City Council to decide on SF’s plan for at least 50 percent citizen ownership in onshore wind

On Wednesday 7 October 2026, Aarhus City Council will consider Technical and Environmental’s response to SF’s proposal to make Aarhus residents co-owners of onshore wind turbines. The recommendation steers away from the municipality acting as developer itself and instead points ambitions for renewable energy investment and local co-ownership to the revision of ‘Policy on Active Ownership’ and Kredsløb’s ownership strategy.

What it means for you

If the byråd (city council) adopts the recommendation, the municipality will not launch a municipal startup model in which Technical and Environmental bears the development risk and later offers shares to citizens. The debate shifts instead to whether Kredsløb, through ownership policy, should invest more in solar and wind, and whether targets can be set for selling ownership shares — provided that is compatible with legislation and the company’s finances. For neighbours of possible onshore wind projects, the message in the review is clear: the biggest barrier is still access to suitable land in a densely populated municipality.

Background

SF Aarhus submitted the proposal with spokesperson Liv Gro Jensen and proposers Mette Bjerre, Thomas Medom, Nanna Lippert Troelsen and Albert Rosenkrantz Conradsen. The party wants the municipality to carry the startup risk, including environmental surveys and planning, and then transfer at least 50 percent of ownership to citizens once the facility is operating. Under the proposal, shares should be offered using a proximity principle, first right for neighbours, sale at cost price, and models that can also reach citizens with limited savings. The result was originally to be presented within three months and before budget negotiations.

City Council sent the case to the magistrat (municipal executive) for processing on 20 May 2026. Technical and Environmental delivered its recommendation on 3 July 2026. The Municipal Executive recommended on 18 August 2026 that it be adopted, while Socialistisk Folkeparti and Liberal Alliance entered reservations. City Council referred the case to the Nature and Climate Committee on 26 August 2026. The udvalg (committee) first postponed consideration on 16 September and on 30 September could unanimously adopt the recommendation in line with the Municipal Executive’s recommendation; Louise Svenstrup entered a reservation.

The administration assesses that Aarhus Municipality cannot immediately stand as developer and owner of wind turbine projects, among other things citing section 4 of the Electricity Supply Act. Experience from Morsø Municipality points to independent companies. Aarhus Municipality’s Klimaselskab ApS is not seen as an obvious model, because the activities are expected to be transferred back to the municipality. Instead, Kredsløb Holding A/S is identified as the most natural framework: the company already has competencies and an ownership strategy that mentions investment in familiar renewable energy technology (solar and wind), but City Council does not have instruction powers over the board. Direction is set among other things via ‘Policy on Active Ownership’, ownership strategy and general meeting. The Municipal Executive launched a revision of the policy on 13 January 2026.

Figures and facts

• SF proposes that at least 50 percent of a completed onshore wind facility be offered as shares to citizens in Aarhus Municipality. (Appendix — Appendix 1: Decision proposal SF 03.05.2026)
• City Council requested on 20 May 2026 a review of whether the municipality or a municipally owned company can act as developer and take on startup risk. (Appendix — Recommendation)
• Technical and Environmental’s recommendation is dated 3 July 2026. (Appendix — Recommendation)
• If a Kredsløb investment exceeds DKK 500 million, the company must submit a recommendation to Aarhus City Council. (Appendix — Recommendation)
• Louise Svenstrup (LA) said in the city council debate on 26 August 2026 that the economic risk in the appendices is estimated at somewhere between 2 and 10 million. (Appendix — City council debate 26.08.2026)
• The Nature and Climate Committee adopted the recommendation on 30 September 2026; Louise Svenstrup entered a reservation. (Agenda — Response to proposal from SF on making Aarhus residents co-owners of the green transition)

Who said what

Liv Gro Jensen (SF) has maintained in the chamber that the municipality must bear startup risk so local groups do not have to risk millions before the turbines spin, and that neighbours should have first right to shares at cost price. At reconsideration on 26 August she called the recommendation somewhat reactive and not proactive enough.

Rådmand (alderman) Nicolaj Bang (KF) acknowledged on 20 May the need for more renewable energy and local anchoring, but stressed that Aarhus is densely populated, that setback requirements are large, and that the municipality does not have a string of obvious projects. He found it sensible to review the legal aspects.

Kristian Sommer (S) backed the review on 20 May (items 1 and 3) and saw co-ownership as a possible answer to local opposition, but also wanted a model examined in which the municipality facilitates co-ownership without necessarily providing a guarantee. On 26 August he linked the case to support for the green transition.

Gert Bjerregaard (V) rejected that the municipal coffers should take the risk while gains can end up with individual citizens, and on 26 August repeated that Venstre does not support a municipally owned track as midwife.

Sarah Jarsbo (EL) was on 26 August annoyed at not being able to get the original proposal through and wanted a concrete note on where onshore wind can stand and what City Council must do to realise it. Isabella Heilmann (EL) had previously pointed to the Thy model and local support.

Louise Svenstrup (LA) rejected municipal risk in an area where private actors already operate, and mentioned the amount range of 2–10 million. Jakob Søgaard Clausen (DD) supported the core of local co-ownership with local backing, but was sceptical of both an independent company and Kredsløb as a solution. Thomas Kastrup Christensen (DF) maintained scepticism towards more onshore wind turbines and pointed to siting and public opposition as decisive. Mahad Yussuf (RV) called the proposal exciting but wanted the legal viability examined.

What happens next

On Wednesday the recommendation is before City Council: to note the review, and to address ambitions for increased renewable energy investments and any targets for local co-ownership in the upcoming revision of ‘Policy on Active Ownership’, including Kredsløb’s ownership strategy. The recommendation does not decide on concrete projects or investments. Any next steps depend on whether City Council adopts the recommendation and on the further ownership-policy revision.

Sources

• Agenda — Response to proposal from SF on making Aarhus residents co-owners of the green transition
• Appendix — Recommendation
• Appendix — Appendix 1: Decision proposal SF 03.05.2026
• Appendix — City council debate 26.08.2026
• Aarhus Municipality meeting documents — meeting
• Aarhus Municipality

Other appendices

• Appendix — City council debate 20.05.2026