Support for individual measures of energy renovation only for the poor?

You know how it is, you want to make a rental building as energy efficient as possible and you already have a loan of 45,000 "with the KFW" running. For roof and facade renewal and you are diligently paying it off. Now you want to renew windows, doors and insulate. So an amount that goes far beyond 40,000 euros and you tap into your savings, possibly go into overdraft. Now the media is full of information on energy saving and funding – not only BAFA, but also the state-owned development banks. If you turn to these, smaller funding amounts as a grant in addition to BAFA are possible. So you apply, wait and everything gets more expensive, first 11% then 10% and the advantage of funding is used up because no order is allowed to be placed. Well, that is just the way it is – funding can come at a cost. Now I am in correspondence with the head of the development bank department and he writes the following:

... The prohibition of the premature start of measures is based on the budgetary subsidiarity principle, according to which in the case of projects that have already started, the applicant, in addition to having sufficient self-interest, obviously already has enough funds before the approval to be able to finance the project on their own. Resulting windfall effects are to be prevented and a most efficient use of tax funds is to be ensured.

Since it is about a small grant, a question on self-financing was never questioned in the documents nor the financial situation in general, I find the sentence somewhat odd

... " in addition to having sufficient self-interest, obviously already has enough funds before the approval to be able to finance the project on their own. Resulting windfall effects are to be prevented and a most efficient use of tax funds is to be ensured".

So funding only for the needy or low-income people? People like me, who constantly renovate and pay off over the years are then indirectly labeled as people with a "windfall effect" by a "head of Energy & Quality at the state-owned investment and development bank"?

How is the subsidiarity principle to be applied?

I don't understand what you are writing.

In short: You want money from the state, the state says no you won't get anything because you already have enough, now you are writing the story here in the forum.
Is that correct?

well, others have similar issues in the opposite direction. For example, if you only have a small additional payment of EKSt. (let's say 1K) you cannot defer it. If you have to pay back 40K, that is no problem. I could quote the tax office's reasoning here, but I’m still shaking my head about it :oops: (true story!)

well, others have similar issues going the other way. For example, if you only have a small income tax back payment (let's say 1K), you cannot have it deferred. If you have to pay back 40K, that works without any problems. I could quote the tax office's reasoning here, but I'm still shaking my head about it :oops: (true story!)

So I would be interested in that

This is a lot of bureaucratic blah blah. Two things are crucial: 1. Income limits for subsidies. You sometimes get the feeling that only people are supposed to be supported who shouldn’t be building at all 2. Timing of commissioning and subsidy approval. This is actually about preventing windfall effects. You’re not supposed to get subsidies for things you would have done anyway. I find that reasonable, but in practice it is often implemented problematically: unfavorably defined "project start," reservation clauses that unexpectedly terminate contracts, etc. On the other hand, there was often the opposite case, e.g., two years ago everyone simply applied to BAFA for heat pumps and then saw what they actually installed (and that is exactly the effect you want to avoid). And many of those approved applications are likely to have lapsed...