As Mr. Tremblay indicated in his presentation, when the National Research Council and the commission's committees develop technical changes, they are required to carry out a cost-benefit analysis. That doesn't mean that because something has a cost, it doesn't go into the code. What they look at is whether there is a payback on the system.
Let's assume there is a requirement in the code now that says you have to have triple-pane windows. They look at the cost of a triple pane versus what's currently required in the code, and they ask, what is the payback by putting triple pane? If the payback is 100 years, then it's probably not a good solution. If the payback is two or three years, or five years, then that's a good solution and it's worked in. Sure, there is an upfront cost to the homeowner, but after a few years that's going to pay back. Generally that's how they look at the changes when they're incorporating them into the codes.
NRC has looked at various trends—what happened when they introduced solar panels, for example, into the mainstream. Ten years ago you would have looked at solar panels as a method of providing energy to your home, and it may have cost $70,000 for a typical home. You look at it today, 10 years later, and the same solar panels, with better efficiency and better technology, are down to about $10,000 or $12,000.
The research council expects that the pricing will start going down as new technologies start coming into the marketplace. Up front there could be a cost. I wouldn't say there is going to be a significant cost, but there may be a cost. It depends on the technology and how you design the house. There is a possibility of building a house with no additional cost, depending on how you design the house up front, but later on we expect that the technology will allow us to bring in much more affordable systems.