Heating costs for Kfw55 - Electricity costs seem too high to me

Interesting, I also come from AB and know the developer by sight/hearing or from the experience of others. Are these the houses on Haidstr.? Where is it specified that they meet KFW 55 standards? Normally they always run through the Sparkasse, I would be surprised if they advertise it but don’t actually comply in the end (on paper).

Is somewhere else.
The exposé states KfW55.. otherwise I can't find it anywhere.
And I am not familiar with it.

The calculation is from 31.10.2016, does that have an impact?

So... long story short. I had the wrong documents. The documents I had were only needed to submit the building application.

That looks better now, doesn’t it?

I have now, after I pressed further, received new documents:

Looks really better. However, now I am skeptical:

1. the customer becomes suspicious and suddenly a better energy calculation is pulled out of the hat.

2. KfW55 is generally built to receive the KfW subsidy. However, this requires that the energy calculation is performed before the start of construction and KfW55 is confirmed by the energy consultant. That means the documents for the building application could not really have been those. Unless they just started building, minimum standard of the [Energieeinsparverordnung], and afterwards: oops, it actually meets KfW55. However, I rather don't believe that.

Regarding 1: I called the architect directly who has nothing to do with the developer.

Regarding 2: There was already a prospective buyer at that time and he apparently wanted kfw55. As a result, for example, ventilation was included in the planning. However, the buyer backed out at that time.

The plan was actually an energy saving ordinance house.

Yes, the H‘t value is better. From a distance, it seems exactly planned according to the H‘t value and not better. Effort was made to calculate the thermal bridges, possibly to save some expensive material/insulation. But it should then also be correct! Presumably, several houses were planned at the same time.

For classification: we also have 0.026 on the energy certificate, but including a 0.05 thermal bridge surcharge, i.e. probably better in reality. No one calculated the thermal bridges for us.

In the end, however, it does not matter. I think the insulation is sufficient; much more is rarely economical.

By the way, the values with the unit kWh/m2a are calculated using the usable area, not the living area. The area should also be stated somewhere in the calculations.

The heat pump should still be appropriately dimensioned and the hydraulics, especially the underfloor heating, well planned for very low consumption. But you already know that; on the other hand, you probably have no influence on it anymore. Possibly check later if valves/buffer can be removed again.

What you consume later, you will only know later.