Watchdog finds solar energy loan was ’rushed’
Thursday, April 5, 2012
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal financial experts weren’t consulted on a half-billion federal loan to a failed solar company until the last minute, and only then had “about a day” to complete their review, an internal watchdog concluded Wednesday.
The report from the Treasury Department’s inspector general found that the department’s review was “rushed” and began only after the Energy Department was poised to sign off on the terms of a $528 million loan to Solyndra Inc. The review was completed a day before Energy issued a press release saying it was approving the loan with conditions.
Treasury officials complained to the White House that regulations governing federal loan guarantees say that the department should have been involved earlier in the process, but the inspector general said it was unclear whether the review’s late start violated the law.
Treasury officials also told investigators that the shortened time frame was sufficient to review the loan. But investigators found no evidence that concerns raised by those officials, such as the debt-to-equity ratio in the project, were ever addressed by the Energy Department.
The investigation is the latest to look closely at the Obama administration’s decision to back Solyndra. Congress also is examining the deal, which was used to showcase the economic stimulus bill’s support for renewable energy projects and so-called green jobs.
Solyndra was the first renewable-energy company to receive backing from a loan program created by the stimulus bill. But last year it declared bankruptcy and laid off more than 1,000 people.
The company’s implosion and revelations that it received preferential treatment from federal officials have become an embarrassment for the Obama administration and a focal point for GOP criticism of the president’s green-energy agenda.
While the Energy Department approved the loan, and taxpayers were on the hook when it failed, the Treasury Department’s Federal Financing Bank was the entity that actually disbursed the money.
Internal emails obtained by the inspector general suggest that Treasury officials’ concerns at the time the loan was granted were dismissed in order to get it out the door.
“DOE says their hands are tied on this issue...They are under pressure to complete a deal,” one email read.
Another said: “We pressed on certain issues...but the train has really left the station on this deal.”
Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., two Republicans leading the congressional investigation into the Solyndra loan, issued a joint statement Wednesday saying that the report shows “Solyndra was a bad bet from the beginning that was rushed out the door while every red flag was ignored.”
Emails obtained by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee last year showed that the Treasury Department was also concerned that a later restructuring of the Solyndra loan could violate federal law. The loan was restructured in February 2011 so that private investors moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment on part of the loan in case of a default.
Administration officials have defended the loan restructuring, saying that without an infusion of cash, Solyndra would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy, putting more than 1,000 people out of work. Even with the federal help, Solyndra closed its doors Aug. 31, 2011, and let all its workers go.
———
Online:
Full Treasury Department IG report: http://1.usa.gov/HSuojk

Comments
wyriontair 1 year, 1 month ago
The DOE is still throwing taxpayer money to "green" companies and they continue to go into bankruptcy, where's the oversight on these departments?????
asb 1 year, 1 month ago
Most of the loans are still valid. Small businesses fail at nearly a 70% clip, and medium ones like Solyndra fail nearly as often. Your complaint is against Green and Obama. Why?
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
"Small businesses fail at nearly a 70% clip..." -- How much of that figure involves tax payer money? Most small businesses don't have political connections and take out massive federal loans. Who loans millions on tax payer dime to those with a bad business plan resulting in 1100 jobs lost ? Your complaint is against accountability and job creation. Why?
asb 1 year, 1 month ago
Businesses get money from banks, family fortunes, grants, stealing, you name it . . . there's nothing wrong in most of those methods, including federal loans, you know, like mortgages . . . I'm not suggesting there be no accountability, those are your words, not mine. And job creation was one of the primary motivators for the whole federal investment in green energy, and it's a very good idea. So I'll ask again, what's your problem with investing in green, and with Obama doing it as policy and program, as every president since Washington has done for one initiative or other..
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
"So I'll ask again, what's your problem with investing in green, and with Obama doing it as policy and program, as every president since Washington has done for one initiative or other.." --
You can't create a market, no matter how much money, when there is no demand for the service. I don't like subsidies in general...oil, green, ethanol, etc... Markets should dictate themselves with very little government interference. Why are we paying for losers?
asb 1 year, 1 month ago
But you CAN manipulate markets. There are no free markets, now or any time in western history. Money, churches, governments and armies have always created and managed markets. Eisenhower built the interstate system, which amplified real estate, auto, building, fuel, and other massive markets. There IS a market for green energy, but it has a very tough time competing with 100 years of carbon energy subsidies and policy. For every Solyndra there are several Haliburtons. Policy and subsidy don't always work (Ethanol) but others do. TIFFs, zero Tariff zones, lord the list is endless. ALL markets are influenced by interests. Markets cannot predict losers. Once more; why do you specifically attack green economic pressure and the administration that is pushing it? If an elected government isn't going to address the imbalance in energy subsidies, who will?
JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago
Uh, the free market.
evenkeel 1 year, 1 month ago
"A very good idea" asb? Geez. This isn't rational. It is delusional. I was more grounded as a frosh in college when I was BS-ing in the dorm room with some pot-heads in the wee-hours of a beer soaked week-end. And I freely confess that I was immature for my age. I grew up though.
Or asb, is the motivation that is the good idea? Oh, yes. I see.... The elites in Washington, who know nearly nothing about energy or capitalism, will "invest" billions of tax-payer money (of course, not THEIR own money, that would be unseemly) to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, which unfortunately NEVER materialize, on technology that is unproven and undesired by consumers. Gosh, what could go wrong? Oh. Gee willikers. Um...the companies being bankrolled could go bankrupt! (Groan.) Whooee, I didn't see that coming!
So, let's clap those Washington Elites on the back for the purity of their motivation. They mean well afterall. There, there guys. Better luck next time! Cheerio! Keep your chin up and here's more of THE PEOPLES billions for you to gamble with. Double-down.
Come-on. It is time for the grown-ups now. Save the fairy-tale talk for the kiddies. Really. We are $16 trillion in debt. Do you not understand that? We citizens have a responsibility, right here, right now, to either grow-up or shut-up. Do your part, will ya?
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID