ᐅ Photovoltaic system on a multi-family building. Is 100% approval from the homeowners' association required?

fraubauer schrieb:

If that is not the case, the system can be stopped by a veto from an owner.

No. If the system pays for itself within 10 years, then everyone must contribute if there is a simple majority. If the system does not pay for itself within 10 years, then a) only supporters pay with a simple majority or b) everyone pays with a two-thirds majority (exceptions apply in case of disproportionately high costs).

Whether a photovoltaic system constitutes a significant intervention is not defined in the wording of the law; there is no special privilege similar to EV charging stations. However, the relevant professional associations seem to agree that with the amendment, a simple majority is sufficient, which implies that it is not considered a significant intervention. The question of payback is primarily a matter of financial participation, regardless of the fact that a simple majority is enough to approve the installation.

HabneFrage schrieb:

But I see the point "purchase of a photovoltaic system" differently.
All owners must agree on this.
A simple majority is not enough here, unlike with facade renovations, for example.

Sorry, but if you have no knowledge, please do not post here. Unfortunately, you are making completely incorrect statements and unnecessarily confusing the original poster.

Situation before the homeowners’ association reform:
Anyone who wants to install a solar system in a homeowners’ association aims for a so-called "structural alteration." Depending on the type of structural change, a specific majority of the unit owners is required to approve the resolution. In the case of installing a solar system, there is a significant impact on the common property of the homeowners’ association. Not only does the electricity produced feed into the network of the entire complex, but it also involves a change to the building itself. Solar systems are usually installed on the roof. Therefore, the overall appearance of the property changes. As a result, all unit owners are affected.

Consequently, all owners had to agree to the installation during the owners’ meeting.

Situation after the homeowners’ association reform:
Construction measures with a sustainability aspect are now easier to implement. A simple majority is now sufficient to approve the installation of a solar system. The costs are borne by those who agreed to the installation. If the approval is granted by more than two-thirds of the votes with ownership shares exceeding 50%, then the costs are borne by all co-owners according to § 21 etc.

An exception to such renovation measures exists under § 20 paragraph 4 of the homeowners’ association law, however, if one owner would be disproportionately disadvantaged or if extensive alterations to the residential complex would result.

This topic doesn’t seem to be entirely clear.
I’m quite confused...
The visual impact is significant! The owners bought the property years ago as it was.
So, it’s a nice roof. Not covered with panels.
The owner of the top floor apartment might not have bought it if the photovoltaic system had already been installed...
Also, the owner would now receive less when selling the top floor apartment because many people don’t want photovoltaic panels directly on the roof of the top floor unit.
The issue of disadvantage is also complicated.
Owners living under the roof would certainly be at a disadvantage.
Owners with low electricity consumption would also be disadvantaged.
Owners with high electricity usage would benefit.
A two-thirds majority is quickly reached in a small multi-family building.
The payback period can also be made to look favorable.
I see this topic is really a point of conflict.
It could cause major disputes within the community of owners....

fraubauer schrieb:


Electricity is intended to be partially self-consumed and partially fed back into the grid.

I find this an interesting question. How does it work in a four-unit building, assuming the photovoltaic system is installed?
If resident A is very smart and stays at home during the day, using the PV system to cook, do laundry, dry clothes, play video games, run air conditioning, and charge their electric vehicle – the other three residents probably won’t be too happy that there’s nothing left to feed back into the grid, right?
Or is this somehow balanced out? Self-generated electricity is definitely much cheaper than electricity from the grid. So there is already a financial advantage if you “use more of it,” isn’t there?

Yes, when you go into detail, many questions arise!
For a single-family house, it’s straightforward. One owner makes the decisions.
But when there are multiple owners, many questions come up.

Usually (if a photovoltaic system must be approved by a 2/3 majority of all owners), the electricity generated should be reimbursed proportionally to the owners, right?
So each owner gets a meter.
Those who consume a lot pay more for the cheaper electricity, while those who use less receive a reimbursement?
This exact situation could be the problem. If one person consumes only 1000 kWh per year, and another uses four times as much,
how is that accounted for?
If all generated electricity were fed into the grid, the accounting would be simpler. Sold electricity is then distributed proportionally among the owners (according to their shares).
But if the electricity is used entirely for own consumption, it becomes complicated!

fraubauer schrieb:

This topic really seems to be a point of contention.
It could cause major disputes within the owners’ association….

Disputes are fine. But the interpretation of the fairly clear legal framework cannot be arbitrary. On a traditional black roof, a black photovoltaic system is not an objective visual impairment. And there are no objective disadvantages for the attic flat owner either. At most, there are benefits from the additional shading. They should actually be glad it gets a bit cooler.

fraubauer schrieb:

The visual impact is already significant!

No, it is not.

fraubauer schrieb:

The owner of the attic flat might not even have bought it if the photovoltaic system had already been installed...

Then you are in the wrong type of owners’ association, where others can make decisions that affect you. There are many measures you might disagree with that can still be implemented.

kati1337 schrieb:

I find this an interesting question. How does it work in a building with four units, assuming the photovoltaic system is installed?

There are many different models:
- Full feed-in to the grid
- Photovoltaic power only used for common areas (heat pump, hallway, elevator, etc.), the rest fed into the grid
- Calibrated meter at the grid connection point (electricity costs are shared and included in service charges)
- Self-consumption meter
...

fraubauer schrieb:

If you completely consume the electricity yourself, it gets complicated!

That scenario does not actually occur. It never works that way.