Energy saving certificate at the time of financing application.

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.

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.).

Hello,

....apparently the banks want the energy saving certificate at the time of the financing application, at least if you want to consider the KfW153 portion.

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!

..., but rather: will we achieve KfW55 or not. However, since the cost of KfW55 certification probably does not correspond to the savings from the repayment grant, and KfW40 will not be achieved, the question arises how to meaningfully shorten the time until the financing application documents are completed. KfW55 certification would be omitted...

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!

...Should one rather calculate conservatively/cautiously, .... and only see what is ultimately achieved before submitting the application?

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

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.).

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.

Important point! "We don't want to!" We had confirmation for KFW70 – applied for KFW70 – then built KFW55 – wanted to downgrade to KFW55 at KFW -> That would no longer have been possible for us, as we did not have external construction supervision for all trades and at that time, no one was taking over the construction documentation. The better heating, photovoltaics, insulation values, etc. were completely irrelevant – the bureaucratic overhead was not manageable (or would have become far too expensive). Therefore, a decision in favor of KFW55 is really only sensible before the start of construction. You can still switch afterwards, but without having everything documented during construction it won't work.

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.

...We had confirmation for KFW70 – applied for KFW70 – then built KFW55 –,.. since we didn't have external construction supervision for all trades and at that time, no one to take over the construction documentation.

Who do you think was harmed by this, the sugar-coated paper or you?

... The better heating, photovoltaic, insulation values, etc. were completely irrelevant – the bureaucratic overhead was unmanageable ...

Chose the wrong consultant, planner who couldn't handle it?

(or it would have been much too expensive)

In relation to?

regards