Introduction: The use of wind power from wind turbines in Germany has developed in various phases since the Electricity Feed-in Act came into force in 1991. In the 1980s and early 1990s, wind turbines were often erected individually and scattered as so-called "farmstead wind turbines" - financed and operated by private individuals or small operating companies. From the mid-1990s, there was an increased focus on involving local citizens and developing community wind farms in designated concentration zones. The adoption of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) in 2000 then brought the decisive breakthrough: numerous wind farms were built in the 2000s - both in coastal regions and in windy inland locations.
Today, many of these older, smaller turbines are nearing the end of their service life or subsidisation. Repowering is moving into focus in order to better utilise windy locations in the future. Under Repowering is the replacement of older wind turbines with new, more powerful models. This offers several advantages - from planning law and economic aspects to better grid integration, environmental compatibility and benefits for the community. These advantages are presented below, followed by an explanation of the current public law requirements and procedures for repowering projects (including the latest legal innovations), before the practical implementation of such projects is discussed.
Advantages of repowering wind turbines
1. planning law advantages
In the 1990s, the legal framework for wind turbines was sometimes unclear. Authorisation decisions under immission control and building law were often made differently back then than would be the case under today's law. As a result, many old turbines would no longer receive authorisation under today's stricter regulations. One example: Until 1998, the relevant sound power level was determined in the noise report at a wind speed of 8 m/s at a height of 10 m; since 1998, this has been 10 m/s, which means stricter noise protection requirements. Repowering provides a remedy here - it enables old licences to be adapted to new standards in agreement between the local authority and operators by replacing old, possibly less suitable turbines with modern ones. This means that earlier wrong decisions or subsequent changes to regulations can be "corrected". This also increases acceptance among the population, as new turbines are often quieter and more compatible with the landscape (see point 4). Repowering in the sense of planning law also means adapting existing wind utilisation to current regulations and spatial planning requirements, which leads to more orderly wind farm structures in the long term.
2. economic advantages
Technical progress in wind turbines has been enormous. At the beginning of the 1990s, the average rated output of a wind turbine was only around 300 kW (kilowatts), with a maximum hub height of 40 metres and a rotor diameter of around 30 metres. In contrast, today's wind turbines achieve rated outputs of 5 to 7 MW (megawatts) and more - some models even up to ~8 MW - with hub heights of 130-160 metres and rotor diameters of 130-170 metres. The total height of modern turbines can significantly exceed 200 metres. This considerable leap in output enables a multiple of the energy yield in windy areas. As a result, the cost of repowering (dismantling and new construction) can often be amortised in a short time through additional yields.
In addition, modern wind turbines have lower maintenance costs per kilowatt hour generated. For older turbines, the annual maintenance costs amount to around 3 % of the original investment sum, whereas for new turbines they are estimated to be only 1.5-2 % - i.e. almost half as high. Another economic advantage of repowering compared to completely new wind farm sites is the utilisation of existing infrastructure: existing access roads, grid connections and cable routes of the old wind farm can continue to be used, which saves costs.
Subsidies: Repowering was also subsidised by law at times. For example, the EEG 2009 provided for a repowering bonus of 0.5 cents per kWh on the initial remuneration to incentivise investment in newer turbines. This subsidy was subject to conditions (among other things, the replaced old turbines had to be at least 10 years old, come from the same or neighbouring municipality and the new turbine had to have at least twice, but no more than five times the nominal output of the old one). In contrast to previous regulations, it was no longer mandatory to scrap the old system in order to receive the bonus. Current status: However, the specific repowering bonus in the EEG has since been abolished. Since the mid-2010s, wind turbines have been subsidised via tenders or sliding market premiums, without separate bonuses for repowering projects. Repowering is worthwhile today primarily due to its economic advantages - in particular the higher electricity generation at the existing site - as well as to secure existing wind areas. Many old turbines are no longer eligible for EEG remuneration after 20 years of operation; repowering allows the site to continue to be used for wind power production and to be reintegrated into the remuneration mechanism (currently via tenders or direct marketing).
3. improved grid integration
The new generation of wind turbines have various technical functions for grid support, which improves their integration into the electricity grid. Modern wind turbines can, for example, control their active power in a targeted manner, provide reactive power in the event of grid fluctuations and bridge short voltage dips through so-called fault-ride-through capabilities. Older systems from the 1990s did not yet have such grid-supporting features, or only to a limited extent. Legislators initially subsidised the upgrading of new wind turbines in this respect, e.g. through a system service bonus in the EEG (additional remuneration for turbines with certain grid support capabilities). This counteracted potential stability problems caused by fluctuating wind power feed-in. These technical requirements are now standard in the grid connection regulations; new wind turbines must therefore fulfil certain grid support functions anyway. Repowering means that old turbines that do not fulfil today's grid requirements are replaced by modern, grid-compatible turbines. This increases the overall reliability of supply. Legislation continues to support this development - for example through feed-in management and new bonus models in the 2012/2014 Renewable Energy Sources Act (which, however, later expired) - in order to prevent widespread grid instability as a result of highly fluctuating feed-in.
4. better environmental compatibility of modern systems
Repowering helps to increase the landscape compatibility of wind energy utilisation. Instead of many isolated small wind turbines ("blocking" the landscape), repowering can replace several old turbines in windy areas with a few more powerful large turbines and concentrate them at one location. This reduces the number of turbines while increasing the yield.
New wind turbines also have technical equipment to reduce their environmental impact as standard. For example, shadow impact modules are now state of the art: they calculate the potential shadow impact on neighbouring buildings and can automatically switch off the turbine at times in order to keep the shadow duration below defined limits. The previously feared "disco effect" - i.e. dazzling light reflections from the sun on shiny rotor blades - also no longer occurs with modern turbines, as rotors are coated with matt, low-reflection paintwork. In addition, large rotors turn more slowly: due to the larger rotor diameter, new wind turbines have a lower rotational speed and quieter running characteristics. This is accompanied by lower noise emission levels despite significantly higher output. Overall, new wind turbines are therefore more environmentally friendly and quieter per unit of electricity generated than old turbines, which benefits local residents in particular and reduces environmental impact.
5. benefits for the municipalities
Repowering can also benefit the local community economically. Larger and more profitable turbines tend to mean higher trade tax revenues for the local community, as the wind farm operators' earnings increase. Local companies also often benefit: For example, construction and transport contracts for foundation work, crane positioning, road construction etc. are often awarded to regional companies, which increases value creation in the region. In addition, lease agreements with landowners can be renegotiated in the course of repowering. Many of the landowners involved come from the municipality itself - they generate higher income through modern lease conditions, which promotes acceptance of new turbines.
More recent legal measures also aim to involve local authorities financially in the expansion of wind energy. For example, Section 36k EEG 2021 (introduced by the EEG 2021) allows wind farm operators to voluntarily pay an annual financial contribution to the local communities in order to strengthen local acceptance. Some larger project developers (e.g. RWE or ENERTRAG) have announced that they will grant such community bonuses for new wind and repowering projects. This ultimately benefits the municipal coffers and increases local willingness to support repowering projects.
Public law requirements and authorisation procedures for repowering
Now that the advantages of repowering have become clear, the question of the legal framework for the realisation of such projects arises. Essentially, repowering projects are initially subject to the same authorisation requirements as the construction of new wind turbines. However, some special regulations have recently been created to facilitate repowering. The most important public law requirements and procedural steps are outlined below - from the environmental impact assessment to immission control and building law through to new privileges specifically for repowering.
1. authorisation and procedure for wind turbines in general
a. Environmental impact assessment (EIA)
The Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an assessment instrument prescribed by EU law that has been implemented in Germany in the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (UVPG). It serves to systematically determine the environmental impact of larger projects before they are authorised. Whether an EIA is required for a wind energy project depends on the size and scope of the project:
-
Individual plants: The erection of one or two wind turbines does not trigger an EIA obligation - a normal authorisation procedure without a formal environmental impact assessment is sufficient here.
-
Small wind farms (3-5 WTGs): For wind farms with three to five plants, a site-specific preliminary EIA assessment of the individual case must be carried out (Sections 3c, 7 (1) UVPG in conjunction with Annex 1 No. 1.6.2 UVPG). The authority examines on a case-by-case basis whether a full EIA is necessary due to special local circumstances.
-
Medium-sized wind farms (6-19 WTGs): With six to nineteen A general preliminary assessment in accordance with the German Environmental Impact Assessment Act (UVPG) is required for the construction of new plants (Section 7 (2) in conjunction with Annex 1 No. 1.6.3 UVPG). Here too, the test results determine whether a full EIA is required.
-
Large wind farms (≥20 WTGs): From twenty wind turbines (each with a total height of more than 50 metres), an EIA compelling required (Section 6 Sentence 1 in conjunction with Annex 1 No. 1.6.1 UVPG). In this case, the authorisation procedure is carried out as a formal procedure with public participation.
Definition of wind farm: As Windfarm (wind farm) within the meaning of these regulations is a group of at least three wind turbines whose impact areas overlap or touch each other. This definition - originally shaped by a judgement of the Federal Administrative Court of 30 June 2004 (Ref. 4 C 9/03) - is now enshrined in law in the UVPG (§ 2 Para. 5). The decisive factor is that the installations are so close to each other that they are considered together as one project, regardless of whether they are erected by one or more operators.
This means for repowering projects: If the total number of turbines in the wind farm increases due to the replacement of old turbines (or if individual turbines are now combined to form a wind farm project), an EIA obligation can be triggered again. For old turbines that were not previously subject to an EIA, Section 3b para. 3 UVPG stipulates that an EIA must be carried out as soon as the repowering reaches or exceeds the relevant threshold (e.g. 20 turbines) for the first time. If the number of turbines is lower than this, the above-mentioned preliminary assessment decides on a case-by-case basis whether an EIA is necessary - the existing (old) turbines must also be included in the assessment. If an EIA has already been carried out for the existing wind farm in the past (e.g. because it comprised ≥20 WTGs), the scope of the planned change is relevant for extensions (Section 3e para. 1 no. 1 EIA Act): If it is a significant expansion (e.g. numerous additional WTGs), another EIA may be required. In the case of a change to individual WTGs within a wind farm that is already subject to an EIA, it is necessary to check whether the change itself is subject to an EIA, i.e. whether the repowering is expected to have significantly new or greater environmental impacts. In practice, the approval authorities tend to carry out an EIA for legal certainty in cases of doubt.
b. Authorisation under immission control law (BImSchG)
Wind turbines are legally regarded as installations requiring authorisation within the meaning of the Federal Immission Control Act (BImSchG), provided they meet certain size criteria. Pursuant to Section 2 (1) BImSchG i.V.m. No. 1.6 of the Annex to the 4th BImSchV (Ordinance on Installations Requiring Authorisation), wind turbines with a total height of more than 50 m generally require a permit in accordance with the BImSchG in a simplified procedure (§ 19 BImSchG). Since 1 July 2005, practically all medium-sized and large wind turbines - i.e. the majority of projects - have therefore been subject to an immission control procedure. Only Very small wind turbines (less than 50 metres in height) can still be approved via a simple planning permission procedure by the federal states.
History: Until mid-2005, there was a different system of responsibility: at that time, only a building permit was required for up to 2 wind turbines (in accordance with state building regulations); the BImSchG procedure only applied for 3 or more turbines. This fragmentation was cancelled in order to bundle responsibility and inspection at the immission control authority. Old turbines that were erected before 1 July 2005 on the basis of a building permit (up to 2 WTGs) enjoy grandfathering: their permits continue to apply by law (Section 67 (9) BImSchG) as permits under immission control law - an important point in the case of repowering, for example, as these old turbines already legally have a BImSchG permit.
Authorisation requirements: A BImSchG licence must be granted if the requirements of Section 6 BImSchG are met. Above all, this means that the obligations under Section 5 BImSchG (hazard prevention, precautions against harmful environmental impacts, waste minimisation, etc.) are complied with and that no other public regulations (e.g. occupational health and safety law) conflict with this. § Section 5 BImSchG contains the operator obligations and is concretised by subordinate ordinances and administrative regulations - such as the Technical Instructions on Noise Abatement (TA Lärm) and TA Luft. In the authorisation procedure, the immission control authority thus comprehensively examines the environmental compatibility and safety of the project. The concentration effect of the BImSchG authorisation (Section 13 BImSchG) is of particular importance: It includes most other authorisations under public law. In other words, the immission control permit covers all necessary partial permits (e.g. building permit, nature conservation impact permit, etc.). The authority therefore also examines the project in terms of other public law - in particular, building planning and building regulations law is also fully assessed (Section 6 (1) no. 2 BImSchG). To this end, the immission control authority obtains the opinions of all relevant authorities (e.g. building authorities, nature conservation authorities, water management authorities, etc.) during the procedure in order to be able to make an interdisciplinary decision.
c. Admissibility under building planning and building regulations law
Parallel to the technical legal assessment (EIA, immission control), it is crucial to determine whether the project is permissible under building planning law. The immission control authority involves the local building supervisory authority, which assesses the compatibility with building planning law (Building Code, BauGB) and building regulations (state building regulations).
-
Building planning law (site selection): The permissibility of a wind turbine according to the German Building Code (BauGB) depends largely on the location. German building planning law distinguishes between three areas: the inner area without a development plan (Section 34 BauGB), the inner area with a qualified development plan (Section 30 BauGB) and the outer area (Section 35 BauGB).
-
Location within the scope of a development plan: If the planned wind turbine is located within an area with a qualified development plan, it is permitted if it does not contradict the provisions of this plan and the development (access, power connection, etc.) is secured (Section 30 BauGB). Many municipalities have designated separate special areas for wind farms - permitted as special areas for renewable energies (wind or solar energy) in accordance with Section 11 (2) No. 8 BauNVO. In some cases, designations as areas for energy supply (Section 9 para. 1 no. 12 BauGB) are also possible, provided the wind turbines serve the public power supply. Development plans often stipulate not only where wind turbines are permitted, but also to what extent (e.g. maximum hub height, minimum distances from each other or from settlements). These restrictions must be justified from an urban planning perspective - for example, through references to the townscape and landscape (Section 1 (6) No. 5 BauGB). If a repowering project deviates from the stipulations (e.g. higher turbine than originally specified), it is not permitted under planning law. In this case, the municipality would have to amend the development plan to allow repowering. Early consultation with the municipality is therefore important if new turbine types are larger than envisaged in the old plan.
-
Unplanned indoor area: If no development plan is available at the planned location, but there is a built-up neighbourhood (inner area in accordance with Section 34 BauGB), the wind turbine must fit into the character of the immediate surroundings in terms of the type and extent of use. Wind turbines in typical inner areas (residential or commercial areas) are generally problematic, as their height and utilisation make it almost impossible for them to blend in with conventional buildings. In purely residential areas, for example, they would be "alien to the area". Therefore, sites in unplanned inner areas are rarely considered - unless the surrounding area is already characterised by infrastructure or commercial use that makes the use of wind power appear compatible. The decisive factor is always a case-by-case assessment and secure development.
-
Outdoor area: By law, wind turbines are considered privileged projects in outdoor areas (i.e. outside contiguous neighbourhoods) (Section 35 (1) BauGB). The legislator has explicitly privileged wind energy with Section 35 Para. 1 No. 5 BauGB in order to facilitate its expansion. A wind turbine is permitted in an outdoor area if there are no public interests to the contrary and development is secured (Section 35 (1) BauGB). This criterion - "public interests must not conflict" - means that there must be weighty reasons of public interest to reject such a privileged project. The hurdle for a rejection is higher than for so-called other projects (Section 35 para. 2 BauGB), where even an "impairment" of public interests would be critical. Public interests are listed as examples in Section 35 para. 3 BauGB, e.g. spatial planning interests (compliance with land use plans and spatial planning objectives), nature and landscape conservation, national defence, water management, monument protection or the avoidance of urban sprawl. In practice, the following issues play a particularly important role:
-
Spatial planning/land use planning: Many municipalities control wind power in the land use plan by means of concentration zones. No wind turbines should be erected outside of these designated wind priority areas (exclusion effect in accordance with Section 35 (3) sentence 3 BauGB). Repowering at the old location was therefore difficult in the past if it was not (or no longer) within such a concentration zone - despite the privileged status.
-
Landscape: Very tall new turbines can have a greater impact on the landscape than older, smaller ones - this can be seen as a counter-argument under "protection of the townscape and landscape".
-
Nature conservation: In particular, species protection (bird protection, bats) must be observed more strictly in new planning today than in the 1990s.
Thanks to the privileged status, however, wind energy is generally desirable in outdoor areas - the aforementioned public interests must be predominantly and specifically affected in order to prevent a project (e.g. site is located in a sensitive nature reserve or too close to a village). In many cases, conflicts can be resolved by imposing conditions (e.g. switching off when bats are flying, distance from bird sanctuaries, etc.) so that the concerns are not "in conflict".
💡 New repowering privileges: With the Wind Energy on Land Act, which came into force in February 2023, the legislator has created additional facilitations for repowering under construction planning law. Pursuant to Sections 245e (3) and 249 (3) BauGB, repowering projects (within the meaning of Section 16b BImSchG) may also be permitted outside designated wind priority areas under certain conditions. Specifically, the exclusion effect of concentration planning is suspended before the statutory area targets of the federal states are reached (Section 4 WindBG): The municipality may not object to repowering outside the existing zones simply because it is outside. And even after the area targets have been reached, repowering installations remain permitted on a privileged basis until the end of 2030 (Section 249 (3) BauGB). However, this temporary "super privilege" is linked to conditions - in particular, the project must not affect the main features of existing planning, i.e. it must not thwart the fundamental planning intentions. In practice, the application must be examined on a case-by-case basis, but in principle these innovations open up the possibility of repowering old plants even if the site was originally located outside of suitability areas. For plant operators who were previously confronted with strict exclusion planning, the changes mean a significant improvement in planning certainty.
-
-
-
Building regulations (clearance areas & safety): In addition to planning law permissibility, every new or modified WTG must comply with the requirements of the respective state building regulations. Important here are, for example, the statics and stability of the tower, fire protection (e.g. lightning protection systems) and compliance with distances to neighbouring properties or buildings. Wind turbines - like high-rise buildings or transmission masts - must maintain a certain distance from property boundaries, which is measured according to height (often a flat rate, e.g. height/2). These regulations serve to protect against possible dangers (toppling over, ice throw) and to ensure sufficient lighting for neighbouring properties. In repowering projects, it is necessary to check whether the new, larger turbines may require greater distances than the old turbines. In many cases, modern turbines are higher, but are often located on the same plot of land far enough away from settlements so that the distance rules can still be complied with. Otherwise, the project would have to be adapted accordingly (e.g. choosing a slightly set-back location or reducing the height).
2. effects of the authorisation procedure on repowering projects
In legal terms, repowering usually means that one or more existing turbines are replaced by one or a few new turbines. This raises a number of special issues in terms of authorisation law, as strictly speaking it is a modification/extension of an existing wind farm - albeit on such a scale that it is more akin to a new construction. In practice, the question arises as to whether simplified procedures can be used for repowering projects or whether a completely new authorisation procedure must be undergone.
-
EIA obligation for repowering: As described above, repowering may result in an EIA obligation for the first time (e.g. if the number of turbines exceeds 20). If an EIA was never carried out for the old project, the authority will now check whether the EIA thresholds are exceeded by adding the existing turbines (Section 3b (3) UVPG). For smaller existing wind farms (less than 20 WTGs), a corresponding preliminary EIA assessment must therefore first be carried out in the repowering project, which includes all existing and new installations. If an EIA has already been carried out for the old wind farm, only the newly added modification must be considered for its expansion (Section 3e EIA Act). This means that if the wind farm is expanded to include additional turbines, the decisive factor is whether the additional turbines themselves (in isolation) exceed the EIA threshold or cause significant new environmental impacts. If this is the case, a (further) EIA is required; otherwise not. However, in cases of doubt - for example, if the new turbines are much larger and louder than the old ones - an EIA is more likely to be carried out in order to examine the environmental impact transparently.
-
BImSchG authorisation for repowering: In principle, replacing old turbines with new ones requires a fresh authorisation in accordance with Section 4 BImSchG. The question is whether it is treated as a change authorisation (§ 16 BImSchG) or as a completely new procedure. A notification in accordance with § 15 BImSchG (for insignificant changes) is almost always ruled out in the case of repowering, as these are not minor changes, but rather the replacement of entire turbines. Whether Section 16 BImSchG (modification authorisation) is applicable depends on whether the project can be considered a "change to the location, nature or operation" of an existing installation. In the past, repowering was usually considered a new construction due to the lack of "change character" - especially if the location is relocated or the turbine is completely rebuilt, there is no continuity with the old authorisation. As a result, the project had to undergo the full authorisation procedure (including any EIA, new participations, etc.) like a new project.
Current facilitation (Section 16b BImSchG): Repowering plants have benefited from a special regulation since 2023. § Section 16b BImSchG - inserted by the BImSchG amendment 2024 - explicitly defines the Repowering of systems for generating electricity from renewable energies and provides for a simplified procedure. The core of this regulation is a delta assessment: in the case of repowering, the approval authority essentially only considers the additional or changed environmental impacts of the new turbine compared to the current state. Existing effects already caused by the old turbine do not have to be reassessed, provided they are not worsened by the new turbine. In other words, the following is checked: Will the noise situation, shadow impact or ecosystem deteriorate as a result of the new turbine compared to the old one? If not (or if there are improvements), the authorisation process is simpler. This speeds up the procedure, as not every detailed question that has already been clarified has to be revisited. However, according to the law, the prerequisites for this simplified assessment are that the replacement must completely or partially serve to increase output or efficiency (which is regularly the case with larger new plants) and it must take place within certain limits - in particular in terms of space and time. For example, the new turbine may not be erected more than five times its total height away from the site of the old one. The repowering process must also take place quickly: The new wind turbine must be commissioned within 48 months of the old one being decommissioned. These requirements are intended to ensure that the repowering is directly related to the old site and does not involve a completely different project site. If this is fulfilled, the authority can make a decision in a simplified procedure in accordance with Section 16b BImSchG. As a rule, the public is not involved again (provided no significant environmental deterioration is to be expected). Another new feature is that the operator of the new turbine does not have to be the same as the operator of the old wind turbine - a declaration of consent from the previous operator to the authority is sufficient. This makes it easier for third-party investors to take on repowering projects without first having to formally acquire all of the old turbines.
In cases where the requirements of Section 16b BImSchG are not met (e.g. because the new site is too far away from the old site or too much time has passed), the assessment must be carried out in accordance with the general principles. This means that the repowering project is treated as a new construction and must fulfil all approval requirements in full. In fact, however, many Section 16b procedures also amount to a comprehensive assessment - because if even one aspect deteriorates (such as higher noise levels), this must be assessed as usual. Overall, however, Section 16b BImSchG represents an important acceleration that should favour repowering.
-
Building planning law situation for repowering: From an urban land-use planning perspective, repowering can be problematic if the planning situation has changed since the old turbine was erected. Many old turbines are protected in locations that would no longer be eligible for authorisation under current planning law (e.g. outside of current concentration zones or within now designated taboo areas). However, this protection does not automatically mean that a new turbine may be built there. In legal terms, a distinction is made between the preservation of the Inventory and rebuilding after demolition: The latter is normally not under the grandfathering clause. As a new WTG is generally a completely different installation both in terms of its dimensions (higher, larger) and its technical design, it cannot be claimed that it is covered by the grandfathering of the old one. This means that the repowering project must be permitted from the ground up under planning law, either by virtue of privilege (Section 35 BauGB) or through compliance with a development plan. The grandfathering of the old wind turbine is generally only of benefit to the extent that the old turbine may continue to be operated until the new turbine is erected. As soon as the old turbine is dismantled, its grandfathering expires. Conclusion: In the case of repowering, it must be checked whether a wind turbine may be built at the location in question under current planning law. If not, only the new exemption rules mentioned above (Sections 245e, 249 BauGB) or a plan amendment can enable the project. As a rule, the route chosen will be to adapt the project to the current planning (choice of location, height, etc.) or - if the municipality is cooperative - to amend the land use or development plan to enable repowering. There is no automatic permissibility based on the previous situation, especially as repowering projects do not represent a mere "continuation" of an old turbine according to current case law, but rather a new intervention in the planning.
3. subsidy and remuneration system (EEG) in the context of repowering
The Renewable Energy Sources Act has significantly shaped the expansion of wind energy and at times contained special incentives for repowering. As mentioned above, a repowering bonus was introduced in the 2009 version of the EEG: Operators of new WTGs that replaced old turbines received a premium of 0.5 ct/kWh on the feed-in tariff of the first remuneration level. This subsidy was intended to incentivise the replacement of smaller, less efficient wind turbines. In addition, repowering plants could receive the system service bonus if they fulfilled certain grid characteristics. The aforementioned bonus regulations also had an effect: between 2012 and 2014, the share of repowering in new construction capacity was significantly higher than it is today.
However, most technology-specific bonuses were abolished with the 2014 amendment to the EEG and the gradual switch to tenders (EEG 2017 ff.). The EEG currently no longer offers any direct additional remuneration for repowering projects. Wind turbines - whether repowering or new - receive their remuneration either through tendering results (market premium) or through direct electricity marketing with possible support mechanisms (e.g. long-term Power Purchase Agreements if no EEG support is utilised). The lack of a bonus has meant that repowering now has to take place on the market. Nevertheless, it remains attractive because new turbines in good locations deliver sufficient additional yield to survive in competition. In addition, the legislator has set indirect incentives, for example by making it easier to secure sites (no loss of privileges, see new BauGB regulations) and by ensuring that old turbines no longer receive a follow-up payment after 20 years of subsidisation - which makes repowering more economically interesting. To summarise: Even without a special bonus, repowering is a key component in achieving the increased expansion targets for onshore wind (115 GW by 2030) in the EEG 2023, as significantly more capacity can be installed at existing wind sites with less effort.
Legal implementation of a repowering project in practice
Once the public-law course for repowering has been set to green (i.e. the project is permitted under planning and authorisation law), the question arises as to the actual implementation by the parties involved. Here it depends on who Initiator resp. Project organiser of repowering occurs:
-
Option 1: Repowering by the old operators (self-directed). Often one or more of the existing turbine operators join forces to replace their old wind turbines with newer ones. In this case, the legal and organisational structure of the wind farm remains essentially the same. For example, the existing operating companies can remain in place and simply invest in new turbines. Contracts - for example with landowners or electricity consumers - can be adapted or newly concluded, but the local roots remain strong. Advantage: The existing expertise of the operators regarding the location and turbine can be utilised and the added value remains in the region (an important factor for community wind farms in particular). In particular, the joint contracts (if several operators work together) and the financing of the new construction must be regulated. An existing operating company is often expanded or a new project company is founded in which the existing operators are involved.
-
Option 2: Repowering by a third party (investor entry). Alternatively, an external investor - such as a large wind farm developer or energy supplier - can approach the existing operators to carry out the repowering. In this scenario, the old turbines or their companies are first taken over (purchased or merged) and then the old turbines are dismantled and replaced with new ones. In legal terms, this usually takes the form of a company acquisition or a shareholding: Either the investor buys the shares of the existing operating company or companies (Share Deal) or acquires the systems and project assets directly (Asset Deal), including the necessary contracts, licences and property rights. A detailed due diligence review precedes the purchase - all important aspects are examined: the legal situation (licences, contracts, liability risks), the technical condition of the old facilities, as well as financial and tax aspects. After the takeover, the investor takes care of the planning, authorisation and construction of the new facilities. Advantage: Experienced project developers often have more capital and expertise to efficiently implement larger repowering projects. The previous owners are either compensated or remain minority shareholders in the new company, depending on the negotiations.
Regardless of the model chosen, repowering requires close cooperation between all parties involved - from the land leaseholders and the municipality to grid operators and financiers. Contractual adjustments are necessary, e.g. new lease agreements (because the turbines are higher and often more profitable, leases are renegotiated) or adjustments to maintenance contracts and insurance policies. The dismantling of old plants also needs to be regulated (disposal/recycling, possibly resale of used plants abroad). Finally, it should be noted that revenue losses can occur during the repowering phase due to downtime - a clever schedule (possibly with transitional solutions, such as the continued operation of individual old turbines until the new ones are commissioned) minimises such effects.
Conclusion: Repowering projects are complex, but offer great opportunities. They combine the experience and infrastructure of existing wind sites with the efficiency of modern turbine technology. A great deal has recently been done in legal terms to facilitate these projects - from the planning and authorisation level (keyword § 16b BImSchG and § 245e BauGB) to funding through improved framework conditions. With careful planning, coordination with the authorities and, if necessary, professional support (planning offices, legal advice), repowering projects can now be realised much faster and with greater legal certainty than a few years ago. This benefits the expansion of wind energy and all those involved.
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.
