Federal Reports

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, authorized $1 billion in appropriations for the purchase and installation of renewable energy, energy storage, and other grid technologies. The Department of Energy’s Grid Deployment Office (GDO) will administer the $1 billion through the Puerto Rico Energy Resilience Fund (PR-ERF) Program, which focuses on energy resilience investments to grow Puerto Rico’s clean energy economy, while pursuing the goal to meet 100 percent of its electricity needs with renewable energy by 2050.
We initiated this inspection to determine the GDO’s readiness to implement the PR-ERF Program.

We found that the GDO was not fully prepared to implement the PR ERF Program, as it had not developed the requisite oversight tools and resources to conduct separate and appropriate oversight to ensure that it will meet its intended goals and objectives. We identified six areas related to the GDO’s implementation of the PR-ERF Program where additional oversight and resources are needed.

The lack of preparedness and planned oversight occurred due to the GDO’s reliance on other entities. Specifically, while the GDO delegated management and execution duties to other entities, it did not assess the readiness and ability of these entities to oversee the PR-ERF Program, nor prepare a plan to oversee the work performed by these entities.

The GDO’s ability to achieve PR-ERF Program objectives is vulnerable without the establishment of independent, robust oversight, and resources.

To address the issues identified in this report, we have made one recommendation that, if fully implemented, should help ensure that the GDO’s oversight tools and resources are adequate for the PR-ERF Program.  

What Was Inspected
The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an inspection of two DFC loan finance agreements. The agreements reviewed involved the FS India Solar Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (First Solar) and Biological E Limited (Bio E) projects, which are both based in India. DFC’s loan agreements with First Solar and Bio E totaled $500 million and $50 million, respectively. The OIG’s inspection objective was to evaluate each project’s compliance with agreement terms and progress with established impact metrics. 

What Was Found
The OIG found that DFC officials did not receive the annual environmental and social (E&S) reports for Bio E required under the finance agreement. Additionally, DFC’s oversight of the First Solar project could be strengthened to monitor ongoing E&S compliance with deliverable requirements under the finance agreement. The OIG found mixed progress on the impact outcomes for both projects. Both the Bio E and First Solar agreements required the submission of specific document deliverables 
throughout each project’s lifecycle and annual reporting on established impact outcomes.

The OIG inspection determined that:
•  DFC did not adhere to established internal policies and procedures, resulting in insufficient E&S monitoring of the $50 million Bio E investment.
•  DFC officials did not receive the annual E&S reports for Bio E required under the finance agreement, and one deliverable was received three months after the deadline specified in the finance agreement.
•  DFC officials did not follow policies and procedures for maintaining the required project deliverables within Insight.
•  DFC did not obtain required annual audits from several of First Solar’s supply chain material and component supplier vendors, nor did it verify that identified monitoring procedures for the construction of the First Solar facility were followed with respect to labor and working condition standards.
• The Bio E project made progress meeting two core impact projections, while the First Solar project is still in the process of achieving its impact projections.
 

• The universal service obligation (USO) guarantees all citizens within a country affordable, consistent postal service, regardless of location. However, declining mail volume and market competition have made it harder for postal operators worldwide to sustain the costs of providing the USO.
• To address these challenges, many countries are modifying their USOs by reducing delivery days, slowing service standards, changing requirements for the network of post offices, or reducing the scope of products within the USO. Depending on the country, the authority to change the USO may rest in national law, a government ministry, or a postal regulator.
• The United States’ USO legal framework is unique because there is no government department directly responsible for postal policy or a specific formal process to adjust it. Except for the six-day delivery mandate, postal law defines the USO in broad qualitative terms, which allows the Postal Service discretion to interpret the USO and adjust parameters, such as service standards or retail access, to balance service quality and financial sustainability.
• Should a reevaluation of the United States’ USO framework take place in the future, the experience of other countries highlights the value of assessing user needs and engaging stakeholders to promote an evidence-based, transparent approach to reviewing the USO.

In January 2023, the General Services Administration (GSA) announced that a portion of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Chattanooga Office Complex (COC), which consists of five buildings (Signal Place, Lookout Place, Missionary Ridge (MR), Blue Ridge (BR), and Monteagle Place), was being considered for the site of a new federal courthouse.  In anticipation of a possible move, TVA created a stand-alone project to vacate MR and BR and consolidate (Vacate and Consolidate) into the other three COC buildings.  In March 2024, TVA requested public input on four alternatives identified for the COC as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.  Public input was to inform TVA decision makers about expected environmental consequences related to each alternative.  On February 13, 2025, the TVA Board approved MR and BR for surplus and in July 2025, TVA made the decision to remain in three buildings at the COC.

We determined that TVA’s analysis of the options for the COC could have been improved.  Specifically, (1) TVA did not compare the financial impacts of the four alternatives identified in the National Environmental Policy Act process to determine the best course of action before starting a project, and (2) the economic analysis for the Vacate and Consolidate project was flawed because it did not include all relevant costs and included an inaccurate input that was not reviewed for reasonableness by TVA.  During TVA’s process for evaluating alternatives for the COC, we informed management of our findings.  Subsequently, TVA took interim actions to address the concerns before making a final decision. 

The U.S. AbilityOne Commission Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an investigation in response to an anonymous complaint alleging that a sole source contract was improperly awarded.