News

Dr. Andreas Klemm spoke with Dr. Florian Brahms, lawyer in Berlin, published in Energie & Management, about the jurisdiction of the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf on the demarcation between the grid and the customer system. A short interview on the recent decisions that are of essential importance for contracting and the concretization of the requirements for a #customer plant in the #EnWG and are relevant for the implementation of tenant flow concepts.

In contrast to the EEG levy, the offshore levy will increase for the year 2019 according to §17f (5) EnWG. It will be 0. 416 cents per kilowatt hour in the coming year, whereas 0. 037 cents per kilowatt hour were calculated for 2018. The background to this is that the previous offshore liability levy only covered the costs of compensation in the event of disruptions or delays to offshore grid connections. From 2019 onwards, on the basis of the grid money modernization law, valid since July 2017, the costs for the connection of offshore wind farms in the North Sea and Baltic Sea will be added to the then valid offshore grid allocation.

Ein Beschluss des VGH München, der auch Wohnungsbaugesellschaften betrifft: Wie oft sind Feuerungsanlagen zu überprüfen? Während § 15 der 1. BImSchVO eine Überprüfung der Feuerungsanlagen in Zwei- oder Dreijahresabständen vorsieht, soll die Überprüfung nach dem Schornsteinfegerhandwerksgesetz bzw. der Kehr- und Überprüfungsordnung einmal jährlich erfolgen. Hierin liegt kein Widerspruch, denn mit den unterschiedlich geregelten Überprüfungen werden auch unterschiedliche Zwecke verfolgt: Die immissionsschutzrechtliche Überprüfung von Abgasanlagen dient dem Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen. Die Überprüfung nach dem Schornsteinfegerhandwerksgesetz bzw. der Kehr- und Überprüfungsordnung dient der Feuersicherheit in Gestalt der Betriebs- und Brandsicherheit. Diese kann eine Anlagenüberprüfung in kürzeren Zeitabständen erfordern als der Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen. (VGH München, Beschluss v. 04.09.2018 – Az.: 22…

Following the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Justice, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt, ruled on 31 August 2018 that the purchaser retains the plant and does not have the defect remedied. The damage can be assessed with the remuneration shares attributable to the defective performance on the basis of the remuneration agreed for the plant. In the opinion of the court, an estimate is also permissible if the remuneration components, on which accounted the defective performance, are not disclosed. The OLG follows the more recent case law of the BGH according to which in these cases the purchaser either has the possibility to measure his financial loss or alternatively can limit himself to the consideration of the defective plant itself in comparison to the defect-free plant. (OLG Frankfurt a. M., decision of 20183108 - Case number.: 13 U 191/16)

On 27 September 2018, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) published a draft bill to amend the Market Master Data Register Regulations (MaStRV). The main (necessary) changes are as follows: Greater protection of personal data with regard to publications concerning smaller installations with an installed capacity of up to 30 kW and adjustment of deadlines for delays in the commissioning of the web portal. Registrations of market players, units, EEG and CHP plants and projects, which have been submitted within the first 24 months after the launch of the web portal, should be officially reported as punctual. In addition to linguistic smoothing, there are some fine adjustments regarding registration obligations.

On 14 September 2018 the BGH announced a judgment eagerly awaited by the wind industry. The BVVG has no claim to payment or right of repurchase for the construction of wind turbines on agricultural land which the property owner has acquired at a reduced price from the BVVG. Accordingly, a provision in the purchase agreement is invalid under which the BVVG can skim off from the purchaser the payments received from the wind turbine operator for the permit. The BVVG had justified this provision by averting the exercise of a BVVG repurchase right. However, the BGH did not accept that argument, as a right of repurchase would not be triggered at all by the use of the land for wind turbines. The BVVG may also have a right of withdrawal only if substantial parts of the sold land are no longer used for agricultural purposes but for wind power generation purposes, which was not the case here. (BGH: Decision from 14.09.2018 – Case Number.: V ZR 12/17)