GAO

United States Government Accountabilit

Office

Report to Congressional Committees

DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY

Further Actions Are

Needed to Improve

DOE’s Ability to

Evaluate and

Implement the Loan

Guarantee Program

July 2010

GAO-10-627

What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

Jul

2010

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Further Actions Are Needed to Improve DOE’s Ability

to Evaluate and Implement the Loan Guarantee

Program

Highlights of GAO-10-627, a report to

congressional committees

Since the Department of Energy’s

(DOE) loan guarantee program

(LGP) for innovative energy

projects was established in Title

XVII of the Energy Policy Act of

2005, its scope has expanded both

in the types of projects it can

support and in the amount of loan

guarantee authority available. DOE

currently has loan guarantee

authority estimated at about $77

billion and is seeking additional

authority. As of April 2010, it had

issued one loan guarantee for $535

million and made nine conditional

commitments. In response to

Congress’ mandate to review

DOE’s execution of the LGP, GAO

assessed (1) the extent to which

DOE has identified what it intends

to achieve through the LGP and is

positioned to evaluate progress and

(2) how DOE has implemented the

program for applicants. GAO

analyzed relevant legislation, prior

GAO work, and DOE guidance and

regulations. GAO also interviewed

DOE officials, LGP applicants, and

trade association representatives.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOE

develop performance goals

reflecting the LGP’s policy goals

and activities; revise the loan

guarantee process to treat

applicants consistently unless there

are clear, compelling grounds not

to do so; and develop mechanisms

for administrative appeals and for

systematically obtaining and

addressing applicant feedback.

DOE said it is taking steps to

address GAO’s concerns but did

not explicitly agree or disagree

with the recommendations.

DOE has broadly indicated the program’s direction but has not developed all

the tools necessary to assess progress. DOE officials have identified a number

of broad policy goals that the LGP is intended to support, including helping to

mitigate climate change and create jobs. DOE has also explained, through

agency documents, that the program is intended to support early commercial

production and use of new or significantly improved technologies in energy

projects that abate emissions of air pollutants or of greenhouse gases and

have a reasonable prospect of repaying the loans. GAO has found that to help

operationalize such policy goals efficiently and effectively, agencies should

develop associated performance goals that are objective and quantifiable and

cover all program activities. DOE has linked the LGP to two departmentwide

performance goals, namely to (1) double renewable energy generating

capacity by 2012 and (2) commit conditionally to loan guarantees for two

nuclear power facilities to add a specified minimum amount of capacity in

2010. However, the two performance goals are too few to reflect the full range

of policy goals for the LGP. For example, there is no performance goal for the

number of jobs that should be created. The performance goals also do not

reflect the full scope of program activities; in particular, although the program

has made conditional commitments to issue loan guarantees for energy

efficiency projects, there is no performance goal that relates to such projects.

Without comprehensive performance goals, DOE lacks the foundation to

assess the program’s progress and, more specifically, to determine whether

the projects selected for loan guarantees help achieve the desired results.

DOE has taken steps to implement the LGP for applicants but has treated

applicants inconsistently and lacks mechanisms to identify and address their

concerns. Among other things, DOE increased the LGP’s staff, expedited

procurement of external reviews, and developed procedures for deciding

which projects should receive loan guarantees. However, GAO found:

• DOE’s implementation of the LGP has treated applicants inconsistently,

favoring some and disadvantaging others. For example, DOE conditionally

committed to issuing loan guarantees for some projects prior to completion

of external reviews required under DOE procedures. Because applicants

must pay for such reviews, this procedural deviation has allowed some

applicants to receive conditional commitments before incurring expenses

that other applicants had to pay. It is unclear how DOE could have sufficient

information to negotiate conditional commitments without such reviews.

• DOE lacks systematic mechanisms for LGP applicants to administratively

appeal its decisions or to provide feedback to DOE on its process for issuing

loan guarantees. Instead, DOE rereviews rejected applications on an ad hoc

basis and gathers feedback through public forums and other outreach

efforts that do not ensure the views obtained are representative.

Until DOE develops implementation processes it can adhere to consistently,

along with systematic approaches for rereviewing applications and obtaining

and addressing applicant feedback, it may not fully realize the benefits

envisioned for the LGP.

View GAO-10-627 or key components.

For more information, contact Frank Rusco at

(202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov.

Page i GAO-10-627

Contents

Letter 1

DOE Has Broadly Indicated the Program’s Direction but Is Not

Well Positioned to Evaluate Progress 6

DOE Has Taken Steps To Implement the LGP but Has Treated

Applicants Inconsistently and Lacks Mechanisms to Identify and

Address Applicants’ Concerns 7

Conclusions 12

Recommendations for Executive Action 12

Agency Comments 13

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 15

Appendix II Performance Measures for the LGP 17

Appendix III Application Review Process 18

Appendix IV Standardized Fees Associated with Obtaining a Loan

Guarantee, by Solicitation 22

Appendix V Loan Guarantee Amounts Available and Amounts

Applicants Sought for Technology Categories

Targeted in Solicitations

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Energy 24

GAO Comments 29

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 31

DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Table

Table 1: Technology Categories Targeted by Solicitations Issued

for the LGP and Amounts Available under the

Solicitations, as of April 2010 4

Figures

Figure 1: 2008 Solicitation for Energy Efficiency, Renewable

Energy, and Advanced Transmission and Distribution

Technologies 18

Figure 2: 2008 Solicitation for Coal-based Power Generation and

Industrial Gasification Facilities That Incorporate Carbon

Capture and Sequestration or Other Beneficial Uses of

Carbon and for Advanced Coal Gasification Facilities 19

Figure 3: 2008 Solicitation for Nuclear Power Facilities 20

Figure 4: 2008 Solicitation for Front-End Nuclear Facilities 21

Abbreviations

CRB Credit Review Board

DOE Department of Energy

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005

FIPP Financial Institution Partnership Program

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

LGP Loan Guarantee Program

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Page ii GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Page 1 GAO-10-627

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

July 12, 2010

The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan

Chairman

The Honorable Robert F. Bennett

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky

Chairman

The Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Through calendar year 2009, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan

Guarantee Program (LGP) received more than 170 applications seeking

over $175 billion in loan guarantees, generally to bring innovative energy

technologies to market. Under normal economic conditions, companies

can face obstacles in securing enough affordable financing to survive the

“valley of death” between developing innovative technologies and

commercializing them. Because the risks that lenders must assume to

support new technologies can put private financing out of reach,

companies may not be able to commercialize innovative technologies

without government assistance. The financial crisis that emerged in late

2008, together with the associated economic decline, has further reduced

access to capital markets for innovative energy technologies. In this

constrained economic environment, even companies that might ordinarily

rely on private financing are turning to the federal government for

assistance.

Federal loan guarantee programs such as DOE’s can help companies

obtain affordable financing because the federal government agrees to

reimburse lenders for the guaranteed amount if the borrowers default,

which encourages lending by reducing the lenders’ financial risks. In

addition, to the extent that a federal loan guarantee signals confidence in a

project, such guarantees can help companies raise capital from other

sources, for example by selling equity. However, loan guarantee programs

can also expose the government to substantial financial risks. In the past,

DOE Loan Guarantee Program

problems with loan guarantee programs have occurred, in part, because

agencies did not exercise due diligence during the loan origination and

monitoring processes.

Since the LGP was authorized under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of

2005 (EPAct), its scope has expanded.

The act—specifically section

1703—originally authorized DOE to guarantee loans for projects that (1)

use new or significantly improved technologies as compared with

commercial technologies already in service in the United States and (2)

avoid, reduce, or sequester emissions of air pollutants or man-made

greenhouse gases. In February 2009, Congress passed the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), which amended Title XVII

by adding section 1705.

Under section 1705, DOE may guarantee loans for

projects using commercial technologies. Projects supported by the

Recovery Act must employ renewable energy systems, electric power

transmission systems, or leading-edge biofuels that meet certain criteria;

begin construction by the end of fiscal year 2011; and pay wages at or

above market rates.

The LGP’s loan guarantee authority has also increased. In fiscal year 2007,

Congress authorized up to $4 billion in loan guarantees for projects that

meet the criteria in section 1703. By fiscal year 2009, Congress had

authorized an additional $47 billion in loan guarantees for projects that

meet these criteria.

Congress did not appropriate funds to cover the

associated credit subsidy costs—that is, the government’s estimated net

long-term cost, in present value terms, of direct or guaranteed loans over

the entire period the loans are outstanding (not including administrative

costs). Consequently, borrowers who obtain loan guarantees under

section 1703 must pay fees to cover these costs. Under the Recovery Act,

Congress has provided nearly $4 billion to cover the credit subsidy costs

Pub. L. No. 109-58, Title XVII (Aug. 8, 2005).

Pub. L. No. 111-5 (Feb. 17, 2009).

Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8, Div. C, Title III (Mar. 11, 2009). The

act provided that of the authorized amount of $47 billion, $18.5 billion shall be for nuclear

power. Further congressional direction about the allocation of loan guarantee authority

among technology categories was contained in the explanatory statement accompanying

the act. Use of the funds appropriated for the program was subject to certain conditions,

such as a requirement for DOE to submit an implementation plan to the appropriations

committees prior to issuing any new solicitations inviting applications for loan guarantees.

Page 2 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

for projects that meet the criteria in section 1705.

While the Recovery Act

appropriation did not specify the amount of new loan guarantee authority,

DOE officials said that the department believes credit subsidy costs will

average at least 15 percent of the value of loan guarantees. Accordingly,

the nearly $4 billion Recovery Act appropriation to pay credit subsidy

costs could increase the amount of loans that the LGP guarantees by about

$26 billion, raising the program’s total estimated loan guarantee capacity

to about $77 billion.

As of April 2010, the department had issued eight solicitations inviting

applications for projects using various categories of technologies (see

table 1). It had also issued one loan guarantee for $535 million to Solyndra,

one of the companies that responded to DOE’s initial LGP solicitation

issued in 2006, and had made nine conditional commitments to issue

additional loan guarantees.

The one loan guarantee and four of the

conditional commitments were made under the Recovery Act; the other

five conditional commitments were made under section 1703.

Pub. L. No. 111-5, Div. A, Title IV (Feb. 17, 2009). Congress originally appropriated nearly

$6 billion to pay the credit subsidy costs of projects supported under section 1705, with the

limitation that funding to pay the credit subsidy costs of leading-edge biofuel projects

eligible under this section would not exceed $500 million. Congress later authorized the

President to transfer up to $2 billion of the nearly $6 billion to expand the “Cash for

Clunkers” program. Pub. L. No. 111-47 (Aug. 7, 2009). The $2 billion was transferred to the

Department of Transportation, leaving nearly $4 billion to cover credit subsidy costs of

projects supported under section 1705.

A conditional commitment is a commitment by DOE to issue a loan guarantee if the

applicant satisfies specific requirements. The Secretary of Energy has the discretion to

cancel a conditional commitment at any time for any reason prior to the issuance of a loan

guarantee.

Page 3 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Table 1: Technology Categories Targeted by Solicitations Issued for the LGP and Amounts Available under the Solicitations,

as of April 2010

Dollars in billions

Targeted technology category

Solicitation

issuance date

Amount

available

Mixed

Aug. 8, 2006 $4.0

Nuclear power facilities July 11, 2008 18.5

Front-end nuclear facilities

July 11, 2008 2.0

Coal-based power generation and industrial gasification facilities that incorporate carbon

capture and sequestration or other beneficial uses of carbon and for advanced coal

gasification facilities

Sept. 22, 2008 8.0

Energy efficiency, renewable energy, and advanced transmission and distribution

technologies (EERE)

Oct. 29, 2008 10.0

EERE July 29, 2009 8.5

Electric power transmission infrastructure projects July 29, 2009 5.0

Commercial technology renewable energy generation projects under the Financial Institution

Partnership Program (FIPP)

Oct. 7, 2009 5.0

Source: GAO presentation of DOE data.

The 2006 mixed solicitation invited applications for all technologies eligible to receive loan

guarantees according to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 except for nuclear facilities and oil refineries.

DOE received authorization to guarantee up to $4 billion in loans in fiscal year 2007 and had planned

to use this authority to support projects submitted in response to the 2006 mixed technology

solicitation. On March 25, 2010, DOE informed Congress of its intention to use up to $2 billion of its

fiscal year 2007 loan guarantee authority for projects submitted in response to the 2008 front-end

nuclear facilities solicitation.

Front-end nuclear facilities are to accelerate deployment of new uranium enrichment capacity and

distribution.

This amount is an estimate because the solicitation did not specify how much DOE would issue in

loan guarantees. This estimate is based on the solicitation’s stated plan to use $750 million to cover

credit subsidy costs and assumes credit subsidy costs of 15 percent, which DOE has told us is

consistent with credit subsidy estimates to date.

For fiscal year 2011, DOE is seeking an additional $36 billion in loan

guarantee authority for nuclear power facilities and $500 million to cover

the credit subsidy costs for energy efficiency and renewable energy

projects eligible under section 1703.

DOE estimates that this $500 million

will cover the credit subsidy costs for about $3 billion in loan guarantees.

When asked if DOE plans to use the $500 million to cover the credit subsidy costs for

projects that are currently under review or for projects that apply under a new solicitation,

the department stated that the $500 million, if approved, will be used by the LGP at its

discretion across the full spectrum of qualified energy efficiency and renewable energy

projects.

Page 4 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

We have an ongoing mandate under the 2007 Revised Continuing

Appropriations Resolution to review DOE’s execution of the LGP and to

report our findings to the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations.

Our previous reviews focused on the department’s efforts

to establish the tools needed to evaluate the program’s effectiveness and

to process applications. In 2007 and 2008, we recommended that the

department take steps to further develop and improve its capabilities in

these areas.

In light of these recommendations and following discussions

with your staffs, we assessed (1) the extent to which DOE has identified

what it intends to achieve through the LGP and is positioned to evaluate

progress and (2) how DOE has implemented the LGP for applicants.

To address these objectives, we analyzed Title XVII of EPAct, the

Recovery Act, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and

our prior work on GPRA, and DOE’s program guidance and regulations. In

addition, we interviewed relevant DOE officials and—to obtain a broad

representation of views on DOE’s implementation of the LGP—LGP

applicants and trade association representatives. We selected the

applicants and trade associations using a mix of criteria, including the

amount of the loan guarantee requested and the relevant technology. Our

review did not evaluate the technical or financial soundness of the

projects that applied for DOE loan guarantees. In April 2010, we briefed

your offices on the preliminary results of our review.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2009 through July

2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A further discussion of the

scope of our review and the methods we used is presented in appendix I.

Pub. L. No. 110-5 §20320(c) (Feb. 15, 2007).

GAO, The Department of Energy: Key Steps Needed to Help Ensure the Success of the

New Loan Guarantee Program for Innovative Technologies by Better Managing Its

Financial Risk, GAO-07-339R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2007); GAO, Department of

Energy: New Loan Guarantee Program Should Complete Activities Necessary for

Effective and Accountable Program Management, GAO-08-750 (Washington, D.C.: July 7,

2008).

Page 5 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

DOE has broadly indicated the direction of the LGP but has not developed

all the tools necessary to evaluate progress. DOE officials have identified a

number of broad policy goals that the LGP is intended to support,

including helping to ensure energy security, mitigate climate change,

jumpstart the alternative energy sector, and create jobs. Additionally,

through DOE’s fiscal year 2011 budget request and a mission statement for

the LGP, the department has explained that the program is intended to

support the “early commercial production and use of new or significantly

improved technologies in energy projects” that “avoid, reduce, or

sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases,

and have a reasonable prospect of repaying the principal and interest on

their debt obligations.”

DOE Has Broadly

Indicated the

Program’s Direction

but Is Not Well

Positioned to

Evaluate Progress

To help operationalize such policy goals efficiently and effectively,

principles of good governance identified in our prior work on GPRA

indicate that agencies should develop associated performance goals and

measures that are objective and quantifiable.

These performance goals

and measures are intended to allow comparison of programs’ actual

results with the desired results. Each program activity should be linked to

a performance goal and measure unless such a linkage would be infeasible

or impractical.

DOE has linked the LGP to two departmentwide performance goals:

• “Double renewable energy generating capacity (excluding conventional

hydropower) by 2012.”

• “Commit (conditionally) to loan guarantees for two nuclear power

facilities to add new low-carbon emission capacity of at least 3,800

megawatts in 2010.”

DOE has also established nine performance measures for the LGP (see

app. II).

However, the departmentwide performance goals are too few to reflect the

full range of policy goals for the LGP. For example, there is no measurable

GAO, Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans under the Results Act: An Assessment Guide

to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18 (Washington, D.C.:

February 1998, ver. 1.); GAO, The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency

Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: April 1998, ver. 1).

Page 6 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

performance goal for job creation. The performance goals also do not

reflect the full scope of the program’s authorized activities. For example,

as of April 2010, DOE had issued two conditional commitments for energy

efficiency projects—as authorized in legislation—but the energy efficiency

projects do not address either of the performance goals because the

projects are expected to generate little or no renewable energy and are not

associated with nuclear power facilities. Given the lack of sufficient

performance goals, DOE cannot be sure that the LGP’s performance

measures are appropriate. Thus, DOE lacks the foundation to assess the

program’s progress, and more specifically, to determine whether the

projects it supports with loan guarantees contribute to achieving the

desired results.

As the LGP’s scope and authority have increased, the department has

taken a number of steps to implement the program for applicants. For

example, DOE has substantially increased the LGP’s staff and in-house

expertise, and applicants we interviewed have commended the LGP staff’s

professionalism. DOE officials indicated that, prior to 2008, staffing was

inadequate to review applications, but since June 2008, the LGP’s staff has

increased from 12 federal employees to more than 50, supported by over

40 full-time contractor staff. Also, the LGP now has in-house legal counsel

and project finance expertise, which have increased the program’s

capacity to evaluate proposed projects. In addition, in November 2009, the

Secretary named an Executive Director, reporting directly to the

Secretary, to oversee the LGP and to accelerate the application review

process.

DOE Has Taken Steps

to Implement the LGP

but Has Treated

Applicants

Inconsistently and

Lacks Mechanisms to

Identify and Address

Applicants’ Concerns

Other key steps that DOE has taken include the following:

• DOE has identified a list of external reviewers qualified to perform legal,

engineering, financial, and marketing analyses of proposed projects.

Identifying these external reviewers beforehand helps to ensure that DOE

will have the necessary expertise readily available during the review

process. DOE officials said that the department has also expedited the

procurement process for hiring these external reviewers.

• DOE developed a credit policies and procedures manual for the LGP.

Among other things, the manual contains detailed internal policies and

The Executive Director also oversees DOE’s Advanced Technology Vehicles

Manufacturing Loan Program.

Page 7 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

procedures that lay out requirements, criteria, and staff responsibilities for

determining which proposed projects should receive loan guarantees.

• DOE revised the LGP’s regulations after receiving information from

industry concerning the wide variety of ownership and financing

structures that applicants or potential applicants would like to employ in

projects seeking loan guarantees. Among other things, the modifications

allow for ownership structures that DOE found are typically employed in

utility-grade power plants and are commonly proposed for the next

generation of nuclear power generation facilities.

• DOE obtained OMB approval for its model to estimate credit subsidy

costs. The model is a critical tool needed for the LGP to proceed with

issuing loan guarantees because it will be used to calculate each loan

guarantee’s credit subsidy cost and the associated fee, if any, that must be

collected from borrowers. (We are evaluating DOE’s process and key

inputs for estimating credit subsidy costs in other ongoing work.)

Notwithstanding these actions, the department is implementing the

program in a way that treats applicants inconsistently, lacks systematic

mechanisms for applicants to appeal its decisions or for applicants to

provide feedback to DOE, and risks excluding some potential applicants

unnecessarily. Specifically, we found the following:

DOE has treated applicants inconsistently. Although our past work has

shown that agencies should process applications with the goals of treating

applicants fairly and minimizing applicant confusion,

DOE’s

implementation of the program has favored some applicants and

disadvantaged others in a number of ways. First, we found that, in at least

five of the ten cases in which DOE made conditional commitments, it did

so before obtaining all of the final reports from external reviewers,

allowing these applicants to receive conditional commitments before

incurring expenses that other applicants were required to pay. Before DOE

makes a conditional commitment, LGP procedures call for engineering,

financial, legal, and marketing reviews of proposed projects as part of the

due diligence process for identifying and mitigating risk. If DOE lacks the

in-house capability to conduct the reviews, external reviews are

GAO, Grants Management: Grants.gov Has Systemic Weaknesses That Require

Attention, GAO-09-589 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2009).

Page 8 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

performed by contractors paid for by applicants.

In one of the cases we

identified in which DOE deviated from its procedures, it made a

conditional commitment before obtaining any of the external reports. DOE

officials told us this project was fast-tracked because of its “strong

business fundamentals” and because DOE determined that it had sufficient

information to proceed. However, it is unclear how DOE could have had

sufficient information to negotiate the terms of a conditional commitment

without completing the types of reviews generally performed during due

diligence, and proceeding without this information is contrary to the

department’s procedures for the LGP.

Second, DOE treats applicants with nuclear projects differently from

applicants proposing projects that employ other types of technologies. For

example, DOE allows applicants with nuclear projects that have not been

selected to begin the due diligence process to remain in a queue in case

the LGP receives additional loan guarantee authority, while applicants

with projects involving other types of technologies that have not been

selected to begin due diligence are rejected (see app. III). In order for

applicants whose applications were rejected to receive further

consideration, they must reapply and again pay application fees, which

range from $75,000 to $800,000 (see app. IV). DOE also provided

applicants with nuclear generation projects information on how their

projects ranked in comparison with others before they submitted part II of

the application and 75 percent of the application fees. DOE did not provide

rankings to applicants with any other types of projects. DOE officials said

that applicants with nuclear projects were allowed to remain in a queue

because of the expectation that requests would substantially exceed

available loan guarantee authority and that the applications would be of

high quality. According to DOE officials, they based this expectation on

information available about projects that are seeking licenses from the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DOE officials also explained that they

ranked nuclear generation projects for similar reasons—and also to give

applicants with less competitive projects the chance to drop out of the

process early, allowing them to avoid the expense involved in applying for

a loan guarantee. However, all of the solicitations issued through 2008

initially received requests that exceeded the available loan guarantee

authority (see app. V), so nuclear projects were not unique in that respect.

In addition, applicants with coal-based power generation and industrial

LGP staff have generally conducted the financial reviews for the projects that have

received conditional commitments or a loan guarantee to date.

Page 9 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

gasification facility projects paid application fees equivalent to those paid

by applicants with nuclear generation projects but were not given rankings

prior to paying the second application fee (see app. IV). To provide EERE

applicants with earlier feedback on the competitiveness of their projects,

DOE instituted a two-part application for the 2009 EERE solicitation—a

change from the 2008 EERE solicitation. DOE officials stated that they

made this change based on lessons learned from the 2008 EERE

solicitation. While this change appears to reduce the disparity in treatment

among applicants, it remains to be seen whether DOE will make similar

changes for projects that employ other types of technologies.

Third, DOE has allowed one of the front-end nuclear facility applicants

that we contacted additional time to meet technical and financial

requirements, including requirements for evidence that the technology is

ready to move to commercial-scale operations, but DOE has rejected

applicants with other types of technologies for not meeting similar

technical and financial criteria. DOE has not provided analysis or

documentation explaining why additional time was appropriate for one

project but not for others.

DOE lacks systematic mechanisms for applicants to appeal its decisions

or provide feedback to DOE. In its solicitations, DOE states that a rejection

is “final and non-appealable.” Once a project has been rejected, the only

administrative option left to an applicant under DOE’s documented

procedures is to reapply and incur all of the associated costs.

Nevertheless, DOE said that, as a courtesy, it had rereviewed certain

rejected applications. Some applicants did not know that DOE would

provide such rereviews, which appear contrary to DOE’s stated policy and

have been conducted on an ad hoc basis.

DOE also lacks a systematic mechanism for soliciting, evaluating, and

incorporating feedback from applicants about its implementation of the

program. Our past work has shown that agencies should solicit, evaluate,

and incorporate feedback from program users to improve programs.

Unless they do so, agencies may not attain the levels of user satisfaction

that they otherwise could. For example, during our interviews with

applicants, more than half said they received little information about the

GAO, Transportation Research: Opportunities for Improving the Oversight of DOT’s

Research Programs and User Satisfaction with Transportation Statistics, GAO-06-917

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2006).

Page 10 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

timing or status of application reviews. Applicants expressed a desire for

more information about the status of DOE’s reviews and said that not

knowing when a loan guarantee might be issued created difficulties in

managing their projects—for example, in planning construction dates,

knowing how much capital they would need to sustain operations, and

maintaining support for their projects from internal stakeholders.

According to DOE officials, the department has reached out to

stakeholders through its Web site, presentations to industry groups and

policymakers, and other means. DOE has also indicated that it has

changed the program to make it more user-friendly, based on lessons

learned and applicant feedback. For example, unlike the 2008 EERE

solicitation, the 2009 EERE solicitation includes rolling deadlines that give

applicants greater latitude in when to submit their applications; a

simplified part I application that provides a mechanism for DOE to give

applicants early feedback on whether their projects are competitive; and

delayed payment of the bulk of the “facility fee” that DOE charges

applicants to cover certain program costs. While DOE said that these

changes were based, in part, on feedback from applicants, because DOE

has no systematic way of soliciting applicant feedback, the department has

no assurance that the views obtained through its outreach efforts are

representative, particularly since the means that DOE uses to obtain

feedback do not guarantee anonymity. The department also has no

assurance that the changes made in response to feedback are effectively

addressing applicant concerns.

DOE risks excluding some potential applicants. Even though the

Recovery Act requires that applicants begin construction by the end of

fiscal year 2011 to qualify for Recovery Act funding, DOE has not yet

issued solicitations for the full range of projects eligible for Recovery Act

funding under section 1705. DOE has issued two solicitations specific to

the Recovery Act for the LGP, but neither invites applications for

commercial manufacturing projects, which are eligible under the act.

While DOE has announced that it will issue an LGP solicitation for

commercial manufacturing projects, it has given no date for doing so. The

2009 EERE solicitation provided an opportunity for some manufacturing

applicants to receive Recovery Act funding, but because DOE combined

The solicitations specific to the Recovery Act are the 2009 solicitations targeting electric

power transmission infrastructure projects and commercial technology renewable energy

generation projects.

Page 11 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

the Recovery Act’s requirements with the original section 1703

requirements, applicants with commercial manufacturing projects were

excluded. DOE officials told us that they combined the requirements to

ensure that projects that are initially eligible under section 1705 but that

fail to start construction by the deadline can remain in the LGP under

section 1703.

DOE has made substantial progress in building a functional program for

issuing loan guarantees under Title XVII of EPAct; however, it may not

fully realize the benefits envisioned for the LGP until it further improves

its ability to evaluate and implement the program. Since 2007, we have

been reporting on DOE’s lack of tools necessary to evaluate the program

and process applications and recommending that the department take

steps to address these areas. While DOE has identified broad policy goals

and developed a mission statement for the program, it will lack the ability

to implement the program efficiently and effectively and to evaluate

progress in achieving these goals and mission until it develops

corresponding performance goals. As a practical matter, without such

goals, DOE will also lack a clear basis for determining whether the

projects it decides to support with loan guarantees are helping achieve the

desired results, potentially undermining applicants’ and the public’s

confidence in the legitimacy of those decisions. Such confidence could

also be undermined by implementation processes that do not treat

applicants consistently—unless DOE has clear and compelling grounds for

disparate treatment—particularly if DOE skips steps in its review process

prior to issuing conditional commitments or rereviews rejected

applications for some applicants without having an administrative appeal

process. Furthermore, while DOE has taken steps to increase applicants’

satisfaction with the program, it cannot determine the effectiveness of

those efforts without systematic feedback from applicants that preserves

their anonymity.

To improve DOE’s ability to evaluate and implement the LGP, we

recommend that the Secretary of Energy take the following four actions:

• Direct the program management to develop relevant performance goals

that reflect the full range of policy goals and activities for the program, and

to the extent necessary, revise the performance measures to align with

these goals.

Conclusions

Recommendations for

Executive Action

Page 12 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

• Direct the program management to revise the process for issuing loan

guarantees to clearly establish what circumstances warrant disparate

treatment of applicants so that DOE’s implementation of the program

treats applicants consistently unless there are clear and compelling

grounds for doing otherwise.

• Direct the program management to develop an administrative appeal

process for applicants who believe their applications were rejected in

error and document the basis for conclusions regarding appeals.

• Direct the program management to develop a mechanism to systematically

obtain and address feedback from program applicants, and, in so doing,

ensure that applicants’ anonymity can be maintained, for example, by

using an independent service to obtain the feedback.

We provided a draft of this report to DOE for review and comment. In its

written comments, DOE stated that it recognizes the need for continuous

improvement to its Loan Guarantee Programs as those programs mature

but neither explicitly agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations. In

one instance, DOE specifically disagreed with our findings: the department

maintained that applicants are treated consistently within solicitations.

Agency Comments

Nevertheless, the department stated that it is taking steps to address

concerns identified in our report. Specifically, DOE pointed to the

following recent or planned actions:

• Performance goals and measures. DOE stated that, in the context of

revisions to its strategic plan, the department is revisiting the performance

goals and measures for the LGP to better align them with the department’s

policy goals of growing the green economy and reducing greenhouse gases

from power generation.

• Consistent treatment of applicants. DOE recognized the need for greater

transparency to avoid the perception of inconsistent treatment and stated

that it will ensure that future solicitations explicitly describe

circumstances that would allow streamlined consideration of loan

guarantee applications.

• Appeals. DOE indicated that its process for rejected applications should

be made more transparent and stated that the LGP continues to implement

new strategies intended to reduce the need for any kind of appeals, such

as enhanced communication with applicants including more frequent

Page 13 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

contact, and allowing applicants an opportunity to provide additional data

at DOE’s request to address deficiencies DOE has identified in

applications.

While these actions are encouraging, they do not fully address our

findings, especially in the areas of appeals and applicant feedback. We

continue to believe that DOE needs systematic mechanisms for applicants

to appeal its decisions and to provide anonymous feedback.

DOE’s written comments on our findings and recommendations, along

with our detailed responses, are contained in appendix VI. In addition to

the written comments reproduced in that appendix, DOE provided

technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional

committees, the Secretary of Energy, and other interested parties. This

report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the

last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in

appendix VII.

Frank Rusco

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment

Page 14 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To assess the extent to which the Department of Energy (DOE) has

identified what it intends to achieve through the Loan Guarantee Program

(LGP) and is positioned to evaluate progress, we reviewed and analyzed

relevant provisions of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct),

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act);

DOE’s budget request documents; and Recovery Act planning information,

as well as other documentation provided by DOE. We discussed strategic

planning and program evaluation with cognizant DOE officials from the

LGP office, the Office of the Secretary of Energy, the Office of the Chief

Financial Officer, and the Credit Review Board (CRB) that is charged with

coordinating credit management and debt collection activities as well as

overall policies and procedures for the LGP. As criteria, we used the

Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), along with our prior work

on GPRA.

To evaluate DOE’s implementation of the LGP for applicants, we reviewed

relevant legislation, such as EPAct and the Recovery Act; DOE’s final

regulations and concept of operations for the LGP; solicitations issued by

DOE inviting applications for loan guarantees; DOE’s internal project

tracking reports; technical and financial review criteria for the application

review process; minutes from CRB meetings held between February 2008

and November 2009; applications for loan guarantees; application

rejection letters issued by DOE; and other various DOE guidance and

procurement documents related to the process for issuing loan guarantees.

We interviewed cognizant DOE officials from the LGP office, the Office of

the Secretary of Energy, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the

Office of Headquarters Procurement Services, and program offices that

participated in the technical reviews of projects, including the Office of

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, the Office of Nuclear Energy, and the National

Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). In addition, we interviewed 31

LGP applicants and 4 trade association representatives, using a standard

list of questions for each group, to obtain a broad representation of views

that we believe can provide insights to bolster other evidence supporting

our findings. We selected the applicants and trade associations using a mix

of criteria, including the amount of the loan guarantee requested and the

relevant technology. As criteria, we used our prior work on customer

service. We did not evaluate the financial or technical soundness of the

projects for which applications were submitted.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2009 through July

2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to

Page 15 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Page 16 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix II: Performance Measures for the

LGP

Page 17 GAO-10-627

Appendix II: Performance Measures for the

LGP

DOE has developed the following nine performance measures for the LGP:

• percentage of projects receiving DOE loan guarantees that have achieved

and maintained commercial operations;

• contain the loss rate of guaranteed loans to less than 4 percent;

• contain the loss rate of guaranteed loans to less than 11.81 percent in fiscal

year 2009 (11.85 percent for fiscal years 2010 and 2011) on a long-term

portfolio basis;

• newly installed generation capacity from power generation projects

receiving DOE loan guarantees;

• average cost per megawatthour for projects receiving DOE loan

guarantees;

• forecasted greenhouse gas emissions reductions from projects receiving

loan guarantees compared to ‘business as usual’ energy generation;

• forecasted air pollutant emissions (nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and

particulates) reductions from projects receiving loan guarantees compared

to ‘business as usual’ energy generation;

• average review time of applications for Section 1705 guarantees; and

• percentage of conditional commitments issued to qualified applicants

relative to plan.

DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix III: Application Review Process

Figure 1: 2008 Solicitation for Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, and Advanced Transmission and Distribution

Technologies

Source: GAO presentation of DOE data.

Final credit subsidy fee calculated

Credit subsidy fee estimated

25% of application fee due ($18,750-$31,250)

Application

rejected

Application

rejected

DOE services loan

through term

Applicants’ costs

Credit subsidy calculations

DOE issues loan

guarantee

• DOE performs/contracts out

financial, legal, market,

environmental, and technical

reviews

• Term sheet negotiations

75% of application fee due ($56,250-$93,750)

Fee paid for credit assessment

Any remaining maintenance fee due ($50,000-$100,000 annually)

Credit subsidy fee due

All or part of maintenance fee due

80% of facility fee due

External reviewer fees due

Fee paid for credit rating

20% of facility fee due

DOE performs

formal review

DOE notifies

applicant of intent to

proceed with review

DOE reviews for

responsiveness

and innovativeness

Stand-alone or

manufacturing projects

submit application

Application

rejected

Application

rejected

Applicant submits part II

of application

DOE performs

formal review

DOE notifies

applicant of intent to

proceed with review

DOE reviews for

responsiveness

and innovativeness

Large-scale integration

projects submit part I

of the application

DOE issues solicitation

Underwriting and

due diligence

DOE makes conditional

commitment

Required for projects with estimated total costs exceeding $25 million.

Page 18 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix III: Application Review Process

Figure 2: 2008 Solicitation for Coal-based Power Generation and Industrial Gasification Facilities That Incorporate Carbon

Capture and Sequestration or Other Beneficial Uses of Carbon and for Advanced Coal Gasification Facilities

Source: GAO presentation of DOE data.

Application

rejected

Final credit subsidy fee calculated

Credit subsidy fee estimated

25% of application fee due ($200,000)

Application

rejected

DOE services loan

through term

Applicants’ costs

Credit subsidy calculations

DOE issues loan

guarantee

• DOE performs/contracts out

financial, legal, market,

environmental, and technical

reviews

• Term sheet negotiations

75% of application fee due ($600,000)

Fee paid for credit assessment

Any remaining maintenance fee due ($200,000-$400,000 annually)

Credit subsidy fee due

All or part of maintenance fee due

80% of facility fee due

External reviewer fees due

Fee paid for credit rating

20% of facility fee due

DOE reviews part II

Applicant submits part II

of application

DOE reviews part I

Applicant submits

part I of application

DOE issues solicitation

Underwriting and

due diligence

DOE makes conditional

commitment

Required for projects with estimated total costs exceeding $25 million.

Page 19 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix III: Application Review Process

Figure 3: 2008 Solicitation for Nuclear Power Facilities

Source: GAO presentation of DOE data.

Applicant

provides

updates

every

90 days

Final credit subsidy fee calculated

Credit subsidy fee estimated

25% of application fee due ($200,000)

Application

rejected

DOE services loan

through term

Applicants’ costs

Credit subsidy calculations

Applicant

withdraws

DOE issues loan

guarantee

Application not

selected for

due diligence—

remains in

queue

• DOE performs/contracts out

financial, legal, market,

environmental, and technical

reviews

• Term sheet negotiations

Application

rejected

75% of application fee due ($600,000)

Fee paid for credit assessment

Any remaining maintenance fee due ($200,000-$400,000 annually)

Credit subsidy fee due

All or part of maintenance fee due

80% of facility fee due

External reviewer fees due

Fee paid for credit rating

20% of facility fee due

DOE reviews part II

Applicant submits part II

of application

DOE provides initial

ranking for the application

DOE reviews part I

Applicant submits

part I of application

DOE issues solicitation

Underwriting and

due diligence

DOE makes conditional

commitment

Required for projects with estimated total costs exceeding $25 million.

Page 20 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix III: Application Review Process

Figure 4: 2008 Solicitation for Front-End Nuclear Facilities

Source: GAO presentation of DOE data.

Applicant

provides

updates

every

90 days

Final credit subsidy fee calculated

Credit subsidy fee estimated

25% of application fee due ($200,000)

Application

rejected

DOE services loan

through term

Applicants’ costs

Credit subsidy calculations

DOE issues loan

guarantee

Application not

selected for

due diligence—

remains in

queue

• DOE performs/contracts out

financial, legal, market,

environmental, and technical

reviews

• Term sheet negotiations

Application

rejected

75% of application fee due ($600,000)

Fee paid for credit assessment

Any remaining maintenance fee due ($200,000-$400,000 annually)

Credit subsidy fee due

All or part of maintenance fee due

80% of facility fee due

External reviewer fees due

Fee paid for credit rating

20% of facility fee due

DOE reviews part II

Applicant submits part II

of application

DOE reviews part I

Applicant submits

part I of application

DOE issues solicitation

Underwriting and

due diligence

DOE makes conditional

commitment

Required for projects with estimated total costs exceeding $25 million.

Page 21 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix IV: Standardized Fees Associated

with Obtaining a Loan Guarantee, by

Solicitation

Appendix IV: Standardized Fees Associated

with Obtaining a Loan Guarantee, by

Solicitation

Application fee

Solicitation

1st payment

of 25%

2nd payment

of 75%

Facility fee

Annual loan

maintenance fee

2008 Front-end nuclear facilities $200,000 $600,000 ½ of 1% of guaranteed

amount

$200,000-400,000

2008 Nuclear power facilities 200,000 600,000 ½ of 1% of guaranteed

amount

200,000-400,000

2008 Coal-based power generation and

industrial gasification facilities

200,000 600,000 ½ of 1% of guaranteed

amount

200,000-400,000

2008 Energy efficiency, renewable energy, and advanced transmission and distribution technologies (EERE)

Loan guarantee amount:

$0 - 150,000,000 18,750 56,250 1% of guaranteed amount 50,000-100,000

Above $150,000,000 - 500,000,000 25,000 75,000 $375,000 + 0.75% of

guaranteed amount

50,000-100,000

Above $500,000,000 31,250 93,750 $1,625,000 + 0.50% of

guaranteed amount

50,000-100,000

2009 EERE

Loan guarantee amount:

$0 - 150,000,000 18,750 56,250 1% of guaranteed amount 50,000-100,000

Above $150,000,000 - 500,000,000 25,000 75,000 $375,000 + 0.75% of

guaranteed amount

50,000-100,000

Above $500,000,000 31,250 93,750 $1,625,000 + 0.50% of

guaranteed amount

50,000-100,000

2009 Electric power transmission

infrastructure projects

200,000 600,000 ½ of 1% of guaranteed

amount

200,000-400,000

2009 Commercial technology renewable

energy generation projects under the

Financial Institution Partnership Program

(FIPP)

12,500 37,500 ½ of 1% of guaranteed

amount

10,000-25,000

Source: GAO presentation of DOE data.

According to agency documentation, this fee is intended to cover the LGP’s cost of loan setup and

associated legal and finance fees.

Page 22 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix V: Loan Guarantee Amounts

Available and Amounts Applicants Sought for

Technology Categories Targeted in

Solicitations

Appendix V: Loan Guarantee Amounts Available

and Amounts Applicants Sought for Technology

Categories Targeted in Solicitations

Dollars in billions

Targeted technology category

Solicitation

issuance date

Amount

available

Amount

applicants

sought

Mixed

Aug. 8, 2006 $4.0 $8.6

Nuclear power facilities July 11, 2008 18.5 93.2

Front-end nuclear facilities July 11, 2008 2.0 4.0

Coal-based power generation and industrial gasification facilities Sept. 22, 2008 8.0 18.6

Energy efficiency, renewable energy, and advanced transmission and

distribution technologies (EERE)

Oct. 29, 2008 10.0 20.1

EERE July 29, 2009 8.5 22.8

Electric power transmission infrastructure projects July 29, 2009 5.0

4.3

Commercial technology renewable energy generation projects under the

Financial Institution Partnership Program (FIPP)

Oct. 7, 2009 5.0

3.1

Source: GAO presentation of DOE data.

The 2006 mixed solicitation invited applications for all technologies eligible to receive loan

guarantees under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 except for nuclear facilities and oil refineries.

DOE is still accepting applications in response to the 2009 EERE solicitation, so the final total

amount that applicants will seek is not yet known. Through November 2009, applicants were seeking

a total of $22.8 billion.

This amount is an estimate because the solicitation did not specify how much would be issued in

loan guarantees. This estimate is based on the solicitation’s stated plan to use $750 million to cover

credit subsidy costs and assumes credit subsidy costs of 15 percent, which DOE has told us is

consistent with credit subsidy estimates to date.

Page 23 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department

of Energy

Appendix VI: Comments from the

Department of Energy

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in

the report text appear at

the end of this appendix.

Page 24 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department

of Energy

Page 25 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department

of Energy

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

Page 26 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department

of Energy

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

Page 27 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department

of Energy

See comment 5.

Page 28 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department

of Energy

Page 29 GAO-10-627

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Energy’s (DOE)

letter dated June 17, 2010.

1. DOE appears to concur with the spirit of our recommendation. Best

practices for program management indicate that DOE should have

objective, quantifiable performance goals and targets for evaluating its

progress in meeting policy goals DOE has identified for the LGP. Such

goals and targets are important tools for ensuring public accountability

and effective program management.

GAO Comments

2. Our finding about inconsistent treatment of LGP applicants is based on

information obtained from applicants corroborated by documents

from DOE. In the instance we identified in which DOE made a

conditional commitment before obtaining any of the required external

reports, the external reviewers were not fully engaged until after DOE

had negotiated the terms of the conditional commitment, which is

contrary to DOE’s stated procedures and provided an advantage to the

applicant. Other applicants who received conditional commitments

before completion of one or more of the reports called for by DOE’s

due diligence procedures also had a comparative advantage in that

they were able to defer some review expenses until after DOE had

publicly committed to their projects. We continue to believe that DOE

should revise the process for issuing loan guarantees to treat

applicants consistently unless there are clearly established and

compelling grounds for making an exception.

3. We agree that there may be grounds for treating applicants differently

depending on the type of technology they employ but do not believe

that DOE has adequately explained the basis for the differences among

the solicitations. For example, DOE’s response does not address the

possibility that lack of ranking information for fossil energy projects,

combined with the knowledge that the solicitation was significantly

oversubscribed, could have factored into applicants’ decisions to drop

out of the process, especially given the relatively high fees associated

with submitting part II of the application.

4. We disagree that DOE’s current process for rereviewing rejected

applications is working. As we state in our report, some applicants did

not know that DOE would provide rereviews. While we are

encouraged by DOE’s efforts to reduce the need for appeals, we

believe that an administrative appeal process would allow DOE to

better plan and manage its use of resources on rejected applications.

DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department

of Energy

5. We applaud DOE’s efforts to reach out to stakeholders and to use

lessons learned to improve procedures and increase efficiencies and

effectiveness. However, we continue to believe that DOE needs a

systematic mechanism for applicants to provide anonymous feedback,

whether through use of a third party or other means that preserves

confidentiality. Several applicants we interviewed expressed concern

that commenting on aspects of DOE’s implementation of the LGP

could adversely affect their current or future prospects for receiving a

loan guarantee. Systematically obtaining and addressing anonymous

feedback could enhance DOE’s efforts to improve procedures and

increase efficiencies and effectiveness.

Page 30 GAO-10-627 DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Appendix VII:

GAO Contact and Staff

cknowledgments

Page 31 GAO-10-627

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

Frank Rusco (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Karla Springer, Assistant

Director; Marcia Carlsen; Nancy Crothers; Marissa Dondoe; Brandon

Haller; Whitney Jennings; Cynthia Norris; Daniel Paepke; Madhav Panwar;

Barbara Timmerman; and Jeremy Williams made key contributions to this

report.

DOE Loan Guarantee Program

GAO Contact

Staff

Acknowledgments

(361040)

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Phone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Washington, DC 20548

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Congressional

Relations

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper