Responsibility for the infrastructure required by the energy transition

^{(v.l.n.r.) Michael Beckmann, Regionaldirektor Nord; Wolfgang Eckstaller, Regionaldirektor Süd; und Torsten Retzlaff, Geschäftsführender Direktor bei Inros Lackner}

Why are major projects like SuedLink and SuedOstLink so important for the energy transition – and what planning and design challenges do they present?
Torsten Retzlaff: In the past, Germany’s large power plants were mostly located in the south – there where the electricity was mostly needed. Today, however, most of the country’s wind energy comes from the north. To efficiently transport the electricity to where it is needed, we require new high-performance connections – otherwise, bottlenecks will occur. This is where projects like SuedLink and SuedOstLink come in: they are the new “electricity highways” that transport wind power to the south. We must also recognise that our electricity system is currently undergoing a major transformation – previously, there were a few large electricity producers, but today the grid is fed by many small solar, wind and biomass facilities. High-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission lines are an essential part of a reliable and stable power supply system. The challenges in terms of planning, design and implementation are comparable with those relating to the construction of major railway lines or highway connections: technically demanding and organisationally complex. Of course, regional planning policy, environmental impact and public acceptance are crucial aspects of the planning process.

How can it be ensured that power lines will also meet future requirements?
Wolfgang Eckstaller: Planning modern power lines is not just about eliminating bottlenecks in the grid as they currently exist. It is far more important that we are already thinking about tomorrow – working to ensure stable, scalable energy infrastructure. By planning ahead, we can save on expensive retrofits and help accelerate the energy transition. Specifically, this means designing power lines and converters with reserve capacity. Modular technology and additional connection possibilities will make it easier in the future to integrate new power sources such as offshore wind farms. And if the transmission lines can be used in both directions, the electricity will always be able to flow to where it's needed most.

What factors are especially significant when deciding between underground cables and overhead lines?
Torsten Retzlaff: Overhead lines have their advantages – they are cheaper, faster to build and easier to maintain. Underground cables offer benefits in terms of acceptance – the people in the region are less likely to object to the impact on the landscape since underground connections are far less visible. Both options can play a role in any situation, and every region needs its own solution that appropriately considers costs, the environment and the local population. Only in this way can power grid expansions be truly sustainable.

From a project management perspective, where do you currently see the biggest obstacles to power grid expansion?
Michael Beckmann: Quite clearly in the planning and approval phase. Although the Federal Network Agency has approved several grid expansion proposals in recent months, around two-thirds of the line-kilometres included in the Federal Requirements Plan are still pre-approval – and this phase accounts for almost 50 percent of the total project duration. Added to this are bottlenecks in construction and supply capacities – across Europe, there are only a few HVDC cable manufacturers that have the required capabilities and qualifications, resulting in correspondingly long delivery times. New production facilities are being built, but the availability of specialised installation crews must also increase accordingly. And the risk of lack of public acceptance should not be underestimated. Local objections – for example, regarding drinking water protection or geothermal energy – regularly lead to lawsuits. Well-prepared public consultation exercises are effective measures in this regard. Another factor that can help avoid delays is strategic grid planning – if construction proposals for electricity and hydrogen transmission lines are not coordinated in advance, unnecessary delays can occur. The new, integrated “scenario framework” is a step in the right direction – provided it is consistently implemented at the project level.

 "We are part of this network. Working together on these processes is important to us."

How can the correct balance be found between facilitating rapid grid expansion and considering environmental impacts and public opinion?
Wolfgang Eckstaller: This only works if everything is well coordinated. Instead of working through the steps one after the other, we commence technical planning work, environmental impact assessments and public consultation processes as early as possible – ideally in parallel. The affected communities and interest groups are involved from the outset – not only through formal hearings, but also via digital information platforms, regional dialogue events and local direct contacts. This allows concerns to be identified early, plans to be adapted as required, and unnecessary delays to be avoided.

What political and legal framework is needed to accelerate large-scale HVDC projects, and can Germany’s LNG Acceleration Act (LNGG) serve as a model?
Michael Beckmann: Experience with the LNG Acceleration Act shows that Germany is indeed capable of significantly accelerating infrastructure projects – provided that the legislative authorities effectively use the legal instruments at their disposal. Applied to HVDC projects, a comparable model could be implemented that addresses several levels simultaneously. Crucially, a clear determination of overriding public interest would be necessary, enabling specialist and environmental authorities to prioritise security of supply over individual interests – which, in turn, could significantly reduce the depth and scope of expert reports. At the same time, it would be sensible to limit legal recourse to a single instance in order to shorten lengthy legal processes. Approval deadlines must be further digitised and the time allowed should be substantially reduced.

 "Approvals, supply bottlenecks and public acceptance are the biggest obstacles."

The LNG Acceleration Act allows, for example, very short online public consultation and objection periods. Supplementing this with a nationwide online planning approval platform would shorten the public consultation phase from several months to just a few weeks. In addition, a mechanism allowing early commencement of construction work should be established, enabling excavation work and the laying of conduits to begin immediately after the deadline expires – this would save construction time without incurring legal risks. Finally, industrial policy should support the securing of cable supply chains and ensuring the availability of qualified installation capacity at an early stage. If all these measures can be implemented together, the critical path of such large-scale projects can likely be shortened by 1.5 to 2 years without significantly increasing legal uncertainty.

Torsten Retzlaff: I have a somewhat different view of the proposals to shorten the planning process. We're not building standard infrastructure here, but rather implementing projects that can have a profound impact on the environment. Therefore, all important environmental protection concerns – nature, water, soil – must be carefully considered. The impression must not be given that ensuring the reliability of energy supplies automatically overrules everything else. Furthermore, HVDC transmission lines stretch across long distances, affecting communities and biodiversity on a large scale – unlike, for example, LNG terminals. A transparent, fair and understandable process is therefore essential. The good news is that the relevant laws have established an overriding public interest in granting permits for the construction of HVDC transmission lines. Moreover, the approval processes for these projects between the grid operators and the Federal Network Agency are well-established and are managed very professionally. This provides us with the necessary framework to move projects forward quickly. Nevertheless, it remains true that only by engaging in dialogue early and seriously can we avoid lawsuits and delays – not by shortening the process at all costs.

Michael Beckmann: In principle, we view the matter similarly – speeding up the planning process, yes, but with a sense of proportion. Experience with the LNG Acceleration Act shows that infrastructure projects in Germany can indeed be implemented more quickly if the appropriate legal framework is created. Further measures such as digitised permitting processes, shortened deadlines and facilitating an earlier start to construction could also significantly accelerate HVDC projects. But acceleration must not replace consultation – both must be considered together in a meaningful way.

 "Only by engaging in dialogue early and seriously can we avoid legal proceedings and delays – not by shortening the planning process at any cost."