ᐅ Is the 2014 Energy Saving Ordinance equivalent to a KfW standard?

Ok, sorry for the confusion. I must have mixed something up!

11ant schrieb:

More clearly: your conclusion is wrong. The correct statement is:
Today, new buildings are constructed only to at least the KfW70 standard, and therefore there are no special subsidies for achieving this standard with new construction.

No.

Shiny86 schrieb:

Where is it stated that the energy saving regulation must mean at least 70? Isn’t it possible for new buildings to achieve KfW 75 or 80?

The "70" refers to an index value. The idea behind the energy saving regulation was to reduce a building’s energy demand by comparing it to the status quo at the time, which was set as 100%. So "70" means a 30% reduction in energy demand compared to the "pre-energy saving regulation" level. Only reductions of at least 30%, 45%, or 60% were rewarded with corresponding subsidies. The first subsidy level, a 30% reduction (= KfW 70), was removed when the 2016 tightening of the energy saving regulation became the legal standard. As a fair outcome of simply complying with the law, public opinion generally holds that you should simply avoid fines or penalties. Additional subsidies are granted only to those who go beyond mere compliance with current legal requirements. Therefore, only savings of 45 (KfW 55) or 60 index points (KfW 40) remain as valid subsidy levels. A house built to the energy saving regulation standard corresponds to the "KfW 70" level. However, in Germany it is considered misleading advertising to promote mere legal compliance as a special feature. That is why promotional materials no longer use "KfW 70" to describe a house that meets the energy saving regulation. Levels "75" and "80" would represent only 25% and 20% reductions, respectively, and have never been classified as KfW subsidy levels for new constructions. The energy saving regulation’s initial version (commonly known as the 2014 energy saving regulation, after the year it became binding) did not have any subsidy levels. The stricter second version (commonly known as the 2016 energy saving regulation) was voluntarily fulfilled before it became binding in connection with the “KfW 70” subsidy, but since it is now the legal standard, that subsidy level has logically been discontinued. There are also KfW subsidy programs for upgrading existing buildings’ energy efficiency, but these are not named after the target performance values.

guckuck2 schrieb:

No.

Please speak in complete sentences.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:

Please speak in complete sentences.

Are you risking getting another unclear and factually incorrect response?

Your conclusion that KfW 70 is the minimum standard and therefore not eligible for funding is incorrect.

My statement, which you called wrong, is that the KfW 70 standard no longer exists and therefore there is no funding available for it.

The Energy Saving Ordinance is the legal standard that must be met. This regulation does not include the term "KfW," nor is it related to funding programs. The Energy Saving Ordinance is neither the source of funding programs nor does it define requirements beyond the minimum standard.

What remains true is that the target values of the former "KfW 70" efficiency house now represent the minimum standard according to the Energy Saving Ordinance. And legal minimum requirements rarely come with funding. Those seeking funding can exceed the Energy Saving Ordinance standard and refer to KfW to see which programs are available and what criteria need to be met.

guckuck2 schrieb:

Your conclusion that KfW 70 is the minimum standard and therefore not eligible for subsidies is incorrect.

The KfW is 80% owned by the federal government and 20% by the states, essentially making it a fully government-controlled entity in terms of energy saving regulation legislation. In this context, it acts as an incentive disbursement agency. When the mandatory enforcement of the Energy Saving Ordinance (2016) provided enough incentive to simply comply with these legal requirements, the original purpose of the KfW 70 program—which was to encourage voluntary compliance with the Energy Saving Ordinance (2016) while the 2014 standard was still sufficient—became obsolete. It is only logical that a government-owned institution working alongside the legislative branch pursues the same objectives, so recognizing this causal relationship is not mere speculation.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

This reminds me of a discussion in some B-movie about whether the bullet or the subsequent fall caused the victim’s death. One of the characters basically said: “The guy is dead! Case closed.” That’s where I want to leave it as well...