Japan has designated 12 offshore wind Promotion Zones, the sea areas where the state tenders long-term occupancy rights to a developer. One is operating, six have a selected developer and five have none. Those five hold about half of the 5.6 to 5.9 GW total. Anyone timing supply contracts or lending should check the stage of each zone first.
Three zones await a re-tender after the Round 1 withdrawal, and two in Hokkaido have not been tendered. As of 7 November 2026, neither tender has opened.
The legal criteria cover whether ports can be used and whether the grid connection is expected to be secured. Construction cost and interest rates are not among them. The three Round 1 sites passed the same test.
Five of them plan to start operating between June 2029 and June 2030. Within that group, Happo-Noshiro has postponed onshore works and Murakami-Tainai is reviewing its whole schedule.
Hokkaido’s two zones add up to as much as 1.46 GW. Which port would serve them is a question to read alongside the tender terms.
Where the 12 Zones Stand: Five Without a Developer Hold About Half the Capacity
We grouped the capacities in the government’s zone list by current stage. The total comes to about 5.6 to 5.9 GW.
| Stage | Zones | Capacity | Share of total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operating | 1 | About 17 MW | Under 1% |
| Developer selected (Rounds 2 and 3) | 6 | About 2,859 MW | About 50% |
| Awaiting re-tender (Round 1 withdrawal) | 3 | About 1,515 MW | About 25-30% |
| Not yet tendered (Hokkaido) | 2 | About 1,160-1,460 MW | About 20-25% |
The shares are DeepWind’s calculation. The next table lists each zone, and the linked pages are updated monthly.
| Zone | Capacity | Stage and developer | Price and schedule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goto, Nagasaki (floating) | 16.8 MW | Operating. Goto Floating Wind Farm (Toda and partners) | JPY 36/kWh. Started operating 5 January 2026 |
| Noshiro, Mitane and Oga, Akita | 415 MW | Awaiting re-tender. Round 1 developer withdrew in August 2025 | Re-tender date not announced |
| Yurihonjo (north and south), Akita | 730 MW | Awaiting re-tender. Round 1 developer withdrew in August 2025 | Re-tender date not announced |
| Choshi, Chiba | 370 MW | Awaiting re-tender. Round 1 developer withdrew in August 2025 | Re-tender date not announced |
| Happo and Noshiro, Akita | 375 MW | Round 2. ENEOS Renewable Energy, Iberdrola, Tohoku Electric | JPY 3/kWh. Planned June 2029. Onshore works postponed, new schedule under review |
| Oga, Katagami and Akita City | 315 MW | Round 2. JERA, J-POWER, Tohoku Electric, ITOCHU | JPY 3/kWh. Planned June 2028 |
| Murakami and Tainai, Niigata | 684 MW (690 MW in its later environmental filing) | Round 2. Mitsui, RWE, Osaka Gas | JPY 3/kWh. June 2029 at selection, whole schedule under review |
| Saikai Enoshima, Nagasaki | 420 MW | Round 2. Sumitomo, TEPCO Renewable Power | JPY 22.18/kWh. Planned August 2029 |
| Aomori Sea of Japan (south) | 615 MW | Round 3. JERA, Green Power Investment, Tohoku Electric | JPY 3/kWh. Planned June 2030 |
| Yuza, Yamagata | 450 MW | Round 3. Marubeni, Kansai Electric, BP, Tokyo Gas, Marutaka | JPY 3/kWh. Planned June 2030 |
| Matsumae, Hokkaido | 250-320 MW | Not yet tendered (the Round 4 equivalent) | Tender date not announced |
| Hiyama, Hokkaido | 910-1,140 MW | Not yet tendered. Picked for an additional state survey in October 2026 | Tender date not announced |
Capacities come from the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy’s zone list as of 3 October 2025. For zones with a developer, the figure is the developer’s planned output. For the others, it is the maximum grid intake or the largest assumed project size. Goto is shown at its operating capacity. The withdrawn developer’s own plans added up to about 1,742 MW (494, 845 and 403 MW), which is a different basis from the table. Schedules are developers’ plans and may change.
What Designation Tests: Seven Criteria, With Ports and Grid at the Level of Prospects
Promotion Zones are designated under the Marine Renewable Energy Act, the law on using sea areas for offshore wind, renamed in April 2026. In a designated zone, the state selects a developer by tender and grants occupancy for up to 30 years. In February 2026 the government also agreed that renewal of the occupancy permit should in principle be allowed, under certain conditions.
The Act sets seven criteria:
- Natural conditions are suitable and substantial output can be expected
- Turbines can be placed without disrupting shipping routes or ports
- People and materials can be moved by using a port outside the zone
- A grid connection is expected to be properly secured
- Fisheries are not expected to be disrupted
- Conservation of the marine environment is not expected to be at risk
- The zone does not overlap fishing ports, port areas or coastal protection areas
Some of what a developer needs to know is settled here. Talks with fishers and local government run through a statutory council, and the state sets out how grid capacity will be secured. That is why designation matters as an entry point.
The criteria speak of prospects: that a port can be used and that a connection can be secured. Construction cost, interest rates, procurement and power purchase contracts are outside them. The three zones abandoned in Round 1 were designated under this same test. Reading “Promotion Zone” as “low risk” overstates what the law checks.
Round 1: Three Sites Lost After Mitsubishi Said Construction Costs More Than Doubled
In December 2021, a Mitsubishi Corporation-led group won all three Round 1 zones at JPY 13.26, 11.99 and 16.49/kWh. In August 2025 it announced its withdrawal from all of them.
According to the government’s analysis, Mitsubishi explained that construction cost had grown to more than twice its bid assumption. Round 1 ran under a feed-in tariff (FIT), which fixes revenue at the bid price times output, and it had no mechanism for inflation. The analysis says that, on top of the global change in conditions, the low bid prices cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor.
What stopped those projects was the economics. A good site still stops when price and cost do not meet.
👉 Why Japan’s Offshore Wind Round 1 Ended in Withdrawal
The re-tender terms are still being worked out
The government began taking information from developers on the three zones on 26 November 2025. Material from June 2026 still describes the specific terms as something to be examined. The new tender rules score feasibility in more detail and make it harder to win on low price alone.
At Choshi, TEPCO Renewable Power published a primary environmental assessment in August 2026. That filing is separate from a bid, and the company has reportedly said no decision on bidding has been made.
👉 Japan Revises Its Offshore Wind Auction Guidelines
Six Zones With Developers: Five Plan to Start Between June 2029 and June 2030
Five of the six won at JPY 3/kWh. That level produces almost no premium under the feed-in premium (FIP) system, which is why these bids are called zero-premium. Most of the revenue has to come from market sales or long-term contracts with power buyers.
Schedules have already started to move:
- Happo-Noshiro: onshore works planned for January 2026 were postponed, and a new schedule is under review. The developer cites changes in business conditions and says it will complete the project.
- Murakami-Tainai: the plan changed from 38 GE 18 MW turbines at selection to 46 15 MW turbines in the draft environmental impact statement. The start date is under review.
- Yuza: in July 2026 BP was reported to be considering an exit. BP reportedly said nothing had been decided, and we have found no formal announcement.
Oga-Katagami-Akita has the earliest plan, June 2028, and that date also comes from the selection stage.
The government has responded. Its February 2026 paper set out three measures for Rounds 2 and 3: entry to the Long-Term Decarbonization Auction (LTDA), which pays for capacity over many years, flexibility on changes to occupancy plans, and renewal of occupancy permits in principle. Six projects may qualify for the LTDA, with about 700 MW of expected capacity. The offshore wind cap in the fourth auction is 500 MW, so some would lose out if all of them bid.
Lenders ask whether debt gets repaid, more than whether a project is profitable. So they test the debt service coverage ratio (DSCR), which shows how many times cash flow covers debt payments in the tightest year. Round 1 had fixed revenue while construction cost climbed. JPY 3/kWh projects depend on market prices and buyer contracts. Check the shape of revenue zone by zone, and stress the assumptions. You can run the numbers in DeepWind Simulator.
👉 BP’s Reported Exit from 450 MW Yuza: Winning an Auction and Getting Financed Are Different Tests
Ports: Seven Base Ports, With Akita Already Contracted to Two Companies
A base port is one the state designates for assembling and loading out turbines, and leases to developers over the long term. There are seven: Noshiro, Akita, Kashima, Kitakyushu, Niigata, Aomori and Sakata. As of an August 2026 Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) paper, none is in Hokkaido. Most offer a designated area of 8 hectares.
The same paper shows Akita contracted to two power developers and Kitakyushu to one. A quay can be leased to more than one developer, and the minister coordinates use. MLIT expects project formation to rise from about 1 GW a year to 2 to 3.5 GW a year after 2030, and lists securing ports for larger projects as a task ahead. In the table below, O&M means operations and maintenance.
| Zone | Water depth | Planned or assumed ports |
|---|---|---|
| Goto | Over 100 m | Fukue (floater yard) |
| Noshiro, Mitane, Oga | Under 30 m | Noshiro (withdrawn developer’s plan) |
| Yurihonjo | About 15-30 m | Construction at Akita, O&M at Honjo (same) |
| Choshi | Around 20 m | Construction at Kashima, O&M at Naarai (same) |
| Happo-Noshiro | Mostly under 30 m | Foundations at Akita and Funakawa, turbines at Muroran, O&M at Noshiro |
| Oga-Katagami-Akita | Under 30 m | Construction at Akita, O&M at Funakawa |
| Murakami-Tainai | About 20-40 m | Base at Niigata, O&M at Iwafune |
| Saikai Enoshima | About 60% under 30 m, up to about 52 m | A port on the Kyushu mainland (only fishing ports nearby) |
| Aomori south | Nearly all under 50 m | Base at Aomori, O&M at Aomori and Tsugaru |
| Yuza | About 80% under 35 m, up to about 41 m | Base at Sakata |
| Matsumae | About 75% under 40 m, up to about 67 m | Not decided (nearest port area is Matsumae) |
| Hiyama | About 60% at 60 m or less, up to about 245 m | Esashi assumed |
Akita stands out. Whoever wins the Yurihonjo re-tender has not chosen a port, but the withdrawn plan relied on Akita. The MLIT paper does not name the two contracted companies, so we do not name them here. In our view, Akita’s availability is one of the first things to check when reading any re-tender schedule.
👉 A Turning Point for Base Port Rules: MLIT’s 5 Operational Improvements
Five Axes for Comparing Zones, and Who Uses Each One
Conditions differ widely within the same legal label. Five comparisons do most of the work.
Water depth and sea conditions set the foundation and the construction season
Depth drives the choice between fixed-bottom and floating, and the type of foundation. Goto exceeds 100 m and is floating. Hiyama is assumed to be fixed-bottom, though its deepest point reaches about 245 m. Surveys found exposed rock at Saikai Enoshima, Matsumae and Hiyama, so foundation methods will affect both schedule and cost. Choshi sits on the Pacific side. In our view, its construction season and vessel choices cannot simply borrow Sea of Japan assumptions.
Ports decide whether a project can be built
Engineering, procurement and construction contractors and vessel owners can use the table above to see where work may gather, and when. A distant port adds transit time and weather waiting.
The grid decides whether output can be sold
Designation checks the prospect of a connection, but curtailment risk remains. In the FY2031 outlook from the Organization for Cross-regional Coordination of Transmission Operators, wind curtailment appears in two areas, Hokkaido and Tohoku. Of the 21 Promotion and Promising Zones, 15 sit inside them.
👉 Where Japan’s Offshore Wind Faces Curtailment
Scale and stage decide which risk you are taking on
Larger zones need larger investment. Progress on environmental assessment and seabed surveys changes which risks remain. At Hiyama, five developers have filed primary assessments, but filing does not mean they will bid.
Turbines and supply can change the plan
Murakami-Tainai shows how a turbine change alters the count and the plan. Vestas and Siemens Gamesa 15 MW machines dominate the selections so far. Suppliers will want to know which model is ordered and when.
A separate article compares generation cost across zones on common assumptions, with the date stated.
👉 Cost Realities of Japan’s Offshore Wind: LCOE and IRR by Zone
Next in Line: 9 Promising Zones and 17 Preparation Zones
Before a zone is designated, it passes through two earlier stages. Promising Zones, of which there are nine, are moving toward designation through a statutory council. The 17 Preparation Zones are a step earlier. In some zones, including Akita City and Hibikinada, the state is carrying out the seabed surveys itself under the “central” system.
👉 Japan’s Offshore Wind Promising Zones
👉 Japan’s Offshore Wind Preparation Zones
What matters in this list is less the number of zones than who will build, at what price and from which port.
Japan’s offshore wind pipeline is often described by counting designations. Five of the 12 zones have no developer, and schedules are moving in the six that do. If you are timing orders or lending, we think it is closer to reality to start from the roughly 2.9 GW with selected developers, then check which of those schedules are changing.
Three things come next. How the re-tender and Round 4 terms rebalance price and feasibility. How the January 2027 LTDA settles revenue for Rounds 2 and 3. Which ports become the working assumption for Hokkaido. These tenders could change the picture quickly, but no date has been set for any of them. Consider revisiting the other five zones once those terms appear, and exercise caution if a plan still rests on numbers from before the withdrawal.
Frequently Asked Questions About Japan’s Promotion Zones
Related DeepWind Articles
- Japan’s Offshore Wind Promising Zones: Candidate Areas
- Japan’s Offshore Wind Preparation Zones
- Japan’s Offshore Wind Law Explained (2026)
- Japan’s Offshore Wind Policy Framework
- Japan Offshore Wind Project Map
DeepWind Weekly tracks Japan’s offshore wind market beyond headline announcements, focusing on execution risk, cost structure, project viability, supply-chain constraints, and policy implications.
Subscribe to receive weekly intelligence on Japan’s offshore wind market.
Free reportWhich of April’s planning assumptions no longer hold? Our 17-page review of Japan’s offshore wind market, April to September 2026. Free when you subscribe to the Weekly. See what’s inside →