If the government put energy‐generating solar panels on their buildings, they could be making money off their buildings and wouldn’t be slashing budgets so much. So what’s the hold up? In general, each sector blames the others.
Case in point: Two years ago, the state government of a swing state set up a Renewable Energy Credits program but did not itself participate. While there may be political reasons to avoid an upfront investment with a delay in return (the panels pay for themselves after ten years, longer than any governor wants to wait), the bigger issue is the challenge of trying something new in a system that is stacked against it. Citizens are impatient with the government for this, but they are also the first to complain when they perceive the state to be misusing funds, particularly in hard times. The government, for many good and important reasons such as accountability, is poorly positioned to take a risk, even with technology that is proven to get results. On the other hand, the government’s traditional role has been to fund the risks of others, including R&D grants to universities and the private sector. Policy analysts for the government claim that energy storage technology has not advanced to the point at which solar panels pencil out for the state. (The summers are very sunny but the winters are very dark.) They claim the private sector needs to find the solution to this before they can consider the transition. Policy analysts for the private sector claim the permitting and funding process selects against new technologies, and that the bureaucratic hurdles cannot handle even moderate uncertainty.
Now a new governor has just been elected. The circumstances of her election were heated and she has a lot of public support. She wants you to sort this out and asks who you would turn to first to see results. Is it best to increase public pressure or perfect the technology? Is it best to restructure the way the state invests in and permits capital projects, or the way the legislature proceeds around innovation? She recognizes that, at least for now, all three sectors want more or less the same thing, but she wants to use this issue as an opportunity to build a lasting relationship between the sectors so that they do not undermine their joint causes in the future. What do you tell her?
