To energy heel truss or to not energy heel truss???

A homeowner planning a new "Pretty Good House" build in a cold climate (Zone 5) is weighing whether to keep a design detail called a raised or "energy heel" truss in the attic framing. This is a truss built with extra height at the point where the roof meets the exterior walls, which allows full-depth insulation to extend all the way to the wall line instead of tapering to almost nothing at the eaves, as it does with standard trusses.

The house's attic is planned for R-60 insulation using blown-in cellulose, with a moderately sloped roof and a 22-inch raised heel already included in the builder's quote. The builder suggested dropping the raised heel to save money, arguing that most of the attic would still hit R-60 and only the area near the exterior walls would end up with less insulation. The homeowner is questioning that trade-off, since the wall-ceiling-roof junction is often one of the more vulnerable spots for heat loss and moisture problems in a house, not a place where skimping seems ideal.

This is a builder's forum discussion rather than a settled news story, so there is no dollar figure, program, or deadline attached to it. For someone building or renovating a home with a similar roof design, the takeaway is simply that raised-heel trusses affect how much usable insulation depth reaches the eaves, and cutting that feature to save money changes where a house loses the most heat.