I'm reading through an ENM text called Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths, and in the section on work and energy, after giving the expression for work, he says:

"That's how much work it takes to assemble a configuration of point charges; it's also the amount of work you'd get back if you dismantled the system. In the meantime, it represents energy stored in the configuration ("potential" energy, if you insist, though for obvious reasons I prefer to avoid that word in this context.)

Those reasons aren't so obvious to me, lol. Why does Griffiths want to avoid the term "potential energy"? Seems to me like it makes sense, assembling point charges is analogous to holding a rock a few feet off the ground - there's energy stored in both, when released the rock falls down a gravitational gradient and when "released", a charge would "fall down" an electric gradient. What nuances am I missing here?

I'm reading through an ENM text called Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths, and in the section on work and energy, after giving the expression for work, he says:

"That's how much work it takes to assemble a configuration of point charges; it's also the amount of work you'd get back if you dismantled the system. In the meantime, it represents energy stored in the configuration ("potential" energy, if you insist, though for obvious reasons I prefer to avoid that word in this context.)

Those reasons aren't so obvious to me, lol. Why does Griffiths want to avoid the term "potential energy"? Seems to me like it makes sense, assembling point charges is analogous to holding a rock a few feet off the ground - there's energy stored in both, when released the rock falls down a gravitational gradient and when "released", a charge would "fall down" an electric gradient. What nuances am I missing here?