More

Solyndra Decision Not Influenced By Politics, Steven Chu Tells Congress

Steven Chu Solyndra

First Posted: 11/17/11 06:26 PM ET Updated: 11/18/11 09:22 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- In what amounts to the highest-profile testimony yet in the ongoing Solyndra saga, Energy Secretary Steven Chu took full responsibility for approving the $535 million loan guarantee to the solar energy company but said the decision was completely uninfluenced by politics.

"As the Secretary of Energy, the final decisions on Solyndra were mine, and I made them with the best interest of the taxpayer in mind," said Chu in prepared remarks before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative panel on Thursday. "I want to be clear," he added. "Over the course of Solyndra's loan guarantee, I did not make any decision based on political considerations."

Testifying under oath, Chu said he could not have predicted the changes in the market that sharply reduced the price of solar panels, rending Solyndra's product uncompetitive. The California-based company went belly-up in August, leaving taxpayers on the hook for half a billion dollars.

Asked how much of taxpayers' money could be recovered, Chu wasn't optimistic. "That remains to be seen," he replied. "Not very much."

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), the chairman of the subcommittee at the center of the investigation, has pushed back against Chu's claim that the decision-making process surrounding Solyndra was not a political one. On Thursday, he tore into Chu for signing off on the Department of Energy's loan guarantee in 2009 and for overseeing its restructuring earlier this year, even as the company was on the brink of financial collapse.

"Throughout all of this, you seem to have an unawareness," Stearns said to Chu three hours into the hearing. "How many loan programs are going to fail?"

"Well, it's hard to predict," said Chu.

When Stearns failed to get a hard number from Chu, he pivoted to talking points about how former Obama administration campaign aide Dan Carol in an email earlier this year encouraged the Obama administration to remove Chu from his position. He later told reporters he backed Carol's request.

"I agree with Dan Carol's email that at this point that he probably should be replaced by the president," said Stearns, according to Politico.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has dismissed the multi-pronged investigation of Solyndra's loan guarantee -- which House Republicans have been milking for all its political worth, strategically releasing 185,000 pages of documents to the media -- as little more than political theater.

"It's time for House Republicans to stop dancing on Solyndra's grave and start getting serious about clean energy policy," Waxman said at Thursday's hearing.

"I support investigating Solyndra," he added, "but I do not support the way Chairman Stearns and Chairman Upton have been running this investigation. They have held an empty chair hearing ... humiliated witnesses for asserting their constitutional rights ... and provoked a gratuitous conflict with the White House."

While House Republicans have accused the Energy Department -- which first began reviewing the deal during the Bush administration -- of engaging in risky behavior, some have themselves sought aid for struggling renewable energy companies in their home districts.

The Washington Post on Wednesday reported that House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who dug into Chu for failing to see warning signs on Solyndra, himself missed red flags for United Solar, a Michigan solar company he touted. From the Post:

The fate of United Solar mirrors Solyndra's in many ways. It had its own proprietary technology, but to hold on to sales it was selling units at a loss. Its biggest market has been Italy, which pays solar companies a subsidized premium for electricity. Italy, now pressed to cut its budget in the face of financial pressures, accounted for just less than half of United Solar's sales in the fiscal year that ended June 30.

That history didn't keep Upton from going on the offensive on Thursday, asking Chu whether he thought he should apologize to taxpayers for approving the loan, a suggestion Chu rebuffed.

"It is extremely unfortunate what has happened with Solyndra," Chu acknowledged. "Was there incompetence? Was there any influence of a political nature? I would have to say no." He added that in hindsight he should never have approved the program, "But you don't make decisions by fast-forwarding two years in the future. I wish I could do that."

Despite hard hits from Upton and others, the tenor on Thursday was more respectful than it has been in hearings past. Multiple lawmakers said they considered Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, to be a man of integrity, with Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) going so far as to suggest that Chu may be being set up to be the "fall guy."

"I don't think you should resign," Barton said. "I do think that you are a man of integrity trying to do your job as best as you can."

The White House has dismissed any criticism of Chu, and in his testimony on Thursday the secretary of energy implored lawmakers to see the Department's loan program in a larger light.

"When it comes to the clean energy race, America faces a simple choice: compete or accept defeat," Chu said. "I believe we can and must compete."

Chu emphasized the need for investment in solar energy, noting that China is far ahead of the U.S. in funding the renewable energy market. What's more, he said, the Energy Department is expected to employ more than 60,000 Americans.

"We are disappointed in the outcome of this particular loan," Chu said.

WATCH Chu make his case for continuing to invest in clean energy:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON -- In what amounts to the highest-profile testimony yet in the ongoing Solyndra saga, Energy Secretary Steven Chu took full responsibility for approving the $535 million loan guarantee to ...
WASHINGTON -- In what amounts to the highest-profile testimony yet in the ongoing Solyndra saga, Energy Secretary Steven Chu took full responsibility for approving the $535 million loan guarantee to ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 321
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:27 PM on 11/30/2011
Oh, I have my complaints about CHu, he is so pro nuclear you can't believe. But solyandra installed 100WM of solar worth .5 to 7b$ over 20 years or so. Some scandal. Meanwhile Chu gave Nukes 54B$ in loan backing and 500M$ per year per reactor for an industry with an expected 50% default rate!

Chu is pro nukes., He hates green energy,

Chu's official DOE energy plan used 10 year old solar wind and waste costs, versus 2016 clean coal and nukes fantasy coasts from the industry.
07:10 AM on 11/21/2011
Words from a Cabinet Member of the current Administration.

"Chu said he could not have predicted the changes in the market that sharply reduced the price of solar panels, rending Solyndra's product uncompetitive."

But surely there is one research associate in that Department that might have hazarded a RIGHT guess?

Brave new world gone very bad!
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:29 PM on 11/30/2011
Chu and the DOE are owned by the Nukes.
marcdostl
Diogenesian & Classical Liberal
11:04 PM on 11/20/2011
Yeah right. And let us wait until after the 2010 election(to reveal the finances) so that the public won't know how much money we wasted...
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:29 PM on 11/30/2011
Compared to war?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jhnnxn
When discussing tax revenues don't feel, th
11:04 PM on 11/20/2011
I believe you Mr Chu, you're not corrupt, just hopelessly incompentent. Big of you to admit it. Pick up your last check on your way out the door.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roadrun
Question Authority
01:39 PM on 11/20/2011
When I first heard the hoopla about this I did some reading and concluded this was the case. Since then when I hear teapublicons trying to say it was something else I can't help but think of how many failures in policy they have made. Sometimes I try to think of a success of teapublicon policy but that's a bridge too far.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
04:59 PM on 11/19/2011
Just like Cheney's Energy Policy Act signatories were all mundane faceless bureaucrats with zero expertise in energy policy development, Chu is just the fall guy. Look higher, look deeper!

The whole portfolio of solar projects is riddled with corruption, why hasn't Congress investigated the enabling 1603 Treasury Program legislation, which gives 'private investors' (secret insiders benefiting from public funding!) a 30% tax credit, and 'full faith and credit' stoploss, even moving them ahead of vendors and US taxpayers!! "The ITC functions as a 30 percent uncapped tax credit ... in effect through December 31, 2016." Who are these 'private investor' beneficiaries?

Let's investigate the principals of these 'solar' companies, many gyned up from mediocre mil.gov backgrounds into six-figure Chief (you name it) Officer jobs with *zero* solar experience, and ties to Chinese companies! Five minutes on Google is a jaw-dropping expose of these pretenders! Their whole strategy was built around enabling legislation! Businesses bought out, repopulated with mil.gov drones, then restrategized into 'solar', just to qualify for the 1603 pork-barrel.

Look at the programs' goals themselves, Solar City getting $100Ms to install taxpayer-funded solar upgrades on **PRIVATIZED** government housing!! Who were the engrossed beneficiaries of that largesse, and what were their ties to Congressional members who voted for the plan?

Public funds granted to protected insiders with full faith bailouts benefiting hidden private parties.

USA R SOVIET NOW.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:20 PM on 11/19/2011
BS. solar is better than nukes and war. Solyandra 100MW installed, .5 to 7B$ worth of electricity. Nukes get 54B$ in loan backing with a 50% default rate.

It's a GOP witch hunt.

And you fell for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jhnnxn
When discussing tax revenues don't feel, th
11:06 PM on 11/20/2011
And taxpayers are better than rich people right? So why did Mr Chu allow the rich guys investments to be protected at the expense of the people that Mr Chu is supposed to work for?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lw1
Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
04:42 PM on 11/20/2011
You fear the future. In the bible those who try to do things a better, cleaner way to properly steward nature and help people are not called communists.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jhnnxn
When discussing tax revenues don't feel, th
11:07 PM on 11/20/2011
Bible. Buy bull. Hey Genders, talk about somebody who fell for it!
photo
ojolsen
my micro-bio is empty
12:59 AM on 11/19/2011
Solar technology advances quickly and these guys got out paced and burned and unfortunately had government loans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
05:01 PM on 11/19/2011
The old PSYOP sop 'unlucky in love'. This 1603 program has grift embedded in its DNA.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lw1
Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
04:44 PM on 11/20/2011
It was started by the gop - no wonder
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beckjr2000
been there done that & tired of it
05:40 PM on 11/18/2011
Over the past 18 months, six solar energy companies have closed their doors. Each one blamed poor market conditions for its economic woes, even though each had fundamental weaknesses that went unaddressed.

(1) Solyndra at a cost to Taxpayer’s of $535 million.
(2) Spectrawatt Inc. (an Intel Corp. spinoff) at a cost to Taxpayer’s of $500,000
(3) Evergreen Solar at a cost to Taxpayer’s of $5.3 million.
(4) BP Solar has closed three plants in the US costing 320 jobs.
(5) Beacon Power at a cost to Taxpayer’s of $43 million.
(6) Mountain Plaza at a cost to Taxpayer’s of $2 million.

Plenty more to come when the DoE money dries up!
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:45 PM on 11/18/2011
Nukes costs us 25B$, banksters cost us 14T, war cost us several trillion, rich ingrates refusal to pay their dues cost us several trillion.

Solyandra install 100MW of solar worth .5 to 7B$.
02:03 PM on 11/19/2011
If by "poor market conditions" you mean robust growth of low cost panels in China (with a 70% drop in price over last year) ... I suppose it's possible to see "some truth" in your statement. But dropping prices and robust growth in sales are typically seen as a market success, at least for company that is able to compete in such a market. For US manufacturers, it was too little too late, although one company (looking to perfect unique manufacturing process) still feels it has a pretty good chance to beat Chinese global dominance on costs and sales: 1366 Technologies.

http://www.1366tech.com/

The current model for clean tech appears to be to engineer game changing technologies in US or Europe, and turn it over to China for low cost manufacturing (and export our manufacturing jobs in the process). I'm tired of it! Not only do we need to subsidize R&D (which gets us a seat at the table), but we also need to subsidize low cost manufacturing and domestic production in a competitive global environment (so that other countries stop eating our lunch)? We continue to act as the neardy grade schooler who gets his lunch money stolen, and responds by congratulating the bully for a "job well done." It sounds like your recipe is made from the bulk ingredients of retreat and surrender, and not better public and private partnerships (as they have everywhere else, and especially in China)?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beckjr2000
been there done that & tired of it
08:05 PM on 11/19/2011
1366tech? Oh yes, that's Prof. Sachs new company. He the CTO. He also developed the technology for Evergreen Solar.The last thing we nned to do is subsidize manufacturing in "me too" Green Energy products! That's where all the big losses will be.
02:45 PM on 11/21/2011
what game changing technologies?

3% efficiency gains or 15% install cost reductions are hardly game changing when the basis is 400-600% more expensive than the competitors. So great 1366 is going to bring solar down from $.30 per KWh to $.25 per KWh. That is still 4x the cost of wind in a class 6 site. (also the chinese could just license tech from the Japanese group that led molten silicon research in the first place just like they do with LCD and LED TV's)

For solar to be game changing (e.g. cost effective enough to displace already installed coal and NG generation) you would need a technology that converted at around 80% efficiency and reduced final install cost (not just module cost) by 60-70%.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PtaRay
Admitted liberal, defender of the fringe democracy
05:13 PM on 11/18/2011
The Republicans all hold their breath, praying they can finally get a good scandal to pin on Obama.
let's wait for the investigation and facts to come out. if he did in fact blow it, and HE found, create and chose this company, and no other folks directed this project and company to him and pushed it as a viable one. Then he will have to answer for it.
But so far the failure seems to be economic and price compettitveness related. not Obama's fault the numbers he gets to review might be fixed, or false. seems like quite a bit of our economy was based on false numbers and puffed up values.
If folks new this was a bad investment who give him information, ask them why they still pushed for it?
Does Obama have the final say, or just the final signature based on the reports he is given??

If this is bigger then Watergate, let's see the players who helped set this up, seems to me that Obama kept plenty of folks from the past administration around for a while too, how many of those folks had a hand in this company getting selected? this might involve both parties?
that would be bipartisan right??
Time will tell....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
05:15 PM on 11/19/2011
"But so far the failure seems to be economic and price competitiveness related...."

And the Watergate break-in was just 'some janitors doing a late night inventory'.

Who were the 'private investors' drinking at the public trough, who were moved ahead of vendors and US taxpayers at the bankruptcy auction, and whose secret investment in a public project (hello!!) is fully backstopped by the 'full faith and credit of US government'?

Where is the full timeline portfolio of all this 'instant solar' companies, many from mil.gov, many with zero solar or high tech experience, what companies were bought out and restrategized just to take advantage of the 30% 1603 program tax credit?

And who were the secret owners of *PRIVATIZED* government housing who received FREE the $100Ms of solar improvements to PRIVATELY HELD real property, and what were their ties to Congress? DId they report the improvements on their capital gains and property taxes?

Did your broker tell you about 30% investment opportunities with 1603? I know mine didn't!! Did your broker tell you about 30% investment opportunities with Reagan's S&L Bailout?!?
Same old, same old. Brokers and insiders get 30% paper, and vendors and taxpayers get...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles Queen
I am a disabled nam vet
05:12 PM on 11/18/2011
No,it was not illegal,I agre on that point completely.It was however no matter what anyone wants to say and or believe politicaly motivated withot a doubt.They were also advused that it was bad deall and not to go thru with it as well because of the financil shape the company was in yet they ignored everyoe and did it anyways,and why not?It's just tax payers money that was used so why should they care?They dont care
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
03:43 PM on 11/18/2011
The problem is not politics, it is a failure of common sense. The basic economic questions for any energy project are: What will the project cost? What will be the operating and Maintenance costs? How much energy will it produce? What is the useful life of the project? Each of these question can be answered with a number an a unit, though, they rarely are. What you get is a convoluted mish-mash of subsidies, tax credits, deceptive representation of capacity instead of actual production etc.
The basic problem is that with a straight answer to these four question, solar power is a dud. However, a lot of smart people have gone to long lengths to convince themselves solar is a good investment.
Solar is just like the financial crisis of 2008 - it is a colossal failure of common sense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
05:28 PM on 11/19/2011
It had nothing to do with 'common sense' -- it had everything to do with a close-held group of private investors drinking deep at the 30% 1603 legislation trough, ...just like a close-held group of private investors drank deep at the 30% Reagan S&L Bailout, made *$100Ms profits*, passing juniored paper down to schmucks who lost at the bankruptcy auction.

Now it's all being disbanded and dispersed, while we look for a political headline and a goat.

The success of the S&L Bailout scam was repeated with the Dot.Con, then Mortgage.Con, now they'll be more and more sudden collapes, more and more debilitating to Mom-and-Pops, more and more bankster-brokers and mil.gov insiders become billionaires who pay no taxes.

How do you think RC.heney made his $500M fortune? And how did HC.linton make $50M??
02:26 PM on 11/18/2011
I hope we'll start to concentrate on the one technological breakthrough that could turn the world of energy on its ear. Somehow, the technology was licensed and is now in a secure place. Which means, it will probably never make its way to market. Gee, I wonder who would have done a thing like that!
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4086352/Video-just-add-CNT-ink-to-make-paper-battery
01:52 PM on 11/18/2011
The veracity of Chu's statement that the Solydra decision was not influenced by politics is equivalent to the veracity of the statement of a burglar getting caught in the act red-handed that 'he didn't do it.' Chu is going to be the fall guy for all of this, all as the result of the 'influence of politics,' after which even Chu will question the veracity of his own statement (or, more accurately, naive 'belief').
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lw1
Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
04:48 PM on 11/20/2011
It's small potatoes compared to the overall solar budget and microscopic compared to gop graft like the trillion plus the life and limb wasted in iraq. Green energy is the future and we better get with it or be left in the pasture.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beckjr2000
been there done that & tired of it
12:33 PM on 11/18/2011
Author Peter Schweizer’s research indicates that of the $20.5 billion in the DOE’s 1705 Loan Guarantee Program, $16.4 billion in taxpayer money–roughly 80% of all loans in the program–went to green enterprises “either run by or heavily owned by Obama financial backers–individuals who were either bundlers, members of Obama’s national finance committee or large donors to the Democratic Party.â€
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:49 PM on 11/18/2011
... because Republicans don't believe in science.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
04:10 PM on 11/18/2011
Scientists don't 'believe in' science. Science is not a belief system, it is a method of investigation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beckjr2000
been there done that & tired of it
05:20 PM on 11/18/2011
No. Because Republicans don't believe in giving Taxpayer money to questionable science supporter and owned by friends, relatives, and financial supporters.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
05:32 PM on 11/19/2011
Because billionaire scam-artists don't have any political affiliation and know baaksheesh is just a cost of doing business! Forget the politicians, look for the 'private investors' who made off with the public loot, that's where the investigation needs to go, not in pursuing partisan politics.
Linda from Deerfield
Paying attention
10:44 AM on 11/18/2011
Please, is there one of you Republicans who seem to think you have your arms around the analysis of the U.S. solar industry like to join me in figuring out whether a free-floating (i.e. legitimately valued) Chinese currency would allow China to outbid the U.S. on Middle East oil, or at least dramatically raise the price?