Is the 2014 Energy Saving Ordinance a KfW standard?

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

More of a clear no to your wrong conclusion, the correct statement is: Today, newly built only the at least KfW70 house and therefore no special funding for achieving this standard with a new build.

No.

Where is it written that the Energy Saving Ordinance must mean at least 70? Can't KfW 75 or 80 also come out for new buildings?

The "70" means a kind of index value. The "idea" of the Energy Saving Ordinance is to reduce the energy demand of a house and took the then status quo as 100% more or less. "70" therefore means a reduction of energy demand compared to "before the Energy Saving Ordinance" by 30%. Only reductions by at least 30, 45, or 60% were rewarded with corresponding subsidies. The first subsidy level "30% savings" (= KfW70) was dropped when the 2016 tightening of the Energy Saving Ordinance became the legal standard. As an adequate reward for merely complying with laws, it is generally regarded in legal terms that one does not go to jail or at least has to pay fines. Further rewards with subsidies are only granted to those who go beyond mere compliance with the current law. Therefore, currently only savings of 45 (KfW55) or 60 index points (KfW40) exist as subsidy levels. A house according to the Energy Saving Ordinance corresponds to the "KfW70" standard. However, in Germany, it is considered unfair advertising to misleadingly present mere legal compliance as something special. That is why advertising no longer says "KfW70" for an Energy Saving Ordinance house. "75" and "80" would only be 25% or 20% savings and were never translated into a KfW subsidy level (for new buildings). The Energy Saving Ordinance standard in its first version (commonly called Energy Saving Ordinance 2014 after the year it came into force) had no subsidy level. The tightened second version (commonly called Energy Saving Ordinance 2016), which had to be fulfilled voluntarily before it became legally binding, was associated with the "KfW70" subsidy possibility and logically has been dropped as a subsidy level since it became the current legal standard. There are also KfW subsidy programs to energetically upgrade existing buildings, but these are not named after the resulting performance values.

Nope.

Please speak in full sentences.

Please speak in complete sentences.

At the risk of receiving another convoluted, factually incorrect answer?

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

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

The Energy Saving Ordinance is the legal standard that must be met. This ordinance does not recognize the term "KFW," nor does it have anything to do with funding programs. The Energy Saving Ordinance is therefore neither the source for funding programs nor does it define additional requirements beyond the minimum standard.

The correct and consistent statement is that the target values of the former "KFW 70" efficiency house nowadays represent the minimum standard according to the Energy Saving Ordinance. And legal minimum requirements are rarely associated with funding. Those seeking funding can go beyond the Energy Saving Ordinance standard and check with KFW to see which programs are available and what requirements must be met for them.

Your 'conclusion' that KFW 70 is the minimum standard and therefore not eligible for funding is wrong.

KfW is 80% owned by the federal government and 20% by the states, so it is, in a way, a 100% family business of the Energy Saving Ordinance legislators. In this matter, it therefore assumes the role of an incentive disbursement agency, and where the mandatory enforcement of the Energy Saving Ordinance (2016) became incentive enough, fulfilling the Energy Saving Ordinance (2016) — now merely as legal compliance — the funding purpose of the KfW70 program — namely the voluntary fulfillment of the Energy Saving Ordinance (2016) when one could still have been satisfied with fulfilling the Energy Saving Ordinance (2014) — was logically immediately obsolete. That a private-sector one hundred percent arm of the government pulls in the same direction as the legislative branch of the same is pure logic (and thus not nonsense to recognize the causal connection).

That just reminds me of the discussion in some B-movie about whether the bullet or the subsequent fall into the depths killed the victim. One of the protagonists then said, roughly: "The guy is dead! End of story." I want to leave it at that...