Are we heading toward a renewables expansion moratorium in Germany? The hard regulatory reality of the energy transition

Let us be clear: whoever talks about the energy transition ultimately talks about energy policy. And policy means statutes, paragraphs, and hard-edged law. Anyone who looks only at big visions and technological innovation loses sight of what matters most: the legal detail.

An overlooked reservation or a retroactive clause in the statute book can destroy entire business models overnight—or create new ones.

To untangle this complex web of new regulation, we welcomed an expert to the microphone in the latest Energiezone episode: Simon Hillmann

About our guest, AssmannPeiffer Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB writes:

Since the start of the year Simon Hillmann has been a partner at AssmannPeiffer Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB. He has worked as an attorney in Berlin since mid-2022, after several years with another leading energy law firm.

His practice focuses on highly complex issues around grid connection, the EEG, flexibility marketing, and levies and surcharge compliance. He advises primarily battery storage projects (#BESS), plant operators, and industrial companies.

Simon’s work stands out for extreme precision and strong practical applicability—a rare combination that clients value highly.

That makes him the right person to examine these topics in depth.

Together we reviewed the most explosive current legislative initiatives. The conclusion is alarming: between political pragmatism and leaked draft bills, investors’ legitimate expectations risk being run over.

Here is the deep dive into the current situation.

1. The energy transition has not failed—it is in phase 5

Reading today’s headlines, sentiment in the industry swings between radical optimism and end-times mood. Simon Hillmann, however, strongly rejects the narrative that the transition is stuck in a dead end.

He points to the model of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Tim Meyer’s book Strom (“Electricity”). According to that model, the transition runs through six phases. In phases 1 to 3 the system could absorb volatile build-out without problem—it was the era of “blind build-out.” In Germany we now stand at the threshold from phase 4 to phase 5: renewables sometimes cover 100% of electricity demand, surpluses heavily stress grids, and negative prices appear.

“That is not really a sign that we have a problem with the energy transition or are on the wrong track. Quite the opposite: it is a sign that renewables are becoming ever more system-relevant. We are entering a situation that was foreseeable and is actually a success story.” – Simon Hillmann

So we are not failing—we are growing. But these new phases require new rules of play. Many cherished instruments—such as unconditional priority grid connection—must be rethought. The problem is how politics is currently shaping those new rules.

2. The grid-connection package: the project killer “redispatch reservation”

Things get truly heated around the leaked grid-connection package. Here the cultures of politics, grid operators, and the renewables industry collide without guardrails. The most controversial instrument: the redispatch reservation.

The basic idea initially sounds understandable for phase 5: whoever builds where the grid is already extremely congested receives a flexible connection but must waive compensation if the plant is curtailed for grid reasons (redispatch).

In Simon Hillmann’s view, however, implementation of this reservation is so blunt that it will choke off new build entirely in certain regions:

“For developers and their investors it is simply not quantifiable or predictable how severe this forced waiver of redispatch compensation will be. Accordingly, it is simply no longer investable.”

The missing corrective makes it even more dangerous. Under the draft, grid operators themselves decide whether they are in a “capacity-limited area” (already from a laughable 3% curtailment). There is no approval requirement with the Federal Network Agency and no binding, tight plan for how and when the operator must remove the bottleneck.

“As long as that is missing, this is not a necessary evolution of the phase-5 framework—it is a moratorium, a construction stop, and a blocking measure.”

Grid operators effectively receive a blank cheque on the speed of the energy transition in their region.

3. The AgNes package: retroactive intervention destroys trust

As if that were not enough, the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) looms over everything with its mammoth project: the so-called “AgNes package” (design of the grid-charge methodology).

The BNetzA, strengthened by a CJEU ruling on regulatory independence, is restructuring grid charges entirely. A massive point of conflict is storage grid charges.

Until now, storage connected by August 2029 has been exempt from grid charges for 20 years. Billions in investment decisions for Germany’s current battery boom have been taken on that basis. Yet the BNetzA announced in an orientation paper that this exemption might be reversed retroactively even for plants already operating or planned.

For Simon Hillmann that is a red line shaking Germany as a business location to its foundations:

“That means intervening retroactively in investment decisions already taken. (...) It is a fatal signal to investors. We are a country that prides itself on high legal certainty. Sending the message now: ‘You cannot rely on the legal framework here’ is absolutely damaging for Germany as an investment location.”

For more than 20 years the EEG rested on an iron principle: no retroactive interference in the investment fundamentals of a project (protection of legitimate expectations). If the Federal Network Agency now discards this market-economy and constitutional principle, we risk not only a gigantic “storage gap” but also waves of litigation in the billions—similar to the nuclear phase-out or the failed motorway toll.

Conclusion: no capital without legal certainty

The energy transition has become more mature, more complex, and more demanding. We must move beyond blanket subsidy thinking and become more system-oriented. Dynamic grid charges and regional steering are the right approaches for phase 5 of the transformation.

But: meeting our climate targets requires private capital on a historic scale. And capital needs legal certainty, predictability, and protection of legitimate expectations. If current regulation—whether through the redispatch reservation or retroactive grid charges from the AgNes package—makes business cases impossible to model, we risk a de facto expansion moratorium through the back door.

In the end, the legal detail decides.

Listen on Energiezone (German podcast)

‍