In Germany, agrivoltaic systems are not explicitly embedded in the legal framework. In order to advance the technology and thus make a contribution to the energy transition and sustainable food production, legal implementation is of great relevance. An analysis of the four sectors construction, energy, agriculture and environment presents the current state of affairs. Agrivoltaic systems are usually built in the so-called unplanned outdoor area. In many cases it is difficult to obtain a permit there, because the classification as a privileged project does not always succeed. In the planned area, the stipulation of use is associated with legal difficulties. With regard to the EEG, agrivoltaics often falls into the category of ground mounted systems and therefore is usually not eligible to receive a governmental feed-in tariff on agricultural land. The agricultural sector can recognize areas under agrivoltaic systems as eligible areas and, with the help of a detailed environmental analysis, it should be considered that at least no compensatory measures within the framework of the Eco Account Ordinance need to be created when building an agrivoltaic system. In the energy sector, an increased feed-in tariff can be achieved through certain adjustments.

1.
Deutsche Bundesregierung
, (
2018
).
Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung
,
Berlin
.
2.
The Federal Immission Control Act (BImschG) does not apply because agrivoltaic systems are not listed in the annex to the fourth ordinance for the implementation of the Federal Immission Control Act (4th Federal Emission Protection Ordinance (BImSchV)
).
3.
Federal Administrative Court, verdict of 3 November 1972, file no. 4 C 9.70.
4.
Federal Administrative Court, decision of 4 November 2008, file no. 4 B 44.08.
5.
Notably Section 9 BauGB.
6.
Federal Administrative Court, NVwZ 2003, 98.
7.
See no. 2 of § 21(1) EEG.
8.
See § 22(3) EEG; in determining the “
750 kW limit”, the “system combination rules
” contained in § 24(1) and (2) EEG also have to be observed.
9.
Regarding the EEG, also see 2004 Federal Court of Justice (BGH), verdict of 17 November 2010, file no. VIII ZR 277/09.
10.
See points h.) and i.) of sentence 1, § 37(1) EEG.
11.
See verdict of 2 July 2015, file no. C-684/13.
12.
Federal Administrative Court, verdict of 4 July 2019, file no. 3 C 11.17.
13.
See verdict of 15 November 2018, file no. RO 5 K 17.1331.
14.
See § 13(1) BNatSchG.
15.
See § 13(2) BNatSchG.
This content is only available via PDF.