NO1 20 SE 24 NO2 2 19 31 18 25 UK3 30 14 IR DK1 4 32 UK2 10 17 26 13 29 27 UK1 7 11 9 DE1 DE2 NL BE 8 5 1 23 28 22 DK2 21 12 16 15 3 DE3 6 DE4 FR Existing Onshore-Onshore Corridor Candidate Cross-Border Interconnector Candidate Offshore-Onshore Corridor Candidate Offshore-Offshore Corridor figure 9. A set of corridors in the North Seas. generation that will be connected and the corresponding network investment. In the context of uncertainty, this study investigated a min-max regret approach to the development of an offshore grid network and examined the extent to which strategic infrastructure investment decisions could deliver the flexibility to accommodate various future wind development scenarios through facilitating multiple network designs that are not overly constrained by the design choices in earlier years. To that effect, the min-max planners have to find the optimal compromise between all possible choices that will enable them to both operate the system efficiently in the short term (the planners will have to live with their initial commitments until further july/august 2015 reinvestment can be undertaken) but also render them well positioned to adjust to actual developments at minimum cost. Of course, first-stage commitments can pose substantial limits to how optimally the system can adjust to the eventual realization. Our analysis demonstrates that it is more cost-effective to marginally over invest and run the risk of stranded assets than under invest and considerably constrain the available wind energy output. In other words, the potential regret associated with overbuilding the grid in expectation of high levels of deployment is much lower than the regret associated with underbuilding the grid on the basis of overly conservative deployment expectations. In addition, our analysis illustrates how the min-max approach, ieee power & energy magazine 71