HighlightsCost-effectiveness against a **Georgia** **Energy** Codebaseline:• Life-cycle cost savings, averaged across buildingtypes, are $3,973 for the 2012 IECC• Simple payback period is 6.7 years for the 2012 IECCConsumer savings compared to a **Georgia** **Energy** Codebaseline:• Households save an average of $298 per year onenergy costs with the 2012 IECC• Net annual consumer savings, including energysavings, mortgage cost increases, and otherassociated costs in the first year of ownership,average $183 for the 2012 IECC• **Energy** costs, on average, are 23.3% lower for the2012 IECCCost-EffectivenessThe U.S. Department of **Energy** (DOE) evaluates the energycodes based on three measures of cost-effectiveness:• Life-Cycle Cost: Full accounting over a 30-yearperiod of the cost savings, considering energysavings, the initial investment financed throughincreased mortgage costs, tax impacts, and residualvalues of energy efficiency measures• Cash Flow: Net annual cost outlay (i.e., differencebetween annual energy cost savings and increasedannual costs for mortgage payments, etc.)• Simple Payback: Number of years required forenergy cost savings to exceed the incremental firstcosts of a new codeLife-cycle cost is the primary measure by which DOEassesses the cost-effectiveness of the IECC. These savingsassume that initial costs are mortgaged, that homeownerstake advantage of the mortgage interest deductions, andthat long-lived efficiency measures retain a residual valueafter the 30-year analysis period. As shown in Table 1, lifecyclecost savings are $3,973 for the 2012 IECC comparedto the **Georgia** **Energy** Code.Table 1. Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings from Compliance with the 2012 IECC, Relative to the **Georgia** **Energy** CodeLife-Cycle CostSavings ($)Net PositiveCash Flow (Years)Simple Payback(Years)2012 IECC $3,973 2 6.72012 IECC AS COMPARED TO THE 2009 GEORGIA ENERGY CODE3