Accept No-Storage Capital Constraint → Storage Gap Identified
Agent-Trustee Distinction Framework for Engineer-Client Obligations
This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
At first glance, this finding in conjunction with the earlier conclusion that system reliability data be included in the report to board may seem to satisfy Engineer A's obligations.
BER in analyzing Engineer A's obligations to employer versus public
Explicitly invoked to frame Engineer A's dual obligation: as a faithful agent/trustee to the employer while also holding public health and safety paramount; used to analyze whether recommending solar-without-storage satisfies both dimensions of professional duty
Autonomous Vehicle Development Engineer BER 16-5
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Autonomous vehicle operating systems', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 16-5'}
An engineer on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system, tasked with considering crash outcome algorithms; the BER found obligations to fully participate in risk management, express safety concerns clearly, and recommend further study before deployment.
{'type': 'member_of', 'target': 'Engineering risk management team'}
an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system
the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system
Autonomous Vehicle Development Engineer Further Study Recommendation BER 16-5
Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable Energy System Deployment Capability
The autonomous vehicle development engineer demonstrated the capability to recommend further study before the operating system is deployed when safety concerns about harm minimization outcomes remain unresolved
BER 16-5: Engineer on autonomous vehicle development team tasked with considering crash outcome algorithms
BER 16-5 finding that the engineer should recommend further study before the autonomous vehicle operating system is utilized when safety concerns remain unresolved
The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
Autonomous Vehicle Development Team Engineer BER 16-5
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Autonomous vehicle operating system development', 'obligation_context': 'BER Case 16-5 referenced as analogous precedent for competing public goods analysis'}
An engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system, tasked with considering harm-minimization outcomes in unavoidable crash scenarios, bearing obligations to fully and actively participate in risk management, express safety concerns clearly, and recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
{'type': 'member_of', 'target': 'Engineering Risk Management Team'}
BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
Autonomous Vehicle Engineer Further Study Recommendation BER 16-5
BER 16-5: An engineer on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system was tasked with considering crash outcome algorithms; the BER found the engineer should participate fully in risk management and recommend further study if safety concerns remained unresolved
Autonomous Vehicle Development Engineer (BER 16-5)
Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Risk Management Participation Obligation
The engineer in BER 16-5 developing the autonomous vehicle operating system was obligated to fully and actively participate in the engineering risk management team, express clearly and unambiguously any concerns regarding the safety of the operating system's harm-minimization logic, and if necessary recommend further study before the operating system was deployed for public use.
During development of the autonomous vehicle operating system, prior to deployment
Autonomous Vehicle Risk Management Active Participation BER 16-5 Engineer
BER Case 16-5 cited as instructive precedent for Engineer A's situation regarding active safety participation and further study recommendations.
Engineer (BER 16-5 autonomous vehicle case)
Autonomous Vehicle Risk Management Active Participation Constraint
The engineer developing the autonomous vehicle operating system is constrained to fully and actively participate in the engineering risk management team, express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously, and recommend further study before the operating system is utilized if safety concerns remain unresolved.
The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system
Throughout the development and pre-deployment phases of the autonomous vehicle operating system
The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized
BER Case 16-5 (autonomous vehicle scenario) before current Engineer A case
BER Case 20-4 (water commission scenario) before current Engineer A case
BER Case 98-5 (building code scenario) before current Engineer A case
Battery Storage Alternative Education Engineer A Board Report
Capital constraints prevent battery storage installation at present, but the cost of solar panels equals the cost of rebuilding the generator; the board should be informed of the battery storage option as a future or phased alternative.
Battery Storage Alternative Client Education Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to educate the board about the battery storage option as a third path that could achieve both carbon footprint reduction and adequate reliability, even though capital constraints currently preclude it, so the board can make a fully informed decision that considers all technically viable options.
Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
In the board report when presenting the energy system replacement options
California and Texas extreme weather events before current case analysis
Capital-Constrained Battery Storage Resilience Gap
From the time capital constraints were identified as preventing battery storage installation through the board's decision on the solar project
Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
Capital-Constrained Resilience Gap State
The absence of battery storage in the proposed solar system due to capital constraints, creating a foreseeable vulnerability under non-normal operating conditions
Capital constraints resolved and storage added, or board accepts risk with full disclosure, or alternative resilience measure identified
during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator
Engineer A's analysis revealed that capital constraints prevent installation of battery storage, leaving the solar system without resilience for nighttime or bad weather conditions, coinciding with utility disclosure of grid stress risk during extreme weather
Capital Constraint Preventing Battery Storage Installation
From the point of feasibility analysis through the board decision; persists as a design constraint if solar is adopted
Organization's proposed solar energy system
Acquisition of capital for battery storage, or abandonment of solar project
the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator
Capital constraints identified that prevent installation of battery storage for night or bad-weather energy needs
Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Battery Storage Omission
Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing battery storage, meaning the solar system can only supply energy equivalent to the generator under normal conditions. This resilience gap must be disclosed in the board report so the board can make an informed decision about the capital-equivalent but functionally non-equivalent replacement.
Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from presenting the solar-without-storage system as fully equivalent to the existing generator without disclosing the resilience gap created by the absence of battery storage — specifically the system's inability to supply energy at night or during bad weather — which is a direct consequence of the organization's capital constraints.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a and the principle that engineers must provide complete and accurate information to enable informed client decision-making
During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar project
Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Engineer A Battery Storage Gap
Capital constraints prevent battery storage installation, creating a material reliability gap in the proposed solar system that Engineer A must disclose to the board.
Engineer A must disclose in the board report that capital constraints prevent installation of battery storage, and must explain the operational consequence — inability to supply energy at night or in bad weather — prohibiting presentation of the solar system as equivalent to the generator without this qualification.
NSPE Code of Ethics — completeness and objectivity provisions; Professional Report Integrity Standard
At the time of board report preparation and submission
Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholders Organization
{'entity_type': 'Organizational stakeholder group', 'advocacy_position': 'Solar generation without storage to reduce carbon footprint'}
Organizational stakeholders advocating for the solar generation without storage option as a means of reducing the organization's carbon footprint and supporting environmentally friendly energy production, whose preferences Engineer A must faithfully represent while also disclosing countervailing reliability and grid stability risks.
{'type': 'influences', 'target': 'Organizational Board Energy Decision Authority'}
If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare
Carbon Footprint Sustainability Advocates
{'type': 'Organizational stakeholders', 'preference': 'Solar production without storage to reduce carbon footprint'}
Stakeholders within or affiliated with the organization who advocate for the solar-without-storage option to reduce the carbon footprint and support environmentally friendly energy production goals.
{'type': 'preference_context_for', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare.
Carbon Reduction vs Grid Reliability Public Goods Tension
From the point Engineer A recognizes both the carbon reduction benefit and the grid reliability risk through the board decision
will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
Engineer A's professional assessment and board report
Board decision informed by a complete and transparent presentation of both public goods and their tradeoffs
a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
Engineer A's realization that the solar transition satisfies stakeholder sustainability goals but increases the probability of rolling blackouts affecting third parties
CausalLink_Accept No-Storage Capital Cons
CausalLink_Conclude Solar Energy Equivale
CausalLink_Conduct Solar Feasibility Stud
CausalLink_Consult Utility on Grid Reliab
CausalLink_Continue Fossil Facility Opera
CausalLink_Frame Solar vs. Rebuild Recomm
CausalLink_Initiate Solar Replacement Stu
City Council Chairman Political Authority
{'entity_type': 'Elected political official', 'authority_scope': 'Municipal legislative authority over ordinances and resource allocation'}
Holds authority over municipal resource allocation and ordinance-making, expresses sympathy for Engineer Adam's staffing concerns and offers to authorize additional code official hiring, but simultaneously seeks Engineer Adam's concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance that would exempt certain buildings from newer more rigorous code requirements, constituting a politically-motivated Faustian bargain.
{'type': 'negotiates_with', 'target': 'Engineer Adam Building Inspection Program PE'}
Engineer Adam meets with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns.
The chairman indicates that he is quite sympathetic to Engineer Adam's concerns and would be willing to issue an order to permit the hiring of additional code officials for the building department.
the chairman seeks Engineer Adam's concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older existing enforcement requirements
Client Education Through Sustainable Option Presentation Invoked by Engineer A Battery Storage Alternative
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation
Engineer A's trustee role includes an obligation to educate the board about the battery storage option as a means of achieving both carbon footprint reduction and grid reliability — even though capital constraints currently preclude it — so that the board understands what additional investment would be required to achieve a fully reliable sustainable solution, rather than presenting only the binary choice between solar-without-storage and generator rebuild.
Presenting the battery storage option as a future pathway, even if currently unaffordable, fulfills the client education obligation and may open avenues (phased investment, financing, grants) the board would not otherwise consider.
Client Education Through Sustainable Option Presentation
Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather.
Client education does not require recommending the unaffordable option; it requires ensuring the board knows it exists and understands its implications for the reliability gap.
Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
Client Loyalty Invoked By Engineer A Board Report Obligation
Board report on solar panel replacement decision
Organizational Board Energy Decision Authority
Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder preferences
Engineer A's loyalty to the organization requires preparing a thorough and accurate board report that serves the organization's genuine interests — including awareness of grid reliability risks — rather than merely validating the preferred outcome of carbon footprint reduction stakeholders.
Genuine client loyalty requires serving the organization's actual interests, which include making an informed decision about the solar project with full knowledge of the rolling blackout risk, not merely satisfying stakeholder preferences.
Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
Client loyalty and public welfare are aligned in this case: both require Engineer A to include the rolling blackout risk in the board report so that the organization can make an informed decision.
Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
Client Loyalty vs Public Safety Priority Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary
The case explicitly addresses the tension between Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to the organization and the public safety obligation; the constraint establishes that public safety takes precedence.
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
Engineer A is constrained such that when the obligation to act as faithful agent/trustee for the organization conflicts with the obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount — specifically regarding disclosure of rolling blackout risk and grid reliability concerns — the public safety obligation takes precedence and constrains Engineer A from fulfilling any client directive that would suppress or minimize those disclosures.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Fundamental Canon; Agent-Trustee Distinction Framework
This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer
Throughout the engagement and board report preparation
Given the facts presented in this case, the solar generation system without storage will provide energy generation equivalent to the existing fossil-fueled generator at a similar cost; the system also reduces the organization's carbon footprint
Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board
Competing Design Approaches: Generator Rebuild vs Solar Without Storage
From the time Engineer A began analyzing the electric load profile and solar capability through the preparation of the board report
Engineer A's evaluation of two capital-equivalent but technically distinct approaches — rebuilding the generator versus installing solar panels without storage — each with materially different resilience, sustainability, and third-party impact profiles
Board decision selecting one of the two approaches
After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system
Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator
The generator approaching end of useful life and stakeholder interest in solar created a binary choice between two capital-equivalent options with different technical profiles
Competing Green Footprint vs Grid Reliability Public Goods
Throughout Engineer A's analysis and report preparation for the board
What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
Engineer A's obligation to evaluate solar-without-storage option against both environmental and reliability public welfare goals
Engineer A's transparent presentation of tradeoffs to the board enabling informed decision
If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production. But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
Organization's goal to increase green footprint conflicts with the public welfare obligation to maintain reliable power during extreme weather events
Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Engineer A Carbon vs Reliability
Stakeholders advocate for solar-without-storage to reduce carbon footprint; Engineer A recognizes this conflicts with grid reliability and public safety during extreme weather events.
Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to explicitly acknowledge and address in the board report the genuine conflict between the legitimate public good of carbon footprint reduction (favored by stakeholders) and the legitimate public good of grid reliability for vulnerable populations, presenting the tradeoffs completely and objectively.
stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
In the board report prior to the board's capital investment decision
Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked By Engineer A Solar vs Reliability
Advisory report to organizational board on energy system replacement options
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
Engineer A faces a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — environmental sustainability through carbon footprint reduction (favoring solar without storage) and grid reliability protecting public welfare including vulnerable populations (favoring fossil-fueled co-generation or solar with storage) — and must present both goods and their trade-offs fully to the board rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally
The ethical resolution is not for Engineer A to choose between environmental stewardship and grid reliability, but to present both as legitimate public goods with their respective benefits and costs, enabling the board to make an informed policy decision about which values to prioritize
Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
The tension is resolved procedurally rather than substantively: Engineer A discharges the ethical obligation by ensuring the board has complete information about both competing public goods, leaving the value judgment to the appropriate decision-making authority
Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked by Engineer A Carbon Footprint vs Grid Reliability
Board report on solar vs. co-generation replacement decision
Carbon footprint reduction stakeholder interests
Grid reliability for the broader community
Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation
Vulnerable Population Consideration in Grid Reliability Engineering
Engineer A faces a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — reducing the organization's carbon footprint (environmental sustainability) and maintaining grid reliability for the broader community (public safety) — and must present both goods and their trade-offs fully to the board rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally in favor of the stakeholder-preferred solar option.
The engineer's role is not to champion one public good over another but to ensure the decision-making authority (the board) has complete information about both competing goods and can make an informed, accountable choice.
Engineer A must present the carbon footprint reduction benefit alongside the grid reliability risk, enabling the board to weigh the trade-off rather than receiving a report that presents only the sustainability upside.
Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked in Carbon Footprint vs. Grid Reliability Tension
Broader community grid reliability impact
Organizational board energy system decision
Solar-without-storage environmental benefit vs. grid reliability trade-off
Engineer A's obligation to present both the environmental benefit (carbon footprint reduction, green energy support) and the public safety cost (increased rolling blackout risk, reduced grid reliability) of the solar-without-storage option to the board, rather than resolving the tension unilaterally in favor of either environmental advocacy or reliability conservatism
Both environmental stewardship and grid reliability are legitimate public goods; the engineer's role is to surface the tension and present it completely, not to determine which public good prevails — that determination belongs to the board and ultimately to public policy
The principle is satisfied when the board receives a report that fully presents both the environmental benefits and the reliability costs, enabling an informed policy decision; the engineer does not resolve the competing goods conflict but ensures the decision-maker can
Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare
The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process
Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Engineer A Carbon vs Grid Reliability
Stakeholders are pressing for carbon footprint reduction through solar transition; Engineer A must not allow this pressure to distort the board report's treatment of grid reliability risks.
Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
Engineer A must not distort, suppress, or selectively omit findings that favor grid reliability over carbon footprint reduction in the board report, and must present the genuine conflict between these two legitimate public goods completely and objectively.
NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity provisions; NSPE BER Case 98-5
Competing Public Goods Tension Constraint Engineer A Carbon Reduction vs Grid Reliability
Engineer A faces a genuine tension between satisfying stakeholder carbon reduction interests — which favor presenting the solar project as viable — and the public safety obligation to disclose the rolling blackout risk. The priority constraint establishes that public safety disclosure takes precedence.
Engineer A is constrained by the priority hierarchy between stakeholder carbon reduction preferences and public safety obligations — when the two conflict, the public safety obligation to disclose the rolling blackout risk takes precedence over the obligation to satisfy stakeholder preferences for a favorable solar project recommendation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 establishing that public safety is paramount over client and stakeholder interests
Throughout the preparation and submission of the board report and any subsequent advisory activities
Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Constraint Engineer A Generator vs Solar Options
Engineer A is preparing a report for the board to consider the new solar project. The board faces a capital-equivalent choice between rebuilding the generator and installing solar panels without storage. A complete comparative analysis must address both options, including the resilience gap and grid stress externalities of the solar option.
Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Obligation
Engineer A is constrained from presenting the board with an incomplete comparative analysis that evaluates only the solar-without-storage option against stakeholder carbon reduction preferences, without providing a complete comparative analysis of all viable energy options — including the generator rebuild — with their respective advantages, disadvantages, costs, risks, and long-term performance characteristics.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a and III.2.b and the principle that engineers must provide complete advisory analysis enabling informed client decision-making
Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Engineer A Solar vs Generator Options
The board faces a decision between rebuilding the generator and installing solar panels at essentially the same cost. Engineer A must present both options completely and objectively, including the rolling blackout risk associated with the solar option and the carbon footprint implications of the generator rebuild.
Engineer A is obligated to present the board with a complete comparative analysis of all viable energy options — including the solar panel replacement, the generator rebuild, and potentially a hybrid approach — with all advantages, disadvantages, risks, and tradeoffs of each option, rather than presenting only the solar option in isolation as viable.
In the board report prepared for the solar project decision
Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
Completeness Non-Selectivity Advisory Opinion Invoked By Engineer A Board Report
Engineer A must present the board with a complete technical picture that includes both the normal-condition viability of the solar project and the rolling blackout risk, rather than selectively presenting only the information that satisfies carbon footprint reduction stakeholders.
The board is a non-engineer decision-making body that lacks independent capacity to evaluate the completeness of Engineer A's analysis; Engineer A must therefore ensure the report is complete and not filtered to favor the stakeholder-preferred outcome.
Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
Completeness obligation requires Engineer A to include the rolling blackout risk even though doing so may complicate the board's decision and disappoint carbon footprint reduction stakeholders.
Completeness and Non-Selectivity Invoked By Engineer A Board Report
Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder interests
Engineer A must present the full picture of the solar without storage option — including reliability deficiencies and grid-level impacts — rather than presenting only the energy production equivalence and carbon footprint benefits that favor the stakeholder-preferred option
The board, as a non-engineer decision-making body, cannot independently assess whether the engineer's report is complete; the engineer's obligation to enable informed decision-making requires presenting all material information including unfavorable reliability data
A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
The completeness obligation requires inclusion of reliability data even when stakeholders have expressed a preference for the solar option and even when that data may lead the board to choose the less environmentally friendly alternative
Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability.
Completeness and Non-Selectivity Invoked by Engineer A in Board Report Preparation
Board report on solar energy replacement project
Engineer A's board report must present all material information bearing on the solar replacement decision — including the grid stress risk, the reliability gap, and the battery storage constraint — rather than selectively presenting only the information favorable to the stakeholder-preferred solar option, even though Engineer A is personally convinced the solar project is viable when considered in isolation.
The board, as a non-engineer decision-making body, cannot independently assess the completeness of the technical advisory report; Engineer A's professional duty requires presenting all material factors, not just those supporting the preferred outcome.
Completeness requires including the grid reliability risk and utility planner assessment even though this information may complicate or delay the board's decision on the carbon footprint reduction initiative.
Compound Risk State Created → Decide Board Report Content
Engineer A has an ethical obligation to include information about the utility generation mix and potential rolling blackouts in a report to the organization’s board.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A must disclose the rolling blackout risk, the disclosure obligation extends to characterizing the evidentiary weight and reliability of the utility resource planner's warning. Because the warning was communicated informally in conversation rather than through a formal written assessment, Engineer A is not relieved of the duty to include it, but is obligated to present it with appropriate epistemic qualification — identifying it as a professional judgment from a knowledgeable source rather than a certified engineering finding. Omitting the warning entirely because it was informal would constitute selective suppression of material risk information. Presenting it without qualification would overstate its certainty. The ethically complete path is transparent sourcing: Engineer A should attribute the concern to the utility resource planner, describe the conditions under which it applies (extreme weather events), and note that it has not been independently verified through formal study. This approach satisfies the Completeness and Non-Selectivity principle while honoring the Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation, and it equips the board to weigh the risk proportionally rather than either dismissing it or treating it as established fact.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must include rolling blackout information implicitly requires Engineer A to explain the causal mechanism linking the solar transition to increased grid stress — not merely to report the utility planner's concern as a free-standing warning. The solar-without-storage design removes a source of dispatchable on-site generation that previously buffered the organization's draw on the utility grid during peak or adverse conditions. When that buffer is eliminated and replaced with intermittent solar generation, the organization becomes a net load on the utility during nighttime hours and weather events, precisely the conditions under which the utility planner warned that rolling outages may be necessary. Engineer A's technical capability to perform grid interconnection impact assessment means this causal chain is within Engineer A's professional competence to explain. A board report that quotes the utility's concern without explaining why the proposed solar transition amplifies that concern fails the standard of objective and truthful professional reporting, because it presents a consequence without its cause and leaves the board unable to evaluate whether design modifications could reduce the risk.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must disclose rolling blackout risk carries a latent but important implication about third-party harm that the Board did not address explicitly: Engineer A's ethical responsibility does not terminate at the boundary of the organization's internal interests. The rolling blackout risk, if realized, would fall on the broader utility service territory — including vulnerable populations dependent on electricity for medical equipment, climate control, or other life-safety needs — not solely on the organization commissioning the solar project. Under the Public Welfare Paramount principle, Engineer A's duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public encompasses these third parties even though they are not parties to the engineering engagement. This means the disclosure obligation in the board report is not merely a faithful agent duty owed to the organization; it is simultaneously a public welfare duty owed to the community. If the board, after receiving a complete report, proceeds with solar-without-storage and rolling blackouts subsequently harm third parties, Engineer A's ethical responsibility for that harm is substantially diminished by having fulfilled the disclosure obligation — but only if the report was genuinely complete, causally explanatory, and not merely a pro forma mention of risk. A superficial disclosure designed to create a paper record without genuinely informing the board would not satisfy the public welfare duty.
The Board's second question — whether Engineer A should include battery storage costs and consequences of omitting storage — is answered affirmatively by the faithful agent principle even when the organization has already determined it lacks the capital for storage. The capital constraint does not eliminate the board's need to understand what resilience capability is being foregone. A board that approves a solar-without-storage project knowing only that it costs the same as rebuilding the generator, but without knowing that storage would cost an additional amount X and would eliminate the rolling blackout risk contribution, has made a materially incomplete decision. Engineer A's obligation as a faithful agent is to ensure the board can make an informed policy decision, not to pre-filter options based on current capital availability. Capital constraints are dynamic — the organization may seek grants, phased financing, or future capital allocation — and the board's awareness of the storage cost and resilience gap preserves its ability to revisit the decision or pursue hybrid pathways. Omitting storage costs because the organization currently cannot afford them substitutes Engineer A's judgment about capital feasibility for the board's judgment about organizational priorities, which inverts the proper relationship between technical advisor and decision authority.
Neither the Board's explicit conclusions nor the case framing addresses whether Engineer A has a residual obligation to escalate grid reliability concerns to an external authority — such as the local utility, a public utility commission, or a state regulatory body — if the board proceeds with solar-without-storage after receiving a complete report. Analogous Board of Ethical Review precedents involving public safety overrides of client or employer decisions suggest that when an engineer has fulfilled the internal disclosure obligation and the decision-making authority has nonetheless chosen a path that creates foreseeable public harm, the engineer's duty to hold paramount public safety may require external notification in extreme cases. However, the rolling blackout risk in this case is probabilistic, contingent on extreme weather, and systemic rather than site-specific — it is one contributing factor among many in a regional grid reliability problem, not a discrete engineering defect that Engineer A alone can remedy. This distinguishes the case from scenarios where escalation is clearly warranted. Engineer A's ethical obligation is therefore best characterized as fulfilled by complete board disclosure, with external escalation remaining a judgment-dependent option rather than a categorical duty — particularly if Engineer A has reason to believe the utility resource planners are already communicating the grid stress concern through their own regulatory channels.
The tension between Environmental Stewardship and Public Welfare Paramount in this case is not fully resolved by disclosure alone, and the Board's conclusions do not address whether Engineer A has an affirmative obligation to explore and present design alternatives that could partially reconcile the two competing public goods. A phased or hybrid implementation pathway — for example, a smaller battery storage system sized to cover critical loads during grid outages, financed over time — might reduce the grid stress externality while still advancing the carbon reduction goal within a constrained capital envelope. Engineer A's obligation under the principle of completeness is not limited to presenting the binary choice between solar-without-storage and generator rebuild; it extends to surfacing technically feasible intermediate options that the board may not have considered. Omitting hybrid alternatives from the board report when Engineer A possesses the technical capability to identify them constitutes a form of selective framing that narrows the board's decision space without the board's knowledge. The sustainable development provision of the Code, which encourages engineers to protect the environment while serving present needs, reinforces the obligation to seek solutions that advance both environmental and reliability goals rather than treating them as mutually exclusive.
In response to Q101: If the board proceeds with solar-without-storage after receiving Engineer A's complete report, Engineer A likely has an obligation to consider escalation to the local utility or a relevant regulatory authority, analogous to the Water Commission engineers in BER 20-4. The parallel is instructive: in BER 20-4, engineers who had discharged their disclosure obligation to their client were nonetheless found to have further obligations when public safety remained at risk despite client awareness. Here, the rolling blackout risk is not confined to the organization — it extends to third-party electricity consumers served by the local utility grid. Because the harm is systemic and affects the broader public rather than only the organization's board, Engineer A's faithful agent obligation does not exhaust the ethical analysis. The Public Welfare Paramount principle operates as a floor beneath which client deference cannot descend. Accordingly, if the board proceeds with solar-without-storage knowing the grid reliability risk, Engineer A should evaluate whether the magnitude and probability of rolling blackout harm — particularly to vulnerable populations during extreme weather — warrants formal notification to the utility resource planner or a grid reliability regulator. This escalation obligation is not automatic upon board override; it is triggered by Engineer A's professional judgment that the residual public risk is material and that the utility or regulator is not already positioned to mitigate it independently.
In response to Q102: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not extend to directing the board to defer the solar transition decision, but it does extend to recommending further study as a professionally responsible option within the report. The distinction is critical: the Trustee Discretion and Deference principle preserves the board's ultimate decision-making authority, and Engineer A must not substitute engineering judgment for governance judgment on matters of organizational strategy. However, the Proactive Risk Disclosure principle and the analogy to BER 16-5 — in which an engineer working on autonomous vehicle development was found to have an obligation to recommend further study before deploying a system with unresolved safety risks — together support the conclusion that Engineer A should present a 'further study' option as a legitimate path. Specifically, Engineer A may appropriately recommend that the board commission a more detailed grid impact study in coordination with the local utility before committing to solar-without-storage, particularly given that the rolling blackout risk is probabilistic and its magnitude under various extreme weather scenarios has not been fully quantified. Presenting this option respects board authority while fulfilling Engineer A's obligation to enable genuinely informed decision-making. Recommending deferral as one option among several is categorically different from withholding the solar option or unilaterally delaying the project — the former is professional counsel, the latter would be an overreach of engineering authority.
In response to Q103: Engineer A's knowledge that the solar transition will stress the utility grid — thereby potentially harming third-party electricity consumers who are not Engineer A's client — materially expands Engineer A's ethical obligations beyond those owed solely to the organization. The NSPE Code's paramount canon places public safety above client loyalty, and this hierarchy is not contingent on whether the harmed parties are in a direct contractual relationship with the engineer. Third-party electricity consumers, particularly vulnerable populations dependent on continuous power during extreme weather events, are members of 'the public' whose welfare Engineer A is obligated to hold paramount. This means Engineer A's board report must not be framed solely as an organizational cost-benefit analysis; it must surface the systemic grid impact as a public welfare matter. Furthermore, if the organization's decision to adopt solar-without-storage would foreseeably increase the probability of rolling blackouts affecting these third parties, Engineer A has an obligation to communicate this risk not only to the board but potentially to the utility resource planner — who may not have modeled the specific load shift that the organization's transition would produce. The Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Obligation thus operates on two axes: inward toward the board as a faithful agent duty, and outward toward the public and utility as a public welfare paramount duty. These obligations are complementary, not competing, at the disclosure stage.
In response to Q104: Engineer A has an ethical obligation to present retention of the fossil-fueled co-generation facility — through generator rebuild — as a legitimate option in the board report, even though doing so may conflict with the expressed preferences of carbon-footprint-reduction stakeholders. The Completeness and Non-Selectivity principle requires that Engineer A's report not be structured to foreclose options that are technically and economically viable simply because they are politically inconvenient. The generator rebuild option is cost-equivalent to the solar installation, avoids the grid reliability risks introduced by solar-without-storage, and continues to supply thermal energy for process needs — a function the solar panels do not replicate. Omitting or minimizing this option in deference to stakeholder pressure would constitute a form of selective reporting that distorts the board's decision-making process. The Stakeholder Pressure Non-Distortion constraint is directly applicable: Engineer A must resist the organizational political pressure to present the solar option as the only viable path. This does not require Engineer A to advocate for the generator rebuild or to subordinate the organization's sustainability goals; it requires only that the board receive an honest comparative analysis that includes all material options. The board, not Engineer A, is the appropriate authority to weigh carbon reduction goals against reliability and cost considerations — but only if Engineer A provides the complete informational foundation for that weighing.
In response to Q201: The Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle do not irresolvably conflict in this case, but they operate at different levels of Engineer A's responsibilities and must be carefully sequenced. The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to serve the organization's interests honestly and completely — which itself demands full disclosure of the rolling blackout risk to the board. At the disclosure stage, the two principles are aligned: a faithful agent who withholds material safety information from the board is not serving the organization's genuine interests, because an uninformed board decision exposes the organization to reputational, legal, and operational risks it cannot anticipate. The tension between the two principles becomes acute only if the board, after full disclosure, chooses solar-without-storage anyway. At that point, the faithful agent obligation would counsel deference to the board's decision, while the Public Welfare Paramount principle may counsel further action to protect third-party consumers. The resolution is that Public Welfare Paramount operates as a lexical constraint on faithful agent deference: Engineer A may defer to the board on matters within the organization's legitimate authority, but cannot defer on matters that impose unreasonable public safety risks on parties outside the organization. The board's authority to accept organizational risk does not extend to authorizing Engineer A to remain silent about systemic public harm.
In response to Q202: The Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation and the Reliability Equivalence Disclosure principle are in genuine tension in this case, and that tension cannot be dissolved by treating them as operating in separate domains. The NSPE Code encourages engineers to support sustainable development and environmental protection, which creates a professional disposition favorable to the solar transition. However, the Reliability Equivalence Disclosure principle requires Engineer A to qualify the finding that solar panels are 'equivalent' to the existing generator — because that equivalence holds only under normal conditions and breaks down during extreme weather events when battery storage is absent. Engineer A cannot ethically present the solar option as a straightforward sustainability win while suppressing the reliability qualification, because doing so would misrepresent the technical reality to the board. The resolution is not to abandon sustainable development advocacy but to practice it honestly: Engineer A should present the solar option as genuinely advancing carbon reduction goals while simultaneously disclosing that it does not achieve full reliability equivalence under all operating conditions. This honest framing respects both obligations — it neither suppresses the sustainability benefit nor conceals the reliability gap. The Isolated Technical Viability Insufficiency principle reinforces this conclusion: viability under normal conditions is a necessary but not sufficient basis for recommending a system that will operate in a grid environment subject to extreme weather stress.
In response to Q301 (deontological perspective on disclosure completeness): From a deontological standpoint, Engineer A did not fulfill the duty of complete and non-selective disclosure by initially treating the solar project as viable in isolation without proactively surfacing the rolling blackout risk. The Kantian duty of truthfulness in professional reporting is not satisfied by technically accurate but incomplete statements — a report that presents solar-as-equivalent without disclosing the reliability qualification under extreme weather conditions is misleading in its overall effect, even if no individual statement is false. The Code provision requiring engineers to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports' and to 'include all relevant and pertinent information' (II.3.a.) imposes a positive duty of completeness, not merely a negative duty to avoid false statements. Engineer A's initial framing — treating the solar project as viable when considered in isolation — satisfies the negative duty but violates the positive duty, because the board cannot make an informed decision about a system that will not operate in isolation but will interact with a stressed utility grid. The deontological analysis also implicates the duty of respect for persons: the board members are rational agents entitled to make decisions on the basis of complete information, and withholding the rolling blackout risk treats them as means to an end (advancing the solar project) rather than as autonomous decision-makers. Engineer A's subsequent recognition of this gap and decision to expand the report's scope represents the ethically required correction.
In response to Q302 (consequentialist perspective on aggregate harm): From a consequentialist standpoint, the aggregate public harm from potential rolling blackouts during extreme weather events plausibly outweighs the organizational and stakeholder benefit of carbon footprint reduction through solar-without-storage adoption, particularly when the analysis accounts for the full distribution of affected parties and the asymmetric vulnerability of those harmed. The organizational benefit — reduced carbon emissions and stakeholder satisfaction — accrues primarily to the organization and its sustainability-oriented stakeholders, and is incremental relative to the broader energy transition already underway. The harm from rolling blackouts, by contrast, falls on a much larger and more diffuse population of third-party electricity consumers, including medically vulnerable individuals dependent on powered medical equipment, elderly populations susceptible to heat and cold exposure, and low-income households without backup resources. The consequentialist calculus is further complicated by the probabilistic nature of the harm: rolling blackouts are not certain, but the utility resource planner has already identified the risk as real under extreme weather conditions, and the organization's solar transition would stress the generation mix further. A consequentialist analysis would support Engineer A disclosing the full risk profile to the board, presenting battery storage as a harm-reducing option even at higher cost, and recommending further study — because the expected value of these actions (reduced probability of catastrophic harm to vulnerable populations) likely exceeds the expected value of proceeding without them.
In response to Q303 (virtue ethics perspective on professional integrity under stakeholder pressure): From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A demonstrates professional integrity and courage precisely by expanding the scope of the board report to include systemic grid reliability risks that are inconvenient to the organization's sustainability narrative. The virtuous engineer is not one who tells clients what they want to hear, but one who tells them what they need to know — even when doing so creates friction with powerful stakeholders. The Stakeholder Pressure Resistance obligation captures this virtue: Engineer A must resist the organizational pull toward presenting the solar project as an unqualified success, because yielding to that pressure would constitute a form of professional sycophancy that undermines the engineer's value as an independent technical advisor. The virtue of practical wisdom (phronesis) is also implicated: Engineer A must judge not only what risks exist but how to communicate them in a way that is honest without being alarmist, complete without being paralyzing, and respectful of the board's authority without being deferential to the point of abdication. The fact that Engineer A 'realizes' the grid stress risk and chooses to include it in the report — rather than rationalizing its omission on the grounds that the solar project is viable in isolation — reflects the exercise of exactly this practical wisdom. A professionally virtuous engineer does not wait to be asked about inconvenient risks; they surface them proactively as a matter of professional character.
In response to Q304 (deontological conflict between faithful agent duty and public safety paramount duty): From a deontological perspective, when the faithful agent duty and the public safety paramount duty conflict — as they would if the board, fully informed, chose solar-without-storage — the public safety paramount duty takes lexical precedence. This priority is not merely a matter of weighing competing interests; it is a structural feature of the NSPE Code, which places the paramount canon (I.1.) above the faithful agent provision (II.4.) in the hierarchy of professional obligations. The practical implication is that Engineer A's obligations do not terminate upon delivering a complete report to the board. If the board proceeds with solar-without-storage and the rolling blackout risk remains unmitigated, Engineer A must assess whether further action is required to protect the public — including potential notification to the utility resource planner or a regulatory authority. This further obligation is not a betrayal of the faithful agent role; it is a recognition that the faithful agent role is bounded by the paramount duty. The deontological framework also generates a secondary obligation: Engineer A must document the disclosure, the board's decision, and Engineer A's professional assessment of the residual risk, so that the record reflects that Engineer A fulfilled the duty of complete disclosure and did not acquiesce silently in a decision that Engineer A believed posed unreasonable public risk.
In response to Q305 (virtue ethics perspective on navigating sustainability and reliability obligations honestly): From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's obligation to advocate for sustainable development does not create an irresolvable tension with the obligation to disclose grid reliability risks — but navigating the tension virtuously requires a specific communicative discipline. The professionally virtuous engineer does not subordinate one public good to another by omission or framing; instead, the virtuous engineer presents both goods honestly and allows the decision-maker to weigh them with full information. In practice, this means Engineer A's board report should affirmatively acknowledge the genuine environmental benefit of the solar transition — reduced carbon emissions, alignment with stakeholder values, cost parity with the generator rebuild — while simultaneously and with equal prominence disclosing the reliability gap, the grid stress risk, and the battery storage option that would resolve the tension at additional cost. The virtue of justice requires that neither the sustainability case nor the reliability case be presented in a way that structurally disadvantages the other through selective emphasis, ordering effects, or rhetorical framing. The virtue of honesty requires that Engineer A not use the sustainability advocacy provision of the Code as a license to minimize inconvenient reliability findings. And the virtue of practical wisdom requires Engineer A to recognize that the board's ability to make a genuinely good decision — one that serves both the organization and the public — depends entirely on receiving an honest, balanced, and complete technical assessment.
In response to Q306 (consequentialist perspective on phased hybrid approach): From a consequentialist perspective, a phased hybrid approach — solar panels now with a planned battery storage addition — would likely produce better aggregate outcomes across environmental, financial, and public safety dimensions than either a binary solar-without-storage or generator-rebuild decision, and Engineer A has an obligation to model and present this option in the board report. The consequentialist case for the phased approach rests on several considerations: it captures the immediate carbon reduction benefit of solar deployment; it preserves a credible pathway to full grid independence through future battery storage; it avoids the grid stress risk associated with solar-without-storage by framing storage as a planned addition rather than a permanent omission; and it gives the organization time to accumulate capital for storage investment or to benefit from declining battery costs. Engineer A's obligation to present this option derives from the Client Education Through Sustainable Option Presentation principle and the Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation: the board cannot choose a phased approach if Engineer A does not surface it as a viable option. The Hybrid Design Exploration constraint directly supports this conclusion. Presenting only the binary choice between solar-without-storage and generator-rebuild artificially constrains the decision space in a way that may lead to a suboptimal outcome for both the organization and the public. A complete board report should include the phased hybrid option with its associated costs, timeline, and risk profile alongside the two primary alternatives.
In response to Q401 (counterfactual on knowledge acquisition and disclosure obligation): Even if Engineer A had not consulted the local utility resource planner and therefore never learned about the potential rolling blackouts, Engineer A would still have had an ethical obligation to investigate grid reliability risks before finalizing the board report — though the obligation to disclose would be conditioned on what a reasonable investigation would have revealed. The distinction between a duty to investigate and a duty to disclose is critical: the duty to disclose arises from knowledge actually acquired or knowledge that a competent engineer exercising reasonable diligence should have acquired. Engineer A's professional competence in energy systems includes awareness that transitioning from a co-generation facility with on-site generation capability to solar-without-storage will alter the organization's relationship with the utility grid in material ways. A competent energy systems engineer should proactively assess grid interconnection impacts as part of any solar feasibility study — not merely as a reactive response to information volunteered by a utility planner. The Proactive Risk Disclosure principle supports this conclusion: the obligation to surface systemic risks is not contingent on those risks being handed to the engineer by a third party. Accordingly, the ethical obligation to investigate was present regardless of the utility consultation; the consultation simply fulfilled that obligation and generated the specific knowledge that triggered the disclosure duty.
In response to Q402 (counterfactual on capital constraint removal): If the capital constraint had not existed and the organization could have afforded a full solar-plus-storage system, the ethical tension between carbon footprint reduction and grid reliability would have been substantially — but not entirely — resolved. A solar-plus-storage system would eliminate the organization's contribution to grid stress during extreme weather events, because stored energy would allow the organization to remain self-sufficient rather than drawing from a strained utility grid. However, Engineer A would still have had an obligation to disclose the utility's underlying grid vulnerability to the board, for two reasons. First, the utility's grid vulnerability exists independently of the organization's solar transition and affects the organization's own energy reliability — the board has a legitimate interest in knowing that the utility grid serving the facility is subject to rolling blackout risk regardless of the organization's energy choices. Second, even a solar-plus-storage system may not provide complete isolation from grid events if the system is designed for partial rather than full load coverage, or if extreme weather events exceed the storage system's capacity. The disclosure obligation regarding the utility's grid vulnerability is thus not entirely contingent on the organization's contribution to that vulnerability — it is also a matter of informing the board about the reliability environment in which the organization will operate.
The tension between Client Loyalty and Public Welfare Paramount was resolved in this case by recognizing that faithful agency does not authorize selective omission of material risks. Engineer A's obligation to act as a faithful agent to the organization does not permit withholding information about rolling blackout risk simply because that information complicates the stakeholder-preferred solar narrative or implies a more expensive path. The NSPE Code's hierarchy places public safety above client service, meaning that when the two principles conflict, Engineer A's duty to disclose grid stress externalities to the board is not merely permitted but required. Faithful agency, properly understood, demands that the board receive complete information precisely so it can make an informed decision — and a board that approves a solar transition without knowing it may worsen rolling blackout risk for vulnerable third parties has not been faithfully served. This case teaches that client loyalty is a procedural obligation (serve the client's decision-making process honestly) rather than a substantive one (serve the client's preferred outcome), and that the two must not be conflated.
The tension between Environmental Stewardship and Public Welfare Paramount was not fully resolved by the Board's conclusions but is navigable through a principle of non-exclusionary disclosure: both public goods can be honored simultaneously in the board report without requiring Engineer A to rank them. Engineer A need not choose between supporting the carbon footprint reduction goal and disclosing the rolling blackout risk — the report can affirm the solar project's in-isolation viability and its environmental benefit while also surfacing the grid stress externality as a material systemic risk. What the principles together prohibit is the selective presentation of only the environmental benefit while suppressing the reliability consequence. This case teaches that when two legitimate public goods conflict — decarbonization and grid reliability — the engineer's ethical obligation is not to adjudicate which public good is superior but to ensure the decision-making authority receives the full picture of both. The resolution of the tension belongs to the board, not to Engineer A's editorial judgment in preparing the report.
The tension between Completeness and Non-Selectivity and Risk Threshold Calibration — specifically the question of whether an informal, probabilistic, and unverified utility planner warning clears the materiality bar for mandatory board disclosure — was resolved in favor of disclosure, and this resolution establishes an important principle prioritization rule: when the potential consequence of a risk is severe and affects third parties beyond the organization, the threshold for disclosure is lowered, not raised, by the informality or uncertainty of the source communication. The rolling blackout risk, even if probabilistic and contingent on extreme weather, involves potential harm to vulnerable populations dependent on electricity for medical or thermal needs. Under these conditions, the appropriate response to evidentiary uncertainty is not omission but qualified disclosure — Engineer A should include the utility planner's warning in the board report while accurately characterizing its evidentiary basis as an informal professional communication rather than a formal engineering assessment. This approach honors both Completeness and Non-Selectivity and Risk Threshold Calibration simultaneously: the risk is disclosed, and its reliability is accurately represented. This case teaches that low-probability, high-consequence risks with third-party harm potential are presumptively material regardless of source formality.
The tension between Objectivity and Reliability Equivalence Disclosure — the risk that Engineer A's genuine professional confidence in the solar project's in-isolation viability may unconsciously suppress the weight given to grid stress concerns in the board report — reveals a structural ethical hazard that the principle of Objectivity alone cannot fully neutralize. When an engineer has reached a technically defensible affirmative conclusion about a project, the psychological tendency to present that conclusion cleanly, without complicating qualifications, is a form of motivated reasoning that can masquerade as professional confidence. The Reliability Equivalence Disclosure principle addresses this hazard directly by requiring Engineer A to affirmatively qualify the solar project's viability finding with the caveat that equivalence holds only under normal conditions and does not account for the grid stress externality the solar transition introduces. This case teaches that Objectivity is not merely the absence of bias toward a preferred outcome — it also requires active resistance to the engineer's own professionally grounded optimism when that optimism risks producing an incomplete advisory. The board report must reflect not only what Engineer A believes to be true about the solar project but also what Engineer A knows to be uncertain or systemically consequential beyond the project boundary.
The question of whether Engineer A's ethical obligations terminate at board notification — or whether a residual escalation duty persists if the board proceeds with solar-without-storage despite full disclosure — reveals a principle tension between Faithful Agent Notification Obligation and Public Safety Escalation that this case does not fully resolve but does illuminate. The Board's explicit conclusion establishes that Engineer A must disclose the rolling blackout risk to the board, satisfying the faithful agent notification duty. However, the principle of Public Welfare Paramount, read alongside the escalation precedents in BER 20-4, suggests that if the board's decision creates a foreseeable, material risk of harm to third parties — particularly vulnerable populations — Engineer A's public safety duty does not automatically terminate upon board notification. The resolution of this tension depends on the severity and probability of the third-party harm: if rolling blackouts during extreme weather events pose life-safety risks to medically dependent populations, the case for escalation to a regulatory body or the local utility strengthens considerably. This case teaches that faithful agency defines the floor of Engineer A's obligation, not the ceiling, and that the public safety paramount principle may require Engineer A to act beyond the faithful agent role when board-level disclosure proves insufficient to prevent serious third-party harm.
Conduct Solar Feasibility Study → Solar Cost-Output Parity Found
Consult Utility on Grid Reliability → Utility Blackout Warning Issued
Consult Utility on Grid Reliability → Utility Issues Rolling Blackout Warning
Creative Mitigation Obligation: Hybrid or Phased Storage Solution
From the time Engineer A identified the binary framing and its limitations through the finalization of the board report
Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries
Engineer A's obligation to explore and present hybrid or phased solutions — such as partial storage, demand response programs, or phased solar-plus-storage — that could mitigate the resilience gap and grid stress externality beyond the binary choice of generator rebuild versus solar-only
Engineer A presents hybrid or phased alternatives to the board, or documents that no viable third path exists
a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more
Engineer A recognized that both the generator rebuild and the solar-only options carry distinct tradeoffs, and that capital constraints create a resilience gap, triggering an obligation to explore creative third-path solutions
Should Engineer A include the utility resource planner's rolling blackout warning and the causal mechanism linking the solar transition to increased grid stress in the board report, and if so, how should that information be characterized?
Engineer A must decide what rolling blackout and grid reliability information to include in the board report, given that the utility resource planner's warning was communicated informally and the solar project is technically viable in isolation.
Include the utility resource planner's rolling blackout warning in the board report with explicit attribution, epistemic qualification as an informal professional communication, description of the triggering conditions (extreme weather), and a causal explanation of how eliminating on-site dispatchable generation increases the organization's net grid load
Include a general statement in the board report that solar-without-storage systems are subject to grid reliability limitations during adverse weather, without attributing or detailing the utility planner's specific warning, on the grounds that the informal communication lacks sufficient evidentiary weight to be cited as a professional finding
Seek written confirmation from the utility resource planner before the board report is finalized, and if confirmation cannot be obtained within the reporting timeline, omit the rolling blackout warning while noting that grid reliability during extreme weather events warrants further study prior to final board approval
Does Engineer A's faithful agent duty require disclosure of battery storage costs and the resilience gap created by their absence, even when the organization's capital constraint appears to have already foreclosed the storage option?
Engineer A must decide whether to include battery storage costs and the resilience consequences of omitting storage in the board report, even though the organization has already determined it lacks the capital for storage.
Include battery storage costs, the resilience gap created by their absence, and a description of what continuous-supply capability is being foregone, presenting this information as context for the board's decision regardless of the current capital constraint
Acknowledge in the board report that battery storage would improve reliability but note that it falls outside the current capital envelope, without providing specific storage cost figures, on the grounds that presenting costs for an option the organization cannot afford may create unrealistic expectations or distract from the viable decision before the board
Present battery storage as a separately scoped future phase with indicative cost ranges and a recommended timeline for revisiting the option, framing it as a resilience upgrade pathway rather than a current decision point, so the board receives the information without being asked to decide on an option it cannot currently fund
Is Engineer A obligated to explore and present hybrid or phased design alternatives in the board report, or does the organization's capital constraint legitimately bound the scope of Engineer A's advisory to the two options the organization has already identified?
Engineer A must decide whether to present only the binary solar-versus-generator-rebuild choice or to affirmatively identify and present hybrid or phased design alternatives — such as partial battery storage or staged solar-plus-storage — even when the organization's stated capital constraints appear to foreclose full storage deployment.
Identify and present at least one technically feasible hybrid or phased alternative — such as critical-load battery storage or a staged solar-plus-storage rollout — with indicative costs and reliability tradeoffs, so the board can evaluate options beyond the binary solar-versus-rebuild framing
Present the solar-without-storage and generator-rebuild options as the two viable choices within the established capital envelope, note that hybrid configurations exist but require additional capital beyond current availability, and recommend that the board commission a separate feasibility study on phased storage if it wishes to explore that pathway
Limit the board report to the two options within the contracted scope of the solar replacement study, on the grounds that presenting hybrid alternatives outside the assignment scope without adequate cost data would introduce speculative information that could mislead the board rather than inform it
Does Engineer A have an obligation to explicitly acknowledge and balance the competing public goods of environmental sustainability and grid reliability in the board report, or is it sufficient to present the technical findings and allow the board to draw its own policy conclusions?
Engineer A must decide how to frame the competing public goods of carbon footprint reduction and grid reliability in the board report — specifically whether to present the solar project as straightforwardly viable given stakeholder pressure, or to explicitly surface and balance both public goods so the board can make an informed policy decision.
Explicitly acknowledge in the board report the genuine tension between the carbon footprint reduction goal and grid reliability, present both the environmental benefit of the solar transition and the rolling blackout risk with equal prominence, and frame the tradeoff as a policy decision for the board rather than a technical conclusion for Engineer A
Present the solar project's environmental and cost-equivalence benefits affirmatively as the primary findings, include the rolling blackout risk as a qualifying caveat in a separate risk section, and allow the board to weigh the tradeoff without Engineer A explicitly characterizing it as a conflict between competing public goods
Present the technical findings neutrally without characterizing the normative tension between environmental and reliability goals, on the grounds that policy value judgments about competing public goods fall outside the engineer's professional advisory role and should be left entirely to the board's independent deliberation
If the board receives Engineer A's complete report and nonetheless proceeds with solar-without-storage, does Engineer A have a residual ethical obligation to escalate grid reliability concerns to a regulatory body, the local utility, or another external authority, or does the faithful agent obligation terminate upon complete board notification?
Engineer A must decide whether, after delivering a complete board report that includes rolling blackout risks and battery storage costs, any residual obligation exists to escalate grid reliability concerns to an external authority if the board proceeds with solar-without-storage.
Treat the complete board report as fulfilling the public safety obligation, and take no further escalation action on the grounds that the rolling blackout risk is probabilistic, systemic, and already known to utility resource planners who are better positioned to address it through regulatory channels
Notify the local utility in writing of the organization's decision to proceed with solar-without-storage, referencing the grid stress concern the utility's own resource planners identified, so that the utility can factor the change in the organization's generation profile into its own reliability planning
File a formal written communication with the state public utility commission or relevant regulatory body documenting the grid reliability concern and the board's decision to proceed without storage, invoking the public welfare paramount obligation to escalate when internal disclosure has not prevented a decision creating foreseeable third-party harm
Should Engineer A frame the rolling blackout risk explicitly as a harm to third-party electricity consumers and vulnerable populations — not merely as an organizational risk — in order to convey the full moral weight of the decision to the board?
Engineer A must decide how to frame the rolling blackout risk in the board report — as an organizational operational risk, as a third-party public harm affecting vulnerable populations who bear the consequences of a decision they have no voice in, or both — given that the framing determines whether the board understands the full moral weight of the decision.
Frame the rolling blackout risk in the board report explicitly as a risk to third-party electricity consumers and vulnerable populations — including elderly individuals, those with medical conditions, and low-income households — as well as an organizational operational risk, so that the board understands both dimensions of the decision's consequences
Frame the rolling blackout risk primarily as an organizational operational and reputational risk — noting that the organization's transition may contribute to grid stress that affects the broader community — without explicitly characterizing the affected parties as a vulnerable population, on the grounds that population-level harm characterization exceeds the scope of an engineering feasibility report
Present the rolling blackout risk as a technical grid reliability finding with quantified probability and severity data, and include a separate section referencing publicly available case studies of extreme weather blackout impacts on vulnerable populations — such as the California and Texas events — allowing the board to draw its own conclusions about the human consequences without Engineer A characterizing the affected parties directly
Decide Board Report Content → Frame Solar vs. Rebuild Recommendation
Electric Load Profile Analysis – Facility Study
Facility Electric Load Profile and Solar Energy System Capability Analysis
After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system, Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility
Engineer A in preparing the board report
Technical reference material documenting the comparison of the facility's electric load profile against the proposed solar panel system's capability, forming the evidentiary basis for Engineer A's conclusion that solar can substitute for the generator under normal conditions
{'type': 'Local electric utility / grid operator', 'concern': 'Grid reliability during extreme weather events'}
The local electric power system/utility whose grid reliability is affected by the organization's choice of energy generation; the solar-without-storage option would decrease reliability of the entire local electric power system and increase risk of rolling blackouts.
{'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Organizational Board Decision Authority'}
a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system
the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts
Energy System Reliability Faithful Agent Report Engineer A
Engineer A has determined that solar panels can supply equivalent energy 'under normal conditions' but the co-generation facility provides self-sufficient generation not dependent on grid reliability; the board report must make this distinction clear.
Energy System Reliability Faithful Agent Board Report Obligation
Engineer A is obligated as faithful agent to present prominently in the board report the reliability differential between the solar-without-storage system and the co-generation facility, including the fact that the solar system cannot guarantee supply during extreme weather or grid stress events.
Energy Transition Public Safety Risk Calibration Engineer A Rolling Blackout
The rolling blackout risk is not imminent but is a foreseeable consequence of the proposed energy transition; Engineer A must assess whether board-level disclosure is sufficient or whether regulatory escalation is warranted.
Energy Transition Public Safety Risk Calibration Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to assess the nature, probability, and severity of the rolling blackout risk identified by utility resource planners and calibrate the appropriate level of disclosure and reporting response — including determining whether the risk warrants notification beyond the organizational board to regulatory or public authorities.
during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
Prior to finalizing and presenting the board report
Energy Transition Risk Calibration Engineer A Rolling Blackout Assessment
The utility resource planners described rolling outages as a possibility during extreme weather events, not a certainty. Engineer A must assess whether this contingent risk triggers only the faithful agent board notification duty or also a broader public welfare escalation duty.
Engineer A is obligated to calibrate the public safety reporting obligation associated with the rolling blackout risk by assessing its probability, imminence, and severity — as communicated by the utility resource planners — and to determine whether the risk requires disclosure only in the board report or whether it rises to a level requiring notification to regulatory or public authorities beyond the organizational board.
Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
Before finalizing and submitting the board report
Engineer A Battery Storage Alternative Client Education
Sustainable Development Client Education Capability
Engineer A possesses advanced communication capability to proactively educate the board about the battery storage option as a third path that could achieve both carbon footprint reduction and grid reliability goals.
Applied in the board advisory report to ensure the board is informed of the full range of alternatives, including the battery storage option that was excluded due to capital constraints.
Obligation to educate the board about battery storage as an alternative that harmonizes sustainability and reliability objectives, including the capital cost implications of adding storage to the solar system.
Engineer A Capital-Constrained Resilience Gap — No Storage in Solar Proposal
From identification of the no-storage design option through board decision on whether to include storage
Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success.
The proposed solar generation system's lack of energy storage creating a foreseeable resilience vulnerability
Board decision to include storage, or board decision to retain fossil-fueled generator, or board decision to proceed without storage with full knowledge of the resilience gap
The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
the solar generation system without storage will provide energy generation equivalent to the existing fossil-fueled generator at a similar cost
Organizational proposal to install solar production without storage, at a cost comparable to the existing fossil-fueled generator but without the dispatchability and storage resilience components
Engineer A Capital Constrained Resilience Gap Disclosure No Battery Storage Solar
The organization's capital budget is insufficient to include battery storage in the solar project; the absence of storage creates a foreseeable resilience vulnerability under non-normal operating conditions including extreme weather events
Engineer A is constrained from presenting the capital-constrained solar-without-storage design as fully equivalent to the fossil-fueled generator without disclosing the resilience gap created by the absence of battery storage — specifically that the system will not provide on-demand generation capability and will be dependent on grid reliability during extreme weather events when the grid is most stressed.
NSPE Code of Ethics completeness provisions; Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Constraint (prior section extraction)
The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar energy system replacement proposal
Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system.
Engineer A Carbon Footprint Advocacy Pressure Resistance
Carbon Footprint Advocacy Pressure Resistance in Technical Reporting Capability
Engineer A possesses advanced reasoning capability to recognize and resist the implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar-without-storage option as unambiguously favorable in the board report.
Applied when Engineer A must maintain technical objectivity in the board report despite stakeholder advocacy for the solar option.
Obligation to resist stakeholder pressure and ensure the board report includes complete disclosure of rolling blackout risks, reliability limitations, and systemic grid effects, even though such disclosure may undermine the stakeholders' preferred outcome.
Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
Engineer A Carbon Footprint Advocacy Pressure Resistance Solar Report
Engineer A possessed the capability to resist implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar without storage option as unambiguously favorable, ensuring that the board report included complete disclosure of rolling blackout risks and reliability limitations even though such disclosure might undermine the stakeholders' preferred outcome.
Engineer A preparing board report under implicit stakeholder pressure to present solar option favorably
Required to include in the board report the systemic grid reliability risks and rolling blackout probability despite the presence of organizational stakeholders advocating for the solar option as a carbon footprint reduction measure
But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
Engineer A Climate Resilience Policy Alignment Solar Assessment
Climate Resilience Policy Alignment Capability
Engineer A required climate resilience policy alignment capability to evaluate the solar panel replacement proposal against the organization's carbon footprint reduction objectives and sustainability commitments, while also assessing the proposal's resilience limitations arising from the absence of battery storage during extreme weather events.
Applied when evaluating the solar project against both the organization's sustainability goals and its energy reliability requirements during extreme weather conditions
Evaluation of the solar project's alignment with carbon footprint reduction objectives alongside assessment of its climate resilience limitations during extreme weather grid stress events
Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages.
Engineer A Co-generation Renewable Transition Technical Evaluation
Co-generation to Renewable Transition Technical Evaluation Capability
Engineer A possessed co-generation to renewable transition technical evaluation capability, demonstrated by conducting a comprehensive technical evaluation of the proposed solar panel replacement for the fossil-fueled co-generation facility, including load profile analysis, capital cost comparison, and storage requirement assessment.
Applied throughout the technical analysis phase of the energy system replacement evaluation, forming the technical foundation for the board report
Comprehensive technical evaluation of the solar panel replacement proposal including load profile analysis, capital cost comparison between solar installation and generator rebuild, and assessment of storage requirements
Engineer A works for an organization that for years has operated a fossil-fueled co-generation facility primarily to supply thermal energy for process needs.
The generator is approaching the end of its useful life and will require a substantial investment to remain operational.
Engineer A Co-generation to Renewable Transition Technical Evaluation
Engineer A possesses advanced technical capability to evaluate the engineering feasibility and operational implications of replacing the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels, including storage requirements and capital cost comparisons.
Applied as the primary technical evaluation task underlying the board advisory report on the energy system replacement decision.
Evaluating the solar replacement option including capital cost equivalency, storage limitations, and grid dependency changes in preparation of the board report.
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Board Report
Engineer A is preparing a report to the organizational board on whether to replace the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels without storage, in a context where carbon footprint reduction stakeholders favor the solar option but utility resource planners have warned of increased rolling blackout risk.
Engineer A was obligated to explicitly acknowledge and address in the board report the genuine conflict between the competing public goods of environmental sustainability (carbon footprint reduction through solar adoption) and grid reliability (protection of vulnerable populations from rolling blackouts), presenting the tradeoffs completely and objectively so the board could make an informed policy decision.
At the time of preparing and delivering the board report on the energy system replacement proposal
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition
Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
Engineer A possesses advanced reasoning capability to recognize and explicitly address in the board report the genuine conflict between the public good of carbon footprint reduction and the public good of grid reliability and rolling blackout prevention.
Applied in preparing the board advisory report that must balance competing legitimate public goods rather than presenting a one-sided analysis favoring the stakeholder-preferred outcome.
Recognizing that the solar-without-storage option serves carbon reduction stakeholders but creates grid reliability risks, and that the board report must explicitly acknowledge and address this competing public goods conflict.
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition Energy Advisory
Engineer A must recognize and explicitly address in the board report the genuine conflict between carbon footprint reduction (environmental sustainability) and grid reliability (public safety), ensuring decision-makers understand the tradeoffs
Engineer A preparing board report on solar-without-storage replacement, where sustainability and reliability represent competing public goods
Obligation to explicitly acknowledge and address the conflict between the legitimate public good of carbon footprint reduction and the legitimate public good of grid reliability and rolling blackout prevention in the board report
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition Solar Advisory
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize and address in the board report the genuine conflict between the competing public goods of environmental sustainability (carbon footprint reduction through solar adoption) and public safety (grid reliability and rolling blackout prevention), and to present this conflict explicitly rather than presenting the solar option as unambiguously favorable.
Engineer A preparing board report on solar energy system replacement for fossil-fueled co-generation facility
Required to address in the board report the ethical corollary of the organization's decision — that the solar without storage option supports laudable environmental goals but may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts affecting public welfare
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Solar vs Grid Reliability Board Report
Engineer A is preparing a board report on replacing a fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels without battery storage; carbon footprint reduction stakeholders favor the solar option; the solar option may increase rolling blackout likelihood affecting vulnerable populations
Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion of Technical Report Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from structuring the board report to favor the carbon footprint reduction public good over the grid reliability public good — or vice versa — and must present the genuine conflict between these competing public goods honestly and completely, prohibiting selective emphasis of findings favorable to the stakeholder-preferred solar transition outcome while omitting or minimizing the rolling blackout risk findings.
NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity and completeness provisions; BER Case 98-5 (competing public goods); case discussion on competing public goods conflict
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Tension — Solar vs. Grid Reliability
From Engineer A's identification of the grid reliability tradeoff through completion of the board report
Elderly and medically vulnerable individuals
Engineer A's obligation to report on the solar-without-storage proposal to the board
Engineer A's submission of a complete report to the board that includes both the sustainability benefits and the reliability/grid-stress tradeoffs
this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts
Recognition that the solar-without-storage option advances carbon reduction while potentially increasing rolling blackout risk for third parties including elderly and medically vulnerable individuals
Engineer A Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Energy Options
Project Delivery Method Comparative Analysis Capability
Engineer A required complete comparative advisory analysis capability to present the board with a complete comparative analysis of all viable energy options — including the solar panel replacement without storage, the generator rebuild, and potentially hybrid or phased approaches — against the organization's funding constraints, operational requirements, and grid reliability considerations.
Applied when structuring the board report to ensure all viable energy options are presented with complete comparative information
Obligation to present a complete comparative analysis of solar-without-storage versus generator rebuild options, including capital costs, operational risks, grid reliability implications, and carbon footprint impacts
Engineer A Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Solar vs Generator Options
Engineer A possessed the capability to identify, analyze, and comparatively evaluate all viable energy options — including the solar panel replacement without storage, solar with storage, and rebuild/refurbish of the fossil-fueled generator — against the organization's specific reliability requirements, cost constraints, and carbon footprint objectives, presenting a complete and balanced comparative analysis to enable informed board decision-making.
Engineer A preparing board report comparing solar without storage against other energy system options for fossil-fueled co-generation facility replacement
Required to present the board with a complete comparative analysis of all viable energy options including the option to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator, which provides function and reliability at a lower cost than solar with storage — not limiting the analysis to the solar without storage option preferred by carbon footprint stakeholders
Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
Engineer A Energy Advisory Systemic Risk Scope Expansion
Energy Advisory Systemic Risk Scope Expansion Capability
Engineer A possessed energy advisory systemic risk scope expansion capability, demonstrated by recognizing that the board report must extend beyond the isolated viability of the solar project to include the systemic grid reliability implications of the organizational energy transition decision.
Applied when preparing the board report after recognizing that the solar project's isolated viability did not capture the full risk picture relevant to the board's decision
Recognition that isolated system viability analysis was insufficient and that systemic grid stress and rolling blackout risks must be included in the advisory report scope
Engineer A possessed advanced energy load profile analysis capability, demonstrated by conducting a careful study of the facility's electric load profile and evaluating the proposed solar energy system's capacity to satisfy organizational demand under normal conditions.
Applied during technical analysis of the proposed solar panel replacement for the fossil-fueled co-generation facility, forming the basis for the board report
Careful study of the facility electric load profile and evaluation of the proposed solar energy system's capability to supply equivalent electric energy under normal conditions
Engineer A Energy System Reliability Faithful Agent Board Report Obligation
Engineer A has determined that the solar without storage system produces equivalent energy at similar cost but is less reliable than the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility and decreases the reliability of the broader electric grid. The board report must include this reliability information for the board to make an informed decision.
No-Storage Solar Transition Faithful Agent Risk Notification Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, as a faithful agent of the organization, to present in the board report the finding that the solar without storage system will not be as reliable as the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility, that it decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system, and that installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions — so that the board could make an informed decision about whether to proceed, invest in storage, or maintain the existing system.
Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
{'license': 'Registered Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Energy systems analysis and reporting', 'obligation_context': 'Faithful agent to employer organization while bearing paramount public safety obligations regarding grid reliability'}
Conducts technical analysis of the organization's energy systems including evaluation of solar generation without storage versus fossil-fueled generator replacement, and prepares a report for the board of directors bearing obligations to include complete reliability and grid stability information including potential rolling blackout risks.
{'type': 'interacts_with', 'target': 'Electric Utility Grid Resource Planner'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Organizational Board Decision Authority'}
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Energy systems analysis, co-generation, renewable energy', 'employer': 'Organization operating fossil-fueled co-generation facility', 'key_finding': 'Solar project viable in isolation but may stress utility grid and increase rolling blackout likelihood'}
Conducted technical analysis of the organization's energy load profile and evaluated the proposed solar panel replacement for the fossil-fueled co-generation facility; preparing a board report that must disclose both the viability of the solar project in isolation and the systemic risk of increased rolling blackouts due to grid stress from solar adoption without storage.
{'type': 'employee', 'target': 'Organization (Employer)'}
{'type': 'information_source', 'target': 'Electric Utility Resource Planner'}
{'type': 'obligation_to', 'target': 'Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholders'}
{'type': 'public_responsibility_to', 'target': 'General Public (grid reliability)'}
{'type': 'report_recipient', 'target': 'Board of Directors'}
Engineer A works for an organization that for years has operated a fossil-fueled co-generation facility
After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system, Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator
Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
Engineer A Energy Transition Public Safety Risk Calibration Rolling Blackout
Utility resource planners have communicated to Engineer A that the solar without storage transition may increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events. Engineer A must assess whether this risk triggers only a faithful agent board report obligation or also a public welfare escalation obligation to regulatory authorities.
Risk Threshold Calibration Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the public safety reporting and disclosure obligations associated with the rolling blackout risk by assessing the nature, imminence, probability, and severity of that risk — as communicated by utility resource planners — and to determine whether the risk rises to the level requiring notification beyond the organizational board to regulatory or public authorities, or whether complete disclosure in the board report satisfies the applicable reporting obligation.
During the preparation of the board report and upon determining the appropriate scope of disclosure and reporting obligations
It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
Engineer A Extreme Weather Energy Reliability Risk Communication
Extreme Weather Energy Reliability Risk Communication Capability
Engineer A possessed extreme weather energy reliability risk communication capability, required to fulfill the obligation to communicate rolling blackout risks and solar-without-storage vulnerabilities to the organizational board in a manner enabling informed decision-making.
Required for preparation of the board report on the solar project, specifically for communicating the rolling blackout risk and solar intermittency limitations during extreme weather events
Obligation to prepare a board report that prominently and completely discloses the rolling blackout risk communicated by the local electric utility resource planners
Engineer A Fact Based Technical Opinion Rolling Blackout
Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination Capability
Engineer A required fact-opinion threshold discrimination capability to correctly assess whether the rolling blackout risk communicated by utility resource planners constitutes an established technical fact requiring mandatory disclosure versus a preliminary concern or speculation, and to ground the board report's disclosure in the established facts communicated by the utility.
Applied when determining how to characterize and disclose the rolling blackout risk in the board report based on information received from the local electric utility resource planners
Assessment of whether the utility resource planners' communication about rolling blackout probability constitutes a fact-grounded technical finding sufficient to trigger mandatory disclosure in the board report
When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Board Report Energy System Reliability
Trustee Advisory Role Faithful Execution Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly identify the board report engagement as requiring faithful trustee and objective advisor conduct — subordinating any preference for the carbon footprint reduction outcome to the organization's need for complete, objective, and unbiased professional advice about energy system reliability, including presenting information that might lead the board to choose the fossil-fueled generator option over the solar option.
Engineer A serving as faithful agent and trustee for the organization in preparing the energy system replacement advisory report
Required to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer by presenting complete reliability information in the board report, even though this information might lead the board to choose the fossil-fueled generator over the solar option preferred by carbon footprint stakeholders
Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary — Post-Analysis Board Reporting Obligation
From completion of the full tradeoff report through the board's decision on the energy system
Engineer A's transition from technical analyst to faithful agent after completing the tradeoff analysis and presenting it to the board
Board's informed decision on the energy system option
Engineer A's completion of a report that includes both the sustainability benefits and the reliability/grid-stress tradeoffs, after which the board holds decision authority
Engineer A Faithful Agent Reliability Deficiency Board Notification Solar Without Storage
Engineer A has completed the technical analysis and is transitioning to the faithful agent reporting role; the solar-without-storage system is materially less reliable than the fossil-fueled generator; the board needs this information to make an informed decision
Faithful Agent Reliability Deficiency Board Notification Constraint
Engineer A is constrained, as a faithful agent of the organization, from omitting or minimizing the reliability deficiency of the solar-without-storage system in the board report, and must present prominently that the proposed system will not be as reliable as the fossil-fueled generator, may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions, and that the board may choose to rebuild the fossil-fueled generator as a reliability-preserving alternative.
NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent provisions; case discussion on faithful agent obligation and reliability deficiency
Engineer A Faithful Agent Risk Notification Solar Transition
Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Scope Calibration Capability
Engineer A required faithful agent written risk notification scope calibration capability to correctly calibrate the scope of the written notification obligation to the board — recognizing that the duty extends to advising the board in writing of the rolling blackout risk and solar-without-storage limitations, but does not extend beyond the advisory role into operational decision-making authority.
Applied when determining the appropriate scope and content of the written board report regarding the solar project risks
Obligation to advise the board in writing that the proposed solar system without battery storage creates rolling blackout vulnerability and grid stress risks, calibrated to the faithful agent advisory role
Engineer A Faithful Agent Sustainability Harmonization
Faithful Agent Sustainability Harmonization Capability
Engineer A possesses advanced reasoning capability to simultaneously fulfill faithful agent obligations to the board and sustainability advisory duties, identifying the path that best serves both rather than treating them as irreconcilable.
Applied in structuring the board advisory report to fulfill both faithful agent and sustainability obligations simultaneously.
Recognizing that the board report must present complete technical information — including reliability risks — while also identifying the battery storage option as a path that could harmonize both carbon reduction and reliability goals.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Sustainability Trustee Engineer
{'license': 'Registered Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Energy systems, sustainability trade-off analysis'}
Engineer A simultaneously acts as a faithful agent and trustee to the organization, obligated to present complete technical information including reliability trade-offs between fossil-fueled and solar options, while deferring to the board's informed decision.
{'type': 'discloses_to', 'target': 'Organizational Board Decision Authority'}
{'type': 'trustee_for', 'target': 'Organizational Board Decision Authority'}
Faithful Agent Sustainability Trustee Engineer
Engineer A Faustian Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence BER 98-5 Analogy
Faustian Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Capability
Engineer A must recognize, by analogy to BER 98-5, that any implicit or explicit bargain that trades safety reporting completeness for stakeholder approval or organizational benefit constitutes an impermissible Faustian bargain
Engineer A facing implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present solar-without-storage option favorably without complete disclosure of reliability risks
Application of BER 98-5 principle that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount and cannot concur with safety-compromising arrangements even when offered compensating benefits
BER Case 98-5 describes how Engineer Adam serves as director of a building department in a major city.
righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety
the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
Engineer A Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Board Report
Engineer A's analysis shows the solar-without-storage system produces equivalent energy at similar cost but is less reliable; the board may legitimately choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator; the case text explicitly acknowledges that fossil fuel reliability may itself be a public welfare consideration
Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Obligation
Engineer A has an obligation to present the option of rebuilding or refurbishing the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility as a legitimate and potentially welfare-consistent choice in the board report, given that the fossil-fueled system provides superior reliability at lower cost than solar-with-storage, and that this reliability differential has material public welfare implications for vulnerable populations.
In the board report, as part of the complete presentation of viable alternatives
Engineer A Fossil Fuel Retention Legitimate Option Board Report
Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to present the option of rebuilding or refurbishing the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility as a legitimate engineering alternative in the board report, including its reliability and cost advantages
Engineer A preparing board report on energy system replacement, where the fossil fuel option provides reliability advantages that the solar-without-storage option does not
Obligation to include the fossil fuel retention/refurbishment option as a legitimate alternative in the board report alongside the solar-without-storage and solar-with-storage options
With the current co-generation facility and a like-in-kind replacement, a presumably large electric load served by the utility can either stand alone or be operated to greatly reduce the electric load on a power system that will be stressed during extreme weather events.
Engineer A Further Study Recommendation Before Solar Deployment BER 16-5 Analogy
Engineer A is preparing a board report on the solar-without-storage proposal; BER 16-5 established that engineers with unresolved safety concerns about a system should recommend further study before deployment; the same logic applies to an energy system with unresolved grid reliability risks
Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable Energy System Deployment Obligation
Engineer A has an obligation, by analogy to the BER 16-5 autonomous vehicle case, to recommend further study before the solar-without-storage system is deployed if safety concerns about grid reliability and rolling blackout probability remain unresolved, expressing those concerns clearly and unambiguously in the board report.
In the board report, prior to board decision on the solar-without-storage proposal
Engineer A Further Study Recommendation Solar Without Storage Deployment
Engineer A must possess the capability to recommend further study before the solar-without-storage system is deployed, given the unresolved public safety concerns about rolling blackout risk and grid reliability impacts, by analogy to the BER 16-5 autonomous vehicle precedent
Engineer A preparing board report on solar-without-storage replacement, where rolling blackout risk and grid reliability concerns remain unresolved
Obligation to recommend further study in the board report before the solar-without-storage system is deployed, consistent with the BER 16-5 principle that engineers should recommend further study when safety concerns remain unresolved
Engineer A Grid Interconnection Impact Assessment
Grid Interconnection Impact Assessment Capability
Engineer A possessed grid interconnection impact assessment capability, demonstrated by recognizing that the transition from co-generation to solar-without-storage would stress the local utility generation mix and increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
Applied after learning from the local electric utility resource planner that rolling outages were possible during extreme weather events, and connecting this to the organizational energy transition decision
Recognition that solar-without-storage transition would increase stress on local utility generation mix and elevate rolling blackout probability, following discussion with utility resource planners
Engineer A Informed Decision Making Facilitation Solar Board
Informed Decision-Making Process Facilitation Capability
Engineer A required informed decision-making process facilitation capability to structure the board report in a manner that presents complete comparative information — including both the favorable isolated system analysis and the adverse rolling blackout and grid stress findings — enabling the board to make a genuinely informed decision about the energy system replacement.
Required for preparation of the board report to ensure the board has all material information needed to make an informed decision between solar-without-storage and generator rebuild options
Obligation to present the board with complete comparative analysis of all viable energy options including rolling blackout risks, grid stress implications, and storage limitations
Engineer A Informed Decision Making Facilitation Solar Board Report
Engineer A possessed the capability to structure and present the board report in a manner that facilitated a genuinely informed policy and project decision-making process — including presenting complete comparative information about all energy options, identifying non-obvious reliability consequences of the solar without storage option, and ensuring the board had all material information needed to make an informed choice.
Required to present the board with complete information including rolling blackout risk, reliability limitations of solar without storage, and the option to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator — enabling the board to make an informed decision rather than a decision based on incomplete information
Engineer A Informed Energy Policy Decision Process Enablement Board Report
Engineer A is preparing a report to the organizational board on whether to replace the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar-without-storage; the case text explicitly states that 'the ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process'
Informed Energy Policy Decision Process Enablement Obligation
Engineer A has an obligation to structure the board report so that the organizational board's decision-making process is genuinely informed — presenting all material technical findings including energy equivalence, cost, reliability differential, grid stress, rolling blackout risk, vulnerable population impact, and all viable alternatives — so that the board can make a policy and capital investment decision based on complete and accurate information, recognizing that the ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
In the preparation and submission of the board report, prior to board decision
As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board. A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
Engineer A Informed Energy Policy Decision Process Facilitation Board Report
Engineer A must structure the board report to facilitate a genuinely informed policy and project decision-making process, presenting complete comparative information about all alternatives including their reliability implications
Engineer A preparing board report on energy system replacement decision involving solar-without-storage, solar-with-storage, and fossil fuel retention options
Obligation to structure the board report so that the organizational board's decision-making process is genuinely informed — presenting all material technical findings, alternatives, and tradeoffs
Engineer A Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Solar Board Report
Engineer A is preparing a board report that must facilitate an informed policy decision between competing energy system options with different reliability, cost, and public safety profiles
Complete Design Alternative Presentation Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from submitting a board report that, while technically accurate in individual findings, fails to provide the board with the complete information necessary to make an informed policy choice between the solar-without-storage option and the fossil-fueled generator rebuild option — including all material reliability, cost, public safety, and systemic externality findings.
NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity and completeness provisions; case discussion on informed policy decision-making
Engineer A Infrastructure Lifecycle Risk Communication Energy
Infrastructure Lifecycle Risk Communication Capability
Engineer A required infrastructure lifecycle risk communication capability to clearly communicate to the board the long-term lifecycle risks of the solar-without-storage option — including grid dependency risks, rolling blackout vulnerability, and the absence of dispatchable backup generation — compared to the generator rebuild option.
Applied when preparing the comparative analysis section of the board report addressing long-term energy reliability and lifecycle risk tradeoffs
Obligation to present the board with complete lifecycle risk information about both the solar-without-storage option and the generator rebuild option, enabling informed long-term decision-making
Engineer A Isolated Project Viability Masking Systemic Risk — Solar Without Storage
From completion of the in-isolation equivalence analysis through submission of the complete board report
Third parties dependent on grid reliability
Isolated Project Viability Masking Systemic Risk State
Engineer A's finding that the solar-without-storage system is viable in isolation but degrades broader grid reliability
Engineer A's inclusion of reliability and third-party grid impact data in the board report
Engineer A's determination that the solar system produces equivalent energy at similar cost — a finding that is accurate but incomplete because it omits reliability and grid-stress dimensions
Engineer A Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination Energy Advisory
Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Sustainability Gain Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the short-term sustainability gain of carbon footprint reduction through solar adoption cannot justify subordinating the long-term public welfare costs of reduced grid reliability and increased rolling blackout probability
Engineer A preparing board report on solar-without-storage replacement for fossil-fueled co-generation facility, facing stakeholder pressure for carbon footprint reduction
Obligation to ensure the board report does not present carbon footprint reduction as sufficient justification for accepting long-term grid reliability degradation and associated public safety risks
long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain
Engineer A Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Sustainability Gain Board Report
Carbon footprint reduction stakeholders advocate for the solar-without-storage option; Engineer A must resist framing the report in a way that prioritizes sustainability metrics over grid reliability and public welfare; BER 98-5 establishes that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount and cannot trade long-term welfare for short-term gains
Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Sustainability Gain Obligation
Engineer A has an obligation to ensure that the board report does not subordinate long-term public welfare considerations — sustained grid reliability and protection of vulnerable populations from rolling blackouts — to short-term sustainability gains such as carbon footprint reduction, recognizing by analogy to BER 98-5 that long-term public welfare cannot be undermined for short-term gain, even when that gain is environmentally laudable.
The BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.' Engineer Adam 'had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled.'
Throughout the preparation and submission of the board report
The BER further noted 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain.
Engineer A Objective Complete Reporting Board Solar Project
Engineer A is preparing a report to the organizational board on the solar energy system replacement proposal, in a context where carbon footprint reduction stakeholders favor the solar option and may create implicit pressure to present the proposal favorably.
Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to be objective and truthful in the board report on the solar energy system replacement proposal, including all relevant and pertinent information — including the rolling blackout risk, the reliability differential between the solar without storage and fossil-fueled co-generation options, and the grid-level systemic impacts — so that the board's decision is based on complete and accurate engineering information.
Engineer A Objective Complete Reporting Solar Board Report
Objective Advisory Report Integrity Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to maintain the integrity and objectivity of the board report by including all relevant and pertinent information — including rolling blackout risk, reliability limitations, and systemic grid impacts — rather than presenting only the favorable aspects of the solar without storage option, ensuring the report served as independent professional advice rather than advocacy for a preferred outcome.
Engineer A preparing board report on solar energy system replacement under implicit stakeholder pressure to present solar option favorably
Required to prepare an objective and complete board report that included all relevant and pertinent information including system reliability data, rolling blackout risk, and the option to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator — not limited to information favorable to the solar option
Engineer A Post-Board-Override Energy Grid Safety Regulatory Escalation
Post-Board-Override Energy Grid Safety Regulatory Escalation Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to assess whether, if the organizational board proceeds with the solar-without-storage replacement despite formal communication of rolling blackout and grid reliability concerns, the gravity of the public safety risk requires escalation to a state regulatory agency, by analogy to BER 20-4
Engineer A facing potential board override of recommendations regarding solar-without-storage energy system replacement and associated grid reliability risks
Obligation to formally report grid reliability and public safety concerns to appropriate regulatory authorities if the board overrides Engineer A's recommendations, consistent with BER 20-4 precedent
The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
Engineer A Post-Board-Override Energy Grid Safety Regulatory Escalation BER 20-4 Analogy
Engineer A has evaluated the solar-without-storage proposal and identified that it will decrease grid reliability and increase rolling blackout probability; the BER 20-4 analogy establishes that when a board overrides safety recommendations, the engineer must escalate to state regulatory authorities
Post-Board-Override Energy Grid Safety Regulatory Escalation Obligation
If the organizational board proceeds with the solar-without-storage replacement despite Engineer A's formal communication of rolling blackout and grid reliability risks, Engineer A has an obligation — by analogy to the BER 20-4 water commission case — to formally report those grid safety concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency, given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety.
The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission. The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
Upon organizational board decision to proceed with solar-without-storage despite engineer's documented safety concerns
Engineer A Precedent Based Ethical Reasoning BER Cases Energy Advisory
Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to identify, retrieve, and apply relevant BER case precedents — specifically BER Cases 98-5, 20-4, and 16-5 — to analyze the professional ethics obligations arising from the competing public goods conflict in the solar energy advisory context, drawing analogical reasoning from established Board decisions to correctly calibrate disclosure, escalation, and faithful agent obligations.
Engineer A applying BER precedent to navigate competing public goods conflict in energy advisory report preparation
Required to draw on BER Cases 98-5 (Faustian bargain/competing public goods), 20-4 (post-override regulatory escalation), and 16-5 (risk management team participation) to identify and fulfill professional obligations in the solar energy advisory context
BER Case 98-5 describes how Engineer Adam serves as director of a building department...
Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board...
Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Rolling Blackout
Engineer A required public safety escalation capability to evaluate whether the rolling blackout risk — which affects not only the organization but the broader public served by the utility grid — rises to the level requiring escalation beyond the board report to regulatory authorities or public bodies.
Applied when assessing whether the rolling blackout risk identified by utility resource planners requires escalation beyond the organizational board report to external regulatory or public authorities
Recognition that rolling blackout risks affect the broader public served by the utility grid, potentially triggering public welfare escalation obligations beyond the organizational advisory role
Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Rolling Blackout Public Impact
Engineer A possessed the capability to evaluate whether the rolling blackout risk — which affects not only the organization but the broader public served by the utility grid — exceeds the threshold requiring escalation beyond the board report to regulatory authorities or public bodies, consistent with the principle that public health and safety obligations may require action beyond the client relationship.
Engineer A evaluating whether rolling blackout risk from solar without storage transition requires escalation beyond the organizational board report
Required to assess whether the systemic grid reliability risk and rolling blackout probability triggered escalation obligations beyond the board report, drawing on BER Cases 98-5 and 20-4 as precedent for when public safety concerns require action beyond the immediate client relationship
It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event.
Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Energy Advisory
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
Engineer A must recognize that public health, safety, and welfare — including protection of vulnerable populations from rolling blackouts — must be held paramount over client preferences and sustainability advocacy pressure
Engineer A preparing board report where public safety (grid reliability, vulnerable populations) may conflict with organizational preferences (carbon footprint reduction)
Obligation to hold public health and safety paramount in the board report, consistent with the BER 98-5 affirmation that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount
It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event
Engineer A Reliability Equivalence Qualification
Reliability Equivalence Qualification in Energy Advisory Capability
Engineer A possesses advanced reasoning capability to recognize that the finding of energy quantity equivalence under normal conditions does not imply reliability equivalence, and to qualify this finding explicitly in the board report.
Applied when Engineer A must qualify the equivalency finding in the board report to prevent misleading the board into treating quantity equivalence as reliability equivalence.
Recognizing that the finding that solar panels can supply 'equivalent' energy under normal conditions must be qualified to clarify that this equivalence does not hold during extreme weather or nighttime conditions, and that the solar system is not reliability-equivalent to the dispatchable co-generation facility.
Engineer A Reliability Equivalence Qualification Solar Without Storage Board Report
Engineer A's analysis found that the solar without storage system produces equivalent energy at similar cost, but this equivalence finding does not address reliability — a material distinction that must be explicitly drawn in the board report.
Reliability Equivalence Qualification Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to explicitly qualify the finding that the solar without storage system produces equivalent energy at similar cost by clarifying that 'equivalent' energy production does not mean equivalent reliability, and to affirmatively disclose that the proposed system is less reliable than the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility in ways that affect both the organization's operations and the broader electric grid.
Given the facts presented in this case, the solar generation system without storage will provide energy generation equivalent to the existing fossil-fueled generator at a similar cost; the system also reduces the organization's carbon footprint.
Engineer A Selective Information Omission Recognition Solar Report
Selective Information Omission Recognition Capability
Engineer A required selective information omission recognition capability to identify that omitting the rolling blackout risk and systemic grid stress implications from the board report — while presenting only the favorable isolated system viability findings — would constitute a material omission violating professional obligations of objective and truthful reporting.
Applied when preparing the board report and recognizing the tension between the favorable isolated system analysis and the adverse systemic grid reliability findings
Recognition that presenting only the isolated viability of the solar project without disclosing rolling blackout risks and grid stress implications would create a misleading and incomplete picture for the board
Engineer A Solar Without Storage Risk Assessment
Solar Generation Without Storage Risk Assessment Capability
Engineer A possessed solar generation without storage risk assessment capability, demonstrated by identifying that capital constraints preventing battery storage installation created material operational risks — including nighttime and adverse weather energy supply gaps — that must be disclosed in the board report.
Applied during evaluation of the solar panel replacement proposal when capital constraints precluded battery storage installation
Identification that the absence of battery storage creates energy supply gaps during nighttime and adverse weather, and that this limitation is material to the board's decision
Engineer A Stakeholder-Driven Technology Transition Pressure — Solar Without Storage
From organizational decision to explore solar replacement through board's final decision
the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production
Stakeholder-Driven Technology Transition Pressure State
Organizational stakeholder pressure on Engineer A to recommend transition from fossil-fueled generator to solar production without storage
Board's informed decision incorporating full technical tradeoff analysis
An ethical corollary to the organization's decision to replace an on-demand, fossil-fueled generator with solar production without storage is worthy of discussion.
Organization's sustainability goals and desire to reduce carbon footprint driving preference for solar-without-storage option despite reliability tradeoffs
Engineer A Stakeholder Pressure Resistance Carbon Footprint
Professional Judgment Independence Under Client Pressure Capability
Engineer A required professional judgment independence capability to resist implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar project as unambiguously favorable, and to maintain complete and objective reporting of identified risks including rolling blackout probability.
Applied when preparing the board report in the context of stakeholder advocacy for the solar project as a carbon footprint reduction measure
Recognition that stakeholder interest in carbon footprint reduction creates pressure to omit adverse findings, and obligation to resist that pressure in preparing the board report
Engineer A Stakeholder Pressure Resistance Carbon Footprint Advocates Solar Report
Organizational stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the carbon footprint by replacing the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels, creating implicit pressure on Engineer A to present the solar option favorably. Engineer A must resist this pressure and present a complete and objective technical assessment.
Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to resist implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar without storage option as unambiguously viable, and to refrain from selectively omitting or downplaying the rolling blackout risk and reliability differential in the board report in deference to stakeholder preferences.
Throughout the preparation and delivery of the board report on the energy system replacement proposal
Engineer A Systemic Grid Externality Disclosure Rolling Blackout Solar Transition
Engineer A has identified through utility resource planner communication that the solar-without-storage transition will increase grid stress and rolling blackout likelihood; the board report currently presents only isolated project viability
Systemic Externality Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from submitting a board report that presents only the isolated viability of the solar-without-storage system without disclosing the systemic externality that eliminating on-site generation will increase demand stress on the local utility grid and may increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts affecting third-party utility customers, including vulnerable populations such as elderly and medically dependent individuals.
NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity and completeness provisions; Systemic Externality Disclosure Constraint (prior section extraction)
Engineer A Third-Party Grid Stress Risk — Solar Without Storage Rolling Blackout Risk
From Engineer A's technical analysis through board decision on the energy system
Engineer A's knowledge that the solar-without-storage option will increase demand stress on the local utility grid
Board decision incorporating full reliability and grid-impact information, or adoption of storage solution that mitigates grid stress
It is not difficult to imagine the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
Technical finding that eliminating on-site dispatchable generation in favor of intermittent solar without storage increases grid stress during extreme weather events
Engineer A Vulnerable Population Energy Reliability Impact Solar Report
Vulnerable Population Energy Reliability Impact Assessment Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to identify and disclose in the board report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations — including elderly, confined, and medically dependent individuals — who would be placed under severe stress during extreme weather events if energy reliability is reduced by the solar without storage transition.
Engineer A preparing board report on solar energy system replacement, assessing public welfare implications of reduced grid reliability
Required to incorporate into the board report the specific human welfare consequences of rolling blackouts for vulnerable populations, drawing on recent California and Texas extreme weather events as illustrative precedents
Engineer A Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Impact Assessment
Engineer A possesses advanced awareness capability to identify and communicate the foreseeable impacts of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations who depend on stable energy supply for health and safety.
Required for fulfillment of the Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Impact Disclosure Obligation in the board advisory report.
Obligation to disclose in the board report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations such as elderly, confined, or medically dependent individuals.
Engineer A Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Impact Disclosure Rolling Blackout
Engineer A is evaluating the solar without storage option, which utility resource planners have indicated may increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events similar to those recently experienced in California and Texas.
Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Impact Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to explicitly identify and disclose in the board report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations — including elderly individuals, confined individuals, and those with medical conditions — who depend on continuous electric supply for health and safety during extreme weather events.
Engineer Adam Building Inspection Program PE
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Director of city building department', 'obligation_context': 'Must refuse politically-motivated compromise of code enforcement standards even when offered resource relief'}
Serves as director of a city building department facing inadequate inspection staffing due to budget cutbacks, required to sign off on all final inspection reports, meets with city council chairman to address concerns, and faces a politically-motivated Faustian bargain to concur with grandfathering buildings under older less-rigorous code requirements in exchange for authorization to hire additional code officials.
{'type': 'meets_with', 'target': 'City Council Chairman Political Authority'}
{'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Building Code Officials'}
Building Inspection Program PE Under Political Pressure
Engineer Adam is required to sign off on all final inspection reports.
Engineer Adam Competing Duties — Inspection Thoroughness vs. City Cost Pressure
From implementation of the 60-inspection-per-day requirement through resolution of the staffing deficit
The code officials are caught between the responsibility to be thorough in their inspections and the city's desire to hold down costs and generate revenue from inspection fees.
Engineer Adam's staff being caught between thorough inspection obligations and city cost-containment directives requiring 60 inspections per day
Hiring of additional code officials sufficient to allow thorough inspections, or formal escalation to higher authority
Engineer Adam believes there is no way even the most conscientious code official can make 60 adequate, much less thorough, inspections in one day
Budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements creating an impossible inspection workload that prevents adequate performance of safety obligations
Engineer Adam Faustian Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence BER 98-5
Engineer Adam demonstrated the capability to recognize the city council chairman's proposal as an impermissible Faustian bargain and to refuse concurrence with the grandfathering ordinance despite the offer of additional code officials
BER 98-5: Engineer Adam as director of city building department facing politically-motivated Faustian bargain from city council chairman
Refusal to concur with a city ordinance permitting specified buildings to be grandfathered under older code requirements in exchange for hiring additional code officials — recognizing this as righting a wrong with another wrong
In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
Engineer Adam Faustian Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Grandfathering Ordinance
Engineer Adam possessed — and was required to exercise — the capability to recognize the city council chairman's proposal as an impermissible Faustian bargain, and to refuse concurrence with the grandfathering ordinance that would exempt specified buildings from newer, more rigid code requirements, even though concurrence would have secured the legitimate benefit of additional building code officials.
Engineer Adam serving as director of city building department, offered additional inspectors in exchange for concurrence with safety-compromising grandfathering ordinance
BER found it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal — a politically-motivated Faustian bargain — affirming that righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare cannot be undermined for short-term gain
Engineer Adam Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination BER 98-5
Engineer Adam demonstrated the capability to recognize that the short-term gain of hiring additional code officials could not justify subordinating the long-term public welfare interest in rigorous building code enforcement
BER 98-5: Engineer Adam as director of city building department facing Faustian bargain from city council chairman
Refusal to concur with grandfathering specified buildings under older code requirements despite the offer of additional code officials — recognizing that righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to public health and safety
long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues)
Engineer Adam Political Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence BER 98-5
Engineer Adam serves as director of a city building department; the city council chairman offered to authorize additional code officials in exchange for Engineer Adam's concurrence on a city ordinance grandfathering certain buildings under older code requirements; the BER found this concurrence would be unethical
Political Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Obligation
Engineer Adam was obligated to refuse the city council chairman's proposal to concur with grandfathering specified buildings under older, less rigorous code requirements in exchange for authorization to hire additional code officials, recognizing that trading one public safety wrong for another does grave damage to public health and safety and that long-term public welfare cannot be undermined for short-term political gain.
At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman and the proposed ordinance concurrence
The BER further noted 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues).
Engineer Adam Political Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Grandfathering Ordinance
Engineer Adam serves as director of a city building department facing inadequate inspection staffing due to budget cutbacks. The city council chairman offered to authorize additional staff in exchange for Engineer Adam's concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance that would allow certain buildings to be inspected under older, less rigorous code requirements.
Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Obligation
Engineer Adam was obligated to refuse to concur with the city council chairman's proposed grandfathering ordinance — which would exempt specified buildings from newer, more rigorous code requirements — even in exchange for authorization to hire additional building code officials, and to insist strongly and vociferously that public officials take corrective steps to fulfill public safety obligations without trading one wrong for another.
At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman when the political bargain was proposed
Engineer Adam 'had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled.'
Engineer Adam Political Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Grandfathering Ordinance BER 98-5
Engineer Adam serves as director of a building department facing inadequate staffing for code inspections; the city council chairman offers additional staff in exchange for concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance exempting specified buildings from current code requirements
Political Bargain Safety Standard Non-Compromise Constraint
Engineer Adam is absolutely constrained from concurring with the city council chairman's proposed grandfathering ordinance — which would exempt specified buildings from current code requirements — as a condition of receiving additional building code officials, establishing that the political bargain to trade safety standard compromise for resource acquisition is ethically impermissible regardless of the genuine resource need.
BER Case 98-5; NSPE Code of Ethics public safety paramount provisions; Political Bargain Safety Standard Non-Compromise Constraint
At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman and any subsequent decision on the grandfathering ordinance
The BER further noted 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety
Engineer Adam Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Grandfathering
Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Capability
Engineer Adam possessed the capability to recognize that the city council chairman's proposal presented a false trade-off between competing public goods — additional inspectors versus grandfathered buildings — and to correctly identify that professional ethics obligations to public safety cannot be compromised through political bargaining, even when the trade-off appears to produce net public benefit through increased employment and tax revenues.
Engineer Adam facing political pressure from city council chairman to concur with grandfathering ordinance in exchange for additional building inspection staff
BER affirmed that Engineer Adam had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials take corrective steps to fulfill safety obligations, rather than accepting a political bargain that would undermine long-term public welfare for short-term gain
Engineer Adam had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled.
long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues).
Engineer Adam Politically Conditioned Safety Compliance — Grandfathering Bargain
From the chairman's conditional offer through Engineer Adam's decision to accept or refuse the bargain
Building occupants in grandfathered buildings
General public subject to code enforcement
Politically Conditioned Safety Compliance State
Engineer Adam's position when the city council chairman conditions additional inspection staff on concurrence with grandfathering buildings under older code requirements
Engineer Adam's refusal of the conditioned offer and insistence on unconditional fulfillment of code enforcement obligations
the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount'
City council chairman's offer to authorize additional code officials contingent on Engineer Adam's concurrence with a grandfathering ordinance reducing safety requirements for specified buildings
Engineer Adam Resource Constrained Inspection State
From budget cutbacks through Engineer Adam's meeting with the city council chairman
as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, the city has been unable to provide a sufficient number of qualified individuals to perform adequate and timely building inspections
Engineer Adam's building department unable to perform adequate inspections due to budget cutbacks and understaffing
Resolution of staffing and resource adequacy (not resolved within the case facts)
Each code official member of Engineer Adam's staff is often required to make as many as 60 code inspections per day
Series of budget cutbacks combined with more rigid code enforcement requirements leaving insufficient qualified inspectors
Engineer A's load profile study before preparation of board report
Engineer A's solar panel study before discussion with utility representative
Engineer BER 16-5 Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Risk Management
Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Risk Management Participation Capability
The engineer in BER Case 16-5 possessed — and was required to exercise — the capability to fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team developing the autonomous vehicle operating system, expressing clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety, and recommending further study before the operating system was utilized if safety concerns remained unresolved.
Engineer working on autonomous vehicle development team tasked with considering harm minimization outcomes in unavoidable crash scenarios
BER Case 16-5 conclusions affirmed that the engineer should fully and actively participate in the risk management team and express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously, including recommending further study before deployment — addressing the harm minimization question of whether the system should minimize harm to occupants only or to all involved parties
The development team was tasked with considering outcomes to choose in the event of an unavoidable vehicle crash – does the system choose the option that reduces the harm to vehicle occupants only, or should the system operate in a way that will minimize the harm that is done to anyone involved in the accident?
Engineer BER 16-5 Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Risk Management Participation
An engineer is a member of a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system, tasked with considering harm-minimization outcomes in unavoidable crash scenarios — specifically whether the system should minimize harm to vehicle occupants only or to all parties involved in the accident.
The engineer in BER Case 16-5 was obligated to fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team developing the autonomous vehicle operating system, to express clearly and unambiguously any concerns regarding the safety of the harm-minimization operating logic, and if necessary to recommend further study before the operating system was deployed for public use.
During the development and pre-deployment phases of the autonomous vehicle operating system
Engineer BER 16-5 Autonomous Vehicle Risk Management Active Participation Safety Concerns
An engineer is working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system tasked with considering outcomes in the event of an unavoidable vehicle crash; the engineer has safety concerns about the operating system
The engineer in BER Case 16-5 is constrained from passive participation in the autonomous vehicle risk management team and must fully and actively participate, express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously, and recommend further study before the operating system is utilized if safety concerns remain unresolved.
BER Case 16-5; NSPE Code of Ethics public safety paramount provisions; Autonomous Vehicle Risk Management Active Participation Constraint
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard - Rolling Blackout Disclosure
Professional engineering ethics bodies including NSPE
Professional norms governing engineer duty to escalate and disclose public health and safety concerns
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board
Engineer A in determining the scope of disclosure obligations in the board report
Governs Engineer A's obligation to disclose the rolling blackout risk to the board and potentially to broader stakeholders, even when the immediate client (the organization) may prefer a report focused solely on the project's viability in isolation
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard – Grid Reliability Context
Professional engineering community / NSPE
Professional norms governing engineer duty to escalate public safety concerns beyond immediate client interests
Engineer A in deciding what to include in the board report
Grounds Engineer A's obligation to ensure that the board and potentially broader stakeholders are informed of the public safety risk (rolling blackouts) that could result from the solar transition, even if the client's primary interest is carbon footprint reduction
Engineers BER 20-4 Post-Override Regulatory Escalation Water Safety
Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
The engineers in BER Case 20-4 possessed — and were required to exercise — the capability to assess that the municipal water commission's override of their safety recommendations triggered an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency, given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety.
Engineers retained by municipal water commission whose recommendation for further study before changing potable water source was overridden by the commission to reduce public expenditures
BER found that after formally communicating concerns to the water commission (which overrode their recommendations), the engineers had an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency — demonstrating that client override of safety recommendations triggers escalation rather than ending the obligation
The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission.
Engineers BER 20-4 Post-Water-Commission-Override State Regulatory Escalation
A municipal water commission chose to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety. After formally communicating concerns to the commission, the engineers faced the question of whether to escalate to the state regulatory agency.
Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation in Water Safety Obligation
The engineers in BER Case 20-4 were obligated, after the municipal water commission chose to change the potable water source despite their recommendations for further study, to formally report their public health and safety concerns to the state regulatory agency, given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety from the commission's decision.
After the water commission overrode the engineers' recommendations and proceeded with the water source change
Engineers BER 20-4 Post-Water-Commission-Override State Regulatory Escalation Constraint
A municipal water commission chose to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety
Post-Dismissal Safety Escalation Constraint
The engineers in BER Case 20-4 are constrained from passively accepting the municipal water commission's decision to change the potable water source despite their safety recommendations, and must escalate their concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety.
BER Case 20-4; NSPE Code of Ethics public safety paramount provisions; Post-Dismissal Safety Escalation Constraint
After the municipal water commission overrides the engineers' recommendations and proceeds with the potable water source change
Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Carbon Footprint Stakeholders Solar Project
Fossil-fueled co-generation facility retirement
Risk Threshold Calibration in Public Safety Reporting
The carbon footprint reduction stakeholders' proposal to replace the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels reflects a legitimate environmental stewardship goal that Engineer A must acknowledge and engage with substantively in the board report.
Environmental stewardship is a legitimate engineering principle that supports the stakeholders' solar proposal; Engineer A must engage with this goal seriously while also disclosing the grid reliability risks that the solar-without-storage option creates.
Environmental stewardship supports the solar project goal, but public welfare paramount requires disclosure of the rolling blackout risk; both principles must be reflected in the board report.
Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Solar Option Carbon Footprint
Solar generation without storage option evaluation
The solar without storage option advances legitimate environmental stewardship goals by reducing the organization's carbon footprint and supporting environmentally friendly energy production, which Engineer A must acknowledge as a genuine public good in the advisory report
Environmental stewardship is a legitimate and weighty public welfare consideration that must be presented fully in the advisory report, but it does not override the obligation to also disclose reliability risks and grid impacts — both values must be presented for the board to make an informed decision
Organization Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholders
Environmental stewardship is presented as one legitimate public good among competing public goods; the tension is resolved not by subordinating environmental stewardship but by ensuring that the board has complete information about both the environmental benefits and the reliability costs of the solar option
Escalation Obligation Invoked By Engineers BER 20-4 Water Commission
Municipal water commission decision to change potable water source over engineer objections
When the municipal water commission chose to change the potable water source despite the engineers' recommendations for further study, the engineers had an obligation not only to formally communicate concerns to the water commission but to escalate by formally reporting to the state regulatory agency given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety
A single formal communication to an unresponsive decision-making body does not discharge the engineer's public safety obligation; when the initial authority fails to act on safety concerns of sufficient gravity, the obligation escalates to higher regulatory authorities
Municipal Water Commission BER 20-4 Decision Authority
Escalation Obligation When Initial Regulatory Report Is Insufficient
The gravity of the public health and safety risk from a compromised potable water system overrides client loyalty and faithful agent obligations, requiring escalation to state regulatory authorities
Escalation Obligation Invoked in BER 20-4 Water Commission Analogy
Municipal water commission potable water source change
State regulatory agency reporting obligation
In BER Case 20-4, engineers who recommended further study before the municipal water commission changed its potable water source had an obligation not only to formally communicate concerns to the commission, but also to formally report to the state regulatory agency when the commission proceeded despite their concerns
The BER 20-4 precedent is invoked to illustrate that when a decision-making body proceeds despite formal engineering safety concerns, the engineer's obligation does not terminate at the initial communication — escalation to regulatory authorities is required when public health is at stake
The gravity of potential danger to public health and safety overrides deference to the commission's decision authority; formal regulatory reporting is required as a second-level escalation
The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency
The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission
Extreme Weather Grid Vulnerability Moving Baseline Engineer A Solar Design
The utility resource planners' concern about extreme weather events reflects a moving climate baseline that Engineer A must incorporate into the risk assessment rather than treating normal conditions as the definitive baseline.
Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint
Engineer A must not treat current normal-condition grid performance as a fixed, reliable baseline for evaluating the solar transition, but must account for the moving target of extreme weather frequency and intensity when assessing the rolling blackout risk associated with the proposed solar-without-storage system.
Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint; NSPE Code of Ethics — public safety provisions
Extreme Weather Grid Vulnerability as Moving Baseline
Ongoing; present at the time of Engineer A's analysis and persisting into the future operational life of any installed system
Local utility grid planning assumptions under changing climate conditions
Not terminated; represents an ongoing dynamic condition requiring continuous reassessment
After careful study of the facility electric load profile... Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator
Utility resource planners' acknowledgment that extreme weather events may force rolling outages, indicating that historical normal-condition assumptions are no longer sufficient for design planning
Extreme Weather Rolling Blackout Vulnerable Population Disclosure Engineer A
Rolling blackouts during extreme weather events are low-probability but high-consequence, particularly for vulnerable populations; Engineer A must disclose this risk profile completely.
Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A must disclose in the board report the rolling blackout risk during extreme weather events — including its foreseeable disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations dependent on continuous electricity — and may not omit or minimize this risk on the grounds that it is contingent on extreme weather conditions.
NSPE Code of Ethics — public safety paramount canon; Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Reliability Assessment
Technical basis for reliability risk disclosure in advisory report
Engineer A's disclosure of grid reliability risks must be grounded in the established technical assessment communicated by the local electric utility's resource planners — that rolling blackouts are a foreseeable consequence of the solar without storage option — rather than speculative concern, ensuring the disclosure is both factually grounded and complete
The utility resource planners' assessment that the current generation mix reduces stress on the power system during extreme weather events provides the factual foundation for Engineer A's reliability risk disclosure; this is a confirmed technical finding, not a speculative concern, and must be disclosed accordingly
The fact-based disclosure obligation is satisfied because the reliability risk is grounded in the utility's technical assessment; Engineer A is not speculating but reporting a confirmed finding from a competent technical authority
Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Utility Assessment
Stakeholder preferences for unqualified endorsement
The utility resource planner's rolling blackout assessment constitutes a completed professional assessment communicated by qualified professionals, meeting the factual grounding threshold for inclusion in Engineer A's board report.
The utility resource planner's assessment is not speculation but a professional evaluation communicated by the utility's own planners; this meets the factual grounding requirement for disclosure in the board report.
The utility resource planner's professional assessment meets the factual grounding threshold; Engineer A must include it in the board report rather than dismissing it as too speculative.
Fact Based Disclosure Engineer A Utility Assessment Rolling Blackout
The utility resource planners' assessment that rolling outages may be necessary during extreme weather events constitutes a completed professional assessment by qualified professionals. Engineer A must treat this as established fact for purposes of the board report disclosure obligation.
Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to ground the board report's disclosure of the rolling blackout risk in the established facts communicated by the local electric utility's resource planners — treating that professional assessment as a completed and credible technical finding — and to include that fact-grounded risk disclosure in the report rather than omitting it on the basis that the risk is contingent or uncertain.
In the preparation and submission of the board report
Faithful Agent Boundary — Engineer A Post-Report
Throughout Engineer A's engagement, particularly after full disclosure of tradeoffs to the board
Engineer A's obligation to act as faithful agent/trustee for the organization while also fulfilling public safety obligations
Board's informed decision; Engineer A's transition to executing chosen option
Recognition that Engineer A must balance trustee obligations to the organization with independent public safety reporting obligations
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Grid Risk
Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to the organization requires notification of the rolling blackout risk discovered during the load profile analysis, even though the contracted scope was the solar panel load profile analysis rather than regional grid reliability assessment.
The faithful agent relationship encompasses the organization's overall project welfare; the rolling blackout risk threatens the viability and wisdom of the solar project decision, and therefore falls within Engineer A's notification obligation even though it arose outside the contracted scope.
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
Faithful agent obligation extends beyond literal contracted scope to encompass risks that affect the client's overall project welfare; Engineer A must include the utility's rolling blackout assessment in the board report.
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Reliability Risk
Organizational board energy system replacement decision
Engineer A must advise the board in writing that the solar without storage system, while producing equivalent energy at similar cost, will not be as reliable as the fossil-fueled co-generation facility and may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions that would constitute project failure
The faithful agent obligation encompasses the client's overall project welfare including reliability outcomes; presenting only energy production and cost equivalence without reliability data would fail the board as faithful agent even if technically accurate as far as it goes
Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success. Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
The faithful agent obligation requires disclosure of the reliability gap because installing a system that results in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions would not be a project success from the board's perspective
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Grid Risk
Solar energy replacement project viability
Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to the organization requires written notification in the board report of the identified risk that the solar-without-storage option may contribute to rolling blackouts during extreme weather events — a risk that threatens the project's functional success (reliable energy supply) even though it arises from conditions outside the organization's direct control (grid-level stress).
The faithful agent relationship encompasses the client's overall project welfare; the rolling blackout risk is a foreseeable threat to the project's ability to reliably serve the organization's energy needs, and the agent must advise the principal of this risk.
Faithful agent notification and public welfare disclosure converge here: both require Engineer A to include the grid risk in the report, with no tension between them.
Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked for Complete Board Reporting by Engineer A
Engineer A's obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the organization by presenting complete technical information — including reliability data and systemic grid impacts — even when doing so may complicate or undermine the organization's stated preference for the solar-without-storage option
Acting as a faithful agent does not mean confirming the client's preferred conclusion; it means exercising full professional judgment to develop and present the best analysis, then deferring to the client's ultimate decision authority
The faithful agent obligation and public welfare obligation are aligned in this case: both require complete reporting; the board may then choose any option based on complete information
At first glance, this finding in conjunction with the earlier conclusion that system reliability data be included in the report to board may seem to satisfy Engineer A's obligations
Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Engineer A Board Report
The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator for reliability reasons; Engineer A must present this as a legitimate option to enable informed decision-making.
Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to present the option of rebuilding or refurbishing the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility as a legitimate alternative in the board report — including its reliability advantages and cost profile — and cannot omit or dismiss this option on the basis of sustainability preferences or stakeholder pressure for carbon footprint reduction.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Complete Design Alternative Presentation principles
The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage
At time of preparing and submitting the board advisory report
Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable System Deployment Engineer A Solar Without Storage
Engineer A has identified unresolved safety concerns (rolling blackout risk, grid stress, vulnerable population harm) that parallel the unresolved safety concerns in BER 16-5 and BER 20-4, triggering the further study recommendation obligation.
Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable System Deployment Constraint
By analogy to BER Case 16-5, Engineer A is constrained to recommend further study before the solar-without-storage system is deployed, given the unresolved public safety concerns about rolling blackout risk and grid reliability that have been identified through the analysis.
BER Case 16-5 (by analogy); BER Case 20-4 (by analogy); NSPE Code of Ethics
At time of preparing the board advisory report and any subsequent communications
Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success
Generator Approaches End-of-Life → Stakeholder Carbon Reduction Pressure Emerges
Generator End-of-Life Reached → Stakeholder Carbon Pressure Emerges
Electric utility resource planners / public record of California and Texas grid events
Grid Reliability and Utility Resource Planning Reference (California and Texas Rolling Blackout Events)
Grid Reliability and Utility Resource Planning Report
the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
BER in establishing the factual basis for grid reliability concerns
Referenced as evidentiary background establishing that solar production without storage can stress the power grid during extreme weather events, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts; grounds Engineer A's obligation to include reliability data in the board report
Grid Stress Risk Not Yet Disclosed to Board
From Engineer A's conversation with the utility representative through the submission of the board report
Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
Engineer A's knowledge of rolling blackout risk relative to the board
Disclosure of the grid stress and rolling blackout risk in the board report
Engineer A learning from the utility that rolling outages are possible during extreme weather, and realizing solar without storage would worsen this, before the board report is finalized
Honesty Invoked By Engineer A Complete Board Report
Engineer A's honesty obligation requires that the board report not create a misleading impression that the solar project is unambiguously viable by omitting the rolling blackout risk that Engineer A is aware of.
Honesty encompasses not only avoiding false statements but also avoiding misleading omissions; presenting the solar project as viable without disclosing the rolling blackout risk would create a false impression even if technically accurate in isolation.
Honesty requires Engineer A to include the rolling blackout risk in the board report to avoid creating a misleading impression of the solar project's viability.
Hybrid Design Exploration Constraint Engineer A Solar Storage Phased Options
Engineer A has identified that the solar-without-storage option creates a resilience gap and grid stress externality, while the generator rebuild option addresses these concerns but does not satisfy stakeholder carbon reduction interests. The binary framing may be premature if hybrid or phased solutions exist that could reduce the respective disadvantages.
Engineer A is constrained from presenting the board with a binary choice between rebuilding the generator and installing solar panels without storage, without first exploring and presenting whether hybrid or phased solutions — such as partial battery storage, demand response programs, or phased solar-plus-storage implementation — could mitigate the resilience gap and grid stress externalities identified in the analysis.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a and the principle that engineers must explore creative engineering synthesis before accepting binary design framings as definitive
During preparation of the board report and advisory analysis
Hybrid Design Exploration Engineer A Solar Storage Phased Option
The binary framing of solar-without-storage versus generator rebuild may not exhaust the design space; Engineer A should explore hybrid or phased alternatives that could reduce the reliability gap.
Engineer A must explore and present to the board whether hybrid or phased design solutions exist — such as a partial battery storage system, a phased solar-plus-storage approach, or a hybrid solar-generator configuration — before accepting the binary framing of solar-without-storage versus generator rebuild as definitive.
Hybrid Design Exploration Constraint; NSPE Code of Ethics — completeness and sustainable development provisions
In-Isolation Viability Finding Masking Grid Stress Externality
From the time Engineer A completed the in-isolation viability analysis and simultaneously recognized the grid stress externality, through the finalization and presentation of the board report
Engineer A's board report presenting solar project viability without yet incorporating the grid stress externality finding
Engineer A revises the board report to include the grid stress externality and resilience gap disclosures
Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more
Engineer A completed analysis confirming solar viability under normal conditions and simultaneously learned from the utility of the grid stress risk, creating a gap between the in-isolation finding and the complete picture
Incomplete Risk Disclosure Prohibition Engineer A Rolling Blackout Omission
Engineer A knows that the solar-without-storage transition will increase demand stress on the local utility grid and that utility resource planners believe rolling outages may be necessary during extreme weather events. This risk must be included in the board report regardless of its third-party origin.
Engineer A is prohibited from omitting the rolling blackout risk — communicated by the local electric utility's resource planners — from the board report, even though that risk arises from third-party grid stress rather than from the solar system's direct performance characteristics.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a and the principle that engineers must not omit known material risks from communications with clients and employers
Informal Technical Communication Factual Grounding Constraint Engineer A Utility Planner Communication
Engineer A learned of the rolling blackout risk through a discussion with a representative of the local electric utility rather than through a formal written report. The informal nature of the communication does not relieve Engineer A of the obligation to disclose the risk in the board report.
Informal Technical Communication Factual Grounding Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from omitting the rolling blackout risk from the board report on the grounds that the utility resource planner's communication was informal or unverified — the communication from a qualified technical authority constitutes sufficient factual grounding to trigger the disclosure obligation, and Engineer A must disclose the risk with appropriate qualification as to its source.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a and the principle that professional disclosure obligations are triggered by actual knowledge regardless of the formality of the communication channel
When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
From the time Engineer A received the utility resource planner communication through submission of the board report
Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Board Report
Solar-without-storage vs. fossil-fueled co-generation comparison
Engineer A's obligation to include grid reliability data and systemic grid impact analysis in the report to the organizational board, so that the board can make a genuinely informed capital investment decision rather than one based solely on energy production equivalence and carbon footprint metrics
The board, as a non-engineer decision-making body, depends entirely on Engineer A's report for technical information; omitting reliability data would structurally prevent informed decision-making regardless of whether the omission was intentional
Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision
The engineer's obligation to enable informed decision-making is satisfied by presenting complete information including reliability trade-offs; the ultimate decision authority remains with the board, which may choose the fossil-fueled option, the solar-with-storage option, or the solar-without-storage option based on complete information
Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board
Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board
Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Engineer A Board Report Structure
The ethical objective identified in the case is 'an informed policy and project decision-making process'; Engineer A's report must be structured to achieve this objective.
Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to structure the board report so that the organizational board's decision-making process is genuinely informed — presenting all material technical findings, trade-offs, and alternatives (including fossil fuel retention, solar-with-storage, and solar-without-storage) — and cannot submit a report that, while technically accurate in isolated findings, fails to provide the complete information necessary for an informed policy choice.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case precedents
Throughout preparation and submission of the board advisory report
Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Engineer A Board Solar Report
The board must make a policy decision about the solar transition; Engineer A's report must provide complete information including the rolling blackout risk and battery storage alternative.
Engineer A must structure the board report to facilitate an informed policy decision by the board — including presenting all material technical findings, tradeoffs between carbon reduction and grid reliability, and the battery storage alternative — prohibiting a report that, while technically accurate in isolated findings, fails to provide the board with complete information necessary for an informed policy choice.
NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and completeness provisions; Professional Report Integrity Standard
Initiate Solar Replacement Study → Solar Energy Equivalence Confirmed
Isolated Solar Viability Masking Systemic Grid Risk
From Engineer A's initial equivalence finding through recognition of broader grid-stress implications
the solar generation system without storage will provide energy generation equivalent to the existing fossil-fueled generator at a similar cost; the system also reduces the organization's carbon footprint.
Solar-without-storage system appearing viable in isolation (equivalent energy, similar cost, reduced carbon) while masking systemic grid reliability risk
Engineer A's full disclosure of systemic reliability implications to the board
Finding that solar system produces equivalent energy at similar cost, which is accurate in isolation but incomplete without reliability and grid-impact context
Isolated Technical Viability Insufficiency Invoked by Engineer A Solar Normal Conditions Finding
Board report viability finding for solar replacement project
Reliability Equivalence Disclosure in Energy System Advisory Reports
Engineer A's finding that solar panels can supply energy equivalent to the co-generation facility 'under normal conditions' is technically accurate but ethically insufficient as the sole basis for the board report recommendation, because it omits the material qualifier that viability breaks down under abnormal conditions (night, bad weather, extreme weather events) and that these conditions are precisely when grid stress and rolling blackout risk are highest.
The 'under normal conditions' qualifier in Engineer A's own assessment signals awareness that the isolated viability finding is incomplete; professional ethics requires that this qualifier be prominently featured in the board report, not buried or omitted.
Isolated Technical Viability Insufficiency Principle
The isolated viability finding should be presented as a qualified finding, explicitly noting the conditions under which it holds and the conditions under which it does not, so the board can assess the full risk profile.
Isolated Technical Viability Insufficiency Invoked for Energy Equivalence Finding
Solar-without-storage technical viability finding
Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A's finding that the solar-without-storage system produces energy equivalent to the fossil-fueled co-generator at similar cost is technically accurate in isolation but ethically insufficient as the sole basis for a recommendation, because it does not account for reliability differences, systemic grid impacts, or vulnerable population welfare
The isolated finding of energy production equivalence creates a misleading impression of full equivalence; the principle requires the engineer to contextualize this finding within the full operational environment before presenting conclusions to the board
Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability. At first glance, this finding in conjunction with the earlier conclusion that system reliability data be included in the report to board may seem to satisfy Engineer A's obligations.
The principle is operationalized by requiring Engineer A to supplement the isolated equivalence finding with reliability analysis, systemic grid impact assessment, and vulnerable population impact disclosure before presenting the report to the board
Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability
The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable
{'organization': 'Local electric utility', 'function': 'Generation resource mix planning and grid reliability assessment', 'key_disclosure': 'Potential rolling outages during extreme weather events due to current generation mix constraints'}
Representative of the local electric utility whose resource planners assessed the current generation mix and communicated to Engineer A that rolling outages may be necessary during extreme weather events, providing the critical grid reliability information that Engineer A must incorporate into the board report.
{'type': 'grid_operator_for', 'target': 'General Public (service territory)'}
{'type': 'information_provider_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
Local Utility Resource Planner Electric Utility Grid Resource Planner
{'organization': 'Local electric utility', 'function': 'Generation resource mix planning and grid reliability assessment'}
A representative of the local electric utility whose resource planners have reviewed the current generation mix and assessed that during extreme weather events they may be forced to institute rolling outages. This assessment, communicated to Engineer A, creates the obligation for Engineer A to disclose grid-level impacts in the board report.
{'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Solar project decision'}
{'type': 'informs', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination Engineer A Solar Transition Board Report
The solar-without-storage option offers short-term sustainability gains (carbon footprint reduction) but may undermine long-term public welfare (grid reliability, vulnerable population protection); Engineer A must not allow the short-term gain to dominate the report framing.
Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Gain Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from structuring the board report in a manner that subordinates long-term public welfare considerations — sustained grid reliability and protection of vulnerable populations — to the short-term sustainability gain of carbon footprint reduction, and must explicitly identify and disclose the long-term welfare trade-offs when presenting the short-term benefits of the solar transition.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 98-5 (long-term public welfare cannot be undermined for short-term gain)
Low Probability High Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Extreme Weather Rolling Blackout
The rolling blackout risk arises specifically during extreme weather events, which are by definition lower-probability occurrences. However, the consequences — loss of electricity during extreme weather — are high-consequence events that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Engineer A must disclose this risk with appropriate probability and consequence framing.
Engineer A is constrained from omitting the rolling blackout risk from the board report on the grounds that it arises only during extreme weather events — the low-probability but high-consequence nature of the risk, combined with its disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations dependent on electricity during extreme weather, requires disclosure regardless of its conditional probability.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 and the principle that low-probability high-consequence risks must be disclosed with their full consequence profile alongside probability assessments
the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
{'type': 'Public water authority board', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 20-4'}
A public board (municipal water commission) that chose to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite engineers' recommendations that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
{'type': 'receives_recommendations_from', 'target': 'Water Commission Engineers BER 20-4'}
Metropolitan Water Commission Decision Authority
a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety
{'entity_type': 'Public water authority board', 'decision_context': 'BER Case 20-4 referenced as analogous precedent'}
A public water authority board that chose to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite recommendations from two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety, generating engineer obligations to formally communicate concerns to the commission and to state regulatory agencies.
{'type': 'receives_recommendations_from', 'target': 'Public Health Risk Reporting Engineers BER 20-4'}
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 16-5 (Autonomous Vehicle Operating System)
BER in analyzing Engineer A's obligations regarding competing public goods and risk communication
Cited as precedent for the principle that engineers must fully and actively participate in risk management deliberations, express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously, and recommend further study before deployment when necessary; applied to Engineer A's obligation to raise reliability and public safety concerns about the solar-without-storage option
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 20-4 (Municipal Water Commission / Potable Water Source Change)
BER in analyzing Engineer A's reporting and escalation obligations
Cited as precedent establishing that engineers have an obligation to formally communicate safety concerns to a public board and, given gravity of potential danger to public health and safety, to formally report concerns to the state regulatory agency; directly analogous to Engineer A's obligation to report grid reliability risks to the board
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 98-5 (Engineer Adam / Building Inspection)
'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety
BER in analyzing Engineer A's reporting obligations
Cited as precedent establishing that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount and cannot accept politically-motivated compromises ('Faustian bargains') that undermine long-term public welfare for short-term gain; used to ground Engineer A's obligation to report complete information to the board
National Society of Professional Engineers
engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
BER in framing all ethical obligations of Engineer A
Implicitly invoked throughout as the normative foundation for Engineer A's obligations: to hold public health and safety paramount, to act as faithful agent or trustee, and to include complete and relevant information in professional reports to the board
NSPE Code of Ethics - Fundamental Canon on Public Safety
Grounds Engineer A's obligation to hold public safety paramount and to disclose systemic risks (rolling blackouts) that extend beyond the immediate client's interests when preparing the board report on the solar project
NSPE Code of Ethics - Sustainable Development Ethics Provision
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Professional Obligations (sustainable development)
Sustainable Development Ethics Provision
stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
Engineer A and organizational stakeholders evaluating the solar project
Provides normative grounding for stakeholder interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and Engineer A's engagement with the solar transition proposal
Engineer A in preparing the board report and evaluating disclosure obligations
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations to hold public safety paramount, provide complete and accurate reports to the board, and disclose systemic risks of the solar project beyond the isolated project analysis
No-Storage Solar Risk Notification Engineer A Board Faithful Agent
Capital constraints prevent installation of battery storage. The solar system is viable under normal conditions but cannot supply energy at night or in bad weather without storage. The utility has warned of potential rolling outages during extreme weather events, and the solar transition may worsen this risk.
Engineer A is obligated, as a faithful agent of the organization, to advise the board in writing that the proposed solar system without battery storage cannot guarantee continuous electric supply during extreme weather events or grid rolling blackout conditions, and that the transition may increase the probability of such events, so that the board can make an informed decision about whether to proceed, invest in storage, or maintain the existing generation capability.
No-Storage Solar Risk Notification Engineer A Written Board Report
Capital constraints prevent battery storage installation; the solar system is dependent on grid availability; utility resource planners have flagged rolling outage risk during extreme weather.
Engineer A is obligated to notify the board in writing that the solar-without-storage system cannot guarantee continuous electric supply during extreme weather events or rolling blackout conditions, and that the transition may increase the probability of such events, so the board can make an informed decision about whether to proceed, invest in storage, or maintain the generator.
In the written board report prior to the capital investment decision
Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political Bargaining Invoked By Engineer Adam BER 98-5
City council chairman's proposed grandfathering ordinance for buildings under construction
Engineer Adam must refuse to concur with the chairman's proposed grandfathering ordinance — which would exempt specified buildings from newer, more rigorous safety codes — even though concurrence is offered as consideration for the politically valuable benefit of hiring additional code officials to address the inspection staffing crisis
The political bargain offered — additional inspectors in exchange for grandfathering — is a Faustian bargain that uses public safety as a negotiating chip; the BER found this ethically impermissible because righting a wrong (inadequate inspectors) with another wrong (reduced code enforcement) does grave damage to public health and safety
Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
The public safety obligation is non-negotiable and cannot be traded away for political concessions; Engineer Adam must insist vociferously that public officials fulfill safety obligations through legitimate means rather than accepting the bargain
in finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
the BER further noted 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues).
Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political Bargaining Invoked in BER 98-5 Analogy
City council chairman's political bargain
Engineer Adam's refusal to concur with grandfathering buildings under older, less rigorous code requirements as a political quid pro quo for hiring additional code officials, affirming that public safety cannot be traded for political concessions even when the concession would address a genuine resource problem
The BER 98-5 precedent is invoked in this case to provide guidance on how engineers should handle conflicts between competing public goods — the principle is that engineers must insist on public safety standards through legitimate channels rather than accepting politically-motivated compromises
righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain
The BER affirmed that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' is not ethically permissible; Engineer Adam was required to insist on corrective action through legitimate means rather than accepting the political bargain
Engineer Adam had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled
the BER affirmed that engineers must hold the public health and safety paramount
Objective Complete Reporting Engineer A Solar Board Report
Engineer A is preparing a board report that will inform the organization's decision about whether to replace the co-generation facility with solar panels. The report must be objective and complete, including adverse information about grid stress and rolling blackout risk.
Engineer A is obligated to prepare an objective and complete board report on the solar project that includes all relevant and pertinent information — including both the normal-condition viability of the solar system and the rolling blackout risk communicated by the utility resource planners — without selectively presenting only the information favorable to the stakeholders' preferred outcome.
Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project, and is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
In the preparation and submission of the board report on the solar project
Objective and Complete Reporting Engineer A Solar Board Report
Engineer A is preparing a board report and is 'convinced' the solar project is viable in isolation; the obligation requires the report to be complete and not selectively favorable.
Engineer A is obligated to prepare an objective and complete board report that includes all material technical findings — including the rolling blackout risk, the reliability differential, and the systemic grid impact — rather than a report that presents only the favorable isolated viability finding.
Throughout the preparation and presentation of the board report
Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Competing Stakeholder Pressures
Technical evaluation of energy system replacement options for organizational board
Engineer A must render an objective technical assessment of both the solar without storage and fossil-fueled co-generation options — including reliability, grid impact, cost, and environmental dimensions — without allowing the carbon footprint reduction stakeholders' preferences to skew the analysis toward the solar option
Objectivity requires Engineer A to present the reliability disadvantages of the solar option with the same prominence as its environmental and cost advantages, resisting stakeholder pressure to frame the analysis favorably toward the preferred option
Objectivity prevails over stakeholder preference; the board is entitled to an unbiased technical assessment that enables informed decision-making rather than a report structured to support a predetermined conclusion
Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Stakeholder Pressure Resistance
Engineer A must resist the implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar project as unambiguously viable, and must instead render an objective technical assessment that includes the rolling blackout risk.
Objectivity requires Engineer A to present the complete technical picture even when stakeholders have strong preferences about the outcome; the solar project's viability in isolation does not justify omitting the grid stress risk.
Objectivity obligation requires Engineer A to include the rolling blackout risk in the board report despite stakeholder preference for an unqualified endorsement of the solar project.
Organization Board Organizational Board Decision Authority
{'authority': 'Final decision-maker on energy infrastructure capital investment', 'constraint': 'Capital constraints prevent battery storage installation'}
The board of the organization that will receive Engineer A's report and make the ultimate capital investment decision on whether to replace the co-generation generator with solar panels. As the primary recipient of Engineer A's faithful-agent reporting obligations, the board requires complete and non-misleading disclosure including grid-stress and rolling blackout risks.
{'type': 'receives_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
{'type': 'subject_to_advocacy_from', 'target': 'Organization Stakeholders Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder'}
Organization Board of Directors City Infrastructure Decision Authority
{'authority': 'Final decision-making over capital investment in energy systems', 'information_dependency': "Relies on Engineer A's complete and objective technical report", 'decision_context': 'Solar panel replacement vs. generator rebuild under capital constraints'}
The organizational board of directors that will receive Engineer A's report on the solar project and bear ultimate decision-making authority over whether to proceed with the solar panel replacement, requiring complete and objective technical information including grid reliability risks.
{'type': 'decision_authority_over', 'target': 'Organization energy system investment'}
{'type': 'report_recipient_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
{'affiliation': 'Organization (internal stakeholders)', 'advocacy_focus': 'Carbon footprint reduction, renewable energy transition', 'authority': 'Preference-expressing, not decision-making'}
Organizational stakeholders who have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and proposed replacing the fossil-fueled co-generation facility generator with solar panels, establishing the preference context for Engineer A's board report.
{'type': 'affiliated_with', 'target': 'Organization (Employer)'}
{'type': 'obligation_generating_toward', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
{'type': 'preference_recipient', 'target': 'Board of Directors'}
these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels
Organization Stakeholders Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder
{'advocacy': 'Transition from fossil-fuel co-generation to solar energy', 'constraint': 'No direct professional obligations; preference-setting role only'}
Stakeholders affiliated with the organization who have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and advocate for eliminating the fossil-fueled generator in favor of solar panels. Their preferences establish the sustainability context Engineer A must faithfully represent while also disclosing countervailing grid-reliability risks.
{'type': 'influences', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
{'type': 'recipient_of_report', 'target': 'Organizational Board Decision Authority'}
{'type': 'Non-engineer organizational governance body', 'decision_scope': 'Energy infrastructure replacement'}
The organization's board receives Engineer A's technical report and holds ultimate authority over the energy system replacement decision (fossil-fueled generator vs. solar without storage).
Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator.
{'entity_type': 'Non-engineer organizational governance body', 'decision_scope': 'Energy system replacement policy for the organization'}
Receives Engineer A's technical report on energy system replacement options, bears ultimate authority to decide between solar generation without storage, solar with storage, or fossil-fueled generator refurbishment, and must make an informed decision based on complete reliability and public safety information provided by Engineer A.
{'type': 'receives_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporter'}
Permissible But Suboptimal Solar Design Without Storage
From the time Engineer A confirmed solar viability under normal conditions through the board's decision
Permissible But Suboptimal Design Assignment State
The solar-only design without battery storage, which is technically permissible and meets normal-condition requirements but falls short of optimal resilience and grid-impact standards
Board decision on the solar project, or addition of storage to the design
Engineer A's analysis confirmed that solar panels without storage can meet normal-condition electric load requirements, making the design technically permissible but not optimal
Political Bargain Safety Standard Non-Concurrence Engineer Adam Grandfathering Ordinance
Engineer Adam faces a politically-motivated Faustian bargain: concur with grandfathering ordinance in exchange for resources needed to perform adequate inspections. BER found this impermissible.
Political Bargain Safety Standard Non-Concurrence Constraint
Engineer Adam is absolutely constrained from concurring with the city council chairman's proposal to grandfather specified buildings under older, less rigorous code requirements as a condition of receiving authorization to hire additional building code officials, regardless of the resource pressures created by understaffing.
BER Case 98-5; NSPE Code of Ethics — engineers must hold public health and safety paramount
At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman and any subsequent formal response
In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials
Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Engineer Adam Resource Constraint Context
The chairman's proposal creates an apparent logic that one wrong (understaffed inspections) justifies another wrong (grandfathering); BER Case 98-5 establishes this logic is impermissible in engineering ethics.
Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Constraint
Engineer Adam is constrained from accepting the logic that trading a safety standard compromise (grandfathering) for a resource gain (additional inspectors) is ethically permissible, even when the resource gain would itself serve public safety by enabling more thorough inspections.
At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman
Politically Conditioned Hiring Offer — Engineer Adam Case
From chairman's proposal through BER's finding that Engineer Adam must refuse the bargain
Public occupants of grandfathered buildings
Politically Conditioned Resource Offer State
Chairman's offer to authorize additional building code officials contingent on Engineer Adam's concurrence with grandfathering ordinance
BER finding that Engineer Adam must refuse the politically-motivated Faustian bargain
it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials
Chairman's conditional offer: additional inspection staff in exchange for Engineer Adam's concurrence on grandfathering specified buildings under older, less rigorous code requirements
Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Engineer A Solar Grid Safety BER 20-4 Analogy
BER Case 20-4 is cited as instructive precedent for Engineer A's situation; the analogy establishes that post-override regulatory escalation is required when public safety concerns are of sufficient gravity.
Post-Client-Override Public Safety Regulatory Escalation Constraint
By analogy to BER Case 20-4, if the organizational board proceeds with the solar-without-storage replacement despite Engineer A's formal communication of rolling blackout and grid reliability concerns, Engineer A is constrained to escalate those concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety.
BER Case 20-4 (by analogy); NSPE Code of Ethics
Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety
After the board overrides Engineer A's safety recommendations, if that occurs
Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Water Commission Engineers BER 20-4
BER Case 20-4 cited as precedent: engineers must formally communicate concerns to the board and, given gravity of potential danger, escalate to state regulatory agency.
The engineers advising the municipal water commission are constrained to escalate their public safety concerns to the state regulatory agency after the commission overrides their recommendation for further study, and cannot treat the commission's override as a complete discharge of their public safety obligation.
After the water commission overrides the engineers' recommendation for further study
Proactive Risk Disclosure Engineer A Rolling Blackout Without Board Request
The board is a non-engineer decision-making body that will rely on Engineer A's report to make the energy infrastructure decision. Engineer A must proactively include the rolling blackout risk rather than waiting for the board to inquire about grid implications.
Engineer A is obligated to proactively disclose the rolling blackout risk in the board report without waiting for the board to ask about grid implications, because the board — as a non-engineer decision-making body — may not know to ask about systemic grid impacts of the solar transition, and the risk is material to the board's decision.
In the preparation and submission of the board report, before the board makes its decision
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Grid Reliability Warning
Advisory report to organizational board on solar without storage option
Engineer A must proactively communicate the grid reliability risks of the solar without storage option — including the increased likelihood of rolling blackouts — to the board without waiting for the board to specifically request reliability analysis or for harm to materialize
The proactive disclosure obligation requires Engineer A to surface reliability risks that the board has not specifically requested and may not know to ask about, because the board lacks the technical expertise to identify the reliability gap independently
Proactive disclosure of reliability risks is required regardless of whether the board or stakeholders have requested it; the engineer's professional obligation to enable informed decision-making is not contingent on the client's awareness of what information is material
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Rolling Blackout
Engineer A must proactively disclose the rolling blackout risk to the board without waiting for the board to ask about grid implications, because the board lacks the technical knowledge to know what questions to ask.
Proactive disclosure is required because the board is a non-technical decision-making body that relies on Engineer A to surface all material risks; the rolling blackout risk is material to the board's decision and must be disclosed proactively.
Proactive disclosure obligation requires Engineer A to include the rolling blackout risk in the board report even though the board did not specifically request grid reliability analysis.
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A Grid Stress Information
Board report on solar replacement project
Rolling blackout risk to organization and community
Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
Engineer A must proactively communicate the rolling blackout risk to the board without waiting for the board to ask about grid reliability implications, recognizing that the board may not know to ask this question and that the risk was identified through Engineer A's own professional inquiry with the utility resource planner.
Proactive disclosure is triggered by Engineer A's actual knowledge of the grid stress risk; having learned this information from the utility planner, Engineer A cannot ethically omit it from the report on the grounds that the board did not specifically request grid reliability analysis.
When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages.
The proactive disclosure obligation overrides any scope-of-work argument that grid reliability was not part of the original analysis mandate; Engineer A's actual knowledge of the risk triggers the disclosure obligation.
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked for Further Study Recommendation in BER 16-5 Analogy
Autonomous vehicle crash outcome algorithm safety concerns
Engineering risk management team participation
In BER Case 16-5, the engineer working on autonomous vehicle operating system development had an obligation to express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously to the risk management team and, if necessary, to recommend further study before the operating system is utilized — proactively disclosing risks rather than waiting for harm to materialize
The BER 16-5 precedent is invoked to illustrate that proactive risk disclosure includes both active participation in risk management processes and formal recommendation for further study when safety concerns are unresolved
Proactive risk disclosure requires the engineer to raise concerns clearly and unambiguously even in a team context where other members may not share the concern; the obligation is not discharged by passive awareness of the risk
Professional Report Integrity Standard (Complete and Relevant Information Obligation)
Invoked as the professional norm requiring Engineer A to include all relevant and pertinent information — specifically grid reliability data — in the report to the board, so that the board can make a fully informed decision
Professional Report Integrity Standard - Solar Project Board Report
Professional norms governing completeness and accuracy of engineering reports presented to decision-making bodies
Engineer A in structuring the board report on the solar project
Governs Engineer A's obligation not to present the solar project as viable 'in isolation' without disclosing the systemic grid reliability risks identified through utility planner consultation, prohibiting selective omission of material facts from the board report
Professional Report Integrity Standard – Board Report Completeness
Professional norms governing completeness and transparency of engineering reports to decision-making bodies
is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
Engineer A in preparing the report for the board
Governs Engineer A's obligation to present the board with a complete and non-misleading report that includes the rolling-blackout risk, not merely the isolated viability of the solar project
Public Safety Paramount Constraint Engineer A Rolling Blackout Third Party Impact
The rolling blackout risk identified by utility resource planners affects not only the organization but the broader public served by the local electric utility. Engineer A's public safety obligation requires disclosure of this third-party impact in the board report.
Engineer A is constrained by the paramount obligation to public safety from presenting the solar project as viable without disclosing the rolling blackout risk to third-party utility customers — the public safety obligation extends beyond the organization's internal interests to the broader public served by the local electric utility grid.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 (engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public)
Public Safety Paramount Engineer A Rolling Blackout Grid Risk
The rolling blackout risk identified by utility resource planners constitutes a public safety risk that Engineer A must hold paramount over stakeholder carbon footprint preferences.
Engineer A must hold public safety paramount over organizational stakeholder preferences for carbon footprint reduction, and may not proceed with a board report that omits the rolling blackout risk to third-party electricity consumers even if the organization's stakeholders prefer the solar-without-storage option.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Fundamental Canon I; NSPE BER Case 98-5; NSPE BER Case 20-4
Throughout the board report preparation and submission process
From Engineer A's awareness of the rolling blackout risk through any board decision that fails to address the grid stress externality
Third-party electricity consumers and the broader public served by the local utility
Adoption of a design that includes storage, retention of co-generation, or utility capacity expansion sufficient to prevent rolling outages
Utility planners' disclosure of potential rolling outages during extreme weather, worsened by the prospective solar-without-storage transition
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Rolling Blackout Disclosure
Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public requires inclusion of the rolling blackout risk in the board report, because rolling blackouts during extreme weather events pose risks to public health and safety beyond the organization's own operations.
In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to disclose the grid stress and rolling blackout risk even though the solar project is viable in isolation and satisfies stakeholder sustainability preferences, because the broader public is affected by grid reliability.
Public welfare obligation overrides the preference of carbon footprint reduction stakeholders for an unqualified endorsement of the solar project; Engineer A must include the rolling blackout risk in the board report.
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Solar Reliability
Solar generation without storage recommendation to organizational board
Engineer A must hold paramount the public welfare implications of reduced grid reliability — including rolling blackouts affecting vulnerable populations — when advising the board on the solar without storage option, even though the organization's stakeholders favor the environmental benefits of that option
In this context, public welfare encompasses not only the organization's interests but the broader grid reliability impacts on all members of the public, particularly vulnerable populations who cannot self-protect from rolling blackouts during extreme weather events
Public welfare obligation requires full disclosure of reliability risks and grid impacts even when this disclosure may disfavor the environmentally preferred option advocated by organizational stakeholders
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Regarding Rolling Blackout Risk
Rolling blackout risk to community grid users
Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public requires including in the board report the utility resource planners' assessment that solar-without-storage will increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events, which pose serious risks to the broader public beyond the organization.
Public welfare here extends beyond the organization's stakeholders to the broader community served by the shared electric grid; the engineer cannot limit the welfare analysis to the client organization when the decision creates foreseeable externalized public risks.
Public welfare paramount requires that the rolling blackout risk be disclosed in the report regardless of stakeholder pressure for carbon footprint reduction; the board must make an informed decision with full knowledge of the public welfare implications.
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Energy System Advisory Context
Grid reliability impact on vulnerable populations
Rolling blackout risk during extreme weather
Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including vulnerable populations such as elderly and medically dependent individuals — when advising the board on the solar-without-storage option that may increase rolling blackout risk during extreme weather events
Public welfare paramount extends beyond the organization's immediate stakeholders to the broader community served by the shared electric grid; the engineer cannot limit the welfare analysis to the client's carbon footprint goals when systemic grid reliability impacts are foreseeable
it is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event
Public welfare paramount requires full disclosure of grid reliability risks and vulnerable population impacts; it does not require the engineer to resolve the competing goods question, but does require that the board receive complete information to make an informed decision
engineers must hold the public health and safety paramount
it is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts
Public Welfare Safety Escalation Engineer A Rolling Blackout Public Impact
The rolling blackout risk identified by the utility resource planners affects the broader public, not only the organization. Engineer A must assess whether the public welfare impact of the solar transition decision requires notification beyond the organizational board to regulatory or public authorities.
Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to evaluate whether the rolling blackout risk — which affects not only the organization but the broader public served by the electric utility — rises to a level requiring escalation beyond the organizational board report to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, and to take such escalation steps if the risk to public welfare warrants it after calibrated assessment.
After completing the calibrated risk assessment and before or concurrent with submitting the board report
Qualitative Risk Assessment - Grid Stability Impact of Solar Transition
Engineer A in consultation with utility resource planners
Structured assessment of likelihood and magnitude of rolling blackout risk from solar-without-storage transition
Engineer A in evaluating and reporting systemic risks of the solar project
Provides the methodological framework for Engineer A to estimate and communicate the public safety risk of increased rolling blackout likelihood resulting from the proposed solar project's effect on the utility generation mix
Should Engineer A include information about the utility generation mix and rolling blackouts in the report to the board?
Does Engineer A have an obligation to independently verify the utility resource planner's informal warning about rolling blackouts before including it in the board report, and if the warning cannot be verified, how should Engineer A characterize its reliability and evidentiary weight?
Is Engineer A obligated to explore and present hybrid or phased design alternatives — such as a partial battery storage system or a staged solar-plus-storage rollout — even when the organization's stated capital constraints appear to foreclose those options, and does omitting such alternatives from the board report itself constitute an incomplete advisory?
To what extent does Engineer A bear ethical responsibility for third-party harms — such as rolling blackouts affecting vulnerable populations — that result from a board decision made on the basis of a technically accurate but contextually incomplete report, and does that responsibility persist even after Engineer A has fulfilled the disclosure obligation?
If the board receives Engineer A's complete report — including the rolling blackout risk and battery storage cost — and nonetheless decides to proceed with solar-only installation, does Engineer A have any residual obligation to escalate concerns to a higher authority, such as a state regulatory body or public utility commission, or does faithful agent loyalty to the organization terminate Engineer A's public safety duty at the point of board notification?
Should Engineer A include information about cost of battery storage and the potential consequences of not having battery storage?
Does the principle of Environmental Stewardship — which supports the stakeholders' carbon footprint reduction goals and the solar transition — conflict with the principle of Public Welfare Paramount when the solar-without-storage option demonstrably increases the probability of rolling blackouts that could harm vulnerable third parties, and how should Engineer A weight these competing public goods in the board report?
Does the principle of Client Loyalty — which requires Engineer A to act as a faithful agent serving the organization's interests, including its capital constraints and stakeholder preferences — conflict with the principle of Proactive Risk Disclosure when fully disclosing the rolling blackout risk and battery storage costs may effectively compel the board toward a more expensive option or undermine the stakeholder-driven solar initiative the organization has already signaled support for?
Does the principle of Completeness and Non-Selectivity — which obligates Engineer A to present all material facts including the rolling blackout risk and storage cost gap — conflict with the principle of Risk Threshold Calibration when the rolling blackout risk is probabilistic, contingent on extreme weather, and based on an informal utility planner communication rather than a formal engineering assessment, raising the question of whether every speculative risk must be disclosed or only those exceeding a defensible materiality threshold?
Does the principle of Objectivity — which requires Engineer A to present an unbiased technical assessment free from stakeholder pressure — conflict with the principle of Reliability Equivalence Disclosure when Engineer A is personally convinced the solar project is viable in isolation, creating a risk that Engineer A's own professional confidence in the solar design may unconsciously suppress the weight given to systemic grid reliability concerns in the final board report?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their duty of complete disclosure by including the utility's rolling blackout warning in the board report, regardless of whether that information was explicitly requested or whether it complicated the stakeholder-preferred solar narrative?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the aggregate public harm of increased rolling blackout risk during extreme weather events — potentially affecting vulnerable populations dependent on electricity for medical or thermal needs — outweigh the organizational benefit of a cost-equivalent solar transition that satisfies stakeholder carbon reduction goals?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity and intellectual courage by resisting stakeholder pressure to present the solar project as straightforwardly viable, and instead proactively surfacing the grid stress externality that complicated the preferred narrative?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to the organization require disclosure of the battery storage cost and resilience gap even when the organization has already determined it lacks the capital for storage, or does that capital constraint relieve Engineer A of the obligation to present storage as a viable option in the board report?
From a consequentialist perspective, would the board's decision-making quality — and the organization's long-term resilience — be meaningfully improved if Engineer A presented battery storage costs alongside a phased or hybrid implementation pathway, even if full storage deployment is currently capital-constrained?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A's willingness to present battery storage costs and resilience consequences — despite knowing the organization cannot currently afford storage — reflect the professional virtue of honest counsel, or does it risk being perceived as undermining a decision the organization has already effectively made on capital grounds?
If Engineer A had omitted the utility resource planner's rolling blackout warning from the board report — reasoning that the warning was informal, unverified, and outside the scope of the organization's internal project — and the board approved the solar transition, after which rolling blackouts occurred during an extreme weather event, would Engineer A bear professional ethical responsibility for the resulting public harm?
If the utility resource planner's rolling blackout concern had been communicated in a formal written report rather than in a casual conversation, would Engineer A's ethical obligation to include that information in the board report be stronger, or is the disclosure obligation the same regardless of the formality of the source communication?
If the organization had possessed sufficient capital to install battery storage alongside the solar panels, would Engineer A's ethical obligations regarding the board report content have been substantially reduced — specifically the obligations around grid stress disclosure and reliability equivalence qualification — or would those obligations persist independently of the storage availability?
If the board, after receiving Engineer A's complete report including rolling blackout risks and battery storage costs, chose to proceed with solar-without-storage anyway — citing capital constraints and stakeholder carbon reduction commitments — would Engineer A have any remaining ethical obligation to escalate the grid reliability concern to the local utility, a regulatory body, or another external authority, or does the faithful agent obligation terminate once the board has been fully informed?
Reliability-Sustainability Conflict Crystallizes
Reliability-Sustainability Conflict Crystallizes → Decide Report Content Scope
Reliability Equivalence Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Solar Energy Report
Advisory report to organizational board comparing solar without storage to fossil-fueled co-generation
Engineer A must explicitly disclose in the advisory report that while the solar without storage system produces equivalent energy at similar cost to the fossil-fueled co-generation facility, it is materially less reliable — and that this reliability gap has implications not only for the organization but for the entire local electric power system
The board cannot be expected to independently recognize that energy production equivalence does not imply reliability equivalence; Engineer A must make this distinction explicit and prominent in the report to enable informed decision-making
The reliability equivalence disclosure obligation is not in tension with the faithful agent obligation — it is an expression of it; a faithful agent must ensure the board understands the full performance profile of each option, not merely the dimensions that favor the stakeholder-preferred choice
Reliability Equivalence Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A Solar vs Co-Gen Reliability
Comparison of solar-without-storage vs. fossil-fueled co-generation facility
Engineer A must disclose in the board report that while solar panels can supply energy equivalent to the co-generation facility under normal conditions, the two systems are not reliability-equivalent: the co-generation facility provides dispatchable power independent of weather and time of day, while solar-without-storage cannot supply power at night or during bad weather, creating a material reliability gap that affects both the organization and the broader grid.
Energy production equivalence under normal conditions does not constitute reliability equivalence; the report must explicitly address the reliability differential and its implications for the organization's continuity and the grid's stability.
Disclosure of the reliability gap does not preclude recommending solar; it ensures the board understands what they are trading away and can make an informed decision, potentially including seeking battery storage funding or a hybrid solution.
Reliability Equivalence Disclosure Invoked for Solar-Without-Storage Evaluation
Organizational board capital investment decision
Solar-without-storage vs. fossil-fueled co-generation reliability comparison
Engineer A's obligation to disclose that the solar-without-storage system, while producing equivalent energy to the fossil-fueled co-generator, is not equivalent in reliability — and that this reliability gap has material implications for both organizational continuity and broader grid stability
The word 'equivalent' in the initial analysis was limited to energy production and cost; the principle requires the engineer to surface the reliability dimension of equivalence as a separate and material consideration
Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability. The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
Reliability equivalence disclosure does not require the engineer to recommend against the solar option; it requires that the board understand the reliability difference before making its decision
Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system
Reliability Equivalence Qualification Engineer A Normal Conditions Finding
Engineer A's analysis found solar panels can supply equivalent energy 'under normal conditions' — this finding must be qualified to prevent the board from treating the systems as fully interchangeable.
Engineer A is obligated to qualify the finding that solar panels can supply 'equivalent' energy in the board report by explicitly clarifying that this equivalence holds only under normal conditions and does not mean equivalent reliability, particularly during extreme weather events or grid stress conditions.
In the board report, when presenting the equivalence finding
Reliability Equivalence Qualification Engineer A Normal Conditions Only Finding
Engineer A has found that solar panels supply equivalent energy under normal conditions but has not yet qualified this finding to address night, bad weather, and extreme weather reliability gaps.
Reliability Equivalence Qualification Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A must qualify the finding that solar panels can supply 'equivalent' energy by explicitly clarifying that equivalence holds only under normal conditions, and must disclose that the solar system cannot guarantee continuous supply at night, in bad weather, or during extreme weather events that may trigger rolling outages.
NSPE Code of Ethics — completeness and non-deception provisions; Reliability Equivalence Qualification Disclosure Constraint
Reliability Equivalence Qualification Engineer A Solar Without Storage Board Report
Engineer A's analysis found solar panels can supply 'equivalent' energy at similar cost, but this finding does not address reliability; presenting it without qualification creates a misleading impression of full functional equivalence.
Engineer A is constrained from presenting the solar-without-storage system as producing 'equivalent' energy to the fossil-fueled generator without explicitly qualifying that equivalence finding to disclose the material reliability difference — specifically that the solar system cannot guarantee continuous supply during extreme weather events and that it decreases reliability of the entire local electric power system.
NSPE Code of Ethics completeness and objectivity provisions
Professional engineering community / emerging standards for renewable energy integration
Renewable Energy Transition Risk Assessment Standard (Solar Without Storage Grid Impact)
Renewable Energy Transition Risk Assessment Standard
Implicitly invoked as the professional norm requiring Engineer A to assess and disclose systemic risks of replacing a fossil-fueled generator with solar production without storage, including grid stability impacts and rolling blackout risks, in the report to the board
Renewable Energy Transition Risk Assessment Standard – Solar Without Storage
Professional norms governing risk disclosure when transitioning from co-generation to solar without battery storage
Establishes the professional obligation for Engineer A to assess and disclose systemic grid-stability risks (rolling blackouts) arising from the proposed solar transition without battery storage, beyond the isolated viability of the solar panels themselves
Resource Constrained: No Battery Storage Capital
From the time capital constraints were identified as preventing battery storage through the board's decision on the solar project
The organization's capital budget, which is insufficient to include battery storage in the solar project despite the resilience gap this creates
Capital constraints resolved, or board decision made accepting the constraint
Engineer A's analysis revealed that capital constraints prevent installation of battery storage alongside the solar panels
Resource Constraint Battery Storage Capital Limitation Engineer A
The absence of capital for battery storage is a binding resource constraint that shapes the design options available and creates the reliability gap that Engineer A must disclose.
Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing battery storage, limiting the available design options to solar-without-storage or generator rebuild, and constraining Engineer A's ability to recommend a fully resilient solar solution.
Organizational capital budget limitation
At the time of the solar transition decision
Resource Constraint Battery Storage Capital Limitation Engineer A Solar Project
Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, even though the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator. This resource constraint shapes the design and creates the resilience gap that Engineer A must disclose.
The organization's capital budget is insufficient to include battery storage in the solar project, constraining the design to a solar-without-storage configuration that creates a foreseeable resilience vulnerability under non-normal operating conditions and contributes to grid stress externalities.
Organization capital budget limitations as described in the case facts
At the time of the solar project design and board decision
Resource Constraint Engineer Adam Building Department Understaffing
The resource constraint creates the pressure that makes the chairman's Faustian bargain tempting; Engineer Adam faces inadequate inspection capacity but cannot resolve this by compromising safety standards.
Engineer Adam's building department is constrained by severe resource limitations — budget cutbacks and understaffing — that prevent adequate and timely building inspections, with each code official required to make as many as 60 inspections per day under newer, more rigid code requirements.
During the period of budget cutbacks and understaffing described in BER Case 98-5
Risk Threshold Calibration Invoked By Engineer A Grid Reliability Rolling Blackouts
Assessment of grid reliability risks from solar without storage option
Engineer A must calibrate the reporting obligation associated with the solar without storage option's grid reliability risks — which include increased likelihood of rolling blackouts affecting vulnerable populations — as a risk to public welfare requiring disclosure in the advisory report, even though the risk is probabilistic rather than certain and depends on extreme weather events
The rolling blackout risk falls between a clear and imminent life-safety risk and a speculative de minimis risk; it is a material risk to public welfare — particularly for vulnerable populations — that triggers a faithful agent notification obligation and a completeness obligation in the advisory report
The risk is calibrated as sufficiently material — given recent California and Texas precedents and the vulnerability of affected populations — to require explicit disclosure and analysis in the advisory report, even though it does not rise to the level of an imminent life-safety emergency requiring regulatory reporting
Risk Threshold Calibration Invoked By Engineer A Rolling Blackout Severity Assessment
Engineer A must assess whether the rolling blackout risk — described by utility resource planners as a possibility during extreme weather events — rises to the level of a clear and imminent public safety risk requiring escalation beyond the board report, or whether faithful agent notification through the board report satisfies the obligation.
The rolling blackout risk is not speculative — it has been communicated by utility resource planners — but its imminence and severity are conditional on extreme weather events; Engineer A must calibrate the appropriate level of reporting obligation accordingly, with the board report as the minimum required disclosure.
At minimum, the rolling blackout risk must be included in the board report; whether additional escalation is required depends on the severity and imminence of the risk as Engineer A assesses it.
Rolling Blackout Risk Disclosure Engineer A Board Report
Engineer A is preparing a board report on replacing the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels without battery storage. The local utility's resource planners have communicated that rolling outages may be necessary during extreme weather events, and Engineer A recognizes that the solar transition may further stress the utility's generation mix.
Rolling Blackout Risk Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to include the rolling blackout risk — communicated by the local electric utility's resource planners — prominently and completely in the board report on the solar project, so that the board can make an informed decision with full awareness of the potential systemic grid impacts and public welfare consequences of the proposed transition.
Before or upon submission of the board report on the solar project
Rolling Blackout Risk Disclosure Engineer A Board Report Completeness
Engineer A has learned from utility resource planners about rolling outage risk but has not yet included this in the board report being prepared.
Engineer A's board report must include all relevant and pertinent factual information — including the utility resource planners' communication about potential rolling outages during extreme weather events — and may not selectively omit this known risk even if it is unfavorable to the solar-without-storage option.
NSPE Code of Ethics — completeness provisions; Professional Report Integrity Standard; NSPE BER Case 20-4
From the point Engineer A identifies the grid reliability implications through the board's final decision
Elderly and medically vulnerable third parties
Proposed replacement of fossil-fueled generator with solar production without storage
Board decision incorporating full reliability and grid-impact information
Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions
the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event
Organization's decision to consider replacing on-demand fossil-fueled generator with solar production without battery storage, creating intermittent supply and increased grid demand stress during peak/extreme weather events
Solar Cost-Output Parity Found → Reliability-Sustainability Conflict Crystallizes
Solar Project Viable In Isolation But Masking Systemic Risk
From completion of Engineer A's load profile analysis through submission of the board report
Engineer A's analysis and forthcoming board report
Submission of a complete report that discloses both the in-isolation viability and the systemic risk factors
Engineer A concluding that the solar project is viable under normal conditions in isolation, while simultaneously knowing about the grid stress and rolling blackout risk
Solar Reliability Omission in Board Report
From initial framing of equivalence claim until Engineer A includes reliability and grid-impact data in the report
Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
Engineer A's report to the board that initially treats solar-without-storage as 'equivalent' without addressing reliability
Engineer A's obligation-fulfilling inclusion of reliability and grid-stress information in the board report
Engineer A's preliminary finding that solar generation is 'equivalent' to fossil-fueled generator in energy output and cost, without addressing reliability dimension
Solar Transition Increasing Grid Stress Risk
From Engineer A's conversation with the utility representative through the board decision and beyond if solar is adopted without storage
the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
Local utility grid and third-party electricity consumers
Installation of battery storage, retention of co-generation capability, or utility capacity expansion
Utility resource planners' disclosure that they may be forced to institute rolling outages during extreme weather events, compounded by Engineer A's realization that solar without storage would further stress the grid
Stakeholder Carbon Footprint Reduction Pressure
From the point stakeholders expressed interest in reducing carbon footprint through the board decision on the solar project
Engineer A's organization and its stakeholders
Board decision on the solar project proposal
Stakeholders expressing interest in eliminating the generator and replacing it with solar panels to reduce the organization's carbon footprint
Stakeholder Carbon Reduction Pressure Emerges
Stakeholder Carbon Reduction Pressure on Solar Transition
From the time stakeholders expressed interest in solar replacement through the preparation and presentation of Engineer A's board report
Engineer A's obligation to prepare a complete and unbiased board report on the solar project
Board decision on the solar project following receipt of Engineer A's complete report
Stakeholders expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and suggested replacing the generator with solar panels
Stakeholder Green Energy Transition Pressure on Engineer A
From organization's initial decision to replace fossil-fueled generator with solar through Engineer A's report to the board
Organization's preference for solar-without-storage driven by carbon footprint and sustainability goals
Board's informed decision after receiving complete technical analysis including reliability tradeoffs
the system also reduces the organization's carbon footprint
Organization's decision to replace on-demand fossil-fueled generator with solar production without storage to increase green footprint
Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion Constraint Engineer A Carbon Footprint Stakeholders
Stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and have suggested eliminating the generator in favor of solar panels. Engineer A is convinced the solar project satisfies these stakeholder interests when considered in isolation, creating implicit pressure to present the project favorably without disclosing the grid stress externality.
Engineer A is constrained from structuring the board report to emphasize the solar project's carbon footprint reduction benefits while omitting or minimizing the rolling blackout risk, even though stakeholders have expressed strong preference for the solar transition and Engineer A is convinced the project satisfies their interests.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a (objective and truthful professional manner) and III.2.b (engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans not conforming to accepted engineering standards)
Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion Engineer A Carbon Footprint Advocates Solar Report
The organization and its stakeholders favor solar transition for sustainability reasons; Engineer A must resist implicit pressure to validate this predetermined outcome by omitting adverse reliability findings.
Engineer A is constrained from structuring the board report in a manner that selectively emphasizes the carbon footprint reduction benefits of solar-without-storage while omitting or minimizing the rolling blackout risk and reliability deficiencies, even if stakeholders and the organization strongly prefer the solar transition outcome.
NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case 98-5
If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production
But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts
Stakeholder Pressure Non-Distortion Engineer A Carbon Footprint Advocates
Carbon footprint reduction stakeholders have implicitly pressured Engineer A to present the solar option favorably; Engineer A must resist this pressure in structuring the board report.
Engineer A must not structure or frame the board report in a manner that selectively emphasizes carbon footprint reduction findings while omitting or minimizing the rolling blackout risk and grid reliability findings, regardless of stakeholder pressure to validate the solar-without-storage option.
NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and completeness provisions; Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion of Technical Report Constraint
Stakeholder Pressure Resistance Engineer A Carbon Footprint Advocates
Stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and have proposed the solar panel replacement. Engineer A is convinced the solar project is viable in isolation and would satisfy these stakeholders, creating implicit pressure to present the project favorably without full disclosure of the rolling blackout risk.
Stakeholder Pressure Resistance in Energy Advisory Reporting Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to resist the implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar project as unambiguously viable, and to ensure that the board report reflects an objective and complete technical assessment that includes both the favorable normal-condition performance and the adverse rolling blackout risk, without framing the analysis to favor the stakeholders' preferred outcome.
Storage Gap Identified + Utility Blackout Warning Issued → Compound Risk State Created
Sustainability-Reliability Conflict in Energy Design
Throughout Engineer A's analysis and the board's deliberation
Tension between organization's sustainability/carbon-reduction goals and engineering reliability and public safety standards
Board's informed decision incorporating both sustainability and reliability considerations
Organization's commitment to increasing green footprint conflicts with engineering reliability standards and public safety obligations regarding grid stability
Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation Invoked by Carbon Footprint Stakeholders
Board report on energy system alternatives
The carbon footprint reduction stakeholders' advocacy for the solar-without-storage option represents a legitimate sustainability interest that Engineer A must acknowledge and present in the report, recognizing that sustainable development is a genuine professional value — but one that must be balanced against grid reliability and public safety rather than treated as dispositive.
Sustainable development advocacy is a legitimate basis for the solar proposal, and Engineer A should present it as such; the obligation is to balance it against other values, not to dismiss it.
Engineer A should present the sustainability case for solar alongside the reliability and grid stress concerns, enabling the board to weigh the trade-off with full information.
Sustainable Development Ethics Provision - Carbon Footprint Reduction
Professional ethics provisions encouraging sustainable development and environmental stewardship
stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels
Engineer A and organizational stakeholders in framing the solar project rationale
Provides normative grounding for stakeholder interest in replacing the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels to reduce the organization's carbon footprint, establishing sustainability as a legitimate professional and ethical consideration in the engineering analysis
Systemic Grid Externality Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Solar Board Report
Engineer A has completed analysis showing solar-without-storage is viable in isolation but has learned from utility resource planners that the transition may increase rolling blackout likelihood during extreme weather events, creating a systemic public safety risk that must be disclosed in the board report.
Engineer A is constrained from submitting a board report that presents the solar project as viable based solely on isolated analysis without disclosing the systemic grid stress externality — specifically the increased likelihood of rolling blackouts — that Engineer A has identified through the utility resource planner communication.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a (objective and truthful), III.2.b (complete and accurate information), and I.1 (public safety paramount)
At the time of preparing and submitting the board report on the solar project
Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Engineer A Solar Advisory
Engineer A's analysis confirms that the solar system is viable under normal conditions, but the engineer also recognizes that the transition may increase grid stress. The board report must address both dimensions to give decision-makers a complete picture.
Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure in Energy Advisory Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to disclose in the board report not only the isolated normal-condition viability of the solar panel system but also the systemic grid-level impact — specifically that eliminating the co-generation facility and transitioning to solar without storage may further stress the local utility's generation mix and increase the probability of rolling blackouts affecting the broader public.
Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Engineer A Solar Transition
Engineer A realizes that eliminating the co-generation facility and moving to full grid dependence via solar-without-storage will stress the local utility generation mix, increasing rolling blackout likelihood beyond what the utility already anticipates.
Engineer A is obligated to disclose in the board report not only the isolated viability of the solar panels but also the systemic impact of the solar-without-storage transition on the local utility grid, including the increased stress on the generation mix and heightened rolling blackout probability.
Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Regarding Utility Grid Stress
Engineer A must disclose in the board report that the organization's transition from self-generation (co-gen) to full grid dependence (solar-without-storage) will externalize a reliability burden onto the shared electric grid, increasing the probability of rolling blackouts for the broader community during extreme weather events — a systemic impact that extends Engineer A's disclosure obligation beyond the organization's internal interests.
The utility resource planner's assessment is not merely background context; it is material information about a foreseeable public welfare impact that Engineer A has a professional obligation to include in the report and, if warranted, to communicate to the utility or relevant authorities.
The systemic grid impact disclosure obligation reinforces rather than conflicts with the faithful agent obligation here; the organization itself faces rolling blackout risk, so disclosing the systemic impact serves both the client and the public.
Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Obligation Invoked for Solar-Without-Storage Recommendation
Solar-without-storage systemic grid impact
Engineer A's obligation to disclose that replacing the fossil-fueled co-generator with solar-without-storage will shift the organization's entire load to the grid under conditions of known grid stress during extreme weather events, thereby increasing the probability of rolling blackouts for the broader community served by the shared grid infrastructure
The engineer's duty extends beyond the organization to the community served by the shared grid; the systemic impact of eliminating on-demand generation capacity during peak stress periods is a material public welfare consideration that must be disclosed
Systemic grid impact disclosure is required regardless of the organization's preference for the solar option; the disclosure enables the board and the utility to make informed decisions about grid management
With the current co-generation facility and a like-in-kind replacement, a presumably large electric load served by the utility can either stand alone or be operated to greatly reduce the electric load on a power system that will be stressed during extreme weather events
Systemic Grid Stress Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Solar Board Report
Engineer A has learned from utility resource planners that solar-without-storage will stress the grid during extreme weather events, increasing rolling blackout likelihood, but is preparing a report that treats the solar project as viable in isolation.
Engineer A must disclose in the board report that the proposed solar-without-storage transition will foreseeably increase stress on the local utility grid and thereby increase the probability of rolling blackouts for third-party consumers, and may not present the solar project as viable based solely on isolated facility-level analysis.
NSPE Code of Ethics — public safety paramount canon; NSPE BER Case 20-4; Professional Report Integrity Standard
Prior to and at the time of board report submission
Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint Engineer A Rolling Blackout Board Report Timing
Engineer A is currently preparing the board report and has already learned of the rolling blackout risk from the utility resource planner. The board report represents the natural and timely communication opportunity for this disclosure, and deferral would be ethically impermissible.
Engineer A is constrained from deferring disclosure of the rolling blackout risk to a later phase of the project or a subsequent report — the risk must be disclosed in the current board report being prepared, as the board's decision on the solar project will be made on the basis of this report and deferral would deprive the board of material safety information at the critical decision point.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 and the principle that risk disclosures must be made promptly upon identification, particularly when a natural communication opportunity exists
At the time of preparing the current board report on the solar project
Third-Party Rolling Blackout Risk from Solar Transition Without Storage
From the time Engineer A learned of the utility's grid stress concerns through the board's decision on the solar project
Third-party utility customers subject to rolling blackouts
the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
The foreseeable increase in rolling blackout probability for third-party utility customers if the organization eliminates on-site generation and transitions to solar without battery storage
Board decision incorporating full disclosure of grid stress externality, or addition of battery storage to the design
Utility resource planners informed Engineer A that they may be forced to institute rolling outages during extreme weather events, and Engineer A realized the solar transition without storage would exacerbate this
Trustee Discretion and Deference Invoked by Engineer A Toward Organizational Board
Capital investment decision on energy system replacement
Engineer A acts as a trustee for the organization, exercising full professional judgment to develop a complete technical analysis of the solar replacement option, but must then defer to the board's ultimate decision authority once the complete analysis — including grid reliability risks — has been presented, refraining from filtering the report to pre-determine the outcome in favor of either the carbon footprint stakeholders or the status quo.
The trustee role means Engineer A must give the board everything they need to decide, including uncomfortable information about grid stress; the engineer's job ends with complete presentation, not with steering the board toward a preferred outcome.
Engineer A satisfies the trustee obligation by presenting complete analysis including grid risk; the board then exercises its decision authority with full information.
Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation Invoked for Board Decision Authority Preservation
Organizational board capital investment decision authority
Engineer A, acting as trustee for the organization, must exercise full professional judgment to develop a complete analysis — including reliability and systemic grid impact — but must then defer to the board's ultimate decision authority, which may choose the fossil-fueled option, the solar-with-storage option, or the solar-without-storage option
The trustee role requires Engineer A to present complete analysis without self-interested advocacy for a particular outcome; the ethical objective is an informed decision-making process, not a particular decision
The trustee obligation is satisfied when the board receives complete, objective analysis; Engineer A's professional duty ends at enabling informed decision-making, not at ensuring a particular environmental or reliability outcome
Unverified Grid Stress Concern from Utility Planners
From the time Engineer A learned of the utility's concern through any independent verification or formal utility communication
The utility resource planners' belief — expressed informally to Engineer A — that rolling outages may be necessary during extreme weather events, which Engineer A has not independently verified through formal analysis
Engineer A obtains formal utility documentation or conducts independent analysis confirming or refuting the grid stress risk
Utility resource planners informally communicated to Engineer A their belief about potential rolling outages during extreme weather
Utility Resource Planner Communication on Grid Reliability
Local electric utility resource planners
Local Electric Utility Resource Planning Assessment – Rolling Outage Risk During Extreme Weather
Engineer A in evaluating systemic grid impacts of the solar transition
Provides evidentiary grounding that the local utility may institute rolling outages during extreme weather events, a material fact Engineer A must weigh when preparing the board report on the solar project
Current (verbal communication to Engineer A)
Utility Resource Planner Communication on Rolling Outage Risk
Local electric utility resource planning department
Utility Resource Planner Assessment of Generation Mix and Extreme Weather Outage Risk
When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
Engineer A during analysis of the solar project's systemic impacts
Provides Engineer A with factual grounding that the proposed solar-without-storage system may exacerbate grid stress and increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events, creating a public safety disclosure obligation in the board report
Vulnerable Population Consideration Invoked By Engineer A Blackout Risk
Grid reliability risk assessment for solar without storage option
Engineer A must explicitly consider and disclose in the advisory report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on elderly persons, confined individuals, and those with medical conditions who face disproportionate harm from grid failures during extreme weather events
The public welfare obligation extends beyond aggregate reliability metrics to the distributional impact on those least able to self-protect from grid failures; making this impact visible in the advisory report is essential to enabling informed decision-making by the board
The vulnerable population consideration reinforces the obligation to disclose reliability risks fully; the environmental benefits of the solar option do not diminish the obligation to make visible the disproportionate harm that rolling blackouts would impose on vulnerable populations
Vulnerable Population Consideration Invoked by Engineer A Rolling Blackout Extreme Weather
Broader community served by the electric grid
Engineer A must consider and disclose in the board report that the increased likelihood of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events — exacerbated by the solar-without-storage transition — poses disproportionate risks to vulnerable populations (elderly, medically dependent, confined individuals) who rely on grid power for life-sustaining needs during extreme heat or cold events.
The extreme weather context makes vulnerable population impacts particularly salient; rolling blackouts during heat waves or cold snaps are known to cause preventable deaths among vulnerable persons, and this foreseeable harm must inform the completeness of Engineer A's analysis.
The carbon footprint reduction benefit does not eliminate the obligation to disclose the vulnerable population risk; both must be presented to enable an ethically informed board decision.
Vulnerable Population Consideration Invoked for Rolling Blackout Risk Assessment
Elderly and medically dependent population welfare
Rolling blackout risk during extreme weather events
Solar-without-storage grid reliability impact
Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder advocacy
Engineer A's obligation to explicitly consider and disclose the foreseeable impact of reduced grid reliability — specifically increased rolling blackout risk — on elderly persons, medically dependent individuals, and confined individuals who face disproportionate harm from loss of climate control during extreme weather events
The engineer's public welfare obligation extends beyond the organization's stakeholders to the broader community; vulnerable populations who cannot protect themselves from grid failures must be explicitly considered in the reliability analysis
Vulnerable population consideration does not override the environmental benefit analysis but requires it to be presented alongside a concrete account of who bears the reliability risk and how severely
It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts
Vulnerable Population Extreme Weather Energy Reliability Disclosure Engineer A Rolling Blackout
Engineer A has learned from utility resource planners that extreme weather may trigger rolling outages; the case text explicitly identifies elderly, confined, and medically dependent individuals as foreseeably harmed populations.
Vulnerable Population Extreme Weather Energy Reliability Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to explicitly disclose in the board report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations — including elderly individuals, confined individuals, and those with medical conditions — and cannot omit this impact on the grounds that the rolling blackout risk is contingent on extreme weather or that the harm is speculative.
NSPE Code of Ethics — public health, safety, and welfare paramount; Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure principles
Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Disclosure Engineer A Board Report
The increased rolling blackout risk from the solar-without-storage transition during extreme weather events poses disproportionate harm to vulnerable populations dependent on continuous power.
Engineer A is obligated to disclose in the board report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations — including elderly, medically dependent, and confined individuals — who depend on continuous electric supply for health and safety.
{'license': 'Professional Engineers', 'count': 2, 'case_reference': 'BER Case 20-4'}
Two engineers who recommended further study before the municipal water commission changed its potable water source; the BER found they had obligations to formally communicate concerns to the commission and to report to the state regulatory agency given the gravity of the public health risk.
{'type': 'escalates_to', 'target': 'State regulatory agency'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Municipal Water Commission BER 20-4'}
the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission
the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency
Water Commission Engineers Formal Regulatory Escalation BER 20-4
BER 20-4: A municipal water commission chose to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety; the BER found the engineers had obligations to formally communicate concerns and to report to the state regulatory agency
The engineers advising the municipal water commission in BER 20-4 were obligated, after the commission overrode their recommendation for further study, to formally report their public health and safety concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency, given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety from the changed potable water source.
After the water commission's decision to proceed despite the engineers' recommendations for further study
Water Commission Engineers Post-Override Regulatory Escalation BER 20-4
The water commission engineers demonstrated the capability to formally report public health and safety concerns to the state regulatory agency after the municipal water commission overrode their recommendations for further study
BER 20-4: Engineers advising municipal water commission that changed potable water source despite safety recommendations
BER 20-4 finding that engineers have an obligation to formally report concerns to the state regulatory agency given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety
Whose Interests Are Being Served Self-Assessment Engineer A Carbon Stakeholder Pressure
Engineer A faces implicit pressure from carbon footprint stakeholders to present the solar option favorably; the self-assessment constraint requires Engineer A to identify whose interests are being served by any selective presentation.
Whose Interests Are Being Served Self-Assessment Constraint
Engineer A must affirmatively self-assess whose interests are being served by any decision to present the solar-without-storage option as viable without disclosing the rolling blackout risk — specifically whether Engineer A is serving the organization's interests, the public's interests, or the carbon footprint stakeholders' interests — and must refrain from proceeding with a report that places stakeholder preferences above public safety.
Whose Interests Are Being Served Self-Assessment Constraint; NSPE Code of Ethics — faithful agent and public safety provisions
Written Report Completeness Engineer A Board Report Solar Reliability
Engineer A is preparing a board report on replacing a fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar-without-storage; the report must include reliability data to enable informed board decision-making.
Engineer A is constrained to include all relevant and pertinent information — specifically system reliability data and rolling blackout risk — in the board report, and cannot submit a report that omits this material information even if the isolated energy equivalence finding is technically accurate.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case precedent on report completeness
As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board
board report presentation before board decision on solar project
co-generation facility operation (years) before stakeholder push for carbon footprint reduction
discussion with utility representative before preparation of board report
extreme weather events overlaps potential rolling blackouts
further study (Case 16-5) before operating system utilization
generator approaching end of useful life before stakeholder interest in carbon footprint reduction
generator approaching end of useful life overlaps stakeholder push for carbon footprint reduction
load profile study overlaps discussion with utility representative
long-term public welfare considerations after short-term gain considerations
night hours / bad weather periods during solar generation unavailability
preparation of board report before board's final investment decision
solar panel energy production before nighttime / bad weather periods (storage gap)
solar panel generation equals existing generator output (energy quantity only)
solar production without storage installation before potential rolling blackouts
solar project implementation (without storage) before increased likelihood of rolling blackouts
stakeholder interest in carbon footprint reduction before Engineer A's load profile study
stakeholder push for carbon footprint reduction before Engineer A's solar panel study
thermal energy needs satisfaction before electric energy production by co-generation facility
years of co-generation facility operation before generator approaching end of useful life