{"id":640301,"date":"2013-01-28T11:37:14","date_gmt":"2013-01-28T16:37:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gigaom.com\/?p=604931"},"modified":"2013-01-28T11:37:14","modified_gmt":"2013-01-28T16:37:14","slug":"audit-reveals-some-mismanagement-of-smart-grid-demonstration-stimulus-funds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/640301","title":{"rendered":"Audit reveals some mismanagement of smart grid demonstration stimulus funds"},"content":{"rendered":"

Over three years ago<\/a> the Department of Energy allocated around $4.5 billion in stimulus funds for smart grid projects in the U.S. That included $700 million for demonstration projects that helped install technology like wireless data networks and battery farms for the power grid. With such a large amount handed out over a relatively short period of time, the chances of problems were high. And according to a newly released report from the Department of Energy’s Inspector General<\/a>, the smart grid demonstration program had some management issues.<\/p>\n

Those problems included:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Handing out funds for a couple projects for estimated costs instead of actual costs of projects, which resulted in over payments.<\/li>\n
  2. Funding a project that also received a grant from another DOE program, the ARPA-E program, for the exact same project.<\/li>\n
  3. Funding a project that had not handed in proper documents, and had not begun making the energy storage units that it claimed for the award.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The audit looked at just 11 projects, with a total of $279 million in awards, out of the $700 million smart grid demonstration program. Out of that section alone they found $12.3 million in questioned costs, and they have now recovered $6.6 million of those misspent costs, and plan to recover another $5 million. It’s probably safe to assume there’s similar levels of mismanagement throughout the entire $4.5 billion.<\/p>\n

    The report says:<\/p>\n

    \n

    The Department had not always managed the Program effectively and efficiently. . . .In the absence of significant improvements, the Program is at risk of not meeting its objectives and has an increased risk of fraud, waste and abuse.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    As a result the report recommends that the program:<\/p>\n