An important claim to think about as inherently related to our own project is the idea of energy services depending on more than just energy (Riniken et al., 2019:20). We can think of the energy services we receive as providing us with comfort, cleanliness, entertainment, and mobility, shaping more than just our residential environment (Riniken et al., 2019:20). In relation to our own project, we can think of these services as wholly dependent on other structures, depending on other meta-services, and being uniquely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The most important idea to reflect upon is Riniken et al.'s assertion meta-services change when the means of achieving them change, which is important to think about in energy transitions and ways in which they leave many energy vulnerable populations behind (2019:20).
One of the important arguments as made by Riniken et al. (2019), is with regards to energy demand management being an unrealistic clause to be added to energy policy. The foregoing is specifically related to the dynamism of energy demand, as particularly related to the changing needs of the population (Riniken et al., 2019:10). In terms of this demand, the closest solution to meeting energy demand and its dynamism is through revolutionizing the energy grid system and incorporating microgrids, as proposed by the DVPRC Climate Adaptation Forum. On a more EVP project-focused approach, the idea of energy dynamism can speak to the limitations of energy assistance programs' monthly budgeting systems, based on former years' budgeting, that don't account for changing climate and changing energy demands and needs.
There are quite a few arguments that I noticed during this piece, but one that sticks out to me is The Energy Trilemma, or more accurately pyramid, as it exemplifies the interconnected nature of energy problems. We have often discussed how energy poverty (or as the piece calls it, fuel poverty), is connected to other forms of energy problems and poverties. Perhaps we could make our own pyramid of poverty.
Also, their argument against "keeping the lights on" is also useful for us. It rethinks the goals of conservation as questioning why we "keep the lights on." In search of efficiency, energy organizations often do not consider if what they are making more efficient is as necessary as it is being used. We can discuss this in terms of energy vulnerability by looking at what is kept necessary for houses that drives up prices when it may not need to be.