Advanced Energy: Programs for Energy Conservation

V. Kasturi  Rangan; Brooke  Barton

Case | HBS Case Collection | October 2007 (Revised March 2009)

Advanced Energy: Programs for Energy Conservation

Abstract

Describes the dilemma facing Advanced Energy (AE), a $6 million nonprofit engaged in energy conservation in North Carolina. Most of the money for its programs comes from a Public Benefits Fund (PBF) enacted by the state legislature. With renewed effort by activists in 2006 to expand AE's role, there was a possibility of the PBF swelling to $50 to $80 million. Naturally, this put AE at conflict with electric utilities wanting to engage in efficiency programs as part of their overall business offering.

Keywords: Energy Conservation; Public Equity; Performance Efficiency; Nonprofit Organizations; Conflict and Resolution; Energy Industry; Utilities Industry;

Format: Print

21 pages

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Rangan, V. Kasturi, and Brooke Barton. "Advanced Energy: Programs for Energy Conservation." Harvard Business School Case 508-003, October 2007. (Revised March 2009.)

Jai Vakeel, a nonprofit organization in India, serves individuals with Intellectual Disability (IQ below 70). The organization was founded by the parents of a child with Down Syndrome, and they (and their next generation) steadily built the organization over 60 years to the become the largest such organization in India. Yet the organization served only some 1000 children annually when there were millions more needing the healthcare, education and skills to lead a decent life with ID. This case describes the evolution of the organization from the founder’s family (six decades) to the first CEO from outside. As Archana Chandra appointed in 2013 brings about several changes to the organization she wonders how to scale the organization from the current 1,000 people it serves annually to at least 10,000 and then to the many millions who are in need.

Gilead had come up with an innovative drug for Hepatitis C, which affected 180 million people worldwide. The drug was priced at $1,000 a pill for the U.S. market. Gilead had to decide how to price and market the pill in developing countries that bore the brunt of the disease. The company had earned accolades for its work in HIV/AIDS, where its innovative medicines now accounted for 60% of all patients on Anti-Retroviral (ARV) medicines. Much of this was accomplished through generic licensing, which brought a $10,000/year treatment regimen down to $100! Should the company replicate that strategy for Hepatitis C? If so, how would its U.S. healthcare customers, who were paying $84,000 per patient, react? On the other hand, Gilead had to balance the interests of its shareholders, who paid $11 billion for an acquisition that led to the new Hepatitis C drug.

Faculty & Research

Advanced Energy: Programs for Energy Conservation

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author