIA frameworks – tailored to recognise the specific features and benefits of innovative technologies – are essential for regulatory efficiency, investor confidence, and the accelerated deployment of diverse renewable energy solutions (SolarPower Europe, 2024[23]).
Simplification of EIA procedures can be achieved through clear definitions, harmonised assessment criteria, and integrated permitting systems that consolidate all required approvals under a single authority. Many Member States have introduced streamlined procedures or exempted smaller-scale installations – such as rooftop PV – from EIA obligations. 13These measures help accelerate deployment while maintaining appropriate environmental protections. See Box 3.11 for examples of recent reforms.
Introducing legally defined timelines for EIAs is essential to ensure predictability and improve the overall investment climate. An individual EIA may be required, especially if not already done in spatial planning step, for instance in the context of an RAA designated area. Long and uncertain EIA procedures can significantly delay project delivery and increase risk premiums, particularly for capital-intensive renewable energy projects. To mitigate this, timelines for each stage of the EIA process – from scoping to public consultation and final decision – should be clearly established in national legislation or administrative guidance. This helps ensure that authorities act within a reasonable and transparent timeframe and provides developers with a more stable basis for project planning.
Estonia - Estonia has implemented reforms to accelerate the EIA process for onshore wind and other infrastructure projects. The entire EIA must be completed within 90 days, with defined minimum and maximum timelines for each procedural step. Simultaneous consultations on EIA scoping and final reports now replace sequential steps, while public consultation has been extended from 14 to 21 days. Redundant re-coordination of amended reports is no longer needed and clarifies when authorities are empowered to skip pre-assessment. These reforms apply to energy, transport, and extractive sectors.
Finland - To overcome fragmentation between government agencies, Finland plans to consolidate EIA and environmental permitting tasks under a new national supervisory authority. This body will assume responsibilities currently held by Regional State Administrative Agencies and Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, enhancing efficiency and procedural coordination. The reform is expected to be introduced in 2026 and reduce overlap and streamline permitting for renewable and other infrastructure projects.
France has introduced reforms to simplify EIA procedures for onshore wind projects. It has adopted a more proportionate approach to scoping, with thresholds determining the extent of required assessments. Modifications to existing installations (repowering) are categorised according to the scale of change: if the number of turbines or tip height increases by less than 10%, the change is not deemed significant and a focused EIA – limited to aspects such as noise and biodiversity – may suffice. For changes above 50%, a full EIA is required. Projects falling between these thresholds (10–50%) are assessed on a case-by-case basis by authorities, drawing on factors such as environmental monitoring data and the level of local acceptance. This graduated approach improves regulatory efficiency while maintaining environmental safeguards. Additionally, national legislation includes provisions for penalty payments in cases where permit decisions are not issued within the prescribed timeframe.
Easily accessible information on assessed biodiversity, land-use, and cumulative environmental impacts can increase transparency for both developers and authorities. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and digital platforms can make EIA processes more efficient and help projects to be optimally sited to minimise environmental impacts. A centralised digital portal could be developed to host environmental data, allowing stakeholders – including developers, regulators, and the public – to access, analyse, and contribute to EIA information in real-time. Such platforms should also facilitate automated screening to pre-identify potential environmental constraints, reducing delays caused by redundant assessments. Denmark exemplifies the effective integration of digital tools and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in EIA through the Danish Environmental Portal (Danmarks Miljøportal). This centralised platform provides comprehensive access to environmental data, including information on biodiversity, land-use, and water resources, facilitating efficient spatial analysis for project planning.14
Repowering
(To undertake self-assessment on repowering, see questionnaire in section 3.4).
Repowering offers a strategic opportunity to boost renewable generation by modernising existing sites. It involves the full or partial replacement of installations, systems, or equipment to improve efficiency and increase capacity. In addition to enhancing energy output, repowering can reduce land-use pressure by avoiding the need to identify new sites, optimise the use of existing grid infrastructure, and benefit from higher levels of public acceptance, particularly where projects are already well integrated into the landscape. For example, repowered wind farms can maintain or increase capacity while using fewer, more efficient turbines.
To unlock these benefits, repowering projects require dedicated permitting frameworks that reflect their distinct characteristics and lower risk profile. Unlike new greenfield developments, repowering typically involves upgrades to existing infrastructure within known sites, often with pre-existing grid connections and well-understood environmental impacts. As such, permitting procedures should be faster and more predictable.15 These differentiated deadlines acknowledge the lower risk and environmental complexity of repowering and are intended to remove regulatory bottlenecks that might otherwise deter reinvestment.
However, many permitting frameworks still limit flexibility to adopt newer technologies post-commissioning. Many permitting frameworks still limit flexibility to upgrade infrastructure. Rules that restrict changes in capacity or equipment – particularly for repowering – can discourage reinvestment in more efficient technologies. These constraints hinder both the modernisation of ageing assets and the uptake of innovative solutions. Some countries are beginning to adapt: for example, Germany has revised its legal framework to support repowering by allowing technical upgrades within defined thresholds (COWI, Eclareon and Prognos, 2025[26]), while Portugal has clarified the procedures for modifying existing connections, see Box 3.12. France has also introduced new rules (see Box 3.11).
During permitting, inflexible rules limit the ability to respond to market or technological developments. In several Member States, developers are unable to update project specifications once a permit application has been submitted. Stakeholders note that this rigidity is particularly problematic given the length of permitting procedures, which can span several years. During this time, more efficient or cost-effective technologies may become available, but developers are often locked into earlier specifications. For instance, in Lithuania, permits are tied to predefined technologies and capacities, with no option to revise them upward post-submission (COWI, Eclareon and Prognos, 2025[26]).
Italy
Legislative changes were introduced for repowering projects, whereby no authorisation is required for modifications to wind turbines or their components that result in a change in size of no more than 15% of the turbine’s initial size. Exceptions from the environmental impact assessment were also introduced for repowering projects that do not envisage a change in the area occupied and with a total power, following the intervention itself, of up to 50 MW.
Portugal
The government has issued a detailed handbook for project developers, outlining that modifications below 20% of the original power capacity must be notified but do not require changes to the initially assigned grid connection, provided the network operator gives a positive opinion and there is sufficient network availability. Additionally, repowering projects are exempt from environmental assessments as long as they stay within the predetermined area.
Source: (European Commission, 2024[7]), Decreto-legge No. 77 of 31 May 2021, https://www.apren.pt/contents/documents/guia-de-licenciamento-versao-final.pdf).
Legal risks and the role of courts in permitting
(To undertake a self-assessment on legal risks and the role of courts in permitting, see questionnaire in section 3.4).
Beyond administrative inefficiencies, legal frameworks also influence the predictability and risk exposure of renewable energy projects. Two key areas – judicial delays and whether deployment of renewables benefits from being considered in the public interest and to what extent – have emerged as critical issues with impact on deployment. Indeed, lengthy legal challenges have been reported by stakeholders to often delay the construction of renewable energy projects. The suspension of authorisation decisions or procedural steps affects procedural timelines, creating heightened uncertainty around project delivery and their timeframes. These delays introduce significant legal and financial risks for investment. Further, local permitting authorities often experience increased operational uncertainty due to prolonged judicial procedures and suspended administrative decisions.
Faster and more predictable judicial procedures can help mitigate these risks. Options include simplifying court processes, expedited judicial review mechanisms or fast track procedures, setting statutory deadlines for legal decisions, and introducing prioritisation rules for renewable energy disputes. Some countries have introduced expedited judicial review mechanisms – for instance, France limits the number of appeal stages and routes appeals directly to higher courts for wind projects (See Box 3.13). Additionally, specialised judicial panels for environmental and energy-related cases can enhance expertise, reducing delays caused by complex litigation, such as in Belgium, Finland, Germany and Sweden which have established specialised courts for renewable energy disputes (European Commission, 2024).
Austria
A recent amendment to the EIA Act removed the automatic suspensive effect of unsubstantiated complaints and introduced structured appeal deadlines. The law requires that objections be submitted at the outset, with fixed timelines for further submissions set by authorities and the Federal Administrative Court. This reduces procedural delays caused by late filings and ensures a more predictable permitting process.
France
The lead time to get onshore projects off the ground was identified as being between 6 to 8 years, due in part to the high number of authorities involved in the permitting process. Project developers argued a 'vicious circle' as failure to obtain one permit can lead to the refusal of others, involving as many as 25 different agencies. To reduce time from legal challenges, France streamlined the appeals process for environmental authorisations in onshore wind projects, reducing the number of possible appeals from three to two. Since 1 December 2018, appeals are now lodged directly with the Administrative Courts of Appeal, bypassing the Administrative Tribunals.
Netherlands
Legal reforms limit appeals for large-scale renewable project permits (e.g. wind projects over 100 MW and solar projects over 50 MW) to the High Court. This reduces the number of appeal stages and accelerates project implementation.
Considering renewable energy deployment have ‘overriding public interest’ status in law will impact the weighing by courts and administrative bodies when balancing competing public interests. Given their role in mitigating climate change and delivering long-term environmental and public health benefits, such projects may be prioritised or balanced more favourably in legal assessments, depending on national options. In the EU, RED III requires Member States to introduce a rebuttable presumption that renewable energy projects serve overriding public and environmental objectives.16 This designation strengthens the legal position of renewable energy developers in court and administrative procedures.17 This can help reduce legal uncertainties by ensuring that judicial and administrative decisions balance environmental concerns with the need for timely renewable project implementation.
So far, the adoption of this principle has so far been limited, but some evidence suggests it can be quite an impactful measure. As of mid-2024, only a few Member States – most notably Germany and Portugal – had integrated this presumption into their national legal frameworks (WindEurope, 2024[28]). In Germany, the designation was introduced in 2022 under the EEG and has since allowed to accelerate wind energy deployment. The measure has allowed permitting authorities and courts to favour wind projects when weighing competing legal interests (see Box 3.14).
Germany introduced the overriding public interest principle in the EEG 2023, anticipating RED III. This provision gives renewable energy projects legal priority in cases where the law requires balancing between competing interests, such as historic preservation or environmental protection. It has played a crucial role in accelerating Germany’s wind energy expansion (WindEurope, 2024[29]).
France has adopted a “major national interest” framework for projects essential to the ecological transition or national sovereignty. These projects, due to their significant purpose and scale, are granted special status, allowing them to navigate regulatory processes more efficiently. Projects exceeding 2.5 MW for solar or 9 MW for wind qualify for accelerated procedures and simplified legal status. This approach streamlines permitting and enhances the legal robustness of key strategic projects.
Source: ( (WindEurope, 2024[29])), (BDEW, 2024[30]).
3.4.1. 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.
Should the user of this tool wish to have an overarching view of how their permitting framework is, they should refer to the chapter relevant to a specific technology, to ensure a full assessment and an accurate score.
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.
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
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 =
Questions
References
[16] Addison, R. et al. (2024), Towards the green transition: Stimulating investment and accelerating permits for low emissions infrastructure.
[18] Addison, R. et al. (2024), “Towards the green transition: Stimulating investment and accelerating permits for low emissions infrastructure”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 68, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fc97f64e-en.
[6] Banet, C. and F. Donati (2024), Speeding Up Renewable Energy Permitting in Europe: Overcoming Implementation Challenges, https://cerre.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CERRE_Speeding-up-Renewable-Energy-Permitting-in-Europe_FINAL.pdf.
[30] BDEW (2024), What can we learn from Germany? Boosting RES and the implications on biodiversity, https://www.tilmeld.dk/groenenergiognatur2024/download-zip?data=390959.
[24] CAN (2023), Guidelines to Faster and Fairer Permitting for Europe’s Renewable Energy Transition.
[25] Catherine Banet; Filippo Donati (2024), Speeding up renewable energy permitting in Europe: overcoming implemention challenges.
[17] COWI, Eclareon and Prognos (2025), Monitoring the implementation of the Commission Recommendation and Guidance on speeding up permit-granting procedures for renewable energy and related infrastructure projects.
[26] COWI, Eclareon and Prognos (2025), Monitoring the implementation of the Commission Recommendation and Guidance on speeding up permit-granting procedures for renewable energy and related infrastructure projects.
[14] COWI, Eclareon and Prognos (2024), Implementation of the May 2024 Commission Recommendation (2024) 1343 on permitting, https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=58801&fromExpertGroups=3885.
[15] Deutsche WindGuard (2025), Status of Onshore Wind Energy Development in Germany.
[13] Draghi, M. (2024), Report on the Future of European Competitiveness; Report to the President of the European Commission.
[11] Eclareon; Oeko-Institut; WindEurope; SolarPower Europe (2023), RES Simplify.
[27] 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.
[12] 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.
[7] 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.
[3] European Commission (2023), European Wind Power Action Plan, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52023DC0669&qid=1702455143415.
[5] European Commission (2023), RES SImplify, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2833/894296.
[2] European Commission (2022), EU Solar Energy Strategy, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022DC0221.
[20] European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau (2023), “Overview of the Potential and Challenges for Agri-Photovoltaics in the European Union”, Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2760/208702.
[22] European Commission et al. (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.
[1] European Court of Auditors (2019), Wind and solar power for electricity generation: significant action needed if EU targets to be met, https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR19_08/SR_PHOTOVOLTAIC_EN.pdf.
[4] Gumber, A., R. Zana and B. Steffen (2024), A global analysis of renewable energy project commissioning timelines,, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192301927X.
[8] Höftberger, J. et al. (2024), The IN-PLAN Practice Handbook for integrated energy, climate and spatial planning.
[10] IEA (2024), The Netherlands 2024 Energy Policy Review.
[19] OECD (2023), From Red Tape to Smart Tape: Administrative Simplification in OECD Countries, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/from-red-tape-to-smart-tape_9789264100688-en.
[9] Öko-Institut e.V (2024), Overview of Renewable Energy Spatial Planning and Designation of Acceleration Areas in Selected EU Member States.
[21] Solar Power Europe (2023), SolarPower Europe (2023): Agrisolar Best Practices Guidelines Version 2.0..
[23] SolarPower Europe (2024), SolarPower Europe (2024): Agrisolar Handbook.
[29] 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/.
[28] WindEurope (2024), Wind energy permitting is improving but Governments still have work to do, https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/wind-energy-permitting-is-improving-but-governments-still-have-work-to-do/.
← 1. Directive (EU) 2023/2413 (RED III) – amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC.
← 2. This has also been recognised in Article 16 of the RED III
← 3. This was also some of the main findings of the Facilitating Spatial Planning for Renewable Energy Deployment Workshop held by the IEA on 10th October 2024.
← 4. Article 15b of the revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED III) sets out that mapping should be undertaken and reflect the spatial needs associated with national deployment trajectories. The mapping should also include an assessment of the renewable potential of land and water areas, anticipated energy demand, and the availability – or potential development – of grid and storage infrastructure.
← 5. This approach is also reflected in Article 15b of RED III, which encourages Member States to promote multiple uses of space in designated areas for renewable energy.
← 6. The transposition deadline for the simplification and acceleration of permitting procedures was 1 July 2024. Reflecting the fact that the timeframe had not been complied with by the vast majority of Member States, the European Commission launched infringement procedures in September 2024 against 26 Member, see https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/inf_24_4661/INF_24_4661_EN.pdf . Only Denmark has notified full transposition of the relevant provisions on permitting in RED III.
← 7. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2024/1343 of 13 May 2024 on speeding up permit-granting procedures for renewable energy and related infrastructure projects.
← 8. See recital (10) of Council regulation 2024/223 amending Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy.
← 9. This is based on the data of the core energy market data register of the Federal Network Agency and the announcements of the BNetzA regarding tenders for onshore wind energy.
← 10. Experience from Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) shows that early engagement on project siting has helped address public acceptance issues before they escalate. (European Commission, 2024[12]).
← 11. Article 16d of RED III.
← 12. RED III gives Member States flexibility in determining how to structure these one-stop shops, including at which level of authority they are established.
← 13. Such exemption is provided by Article 16(d) of RED III.
← 14. https://www.miljoeportal.dk/ . Denmark has reportedly digitised over 2,000 Environmental Impact Statements and consolidated 800 environmental datasets into a unified digital platform, streamlining permit documentation and improving project assessments, see https://www.policyinnovation.org/blog/tpma8n0y3ijopmhgw7uo8chwefe2ek-982sm (visited 02.02.2025)
← 15. RED III introduces binding maximum timelines to support this: repowering projects located within RAAs must be processed within 6 months for onshore and 2 years for offshore projects. Outside RAAs, the maximum duration extends to 1 year for onshore and 3 years for offshore repowering. Projects involving a capacity increase of 15% or less benefit from even faster timelines – 3 months within RAAs and 6 months elsewhere.
← 16. Article 16f of RED III.
← 17. This designation also allows such projects to benefit from simplified procedures or potential exemptions under EU legislation, such as the Habitats, Water Framework, and Wild Birds Directives (European Commission, 2023)