Remember the Solyndra "Scandal"? Those Loans Are Now Making Money For American Taxpayers

Exclusive: Controversial U.S. energy loan program has wiped out losses

The controversial government program that funded failed solar company Solyndra, and became a lighting rod in the 2012 presidential election, is officially in the black.

According to a report by the Department of Energy, interest payments to the government from projects funded by the Loan Programs Office were $810 million as of September - higher than the $780 million in losses from loans it sustained from startups including Fisker Automotive, Abound Solar and Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving large government loans intended to help them bring their advanced green technologies to market.

The Department of Energy loan program was used to kickstart the clean tech industry in America. But after some high profile defaults like Solyndra and Fisker, it became a focal point for partisan grandstanding - even though the program itself was actually first developed under the Bush administration, and it was entirely expected (and thus prepared) to incur some losses:

When Congress created the loan program under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it was never designed to be a moneymaker. In fact, Congress imagined there would be losses and set aside $10 billion to cover them.

After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit


So in spite of all that FOX News Solyndrama, the overall portfolio has actually performed extremely well. It has thus far only produced 7.8% of those expected losses, or 2.28% of the total portfolio, and is now officially coming out ahead for American taxpayers - with much more revenue projected to come down the pike:

For loans that have been disbursed to date, we expect to earn more than $5 billion in total interest payments over the full term of the loans -- all of which goes back to the benefit of taxpayers.

Energy Department’s Loan Portfolio Continues Strong Performance While Deploying Innovation


And all this is just gravy on top of the primary goal of deploying that innovation. This industry faced an enormous uphill challenge, not only in starting from scratch, but more so in overcoming the tremendous inertia and resistance of the fossil fuel oligarchy.

The loan program has now not only kickstarted the clean tech industry financially, but created enough momentum and investor confidence to take the training wheels off:

Since DOE approved loans for the five utility-scale photovoltaic projects, 17 more have been funded by private investors who would not have taken on that risk five years ago, Davidson said.

(quote from the Reuters link above)

This has helped create a market where some top analysts predict solar energy will reach grid parity in the United States within the next couple of years:

Solar Grid Parity In All 50 US States By 2016, Predicts Deutsche Bank

It's also spurred many exciting new companies whose successes have already far outweighed Solyndra's failure. Perhaps you've heard of these guys for example:

Tesla Pays Off Government Loan Nine Years Early


But I'm curious to see how many people will put aside their partisanship and acknowledge something that is now producing positive results for the economy, for taxpayers, and for the planet. I'm not gonna hold my breath. This quote from the NPR article is pretty telling:

There was an FBI raid on Solyndra's headquarters and an investigation but, so far, no prosecutions. Now that the loan program is turning a profit, those critics are silent. They either declined or ignored NPR's requests for comment.

Just want to add this video in case people miss it in the Tesla link above, because it's so so good:

a reply to: mc_squared

The loan program under Bush was never in question, it's necessary and it's a good program. It was loaning the funds to questionable businesses that was. And just think, if we had the $780 million in losses from bad loans, money that should have NEVER been loaned in the first place to startups such as Solyndra, then the program would be that much more ahead and able to fund serious businesses that aren't trying to sham money from the government. Obama decided to risk the millions To say the program was purposefully meant to be a losing endeavor is a lackeyed cover and isn't true. No serious investor chooses to throw almost a billion dollars down the toilet, lining thieves pockets. And this isn't the government's money, it's the TAXPAYOR's money.

◾ABC reported that internal emails "show the Obama administration was keenly monitoring the progress of the loan, even as analysts were voicing serious concerns about the risk involved. 'This deal is NOT ready for prime time,' one White House budget analyst wrote in a March 10, 2009 email, nine days before the administration formally announced the loan." [ABC News, 9/13/11]
◾CNN claimed "prime time" email showed "some White House budget analysts questioned early on how financially sound Solyndra was." [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 9/15/11, via Nexis]
◾Fox's Neil Cavuto: "Prime time" email was warning that "the loan could be very risky for taxpayers." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
◾Wash. Examiner: "Prime time" email showed "some officials in the Obama Administration thought the loan was a lousy idea." [Washington Examiner, 9/14/11]

a reply to: mc_squared



Giving taxpayer money to private companies should be illegal. If the government just stayed out of the picture and did what they are supposed to do the economy would be great. Companies would sell goods and people would buy them.



Wrap your head around this fact the government controls 40% of the GDP. This is not a free society anymore. This is a corporate controlled oligarchy. I find it so ironic that young liberals scream and cry about the corporations all the while supporting the very thing they hate. Fools.........This is the cold hard truth.

a reply to: SubTruth

I love the free market and all but you need some government involvement. Otherwise how do we compete with countries like China which use businesses backed by the government to develop products? Private investors only have so much money to throw around.

Weren't there 3.2 billion in loans defaulted on and written off?
If this company will make enough money to cover that loss.... I would think that every household would have their products in it.

So, the Obama administration had a little more risk-tolerance (i.e. testicular fortitude) than the Bush administration and it paid off?

Excellent. Another example of the power of a mixed economy combining market freedom with government regulation and investment.

Keep in mind, there are no totally "free markets" in the modern world; that is a wonderful but utopian concept, not unlike pure communism.

Every successful modern national economy is a mixed economy. Congratulations USA on the return on your investments!

Not to mention Solyndra would have been successful if China hadn't undercut the solar panel industry.

a reply to: SubTruth

It's not giving, it's loaning.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: mc_squared



Giving taxpayer money to private companies should be illegal. If the government just stayed out of the picture and did what they are supposed to do the economy would be great. Companies would sell goods and people would buy them.



Wrap your head around this fact the government controls 40% of the GDP. This is not a free society anymore. This is a corporate controlled oligarchy. I find it so ironic that young liberals scream and cry about the corporations all the while supporting the very thing they hate. Fools.........This is the cold hard truth.

Spot on.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Hell yea. People don't realize how many more bombs and cruise missiles that money could buy that we could drop on the myriad of countries we like dropping crap on. And that money would go right into the pockets of the MIC which does awesome stuff for the country's economy.

Yes, giving money to companies is something that President Obama invented:

He gave millions of acres of land away free and subsidized loans for the railroad barons in the 1890s.

He subsidized ship building in the early 1900s, the aviation industry in the 20s and 30s, the interstate highway system (built primarily for business to move products to market on more efficiently) in the 50s along with subsides to the gas and oil industries that amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.

Give me a break! Corporate welfare in the US has consistently outstipped what we are willing to do for people:

More to the point, while more than 170 billion dollars is expended on assorted varieties of corporate welfare the federal government spends 11 billion dollars on Aid for Dependent Children. The most expensive means tested welfare program, Medicaid, costs the federal government 30 billion dollars a year or about half of the amount corporations receive each year through assorted tax breaks. S.S.I., the federal program for the disabled, receives 13 billion dollars while American businesses are given 17 billion in direct federal aid.

David Huff: Public Relief for Private America

Good god at least learn a bit of the history behind your talking points.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: mc_squared
If the government just stayed out of the picture and did what they are supposed to do the economy would be great. Companies would sell goods and people would buy them.

Yeah because that whole premise worked like a charm, except the part where, you know - it just about collapsed the entire global economy:

The 2008 financial crisis was an “avoidable” disaster caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street, according to the conclusions of a federal inquiry.

Financial Crisis Was Avoidable, Inquiry Finds


In your world though I guess the free market would just fix all the problems it creates on its own right? Extreme smog in Southern California? Behold the emergence of the gasmask industry! Acid rain? Lead-coated umbrellas now selling like hot cakes!

This is a corporate controlled oligarchy.

Well, no sh**

So your solution though is to give these corporations free reign?? Do you even understand what an oligarchy is and how it comes into existence? An oligarchy comes about from ANY institution - be it government or private enterprise - obtaining too much power and then using that competitive advantage in the interest of self-preservation above anyone else.

In free-market capitalism this leads to a crony corporate plutocracy the same way too much power given to the state leads towards totalitarianism. Two sides. Same coin.

You're laughing at the other side thinking they're so naive and foolish - yet you are part of the exact same extremist philosophy standing on the other end.

a reply to: greencmp

Spot on.

No it wasn't spot on, it was complete nonsense gibberish in fact.

But it’s always great to see how well this empty rhetoric works on people who’d rather subscribe to self-reinforcing delusions rather than think critically about reality.

I doubt you could find a single Liberal on ATS who actually wants big government – just smart, responsible government: “Of the people, by the people, for the people”, all that jazz.

The problem is to have that you need have to have a smart, responsible electorate – one that can hold the government accountable, but also one that understands good ideas – especially when they are backed up by good results.

But instead we seem to have some very confused people that think the way to get rid of corporate oligarchies is to get rid of the systems that hold them in check. Government today is largely such a corrupt entity simply because it’s bought and paid for by these fatcat interests already, but it’s also the last line of defense against them.

You remove the fox guarding the henhouse, then all you do is just let the wolves walk right in.

Occasionally the wolves fail to pay the fox off enough though, and he's still capable of doing smart things like fostering new competition that's good for the hens (taxpayers), good for the henhouse (economy) and good for the planet (Earth, not the one fundamentalist conservatives live on).

But instead of seeing that for what it is, with real world results plainly available to them - since the wolves can't pay off the fox enough - they just pay off FOX News, who then fill the hens heads with scare stories about Solyndra! and big goobermint coming to take all their precious freedoms away. And then they all get together and regurgitate this chickenspeak nonsense over and over until it becomes safe and comfortable and "spot on" apparently.

" Remember the Solyndra "Scandal"? Those Loans Are Now Making Money For American Taxpayers "

How did the Solyndra bankruptcy make money for taxpayers?

Fancy-Prancy Juggle-Fumble accounting tricks maybe?

originally posted by: xuenchen
" Remember the Solyndra "Scandal"? Those Loans Are Now Making Money For American Taxpayers "

How did the Solyndra bankruptcy make money for taxpayers?

Fancy-Prancy Juggle-Fumble accounting tricks maybe?

Did you read the article?

Perhaps you should read the article before you comment.

a reply to: mc_squared

You will notice that our friends on the right don't really ask us or care about what our thoughts actually are on the subject.

They're always too busy telling us what we and all the other "liberal/progressive/communists" believe.

What I love is that the current meme is to be so terrified of the Federal government, when really, for most of us, it's the State and local governments that are going to screw up our lives. Local corruption, machine politics, police abuse of power ... these happen at the local level, not the national.

Talk about tyranny, read about just about any small state Governor's actions, and tell me how putting even more power in their hands would help you sleep at night.

*shiver*

So if the tax funded programs are finally returning a profit... when do I see a decrease in my taxes? Wait...

a reply to: mc_squared
Maybe you're right... Maybe solar energy will be more all-around-beneficial than wind, coal, petroleum, nuclear...
How do we know, though, that stealing/intercepting/subtracting this energy...from the Earth...that has made the Earth a wonderfully livable planet...won't cause havoc with everything from volcanoes, earthquakes, super storms, seasonal-inversions, oxygenation, ocean temperatures & currents, and ice coverage...?
How do we know that thriving species, today, will not be wiped-out in a few decades?
We don't - but - we'll gamble on an unknown future over the present paradigm...

I would prefer solar energy over petroleum.
I would prefer wind energy over petroleum.
But - both of these methods extract energy from nature...which may unsettle the equilibrium as much or more (or - quicker) than petroleum.

I don't know...

a reply to: mc_squared

The outcries mounted as others in the program failed, and the DOE issued no new loans between late 2011 and this year.

Can't wait for the new failures to emerge as new loans get approved.

The "illusion" of success hinges on delayed future fails.



The timing is remarkable.