iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama's Budget Nixes New Money For Program That Funded Solyndra

Obama Budget Solyndra

First Posted: 02/14/2012 4:48 pm Updated: 02/14/2012 5:53 pm

WASHINGTON -- In a quiet shift from the past two years, President Barack Obama's 2013 budget includes no new money for the Department of Energy loan guarantee program, the same program that House Republicans have scrutinized for losing more than $500 million in taxpayer dollars to the now-defunct solar power company, Solyndra.

Obama has regularly included huge increases to the program's loan guarantee authority in his budget, though Congress has not approved his proposals. He provided a $36 billion increase for nuclear reactors in his 2011 budget, and again in his 2012 budget. He also included $200 million in credit subsidies for renewable and energy efficiency projects in his 2012 budget. This year, he provided nothing.

Meg Reilly, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, said in an email that Obama opted not to put new money toward the loan guarantee program this time because the administration is waiting on the results of an evaluation of the Energy Department's loan portfolio. Reilly also said the program still has "a significant amount of remaining resources" from prior years and that the focus will be on putting those funds to use. There's about $10 billion in its reserves.

The Energy Department "continues to conduct due diligence and is in active negotiations with a number of additional project sponsors," Reilly said. "It's important to point out here that, as of January 2012, over $24 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees have closed to support a diverse range of over 30 wind, solar, electric vehicles and other clean energy projects projected to fund more than 50,000 jobs."

But some environmental groups say Obama's budgetary shift is hugely significant because it means no new money for building nuclear power plants -- and they speculate that, at least in part, they have Solyndra to thank for the shift.

"The entire loan program has fallen into some disrepute on Capitol Hill ... because of Solyndra and some of the other renewable programs getting in trouble," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an information hub for organizations concerned with nuclear power. The administration "may have decided to cut their losses" and stop providing new funds to the program altogether.

To be sure, Obama's overall budget provides piles of new money for other clean energy programs. It includes a total of $27.2 billion for the Energy Department -- a 3.2 percent increase of what Congress enacted last year -- and $2.3 billion for research and development for energy efficiency, advanced vehicles and biofuels.

But that influx of new dollars does not trickle down to the Energy Department loan guarantee program.

Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera reiterated that the loan program has enough money in its reserves for now to carry out its work.

"The Department believes we have sufficient existing loan authority and available credit subsidy to invest in the job creating clean energy projects our nation needs to remain competitive," LaVera said in an email.

"Under the [loan guarantee] program we have $34 billion in loan authority and an additional $170 million in appropriated credit subsidy," LaVera continued. "Under [the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program], the program has an additional $16 billion in available lending for the ATVM program. This budget request also includes insignificant investments in other tools for steering private sector funding toward clean energy projects, including the President's proposal to extend the production tax credits, 1603 and 48C."

Some fiscal watchdogs say it's about time Obama stopped authorizing tens of billions of dollars for the program each year since it already has more than $50 billion in loan guarantee authority.

The program's existing authority already means "huge risks" for taxpayers, said Autumn Hanna, senior program director for Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent group focused on government waste. "Loan guarantees are deceptively cheap on the budget. They don't score outright. You stand to lose a lot more than you put on the books."

Hanna said she was pleased the administration is now making the case that it already has enough resources in the program because "that is what we've been saying all along." Still, she said she could not figure out why Obama decided not to provide any new funding authority to the program since he has given so much in recent years.

A White House spokesman did not respond to requests for comment, but pointed to the budget's overall investment in clean energy. Neither Republican nor Democratic aides to the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- the GOP-led panel that has been probing the administration for signs of foul play within the loan guarantee program in light of the Solyndra debacle -- returned a request for comment.

"I mean, that was a lot of money targeted toward nuclear reactors. He requested it two years in a row," Hanna added. "The program has been under so much scrutiny because of Solyndra, it could be that they're taking a more conservative approach."

This story has been updated to include a comment from the Department of Energy.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- In a quiet shift from the past two years, President Barack Obama's 2013 budget includes no new money for the Department of Energy loan guarantee program, the same program that House Repu...
WASHINGTON -- In a quiet shift from the past two years, President Barack Obama's 2013 budget includes no new money for the Department of Energy loan guarantee program, the same program that House Repu...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 129
  • 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
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
05:03 PM on 02/22/2012
Should have included Tesla in that BEFORE wasting the money.
http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem
05:37 PM on 02/16/2012
They need to funnel the money towards tax incentives for energy efficient projects not loan guarantees the private sector will find the funds to put the energy projects together if the incentives are in place. The extension of the 179d Tax Deduction would be a good start.

David Diaz
http://www.WalkerReid.com
outnow
Ban the bomb
05:28 PM on 02/16/2012
Dems are split on the issue. Independents are split, too, on the issue of nuclear safety and no more bailouts and loan guarantees. No pipeline to Canada would be nice. No uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. Let's go to the Moon!

Got to take a hard look at frackin'. Deepsea drillin' is dangerous. Solar is cheaper and more efficient everyday.
12:33 PM on 02/16/2012
Obama's given away enough in loan gaurantees to his political allies over the last few years and doesn't need this become a issue in a election year.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
12:03 AM on 02/16/2012
I am glad Obama has pulled loan guarantees for nuclear power, as the loan default rate for nuclear power is 50%, and the amounts involved are 15 times greater than the Solyndra loan. We do not need any more overpriced and dangerous nuclear power plants. The Fukushima disaster will end up costing Japanese taxpayers over $40 billion dollars just in the first years, and when one considers the property losses over the next 200 years and more, there is no amount of electricity that would be worth that kind of a loss.
  Without taxpayer support, nuclear power cannot compete with fuel free and safe renewable energy like wind or solar, geothermal, tidal, or wave energy.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
07:47 PM on 02/15/2012
Is the Senate even going to present it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mover
Father, Husband, Ret 1SG
07:28 PM on 02/15/2012
"the same program that House Republicans have scrutinized for losing more than $500 million in taxpayer dollars to the now-defunct solar power company, Solyndra."

Just Republicans? How about everyone who heard of this loony debacle. The real issue is that this sort incompetent extra-constitutional activity reveals the core of the Obama administration and the Democrats who support him.
04:30 PM on 02/26/2012
The worse thing is they were told this was a bad deal and still did it---also they are getting more than $350,000.00 for bonuses from us now
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ennis438
10:02 AM on 02/15/2012
It is wrong to ignore industries who are working for an energy solution other than oil to find this alternative. As for the Republipunks going crazy over this $500 million, another joke. Just a very small drop in the Pacific when compared to the money the Republicant thieves have taken from the American people by allowing dirty corporations to close American plants , go overseas, and get a tax break. Or the money poured into their election campaigns from corporate welfare programs they supported.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
retroredux
09:39 AM on 02/15/2012
what is 500 million lost trying to start a clean initative compared to the billions we've given big oil-money the oil companies even testified, under the last admin, that they did not need? That is literally a giveaway to companies with already huge profits?
11:35 AM on 02/15/2012
boy are you ever dumb. First of all, that's 500 million that went for NOTHING. imagine that money going to roads, bridges, schools. Also, you talk about evil big oil and exactly how do you get around town? Obama's budget (if you can call it that) slashes funding for farmers who produce ethanol, coal energy prodution (higher energy prices for many towns who are powered with coal plants) and subsidies that oil companies get to offset all these govt imposed new fuel formulas for different parts of the country, like California so that means higher prices at the pump. So get over your class warfare already
04:33 PM on 02/26/2012
good comment---lets get things fixed and the country working and solid again then think about these issues. People want this but know is not a good time,WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY PEOPLE
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mover
Father, Husband, Ret 1SG
07:33 PM on 02/15/2012
"the billions we've given big oil-money the oil companies "

Correction: The billions paid to a business in exchange for quality products provided, on demand, anywhere in the civilized world. A world that would not be civilized without it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
08:47 AM on 02/15/2012
Really? Say it ain't so.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mater
mater
07:01 AM on 02/15/2012
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Good job, sorting this out, Mr. President. Now, stay touch on Keystone XL-- we're counting on you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:21 AM on 02/15/2012
Yet another solar company yesterday in Michigan ( Uni-Solar) filed for bankruptcy protection. Soon to leave 150 people jobless.
photo
atomicrod
Atomic professional
03:45 AM on 02/15/2012
I keep telling my friends in the nuclear industry that depending on government money is like playing the Charlie Brown role in the classic cartoon where Lucy keeps pulling away the football.

We have a fantastically capable technology using an energy dense fuel source that produces so little waste that we can effectively and affordable store all of it in well engineered containers on the same site where it is produced for the whole life of a facility. People often ask me what then? The answer is simple - reduce, reuse, recycle and apply that mantra to facilities, the site and the material.

We no not need any government support, but it would sure be nice if they stopped charging us $273 per bureaucrat hour for a licensing process that requires at least 4 years and in excess of $100 million just to build plants using technology that we have already proven works fine and last a long time.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:24 AM on 02/15/2012
Nuclear reactors are dangerous and I don't want any more of them. There's one sitting not far from me in Florida....unused because of cracks. It sits right on the Gulf. Hurricane territory.

Have we learned nothing from Japan?

Instead of spending money on nuclear energy, spend it on solar and wind or develop new sources that aren't so damned dangerous.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mover
Father, Husband, Ret 1SG
07:39 PM on 02/15/2012
"Nuclear reactors are dangerous and I don't want any more of them"

Fortunately there is me to counter your superstitious nonsense with my vote FOR nuclear power.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
12:19 AM on 02/16/2012
With Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and other tragedies, nuclear power has created more damage than electricity. No private insurance company will consider insuring nuclear power, as the amount of liability is impossible to cover. Without taxpayer funded support, no private investors will sink money into nuclear power.  NRG Energy abandons Texas nuclear expansion plan | Reuters

Covered up meltdowns

Stunner: New Nuclear Costs as Much as German Solar Power Today — and Up to $0.34/kWh in 2018 | ThinkProgress

Nuclear power subsidies

default on nuclear loan $2.2 billion

Nuclear power cost overruns

Hiding facts on nuclear power loans
photo
atomicrod
Atomic professional
05:40 AM on 02/16/2012
With Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and other terrible, but unnamed tragedies, nuclear energy has resulted in about 50 deaths, all of whom were either plant workers or first responders.

However, it has also been generating about 2600 billion life saving, emission free kilowatt hours every year for the past 20 years.

In the US alone, the value of the nuclear energy produced each year is between $40 and $80 billion depending on what you assign to the cost of electricity.

That power also helps to increase the overall supply of energy, thus suppressing the prices that customers pay for coal and natural gas.

In my less than humble opinion, nuclear energy is a heck of a bargain.
03:16 AM on 02/15/2012
While you can, visit Solyndra's website. It's akin to an autopsy. I think it's a shame that its solar arrays did not find viability in the market place. I've had to make several visits to the local VA hospital recently. It is having photo-voltaic panels installed on every square inch of its roof. At a glance, you can recognize they are not manufactured by Solyndra. Oh well, if you live in the sunbelt and have a large roof, your fuel is free. The engine and fuel tank may cost some money but, the fuel is free.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crazyindc1984
02:48 AM on 02/15/2012
"It's important to point out here that, as of January 2012, over $24 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees have closed to support a diverse range of over 30 wind, solar, electric vehicles and other clean energy projects projected to fund more than 50,000 jobs."

That only cost 480,000 per job, or the cost of a median employee to work for 16+ years. Wow, that was effective! A company that cost 24 billion dollars to start would employ a great deal more than 50,000 people.

And don't bother with the Faux/Tp/other bs. I will be voting (I) this year