I believe that the status quo of our existing energy policy fills too many people’s pockets for there to be any real change. We presently subsidize the coal, gas, and nuclear industries to the tune of millions, not to mention such sweet heart deals as the Price Anderson Act nor the lucrative depletion allowance, which is a tax write-off for any of the natural resource extraction industries. (they get a tax break because it’s a finite resource, but they also get to charge more as it becomes less in supply … a sweet deal, eh?) Do we honestly believe that companies that are in the business to make money truly want us to use less of their products?

Funny how alternate energy didn’t become “viable” until it became large scale. Giant wind farms and huge solar arrays that feed into the power grid are touted as “green energy” options. You don’t have to change a thing you do in your home, just check the box that you’re willing to pay more to use ”green” power.

There’s that status quo thing, again.

Am I proposing that everyone should produce their own power, get a windmill or buy some solar panels? No.

What I am proposing is that we be a little, no scratch that, a lot smarter about our energy policy. Wind and solar have a place in our energy policy but so does conservation and appropriate applications and energy efficiency. There are times and places where alternate energy is a good fit, but one size does not fit all, and to improperly place such a system gives the whole thing a bad name. Likewise to go around and stuff insulation into every home without first assessing and prioritizing what needs to be done, is a waste and may cause more harm than help.

With a national mantra of individualism, why should we presume that every house has the same energy issues. That individualism plays out in more than different layouts and presents different heating and cooling challenges. Older homes have the unfortunate problem of being built when energy was cheap and certainly before a great many improvements were developed. My husband was at a conference where it was stated that if we just implemented as code all that we know about building an energy efficient home we would create a permanent reduction in fuel consumption., and have more comfortable homes.

I have lived in an off-grid home since 1981. There are pros and cons to everything, and an alternate energy house is no exception. Did you know that lending institutes do not place any monetary value on super insulation, let alone an energy independent home? Furthermore, did you know that if you put in a high efficiency furnace, as well as do a good job insulating a “fixer-upper” that the appraiser will give it no monetary value.

“Those kinds if things are just a personal preference,” was what the RCU Loan Officer stated when we asked why there was no inclusion of it in appraising a home we had just remodeled. Why wouldn’t a financial institution consider the fact that lower utility bills might mean more money to pay the mortgage?

So if we want to encourage people into doing a good job of insulating and improving their energy footprint, why don’t we give it value in the property appraisal. As this same loan officer quipped, “It’s just like when my husband and I spent thousands of dollars putting in a new kitchen and we didn’t get our money out of it when we sold the house.” Is it really the same?

Our alternate energy home has also been a real problem in the resale market. Most realtors don’t know how to market it. Some even suggested they could probably sell it for more WITHOUT the energy system.

My favorite rejection came from Green Homes for Sale … we were too big. Never mind that we use the same amount of fuel as a house one third our size, and that we produce 95 percent of all our electrical power with wind and sun. That’s the sour grapes part. We’re in a catch 22. We thought if people want to be more energy independent that our house would be ideal. I think it’s just an urban legend, a myth.

To propose that we as a nation should strive for energy independence, but to tell us we don’t have to change the status quo of how we think about and interact with energy is a disservice ... lip service.

What if we didn’t subsidize any of the energy industries? Would that change even the bean counters minds about what makes sense? What if we included whole life cycling when we considered the “best” appliances, or any energy user for that matter.

We are not stupid people; we just need to start looking at things with a different perspective. The bottom line is a consideration, but it should not be the only one. Let’s not just throw money at the market and hope for the best. If we’re going to use tax dollars to help solve our energy problems, let’s get the biggest bang for the buck. Let’s assess, prioritize and consider the life cycle and payback for what we do. No more status quo, business as usual … real change. There is no one answer, but a combination of things. We can do this.