I read the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 74 page pdf staff report from March 20, 2012: The Department of Energy’s Disastrous Management of Loan Guarantee Programs. I don't recommend it, instead the 9 page pdf Solar Projects: DOE Section 1705 Loan Guarantees by the Congressional Research service was far more informative, breaking down the programs into different parts and explaining the differences in funding solar manufacturing vs solar generation projects.
Follow the links at the beginning of Grunwald's article to see take downs of various Republican attacks on the programs. The 75 page report tries to cover a few problems but it reads as a collection of minor complaints. The program was designed to help innovation for ventures that couldn't get loans from banks and the private sector. They were alternative energy programs and were a little too risky for loans in the wake of the financial crisis. So yeah, some, like Solyndra didn't work out. In part because of falling price of natural gas and the Chinese subsidizing their solar manufactures lowering global prices.
The House report claims that the loans were risky, that DoE knew there was too much risk, that they weighted 80% of the loans into solar making an unbalanced portfolio, and that they violated laws in granting loans by not picking truly innovative technologies and by funneling loans to Democratic donors. The New York Times covered it fairly. The DoE replied to the report in part by pointing out how they cherry picked emails.
"Critics have cherry picked and taken out of context an email from the Chief Engineer of the loan program’s Technical and Project Management Division in which he said that one of the many technologies used in the projects could not, by itself in isolation, be defined as innovative. The email never says the project as a whole is not innovative or not eligible -- it simply asks for some corrections to powerpoint slides. Indeed, what the critics – and unfortunately, the New York Times – fail to mention is that the same career official also signed off on the project as a whole meeting the program’s standard for innovation, and wrote a memo discussing at some length the specific innovative technologies being used in the project."
The report turned me off early with this sentence, "Loan guarantees supporting “clean” energy-related projects began in the 1970s as a response to the perception of record high oil prices for the foreseeable future and the notion that the country was in the midst of an “energy crisis.”" Emphasis added, but really, the 70s energy crisis was just a notion? I guess Carter wasn't a bad president.
They cite Germany as an example of failing solar polices saying "According to news reports" and quoting this, Goodnight Sunshine. They don't mention that it's an opinion piece and not a news report. I prefer this one from MIT's Technology Review, Real Electricity Flows from Virtual Power Plants.
"The ability to deliver utility-scale power from renewable sources may also prove critical to Germany's green-energy plans, which are the most ambitious among all the industrialized nations. Following a decision last year to move away from nuclear power, Germany now plans to get a third of its power from renewable sources by 2020 and has committed to reaching 80 percent by 2050."
But of course, this whole thing is just political gamesmanship. The day after the report came out the House questioned Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. Afterwards Darrell Issa (R-CA) tweeted a pic of Chu getting in his official SUV calling it hypocrisy. "DOE spokesman Damien LaVera said the charge and picture is nonsense. 'This photo shows the secretary getting into a single, flex fuel vehicle which — as the chairman knows — is used for security.'"
I wish the title of this article were true, GOP running out of gas on Solyndra.
More than a year into a probe that's extended to the Energy Department loan guarantee portfolio, Republican investigators even acknowledge they've fallen short of substantiating their allegations that the administration helped political allies like Tulsa oilman George Kaiser secure hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies through a loan guarantee to Solyndra.
"Is there a criminal activity? Perhaps not," Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa told POLITICO after last Tuesday’s showdown with Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "Is there a political influence and connections? Perhaps not. Did they bend the rules for an agenda, an agenda not covered within the statute? Absolutely."
In some respects, Republicans have accomplished their mission. Even if no one goes to jail, they've turned Solyndra into a four-letter word, vilified the Nobel laureate Chu and left a popular DOE program in shambles. They also make no bones about how they've turned Solyndra into a campaign issue.
"Ultimately, we'll stop it on Election Day, hopefully," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told Environment & Energy Daily. "And bringing attention to these things helps the voters and citizens of the country make the kind of decision that I hope helps them as they evaluate who they are going to vote for in November."
Did you catch that, Jim Jordan accidentally told truth about Solyndra investigation. Also telling is:
Solyndra and the overall DOE program have also fallen from the public radar for [R-FL Rep Cliff] Stearns’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, where there have been no hearings specifically called on the loan guarantees since last fall.
Stearns said he has reservations about allowing testimony from perhaps the most obvious witness: Herb Allison, the former Treasury official whose internal review of the DOE program found the government could lose as much as $3 billion from companies that default on their loan guarantees, a lower figure than the $10 billion Congress put aside for losses.
“We're just concerned if we bring them in, we'll just provide more cover for the administration,” Stearns said.
Stearns — who has called for Chu to be fired and threatened to hold a contempt of Congress vote if the White House didn’t comply with the subpoenas — has other problems. For instance, his recent remarks related to Obama's birth certificate. “All I can tell you is that the general consensus is that he has produced a birth certificate,” Stearns said during a February town hall meeting. “The question is, is it legitimate? That’s where we stand now.”
Yep, the Congressman heading the investigation is a birther. So it's gone on for more than a year, looked through 185,000 pages of documents, held ten hearings and come up with little. Think there's anything to it?
As Grunwald wrote, "That’s the real news. The Department of Energy has handled $37 billion in stimulus money, more than its annual budget. Overall, the federal government has distributed over $800 billion in stimulus money. Where are the sweetheart deals? Where are the actual outrages that are provoking outrage? During the debate over the stimulus, experts warned that as much as 5% to 7% of the stimulus could be lost to fraud. But by the end of 2011, independent investigators had documented only $7.2 million in fraud, about 0.001%. As I’ve written, reasonable people can disagree whether the stimulus was a good thing, but it’s definitely been a well-managed thing."
I'm still waiting for the investigations into the billions lost to defense contractors during the Iraq war.
No comments:
Post a Comment