The Offshore Alternative

The viability of the overland route was challenged shortly after the planning process began. On April 9, an agreement was signed in Riga between Germany’s leading gas infrastructure company GASCADE, the German state-owned energy group SEFE (Securing Energy for Europe), and the Baltic Sea Hydrogen Collector (BHC) consortium—which includes Swedish and Finnish developers.

This group has announced cooperation to build a major hydrogen trunk pipeline directly along the floor of the Baltic Sea, connecting Finland to Germany. Both the overland and offshore options are driven by the German industrial sector’s goal to replace natural gas-produced hydrogen with green hydrogen generated by European Union wind farms during periods of low electricity prices.

“Clearly, it would not make sense to put both of them into operation at the same time. As a first approach, it would make sense to build only one of them,” said Elering CEO Kalle Kilk.

Kilk noted that the ultimate decision rests with the endpoints—Germany and Finland—who are currently evaluating the pros and cons of each route.

Economic and Strategic Stakes

While an offshore route would avoid disputes with local governments and landowners, Elering strongly advocates for the land-based pipeline, citing Estonian national interests. Kilk highlighted two primary advantages of the overland route:

Economic Revenue: A land pipeline would allow Estonia to collect transit fees. “If we do not want this, we can immediately say they should bypass us, but that would not be sensible,” Kilk stated.

Security and Funding: An overland project crossing several member states may have a better chance of securing high co-financing from the European Commission as a project of common interest. Kilk argued that such corridors create mutual dependence, suggesting that German industry’s reliance on a pipeline through Estonia could increase the interest of allies in protecting regional security.

Local Impact and Infrastructure

Because hydrogen must be transported in gaseous form via pipeline to remain economical over long distances, production facilities must be located near the route. The choice of path will directly dictate where infrastructure is developed within Estonia.

Baltic Sea pipeline map

An offshore route could be connected to the Gulf of Riga offshore wind farm, though this would likely necessitate a hydrogen production plant in western Saaremaa. Conversely, such a route would jeopardize massive hydrogen plants planned for Pärnu County. Kilk acknowledged that Pärnu is distant from the offshore route and would find it easier to connect to an overland pipeline.

Monika Korolkov agreed that the future of the Pärnu County plants remains uncertain if the overland pipeline does not materialize, though she noted that It’s currently too early to make a definitive assessment.

The Road to 2035

Despite the competing interests, MKM reports that the German, Finnish, and Norwegian consortia interested in the seabed route have not yet officially approached the ministry. Both Korolkov and Kilk maintain that parallel planning is a necessary form of risk mitigation to determine the best business case.

Hydrogen energy infrastructure

Kilk noted that the process could be abandoned if it is eventually found to be insufficiently profitable, but maintained that the potential benefits currently outweigh the problems.

Given the long-term nature of the infrastructure, final investment decisions are not expected until 2030–2031, once planning is complete and the willingness of German industry to pay for Finnish hydrogen is confirmed. If the overland route is selected and the project proceeds as planned, hydrogen could potentially begin flowing through Estonia as early as 2035.

Powering the North: The High-Stakes Game of Baltic Energy Interconnections

Energy is the invisible backbone of modern sovereignty. For the Baltic states, the struggle to secure a stable, independent power grid isn’t just a technical challenge—it is a matter of national security. When news breaks that critical electricity connections, such as those between Estonia, Latvia, and Finland, are facing delays, it signals a larger tension between strategic ambition and economic reality.

The push for more interconnectors, like the proposed fourth Estonia-Latvia line and Estlink 3, represents a broader shift toward energy autonomy. But as timelines slide, we have to ask: what does the future of the Baltic energy landscape actually look like?

Did you know? The Baltic states are currently working to decouple their electricity grids from the Russian-controlled BRELL ring to fully synchronize with the Continental European Network (CEN). Here’s one of the most complex grid migrations in history.

The Synchronization Struggle: Beyond the Cables

For decades, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been tethered to a power system managed by Russia. Breaking this bond requires more than just digging trenches and laying undersea cables; it requires a total overhaul of how frequency and stability are managed across borders.

The delay in new connections highlights a critical bottleneck: the “socioeconomic analysis.” In the world of infrastructure, this is often code for “proving the project pays for itself.” However, in the current geopolitical climate, the value of a cable isn’t just in the electricity it carries, but in the redundancy it provides during a crisis.

Looking ahead, the trend will likely shift from “profit-driven” infrastructure to “security-driven” investment. We are seeing a transition where EU co-financing becomes the primary engine for projects that might not look attractive on a corporate balance sheet but are essential for regional stability.

The Role of Offshore Wind and Green Energy

One cannot discuss Baltic interconnectors without mentioning the wind. The Baltic Sea is becoming a powerhouse for offshore wind energy. But wind is intermittent; it doesn’t blow on command.

To make offshore wind viable, the region needs “energy highways”—high-capacity cables that can move surplus power from a windy coast in Estonia to an industrial hub in Latvia or a heating plant in Finland. Without the fourth Estonia-Latvia connection or Estlink 3, the region risks creating “energy islands” where power is generated but cannot be transported.

For more on how renewables are reshaping the region, check out our guide on the transition to green energy in Northern Europe.

Pro Tip for Investors: Watch the “Projects of Common Interest” (PCI) list published by the European Commission. Projects on this list receive fast-tracked permits and priority funding, making them the most reliable indicators of future infrastructure growth.

The Domino Effect of Infrastructure Delays

When a project like Estlink 3 is pushed back, it creates a ripple effect. Energy traders must adjust their hedging strategies, and national operators must find temporary ways to maintain grid stability.

We’ve seen similar patterns in other regions. For example, the North Sea Link between the UK and Norway faced numerous hurdles before becoming the longest undersea interconnector in the world. The lesson learned there was that technical feasibility is often easier to solve than the bureaucratic maze of cross-border permitting.

The trend moving forward will likely involve “hybrid projects”—interconnectors that don’t just connect two countries, but also connect a massive offshore wind farm to both. This “multi-terminal” approach reduces costs and increases the efficiency of the entire regional grid.

Future Trends: What to Expect in the Next Decade

As we look toward the horizon, three major trends will define the Baltic energy sector:

Digitalized Grids: The implementation of AI-driven “smart grids” that can predict outages and reroute power in milliseconds, reducing the reliance on massive physical over-capacity.
Hydrogen Integration: The possibility of using excess wind energy to produce green hydrogen, which can be stored and transported more easily than electricity.
Deepened Nordic Integration: A tighter energy union between the Baltics and Scandinavia, effectively treating the region as a single, synchronized energy market.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are electricity connections between countries so expensive?
Undersea cables require specialized ships, extreme precision in laying, and expensive shielding to protect against corrosion and physical damage. The land-based substations required to handle the voltage are massive industrial undertakings.

What happens if a major connection fails?
This is why “redundancy” is key. If Estonia only has two connections and one fails, the remaining line may be overloaded. A fourth connection ensures that the system remains stable even during maintenance or unexpected failures.

How does synchronization with Europe help the average consumer?
Synchronization generally leads to more competitive electricity prices because it allows countries to buy power from the cheapest available source across a wider network, rather than relying on a single, potentially expensive provider.

Join the Conversation

Do you think energy security should take priority over economic profitability in infrastructure projects? Or should taxpayers only fund projects with a clear financial return?

Share your thoughts in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for deep dives into the future of global energy.

Subscribe Now

elering

Estonia’s overland hydrogen pipeline plan gets Baltic Sea competitor | News