Energy infrastructure lawyer Paris: solar permits, grid connection.

The regime depends first on peak capacity and location. Ground-mounted solar structures and carports of less than three kilowatt-peak, with a height not exceeding one metre eighty, are exempt from any formality, except in a remarkable heritage site, in the surroundings of a listed historic monument or in a classified site (Article R*421-2 of the Planning Code). Under the ordinary regime, a prior declaration is required for structures of less than three kilowatt-peak that exceed one metre eighty, and for those from three kilowatt-peak to less than three megawatts, whatever their height (Article R421-9, h). From three megawatts, the principle of the building permit applies (Article R421-1). In a remarkable heritage site, in the surroundings of a listed historic monument or in a classified site, these thresholds do not apply: a prior declaration covers only structures of less than three kilowatt-peak (Article R421-11, I, b), and a permit is in principle necessary above that. These thresholds result from the wording in force since 16 November 2024, which must be checked at the date of filing. An installation placed on an existing roof calls for a different analysis, which is not covered here. The planning authorisation does not exhaust the authorisations required: depending on the project, an environmental assessment, a protected-species derogation or land clearance may be added. The firm therefore checks the declared capacity, the height, the location and the protections of the site before choosing the procedure.

In a municipality with a local urban plan, the mayor in principle issues planning authorisations on behalf of the municipality (Article L422-1 of the Planning Code). The Code nevertheless reserves several categories of projects to the prefect. The prefect is competent for facilities producing, transmitting, distributing and storing energy where that energy is not mainly intended for direct use by the applicant (Article R*422-2, b, of the Planning Code). A plant that feeds its output into the public grid therefore most often falls within the prefect's competence. The same article gives the prefect the installations presented by the applicant as agrivoltaic within the meaning of the Energy Code, since the wording in force on 7 July 2024. Conversely, an installation mainly for self-consumption may fall within the mayor's competence. This allocation has practical consequences: the authority that signs the decision, the department that examines the file, the opinions sought and the person to whom an informal administrative appeal is addressed. An error as to the competent authority may render the decision unlawful for lack of competence. The firm identifies the competent authority from the real use of the electricity produced and the classification given to the project.

It is possible, but under strict conditions. In an agricultural, natural or forest zone, the local urban plan regulations may allow installations necessary for public facilities that are not incompatible with the agricultural activity of the land and do not harm landscapes (Article L151-11 of the Planning Code). Since the law of 10 March 2023, this compatibility is assessed at the level of contiguous plots of the same farm, and no solar structure, outside agrivoltaics, may be built outside the areas identified by the prefectoral framework document (Article L111-29). The corresponding regulatory rules apply only to applications filed from one month after publication of the department's framework document (Article 8 of Decree No. 2024-318 of 8 April 2024): the filing date therefore fixes the regime applicable to the file. The administrative court examines the projected agricultural activity in concrete terms. For an application filed on 1 August 2022, the Toulouse Administrative Court of Appeal annulled a permit refusal for a 9.9 megawatt-peak plant, holding that an organised sheep farm, with a building, paddocks and an agreement with a breeder, was not limited to maintaining the site; it ordered the prefect to issue the permit (CAA Toulouse, 17 April 2025, No. 24TL02067). This is a decision on its own facts: the file must demonstrate the area, the footprint, the nature of the soils, local uses and the reality of the activity.

An agrivoltaic installation is a solar installation whose modules, located on an agricultural plot, contribute lastingly to the establishment, maintenance or development of agricultural production (Article L314-36 of the Energy Code). It must directly provide the plot with at least one service: improving agronomic potential, adapting to climate change, protection against hazards or animal welfare. It must also guarantee an active farmer significant agricultural production and a lasting income. It loses this classification if it causes substantial harm to one of these services or limited harm to two of them, if agricultural production is no longer the main activity of the plot or if the installation is not reversible. The plot taken into account is the continuous perimeter of the panels with the same agricultural characteristics (Article R314-108). The Council of State rejected the Confédération paysanne's challenge to the decree of 8 April 2024, specifying that the agronomic service requires two cumulative criteria, the agronomic quality of the soil and yield (CE, 16 March 2026, No. 494941). The firm checks each criterion before filing, because the agrivoltaic classification also changes the competent authority.

In a coastal municipality, urbanisation is extended in continuity with existing towns and villages (Article L121-8 of the Planning Code). The Council of State holds that installing photovoltaic panels constitutes an extension of urbanisation within the meaning of this provision, and can therefore be authorised only in continuity with an area already urbanised, characterised by a significant number and density of buildings. In the Narbonne case, it set aside for distortion the judgment that had annulled the permit, although the land adjoined a large built-up industrial zone, and referred the case back to the court (CE, 17 February 2023, No. 452346). Since 12 March 2023, a derogation allows solar structures to be authorised on certain brownfield sites listed by decree (Article L121-12-1). The authorisation then falls to the State, after the opinion of the departmental commission for nature, landscapes and sites. The applicant must also show that the project is preferable, for reasons of general interest, to a technically feasible renaturation. The firm therefore begins by placing the land in relation to existing urbanisation.

Destroying or disturbing protected species and their habitats is prohibited, unless a derogation is granted. This requires three cumulative conditions: the absence of any other satisfactory solution, the maintenance of the populations in a favourable conservation status and one of the grounds provided for, including an imperative reason of overriding public interest (Article L411-2 of the Environmental Code). Renewable energy projects and their connection works are deemed to meet this reason when they satisfy the conditions set by decree; the existence of an acceleration zone does not, by itself, constitute another satisfactory solution (Article L211-2-1 of the Energy Code). In its version in force since 19 August 2026, the Code specifies that the derogation is not required where sufficiently guaranteed avoidance and reduction measures make the risk insufficiently characterised, with a monitoring system (Article L411-2-1). For a 10.66 megawatt-peak farm, the Council of State assessed the alternative solutions against the objectives specific to the municipal project and recognised the imperative reason of overriding public interest (CE, 7 May 2026, No. 496357). The firm first examines the surveys and the alternatives studied.

Connection comprises, as the case may be, the creation of extension or service-connection works and the reinforcement of existing networks (Article L342-1 of the Energy Code). The regional renewable energy grid connection scheme defines the works to be created and a unit share approved by the State (Article L342-3). The Court of Cassation held that the provisions, in their wording then applicable, "require only that the connection form part of a Regional Scheme and not that it fall within the pooling perimeter defined by it" (Cass. com., 6 April 2022, No. 20-23.163) (our translation). This outcome is unfavourable to the producer who claimed to escape the share because it did not directly benefit from the pooled works. The Paris Court of Appeal applied it, recalling that "the obligation to pay the share is subject to the dual condition that the connection" serves a renewable installation and forms part of a regional scheme (our translation); it reformed the CoRDiS decision and held the producer liable (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 7, 18 January 2024, No. 20/05171). A challenge remains worthwhile on other grounds: scope of the dedicated works, accuracy of the calculation, scheme applicable at the date of the application. The firm checks these points before the proposal is accepted.

The dispute settlement committee of the Energy Regulatory Commission, the CoRDiS, may be seized of a dispute between a public network operator and a user, in particular in case of refusal of access or disagreement over the conclusion, interpretation or performance of contracts; the limitation rules of the Civil Code apply to such claims (Article L134-19 of the Energy Code). The committee in principle rules within two months, extended to four months if documents are requested, and its decision may carry periodic penalty payments (Article L134-20). At the request of the party bringing the matter, it may take effect from a date before the referral, but not earlier than the first formal challenge raised by one of the parties, nor more than two years before the referral. The Court of Cassation approved an order requiring RTE to conclude a connection agreement, holding that the CoRDiS "has, in carrying out its dispute-settlement mission, the power to impose requirements and orders affecting the conclusion, content or performance of agreements" (Cass. com., 19 June 2019, No. 17-20.269) (our translation). A written, documented complaint to the operator usefully precedes the referral, because it fixes the date of the challenge and the scope of the dispute.

CoRDiS decisions in dispute settlement are challenged before the Paris Court of Appeal (Article L134-24 of the Energy Code). The challenge is brought within one month, by written declaration filed with the court registry; on pain of inadmissibility raised by the court of its own motion, the declaration states its purpose and contains a summary statement of the grounds, the full statement having to be filed within the following month (Article R134-22). This is not an ordinary appeal. The Court of Cassation approved the court of appeal for holding that "CoRDiS decisions may be challenged only by the specific challenge that the above provisions provide for", and held inadmissible the claims of a company that had merely submitted observations out of time (Cass. com., 16 March 2022, No. 20-16.257) (our translation). This formal requirement is strict: a party that wishes to obtain the reformation of a decision must itself bring its challenge. The president of the CoRDiS may submit observations and appeal to the Court of Cassation against the judgment that annuls or reforms the decision. The firm calculates the time limit from notification and prepares the declaration and the statement of grounds in parallel.

The answer depends on the harm claimed, and the case law on the December 2010 moratorium is unfavourable to producers. The decree of 9 December 2010 suspended the obligation to purchase photovoltaic electricity, and many project developers complained that the grid operator had processed their application too slowly. The Court of Cassation held that the purchase obligation arising from the order of 12 January 2010 constituted State aid not notified to the European Commission, so that the claimants could not rely on the loss of a chance to benefit from it, "such harm not being recoverable" (Cass. com., 18 September 2019, No. 18-12.601) (our translation). The Montpellier Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a comparable claim, holding that "the harm of losing the chance to benefit from a tariff arising from this unlawful State aid is not recoverable damage, whatever the basis of liability relied on" (CA Montpellier, ch. com., 24 March 2026, No. 24/05823) (our translation). These decisions concern the loss of a tariff arising from that aid; they do not, on their own, decide every other head of loss. The firm therefore examines the exact nature of the damage, the applicable contract and limitation before claiming compensation.

A producer connected to the public distribution grid signs a grid injection access contract, whose general conditions govern outages. In the contracts examined by the Court of Cassation, the operator undertook to limit outages for works to two per calendar year, of less than eight hours in total, with fifteen days' notice. A court of appeal had ruled out Enedis's liability by linking the renewal of primary substations to the heavy maintenance clause. The Court of Cassation set that judgment aside for breach of the binding force of the contract, on the ground that "Articles 5.1.1.1 and 5.1.1.1.1 of the general conditions did not provide for any condition relating to the scale of the renewal works", and that these works were not listed in the special conditions (Cass. com., 18 March 2026, No. 25-13.293) (our translation). The case concerned wind farms, but the reasoning bears on how the access contract is read. The outcome therefore depends on the precise wording of the general and special conditions signed. The firm compares each outage, its notification and its duration with the contractual commitments, then quantifies the production losses before any claim.

An action for annulment for abuse of power (recours pour excès de pouvoir) is brought within two months (Article R421-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice), which runs against third parties from the first day of a continuous two-month period during which the permit is displayed on the land (Article R*600-2 of the Planning Code). For acts taken from 1 July 2026, the administrative courts of appeal rule at first and last instance on disputes, other than compensation claims, concerning the acts on which photovoltaic installations of at least five megawatts and their connection works depend (Article R311-5 of the Code of Administrative Justice); acts taken before that date remain subject to the earlier rules, even if the challenge is brought later (Article 8 of Decree No. 2026-302 of 21 April 2026). For a smaller installation, the administrative court remains in principle competent. A neighbour who challenges must show that the project directly affects the conditions of occupation, use or enjoyment of their property (Article L600-1-2 of the Planning Code). Where the other grounds are unfounded and a defect appears to be capable of regularisation, the court stays its ruling, after inviting the parties to submit observations, and sets a time limit for regularisation, without prejudice to a partial annulment (Article L600-5-1). Both the project developer and the third party therefore have an interest in checking from the outset the capacity of the project, the competent court and the grounds that can genuinely lead to annulment.

Solar projects often rest on a long-term emphyteutic lease (bail emphytéotique) granted by the owner of the land or building. This lease, for a term of more than eighteen years, gives the tenant a real right and responsibility for improving the property. The Court of Cassation holds that, unless otherwise stipulated, "an emphyteutic lease carries with it, by itself, from the start of enjoyment by effect of the lease and throughout its term, the transfer from the lessor to the tenant of the actions under the ten-year liability guarantee and for compensation for defects affecting the works let" (Cass. 3e civ., 11 July 2024, No. 23-12.491) (our translation). In that case, the lease covered the footprint of photovoltaic panels, their accessories and the space above them; the tenant therefore had standing to sue the insurer under the ten-year guarantee. The outcome turns on the wording of the lease: a clause may reserve certain actions to the lessor. The owner who hosts an installation and the developer who operates it have an interest in setting out clearly the allocation of actions, insurance and maintenance. The firm checks these clauses, together with the conditions precedent linked to the permit and the connection, before the promise or the lease is signed.