Bafa funding for heat pumps will be discontinued as of 31.12.2020.

The BAFA funding "Heating with Renewable Energies" cannot be combined with the new BEG WG (from 01.07.2021). Either apply for BAFA now (2020) and apply for KfW 153 by 30.06.2021, or wait for the new BEG WG.

The idea seems obvious that this conclusion is logical and consistent. However, I really could not find anything about this. Not even in the BEG guideline. Do you have a source for this?

The thought is obvious that this conclusion is logical and consistent. However, I really could not find anything about it. Not even in the guideline for BEG. Do you have a source for this?

I read this here in the thread and it is also talked about in the video I recommended. See the following video from about minute 23.

On YouTube, on the channel "Fertighauswissen 2 Go," you will find a video a few days old where everything is explained in great detail. The title of the video is "Die neue BEG 2021 - ersetzt KfW und BAFA Förderung !" You can surely find it via Google.

In the FAQ of the BMWi or Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy under "Frequently Asked Questions about the Federal Funding for Efficient Buildings (BEG)," this is unfortunately also not stated specifically. What I have found, however, is the following:

Is a combination of individual measures (BEG EM) with BEG residential buildings (BEG WG) possible? The heating would be subsidized through BEG EM because there is a higher funding rate for heating renovations, the rest through BEG WG. Yes, a "combination" of BEG EM with BEG WG is possible. However, an important point in a combination is that the costs of a measure funded through BEG EM (e.g., heating replacement) must not be claimed again as eligible costs within BEG WG. Furthermore, the benefits for an efficiency house EE class in BEG WG (increase in eligible costs and funding rate) can no longer be claimed if the installation of an EE heating system is already or has been funded via BEG EM. As a rule, separate funding of the heating replacement through BEG EM does not lead to overall higher funding.

This would mean, in my opinion: Since BEG EM is the successor to BAFA renewable energy funding, you can combine BAFA funding with KfW from 01.07.2021, but then you cannot use the benefits of the efficiency house EE class. And KfW from 01.07.2021 without EE class is identical to the old KfW. Unfortunately, I cannot quickly find concrete sources on this.

Correct, since otherwise it would be double funding, it is also logical that it is not allowed.

if you COULD combine it without EE (it's not entirely clear, officially) it would not be double funding, I'm just surprised that the good people there can think that far :)

In my opinion, that would mean: Since the BEG EM is the successor of the BAFA Renewable Energy Funding, you can combine the BAFA funding with the KfW from 01.07.2021, but you cannot use the advantages of the Efficiency House EE class then. And KfW from 01.07.2021 without EE class is identical to the old KfW.

For a KfW40plus house, this would already result in an increase in funding amounting to 7,500 euros due to the increase of the loan amount from 120,000 to 150,000 euros. In my opinion, there is no EE class for KfW40plus.

Then I understand it in such a way that only the costs assumed for the BAFA application are not allowed to be included in the costs for the KfW funding. But for a normal single-family house, this is not necessary to reach the loan amount of 150,000 euros.

No increase to €150,000 if BAFA from 2020 is used. This increase is supposed to compensate for the old BAFA.

As you already calculated correctly, this is under certain conditions €10,000-7,500 worse, calculated at €50,000 for KfW 40 plus in combination with BAFA (wpl, controlled residential ventilation and drilling).

No increase to €150,000 if BAFA from 2020 is claimed. This increase is supposed to compensate for the old BAFA.

That would actually be the logical conclusion to prevent double funding. However, I cannot find any official statement confirming that this is indeed the case. Or is there actually a gap in the prevention of double funding?