Interview scorecard template

Renewable Energy Policy Analyst interview scorecard

Evaluate Renewable Energy Policy Analyst candidates across 4 weighted areas: outcomes that landed, stakeholder facilitation, regulatory and policy command, and evidence and reporting. Outcomes that landed leads at 30%, so ask which policies they helped move: an RPS increase, a state PUC docket comment, an IRA tax credit guidance response, or interconnection. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
public sector communityenergy policyincentive designpuc docketsrenewable energy
TL;DR
For outcomes that landed, look for evidence the candidate names specific dockets, bills, or rulemakings they drafted or commented on, and what changed in the final order or statute. For stakeholder facilitation, look for evidence the candidate describes convening opposed parties, tracking each position, and reaching workable compromise language without conceding the core policy goal. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Outcomes that landed

30% weight

Ask which policies they helped move: an RPS increase, a state PUC docket comment, an IRA tax credit guidance response, or interconnection queue reform. Get dates and outcomes.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
  • States their own role rather than the department's
  • Gives measured reach or impact
  • Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No delivered work; describes intent and process only.

2
Needs Improvement

Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.

3
Satisfactory

Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.

4
Very Good

Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.

5
Excellent

Names specific dockets, bills, or rulemakings they drafted or commented on, and what changed in the final order or statute.

02
Evaluation factor

Stakeholder facilitation

25% weight

Probe how they ran comment processes with utilities, IPPs, ratepayer advocates, and county siting boards when positions clashed on transmission or land use.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
  • Names the competing interests and the resolution method
  • Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
  • Treats every group as legitimate

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.

2
Needs Improvement

Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.

3
Satisfactory

Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.

4
Very Good

Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.

5
Excellent

Describes convening opposed parties, tracking each position, and reaching workable compromise language without conceding the core policy goal.

03
Evaluation factor

Regulatory and policy command

25% weight

Test command of FERC Orders 2222 and 1920, PURPA, state RPS and net metering rules, ITC and PTC domestic content provisions, plus relevant regional market tariffs.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
  • Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
  • Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
  • Knows where the discretion sits

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.

2
Needs Improvement

Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.

3
Satisfactory

Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.

4
Very Good

Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.

5
Excellent

Explains how a specific rule interacts with state programs and cites the provision, effective date, and open compliance ambiguities.

04
Evaluation factor

Evidence and reporting

20% weight

Check their analytical toolkit: EIA Form 860 and 923 data, NREL SAM or ReEDS runs, LCOE and capacity expansion modelling, and how findings became briefs or testimony.

Evidence to listen for

  • Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
  • Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
  • Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
  • Tracks whether the intervention worked

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.

2
Needs Improvement

Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.

3
Satisfactory

Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.

4
Very Good

Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.

5
Excellent

Shows published analysis with stated assumptions and sensitivities, translated into a short memo decision-makers actually used.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Renewable Energy Policy Analyst

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    How have you contributed to the development of legislative or regulatory frameworks?

  2. 02

    Can you provide examples of policy recommendations you have made?

  3. 03

    Describe a renewable energy project you worked on from a policy perspective.

  4. 04

    What methods do you use to evaluate the economic impacts of energy policy?

  5. 05

    Can you give an example of using modelling or simulation in your analysis?

See the complete Renewable Energy Policy Analyst question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards