The Redispatch reservation is a currently intensely debated instrument from a leaked draft for the „Network Package 2026“ from the BMWE under Katharina Reiche. It concerns the rules for grid connections of renewable energy plants and could fundamentally change the economic framework for new renewable energy projects. The core issue is the question: Who bears the risk if electricity cannot be fed into the grid due to grid bottlenecks?
Definition: What's behind the redispatch reservation
The Redispatch refers to measures taken by grid operators to avoid grid congestion and ensure grid stability. Specifically, this means: If too much electricity is fed into a section of the grid - for example, by wind or solar farms - the grid operator can disconnect individual facilities partially throttle or start up other power plants. The goal is to avoid overloads and keep voltage and frequency stable in the grid. These interventions are costly. In Germany alone, redispatch measures incur annual costs of Billions. This is because plant operators receive compensation for curtailment, and the provision of conventional power plants is expensive.
The redispatch reservation now refers to a planned mechanism according to which grid operators certain regions as „capacity-constrained grid areas“ may be identified. The prerequisite is that in the previous year more than 3 % due to possible power bottlenecks regulated had to. In such areas, grid connection of new PV and wind power plants is generally possible, but they receive no compensation upon regulation. This classification is intended to remain in effect for up to ten years. This would break with the previous principle, according to which operators are financially compensated for grid-related interventions.
Background: Why the proposal came about
The redispatch reservation does not originate in politics, but in Network operator environment, as the Federation of New Energy Economy pointed out. Accordingly, as early as 2021, the first conceptual considerations were developed by the Eon subsidiary Edis. The further elaboration was carried out jointly with E-Bridge Consulting. In the following years, the approach increasingly found its way into energy policy discussions and position papers of the industry.
The idea also received public support from Katherina Reiche, who advocated for it in her then-capacity at the helm of Westenergie. The proposal was finally taken up politically by an initiative of the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in the Bundesrat. From there, it has now made its way into a draft law by the BMWE. This allows the path from an industry concept to a possible regulatory instrument to be traced.
Economic impacts for full and large feed-in participants
Analyses by Aurora Energy Research show that the redispatch reserve is particularly affecting regions with high renewable energy density could be met. These are primarily windy areas in the north or regions with high photovoltaic intensity in southern Germany. For operators of new EEG systems that feed in completely or feed in large partial quantities, this creates a significant economic risk. In the event of a curtailment, not only could the usual redispatch compensations be forfeited, but also at the same time Market premium fails to materialize, since no electricity is fed into the grid. This double uncertainty of income significantly complicates project calculations and can noticeably increase the cost of financing new plants or even prevent it altogether.
Impacts on EE projects with high self-consumption and BESS
For projects where companies predominantly consume the self-generated solar power and Large-scale battery storage deployment, the redispatch reservation has a significantly lower economic relevance. Because the higher the self-consumption rate on-site, the less often electricity needs to be fed into the grid, and therefore the lower the risk of redispatch-related curtailments.
In addition BESS operated in a grid-supportive manner, for example, by smoothing feed-in peaks, optimizing load profiles, or feeding in specifically during times of low network load. Such operating strategies reduce potential network bottlenecks technically from the outset and could become an important argument towards network operators in the long term. This is particularly true in regions with limited network capacity.
This creates a structural difference between project types. While purely feed-in plants would be more affected by regulatory risks, combined self-consumption and storage projects could actively improve their system integration, thus achieving both economic and grid-technical advantages. The redispatch reservation would thus indirect incentives forflexible and grid-friendly plant concepts set.
Legal criticism of the redispatch reservation
Legally, the instrument is also under pressure. Legal experts and evaluators are skeptical whether the redispatch reservation is compatible with Article 6(2) of the EU Electricity Directive 2019/944 and the clarification by (EU) 2024/1711. Article 13 of EU Regulation 2019/943 also suggests that such a system could violate European energy law. This is because it stipulates that grid access must be fair, objectively justified, and non-discriminatory. In addition, grid operators are obliged to resolve bottlenecks primarily through market-based redispatch, involving all generation and storage technologies, and typically to compensate for curtailments.
Against this background, it is viewed critically that the redispatch reservation could effectively lead to connection applicants Must waive compensation claims, in order to obtain a grid connection at all. However, such a waiver would only be permissible under European law if it were voluntary. If it is made a prerequisite for the connection, this could be considered unauthorized printing and thus be considered a circumvention of Union protective mechanisms.
Critics therefore argue that the instrument the undermine non-discriminatory network access and at the same time could reduce the incentive for grid operators to reduce bottlenecks through grid expansion or efficient system management. Accordingly, industry associations and legal opinions warn of significant legal uncertainties and potential conflicts with European internal market law, should the mechanism be legally enshrined in this form.
Criticism from industry and the energy sector
In addition to legal concerns, market participants are also voicing significant economic reservations. Energy companies such as RWE, as well as industry associations, are warning that the redispatch reservation could slow down investments. As revenue risks increase and amortization periods become difficult to calculate, uncertainty rises for project developers, financiers, and operators alike. Some voices even fear that large parts of Germany could fall below the 3 percent threshold, thereby structurally slowing down the expansion of renewable energies.
Alternative proposals instead of redispatch reservation
As a counter-proposal, increasingly Market-oriented control mechanisms discussed. The Öko-Institut and the Stiftung Umweltenergierecht [Environmental Energy Law Foundation] propose a model network-optimized tenders This would involve a grid bottleneck penalty that would move projects in regions with limited grid capacity down the award ranking, without reducing the funding amount. In this way, investors would be indirectly encouraged to choose locations with lower grid load without altering the economic framework of individual projects retroactively. The designation of corresponding bottleneck areas could be done annually based on redispatch data reported to the Federal Network Agency.
Alternatively, Section 8a of the EEG, which has been in effect since February 2025, permits a targeted and strategic Overbuilding of an existing network connection. This means that the nominal capacity of a renewable energy system may be greater than the capacity of its connection point. For the few hours a year when a PV system or a wind farm achieves maximum output, the respective energy management system can easily throttle the feed-in. This reduces or shifts grid expansion costs and does not slow down the energy transition. This way, the Network overlay to a key strategy in areas with redispatch reservation.
Classification: Why the topic is so controversial
The intense debate surrounding the redispatch reservation shows a fundamental conflict of objectives the energy transition: On the one hand, the expansion of renewable energies should proceed as quickly as possible, on the other hand, the electricity grids are limited in their regional capacity without expansion. The reservation would resolve this area of tension regulatorily by shifting some of the grid risk to plant operators. Proponents see this as a Incentive for grid-friendly site selection, critics, on the other hand, a Endangerment of Investment Security. This very conflict of interest makes the instrument one of the most controversial energy policy proposals in the current discussion.
Conclusion
The redispatch reservation is far more than a technical detail mechanism. It would reorder the risk distribution in the electricity system, thereby directly influencing investment decisions, site selection, and the expansion speed of renewable energies. Its Implementation is currently open. However, it is already clear that an introduction would have profound impacts on market structures, financing practices, and regulation in the energy sector for full and large feed-in facilities.