Energy saving certificate at the time of financing application.

  • Erstellt am 2013-11-26 19:55:29

Irgendwoabaier

2013-11-26 19:55:29
  • #1
Hi,
apparently the banks want the energy saving certificate at the time of the financing application, at least if you want to include the KfW153 portion. Now, for us, the question is not whether we reach the KfW70 standard according to the Energy Saving Ordinance 2009, but rather: do we reach KfW55 or not. However, since the costs for the KfW55 certification probably do not correspond to the savings from the repayment bonus, and KfW40 will not be reached, the question arises how to meaningfully shorten the time until the completion of the financing application documents. KfW55 certification would be omitted...

Should one rather calculate conservatively/cautiously, start the inquiry with conservative values, and then optimize various parameters to achieve the KfW55 values, or invest a bit more time at the beginning and first see what can be achieved in the end before submitting the application?

Regards
I.
 

nordanney

2013-11-26 21:19:42
  • #2
Our energy consultant made a rough calculation so that we reached KfW 70. With that, we also applied for the KfW loan (a later change is still possible with the KfW). Since we now have better building services technology than assumed, the windows achieve not a general Uw-value of 1.1 but 0.86, and a few minor things have changed, we could also easily switch to KfW 55 (but we don't want to, because then various additional costs would arise, such as construction supervision, blower door test, etc.).
 

€uro

2013-11-27 12:05:52
  • #3
Hello, That is logical and not surprising, since subsidized portions of the total demand can significantly reduce the bank’s own earnings share. Theoretically, many construction projects could be realized entirely without further bank involvement after deducting equity or self-performance shares, as there is no cumulation ban with programs 153, 143! Unfortunately, however, the subsidized loans cannot be obtained without a "passing-through" bank, since the direct route is excluded. The compensated liability share for the subordinated loans is usually too low for "passing-through" banks. They try to increase their own share, depending on the loan-to-value ratio, with minimal risk. One must not forget that the risk assessment (actual interest rate) of the subsidized loans is carried out by the "passing-through" bank! Basically, one should differentiate between actual economic efficiency and alleged "grant gifts". Building a passive house at an extremely mild location is certainly economically pointless, especially if one tries almost desperately to achieve this efficiency status with exaggerated investment effort! The same applies analogously to different boundary conditions. Constructing a KfW 70 at Zugspitze is equally pointless! How and who calculates correctly depends on the skills and training to master the overall process. Without knowing the actual demand (performance, energy) for heating and domestic hot water for the specific construction project, almost any statement is clairvoyance and thus an overall unknown economic risk! Best regards
 

Wastl

2013-11-27 12:27:20
  • #4
Important point! "We don't want to!" We had confirmation for KFW70 – applied for KFW70 – then built KFW55 – wanted to downgrade to KFW55 with KFW -> That would not have been possible for us anymore because we did not have external construction supervision for all trades and, at that time, no one took over the construction documentation. The better heating, photovoltaics, insulation values, etc. did not matter at all – the bureaucratic overhead was impossible to manage (or would have become far too expensive). Therefore, a decision for KFW55 is really only sensible before construction begins. You can still switch later, but without having documented everything during construction, it won’t work.
 

nordanney

2013-11-27 12:38:34
  • #5
That was also the reason why we did not switch. However, the KfW confirmation was already available five months before the start of construction, so we had enough time. You have to inform yourself ABOUT the conditions for individual programs beforehand and check for yourself whether it makes sense to use these programs or later switch to, for example, KfW 55.
 

€uro

2013-11-27 13:05:06
  • #6

Who do you think was harmed by this, the sugar-coated paper or you?
Chose the wrong consultant, planner who couldn't handle it?
In relation to?

regards
 

Similar topics
10.12.2009Subsidies for KFW55 and Sole/Water Heat Pump15
29.02.2012What can be detected in a blower door test, which house values?18
10.05.2012Heating costs per year KfW55 - KfW70, building decision heating11
13.08.2013Cost estimate - simple single-family house according to kfW7030
29.01.2014Kfw70 with poroton and utility water WP + gas + decentralized ventilation13
17.02.2015KFW funding sensible / Energy advisor, construction supervision?10
30.04.2015KFW70 with gas-solar heating65
01.10.2015BlowerDoor test mandatory for ventilation system and KfW7016
10.01.2017Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 / KFW55 / Gas + Solar in 201628
16.12.2015Is KfW55 worth it instead of KfW70 with an additional cost?16
08.01.2016Assessment of heating concept KfW7025
02.02.2017Construction costs kfw70 vs. kfw55 vs. kfw4030
22.09.2016Offer KfW70 house - KfW55 house already with additional controlled residential ventilation - Is KfW70 too airtight?12
25.01.2017Blower Door Test for KfW 70 according to the 2012 standard?15
09.09.2017District heating KfW55 - KfW70 costs Ventilation system/Exhaust system37
07.02.2020Blower Door Test - Meaning of the Result35
19.12.2019Blower Door Test 1.7 with two hints22
06.11.2021KfW55 EE house with 42.5 Poroton: planned too tight?16
19.11.2021Extractor hood: recirculation or exhaust air for KFW55?27

Oben