FIGURE 1–1 Estimated energy consumption of the Industries of the Future as a percentage of U.S. manufacturing and mining energy consumption for 2002. SOURCE: DOE, 2003c, p. 8.

with corporate approaches; the existence of artificial organizational layers superimposed over programs, creating inefficiencies; and too many layers of management (Garman, 2002). The EERE had been organized into five market sectors5 and their 17 offices, resulting in a stovepipe culture. These stovepipes included business management processes and systems that fragmented EERE business management, while the market-sector organizations created layers on top of programs, resulting in inefficiencies (Garman, 2002).

The impetus for change had come from a variety of sources, including a National Academy of Public Administration review of EERE management completed in 2000, the President’s Management Agenda released in 2001 (OMB, 2001), and the National Energy Policy released in 2001 (NEPDG, 2001). The President’s Management Agenda called for flattening organizations to make them more responsive; focusing on results instead of process; linking budgets with performance; ending overlapping functions, inefficiencies, and turf battles; and making the most of government employees and their knowledge, skills, and abilities (Garman, 2002). The National Energy Policy directed the Secretary of Energy to review the current funding and historic performance of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and alternative energy R&D programs in light of recommendations of the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) and to propose appropriate funding for R&D programs that are performance-based and modeled as public-private partnerships (NEPDG, 2001).

In response to the National Energy Policy direction, the EERE completed a Strategic Program Review in March 2002, which concluded that EERE research had generated significant public benefits and often exhibited scientific excellence. However, this review also concluded that there were areas needing improvement, including 20 projects that should be terminated, 6 initiatives that needed redirection, a variety of programs that needed to be carefully monitored, several program areas that needed to be expanded, and an uneven application of best program practices across EERE sectors (EERE, 2002).

The EERE’s management and business model was redesigned with input from the three documents cited above (DOE, 2002). After the restructuring, 31 program offices had been consolidated into 11, and only two of five deputy assistant secretary (DAS) positions remained—one for technology development and one for business administration (see Figure 1–2). The 11 current program offices are Biomass; Building Technologies; Distributed Energy and Electricity Infrastructure and Reliability; Federal Energy Management; FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies; Geothermal Technologies; Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies; Industrial Technologies; Solar Energy Technology; Weatherization and


The five market sectors were power, industry, transportation, buildings, and federal facilities.

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement