How Should FESI Work with DOE? Lessons Learned From Other Agency-Affiliated Foundations
In May, Secretary Granholm took the first official step towards standing up the Foundation for Energy Security and Innovation (FESI) by naming its inaugural board. FESI, authorized in the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 and appropriated in the FY24 budget, holds a unique place in the clean energy ecosystem. It can convene public-private partnerships and accept non-governmental and philanthropic funding to spur important projects. FESI holds tremendous potential for empowering the DOE mission and accelerating the energy transition.
Through the Friends of FESI Initiative at FAS, we’ve identified a few opportunities for FESI to have some big wins early on – including boosting next-generation geothermal development and supporting pilot stage demonstrations for nascent clean energy technologies. We’ve also written about how important it is for the FESI Board to be ambitious and to think big. It’s important that FESI be intentional and thoughtful about the way that it’s structured and connected to the Department of Energy (DOE). The advantage of an entity like FESI is that it’s independent, non-governmental, and flexible. Therefore, its relationship to DOE must be complementary to DOE’s mission, but not tethered too tightly. FESI should not be bound by the same rules as DOE.
While the board has been organizing itself and selecting a leadership team, we’ve been gathering insights from leaders at other Congressionally-chartered foundations to provide best practices and lessons learned for a young FESI. Below, we make a case for the mutually-beneficial agreement that DOE and FESI should pursue, outline the arrangements that three of FESI’s fellow foundations have with their anchor agencies, and highlight which elements FESI would be wise to incorporate based on existing foundation models. Structuring an effective relationship between FESI and DOE from the start is crucial for ensuring that FESI delivers impact for years to come.
Other Transactions Agreements (OTA)
If FESI is going to continue to receive Congressional appropriations through DOE, which we hope it will, it should be structured from the start in a way that allows it to be as effective as possible while it receives both taxpayer dollars and private support. The legal arrangement between FESI and DOE that most lends itself to supporting these conditions is an Other Transactions (OT) agreement. Congress has granted several agencies, including DOE, the authority to use OTs for research, prototype, and production purposes, and these agreements aren’t bound by the same regulations that government contracts or grants are. FESI and DOE wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel to design a mutually beneficial OT agreement after looking at other shining examples from other agencies.
Effective Use of an Other Transactions Agreement Between FNIH and NIH
Many consider the gold standard of public-private accomplishment – made possible through an Other Transactions Agreement – to be a partnership first ideated in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Leaders at the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Foundation for National Institute of Health (FNIH) were faced with an unprecedented need for developing a vaccine on an accelerated timeline. In a matter of weeks, these leaders pulled together a government-industry-academia coalition to coordinate research and clinical testing efforts. The resulting partnership is called ACTIV (Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines) and includes eight U.S. government agencies, 20 biopharmaceutical companies and several nonprofit organizations.
Like the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change is a global crisis. Expedited energy research, commercialization, and deployment efforts require cohesive collaboration between government and the private sector. Other Transactions consortia like ACTIV pool together the funding to support some of the brightest minds in the field, in alignment with the national agenda, and return discoveries to the public domain. Pursuing an OT agreement allowed the FNIH and NIH to act swiftly and at the scale required to begin to tackle the task of developing a life-saving vaccine.
What We Can Learn from Other Agency-Affiliated Foundations
FESI Needs to Find its Specific Value-Add and then Execute
The allure of an independent, non-governmental foundation like FESI is pretty straightforward. Unencumbered by traditional government processes, agency-affiliated foundations are nimble, fast-moving, and don’t face the same operational barriers as government when working with the private sector. They can raise and pool funds from private and philanthropic donors. For that reason, it’s crucial that FESI differentiates itself from DOE and doesn’t become a shadow agency. Although FESI’s mission aligns with that of the DOE’s, and may focus on programs similar to those of ARPA-E, there is a drastic difference between being a federal agency and being a foundation affiliated with a federal agency.
FESI’s potential relies on its ability to be independent enough to take risks while still maintaining a strong relationship with DOE and the agency’s mission. FESI’s goals should be aligned with DOE’s through frequent communication with the agency – to understand priorities, opportunities, and barriers it might face in achieving those goals. In reality, neither FESI nor DOE can directly instruct the other what to do, but the two entities should be aligned and aware of what the other is doing at all times.
Additionally, a young FESI should figure out what it can do that DOE can’t and then capitalize on that. The Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR), for example, was established with a specific purpose of convening public private partnerships. At the time, the USDA struggled to connect with industry. FFAR found its benefit by serving as a more flexible extension of the agency’s aims. FESI could play a similar role – acting in concert with DOE, but playing different instruments.
More important than the agreement are the relationships between FESI and DOE leaders and staff
Pursue a flexible agreement that can be revisited and revised
Whatever relationship structure DOE and FESI decide on needs to be flexible enough so that they can both exercise the relationship required to tackle problems together. The agreement needs to be more than a list of what FESI can and can’t do. Based on other foundations’ experiences, it is best to revisit, revise, and refresh the document every so often. An ancient contract collects dust and doesn’t serve FESI or DOE. Luckily, Other Transactions agreements can be amended at any time.
Select a strategic executive director with a vision
DOE is racing against time to commercialize the clean energy technology needed to solve difficult decarbonization challenges. With FESI’s strength being its agility and ability to act quickly, the foundation is poised to be an invaluable asset to DOE’s mission. Whomever the FESI Board designates to lead this fight must walk in on day one with a clear, focused vision ready to fund projects that earn wins and to work with the board to make good on their promises. One of the first challenges they will face will be educating the ecosystem about FESI’s role and purpose. A clearly articulated answer to, “What does FESI hope to accomplish?” is key for fundraising and program design and execution.
Being FESI’s first ever executive director is no small feat and the board’s selection should be a quick study who has proven experience under their belt for fundraising and managing nine-figure budgets – the scale that we hope FESI is one day able to operate at. A successful leader will have high credibility throughout the energy system and with both political parties. They will bring with them networks that span sectors and add on to those of the board members. With these assets in tow, the Secretary of Energy should be excited about the FESI executive director and eager to work with them.
The agreement is the backstop, but the game is played at the plate
An overarching theme across each agency-affiliated foundation is the importance of agency-foundation relationships that are based on deep trust. One foundation leader even said, “It’s really not about the paper – [the structuring agreement] – at all.” Instead, they said, the success of an agency and its foundation runs on “tacit knowledge and relationships” that will grow over time between foundation and agency. Clearly, an agreement needs to be in place between FESI and DOE, but if the organization “runs exclusively off those pieces of paper, it won’t be its best self.”
As a young FESI grows over time, leaders of each organization – the FESI executive director and the Secretary of Energy – and the board and the executive director should all be in close contact with one another. Any of these folks should be able to pick up the phone, dial their counterpart, and give them good – or bad – news directly. These relationships should be prioritized and fostered, especially early on.
Create and raise the profile of FESI as early as possible
By far the greatest benefit of DOE having an agency-affiliated foundation is that FESI can raise and distribute funding more quickly and more efficiently than DOE will ever be able to. This can be a great driver for DOE success as FESI’s role is to support the agency. The FNIH, for example, can raise funding from biopharma, send it into projects, and then grant it out, all while avoiding cumbersome procedures since that money doesn’t belong to taxpayers.
To successfully fundraise, FESI will need the staff and the infrastructure needed to identify and execute on promising projects. Leaders at other foundations have found that their respective funder ecosystems are drawn to projects that fill a gap and that convene the public and private sectors. Whenever possible, and to the extent possible, FESI should aim to pool funding from different streams by convening consortia – in order to avoid the procedural strings attached to receiving federal dollars. One example, the Biomarkers Consortium, led by the FNIH, pools funding from government, for-profit, and non-profit partners. Members of this consortium pay annual dues to participate and contribute their scientific and technical expertise as advisors.
How Do Other Congressionally-chartered Foundations Work with Their Agencies?
The Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
In the first year of the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR), it had $200 million from Congress, one staff member, and no reputation to fundraise off of. By year three, FFAR had established its first public-private consortium – composed of companies and global research organizations working to develop crop varieties to meet global nutritional demands in a changing environment. FFAR provided the Crops of the Future Collaborative with an initial $10 million investment that was matched by participants for a total investment of $20 million. The law requires that the foundation matches every dollar of public funding with at least one dollar from a private source. This partnership marked FFAR’s first big, early win that set the young foundation on a road to success.
FFAR is unique among its fellow foundations as it doesn’t receive any funding from USDA. Instead, FFAR receives appropriations from the Farm Bill about every five years as mandatory funding that doesn’t go through the regular appropriations process. Because of this, this funding is separate from that of the USDA’s so the funding streams remain separate and not in competition with one another. While FFAR doesn’t receive money from USDA, USDA can receive grants from FFAR and the two entities conduct business in close coordination with one another. Whenever FFAR identifies a program for launch, its staff run the possibility past the USDA to ensure that FFAR is filling a USDA gap and that there isn’t any programmatic overlap.
A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is the legal agreement of choice that structures the relationship between USDA and FFAR. This document describes how the two exchange with each other and is updated every other year. In addition, FFAR has USDA representatives sit as ex-officio members of its board. While FFAR remains to this day quite independent of the USDA, according to staff, the agency is a “valued piece” of the work of the foundation.
In addition to having an MOU with USDA, FFAR has MOUs and funding agreements with each of the corporations in their consortia. These funding agreements either give FFAR money or fund the project directly. The foundation’s public private partnerships are generally funded through a competitive grants process or through direct contract; however, the foundation also uses prize competitions to encourage the development of new technologies.
When it comes to fundraising as a science-based organization, FFAR has encountered distinct challenges. Most of its fundraising is done by its Executive Director and scientists who solicit funding for each of its six main research focus areas. Initially, in 2016, these six “Challenge Areas” were selected by the board of directors using stakeholder input to address urgent food and agricultural needs. Recently, FFAR has pivoted to a framework that is based on four overarching priority areas – Agroecosystems, Production Systems, Healthy Food Systems and Scientific Workforce Development. Defining focus areas creates clarity and structure for a foundation working in an overwhelming abyss of opportunity. It would be wise for FESI leadership to define a handful of focus areas to hone in on in its early rounds of projects.
Most of FFAR’s fundraising efforts are on a project and program basis, instead of finding high net-worth individuals that will donate large sums of untethered money. To be a successful fundraiser, FFAR leaders must be able to clearly articulate the vision of the foundation, locate projects that will appeal to donors, and also be able to articulate the benefits to donors (i.e. receiving early access to information or notice of publications). FFAR leaders have found that projects that promise to fill gaps between the public and private sector have proven highly enticing amongst the funder community.
The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health and The National Institutes of Health
The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) is going on its 35th year advancing the mission of the NIH and leading public-private partnerships that advance breakthrough biomedical discoveries. Its authorizing statute has been amended slightly since it was initially passed in 1990, but its language served as a model for FESI’s authorization legislation.
The FNIH statute does not lay down specific rules or regulations for projects or programs that the organization is confined to. Instead, it allows the foundation to do whatever its leaders decide, as long as it relates to NIH and there’s a partner from the NIH involved. Per law, the NIH Director is required to transfer “not less than $1.25 million and not more than $5 million” of the agency’s annual appropriations to FNIH. Between FY2015 and FY2022, NIH transferred between $1 million and $1.25 million annually to FNIH for administrative and operational expenses (less than 0.01% of NIH’s annual budget).The FNIH and the NIH also have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed to facilitate the legal relationship between each organization, though this agreement has aged since it was signed and the relationship in practice is more informal.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Fish and Wildlife Service
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), chartered by Congress to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), is the nation’s largest non-governmental conservation grant-maker. In fiscal year 2023 alone, the NFWF awarded $1.3 billion to 797 projects that will generate a total conservation impact of $1.7 billion.
NFWF doesn’t have a guiding agreement, like an MOU, with FWS. Instead, it uses the text language in the initial authorizing legislation. Since its inception, NFWF has built cooperative agreements with roughly 15 other agencies and 150 active federal funding sources. These agreements function as mechanisms through which agencies can transfer appropriated funds over to NFWF to administer and deploy to projects on the ground. These cooperative agreements are revisited on a program-specific basis; some are revised annually, while others last over a five-year period.
Congress mandates that each federal dollar NFWF awards is matched with a non-federal dollar or “equivalent goods and services.” NFWF also has its own policy that it aims to achieve at least a 2:1 return on its project portfolio — $2 raised in matching contributions to every federal dollar awarded. This non-federal funding comes from conservation-focused philanthropic foundations, but also project developers needing to fulfill regulatory obligations, or even from legal settlements, such as in the case of NFWF receiving $2.544 billion from BP and Transocean to fund Gulf Coast projects impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
To distribute this money, NFWF solicits its own requests for proposals (RFP), separate from FWS, and awards roughly 98% of its grants to NGOs or state/local governments. If it wanted, FWS could apply to or be a joint applicant to receive a grant issued by NFWF. Earlier this year, NFWF announced an RFP – the “America the Beautiful Challenge” – that pooled funds $119 million from multiple federal agencies and the private sector to eventually award to project applicants working to address conservation and public access needs across public, Tribal, and private lands. NFWF has review committees composed of NFWF staff and third-party expert consultants or members of other involved agencies. These committees converge to discuss a proposed slate of projects to decide which move forward before the NFWF Board delivers its seal of approval.
While NFWF is regarded as a successful model of a foundation supporting several federal agencies, its accomplishments are slightly distinct from what FESI has been created to do. As a 501(c)3, NFWF is able to channel funds from various sources, both public and private, to support projects that comply with federal conservation and resilience requirements. NFWF works closely with the Department of Defense to fund resilience projects that protect military bases and nearby towns against natural disasters in coastal areas. With just under 200 employees, NFWF is also able to serve as a “release valve” for agencies that do not have the workforce capacity to handle the influx of work generated by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) or Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), for example. While FESI could take on projects that DOE doesn’t have the capacity or agility to handle, it should also operate independently and aim to act on ideas that originate from outside of DOE.
Takeaways for FESI
The foundations that have preceded FESI, each chartered by Congress to support the mission of federal agencies, have proven that these models can be successful. They have supported public-private partnerships to produce life-saving vaccines, breakthrough discoveries in food and agriculture, and to more quickly distribute grants to conservation organizations on the ground. FESI was authorized and appropriated by Congress to accelerate innovation to support the global transition to affordable and reliable low-carbon energy. Its inaugural board is now tasked with choosing leadership and pursuing strategic projects that will put FESI on a path to accomplishing the goals set before it.
In order to deliver on its potential, FESI should initially select focus areas that will guide the foundation’s projects intentionally and methodically, like FFAR has done. Foundation leaders should also pursue a flexible legal arrangement with DOE that allows leaders from both entities to work together freely and flexibly. An Other Transactions Agreement is an ideal choice to structure this agreement, as it can be revisited as often as desired and frees transactions between DOE and FESI from regulations that government contracts or grants are bound by. FESI’s potential contributions to the global energy transition and national security rely on its ability to be independent enough to take risks while simultaneously pursuing projects that complement DOE’s mission. An effective legal agreement that structures the foundation’s relationship with DOE will ensure that FESI delivers impact for years to come.
The establishment of the Foundation for Energy Security and Innovation (FESI) was a vital first step, but its value depends on what happens next.
As emerging clean energy technologies move along the innovation pipeline from first concept to commercialization, they encounter hurdles that can prove to be a death knell for young startups.