"Zero footprint " regulations makes ZERO sense

Austin Mayor Will Wynn wants to force homesellers to drastically upgrade energy efficiency as a requirement for sale:

The objective of the point-of-sale provisions is to improve the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock, which far exceeds the number of new homes that will be affected by the upcoming building code changes. "Why should only homebuyers of newly constructed homes benefit from this science and benefit from this very different affordability equation?" Wynn asked.

These 'zero-energy' guys get a Zero in economics and an F in understanding energy:

"The objective of Austin's plan is to make homes "zero-energy capable": energy efficient enough that it is cost-effective to install solar panels or other on-site electricity generation such as wind turbines. Without the energy efficiency improvements, the benefit of on-site generation is lost through leaky ducts and windows."

1) If a house uses less energy, then the price/watt-hour of generation infrastructure goes up. Putting in the batteries, electronics and controls for solar panels is not cheap, and becomes even more expensive relative to your energy bill the less you use.

2) Any 'benefits of on-site' relative to using central power are overwhelmed by the simple fact that solar and 'on-site' wind are hugely expensive and variable/unreliable relative to central power. ZERO economic consideration.

3) It is a myth that these regulations will protect anyone's 'climate'. There is practically non-existent benefit to Austin, Texas, USA or the global environment in Austin marginally reducing CO2 emissions in the next 10 years. They claim their plan will save 221,597 tons of CO2 by 2015. Even with that hugely biased and optimistic number, The world emits 7 Gigatonnes per year, so that will be 0.0028% of total CO2 emissions; yet 7 gigatonnes is itself less than .5% Of the C02 to be emitted (in next 90 years) to cause the 'dreaded' increase in temps of 2.5C on average. So even if Austin saved this amount yearly (200,000 tons) until 2100, it still would be impacting temperature no more than .000035 degrees C, an unmeasureable quantity. The impact of having these regulations between now and 2025 would be measured in a few millionths of degrees! ZERO environmental benefit!

4) A simple way for Austin to have "Zero carbon footprint" on our energy use: Replace the La Grange coal plant and natural gas usage with nuclear generation capacity. Nuclear is emissions free, doesn't pollute the air, and cost-effective. With one more nuclear plant, Austin will be almost all on non-greenhouse-gas emitting power (mostly nuclear). The reduction in CO2 by moving 1GW from coal to nuclear would be around 8-10 million tons of CO2 reduction per year, or about 50 *times* the reduction in CO2 these onerous City of Austin regulations would save.

5) To the extent that energy efficiency is good and it pays for itself, people do it already. Most new homes have the key energy efficiency features that make sense economically. Existing homes don't do as much due to the different rate of return on doing upgrades and peoples finances.

Energy efficiency that costs way beyond the economic rate-of-return ends up hurting people, and the regulations on top of it add further costs locally, with no benefits, either economically or environmentally. What should be done instead of regulations is awareness and voluntary auditing, which Austin has already.

Most economists put the cost/benefit price tag for C02 reduction at less or about $30/TCo2. So the cost of these regulations and changes should be no more than $6 million, or they are uneconomical and ineffective.

To summarize it - the ZERO energy plan has:
ZERO economic and common sense.
ZERO environmental benefit.
ZERO consideration of better alternatives.
ZERO respect for taxpayers and home-owners.

Can we fire Will Wynn and the other promoters of this bad idea?