To emphasize: The SPEED Act’s relevance is not confined to energy, to the fight btw/fossil fuels & renewables. Its implications are expansive, covering all federal action that may harm the environment.

Whole ecological systems at risk under the false notion that building fast is building well.

We need to engage to understand local conditions. We need to solve all this complexity if we want a different energy landscape.

We need to make issues like energy poverty and interdependencies with other systems (physical and social) much more clear, and discuss them directly. In many cases, these are left as an afterthought or as an 'added benefit'.

There's also a huge gap between those developing 'solutions' and people that are affected by those 'solutions'. I guess it follows the model of many other fields, so nothing surprising there.

Look, profits, I get it. But profits need not be the only guiding principle in figuring out how to transition to a low-carbon economy.

I've attended panels with company reps boasting about 'saving costs', with an illustrative example of a cloud platform for utilities highlighting how they were able to cut jobs as a cost-saving measure, and how they "can achieve the same for you!".

It's also clear to me (and smarter people than I have already said so) why private capital and the market alone cannot address a problem like the energy transition, in a way that is compatible with other principles, such as equity, inclusion, etc.

An empowered public sector can also achieve other goals with progressive energy sharing models that allow for a more equitable distribution. The case of Valencia, Spain, is educational in terms of energy sharing models.

Financial, regulatory, physical, and cognitive barriers still define much of the energy landscape. Uncertainties in each of these creates one more layer that pushes people away. The role of the (in most cases) public sector is critical: creating interest, informing, guiding, and providing support.

Energy communities play a huge role and they are a critical building block in democratizing energy communities, but the process can be daunting. Information is essential. But this is not enough.

One of them relates to democratizing energy. When discussing energy democracy, almost all the emphasis was put on helping people make better decisions as consumers, which is critical. Equally important, however, is about lowering the barriers to participate fully in a decentralized energy economy.

Furthermore, executive actions building on demonstrably bogus “emergencies” empower unilateral fast-track approval of FF projects. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers re: pipelines

www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...

There is no such thing as too many types of potatoes or potato dishes 🥔

They are also an instance of direct participation by the landowner into the energy market, should they want to do so (hint: engagement, participation, and a 'fair deal' are key). Agrivoltaics could represent a transformative investment in the way we manage land and solve for other critical problems.

From a lack of harmonization in regulatory frameworks, definitions, data collection, etc. Siloed policymaking and regulation (ag and energy) makes things even harder. Agricultural and biodiversity benefits are not included in the LCOE. Siloed investment decisions and incentives/subsidies.

Some opportunities remain massively underutilized. Low and mid-temperature industrial heat/cold is one of these sectors. But agrivoltaics may be the best example. Agrivoltaics are a great example of a complex (as in complex systems) problem.

Regulations that allow for faster and better deployment, policies that increase information access and participation in the energy market, and ways of transitioning that materialize co-benefits in addition to decarbonization are critical.

Some bottlenecks sill exist (from supply chains to local technicians and electricians) but the expansion of solar is no longer a technical problem: it's a regulatory challenge (at many levels).