The Rule Exists, Implementation Does Not
The European Union has introduced measures to strengthen European manufacturers in public procurement for solar installations and reduce dependence on Asian supply chains. A pv Europe report published in June 2026 examining fragmented EU rules shows, however, that member states implement procurement criteria so inconsistently that manufacturers can no longer calculate the costs of participating in tenders. Germany has yet to issue comprehensive regulations defining how domestic value creation is to be verified in practice. The result is a fragmentation that prevents precisely what the measures were meant to achieve: planning certainty for European producers.
Analysis of procurement practices across member states documents significant variation in criteria catalogues. In one member state, module assembly counts toward domestic value creation; in another, only the production of wafers and cells. In a third country, certification by a national authority is required; in a fourth, a manufacturer's self-declaration suffices. Anyone required to prove value creation in multiple different procedures eventually faces costs of legal advice, documentation, and country-specific adjustments that can exceed the benefit of participation. The rule becomes an enforcement obstacle.
Germany: No Regulation, No Clarity
In Germany, the situation is particularly opaque. The federal government has not issued comprehensive regulations defining uniform verification standards for tenders. The Bundesnetzagentur, which conducts tenders for large solar parks, has not published uniform criteria. The Länder, which run their own subsidy programmes, each develop their own catalogues. The result: a manufacturer applying for contracts in Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia, and Brandenburg must produce three different sets of evidence. Costs rise, participation rates fall. Industry observers have noted concerns about declining participation from European manufacturers in German tenders. Asian suppliers, competing on price rather than subsidy eligibility, gained market share.
The fragmentation is no accident. Germany has no central procurement register, no body coordinating all public tenders for renewable energy. The Bundesnetzagentur is responsible for electricity, KfW for building subsidies, the Länder for regional programmes. Each body develops its own criteria, each verifies according to its own discretion. EU-level requirements become an invitation for 16 Länder variants and at least three federal variants. The rule remains, enforcement is absent.
Denmark: One Agency, One Catalogue
Denmark has implemented procurement coordination differently. The Danish Energy Agency coordinates all tenders for renewable energy. It publishes a single criteria catalogue that defines which production steps count toward domestic value creation and which evidence is accepted. Manufacturers submit their documentation once; the agency verifies and certifies. The certificate is valid for all tenders in Denmark, regardless of whether they are conducted by the national government, a municipality, or a state-owned enterprise. The cost of participation falls, the number of applications rises. Industry data indicates increased participation from European manufacturers in Danish tenders during 2026. The rule is enforced, manufacturers calculate.
The difference lies not in the rule but in the structure. Denmark has created a central body that coordinates tenders and enforces criteria. Germany has no such body. The Bundesnetzagentur is not responsible for building subsidies, KfW not for open-space installations, the Länder not for federal programmes. The consequence is a fragmentation that makes any industrial-policy steering impossible. EU-level requirements become an administrative exercise without effect.
The Next Step: Agreement or Delegation
Analysis suggests two paths. Either the federal government and the Länder agree on a uniform criteria catalogue that applies to all tenders, or they delegate verification to a central body that receives and certifies all evidence. The first path requires a federal-Länder agreement, the second a legal basis for centralising verification. Both paths are legally possible; neither has been taken. Discussions continue between federal and Länder authorities regarding coordination mechanisms. The fragmentation persists, manufacturers wait.
The costs are measurable. Industry reports indicate significantly higher documentation and legal costs for tender participation in Germany than in Denmark due to the number of pieces of evidence required, legal advice, and country-specific adaptation. A manufacturer applying for multiple contracts in Germany faces substantially higher cumulative documentation costs than in Denmark. The underlying requirements may be similar; the enforcement costs differ substantially.
Enforcement Is Structure, Not Intent
Domestic content requirements in solar procurement are an example of measures that fail at the implementation stage. The EU has issued guidance, member states have adopted measures, manufacturers cannot apply them uniformly. The reason is not lack of will but lack of structure. Germany has no central body coordinating tenders, no uniform criteria, no common verification. The consequence is a fragmentation that makes any industrial-policy steering impossible. Denmark shows that it can be done differently: one agency, one catalogue, one certificate. The rule is enforced, manufacturers calculate.
The question is not whether domestic content measures make sense. The question is whether Germany creates the structures that secure their enforcement. As long as the federal government and the Länder develop different criteria catalogues, the measures remain a paper promise. As long as no central body coordinates verification, enforcement remains absent. Manufacturers do not calculate, the rule has no effect.
Band 3 "Bauplan" describes how decisions become impact. Solar subsidies are a case for the Bauplan: a rule that exists, a structure that is missing, enforcement that does not take place. The solution lies not in a new rule but in the capacity to implement the existing one. Whoever wants to deliver must create the structures that secure enforcement.