May 23, 2012

Energy Department Stimulus Funds Produce Questionable Results

The Department of Energy has struggled to show how its $41.7 billion in stimulus funding created jobs, reduced environmental risks or improved nuclear waste cleanup.

Program funds went to energy efficiency, home weatherization, nuclear waste cleanup, and a loan guarantee program to promote renewable energy technology.

The loan guarantee program for renewable energy provided $6 billion in credits to eligible companies, but due to concerns with the administration of the program, Congress has reduced those funds by almost $4 billion. DOE only obligated 17 percent of the remaining $2.5 billion in the fund and will lose about $2 billion if it does not make final decisions on loan guarantees soon.  Borrowers must begin construction on their projects by Sept. 30.

“Measuring the impact of Recovery Act funding has been a challenge for DOE. It has had particular difficulty providing an accurate assessment of the act’s impact on jobs, environmental risk reduction, and the life-cycle costs of its cleanup program,” the General Accounting Office report said.

The department used different methodologies to determine how many jobs were created, which created inaccurate and misleading numbers. Minus the energy efficiency program, DOE estimated the equivalent of 27,152 jobs were created, although many are ending as stimulus funding runs out.
GAO also said Energy failed to develop a way to measure the effectiveness of its cleanup work and its remains uncertain if stimulus funds will actually reduce the costs of the cleanup program.

Some recipients of the energy efficiency program reported challenges in providing job-creation metrics required by the department, and ended up estimating the number.  Other recipients expressed frustration with the department’s changing reporting requirements.

FAST FACT: The GAO disagreed with calculations that DOE’s stimulus funded projects would produce an estimated $4 billion in cost savings.  The GAO’s analysis indicates these savings could be 80 percent less than DOE’s estimate.

Following are other new watchdog reports released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), various federal Offices of Inspector General (OIG), and other government entities.

NATIONAL SECURITY

  MISC.

 

  • The Pentagon failed to review $167.5 billion of $303.7 billion identified as overpayments to contractors, vendors, and employees. The report by the chief financial officer was considered inaccurate and incomplete, as some overpayments went unreported and did not provide information about recovering funds. The Inspector General directed the CFO to collect improper payments and ensure all overpayments are reviewed. (Department of Defense Inspector General)
  • Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

    About the Author

    Laurel Adams graduated cum laude from the University of Delaware in May of 2010 with majors in international relations, Spanish, and Latin American studies. She interned at Voices Without Borders in Wilmington, Del., and the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. While at the University of Delaware, Adams studied abroad in Argentina, helped start a Spanish conversation club, and served as an editor for the Sigma Iota Rho Journal of International Relations.

    202-466-1300

    Boost: AJAX core statistics

    Legal Disclaimer

    You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

    Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

    Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.