3 ms·
> Requiring specific technical solutions is rarely a good idea. ... The requirement should be formulated as a goal/limit, not a solution. While I instinctively
by forapurpose 8y ago
> Requiring specific technical solutions is rarely a good idea. ... The requirement should be formulated as a goal/limit, not a solution.
While I instinctively agree, does anyone know of any research in this area?
I can speculate about possible downsides to legislating a performance specification rather than a solution: Giving people every possible option could result in people gaming the system, it could hamper investment because it creates uncertainty about what the future solution will be, or it could simply reduce transparency because the specification may be written to favor one solution anyway. That's just speculation, however; we need data and expertise.
- baddox 8y agoIt seems to me that using a metric that is as close as possible to the actual desired outcome is the way to minimize the potential of gaming the system (i.e. Goodhart's law). At the end of the day, the desired outcome is more closely related to net energy consumption (per building, square foot, person, or similar) than to the number of solar panels on roofs. Of course, this is assuming that the regulations come out of sincere concern for the environment and/or energy grid, not concern for special interests like solar panel manufacturers or construction companies.