The withdrawal of Danish wind farm developer Eurowind from the United States marks a turning point for the entire energy market. Investors react sensitively as soon as subsidies cease and stable returns are no longer guaranteed. This is precisely the trend shaping the current electricity market in the US. Capital providers are pulling out because, without government support, no reliable return can be generated. The withdrawal is therefore not driven by strategic whim, but by economic necessity. (deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten: 14.12.25)
Withdrawal as a Direct Consequence of Withdrawn Subsidies
Eurowind entered the US market just over four years ago, when subsidies flowed freely and investors saw predictable prospects. However, political shifts abruptly ended this phase. Subsidies disappeared, while construction and financing costs rose. As a result, the energy market lost its economic foundation, even though the demand for electricity continued to increase.
Jens Rasmussen, CEO and co-owner of Eurowind, describes a clear strategy in an interview. Ongoing projects will be completed, after which they will be sold. A permanent withdrawal seems inevitable, as no viable return is achievable without subsidies. Investors will not accept an environment in which returns are based solely on hope.
Investors avoid risks without safeguards
Investors act rationally, but also consistently. If government guarantees are withdrawn, the risk increases dramatically. This is precisely why the US energy market is losing its appeal. Without subsidies, the basis for calculations is missing, while volatile electricity prices create additional uncertainty. Investors expect predictable returns and not political uncertainty.
This dynamic explains the withdrawal of many market participants. The withdrawal of capital follows a clear logic. Projects without subsidies must prove themselves in free competition. This is precisely where the majority of projects fail. The technology may work, but it is not economically convincing. Returns exist only on paper, not on the balance sheet.
Lack of market viability of large-scale renewable energy projects
The situation reveals a structural problem. Large-scale renewable energy plants rarely achieve profitability without government support. As soon as subsidies are no longer available, investors lose interest. An electricity market that immediately loses stability without subsidies lacks a sound foundation. This pattern repeats itself regardless of location.
In the interview, Rasmussen emphasizes that economic rationality takes precedence. A further withdrawal from volatile markets seems logical, because capital cannot be controlled ideologically. Investors demand returns, not political promises. This is precisely why the US energy market is permanently losing relevance.
Europe as a Subsidy-Supported Alternative
Europe offers greater stability in comparison, as subsidies appear to be guaranteed for longer periods. Many countries assure investors of fixed framework conditions. This keeps the energy market predictable, even if dependence on the state persists. The withdrawal from the US further reinforces this focus.
Eurowind is now consolidating its activities in Europe. Planning and capital are concentrated in regions with reliable subsidies. This withdrawal from the United States reduces risks but does not solve the fundamental problem. Without subsidies, many projects still lack market viability. Investors accept this reality and act accordingly.
A Clear Signal to Policymakers and the Market
Eurowind’s withdrawal sends a clear signal. Without government support, there is no return on investment, and without return on investment, capital disappears. Investors avoid markets that are not self-sustaining. The withdrawal from the US exemplifies this trend.
As long as the energy market remains dependent on subsidies, genuine competitiveness cannot be achieved. Subsidies are no substitute for a viable business model. The withdrawal is therefore not an exception but a logical consequence of economic constraints.