It’s rather pointless to go through the effort of building a house if you don’t expect to live in it for very long. So, the minimum standards should only be relevant to people building homes for sale.
As to insulation, it’s very cheap to add some form of solar heating outside of the arctic but cooling always takes energy.
What you expect may be different from what will eventually happen, and since the vast majority of houses are actually built by people that intend to sell them (builders), those make the market price, and - at least now - a passive house valued 30% more than average market is not easy to sell or rent, maybe this will change, maybe not.
You can very much rent a passive house for significantly more by including heating and cooling costs into the rental price.
People can’t see what your heating bills are but they can compare with other properties that include heating.
Actual price differences at time of sale should be nowhere close to 30% not only because that’s an insane difference in construction costs but also because land isn’t free. A 200k house on 200k of land vs a 260k house on 200k of land isn’t a 30% difference in final price.
Assuming it is actually 60k, where in reality insulation is cheap. Having giant windows is useful for passive heat gain, but their mostly installed for aesthetics not practicality. Which means aesthetics are also increasing home values.
In terms of pure economics an extra 15k in insulation and 15k for a solar hot water system gets you further at much lower costs by actually providing hot water for showers not just lowering heating bills.
You build a house according to the minimal requirements of your local codes/norms.
If you next year go to another city you may either sell the house or rent it (at average market value).
You build a "passive house".
If you next year go to another city you may either sell the house or rent it.
Do you believe you can easily get 30% more rent or sale price because it is passive?