Budget Monitoring In Projects

Building ESG: 6 Shades of Green and How to Spot Them ________________________________________ Consumers today are increasingly concerned about the environment and seek out sustainable products and services. Unfortunately, some companies capitalize on this by engaging in "greenwashing" – deceptive marketing practices that create a misleading impression of eco-friendliness. Let's delve into six sneaky tactics of greenwashing and equip you to be a discerning consumer: 1. Green Crowding: Imagine a company with a so-so environmental record hiding amongst a sea of eco-certifications and logos in their marketing. That's green crowding. They downplay their negative impact by showcasing irrelevant positive associations. How to Spot It: Look beyond the abundance of eco-imagery and certifications. Research the company's actual environmental practices. 2. Greenlighting: This tactic involves highlighting a single, minor eco-friendly initiative while overshadowing their larger, unsustainable practices. They might boast about using recycled cardboard boxes while their core operations leave a significant carbon footprint. How to Spot It: Ask yourself: Does this initiative address the company's most significant environmental impact? 3. Greenshifting: This involves presenting a vague or distant future goal of sustainability without any concrete steps on how they'll get there. It creates an illusion of progress without real action. How to Spot It: Look for clear, time-bound commitments with measurable goals. Empty promises are a red flag. 4. Green Labeling: A product might be labeled "natural" or "eco-friendly" but lack any meaningful definition or certification. This capitalizes on positive associations without real substance. How to Spot It: Look for independent certifications from reputable organizations. Research the meaning behind any eco-claims. 5. Green Rinsing: This tactic involves making minor changes to a product, like using recycled plastic packaging, while the core product remains environmentally unfriendly. It's a superficial attempt to appear green. How to Spot It: Look beyond packaging tweaks. Consider the product's overall lifecycle and environmental impact. 6. Green Hushing: This is the opposite of greenwashing. A company might be taking positive environmental steps but neglecting to communicate them clearly. While not deceptive, it misses an opportunity to promote genuine progress. How to Spot It: Research a company's sustainability reports or contact them directly to understand their environmental efforts. Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below! Please click on the link below and feel free to share (Disclaimer: Views are personal, should not be related to organisations view) #buildingEsg #circulareconomy #sustainablefinance #esgreporting #esgstrategy #esgrisk #climaterisk #climatechangeaction #climaterisks #india #emissions #esgratings #esg #cop28 #greenertogether #SDGs #sustainability #business #csr

Greenwashing Risk Indicators 🌍 Greenwashing is becoming one of the biggest threats to credible sustainability efforts. As public pressure and regulatory scrutiny increase, more companies are under the spotlight for misleading claims that exaggerate or misrepresent their environmental or social impact. That is why it is essential to understand how to identify potential red flags in sustainability communications and reporting. I developed this checklist to help leaders, practitioners, and teams assess the credibility of sustainability claims and avoid reputational and legal risks. It outlines nine common indicators that often signal the presence of greenwashing. Each one includes clear examples to make detection easier. The first red flag is vague or unsupported claims. This includes using broad terms like green or eco-friendly without definitions, or making claims with no data or measurable results. The second red flag is the lack of independent verification. When there are no third-party audits, certifications, or recognized frameworks involved, credibility is severely weakened. The third is a focus on minor activities. Highlighting small actions that have little relevance to core operations can create a false impression of broader progress. The fourth is the omission of trade-offs. Making only positive claims without acknowledging limitations, risks, or unintended consequences is a common tactic. The fifth red flag involves misleading visuals. Using green tones, nature imagery, or sustainability icons without real substance behind them can mislead stakeholders. The sixth is the absence of performance data. Without KPIs, targets, or transparent reporting, it is impossible to evaluate real impact. The remaining three indicators relate to future commitments that are not actionable, a lack of alignment with internal practices, and poor value chain transparency. Greenwashing is not always intentional. But regardless of intention, its consequences are real. This checklist is a tool to support more honest, credible, and effective sustainability communication. Let’s use it to raise the bar. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg

I have used this method on 100+ projects, Now, I am giving it here for free. Battle-tested playbook I’ve used with 100+ teams from startups to enterprise to reduce the AWS bill by 30% No fluff. No fancy dashboards. Just what actually works. Day 1–2: Cost Explorer + Tagging Audit → Open [AWS Cost Explorer] → Enable hourly + resource-level granularity → Filter by service, then by linked accounts → Identify top 3 spend categories (e.g., EC2, S3, Data Transfer) Now tag everything: - `Project` - `Owner` - `Environment` (dev/stage/prod) - `CostCenter` (if needed) Why? Untagged = invisible = unaccountable. Without tags, you’re flying blind. Pro tip: Use AWS Resource Groups to group untagged items. Day 3–4: Right-size Your Compute → Use AWS Compute Optimizer → Check EC2 instances with <20% CPU and Memory over 7–30 days → Consider: - Downgrading (e.g., m5 → t3) - Switching to **Graviton** (ARM-based, 20–40% cheaper) - Moving to **Fargate or Lambda** if infra is idle often Also review: - RDS instances: auto-pause in dev - ECS services: scale down unused services Why? Compute is often 60–70% of your bill. Fix this first. Day 5: Delete Zombie Infra → Use [Trusted Advisor] + [AWS Config] to find: - Orphaned EBS volumes (attached to terminated EC2s) - Idle Load Balancers (no traffic for 14+ days) - Old RDS snapshots (more than 7–14 days old) - Elastic IPs not attached to running instances - Unused S3 buckets storing logs from years ago Set deletion policies where safe. For dev resources, enforce auto-termination tags. Why? These don’t show up in dashboards But quietly drain your budget. Day 6: Set Storage Lifecycle Policies → For S3 buckets: - Archive logs after 30 days (Glacier or Deep Archive) - Delete test files after 90 days - Enable versioning cleanup → For EBS volumes: - Schedule snapshot pruning - Auto-delete unused volumes post-instance termination Why? Storage rarely gets optimized until it explodes. But small tweaks = big gains over time. Day 7: Set Budgets + Alerts → Go to [AWS Budgets] → Create: - Overall budget (with 80%, 90%, 100% thresholds) - Service-specific budgets (e.g., EC2, S3) - Linked account budgets if using Organizations → Set alerts via email or Slack (SNS integration) → Bonus: Add alerts for sudden cost spikes using anomaly detection Why? No alert = no awareness = no action. What happens after 7 days? You’ve got: ✅ Visibility ✅ Ownership ✅ Quick wins ✅ A repeatable process And most teams save 25–40% in the first month alone. We do this for AWS customers all the time. Want me to run this playbook for your infrastructure? DM me “audit” and I’ll spend 30 mins on your AWS account for free. Let’s make your cloud cost-efficient, not chaotic.

Are those bold sustainability claims real or just greenwashing? The truth isn’t always obvious. Here’s how to spot the difference and take action: Sustainability is the buzzword of the decade, but not every “green” initiative is what it claims to be. For some companies, sustainability goals are less about driving real change and more about crafting a feel-good narrative to stay relevant. Here’s how to tell if a company’s sustainability goals are authentic or performative: 🚩 Red Flags of Performative Sustainability 1. No Clear Metrics: Vague promises like “net-zero by 2050” with no transparent roadmap or interim milestones. Example: Companies announcing climate neutrality without detailing how they’ll achieve it. Often, this means buying carbon offsets (sometimes dubious) instead of reducing actual emissions. 2. Cherry-Picked Wins: Highlighting small, flashy changes (e.g., eliminating plastic straws) while ignoring their larger environmental footprint. Example: Fast fashion brands touting “sustainable collections” while producing billions of garments annually with no commitment to reducing overall production. 3. ESG Reporting Gaps: Slick sustainability reports that focus on aesthetics but offer little substance on their environmental or social impact. ✅ Signs of Genuine Sustainability Goals 1. Ambitious, Measurable Targets: Companies that set specific, science-based goals and regularly update progress. Example: Microsoft’s goal to become carbon negative by 2030, backed by aggressive investments in renewable energy and carbon capture technology. 2. Systemic Change: Organizations working to transform their entire supply chain or business model for sustainability. Example: Patagonia’s commitment to a circular economy by offering repair services and prioritizing recycled materials. What Can You Do as a Professional Today? 1. Ask Hard Questions: Look beyond marketing jargon. If a company claims “we’re committed to sustainability,” ask: How do you measure progress? What specific actions have been taken? How does this align with your business model? 2. Challenge Your Own Workplace: Push for real accountability by advocating for transparency in ESG goals. Suggest using frameworks like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) or the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to keep your company honest. What’s your take? How can we move from talk to impact? With purpose and impact, Mario

Unexpected AWS bills? There's a smarter way to manage your cloud costs. You can easily put an end to these nasty surprises using the cdk-budget-notifier construct. This open-source CDK construct allows you to: 1. Set custom budget thresholds 2. Receive email notifications when you're approaching or exceeding your budget 3. Get alerts via SNS topics for integration with your existing notification systems 4. Stay informed about both actual and forecasted spend By deploying this construct using CDK, you can: - Gain proactive control over your AWS spending - Catch runaway costs before they become a problem - Easily manage budgets across multiple AWS accounts - Empower your team to make informed decisions about resource usage P.S. Curious about implementation? Check out the cdk-budget-notifier documentation on GitHub.

🚨 “$3,200. Gone. From one misconfigured Lambda.” “I just wish something had warned me…” – Reddit post. That hit hard. Because I’ve been there. I once inherited a client’s AWS account burning $20K+ per month — with no alerts, no visibility, no idea where the money was going. There were no: ❌ Budgets ❌ Anomaly alerts ❌ Reserved concurrency ❌ Tags Just chaos. When I opened Cost Explorer, I saw a financial timebomb ticking: 💸 Thousands of Lambda invocations per minute 💸 CloudWatch logs ballooning hourly 💸 EBS volumes from long-dead EC2s 💸 NAT gateways idling for months 💸 ALBs spun up like candy I didn’t sleep for 4 days cleaning it up. And I kept asking myself: Why aren’t DevOps and Cloud Engineers taught cost control as a core skill? Everyone talks about scaling apps. No one talks about scaling cost. Here’s the brutal truth: 🚫 Lambda won’t stop if you trigger an infinite loop 🚫 AWS won’t pause when you overspend 🚫 Real-time cost monitoring? Not on by default That Reddit founder isn’t alone. Thousands of teams are quietly bleeding money, simply because nobody taught them FinOps 101. So now? Every AWS account I touch gets this Cloud Cost Guardrail Checklist: ✅ Budget alerts + anomaly detection ✅ Reserved concurrency on Lambda ✅ Separate input/output S3 to prevent recursion ✅ Real-time alerting on cost + usage spikes ✅ Dashboards for hotspots ✅ Auto-disable via Budgets + SNS + Lambda ✅ Monthly cleanup of idle EBS, NAT, snapshots ✅ Mandatory tagging: env, owner, cost center 💡 Bonus: Pipe billing into Athena + QuickSight for true cost intelligence. — This isn’t about saving pennies. It’s about catching $3,200 disasters before they happen. 💬 Ever been burned by a cloud bill? Drop a “💰” in the comments or share your story 👇 Let’s learn from each other — and stop treating cost as an afterthought. Because in the cloud? 💸 Cost is a security risk. — #AWS #DevOps #FinOps #CloudSecurity #Lambda #CostOptimization #InfrastructureAsCode #Serverless #Terraform #Observability #CloudOps #SaaS #StartupEngineering #CloudWaste

The Treasury finally gave clarity on the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB). And if you’re running a solar company, here’s what you need to know: 1/ Residential solar is safe (through 2025). → The 30% tax credit remains for installs completed before the end of 2025. → The safe harbor (5% spend) option is still valid for sub-1.5MW projects. 2/ Commercial solar faces new limits. → For systems above 1.5MW, commence-construction rules tighten after September 2, 2025. → No more safe harboring for those larger projects after that date. → Expect closer scrutiny on paperwork and timelines. 3/ Financing tools remain in 2025, with caveats. → Leases, PPAs, and transfer credits are allowed → After December 31, 2025, only commercial/third-party ownership structures will be eligible for solar credits on new installs. 4/ Loan models are under pressure. → Solar loans have high interest rates. These loans are, in fact, unsecured, because few would take an entire solar system off a roof and thus demand a premium compared to loans on secured assets. → That makes traditional 25-year loan structures much less attractive for most homeowners. -- What does this mean for you? If you’re in residential, you still have a clear runway, but the clock is ticking. If you’re in commercial, you need to be buttoned up: tighter processes, trained teams, and diversified services. The takeaway is discipline, not panic. The installers who adapt early to these rules will both comply and build the trust and systems that last beyond the next policy cycle.

If your solar projects still rely on external incentives to pencil out, Trump’s 2025 energy bill could derail your entire 2026 financial strategy. Here’s what the proposed legislation would do: – Eliminate 30–50% of tax credits for solar, battery, and efficiency systems – Remove the ability to transfer or monetize credits across entities – Phase out domestic manufacturing support by 2031 – Undermine project viability across multi-site portfolios – Create deep uncertainty in budgeting, procurement, and compliance planning For enterprise energy strategies, these changes reshape the economics of deployment. Most onsite energy projects today rely completely on incentives to meet internal thresholds. Without them: – Payback periods extend beyond approval windows – IRR falls short of what CFOs and boards will sign off on – Projects stall, timelines slip, and portfolio rollouts freeze This is a direct hit to execution, ROI, and operational momentum at a time when you need the outcomes the most Which is why the most prepared companies today aren’t waiting for clarity, they’re pressure-testing their strategies now, making sure they hold up even without external incentives. That’s how we’ve approached the problem at VECKTA from day one. Because when onsite energy is designed and deployed with the right system, it still delivers what matters most: long-term cost certainty, energy resilience, and execution clarity. And in a political environment this volatile, those are the outcomes you need to control.

Today (Sept 2nd, 2025) is a defining day in the development of wind and solar projects in the USA. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) counters the previous support for solar, wind and storage developers provided by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). 🔘 Accelerates tax credit sunsets 🔘 Tightens beginning of construction (BOC) rules; and, 🔘 Supply-chain rules From September, 2nd, to be eligible for federal tax credits, a developer: ❌ can no longer demonstrate BOC by deploying 5% of the projects allocated capital or completing at least 5% of the physical site construction. ✅ must show on-site physical progress of significant nature to qualify (e.g., foundation excavation, rack installation). ✅ projects continue benefiting from the four-year Continuity Safe Harbor meaning they have four years to be in service. After July 5th 2026, the four-year buffer goes away, and all projects must be operational by the end of 2027. Decision dichotomy: 1) If a project misses BOC eligibility, it loses access to the tax credits. This makes the cheapest supplier the default choice. 2) If a project meets the BOC requirements, the final procurement decision should be evaluated as a tradeoff between cost premium and ITC impact. So what should Developers do? ▶️ Accelerate BOC milestones for solar and wind before July 2026 to lock in Continuity Safe Harbor. ▶️ Estimate non-Prohibited Foreign Entity supplier switching cost impact on CapEx to determine whether Investment Tax Credit offsets justify higher CapEx: At 30% ITC, the threshold is at 42.9%. At 50% ITC, the threshold is at 100%. ▶️ If procuring from non-PFE suppliers is determined to be more economically appealing, diversify supply chains by securing non-PFE suppliers early to avoid bottlenecks. ▶️ Consider reallocating capital toward storage where timelines and credit certainty remain strongest. Read the full article on the Modo Energy Terminal and sign up to our Newsletter to get this information directly to your inbox.

🔁 You’ve heard about the potential IRA rollback. Here’s the update—and the surprising pushback from within the GOP itself. Last week, House Republicans advanced a budget bill that would gut core Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) incentives—cutting clean energy tax credits years earlier than planned. But now, a group of 14 House Republicans is pushing back. Their focus? Preserve tax credit transferability—a lifeline for project finance that’s unlocked billions in clean energy investment. 🧵 What’s in the bill—and what’s at stake: 1️⃣ IRA tax credits phased out early: The bill, passed by the House Budget Committee, would reduce the value of the 45Y and 48E clean energy tax credits starting in 2029, eliminating them entirely by 2032—one year earlier than the IRA. 2️⃣ Transferability ends in 2027: The proposal also sunsets the IRA’s tax credit transferability mechanism in just two years. This would choke off capital access for small and mid-size developers that don’t use traditional tax equity. 3️⃣ Moderate GOP pushback: Led by Rep. Jen Kiggans (VA), 14 Republicans are urging leadership to maintain transferability through the full phase-out period—arguing it’s critical to meet surging power demand and keep energy costs down. 4️⃣ “Placed in service” rule adds risk: The bill shifts eligibility from “start of construction” to “placed in service,” which excludes many projects delayed by grid bottlenecks. Industry voices warn this will stall development and spike electricity prices. ➡️ For CSOs and CFOs: Review investment timelines now. Delay could mean losing access to full credit value—and financing routes may narrow if transferability is cut. ➡️ For developers and operators: Work with policy teams to engage with swing-district Republicans. This is a rare opening to shape the final bill. ➡️ For capital providers: Expect consolidation. As smaller players lose access to transfer markets, well-capitalized incumbents may dominate. 📢 Bottom line: This bill isn’t final—but it’s real. The most important lever to preserve IRA impact is transferability. And there’s a fight underway to save it.