Collateral Carnage at the Energy Department
Many of us who have worked at the U.S. Department of Energy are watching the wrecking ball careening through this valuable cabinet agency with sadness.
The tumult so far suggests the earnest “reformers” at Energy sent by the White House to make operations “more efficient” have a competency problem. Like someone performing surgery without having studied anatomy, they give the American people reasons to worry about the repercussions for national security and prosperity.
The massive axing of employees at Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration is one example of a tendency to fire now and find out what the job is later. After its rash attack, the political team found out that the agency was responsible for safeguarding the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, as well as responding to terrorists or other adversaries with nuclear capability.
Recognizing their rookie mistake, the Trump emissaries reversed the dismissal of employees and tried to rehire those who’d just received their termination letters. However, the administration had erased their email addresses and couldn’t contact many of them (who were undoubtedly already looking for other jobs). Whatever the outcome, the incident didn’t bode well for protecting national security.
The Trump administration also embarrassed itself by firing workers at the Department of Energy’s Bonneville Power Administration – which supplies inexpensive hydropower to millions of customers in the Pacific Northwest. The administration retreated somewhat after it discovered what Bonneville did. Rookie mistake number two.
Similar attacks have appeared throughout DOE, including the firings at the Energy Information Administration. This action is tough to justify. Both the law and tradition shield this statistical agency from political influence. Moreover, EIA has consistently delivered on its mission to provide high-quality, policy-neutral data and analysis.
Policymakers rely on the information they get from this small agency. As an added benefit, U.S. markets work relatively well due partly to the nation’s accurate and timely data infrastructure. In addition, EIA’s accessibility and transparency give the public confidence they get the same information as government insiders. There is no “deep state” at EIA, as anyone who has attended one of its technical workshops could attest.
Nonetheless, probationary employees at EIA (those with less than the one or two years needed to achieve career status) received the same form letter mushrooming throughout the federal government. The president canceled their employment based on skimpy justification. Like the nuclear safety program and Bonneville, it appears that the invading experts had little idea of what the Department of Energy did. The loss of a cohort of talented employees at EIA, like elsewhere, will take many years to repair.
The Trump termination letters provide no credible evidence of any assessment of mission criticality or employee performance. Does the new administration argue that oil and gas drillers should be “unleashed” from data? Or will it justify its exaggerated claims of emergency powers by telling the courts it is saving the country from statistics?
While probationary employees lack the job protection of career civil servants, the government hired them in a process authorized by law. Moreover, the government cannot summarily deny them all due process. The haphazard implementation of workforce reductions may put the government in a precarious position. The abrupt firings may make it liable for back pay and damages.
The additional costs that might result from the “department” of government “efficiency” draw attention to the many inefficiencies it adds to the government and the national economy. Federal programs incur unnecessary costs when they receive chaotic directions. Markets operate less efficiently when they lack guidance from reliable data.
Process mapping would undoubtedly produce a more efficient and nimble federal government. It would, for instance, address the often justifiable complaints about how long it takes the government to do just about anything. Unfortunately, we haven’t heard much about this kind of reform.
A genuine attempt to improve government efficiency should consider how good government differs from good business. A private corporation seeks to maximize profits. A government agency strives to fulfill an assignment from the Congress to promote the public welfare. One mostly forgotten but classic study of government management found that government agencies could achieve high levels of effectiveness when they understood the significance of their goals and employees were motivated by their roles. For some people, the feeling of accomplishing a public good can be a more potent driver than the pursuit of profits. Many “public servants” work for more than a paycheck.
The bulk of DOE’s work involves the advancement of science and technology, mainly at its famed national laboratories. Gone is the time when a private national monopoly like the Bell Telephone Company would invest heavily in basic science without much consideration of corporate profits. These days, companies invest heavily in new technologies when they approach market competitiveness. Until that point, the government carries a heavy load of expanding scientific knowledge.
The roles of the government and private sector in scientific discovery complement each other. Unfortunately, some titans of industry creative narratives in which their private sector successes owe nothing to government support. This fabulism is often at odds with the historical record.
Ironically, one example is the boom in U.S. energy production. The pioneer Houston oilman George Mitchell deserves more credit than anyone for the modern revolution in extracting natural gas (and eventually oil) from tight formations (better known today as shale formations). Mitchell started his quest for “unconventional” resources in the 1970s. However, hydrofracturing techniques (along with later developments in horizontal drilling and micro seismology) didn’t reverse the historic decline in oil and gas production until 2007.
Mitchell acknowledged the critical help he received from the federal government along the way. With this perspective, the current American boom in production arises more from energy policies under the Carter administration and the backing of federal energy labs during the last quarter of the twentieth century than from the actions of recent presidents.
Like a venture capital firm, government laboratories don’t need to win every bet on emerging technologies. They just need to hit an occasional jackpot.
The next big revolution in energy technology is well underway – cheaper and more efficient photovoltaic solar power paired with storage, such as battery farms. We will need to accelerate this effort to achieve the right balance between environmental protection and economic growth. Efforts by the new administration to dismantle programs supporting renewable energy will disrupt the needed transition and have long-lasting consequences the nation will come to regret.
To the people slashing government employees like they are characters in a video game, I have a simple plea: please take more careful aim before you fire.
Jay Hakes has headed the Florida Governor’s Energy Office, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library. He has also written three books on U.S. energy and environmental history.
