Domain: Energy
Question:
A state energy office is designing the data access strategy for its IRA Section 50121 Home Efficiency Rebates program. Assume the state already has the policy authority and technical infrastructure to implement either an open-access model or an opt-out model for sharing utility usage data needed for program administration and DOE reporting.

How should the state decide between these two approaches if it wants strong data completeness and operational efficiency, but also wants to maintain public trust and avoid legal risk? How should that recommendation change in a state where customer privacy advocates are highly organized and have a track record of litigation that could delay or derail the program?

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that the state's decision should focus on data quality
States that the state's decision should focus on public trust
States that the state's decision should focus on long-term program stability
States that open access provides the most data availability, resulting in the most complete and reliable dataset
States that the reason for this is because all customer data is captured in open access
States that open access makes it easier to target participants
States that open access makes it easier to measure savings
States that open access makes it easier to report results to DOE
States that open access enables third-party innovation
States that open access reduces administrative burden by avoiding the need to track individual customer choices
States that open access raises privacy concerns because data is shared without customer consent
States that open access carries higher political risk because customers' data is shared without their consent
States that open access carries higher legal risk because customers' data is shared without their consent
States that open access can lead to public backlash when customers' data is shared without their knowledge
States that open access can lead to litigation when customers' data is shared without their knowledge
States that opt-out gives customers a choice or the right to decline data sharing
States that opt-out increases administrative complexity due to notification procedures
States that opt-out increases administrative complexity due to tracking opt-out requests over time
States that opt-out increases administrative complexity due to maintaining exclusion systems
States that opt-out offers many of the same benefits as open access
States that opt-out is likely easier to defend publicly and legally than open access
States that customers who opt out would still need to provide data to receive rebates
States that opt-out can create confusion about what opting out means if customers must still provide data for rebates
States that in a state with strong privacy litigation history, opt-out should be favored over open access
States that opt-out provides explicit notification
States that opt-out provides choice mechanisms
States that explicit notification and choice mechanisms improve legal defensibility
States that opt-out is likely to reduce the risk of lawsuits compared with open access
States that opt-out is likely to reduce the risk of implementation delays compared with open access
States that the administrative burden of opt-out is larger than open access
States that Green Button is sometimes a valid alternative pathway
States that the reason for this is that Green Button has built-in consent and privacy considerations
States that if Green Button is used, it should be stress tested with privacy advocates through stakeholder dialogue before finalizing
States that regardless of method, the state should engage in stakeholder dialogue if there is any history of privacy concerns
States that being transparent about privacy will best serve the state and utilities in the long run
States that some utilities publicly report to shareholders via sustainability reporting
States that in those cases, privacy may be a material topic to consider