\u2013 and the amendment to the WindSeeG is still not a done deal \u2026<\/p>\n
\u2018One thing after another, and discussion upon discussion\u2019 <\/strong>could well have been the headline for what we have been experiencing in Germany and Europe this year. From the perspective of offshore wind energy alone,<\/strong> it is essential to keep track of both national and European developments in order to understand the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs\u2019 current push towards making offshore wind and green steel a leading market (note: there is also talk of low-carbon hydrogen).<\/p>\n The EEG, EnWG, the WindSeeG amendment, the Hydrogen Act, AgNes, FEP, the capacity market and\/or versus the NZIA\/IAA, ETS-1\/2, CBAM, RED II\/III, the NSEC targets and much more\u2026 electricity market design or EMD \u2013 and there are certainly still plenty of relevant regulatory measures missing from this list.<\/p>\n And the question for Germany remains: what will happen to the 16 gigawatts that have already been awarded? – At its 1069th sitting on 16 October 2026, the Bundesrat resolved to propose the following amendment to the draft bill in accordance with Article 76(2) of the Basic Law: a binding provision to ensure that the re-tendering of unallocated expansion volumes and abandoned projects<\/strong> enables rapid implementation; this could include provisions for the early return of areas and the reuse of existing preliminary work. This immediately raises the question: what are \u2018abandoned projects\u2019?<\/p>\n It is certainly a well-intentioned consideration, but in practice this means re-auctioning areas that were already allocated before 2025. Not just any areas, but those for which bidders have confirmed (and paid a proportion of) many billions of euros in an auction that has already been concluded, in return for 1. a payment amounting to 90 per cent of the total amount due, as an electricity cost reduction component to the transmission system operator obliged to provide connection; 2. a payment amounting to 5 per cent of the total amount due as a marine nature conservation component to the federal budget; and, last but not least, 3. a payment amounting to 5 per cent of the total amount due as a fisheries component to the federal budget.<\/p>\n The issue of power density<\/strong> is finally gaining prominence in the so-called Spatial Development Plan drawn up by the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, as per the current version dated 8 October 2026. Unfortunately, this was not yet the case at the time of the auction for the 16 gigawatts. Nor was there \u2013 or is there \u2013 sufficient assurance of a timely grid connection. Instead of now bringing the stakeholders together to make the 16 gigawatts a reality, debates are centring on return mechanisms. We still have a strong offshore wind industry in Europe and also in Germany, despite all the obstacles and built on a strong foundation of SMEs. Once again, it is becoming very clear that a weak and uncertain project pipeline jeopardises the industrial base<\/strong>. \u2013 We learnt this in the offshore wind industry during the \u2018Altmaier downturn\u2019. Unfortunately, that is sometimes the way it is with lessons learnt \u2013 some of them tend to get filed away and forgotten.<\/p>\n At present, for example, key components for North Sea wind farms are being supplied from China. The carbon footprint of these offshore wind turbines is already substantial simply due to the transport distances involved. If the amendment to the WindSeeG now refers to NZIA resilience criteria<\/strong>, then the current situation is certainly not in line with the spirit of this amendment.<\/p>\n If the 16 GW do not materialise, we will probably soon find ourselves, due to the lack of our own supply chain, debating whether it is even possible to achieve the expansion targets planned to date without China. And all this simply because sites were poorly planned, grid connections will only become available several years later, and because, instead of discussing feasibility, we are having discussions about returning the sites.<\/p>\n And whilst we\u2019re on the subject of lead markets: what about shipbuilding, particularly specialised shipbuilding? Alongside offshore wind plants<\/strong><\/p>\n If we do not want to lose our traditional industries and our future-oriented industrial sectors, and if we do not want to have to source established know-how from outside Europe \u2013 thereby creating new dependencies \u2013 and if we do not want the flexibility costs arising from storage facilities that must be imported from outside Europe to skyrocket (including for consumers), then now is the time to take a look at the entire system<\/strong>, both from an energy economics and an industrial policy perspective.<\/p>\n If our own regulatory framework turns an industrialised nation into an import-dependent country<\/strong> with dwindling jobs, we must assume that mistakes have been made \u2013 mistakes that cannot be easily rectified with a bit of red tape or a smattering of R&D funding. Only once every possible measure to implement the 16 GW has been exhausted and no solution for its realisation can be found should a return of the project be considered. This should then cost exactly as much as it would cost to maintain the offshore wind industry until the project is re-tendered.<\/p>\n And briefly on CfDs (Contracts for Difference) versus PPAs (Power Purchase Agreements): and there are many other positive side effects, so it makes sense.<\/p>\n am now looking forward to the public hearing on 2 November regarding the amendment to the WindSeeG and am keeping my fingers crossed for the supply industr<\/strong>y. After all, it is doing everything it can to ensure that expansion targets, climate protection, industrial growth and employment growth are achieved.<\/p>\n #strongertogether<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u2013 and the amendment to the WindSeeG is still not a done deal \u2026 \u2018One thing after another, and discussion upon discussion\u2019 could well have been the headline for what we have been experiencing in Germany and Europe this year. Anyone wanting to keep track of events here and understand which regulatory developments are linked […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2473,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[176,177,178,298,26],"tags":[170,317,260,294],"class_list":["post-2469","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-energy","category-europe","category-industrial-policy","category-net-zero-industry-act","category-offshore-wind-en","tag-employment","tag-industrial-growth","tag-ppa","tag-value-creation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/offshore-kommunikation.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2469","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/offshore-kommunikation.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/offshore-kommunikation.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/offshore-kommunikation.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/offshore-kommunikation.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2469"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/offshore-kommunikation.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2469\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2476,"href":"https:\/\/offshore-kommunikation.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2469\/revisions\/2476"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/offshore-kommunikation.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/offshore-kommunikation.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/offshore-kommunikation.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/offshore-kommunikation.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nAnyone wanting to keep track of events here and understand which regulatory developments are linked to which industrial or energy sector interests has had an enormous amount of reading material to get through in recent months.<\/p>\n
\nThe consequences for the supply industry in Germany and Europe would be devastating. The new allocation process, the planning and development, and the path to the final investment decision would (will?) cost many thousands of jobs. Experience shows that the lead time for an offshore wind farm operator until contracts are awarded<\/strong> is very long. It should also be borne in mind that there may not be any new interested parties for these sites at all.
\nThe weakening of the offshore wind industry that could result from this scenario of sites being returned could mean that even for the 4 gigawatts due to be re-allocated in 2027, there will be a long-term reliance on imports from third countries outside Europe. It is entirely possible that we will then no longer see a leading market for green steel in the offshore wind sector, as the demand for green steel would then arise outside Europe and would presumably primarily concern China.<\/p>\n
\nIn Germany alone, wind:research\u2019s study \u2018Value Creation in the Offshore Wind Energy Sector in Germany \u2013 Additional Scenarios\u2019 estimates that around 34,000 jobs in the industry could be lost if the 16 gigawatts were to be removed from the value chain. The study builds on another study, also produced by wind:research, which was published in April this year.
\nAccording to wind:research, the offshore wind industry generated an annual turnover of around 14.6 billion euros in 2025, including exports, and the studies make it clear that this annual turnover could rise to around 20 billion euros in 2030 and 57 billion euros in 2045.
\nIn the new crisis scenario, turnover falls to around 8 billion euros by 2030 and to just around 4 billion euros per year by 2045.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nIndustrial investment involves planning for decades. This also applies to the training and qualification of the skilled workers required for the offshore wind sector, and they must be given the opportunity to work. Otherwise, what is currently happening will continue: redundancies instead of further expansion of the workforce capable of handling 70 GW in Germany and 300 GW in Europe.<\/p>\n
\nBoth are equally necessary because there has been no timely correction to the electricity market design or the EMD.
\nNevertheless, all sites should be allocated in accordance with the Net Zero Industry Act<\/strong> criteria and taking the carbon footprint into account.
\nOnly in this way will<\/p>\n\n