Long development timelines increase the cost of energy from offshore wind (OSW) farms, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters . The research estimates that cutting approval timelines by just one year for a one-gigawatt (GW) OSW farm lowers its energy costs by around €1 per megawatt-hour; roughly €110m over the plant's 25-year operational lifespan.
Deployment delays add costs that can be passed on to energy consumers. When regulatory obligations extend project timelines, developers face rising costs and financial risks while waiting for permissions or grid connections. Furthermore, extended timelines delay access to lower-cost renewable energy, slowing progress toward climate targets.
The study estimates the impact of longer timelines by looking at the full development timeline and adding the costs of delays to the overall cost of the project. This contrasts with conventional calculations, which treat projects as if they were built overnight—a common simplification used in project cost estimation.
The researchers applied this model to evaluate three energy transmission strategies from OSW facilities: high-voltage direct current subsea cables, offshore hydrogen electrolysis via pipelines, and offshore hydrogen delivered by ships. The analysis shows that while subsea cables are generally the most cost-effective option under identical timelines, severe grid connection or other development delays can shift the balance. In scenarios where power-to-hydrogen infrastructure faces shorter deployment timelines than electrical grid connections, hydrogen pathways can become less costly, and potentially more profitable, simply by avoiding grid queues and starting energy production earlier.
Total plant execution times can take seven to eleven years, according to one developer, with environmental approvals accounting for two to three years and grid approvals taking another two to four years. Despite global commitments to decarbonisation under the Paris Agreement, plant commissioning times have generally lengthened over the last two decades, exposing projects to market shifts and financial risks.
The authors note that their framework quantifies the financial cost of delay, rather than the overall social or environmental value of regulation. Regulatory obligations perform essential functions, including protecting marine ecosystems, fisheries, coastal communities, and indigenous rights. The study highlights that while addressing avoidable administrative delays yields economic and climate benefits, poorly designed acceleration measures risk imposing social or ecological costs.
Rudolph Santarromana, lead author of the Letter says: "Delays don't just make offshore wind projects more expensive; they also slow progress on tackling climate change. Our study suggests that when governments consider planning and grid reforms, it is important to consider both the financial and environmental cost of holding up offshore wind projects."
