Not to say you were wrong since in making that choice but with climate change days of extreme temperatures in both directions will become ever more common so so you may have considered it an investment into the future. Of course you may have other problems by then (a reliable source of food for example)
> (...) with climate change days of extreme temperatures in both directions (...)
This sort of take is unwise. It makes zero sense to invest today in domestic systems with the expectation that at some point in the future there will be extreme events a hand full of times throughout the year. The benefit of shaving a fraction of a percent from the baseline outweighs multipercent gains of hypothetical extreme events that happen a few times a year.
When building spend as much as you can on the building envelope (preventing air, vapor, water movement) and insulation.
Those cannot be easily changed at all, but you can relatively easily add another heating or cooling device.
And if you build above code minimums (you should!) be sure to have someone knowledgeable calculate the actual heating/cooling load. If you don’t, the HVAC contractor may assume code minimums and oversize the system.
Or get systems that are entirely variable.
And get every step inspected! Mid build blower door tests are a great thing to do (right after the air seal envelope is up).
> Spending money hoping to bank on the occurrence of unexpected outcomes simply can't be justified.
I would have agreed a decade ago, but in the one year our house has been standing, it has endured two 100 year events (a heat wave and a rain/windstorm).
We overpaid about $1000 to go one size up on the (variable) heat pump / AC and $10-20k to oversize + harden the solar / battery.
It has been worth every penny at this point; the solar kept the fridge, freezer and AC happy in > 100F heat during a power outage. That's $500-1000 of food just for the one event, and outages are increasing in frequency. (Air conditioning was mostly unheard of in this area 20 years ago, since it didn't get hot enough to ever run it.)
My big concern is that we're already eating into the engineeeing tolerances for the wind rating on the house itself.
I do agree that you should consider what can be upgraded later, and put money towards things that are hard to change (insulation, wind ratings, etc.)
the "it doesn't get hot enough to need air conditioning" argument was used to build out tons of apartment complexes in the pacific northwest, say, around Tacoma and Seattle. I lived in Tacoma in the mid-2000s for a summer and it was miserable. And everyone i spoke to about it said "yeah, that's the joke."
You are making assumptions that may be not true.
1. Those events will be a handful, I see no indication of that on the contrary
2. You can always upgrade later. You don't how a system can deal with extreme
and you don't that those things will be available later. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.
> The same can be said for most insurance products.
That's a terribly silly thing to say. Think about it for a second, particularly how insurance premiums compare to the cost of buying/rebuilding a new item.
