In light of recent developments, I think it is important to make some distinctions between sustainable energy and green energy. Let’s be clear, not all sustainable energy solutions should contain or ARE green energy solutions. This is important because in some cases it’s not feasible for anyone to totally replace conventional energy with “green energy” and part of sustainable energy should be to modify/enhance current consumption systems and practices to cut costs and promote efficiency.
One example is a commercial baker who may be able to safely reduce heating costs through diversion of heat from production facilities. Another is the serious consideration by a warehouse/distribution center with a roof the size of three football fields to look into the benefits of solar in addition to the current state of tax and incentive benefits.
I believe this should be made clear because in what seems to be our current “all or nothing”, ”cancel culture” environment, the goal should be to find ways to cut costs and enhance productivity at every scale. It is evident society has not moved to the point where a totally green energy program is a viable solution, regardless of current thought.
Look at it this way…Exelon has a robust incentive program but I don’t think they’re going to go out of business anytime soon.
If and when the world can “go green”, it is important to provide short term solutions for business growth, capture government and/or private sector advantages (…or at least present the opportunities and weight the benefits) and consistently strive to give ownership at every level flexibility in their money spend.
I am reminded of the term “irrational exuberance” coined by Alan Greenspan in 1996. In so many ways we look in the same mirror today as we did back then. I hope we wouldn’t want history to repeat itself.