Our global society is very far from the radical shift away from the carbon-based economy that is required to save us from the myriad, interconnected disruptions caused by climate change. Both presenters feel that this is an existential crisis and deeply and sincerely want to contribute to the full decarbonization of industrial society. Rachel White and Brendan Kavanagh of Byggmeister presented last year on the cost effectiveness of DERs and advocate for a “moderate” approach to load reduction as a scalable strategy for achieving net zero emissions from existing homes by 2050. Michael Hindle of Passive to Positive wrote a response suggesting that markets are essentially blind to the threat posed by the impending crisis, particularly in the domains of family economics and small business. Michael maintains that cost effectiveness, or “cost-benefit,” offers an incomplete accounting and leaves emissions reductions on the table. Each author offered perspectives from different vantage points within complex system that makes decarbonization extraordinarily challenging. Byggmeister was presenting from the perspective of a small residential renovation company in which the “market cost” of a DER — i.e., what they need to charge to remain financially sustainable and responsible — is a few hundreds of thousands of dollars per building. Michael wrote as a frustrated consultant who consistently has felt that the barriers to ecological design do not fundamentally make sense and advocated for keeping the broader systemic point of view “on the table” - and preferably on the balance sheet - to inform decisions of owners, practitioners, and policy makers. While it’s tempting to see us as opponents (and some have), the reality is not this simple. Michael’s own home is a zero-energy retrofit, only half of which would count as a true DER. The rest is decidedly “moderate". Byggmeister has worked for decades on residential retrofits of varying intensity and has tremendous experience in seeing how decisions are made and what works in the current system. We need to figure out how to scale emissions reductions within this system at the same time as we advocate for changing it. And we need to do both these things while facing high levels of uncertainty and risk. Some of the questions we hope to touch on in this session are: —How do we balance our obligation to do what we believe is achievable here and now (knowing that this might not be enough) with our obligation to push for radical transformation (knowing that this may be wholly impractical in the near term)? What does holding this tension mean for our day-to-day work? —How do we decide what a reasonable upper bound is to invest in load reduction, and when resources would be better invested in grid transformation? —What are the levers within the existing system to steer outcomes in a more progressive direction? Are there mechanisms to capture the “true value” of carbon emissions? —How powerful is information about the problem and the solutions in driving owner decisions? Is there a way to expose balances in cost and scope to help all clients achieve better outcomes for their homes and for the climate? —How should resiliency and future proofing factor into decisions about how much to invest in load reduction v. electrification? — In what ways can and should questions of justice and equity factor into decisions about how much to invest in load reduction v. electrification? —Is this just a values problem? And if so, how would we change it? —Through it all how do we maintain hope in the face of the ever-increasing evidence of impending disaster?