Cabinet decision on the EEG 2027 amendment and the grid connection package: what it means for agrivoltaics

14 min read · Updat­ed on 22 Octo­ber 2026

On 29 July 2026, the Ger­man fed­er­al cab­i­net adopt­ed the EEG amend­ment and the grid con­nec­tion pack­age. We had already assessed the min­istry draft of 17 July in our arti­cle “Final EEG 2027 draft and agri­v­oltaics”. The cab­i­net deci­sion con­firms the direc­tion described there, but the grid con­nec­tion pack­age adds an ele­ment that agri­v­olta­ic devel­op­ers should fac­tor into site selec­tion from now on: loca­tion-based steer­ing in grid-con­strained “hot-spot” regions. Here we assess what has become more con­crete since 17 July and what agri­v­olta­ic projects now need to con­sid­er.

Key points at a glance

• Cab­i­net deci­sion on 29 July 2026: the bills now go to the Bun­destag and Bun­desrat. Planned entry into force remains 1 Jan­u­ary 2027.
• The focus on ground-mount­ed solar is con­firmed at cab­i­net lev­el: small rooftop sys­tems below 25 kW lose per­ma­nent sup­port for new instal­la­tions, while exist­ing instal­la­tions remain pro­tect­ed. Ground-mount­ed sys­tems, and with them agri­v­oltaics, move fur­ther into the focus of sup­port pol­i­cy.
• New: loca­tion-based steer­ing in grid hot spots. In regions that fore­see­ably can­not absorb addi­tion­al wind or solar feed-in, com­pen­sa­tion for cur­tail­ment no longer applies, capped at 20 % of annu­al gen­er­a­tion (18 % in wind pri­or­i­ty areas) and lim­it­ed to 6 years.
• Grid capac­i­ty will in future be sized on typ­i­cal feed-in pro­files instead of feed-in peaks, which saves grid expan­sion and is intend­ed to speed up con­nec­tion pro­ce­dures.
• Grid con­nec­tion pro­ce­dures will be accel­er­at­ed; grid oper­a­tors may pri­ori­tise con­nec­tion requests and reserve capac­i­ty.
• The CfD mech­a­nism remains the sup­port instru­ment, but excess prof­its in high-price phas­es are clawed back and flow back into sup­port costs.
• Con­firmed in the final bill text: applic­a­ble val­ue of 6.2 ct/kWh (Sec­tion 48(1)), ele­va­tion bonus of +0.5 ct/kWh for cat­e­go­ry I and cat­e­go­ry II alike (Sec­tion 38a and Sec­tion 48(1b)), max­i­mum val­ue in the first seg­ment of 5.9 ct/kWh (Sec­tion 37b), ten­der vol­ume of 14,000 MW per year, dele­tion of the spe­cial seg­ment under Sec­tion 37d. For cat­e­go­ry I sys­tems (high­ly ele­vat­ed), the bonus is no high­er than for cat­e­go­ry II; more on this below.

---

From ministry draft to cabinet decision: what has shifted?

The min­istry draft of 17 July was the tech­ni­cal basis that asso­ci­a­tions could com­ment on in the par­al­lel con­sul­ta­tion. The cab­i­net deci­sion of 29 July is the next for­mal step: the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment has agreed on a bill that now goes to the Bun­destag and Bun­desrat. Fed­er­al Eco­nom­ics Min­is­ter Kathe­ri­na Reiche describes the core as fol­lows: in future, the expan­sion of renew­ables is to be steered sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly accord­ing to where new instal­la­tions make sense for the pow­er grid, with the aim of reduc­ing redis­patch costs, cur­rent­ly over 3 bil­lion euros a year. The 80 per cent tar­get for 2030 and the expan­sion paths remain in place.

For agri­v­oltaics this means that the basic course of the min­istry draft is not reversed: abo­li­tion of the spe­cial seg­ment for spe­cial solar instal­la­tions (includ­ing agri­v­oltaics), agri­v­oltaics com­pet­ing with con­ven­tion­al ground-mount­ed sys­tems in the shared first seg­ment, and a mod­er­ate ele­va­tion bonus (+0.5 ct/kWh). The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment does, how­ev­er, add a sys­temic ele­ment that feeds direct­ly into project plan­ning.

---

Confirmed: the ground-mounted focus strengthens the structural position of agrivoltaics

The cab­i­net press release makes the pri­ori­ti­sa­tion clear: “For solar, we are focus­ing more strong­ly on ground-mount­ed sys­tems.” The rea­sons giv­en are the economies of scale of large instal­la­tions, which rooftop solar can­not match, and the fact that small solar sys­tems already earn good returns with­out sup­port. Per­ma­nent sup­port for new instal­la­tions below 25 kW there­fore ends from 2027; exist­ing instal­la­tions keep their guar­an­teed remu­ner­a­tion for their entire life­time.

This con­firms what we had already assessed in our arti­cle on 18 July: as a ground-mount­ed sys­tem, agri­v­oltaics is struc­tural­ly on the side of sup­port pol­i­cy that is to be expand­ed, not on the side that is being scaled back. For farm­ers and investors, this is a polit­i­cal sig­nal that large, grid-friend­ly ground-mount­ed projects with agri­cul­tur­al dual use are at the cen­tre of future solar sup­port.

---

What the bill text regulates for agrivoltaics

We analysed the full text of the bill on the EEG elec­tric­i­ty sec­tor adopt­ed on 29 July (not just the press release). The bonus for agri­v­olta­ic sys­tems in cat­e­go­ry I and cat­e­go­ry II is iden­ti­cal in amount. Both Sec­tion 38a EEG 2027 (for sys­tems over 1 MW that must take part in ten­ders) and Sec­tion 48(1b) EEG 2027 (for sys­tems up to 1 MW that are exempt from ten­ders) grant the same pre­mi­um of +0.5 ct/kWh, regard­less of whether a sys­tem meets the cat­e­go­ry I agri­v­oltaics thresh­old of 2.10 m or the cat­e­go­ry II thresh­old of 0.80 m (only for exclu­sive­ly ver­ti­cal ori­en­ta­tion or track­er sys­tems). The explana­to­ry mem­o­ran­dum (on Sec­tion 38a EEG 2027) jus­ti­fies the uni­form bonus by stat­ing that “ori­en­ta­tion towards the most cost-effec­tive tech­nol­o­gy was required in order to avoid over-com­pen­sa­tion”. The leg­is­la­tor thus delib­er­ate­ly does not reward the high­er addi­tion­al costs of cat­e­go­ry I sub­struc­tures (sup­port­ing struc­ture, posts, greater clear­ance for farm machin­ery) com­pared with cat­e­go­ry II. For the busi­ness case of high­ly ele­vat­ed projects, this means: the bonus cov­ers part of the addi­tion­al tech­ni­cal effort, but the sys­tem itself has to earn the dif­fer­ence in actu­al sub­struc­ture costs through effi­cient project design.

In total, this gives the fol­low­ing for cat­e­go­ry I sys­tems:

• Exempt from ten­ders (≤ 1 MW): 6.2 ct/kWh + 0.5 ct/kWh bonus = 6.7 ct/kWh (Sec­tion 48(1) in con­junc­tion with (1b)).
• Sub­ject to ten­ders (> 1 MW): award val­ue up to a max­i­mum of 5.9 ct/kWh (max­i­mum val­ue under Sec­tion 37b) + 0.5 ct/kWh bonus = a max­i­mum of 6.4 ct/kWh (Sec­tion 38a).

The proof and sanc­tion mech­a­nism is iden­ti­cal for both size class­es. Sec­tion 48(5) EEG 2027 for sys­tems exempt from ten­ders and Sec­tion 54(2) EEG 2027 for ten­dered sys­tems over 1 MW use iden­ti­cal word­ing: if proof of agri­cul­tur­al use or of simul­ta­ne­ous crop cul­ti­va­tion is miss­ing, the applic­a­ble val­ue is reduced by 0.5 ct/kWh, no longer to zero. The reduc­tion laps­es retroac­tive­ly if the proof is sub­mit­ted in the fol­low­ing year.

New­ly iden­ti­fied, rel­e­vant for plan­ning agri­v­olta­ic sys­tems over 1 MW: Sec­tion 54(1) EEG 2027 intro­duces a stag­gered dead­line that did not exist in this form in the EEG 2023: if the sys­tem is com­mis­sioned more than 18 months after pub­lic announce­ment of the award, the applic­a­ble val­ue is reduced by 0.3 ct/kWh. This comes on top of the known rule that the award laps­es entire­ly after 24 months (Sec­tion 37e).

Land par­cel flex­i­bil­i­ty only with­in the agrivoltaics/peatland solar fam­i­ly. Under Sec­tion 38(1) no. 1© EEG 2027, the sys­tem must in prin­ci­ple be locat­ed on the land par­cel named in the bid. Unlike stan­dard ground-mount­ed sys­tems, how­ev­er, an award for agri­v­oltaics may be used flex­i­bly between dif­fer­ent agri­v­olta­ic and peat­land solar sites named in the bid. This flex­i­bil­i­ty only exists with­in the cat­e­go­ry of “spe­cial solar instal­la­tions” (Sec­tion 37(1) no. 3(a) to © or (e)) and not in rela­tion to stan­dard ground-mount­ed sites.

Exempt from the min­i­mum eco­log­i­cal cri­te­ria. Sec­tion 38(1) no. 4 EEG 2027 only requires com­pli­ance with the min­i­mum eco­log­i­cal cri­te­ria under Sec­tion 37(1a) for land under Sec­tion 37(1) no. 1 or 2, not for agri­v­oltaics under no. 3. Agri­cul­tur­al dual use there­fore con­tin­ues to count as an inde­pen­dent and suf­fi­cient eco­log­i­cal jus­ti­fi­ca­tion, a point we had already made on the min­istry draft and which is con­firmed in the final cab­i­net text.

---

New and decisive: location-based steering in grid hot spots

The grid con­nec­tion pack­age intro­duces an instru­ment that did not appear with this sharp­ness in the EEG min­istry draft alone: loca­tion-based steer­ing for regions with fore­see­able grid con­ges­tion. Specif­i­cal­ly, the cab­i­net deci­sion pro­vides for the fol­low­ing:

• In so-called hot-spot regions, which fore­see­ably can­not absorb feed-in from wind or solar instal­la­tions, com­pen­sa­tion pay­ments for cur­tail­ment will no longer apply.
• A cap lim­its the finan­cial risk: a max­i­mum of 20 % of annu­al gen­er­a­tion, 18 % in wind pri­or­i­ty areas.
• The instru­ment is lim­it­ed to 6 years.
• Grid expan­sion in the affect­ed regions con­tin­ues in par­al­lel. Loca­tion-based steer­ing does not replace it; in the mean­time it is meant to direct new capac­i­ty more strong­ly to where the grid can actu­al­ly absorb it.

For agri­v­olta­ic projects of 1 MW and above, which must take part in ten­ders any­way and, as described in the min­istry draft, will in future have to bid with a bind­ing ref­er­ence to a land par­cel, this has imme­di­ate con­se­quences: the grid com­pat­i­bil­i­ty of a site becomes a sep­a­rate assess­ment cri­te­ri­on that should be clar­i­fied before bid­ding, not after­wards. A land par­cel that is ide­al in agri­cul­tur­al and plan­ning terms but lies in a grid hot-spot region now car­ries an addi­tion­al, albeit capped, yield risk for up to six years.

At the same time, the cap of 20 % (or 18 %) of annu­al gen­er­a­tion is a cal­cu­la­ble, lim­it­ed risk and not unlim­it­ed lia­bil­i­ty. That dis­tin­guish­es the instru­ment from pure mar­ket cur­tail­ment with­out any floor. For project finance, this means the risk can be priced in, pro­vid­ed the grid sit­u­a­tion at the site is assessed ear­ly and reli­ably.

---

Grid connection becomes faster, if the profile fits

Two fur­ther rules in the grid con­nec­tion pack­age work in the oth­er direc­tion, name­ly as accel­er­a­tors:

Grid capac­i­ty based on the typ­i­cal feed-in pro­file instead of peak load. Until now, grid capac­i­ty has often been sized for a plan­t’s the­o­ret­i­cal feed-in peak, even though this peak is actu­al­ly reached in only a few hours a year. In future, avail­able grid capac­i­ty is to be mea­sured more strong­ly against typ­i­cal feed-in pro­files. This may become rel­e­vant for agri­v­olta­ic sys­tems with ver­ti­cal mod­ule ori­en­ta­tion (cat­e­go­ry II under DIN SPEC 91434), whose east-west ori­en­ta­tion typ­i­cal­ly gives a flat­ter feed-in pro­file than a clas­sic south ori­en­ta­tion. We are keep­ing an eye on this aspect as we analyse the imple­ment­ing ordi­nances.

Pri­ori­tised and accel­er­at­ed con­nec­tion pro­ce­dures. Grid oper­a­tors are to be able to pri­ori­tise grid con­nec­tion requests and reserve capac­i­ty in future. For project devel­op­ers, this poten­tial­ly means short­er wait­ing times between award and grid con­nec­tion, a fac­tor that gains weight giv­en the tighter dead­lines in the min­istry draft (24 months to com­mis­sion­ing instead of the pre­vi­ous 26-month appli­ca­tion dead­line).

---

The CfD mechanism remains, excess profits are clawed back

The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment is stick­ing with two-way con­tracts for dif­fer­ence (CfDs) as the sup­port instru­ment for larg­er instal­la­tions. What is new is that excess prof­its in peri­ods of high elec­tric­i­ty prices are clawed back and flow back into sup­port costs. Over time this makes sup­port sys­tem­i­cal­ly cheap­er, with­out plant oper­a­tors being less pro­tect­ed in low-price phas­es. Instal­la­tions that can be financed entire­ly by the mar­ket may in future also be built out­side the EEG.

Clar­i­fied by the bill text: the ref­er­ence is the tech­nol­o­gy-spe­cif­ic annu­al mar­ket val­ue, not the indi­vid­ual mar­ket­ing rev­enue of the plant. Under Sec­tion 3 no. 34 EEG 2027, the “mar­ket val­ue” is the ener­gy-source-spe­cif­ic mar­ket val­ue of elec­tric­i­ty from renew­able ener­gies, derived from the actu­al annu­al aver­age spot mar­ket price for the respec­tive tech­nol­o­gy (annu­al mar­ket val­ue). It is there­fore a pub­lished ref­er­ence val­ue (com­pa­ra­ble to today’s “mar­ket val­ue solar”), not the mar­ket­ing rev­enue actu­al­ly achieved by the indi­vid­ual plant. The new Sec­tion 21d EEG 2027 oblig­es oper­a­tors of instal­la­tions with an installed capac­i­ty of 100 kW or more to pay a refi­nanc­ing con­tri­bu­tion to the grid oper­a­tor if this annu­al mar­ket val­ue exceeds the plan­t’s applic­a­ble val­ue. This is sym­met­ri­cal to the exist­ing mar­ket pre­mi­um, which applies when the annu­al mar­ket val­ue is below it. For agri­v­olta­ic sys­tems over 1 MW in the CfD mech­a­nism, this means: the claw­back risk depends on the aver­age solar mar­ket val­ue of the year, not on how well or bad­ly the indi­vid­ual plant mar­kets its elec­tric­i­ty. A plant with above-aver­age mar­ket­ing of its own keeps the addi­tion­al rev­enue over the ref­er­ence val­ue.

---

What agrivoltaic developers should do now

Make the grid sit­u­a­tion an ear­ly check­point. Before land is secured, it should be clear whether a site lies in a fore­see­able grid hot-spot region. The bind­ing land par­cel ref­er­ence in the bid makes a lat­er change of site impos­si­ble any­way, so the grid check has to be brought for­ward rather than car­ried out after­wards.

Price in the risk rather than rul­ing it out. The capped nature of loca­tion-based steer­ing (a max­i­mum of 20 % or 18 % of annu­al gen­er­a­tion, lim­it­ed to 6 years) means that hot-spot loca­tions are not auto­mat­i­cal­ly uneco­nom­ic, but they require an explic­it risk cal­cu­la­tion in project finance.

Keep fol­low­ing the leg­isla­tive process. With the cab­i­net deci­sion, par­lia­men­tary delib­er­a­tion in the Bun­destag and Bun­desrat begins. Changes to detailed rules, for exam­ple to the spe­cif­ic sup­port rates for agri­v­oltaics, are com­mon and pos­si­ble in this process. We will update our assess­ment as soon as the Bun­destag delib­er­ates on the bill.

---

Ylektra’s assessment

In our view, the cab­i­net deci­sion con­firms the struc­tur­al upgrad­ing of agri­v­oltaics com­pared with small-scale rooftop solar that was already emerg­ing in the min­istry draft. What is new and imme­di­ate­ly rel­e­vant for project prac­tice is loca­tion-based steer­ing in grid hot spots: it shifts part of the site assess­ment from a pure land and yield log­ic to an explic­it grid com­pat­i­bil­i­ty check, before a land par­cel is com­mit­ted in a bid. For well-pre­pared projects with a reli­able grid assess­ment, the risk remains man­age­able and cal­cu­la­ble. Ylek­tra already includes the grid sit­u­a­tion in the site analy­sis of ongo­ing projects and will con­tin­ue to analyse the par­lia­men­tary delib­er­a­tions and the final ver­sion of the sup­port rates for agri­v­oltaics in the com­ing weeks.

---

Frequently asked questions

Is the cab­i­net deci­sion of 29 July 2026 already law? No. The cab­i­net deci­sion is a fed­er­al gov­ern­ment bill that will now be delib­er­at­ed in the Bun­destag and Bun­desrat. Planned entry into force remains 1 Jan­u­ary 2027; changes are pos­si­ble in the par­lia­men­tary process.

Does the cab­i­net deci­sion change the 1 MW ten­der thresh­old for agri­v­oltaics? The cab­i­net press release makes no sep­a­rate state­ment on this. Under the min­istry draft of 17 July, the 1 MW thresh­old for agri­v­oltaics as a ground-mount­ed sys­tem remains unchanged.

What does loca­tion-based steer­ing mean in prac­tice for an indi­vid­ual agri­v­olta­ic project? If a site lies in a hot-spot region des­ig­nat­ed by the grid oper­a­tor, the plant can be cur­tailed with­out com­pen­sa­tion, capped at a max­i­mum of 20 % (18 % in wind pri­or­i­ty areas) of annu­al gen­er­a­tion and lim­it­ed to 6 years. Out­side such regions, the rule does not apply.

Is there still a ded­i­cat­ed ten­der seg­ment for agri­v­oltaics in the EEG 2027? No. The pre­vi­ous sub-seg­ment for spe­cial solar instal­la­tions under Sec­tion 37d EEG 2023, i.e. the sep­a­rate sup­port pot with its own, high­er max­i­mum val­ue, is delet­ed. Agri­v­oltaics will in future com­pete with stan­dard ground-mount­ed solar in the shared first seg­ment. The def­i­n­i­tion of agri­v­oltaics as a “spe­cial solar instal­la­tion” under Sec­tion 37(1) no. 3 EEG 2027 remains unaf­fect­ed and con­tin­ues to be the basis for the ele­va­tion bonus and oth­er spe­cial rules.

How high is the bonus for agri­v­oltaics (cat­e­go­ry I and cat­e­go­ry II) under the EEG 2027? High­ly ele­vat­ed agri­v­olta­ic sys­tems with a clear­ance of at least 2.10 m receive the same bonus as ver­ti­cal­ly ori­ent­ed cat­e­go­ry II sys­tems from 0.80 m: +0.5 ct/kWh (Sec­tion 38a and Sec­tion 48(1b) EEG 2027). A high­er bonus for the greater con­struc­tion effort of cat­e­go­ry I is not pro­vid­ed for in the bill.

How is the refi­nanc­ing con­tri­bu­tion cal­cu­lat­ed under the CfD mech­a­nism of the EEG 2027? The dif­fer­ence is cal­cu­lat­ed against the tech­nol­o­gy-spe­cif­ic annu­al mar­ket val­ue (com­pa­ra­ble to today’s “mar­ket val­ue solar”), not against the mar­ket­ing rev­enue achieved by the indi­vid­ual plant (Sec­tion 3 no. 34, Sec­tion 21d EEG 2027). Oper­a­tors of instal­la­tions with an installed capac­i­ty of 100 kW or more pay a refi­nanc­ing con­tri­bu­tion if the annu­al mar­ket val­ue exceeds the applic­a­ble val­ue.

What hap­pens if an agri­v­olta­ic sys­tem with an award is not com­mis­sioned with­in 18 months? Under Sec­tion 54(1) EEG 2027, the applic­a­ble val­ue is reduced by 0.3 ct/kWh if the sys­tem is only com­mis­sioned after 18 months from pub­lic announce­ment of the award. After 24 months, the award laps­es entire­ly (Sec­tion 37e EEG 2027).

What is the dif­fer­ence between cat­e­go­ry I and cat­e­go­ry II agri­v­oltaics under DIN SPEC 91434? Cat­e­go­ry I refers to high­ly ele­vat­ed sys­tems with hor­i­zon­tal­ly ori­ent­ed mod­ules and a clear­ance of at least 2.10 m, under which farm machin­ery can pass. Cat­e­go­ry II refers to ground-lev­el sys­tems with exclu­sive­ly ver­ti­cal­ly ori­ent­ed mod­ules and a clear­ance of at least 0.80 m, usu­al­ly in rows between the crops. Ylek­tra relies on track­er sys­tems that fol­low the sun. (in Ger­man) Under the EEG 2027, both agri­v­oltaics cat­e­gories receive the same bonus of +0.5 ct/kWh.

What hap­pens with agri­v­olta­ic sys­tems over 1 MW if proof of agri­cul­tur­al use is miss­ing? Under Sec­tion 54(2) EEG 2027, the applic­a­ble val­ue is reduced by 0.5 ct/kWh, in iden­ti­cal word­ing to the rule for sys­tems below 1 MW that are exempt from ten­ders (Sec­tion 48(5)). The reduc­tion laps­es retroac­tive­ly if the proof for the past year is sub­mit­ted in the fol­low­ing year.

Do agri­v­olta­ic sys­tems have to meet the min­i­mum eco­log­i­cal cri­te­ria for ground-mount­ed sys­tems? No. Under Sec­tion 38(1) no. 4 EEG 2027, the min­i­mum eco­log­i­cal cri­te­ria under Sec­tion 37(1a) only apply to stan­dard land under Sec­tion 37(1) no. 1 or 2. Agri­v­oltaics under no. 3 is exempt; agri­cul­tur­al dual use counts as an inde­pen­dent eco­log­i­cal jus­ti­fi­ca­tion.

Can awards for agri­v­olta­ic projects be sold on? Yes. The oblig­a­tion under the EEG 2023 that the bid­der must also be the oper­a­tor of the plant at the time of com­mis­sion­ing (bid­der-oper­a­tor iden­ti­ty) no longer applies under the EEG 2027. This makes turnkey projects and the entry of insti­tu­tion­al investors after the award eas­i­er.

Is the pay­ment enti­tle­ment pro­ce­dure also abol­ished for agri­v­olta­ic sys­tems over 1 MW? Yes. The pre­vi­ous pay­ment enti­tle­ment pro­ce­dure under Sec­tion 38a EEG 2023, with its 26-month appli­ca­tion dead­line, is abol­ished entire­ly. It is replaced by the sim­pler rule in Sec­tion 37e EEG 2027: the award laps­es if the plant is not at least par­tial­ly com­mis­sioned with­in 24 months.

When is the EEG 2027 to enter into force? The cab­i­net deci­sion of 29 July 2026 now goes to the Bun­destag and Bun­desrat for delib­er­a­tion. Planned entry into force remains 1 Jan­u­ary 2027. Changes to detailed rules are pos­si­ble in the par­lia­men­tary process.

---

About Ylektra

Ylek­tra spe­cialis­es in the devel­op­ment and real­i­sa­tion of agri­v­olta­ic projects with bat­tery stor­age across Ger­many. Togeth­er with farms, munic­i­pal­i­ties and investors, we realise dual-use con­cepts that com­bine agri­cul­ture and the ener­gy tran­si­tion.

---

Legal notice: This arti­cle assess­es the cab­i­net deci­sion on the EEG amend­ment and the grid con­nec­tion pack­age of 29 July 2026, based on the press release of the Fed­er­al Min­istry for Eco­nom­ic Affairs and Ener­gy and a full-text analy­sis of the bill on the EEG elec­tric­i­ty sec­tor (as adopt­ed by the cab­i­net). The sec­tions cit­ed in the text (includ­ing Sec­tions 37, 37b, 38, 38a, 48 and 54 EEG 2027) refer to this ver­sion. It does not replace indi­vid­ual legal advice. The rules on loca­tion-based steer­ing in grid hot spots come from the sep­a­rate grid con­nec­tion pack­age, whose full text was not avail­able to us for this arti­cle; its details are there­fore assessed on the basis of the press release. Changes in the fur­ther leg­isla­tive process (Bun­destag, Bun­desrat) are like­ly.