Brian, there are errors of logic in the first paragraph of your response which are relevant.
First, there are more actors in the markets than just the corporations. So, my posit that the corporations are rational actors does not require nor imply that the efficient market theory is true. (The second error is your implication that because markets have been proven to be not totally effficient does not prove the converse, that they are totally inefficient. But since the first negates the need to debate the second, we can leave that for another day.)
Nor does the existence of hedge funds change the core of my view. Mr. Market offers you securities at various prices from day to day; apparently you believe that the variation of those prices proves that corporations are not acting rationally. I’ll take the other side of that trade all day long. :-)
Now, those aside, we come to some modicum of agreement. Obviously not all corporations may have researched the matter; my position simply is that corporations are in general pretty good at searching out things that will substantially increase Earnings per Share; examples of corporations that have profitably implemented sustainable energy strategies have been well socialized, so I would find it rather surprising to find a company operating in the dark (pun intended) vis a vis the potential for renewables in their own operations.
That all said, not all companies can benefit the same; skew matters. If a big box retailer profits in major fashion from renewables, it does not mean that mom and pop in their 300 sq ft store will benefit proportionally. Further, not all industries can benefit at the same scale; different industries quite obviously have different energy usage profiles.
Because of the variability of usage, I believe that drawing conclusions as you have to be questionable math. If we had a grid with industry group down column A, and then three columns in the middle for large cap, mid cap, and small cap companies, and we were able to model the potential savings for each group individually…..well, then we’d be able to draw some interesting conclusions.
I’ll close by saying that your financing argument sends up red flags all over the place. When anybody finances something at zero down, the interest doesn’t disappear, it’s just being eaten by the sellor, where it aggregates over time.
I suppose if your argument is “hey, once you’ve got the product, you shouldn’t care that we might go bankrupt”; well, that’s ok, I guess.