Many landowners are currently experiencing the collapse of commitments from wind energy projects because the lease payments no longer align with the developers’ revised market calculations. At the DLG event “Wind Lease – When the Wind Changes,” attorney Volker Henties explained the main reasons. The winning bids in the tenders have fallen significantly, while banks are simultaneously tightening their financing. As a result, developers are responding with renegotiations, sometimes reducing the offered lease payments to as little as 25 percent of the originally promised value. (topagrar: 21.02.26)
Landowners’ leases are falling – old records distort expectations
For years, a wind farm site was considered a stroke of luck, but this perception is now changing. In some cases, landowners could previously receive over 40 percent of a wind farm’s total revenue. For large turbines with a rated output of around 7 MW, this amounted to as much as €300,000 per year. These sums were borne by businesses, and the risks seemed manageable.
Today, these expectations are facing a harsh correction, and many projects are getting stuck in the system. Many projects have already received their permits under the Federal Immission Control Act from the relevant state authorities, but are still waiting to be awarded contracts in the Federal Network Agency’s tenders. This increases competitive pressure in the tenders, while banks are scrutinizing financing applications even more closely. For owners, the only thing that matters in the end is the cash flow. And that’s precisely where the financial picture is now collapsing.
Price surcharges are plummeting – revenue base is shrinking
Henties quantified the price drop precisely. “While planners could expect relatively stable bid prices of 7.3 ct/kWh in 2023 and 2024, these fell continuously to 6.06 ct/kWh in November 2025. For wind farms, this represents a revenue decline of around 20%.” This directly impacts revenue and also alters every bank’s calculations. Henties doesn’t see the downward spiral ending yet.
He expects further pressure in 2026, and many project developers are already recalculating their costs. He cites prices of 5.5 ct/kWh and less for the first tenders. This corresponds to a revenue decline of approximately 25 percent or more. When revenues fall, there is hardly any room for high payments. Therefore, project developers are first targeting contracts where they can quickly save money.
Banks are becoming stricter with financing – lease payments are becoming a key factor
In addition to the electricity price, financing is putting pressure on the market, but with clear mechanisms. Henties said: “Instead of 1.1 to 1.4%, financing interest rates are currently around 4% despite lower key interest rates. Furthermore, banks are no longer willing to provide 100% debt financing.” This forces project developers to raise more equity capital, and capital costs are rising sharply. As a result, already approved projects are losing value. This loss in value ultimately falls on the landowner.
Project developers are pushing for renegotiations because banks are linking financing commitments to new tender results and equity ratios. This puts owners under time pressure, as deadlines for awarding contracts and finalizing financing are approaching. In some cases, only 25 percent of the originally promised rent is to be paid. This feels like a dramatic collapse because it’s not a matter of minor adjustments. Planning certainty is turning into risk, and a key pillar of agricultural calculations is crumbling. Those who sign often accept a new reality.
Participation instead of reductions, because otherwise owners only lose out
Henties advises against reflexively giving in, but rather demanding something in return. He said: “From our perspective, it’s better to demand equity participation even during lease renegotiations, and even better to participate in the overall project from the outset.” Then a lower lease can become affordable because owners share in the added value. Henties reports on models with 25 percent or more equity participation, while the project developer bears the development risk. Project developers sometimes charge interest on the venture capital invested, and the return on investment should be negligible if the project is successful.
He outlines safeguards for equity participation to prevent owners from falling into costly traps. He calls for sound corporate governance and a start date only after registration in the commercial register, while simultaneously excluding any obligation to make additional contributions. He mentions withdrawal rights to cover tax liabilities and an equity participation that also applies upon sale. Furthermore, negative tax consequences should be addressed early on. This increases transparency, so that owners are not left blindly reliant on promises.