Federal Reports

Because of the importance of successful capital project management, and in light of recent capital project cost overruns and schedule delays, we initiated a review of Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) capital project management. The objective of our work was to determine whether the Project/Portfolio Management (PPM) function of PowerPlant meets the needs of the strategic business units (SBU).PowerPlant replaced TVA's Project Justification System on March 7, 2011, at a cost of about $7 million. PowerPlant was implemented to replace the assets module within the Enterprise Financial Management System, while also providing the functionality to centralize project and portfolio management. TVA achieved some project and portfolio management capability with the new system, but considerable opportunity for improvement exists. Specifically, as a result of our review, we identified (1) the PowerPlant PPM tools do not currently meet all needs identified by the SBUs, (2) users feel they have not been adequately trained on some functions of the system, and (3) communication of defects that have been resolved would benefit users.We recommended management consider (1) implementing additional project management functionality available in the PowerPlant system or purchasing another system to provide a PPM tool to more efficiently and effectively manage TVA's capital projects, (2) completing additional PowerPlant training as planned, and (3) developing a strategy for communicating system changes, upgrades, and modifications.

TVA established the Direct Load Control (DLC) program in the 1970s as a means to shift load from on-peak/high-priced periods to off-peak/low-priced periods. At the time of our audit, there were 12 distributors participating in the DLC program. Credits provided to these distributors during 2011 ranged from $5,909 to more than $1 million for a total cost to TVA of $2,365,819. The OIG audited TVA's DLC program to address concerns received regarding the benefits of the program. Our specific audit objectives were to assess the effectiveness of the program and TVA's oversight of the program. In summary, we determined the DLC program was not operating effectively, and TVA was not employing two key oversight mechanisms afforded by the DLC contract.The program was not operating effectively because much of the DLC program equipment was outdated and in disrepair, and the program cost was substantially higher than the savings TVA achieved.TVA was not using two key contractual oversight mechanisms for verifying the program was operating as intended and distributor reports to TVA were accurate.We made three recommendations that pertained to determining whether the DLC program was cost-beneficial and TVA used contractual oversight mechanisms available. TVA management generally agreed with our recommendations and findings.