“Less than two months ago, Mr. Harrison met with us and other Committee members to assure us that Solyndra was in a strong financial position and in no danger of failing,” DeGette wrote with California Representative and Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman. “At that time, [Harrison] said the company was projected to double its revenues in 2011, there was ‘strong demand in the United States’ for its shipments, and the company was expected to double the megawatts of panel production shipped this year. These assurances appear to contrast starkly with his company’s decision to file for bankruptcy last week.”

Silicon Valley-based solar panel maker Solyndra was a new-energy darling of the Obama 2009 stimulus package. The company received roughly $530 million in government loans and yet went belly up last month.

The events seemed to confirm the worst fears and suspicions of green energy critics who see the sector as a money hole, a land of hyped hope and dreams that provides fertile ground for get-rich-quick schemes and government-business insider graft.

Stearns this week said he “smelled a rat” in Solyndra from the beginning and pointed to the fact that Solyndra investor George Kaiser was an Obama campaign donor. The Energy Department downplayed the accusations, saying that Solyndra support was in the pipeline during the Bush administration and the Obama team merely finished the deal.

More likely, Solyndra appears to have made the kind of business bets that can make or break a company and that broke this one.

As the New York Times reported, the company’s panels don’t use silicon, which was a much more costly commodity in 2009 when the loan guarantee was approved than it is now. And the cylindrical design of the panels was meant to cut installment costs and improve efficiency by more easily catching the sun wherever it is in the sky. But manufacturing those special panels proved too costly.

The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will conduct its hearing on the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program and Solyndra on September 14th.

DeGette’s letter:

Dear Chairman Stearns:

We understand that you have scheduled a hearing on September 14, 2011, to examine the Department of Energy’s 2009 loan guarantee to Solyndra and the recent announcement by the company that it is planning to file for bankruptcy. We hope this hearing will help the Committee understand whether mistakes were made in the handling of this loan and how Congress can improve loan guarantee program and develop appropriate policies to promote clean energy technologies.

We are writing to request that you invite Brian Harrison, chief executive officer of Solyndra, to testify at the hearing. Less than two months ago, Mr. Harrison met with us and other Committee members to assure us that Solyndra was in a strong financial position and in no danger of failing. At that time, he said the company was projected to double its revenues in 2011, there was “strong demand in the United States” for its shipments, and the company was expected to double the megawatts of panel production shipped this year. These assurances appear to contrast starkly with his company’s decision to file for bankruptcy last week.

Any thorough examination of the Solyndra loan guarantee should include the opportunity to ask Mr. Harrison about his representations. He did not convey to us the perilous condition of the company and the Committee should know why.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman Diana DeGette
Ranking Member Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

From The Hill:

The 1,000-megawatt project will power 300,000 to 750,000 homes and result in about 1,000 temporary construction jobs and a little over 200 permanent jobs, according to the Interior Department.

The project’s price tag is estimated at $6 billion, though developers received substantial subsidies from the Department of Energy as part of president Obama’s stimulus package. Once completed, the parabola-shaped panels will cover 7,000 acres of land.

The American Independent reported June 6 on a bill co-authored by Sen. Bernie Williams (I-Vt.) that would tackle the consumer end of solar installation, helping homeowners acquire permissions faster by cutting out much of the bureaucratic wrangling. That bill’s goal is to enter 10 million home into solar panel fold.

The bipartisan legislation, titled the The 10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2011 (PDF), would be a boon to a quickly changing solar panel industry. The Solar Energy Industries Association — the national trade association of the U.S. solar energy industry — stated during a conference call with businesses and in a June 1 congressional hearing that the industry already employs 100,000 people, and they expect that number to double by 2013.

Protesters advocate for climate change legislation in front of the Capitol. (Flickr/UOPowerShift09)

This year, Congress passed the most ambitious agenda in recent memory, overhauling how the nation regulates banks and financial products and dramatically reforming the health-care system. President Obama had hoped to add comprehensive energy legislation — with a cap-and-trade program — to that list, but the Senate failed to move even a slimmed-down version of the bill this summer.

[Environment1] Environmentalists are increasingly realistic about the dwindling chances for ambitious legislation, despite a recent pledge by Obama to move a comprehensive energy bill in 2011. Next session, they fear, Congress will be more conservative, whether Republicans control either house or not. As a result, environmentalists hope that Senate Democrats might try to move energy bills during the crowded lame-duck session. And, they are carefully watching key races, to see how next year’s Congress might deal with environmental priorities.

Dan Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, says the fate of energy and climate legislation will be decided on Nov. 2. “Depending on what happens on Election Day, during the lame duck there could be a strong push by [Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)] to not do anything because Republicans picked up more members,” Weiss says, noting that Democrats can’t pass any bill without a “dedicated cadre of Republicans.”

He said he is pleased with Obama’s promise to push for a bill next year, but said it is mostly out of the president’s hands. “I think that remains to be determined based on who gains seats in the mid-terms,” Weiss says. “One of the challenges is that some climate deniers could be elected.”

Weiss points to a list of six close Senate races that could have climate change implications, a list put together by the Wonk Room. “Even if half of them get elected, it’s going to be much more difficult to do anything in the Senate,” Weiss says.

Included on that list is the Senate race in Pennsylvania, where Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) is trailing in the polls behind Pat Toomey. The Colorado Senate race is another one to watch, Weiss says, where Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) is behind his Republican challenger, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck. Both Buck and Toomey have been named to the League of Conservation Voters’ “Dirty Dozen” list for, among other things, their opposition to comprehensive climate change legislation. The Cook Political Report predicts a “7 to 9 seat net gain for Republicans” in the Senate.

Obama, speaking with Rolling Stone, said that it may be best to pass energy and climate legislation in chunks rather than as one big, comprehensive bill. There are a number of pieces floating around the Senate that environmentalists are hoping to move in the coming months.

The lowest hanging fruit are the less-controversial proposals, like a bill to provide incentives for natural gas and electric vehicles. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this week filed cloture for the bill, setting an initial vote for Nov. 17. Electric vehicle advocates say they are confident the bill can pass because it has gained support from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

At the same time, Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) have offered renewable energy standard legislation that would mandate 15 percent of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2021. The proposal has been co-sponsored by 33 lawmakers, including at least four Republicans. One renewable energy advocate closely involved in efforts to move the RES who is not authorized to speak on the record says backers of the bill remains “laser-focused on the lame duck.”

“The votes are there for the RES. All that’s needed is floor time. And Senate leadership — Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Dorgan and Stabenow – are co-sponsors,” the RES advocate says. Reid has said he won’t bring the bill to the floor until lawmakers show him it can pass.

In a move that could complicate efforts to move an RES, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is circulating a so-called “clean energy standard” bill that would include in the mandate nuclear and “clean coal” technology, something that liberal Democrats say they can’t support. Graham’s bill may throw a wrench in plans for passage of an RES this year and next year, as Republicans could be lured away from supporting the Bingaman proposal in favor of Graham’s. The RES advocate dismisses the Graham bill as a distraction that could not garner 60 votes in the Senate.

In addition, Bingaman, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), ranking member on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, have introduced an energy tax incentives package they want to move before the end of the year.

Looming over all of this are efforts to respond to the Gulf oil spill. While the House has passed its version of an oil spill response bill, the Senate has been unable to move forward. The main flash continues to be whether an oil company responsible for a spill should pay for all of the resulting economic damages. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) proposed legislation making oil companies 100 percent liable for the damages from a spill. Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska), both from drilling states, argued that full liability will keep small- and medium-sized oil companies from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because they would not be able to insure against the potential damages.

Staff from the lawmakers’ offices have been negotiating for more than a month and Senate sources familiar with the conversations say they are nearing a compromise that would establish a mutual insurance pool into which all oil companies drilling in the Gulf would pay. In the event of a spill, oil companies would be responsible for much of the damages, but the insurance pool would cover some of the costs.

Environmentalists are livid at the slow progress of oil spill legislation in the Senate. Bob Deans, federal communications director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says, “The country expects the Senate to act on this. We had a national disaster. Every American expects the Senate to act on this.”

And Weiss, of the Center for American Progress, points to oil industry lobbying as one reason the bill may have been slowed down. Though he says he can’t “demonstrate causality,” he adds, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

Still, environmentalists say they are going to be lobbying for action when the Senate returns in November, despite warnings from Senate leadership that there may not be enough time to move major energy provisions in the lame duck.

“The Senate is in a state of paralysis that’s hurting our economy and it has to end. The next opportunity for that to happen is when senators come back from the elections,” says Franz Matzner, climate center legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “That’s the next opportunity to go forward. That opportunity should be seized.”

The Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Lab estimated it would cost at least $43 billion to upgrade the nation’s electric system to move to 20 percent wind by 2030. (Flickr, Travel Aficionado)

By now, the Obama administration has made clear it wants to ramp up the use of renewable energy, calling it a key to the nation’s leadership in the 21st century. And some in Congress are hoping to pass a federal renewable energy standard, requiring the production of more wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy.

[Environment1] Utilities recognize the shift to green energy as a major growth prospect. But they also recognize an impediment: Infrastructure. Indeed, across the country, utility and energy companies are preparing for a massive fight over how to deliver clean energy to people’s homes — and, more to the point, who will pay for the necessary infrastructure to get the energy there.

Behind the scenes, in recent months, utilities have battled over how to allocate the costs of the new high-powered electric lines necessary to move wind energy from one part of the country to the other. Despite efforts by federal regulators to referee the fight, some experts foresee further delays in the construction of the new electric, or transmission, lines they say are essential for meeting federal and state renewable energy mandates.

“A lack of transmission lines is the single greatest barrier to wind here in the Midwest. The lack of transmission has proved to be a huge barrier,” says Jamie Karnik, communications manager at Wind on the Wires, an advocacy group. Karnik says the Midwest produces about 10,000 megawatts of wind now, and needs to build at least 25,000 to 40,000 further megawatts of capacity to meet state and regional renewable energy goals.

Many utilities in the wind-rich Midwest would like to move excess electricity to the Northeast on new, high-powered lines. But utilities in the Northeast see Midwestern wind as a threat to its nascent offshore wind industry. While offshore wind is plentiful in the region, it has been plagued by regulatory delays and high costs. Cheap wind from the Midwest could keep the Northeast from developing its own local source of renewable power.

“As the nation looks to move to a renewable energy standard, a lot of that really comes down to how to meet the energy needs of the East coast,” Karnik says. “Certainly people who are building wind in the Midwest, have their eye on the eastern market.”

Utilities on both sides of this divide are drawing the battle lines over so-called cost allocation policies, which lay out a structure for how the costs for these lines are spread among ratepayers. One faction (including some Midwestern utilities and renewable energy advocates) proposes spreading the costs broadly over an entire region, arguing that new lines deliver broad economic and electric reliability benefits to all ratepayers. The other faction (including many Northeastern utilities) says costs should be paid by the specific beneficiaries of the new line.

Electric industry stakeholders — utilities, renewable energy developers, transmission companies — stand to lose or gain billions of dollars based on the structure of these policies. As a result, they are pouring significant lobbying resources into their development. “Needed transmission in the eastern interconnection would be about $85 billion,” says one lawyer following the issue who was not authorized to speak on the record. “The dollars involved here are huge and the regional economic impacts are huge. Utilities are keenly aware of that and that’s why they are fighting over cost allocation.”

A 2008 study by the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Lab said it would cost at least $43 billion to upgrade the nation’s electric system to move to 20 percent wind by 2030. Others have put estimates significantly higher. A study conducted by the lab in January also said that any effort to meet the 20 percent goal in the Northeast would require “significant expansion of the transmission infrastructure.”

At the center of this fight is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, a little-known agency that has often played second fiddle to the Department of Energy, but energy policy experts say has far more power over shaping the country’s energy policy. After months of discussions with industry stakeholders, FERC released in June a cost allocation proposal meant to assuage utilities’ concerns. It drew on elements of both utility factions’ proposals, giving some preference to projects that meet policy goals like renewable mandates, while ensuring that the costs allocated are at least “roughly commensurate” with the benefits delivered.

For the most part, industry stakeholders say they can work within the framework FERC set up: It gives utilities latitude to develop their own workable proposals. But as the public comment period on FERC’s proposal comes to a close at the end of this month, they also say the cost allocation debate might take years to resolve.

The lawyer following the issue said the ongoing battles between utilities over cost allocation could significantly impact states’ abilities to meet renewable energy standards. “I think it will affect it tremendously,” the lawyer says. “I think it’s going to continue to be really, really hard to build big lines.”

Rob Gramlich, senior vice president for public policy at the American Wind Energy Association, the wind industry’s national trade group, says he is “encouraged by what FERC is doing,” adding, “They clearly understand the challenges of the new clean energy economy and what that entails.” He says that FERC is working to expand a “Balkanized” electricity grid that was meant only to work on a local, rather than a regional basis.

In order to meet a stringent renewable energy standard, Gramlich says transmission must be built across regions in order to bring wind from the Midwest to states that don’t have many renewable resources. “To do that we’d need more regionalization of the type that FERC is pursuing now,” he says. “To do it cost effectively, by using the most economic resource areas, significant new transmission would be needed.”

But Gramlich notes that any rulemaking that FERC finalizes will likely be challenged in court, as some companies will “stand to lose a lot” no matter what proposal is adopted. Such challenges could delay a process that likely won’t even go into effect until 2012, given the various compliance periods allowed under the plan.

Joseph Kelliher — former FERC chairman and current executive vice president of federal regulatory affairs at NextEra Energy, the country’s largest renewable energy developer — says FERC’s cost allocation proposal is “critical and essential to translating conceptual renewable energy projects to real projects. They actually won’t get built until there is some clear conception of cost recovery.”

Kelliher also defends broad cost socialization, saying that entire regions benefit from new lines that carry renewable energy. “The notion that only ‘A’ and ‘B’ have to pay for that line and nobody else has to pay for anything, economists would look at that and say it’s a classic ‘free rider,’” he says. “Free riders tend to like the status quo and would like to get something for nothing. The current policy does discourage investment.”

At the same time, offshore wind is just not as cost competitive as onshore wind from the Midwest, Kelliher says. “The difference between onshore wind and offshore wind is about 400 percent. If transmission constraints don’t allow you to import good onshore wind from the Midwest for at least part of your renewable energy needs, you’re left paying” more, he says.

But Tim Fagan, director of public policy at the New Jersey-based PSEG, says broad socialization of costs puts the Northeast at a disadvantage because it favors Midwestern wind. “The concern is that we may end up with an overall less economic solution,” he says. “If the resources from the Midwest are able to have these long transmission lines paid for, that may competitively eek out other options.”

Fagan says Northeastern states need to be given time to develop local offshore wind and solar resources. “Eastern states are looking to develop offshore resources; they’re plentiful and they’re close to load,” he says. “In New Jersey, we’ve been aggressively developing PV solar.”

While a broad energy bill authored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) addressed some electric transmission issues, those provisions are not expected to come up for a vote in the Senate this year. Until then, electric utility officials say they will be watching Congress closely in the coming weeks to see if momentum is building for passage of a federal RES. Renewable energy advocates have been working feverishly behind the scenes during the August recess to convince key senators that the proposal could get the 60 votes necessary for passage.

“You’re beginning to see people stepping up and saying we can’t meet these mandates if we can’t get transmission built,” says one utility official who requested anonymity to speak openly. “All of this comes down to whether or not we have a federal RES. That has the potential to change things.”

Provides incentives to buy new cars, including light trucks and SUVs, with a tax deduction for State and local sales taxes paid on the purchase.

At least congressional staffers knew better than to put it under the section of green-energy provisions claiming “to reduce our dependence on foreign oil tomorrow.”

I caught up with Brown today after he made an appearance at a sustainable energy research event at the National Press Club. With the Senate on the verge of passing the stimulus package, I asked him what he saw as the biggest holes in the bill that need to be filled.

Sen. Sherrod Brown speaking at the National Press Club

“I would like to see more direct spending on infrastructure, but I think that’s a major component of it,” he responded. “I think there should be fewer tax breaks for businesses. … I think you want to kick the demand side a little bit more, but, you know, we can debate all day what’s better and what’s worse. I like the bill overall, I think it’s very good, I think it takes us exactly in the right direction.”

I then asked him whether he preferred the House bill, which provided less money in the way of tax cuts and more for infrastructure spending, aid to states and green investments.

“It doesn’t matter what I prefer,” he said. “I mean, I’m going to vote for the Senate bill today and tomorrow — cloture today and the bill tomorrow. And then we’ll negotiate and we gotta get 60 votes in the Senate.”

In his speech at the Press Club, he emphasized the need to balance environmental and manufacturing concerns. Ideally, he said, a green agenda would create manufacturing jobs rather than hurting industry.

“We’ll literally grow our economy as we protect our environment,” he pledged.

Brown will be someone to watch after the stimulus passes and environmental concerns come to the fore.

www.willyoujoinus.com

While walking around Washington, it’s hard to miss all the large Chevron ads. They are at bus stops and in metro stations, and they feature “everyday people” promising to conserve energy. “I will carpool to work,” one person in the ad says. “I will take the golf clubs out of the trunk,” promises another. “I will leave the car at home more,” pledges a third.

And, in each one, Chevron vows it will conserve energy, too.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Chevron launched its “I will” campaign last month in Washington, Houston and cities throughout California. The new ads continue the oil company’s “Power of Human Energy” ad campaign that began about a year ago. Through TV spots, print ads, billboards and a website called Will You Join Us, Chevron says it seeks to raise awareness about energy conservation and efficiency.

But exactly how green can an oil company claim to be? And will consumers buy its claims?

Chevron, America’s second largest oil company, with profits of $18.7 billion last year, isn’t the only oil producer spending millions to burnish its image. Like other big oil companies, it has switched gears from ignoring or denying climate change to announcing it role in combating this problem, oil experts say.

For example, if you’ve turned on the TV lately, you’ve probably seen a commercial like this from ExxonMobil:

Exxon, the country’s biggest oil company, with profits last year of $39.5 billion, recently launched its environmental-themed ad campaign. BP was perhaps ahead of this curve — for British Petroleum started rebranding itself as “Beyond Petroleum” in 2000.

Some experts say Chevron and all the other oil companies will have to work a lot harder to gain the trust of consumers, who are finally getting some relief at the pumps after gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon this summer. They say the companies will have to transform their actions, not just their images.

Chevron says it differs from the other oil companies because it invests in clean technologies and fuel efficiency. Those who study the oil industry assert that the company’s investment is minor when compared to its large profits.

www.willyoujoinus.com

But Kimberly Beman the Chevron spokeswoman said, “Between 2007 and 2009, Chevron has projected spending of more than $2.5 billion for alternatives, renewables and energy-efficiency services.” *

Beman also pointed out that, since 2000, Chevron Energy Solutions, a Chevron subsidiary that focuses on environmental issues, has developed hundreds of projects in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

“CES projects will help to reduce over a billion dollars in energy costs for customers,” Beman told The Washington Independent.

But a billion dollars spent over an unspecified period of time doesn’t exactly seem like a lot of money for a company that made a record $18.7 billion in profits last year alone.

Steve Kretzmann, director of the nonpartisan organization Oil Change International, said that Chevron’s priority is cleaning up its image — and that speaks volumes about its credibility on conservation. “Chevron spends millions and millions on these ad campaigns,” said Kretzmann, “and then doesn’t devote hardly any amount of money to invest in renewable-energy technologies that could make a huge difference.”

Chevron spent $15 million last year on advertising to promote it’s green policies, according to Grist. This seems to be the norm among the big oil companies.

Exxon, for example, spent only 1 percent of its record-breaking annual profit last year on alternative energy, reports ABC News.

www.willyoujoinus.com

But Chevron spokeswoman Beman says her company isn’t like the other oil companies. “We feel we differentiate ourselves from our competitors to say conservation is key to our [mission],” she said. “I think it’s just an overall call to action that all of us are responsible. Chevron is taking the lead in opening this discussion.”Kalle Lasn, editor-in-chief of Adbusters Magazine, a non-profit that studies consumerism, finds this claim surprising. Until recently, he says, oil companies like Chevron have been “instrumental in delaying the debate we needed to have on climate change.”

“For years,” Lasn said, “[they were] trying to deny climate change and keep the business-as-usual scenario going.” James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, agrees with Lasn. In June, he testified before Congress:

Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer.

“Then, just a few short years ago” Lasn said, “when it became quite obvious that they couldn’t deny climate change any longer, one by one they jumped on this [PR] bandwagon…and started painting themselves as the good guys.”

That’s why almost all big oil companies now have ads greenwashing themselves, Lasn said. It started with BP — originally British Petroleum — changing its logo in 2000 to a sun and referring to itself as “Beyond Petroleum.” BP talks about this global branding strategy on its website.

Now, even ExxonMobil — a company known to have given millions of dollars to groups denying global warming — has launched green ads.Are these costly PR campaigns working?

Lasn says they have potential. “A lot of people are totally hoodwinked by this,” he said. “There are millions of people out there who actually do fall for it, who are not aware of some of the history of these big oil companies.”

That’s what Chevron is counting on, Lasn says.

Green advertising can help companies shape their brand, says Lasn, because even large corporations care about public perception.

“[Oil companies] know the next time there is a financial crunch, like now, or if climate change veers out of control even more than it already has, then their survival depends on how the public perceives them,” he said.

TerraChoice, an environmental marketing firm that conducts advertising research, agrees that green advertising can be effective. Media consultant Kate Rusnak says consumers are happy to see so many businesses moving in a more sustainable direction. As a result, she said, “there has certainly been a huge rise in the amount of green advertising.” This could be why even oil companies are jumping on the bandwagon.

Still, not everyone says Chevron is winning on the public-perception front. “I don’t think that [this ad campaign] is particularly effective for consumers,” said Kretzmann of Oil Change International. “The industry knows it has an image problem.”

*Note: This article originally did not say how much Chevron spends on its alternative energy projects. A quote from the oil company detailing its projected budgets was added to the piece after posting.

But green business owners know that they face obstacles. This week, E&ETV looked at some of them in an interview with Natural Resources and Defense Council energy analyst Jim Presswood.

E&ETV’s Monica Trauzzi asked how the financial crisis will affect solar and wind industries. Although some businesses could feel the credit pinch as banks continue to struggle, Presswood said he thinks the rapidly growing solar and wind industries could help pull the economy out of its doldrums, especially as Americans look for alternatives to fossil fuels. The extension of the tax credits means that private investment will still be attracted to clean energy, Pressman added.

Trauzzi also asked how a Democratic-controlled Congress could battle over tax credits for solar and wind power for almost two years yet move quickly to lift a 30-year-old ban on offshore oil drilling.

I expected Presswood to say that the Democrats are a bunch of weanies. Instead, he talked about some of the legislative politics at play — with fights between the Senate and House, Democrats and Republicans and members trying to please commercial interests, including oil and gas companies.

Ultimately, the political game-playing resulted in the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling becoming “must-pass legislation” and the renewable-energy tax credits becoming “a vigorous game of ping pong.”

Presswood believes that alternative energy will receive even more attention in 2009 under a new president, and with that knowledge, green companies can more comfortably focus on growing.