A Lot More Than Incompetence Involved In Sandy Energy Grant Fiasco
Flawed Energy Grant Program Indicator of Christie Policy and Management Problems
Anonymous Activist Whistleblower Shone Light on Government, Enabled Media Investigation
The real story is that, without insiders willing to provide critical information to shed light on what is really going on, the public rarely gets a glimpse into the real working of their government. In the end, OPRA is toothless and the real power lies with whistleblowers willing to share information. ~~~ (3/10/14) Source: the whistleblower for Hazard Mitigation Energy Grant story
Thankfully, it looks like we’ve overcome persistent pushback and spin from DEP Press Office spokesman Larry “X-Files” Ragonese on the Sandy Hazard Mitigation Energy Grant program SANFU story.
But, instead of highlighting policy flaws, mismanagement, and political abuses, the media narrative seems to be narrowing and the problems are all being blamed on incompetence and technical errors.
And the hero of the story – the internal source who provided the documents – has been ignored by the self congratulatory media and the opportunistic political pile-ons.
Along those lines, the Star Ledger editorialized on Sunday, see: Shorting Hoboken’s Sandy aid
And today, NJ Spotlight reports that the coverage received praise from Senate leaders and prompted legislations, see: SANDY STORY ON MISALLOCATION OF FUNDS EARNS KUDOS FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
So, let me first tell the backstory on how this story developed, because it illustrates serious problems, and then explain why the there is a lot more than incompetence and technical errors involved.
- Backstory
The published media reports don’t tell of how DEP’s Larry Ragonese repeatedly tried to derail this story and attack and discredit the source – which in this case, is me and my whistleblower source.
A source involved with and critical of the process provided internal documents to me. After careful review, the documents appeared authentic. After speaking with the source, I was assured of her/his credibility and learned a lot about the internal workings of the HMPG program.
Because I respected their investigative work on the Port Authority, I then gave this story to a WNYC reporter on an exclusive basis in late January.
The internal information I provided included the “final” spreadsheet on grant allocations to Towns, which included the point scoring methodology and all the rankings. I also provided internal emails and memoranda that my source gave to me.
I later learned that, apparently, NJ Spotlight reporter Scott Gurian had been working on this same program but was getting stonewalled – State officials would not provide the information he requested.
At the same time I provided WNYC the documents, I began writing PEER’s report and Press release [which we issued on Feb. 3, see: JERSEY SANDY ENERGY GRANT AWARDS RAISE MORE QUESTIONS – Hazard Mitigation Funding Criteria Ignores Municipal Need and Hazard Severity
“The Governor’s scoring spreadsheet looks more like a game of bureaucratic bingo than a rational, need-based selection process,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, noting the abrupt termination of the state’s main contractor and the growing uncertainty over distribution of Sandy money. “Many of these requests were virtually identical, yet a few were accepted while many others rejected. No wonder our mayors are confused and suspicious.”
For at least a week, WNYC/NJ Spotlight reviewed the material I provided and ran it by State officials. Ragonese was an obstructionist. I had multiple conversations with WNYC to re-assure them about the documents and my source and rebut pushback they seemed to be getting but was not fully shared with me.
I was assured that WNYC would run the story, but I gave a February 3 deadline, which is when PEER would issue its press release.
The rest if a matter of public record. But it took another month from the first 2/3/14 WNYC story for the larger story to emerge. The take-home points are:
1) had a whistleblower not given me the documents, the story would never have been told. State officials would have continued to stonewall NJ Spotlight, who would have lacked sufficient credible information to write the story;
2) had PEER not been involved and capable of working with the whistleblower and WNYC/NJ Spotlight, the story would not have emerged;
3) The Christie administration and DEP regularly abuse OPRA – Scott Gurian of NJ Spotlight was not able to get these documents – i.e the spreadsheet, the scoring methodology, the allocations of grant funds, and the internal documents and emails he used to write his story;
4) DEP Press Office routinely attacks critics, withholds information, and spins stories. In this case, internal documents were able to penetrate that spin and expose those attacks and lies. In most cases, those documents are not available; and
5) Had the Wolfenotes blog not been available to publicize the documents and pressure and criticize DEP and media, none of this would have occurred.
Moral of the story?
Blow the whistle – engage in anonymous activism! Be a public interest hero! Drop a dime on the hacks!
- Christie Policy and Management Flaws
Many of problems with this program stem from the BPU/DEP underlying energy policy and a lack of commitment by the Christie Administration to the BPU/DEP policy objectives.
Those problems are compounded by the involvement of multiple agencies that do not have a history of working closely with each other, i.e DEP, BPU, Office of Emergency Management, and Governor Christie’s Sandy Czar. You could say they were winging it.
At the outset, when the grant program was designed, the DEP and BPU wanted to provide incentives for long term “energy resilience”, not short term band aides like diesel generators. They agreed with this NREL finding:
resilient and cost-effective energy solutions – Recommendations include: pursuing engineering studies for fuel cells and CHP; purchasing dynamic inverters and storage for existing solar panels; installing natural gas or tri-fuel generators where appropriate.
But the grant applicants, mostly local emergency management officials, wanted diesel generators. Big conflict.
And the State Office of Emergency Management, beholden to local interests, technically held the grant purse strings and controlled the money.
Knowing that the Governor’s Office would likely not support them in response to State OEM and local political resistance, the DEP and BPU bureaucrats could not resolve this conflict openly so they created an elaborate point scoring system to implement it in a back door fashion (e.g. this is why things like a BPU energy audit scored 20 points, while real vulnerability was ignored).
On top of all this, the managers at DEP, BPU and the Governor’s Office all were incompetent and unable to effectively monitor and manage the work of their subordinates at DEP and BPU.
Internal emails showed that the Governor’s Office cared as much or more about public relations and taking credit for providing funds to towns in the weeks before the election.
Last, the energy program and the entire process lacked any overall plan, a policy or regulatory structure, transparency, public involvement, legislative oversight, or media.
This created chaos, confusion, and lots of what the lawyers call “unbounded discretion” and the engineers call “professional judgement” – and what the politicians call patronage.
This can not be the model for the $210 million “Energy Resilience Bank” proposed in the Christie $1.4 billion second round HUD Action plan.
And it can not continue to be allowed as the model for Sandy recovery and many other policy initiatives of the CHristie Administration.
All the above is a formula for failure and just a microcosm of the Christie Administration’s total inability to govern.