Get PJ Media on your Apple

Solyndra ‘Just the Tip of the Iceberg’: New Obama Solar Loan Links

House Republicans reveal "direct conversation leading to a form of favoritism for BrightSource" at hearing.

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

May 16, 2012 - 3:31 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

A House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee dug further into the $90 billion directed toward green-energy initiatives in President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, noting questions not only about whether the programs have wasted taxpayer money but whether the White House pulled strings for some firms.

“When taxpayers lost over a half-billion dollars on Solyndra, the Obama Administration said that it was just one bad apple and that the rest of the portfolio was strong,” said subcommittee chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “It is becoming increasingly clear that Solyndra was just the tip of the iceberg in a sea of taxpayer risk.”

The Regulatory Affairs hearing was made even better by the chairman of the full committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), dropping in to question the six CEOs of alternative-energy companies lined up at the witness table.

Four of those companies together received $5 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy.

“Alternative energy certainly has a place in our economy and we hope that all of these companies succeed,” Jordan said. “But the best way to get cheap energy to American consumers is to let market forces work, not allow bureaucrats in Washington to pick winners and losers through a politicized process.”

Ranking Member Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) quipped that Republicans hadn’t raised questions “over the last 100 years” for fossil fuel subsidies, and lamented that they had devoted four hearings to scrutinizing the green-energy loans.

“If we fail to support these renewable energy technologies our country will fall behind countries like Germany and China,” Kucinich said. “I think we should be helping to preserve America’s leadership.”

One witness who didn’t ask for any DOE money, James B. Nelson, described the work of his Santa Barbara company Solar3D, Inc., which is developing an advanced technology cell that could cut the cost of solar energy in half.

“Our objective is similar to that of ill-fated Solyndra — to develop a new solar technology that can change the economics of the industry. However, our manner of execution is very different,” Nelson told the committee.

“We have been supported by private investment in our company since its establishment in August of 2010,” he said. “We are not depending or dependent on government funding. We certainly do not expect that such support will be necessary to facilitate the commercialization of our new technology.”

Jordan noted that Nelson “didn’t come ask for help and his company is succeeding and we applaud that.”

Nelson, saying that he didn’t see the loan recipients as having a competitive advantage over private-investment companies such as his, said he didn’t blame the other witnesses for taking advantage of the taxpayer cash.

“The problem is not in their approach,” the CEO said. “The problem is in the rules.”

And agreeing that “we shouldn’t have had this goofy program going on in the first place,” Jordan and his colleagues went after those loans.

In the 30,000 documents given to the committee on Friday, Jordan highlighted for BrightSource Energy Inc. CEO John Woolard an email in which it appears that the White House may have given a boost to the firm in its quest for financing.

In January 2010, Woolard emailed Matt Rogers, then senior adviser to the secretary of Energy for the Recovery Act, stating that Peter Darbee, then CEO and chairman of Pacific Gas and Electric, “talked directly to Obama about the program’s challenges and the bad situation it puts him in.”

“They had a vested interest in getting this thing approved because you were providing them their required commitment for green power,” Jordan said when questioning Woolard about the email. “One month after this email, you got the conditional approval.”

Woolard said he believed the approval was based “completely on the merits of the project.”

Click here to view the 24 legacy comments

Comments are closed.