Introduction: offshore wind in Turkey is moving from “potential” to “process”

Turkey has been positioning offshore wind as a long-term pillar of its energy transition, and international institutions have started to map out pathways for scaling the sector. The World Bank and partners have publicly referenced a national ambition of 5 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2035, supported by a dedicated roadmap. (worldbank.org)

At the same time, offshore wind is not simply “onshore wind at sea.” It is a multi-authority infrastructure project sitting at the intersection of: (i) electricity market regulation, (ii) marine and coastal governance, (iii) environmental and social permitting, (iv) grid planning, and (v) bankable contracting and financing structures.

Turkey has also taken concrete steps on the public side. In August 2023, the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources announced candidate offshore wind YEKA areas (“Denizüstü RES Aday YEKA”), indicating that detailed studies were initiated to declare those areas as Renewable Energy Resource Areas (YEKA). (Enerji Bakanlığı) This matters because it signals how Turkey is likely to allocate offshore wind development rights: through zone-based planning and competitive processes rather than ad-hoc, first-come licensing.

This article provides a legal roadmap for developers, investors, and lenders, and focuses on the legal risk points that most often determine whether an offshore wind project becomes (a) permittable, (b) financeable, and (c) exit-ready.

---

1) The core legal ecosystem that offshore wind projects must navigate

1.1 Electricity market framework (licensing + market participation)

Offshore wind plants are generation facilities under the Electricity Market framework. The Electricity Market Law’s purpose includes establishing a stable and transparent market and ensuring adequate, high-quality, uninterrupted, cost-efficient and environment-friendly supply under independent regulation and audit. (epias.com.tr)
In practice, this translates into licensing discipline, compliance monitoring, and market integration requirements that are not “optional,” even for a policy-priority renewable.

1.2 The YEKA model (zone allocation and tender-driven development)

Turkey’s offshore wind development is strongly linked to the YEKA model. The Renewable Energy Resource Zones (YEKA) Regulation is designed to enable large-scale resource zones on public and private immovables and accelerate investments by allocating zones to investors, with domestic supply/technology objectives. (epias.com.tr)
The Ministry’s “candidate offshore wind YEKA areas” announcement confirms that offshore wind is being shaped through this zone-based model. (Enerji Bakanlığı)

1.3 A “marine governance” layer that can make or break timelines

Unlike onshore wind, offshore wind sits inside a space where navigation, defense, fisheries, aquaculture, environmental protection, and sometimes international maritime jurisdiction questions overlap. This is not academic. Public statements and recent reporting show that maritime spatial planning and jurisdictional issues can become politically sensitive in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean context. (Dışişleri Bakanlığı)

For investors, the takeaway is not political commentary; it is risk engineering: you must assume that offshore siting decisions can attract multi-agency scrutiny and, depending on geography, cross-border sensitivity.

---

2) Offshore wind development routes in Turkey: what a “typical” pathway looks like

Turkey’s offshore wind pathway is still emerging, but for investor-grade planning you can structure the process into five phases:

Phase A — Zone selection and exclusivity (often through YEKA)

If the project is inside a YEKA framework, the legal question is “how do I obtain development rights?” rather than “how do I file a standard generation license application?” The Ministry’s candidate area announcement suggests early-stage technical and planning studies precede formal YEKA declaration and allocation. (Enerji Bakanlığı)

Key risk: bidding without clarity on seabed rights, survey permissions, or grid access assumptions.

Phase B — Licensing and pre-license milestones

In the electricity market, large projects often proceed through “pre-license → license” logic (particularly in tender-based models). Offshore wind projects typically require longer lead times, so the real legal risk is whether regulatory milestones are designed realistically—and whether project documents allocate who bears delays (developer, EPC, state entities).

Phase C — Environmental and social approvals (EIA/ÇED + stakeholder management)

Offshore wind can trigger complex environmental assessment requirements (marine biodiversity, bird migration, underwater noise, fishing impacts, coastal landscape, cumulative impacts). Even where the policy is supportive, permits can be litigated, and litigation can freeze timelines.

Phase D — Grid connection and system integration

Offshore projects are “grid projects” as much as they are “generation projects”: export cables, landing points, substations, and onshore reinforcements. If grid integration is not solved early, the project’s legal approvals may become economically meaningless.

Phase E — Construction and operations (safety, marine works, and market compliance)

Offshore construction introduces marine safety rules, port logistics, vessel contracting, and insurance complexity. Operational compliance includes market settlement obligations and dispatch/balancing exposure.

---

3) The major legal risks in offshore wind projects in Turkey

Below is a practical risk map—what can go wrong, why it happens, and how investors typically manage it.

Risk 1 — Zone uncertainty and “development-right” risk (the YEKA factor)

Because the YEKA model is designed to create large-scale resource zones and allocate them to investors, the most fundamental risk is whether you actually control a developable area and on what legal terms. (epias.com.tr)

Typical sub-risks

• A candidate area is studied but not ultimately declared as YEKA (or its boundaries change).
• Tender specs impose obligations that are not financeable (schedule, local content, penalties).
• Permitting responsibilities are allocated to the investor without adequate public-side enabling actions.

Investor-grade mitigations

• Treat “zone declaration” and “award” as separate gates in the investment decision.
• Use conditional development spend (stage surveys and engineering).
• Negotiate or price tender risks into bid strategy, including performance security and long-stop dates.

Risk 2 — Seabed / water-column rights and multi-agency permits

Offshore wind needs rights for:

• turbine foundations or anchors (fixed-bottom or floating),
• inter-array and export cables,
• offshore substations,
• construction corridors and safety zones,
• port staging and logistics.

In many jurisdictions, these rights are granted via a concession or lease regime. In Turkey, the regime can involve multiple authorities depending on the legal characterization of the area and the relevant public entities. Even if a project is “energy,” it is physically built inside a marine space with competing uses.

Investor-grade mitigations

• Build a “marine permits matrix” early: authority, permit name, timeline, dependency, appeal risk.
• Secure survey permissions and data ownership rights.
• Ensure that tender documents and project agreements clearly allocate who obtains which permits.

Risk 3 — Maritime spatial planning and jurisdiction sensitivity (site-dependent)

Offshore wind frequently relies on marine spatial planning tools to pre-allocate “compatible use zones.” Recent public communications show maritime spatial planning can be contested and politically sensitive in the region. (Dışişleri Bakanlığı)

Practical investor concern

• In contested or sensitive waters, the project may face heightened objections, delays, or reputational risks—even if the electricity-side licensing is strong.

Mitigation

• Prefer early projects in lower-dispute waters (site selection strategy).
• Use robust stakeholder and public communications planning.
• Build conservative timelines and enhanced “change in law / government action” protections in contracts.

Risk 4 — Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/ÇED) litigation and “permit fragility”

Offshore wind EIA disputes often focus on:

• cumulative impacts (multiple projects, shipping routes),
• protected habitats and migration paths,
• underwater noise and marine mammal impacts,
• fisheries livelihoods and coastal socio-economic impacts.

Even a technically solid EIA can be attacked if the file is inconsistent, if public consultation is weak, or if alternatives analysis is thin.

Mitigation

• Treat the EIA file as a litigation-ready dossier, not a checkbox.
• Build baseline data and multi-season studies; offshore wind is especially exposed to “insufficient baseline” arguments.
• Draft contracts to survive EIA timing uncertainty: conditional notices-to-proceed, flexible commissioning windows, and clear delay responsibility.

Risk 5 — Grid connection and export infrastructure risk

Offshore wind’s legal “grid risk” includes:

• capacity allocation uncertainty,
• landing point permissions and local zoning constraints,
• right-of-way for onshore connection,
• reinforcement costs and who pays,
• curtailment and dispatch limitations.

If the grid connection is not bankable, lenders will discount the entire project—regardless of offshore wind resource quality.

Mitigation

• Demand early grid studies and realistic connection timelines.
• Align tender award assumptions with grid authority commitments.
• Draft PPAs/offtake and financing documents that treat curtailment and connection delay with precision (who bears cost, is there termination, are there extensions).

Risk 6 — Tender obligations and domestic supply requirements (industrial policy risk)

The YEKA regime explicitly targets large-scale deployment and domestic technology/supply goals. (epias.com.tr)
Where tender specs include domestic content or local manufacturing obligations, noncompliance can become a termination and penalty risk.

Mitigation

• Tie EPC procurement to tender compliance warranties and remedies.
• Validate supply chain feasibility (port capacity, turbine availability, installation vessels).
• Avoid promising what cannot be certified later.

Risk 7 — Financing structure vs regulatory constraints (share transfers, pledges, step-in)

Offshore wind projects are capital-intensive and commonly use project finance. Project finance typically requires:

• share pledges,
• account pledges,
• step-in rights,
• change-of-control covenants.

In regulated sectors, these tools can intersect with regulatory approvals and license amendment mechanics. Even if the offshore wind project is “green,” the licensing system can treat certain structural changes as regulated events.

Mitigation

• Structure lender security and step-in mechanisms so they do not function as an unauthorized “control transfer.”
• Design closing conditions around regulatory approvals where needed.
• Use a staged equity entry approach aligned with licensing milestones.

Risk 8 — Offshore construction interface risk (marine works + procurement + schedule)

Offshore construction multiplies interface points:

• turbine supply contract,
• foundation contractor,
• cable contractor,
• offshore substation,
• port logistics,
• marine warranty surveyor,
• installation vessel availability (often international).

In legal terms, interface failures become liability disputes: delays, liquidated damages, and sometimes termination.

Mitigation

• Use a contracting strategy that matches risk: single wrap EPC vs multi-contract with strong interface management provisions.
• Require detailed interface matrices, testing protocols, and acceptance regimes.
• Ensure insurance and liability caps are consistent across the chain (avoid gaps).

Risk 9 — Operational and market liability (balancing, settlement, and data integrity)

Once operational, offshore wind plants face:

• balancing costs,
• curtailment,
• data/metering obligations,
• settlement disputes.

These risks often get underestimated at development stage.

Mitigation

• Build market compliance into O&M and asset management scopes.
• Implement data governance (SCADA, metering, settlement review).
• Draft offtake contracts to allocate imbalance and curtailment with realism.

Risk 10 — Decommissioning, end-of-life, and environmental liability

Offshore wind permits increasingly require decommissioning planning:

• removal obligations,
• seabed restoration,
• waste handling,
• financial security mechanisms.

Even if Turkey’s detailed offshore decommissioning architecture continues to evolve, investors should assume that end-of-life obligations can become a real cost—and a real approval condition.

Mitigation

• Include decommissioning plan and reserve logic in financial models.
• Allocate responsibility in shareholder and financing documents.
• Track evolving regulatory expectations (especially in tender specs and environmental permits).

---

4) Offshore wind risk management: a project-ready legal toolkit

4.1 The “Investor Due Diligence Pack” (what sophisticated buyers ask for)

If you are buying into an offshore wind development-stage project, the diligence pack should include:

1. Zone status: evidence of YEKA candidate/declared status, tender rights, exclusivity terms. (Enerji Bakanlığı)
2. Marine rights matrix: permits obtained and remaining, authority map, timelines.
3. EIA file: baseline studies, consultation records, litigation risk memo.
4. Grid package: connection strategy, preliminary studies, cost allocation, landfall rights.
5. Contract stack: turbine supply/EPC approach, interface matrix, LD caps, step-in protections.
6. Financing compatibility: regulatory approvals for security and control mechanisms.
7. Stakeholder strategy: fisheries, ports, local governments, NGOs, defense/navigation.
8. Risk register: quantified schedule and cost risk, mitigation actions, contingency.

4.2 Contract clauses that prevent the most expensive disputes

In offshore wind, the most valuable clauses are not “fancy”; they are clear and enforceable:

• Change in law / regulatory change: defined triggers, cost/time relief, renegotiation timetable, deadlock resolution.
• Permitting condition precedents: no full notice-to-proceed before critical permits, or staged NTP.
• Interface management: contractor coordination obligations and liability allocation.
• Weather and marine conditions: carefully drafted relief events and measurement standards.
• Data and settlement governance: who validates meter/SCADA data, who challenges settlement, timelines.
• Long-stop dates: aligned with approval validity windows and financing requirements.

---

5) A practical “go/no-go” checklist for offshore wind sponsors

Before committing serious capex, sponsors typically confirm these “non-negotiables”:

1. A credible development right (often YEKA-linked) with enforceable exclusivity. (Enerji Bakanlığı)
2. A defensible permitting path (including EIA strategy and litigation readiness).
3. A bankable grid solution (capacity + landfall + reinforcement plan).
4. A contract strategy that lenders accept (interface risk controlled).
5. A financing structure aligned with regulation (security package not blocked).
6. A site that minimizes jurisdictional and spatial-planning conflict (especially in sensitive areas). (Reuters)

If any of these are “unknown,” the project should be staged as a high-risk development option rather than treated as a near-term build.

---

Conclusion: offshore wind in Turkey is investable—but only with disciplined legal engineering

Turkey’s offshore wind opportunity is increasingly structured around zone-based planning and competitive allocation, with the Ministry publicly identifying candidate offshore wind YEKA areas and initiating detailed studies for formal declaration. (Enerji Bakanlığı) Meanwhile, the YEKA Regulation’s purpose—to create large-scale zones and allocate them for rapid investment—signals that offshore wind will likely follow a tender-driven model with industrial-policy components. (epias.com.tr)

For investors, the decisive lesson is that offshore wind risk is not one risk. It is a portfolio of risks that interact:

• site and marine rights,
• EIA and litigation,
• grid and landfall,
• tender obligations,
• financing constraints,
• construction interfaces,
• market and settlement exposure.

Offshore wind projects that reach financial close are usually the ones that treat law as project infrastructure, not as “paperwork.”

---