Detailed Information on the
Federal Energy Management Program Assessment

Complete procurement process for national, government-wide indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for energy savings performance projects

Establish a database of energy savings performance contracts with the ability to report consolidated information by agency on an annual or as-needed basis. The data should track task orders, energy conservation measures, debt service, guaranteed savings, and other information as appropriate.

Assign responsibility for planning and strategy development to program staff and reduce dependence on contractors for these activities.

Ensure that measures that the program uses internally to assess performance of its various activities are consistent with program's long-term and annual measures.

Implement a new process within the Super ESPC program to address consequences of frequent personnel changes in the Federal Sector by improving the integrity of the annual measurement and verification process for agencies using the DOE Super ESPC contract.

Re-establish a Department wide energy and water recognition program to motivate and reward exemplary efforts of DOE employees in support of the President's EO 13423 and related Secretarial initiatives to ensure DOE leadership in energy and water conservation and the use of on site renewable energy.

Measure: Estimated lifecycle energy savings expected in Federal agencies' facilities as a result of FEMP facilitation activities (TBtu). FEMP's facilitation activities include alternative financing and technical assistance.

Explanation:One trillion Btus is roughly equivalent to the amount of energy contained in 166,000 barrels of oil. The figures represent energy expected to be saved over the life of projects that agencies plan to implement as a result of FEMP assistance. It is important to clarify that the Btu savings will result from investments by agencies and by the private sector (for alternatively financed projects), not from FEMP's investments (except for Departmental energy efficiency projects, which FEMP does directly fund). Agency costs or private sector costs (for alternatively financed projects) to implement the projects are unknown but would be in the hundreds of millions each year; only projects with a positive net present value would be implemented. The measure attributes all energy savings to FEMP under the assumption that the projects would not happen without facilitation services provided by FEMP. FEMP activities captured by this measure include helping agencies procure alternative financing (e.g., using its umbrella Super ESPC contract), providing technical assistance (e.g., identifying for another agency an energy conservation measure through an energy audit), helping agencies procure renewable energy or renewable energy credits, and directly financing energy efficiency improvements within the Department. Training, outreach, and reporting activities are not represented.

Measure: Use of renewable energy sources as a percentage of Federal facility electricity use.

Explanation:Targets before 2007 set by Executive Order 13123 and measured only "new" renewable energy (placed in service after 1992). Targets beginning in 2007 set by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Executive Order 13423 futher mandated that half of mandate must be met with "new" soiurces, defined as placed-in-service after January 1, 1999. "New" renewable energy requirement is designed to promote installation of new renewable power generation facilities and technologies, as opposed to old hydroelectric dams (currently the largest source of renewable energy). Such purchases can help reduce the cost of renewable energy, thereby promoting more widespread availability and use. Renewable energy is produced domestically; expanding its use contributes to the Department's stategic goal to increase energy security to the extent that it displaces electicity production from imported natural gas. The measure is considered an outcome because it tracks all Federal purchases of renewable energy, regardless of whether the program helped to facilitate a purchase.

Measure: Administrative costs as a percent of total program costs (%).

Explanation:This "overhead rate" measure is not a true efficiency measure but is a meaningful surrogate used for all DOE applied R&D and related programs. The objective is to maintain a reasonable overhead rate for effective operation while ensuring that the vast majority of funds address the program purpose. Administrative costs include all Program Direction and Program Support costs plus costs for supporting activities and analysis funded through programmatic appropriations. The targets and actuals represent corporate figures (i.e., for the entire Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) because some EERE Program Direction costs are difficult to parse at the program level in a meaningful way. Appropriation levels for EERE programs and for EERE Program Direction directly affect whether the target is achieved. The baseline and targets for this measure are under development.

Measure: Percent reduction of energy use per gross square foot in Federal buildings. (Baseline till 2005=1985. Baseline beginning with 2006 targets=2003)

Explanation:Targets beginning in 2006 set by Executive Order 13423 and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 2005 target set by Executive Order 13123. Earlier targets set by other laws and/or executive orders. Energy savings are partially attributable to FEMP's annual activities, which include technical assistance, information development and dissemination, training, alternative project financing, outreach, and interagency coordination. This is an outcome measure because FEMP has no control of activities at other agencies. FEMP primary responsibility is to provide assistance to help each agency meet targets that help the Federal government achieve long-term goals.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: FEMP's mission is to facilitate improved energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in the Federal sector as directed by legislation and executive order. FEMP implements its mission by facilitating agencies' use of alternative financing contracts for energy efficiency improvements; providing technical guidance, assistance, and training for all agencies; collecting, analyzing, and reporting on government-wide energy use; and funding energy efficiency improvement within the Department.

Evidence: Federal Energy Management Improvement Act (1988). Energy Policy Act (1992) as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (1998). Executive Order 13123. FY 2006 FEMP Budget Request. DOE Order 430.2A, "Departmental Energy and Utilities Management," April 15, 2002.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Executive Order 13123 calls on Federal agencies to reduce their energy use per gross square foot by 35% by 2010 relative to a 1985 baseline. With more than 500,000 buildings and facilities and $5 billion spent in 2004 on energy use for its buildings and operations, the Federal government has an opportunity to lead the nation in energy-efficient building design, construction, and operation. Furthermore, given that the Federal government spends another $10 billion on energy-using equipment each year, the Federal government can help pull the market for energy-efficient, renewable energy, and water conserving products and serves as an attractive working laboratory to test emerging technologies. While these represent sizable opportunities for energy savings, agencies face a number of challenges including limited budgets for cost effective capital improvements that can save energy, information gaps concerning swiftly changing technologies, as well as considerable turnover in agency energy and facility managers. FEMP's services -- including training, technical information, and access to alternative financing -- help agencies overcome these barriers to realize greater energy improvements.

Evidence: National Energy Policy, 2001. Department of Energy Strategic Plan, 2003. Executive Order 13123, 1999. DOE Order 430.2A established DOE management's interest and intent to reduce energy use within its own facilities.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: FEMP is the only organization that coordinates, tracks, and annually reports Federal agency energy use and progress toward the goals of Executive Order 13123. FEMP is the only organization that maintains a web site that tracks the availability of energy efficiency and renewable energy project funding opportunities and demand response programs by state. More generally, FEMP serves as the only centralized clearinghouse of technical expertise and information on energy management for all Federal agencies. There is limited program overlap with the General Services Administration's (GSA) Energy Center of Expertise, which assists civilian agencies in procuring cost-effective and environmentally responsible utility services. In this case, FEMP's services are not duplicative, but complementary. FEMP provides technical support, training, and guidance not offered by GSA or any other public or private organization.

Evidence: The FEMP 2003 Multi-Year Plan includes a chronology of legislation and executive directives outlining activities to be carried out by FEMP.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: To ensure overall effectiveness and responsiveness to Federal agency needs, FEMP relies on interagency, advisory, and industry groups to recommend improvements to the program. Furthermore, FEMP has been designed to be flexible and responsive to changing customer needs and national energy concerns. As one example, in 2001, FEMP helped Federal agencies in California to reduce their peak energy demand by 10 percent in response to the President's request for action. There is no evidence that an alternative policy approach would reduce Federal energy consumption more than the direct Federal approach.

Evidence: FEMP interagency/stakeholder group information, FEMP FY 2004 ALERT Program Summary Report.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: FEMP develops regional marketing plans to target services including alternative financing efforts to the most significant Federal facilities in each DOE region. As a result, nearly 60 percent of FEMP's ESPC contracts are with the Department of Defense, the largest Federal energy user. FEMP also markets its training and workshop opportunities broadly to ensure that Federal facility and energy managers take advantage of these educational offerings. Through a wide range of working groups, FEMP works closely with its partners to ensure that FEMP services effectively target Federal agency needs and help agencies improve the efficiency of their facilities and operations. In 2001, FEMP conducted a survey of more than 800 FEMP customers as well as 300 Federal government contacts (who did not use FEMP) to serve as a control group. According to that survey, FEMP's Federal customers are highly satisfied with FEMP's services and do much more in the area of energy efficiency than those who do not use FEMP.

Evidence: FEMP interagency/stakeholder group information. ESPC Project List. ESPC Regional Marketing Plans. FEMP Customer Survey, 2001.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: FEMP has one primary long-term goal in direct support of the program's mission to improve energy efficiency and renewable energy use in the Federal government: By 2010, reduce energy use per gross square foot by 35 percent in standard buildings relative to a 1985 baseline. Executive Order 13123 established the goal. This is an outcome measure not directly within control of FEMP. FEMP helps facilitate agencies' reduction in energy use, but generally does not directly fund energy efficiency improvements.

Evidence: Executive Order 13123. FEMP FY 2006 Budget Request.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: FEMP's targets for its long-term measure have been established by legislation and/or Executive Order. The targets have been set in five year increments and have been ambitious. The program also established and tracks progress on other long-term measures, such as reduction in energy intensity in non-standard buildings and government purchase of renewable energy. The program has ambitious targets for these measures as well.

Evidence: E.O. 13123. FY 2006 FEMP Budget Request. FEMP Performance Measures.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: FEMP's primary annual performance measure is lifecycle energy savings from projects facilitated by FEMP. The measure incorporates FEMP activities where energy savings are quantifiable. These activities include alternative financing, technical assistance, Departmental energy management, and renewable energy purchases. Training and reporting activities are not represented in the measure.

Evidence: FEMP 2005 Multi-Year Plan.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Although this measure is new, FEMP retrospectively calculated its baseline and past targets based on performance needed to achieve its long-term goal. Future targets reflect what FEMP should be able to achieve with reasonable funding assumptions. The targets represent energy expected to be saved over the life of projects that agencies will implement as a result of FEMP assistance. FEMP activities included in this measure include helping agencies procure alternative financing (e.g., using its umbrella Super ESPC contract), identifying for another agency an energy conservation measure through an energy audit (technical assistance), or directly financing an energy efficiency improvement within the Department (DEMP). Training and reporting activities are not represented. It is noteworthy that FEMP sets annual milestones for each of its major activities, and tracks progress toward achieving these milestones on a quarterly basis.

Evidence: FEMP Multi-Year Plan, Appendix C, 2003.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: DOE national laboratories and other contractors are required to define, monitor, and report on specific tasks and accomplishments in support of FEMP's annual and long-term goals. FEMP's annual operating plan, as well as the program's current Spend Plan, document the specific milestones to which each performer commits in accepting funding.

Evidence: FY 2005 FEMP Annual Operating Plan. FY 2005 FEMP Spend Plan. National Laboratory 2004 Quarterly Reports.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Beginning in 2005, the program instituted regular independent reviews in accordance with Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Peer Review Guidelines. The guidelines specify scope of the reviews and criteria for selecting independent evaluators.

Evidence: EERE Peer Review Guidelines, August 2004.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The budget includes a table that shows funding by Program Goals, of which there is one for FEMP. FEMP's Program Goal ties directly to its key long-term measure and accurately reflects the program mission. In addition, the EERE Business Administration Office is able to estimate administrative costs associated with implementation of each of EERE's programs, including FEMP, and will provide this information with its budget submission.

Evidence: FEMP FY 2006 Budget Request.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) conducted a management review of all Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs in 2000. NAPA determined that for EERE to accomplish is strategic goals, EERE needs to integrate its diverse sectors and technologies into a cohesive organization to make decisions based on priorities and tradeoffs. To address this deficiency, in 2002 EERE conducted a major reorganization of all programs. Under this new structure, a new Business Administration office was charged with developing guidance on planning for all the programs, and integrating EERE-wide multi-year targets in benefits models. The Business Administration office also developed a template multi-year plan to assist programs in planning efforts. The new Project Management Center monitors technical projects, provides HQ with information on technical progress that is useful to the planning process, and ensures the development of business practices focused on achieving mission objectives, priority service, and accountability. FEMP began a comprehensive planning process in FY 2003 when it developed its Multi-Year Plan which outlined long-term performance measures and major annual milestones through 2010. The plan informed FEMP's development of its FY 2005 Annual Operating Plan (AOP) and Spend Plan, as well as its FY 2006 Budget Request. In 2005, FEMP is updating its Multi-Year Plan.

Evidence: NAPA, A Review of Management in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2000. EERE Multi-Year Program Plan Template, 2005. FEMP 2003 Multi-Year Plan; Glickman to Schell internal memorandum regarding planning efforts. FY 2005 FEMP Spend Plan. FY 2005 FEMP Annual Operating Plan.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: DOE requires that each EERE program establish and track (on a quarterly basis) progress toward long-term and near-term program performance goals by assessing achievement of milestones. FEMP has provided regular reporting on progress against established milestones through the Department's corporate Joule performance tracking system, although many measures have been process-oriented and do not directly match the performance measures used in this assessment. The program also collects regularly performance data from project performers (national laboratories and other primary contractors). FEMP uses this information to help make decisions about allocating future resources and reallocating funds when necessary. FEMP also conducts programmatic reviews of its four major laboratory partners (changed from annual to biannual in the last two years). FEMP collects monthly spending reports that include information on obligated, unobligated, costed, and uncosted funds. FEMP also conducts monthly conference calls with its four primary laboratory leads and its regional office representatives to track progress and follow-up on any delays in key milestones. In addition, FEMP keeps project information up to date in its FEMP Central database which includes information on alternative financing and technical assistance projects. All DEMP-sponsored projects are required to provide status updates in May and November of each year that the project remains incomplete.

Evidence: Sample quarterly reports from DOE Joule performance tracking system. Sample quarterly report from the EERE Project Management Center., Sample monthly national laboratory and regional office conference calls agendas. DEMP project status updates, May 2005.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Every program employee is reviewed three times a year on the basis of their performance plans, which include elements related to their specific project milestones, as well as goals for timely obligation of funds and management of uncosted funds. In terms of its primary partners, FEMP conducts monthly calls with the FEMP leads from each of the EERE regional offices and each of its national laboratory partners. These conference calls cover topics including budget concerns, spending rates, milestone schedules, as well as other programmatic topics. Individual FEMP project managers (e.g., project managers for ESPCs, procurement, technical assistance) also conduct regular (e.g., semi-monthly, monthly) calls with their primary partners. In certain cases, DEMP withholds funds from DOE sites that have not completed previously funded projects.

Evidence: Sample FEMP staff performance plans and assessments. Sample FEMP contractor scopes of work. Sample FEMP Cost Accounting Reports.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: The FY 2004 apportionments show that the program had a carryover balance of approximately $653,000, indicating that 97 percent of program funds were obligated within the fiscal year. Apportionments from previous years show obligations consistently above 90 percent within each fiscal year. However, in FY 2004, the program's uncosted balances (funding obligated but not yet spent) totaled $14.8 million, representing 69 percent of FY 2004 appropriated funds. The high uncosted balance is the reason for the "No" answer. While uncosted balances are still high, the balances have decreased more than 50 percent compared to FY 1999. The program also contributes proportionately to EERE's corporate goal of reducing corporate and program adjusted uncosted obligated balances to a range of 20-25 percent by reducing program annual uncosteds by 10 percent relative to the previous year until the target range is met. In addition, each year, the program develops an Annual Operating Plan, which is reviewed internally to ensure that new funding is planned to be obligated consistent with the appropriated purpose. EERE also develops a Spend Plan for all of its programs. The program uses data from Departmental procurement and financial systems and similar data from National Laboratory partners to assure that actual expenditures occur for purposes and on a schedule consistent with the Spend Plan.

Evidence: Summary table of historical budget data (unobligated and uncosted). FY 2005 FEMP Spend Plan. FY 2005 FEMP Annual Operating Plan

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: All EERE programs, including FEMP, have established the EERE corporate overhead rate (i.e., the ratio of administrative costs to total program costs for implementing all EERE programs) as the efficiency measure. Consistently tracking the overhead rate and ensuring that it's within a reasonable range should help to improve efficiency. EERE's reorganization in 2002 clarified lines of responsibility and eliminated organizational "stovepipes" by consolidating planning, budgeting, and analysis into a single business administration office. The reorganization reduced management layers, although staff levels remained the same. EERE developed a suite of new reports and tools to improve program managers' access to EERE cost, obligation, and procurement data. EERE is consolidating several legacy IT systems into a single program management system that will track all required information on a project by project basis (cost share, type of contract according to OMB Circular A-11 definitions, etc.). In addition, EERE has begun to phase down support services at National Laboratories for cost-effectiveness reasons.

Evidence: EERE Corporate Planning System. Presentation on EERE Overhead Efficiency Measure Schedule, December 21, 2004. EERE Reorganization "All Hands" presentation: www.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/pdfs/eere_reorg.pdf. IT Investment Plan (EERE IT Business Case Number 019-20-01-12-01-1011-00-304-101).

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: FEMP leads a number of interagency and industry working groups to ensure effective coordination and broad dissemination and application of Federal energy management policy and guidance. These working groups include the Interagency Energy Managment Task Force, the Interagency Renewable Working Group, the Federal Utility Partnership Working Group, the Interagency Sustainability Working Group, and the ESPC Steering Committee, among others. In addition, FEMP works closely with the other DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs to ensure that information on state-of-the-art technologies are made available to Federal agencies, including information related to distributed energy resources, combined heat and power, industrial process improvements, renewable technologies, building technologies, and other areas of interest to Federal agencies.

Evidence: "DER and CHP for Federal Facilities" , a worshop jointly sponored by FEMP, EPA, and the Combined Heat and Power Association, 2002. List of Accomplishments of the Interagency Sustainability Working Group, including an interagency Memorandum of Understanding, 2005. Joint Statement of Work for FEMP and the U.S. Forest Service to install, demonstrate, and evaluate Spectrally Enhanced Lighting in a U.S. Forest Service facility. FEMP ESPC Steering Committee meeting minutes, October 2004. Interagency Energy Managment Task Force meeting minutes, 2005.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Many traditional aspects of accounting and financial management occur within the Departmental CFO Headquarters and Field organizations -- outside of the day-to-day control of EERE's programs. DOE had received clean audit opinions with no material weaknesses for several consecutive years until FY 2005, when transition to a new accounting system disclosed some financial weaknesses, which are being addressed corporately. In response to the review of EERE business management by the National Academy for Public Administration (NAPA), EERE initiated a wide range of improvements, including the development and routine maintenance of the EERE Spend Plan; the Corporate Planning System's measures spreadsheet that links the Spend Plan to near- and long-term goals and measures; and periodic EERE-wide reviews of those processes by the EERE Office of Business Administration. Based on the recommendations of a 2001 Inspector General review of FEMP's pricing policy for ESPC assistance service, FEMP developed a new cost accounting payment structure. FEMP still charges an initial flat fee but more carefully keeps track of expenses and bills agencies for cost overruns. FEMP has recovered $2 million from agencies for its ESPC assistance services since 2001.

Evidence: DOE Inspector General Audit Report 0499, "Department of Energy's Super Energy Savings Performance Contracts," 2004. NAPA Report "A Review of Management in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2000.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The National Association of Public Administrators (NAPA) found dozens of management deficiencies in the program's bureau (EERE) in a review published in 2000. EERE provided evidence that it addressed some of management deficiencies identified by NAPA, and has prepared a Management Action Plan to address many of the remaining findings. While a few NAPA recommendations have not been addressed (e.g., that EERE conduct periodic audits to assure that cost-sharing partners actually provide funding they agree to), in general, EERE has taken meaningful steps to address most deficiencies. A subsequent NAPA report indicates that EERE has addressed or begun to address 47 of 54 management recommendations. A DOE-IG report on energy savings performance contracts found that DOE did not fully recover their costs of providing services to other agencies and did not use recovered funds to achieve greater energy efficiency. In response, FEMP developed a cost accounting pricing policy to assess fees for FEMP's alternative financing services, and used funds collected from customer agencies to hire limited-term employees and generate a greater number of energy savings projects.

Evidence: NAPA Report, "A Review of Management in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy," 2000. NAPA Report, "Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Reorganizing for Results," 2004. DOE Inspector General Audit Report 0499, "Department of Energy's Super Energy Savings Performance Contracts," 2004.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: FEMP's key long-term performance measure is to help Federal agencies reduce energy intensity in standard office buildings. By 2004, through its alternative financing, technical assistance, and other services, FEMP has helped the Federal government reduce its energy intensity by 25.6 percent relative to a 1985 baseline. The program exceeded its long-term targets for 1995 and 2000, but may miss the 2005 target, in part because of a lapse in legislative authority for ESPCs. FEMP estimates that it can conservatively account for about 30 percent of the energy reduction that occurred in standard Federal buildings from FY 2001 to FY 2004 period based on its specific contributions through alternative financing, technical assistance, and DEMP projects (probably similar percentage for earlier years). Other factors, most notably changes in building use and weather, account for the remainder of energy savings. FEMP's other activities (e.g., reporting, training, outreach, awards, etc.) may also contribute to reductions but are not represented in the quantified figures. The program did not achieve several of its past targets for Federal purchase of renewable energy, but exceeded its target in 2004 [and 2005- confirm when data available]. Assessment of program impact for renewable energy purchases is difficult because other factors could have significant influence (e.g., state mandates for utilities' power production from renewables, military decisions to make large renewable installations on base)

Evidence: Draft FY 2004 Annual Report to Congress on Federal Government Energy Management and Conservation Programs.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Over the past two years, FEMP worked to develop a new measure to assess its contribution to government-wide energy savings attributable to its activities. For this measure, FEMP had no explicit targets set for past years, but FEMP was able to calculate retrospectively its Targets (based on a path toward its long-term goal) and Actuals (based on energy projects implemented as a result of FEMP's facilitiation activities). The "Small Extent" rating reflects the fact that past Targets were not met, yet the Actual data show a pattern of consistent contribution to the long-term goal. It is important to note that the new measure attributes to FEMP the energy savings from all ESPCs and UESCs signed government-wide that FEMP helped to facilitate, which may overstate FEMP's impact. Moreover, in annual reporting, the energy savings from the use of these alternative financing tools are claimed by the agencies that signed the contract, not FEMP. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this measure, assigning the full energy savings benefit to FEMP provides an easy way to track FEMP's alternative financing activities and is better than any alternative.

Evidence: Spreadsheet showing calculations of energy saved from FEMP activities.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: All EERE programs, including FEMP, have established the EERE corporate overhead rate (i.e., administrative costs to implement all EERE programs) as the efficiency measure. A Yes response requires that the program demonstrate improved efficiency or cost effectiveness over the prior year. EERE established a baseline in 2004, and set a corporate target for FY 2006 and beyond. However, there is no history of actual performance and therefore no demonstration of whether efficiency over the prior year has improved. The "Small Extent" rating reflects the fact that EERE has examined closely the use of national laboratories to conduct administrative functions, and has begun to transition some of this work to the private sector and EERE's Project Management Center. EERE projects savings of $4 million in 2005 alone, although there is no independent verification of this savings or of improved administrative efficiency.

Evidence: EERE, "Transition of Non-R&D National Laboratory Funding to the Private Sector and PMC, Final Report and Interim Plan," April 2005.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While many Federal and State agencies have programs designed to improve energy efficiency, FEMP is unique in that its mission is to help other Federal agencies meet government-wide goals. There is no comparable program, so the question is not applicable.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: A comprehensive independent peer review of FEMP was completed in November 2005. The review was largely positive, noting that the program's activities are relevant to its mission. The review found that "FEMP's productivity is generally good but uneven across program functions" and included some planning and management recommendations. In addition to this comprehensive programmatic peer review, certain FEMP activities have been reviewed by the General Accounting Office and the Department's Inspector General. In GAO Report 05-55, "Capital Financing: Partnerships and Energy Savings Performance Contracts Raise Budgeting and Monitoring Concerns", GAO found that ESPC contracts, which are implemented government-wide, may be difficult for agencies to monitor, and true costs to the government are not always transparent. The report did not address FEMP's performance in helping agencies use ESPCs to achieve energy efficiency goals, but the report's findings point to the need for improved monitoring; FEMP is generally responsible for assisting other agencies with all aspects of ESPCs, including developing monitoring plans. A DOE-IG report on energy savings performance contracts that found FEMP did not fully recover their costs of providing services to other agencies and did not use recovered funds to achieve greater energy efficiency. In response, FEMP developed a cost accounting pricing policy to assess fees for FEMP's alternative financing services, and used funds collected from customer agencies to hire limited-term employees and generate a greater number of energy savings projects. FEMP also restructured many of its ESPC practices to improve the cycle time of the contracts.

Evidence: 2005 FEMP Peer Review, November 2005. GAO Report 05-55, "Capital Financing: Partnerships and Energy Savings Performance Contracts Raise Budgeting and Monitoring Concerns," 2005. DOE IG Audit Report 0499, "Department of Energy's Super Energy Savings Performance Contracts," 2004. Draft DOE IG Audit Report on DEMP, 2005.