Are You Making The Most Of DOE Loan And Grant Opportunities?

DOE is handing out billions in grants and loan guarantees. And, as you might expect, there have been some bumps along the way. The watchdog GAO reports: "DOE's [loan guarantee program] has treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others."

So how is it that some companies are favored and others not? Well, take the case of Solyndra According to Jim McTague in Barron's, Solyndra has already been awarded $535 million in taxpayer-backed federal loan guarantees.  Its application for another $469 million in loan guarantees is pending.  Solyndra "was supposed to be the cornerstone of Obama's vaunted green-energy future, but now is a king-size political embarrassment....[it] last month cancelled (sic) a $300 million initial public offering because auditor PricewaterhouseCoooper said its operating losses and negative cash flow raise doubts about its ability to continue as a going concern."  However, according to David Freddoso in the Washington Examiner, "Solyndra has hired people that people in Washington listen to, spending $140,000 on lobbyists in just the first quarter of this year....The company's issues: the stimulus, the second stimulus, an energy subsidy bill and the cap-and-trade bill."  Thus the funding flows. 

To be clear, the DOE is no worse, and arguably much better, than most other Federal and State government agencies with respect to the distribution of loan guarantees and grant funds.  And, Solyndra does bring new solar panel technology to the table. Even so, the McTague and Freddoso articles (and you should read both in their entirety) usefully demonstrate what corporate executives and their advisors must do to compete effectively for taxpayer dollars.

The American Power Act - First Read (cont.) Clean Energy Research

Title I, Subtitle F, authorizes the DOE to distribute 2% of all CO2 allowances "on a competitive basis" to universities, foundations, and private companies for the purpose of promoting the development and deployment of  "clean energy technology" while "taking into account the goals of ARPA-E."  (Sec. 1801(c)).  "Clean energy technology" means a technology that produces energy from something other than a fossil fuel; "more efficiently" stores, transmits, or distributes energy or reduces emissions; enhances energy efficiency for buildings or industry; enables development of the "Smart Grid"; produces an advanced or sustainable material with an energy or energy efficiency application; enhances water security and conservation; or improves energy efficiency for transportation. (Sec. 1801(a)(3)).

Interestingly, the Power Act references the "goals" of ARPA-E, which is basically a non-political research and development program, while reserving power and control over the allowance fund (which is substantial) for DOE's political leadership.   The rationale for this approach is not immediately clear.  Also, water "security and conservation" have historically been EPA's purview.  It seems Congress, through its definition of "clean energy technology," aims to expand DOE's portfolio a bit.  Again, the rationale for this change is not immediately clear.

Reading The Budgetary Tea Leaves.

The FY2011 Budget is out.  The numbers provide useful indications of key Obama Administration environmental and energy policies.   Highlights include an aggressive EPA rule-making agenda to control GHGs and more money for DOE 's renewable energy research but huge cuts in DOE's fossil fuel programs.

To begin with, the term "cap and trade", which was prominently featured in the FY2010 Budget (see for example page 21) is missing entirely from the FY2011 Budget.   The new and apparently improved euphemism for mandatory GHG emission controls is "comprehensive market-based policy that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions."  While the Administration has apparently jettisoned "cap and trade" as a political liability, it remains committed to regulating GHG emissions and has requested significant funding for EPA to do so through command and control regulations. The Administration allocates "$56 million– including $43 million in new funding – for the EPA and states to address climate change effectively through regulatory initiatives to control greenhouse gas emissions."   The budget is $25 million for states to regulate GHG emissions under the New Source Review and Title V operating permits programs, $7 million for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to regulate GHG emissions from major stationary sources, $6 million to implement the 2010 auto emissions rule and to develop regulations for large mobile sources, and $5 million to develop guidance regarding the best available practices and technologies to control GHG emissions through command and control permits.   My suggestion here that key Administration policymakers viewed GHG legislation as a mere side-show and were instead committed to administrative rule-makings seems to have been on the mark. 

Other key EPA funding requests include $3 billion for water infrastructure projects and millions more for enforcement.  Notably, EPA's Budget anticipates re-institution of the long-dead Superfund tax.

DOE's Budget emphasizes scientific research.   $5.1 billion is allocated for the Office of Science and $300 million for ARPA-E.    An additional $5 billion is promised for the successful 48C tax credit program as well as $36 billion in loan authority for nuclear power plants and $545 million for carbon capture technology.  DOE seeks $302 million for solar, $220 million for biofuels and biomass R&D, $325 million for "advanced vehicle technologies" and $231 million for "energy efficient building technologies."   

Fossil fuels take a beating.  DOE proposes a 43% cut in funding for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, no money at all for clean coal, and a 12.8% cut in funding for fossil fuel research and development

What then do we learn from the FY2011 EPA/DOE Budget?  Well, first and foremost, it is terribly unwise to underestimate the Obama Administration's ideological commitment to "climate change" regulation through restrictions on fossil fuel use and development, and stakeholders need to plan and act accordingly.   Administrative rules, not legislation, appears to be the preferred mode of control and Federal agencies are moving very aggressively to implement the GHG control agenda. 

It is gratifying to see DOE devoting serious money to "hard science" R&D, enlarging its successful loan guarantee and tax credit programs, and taking the first steps toward a serious domestic nuclear power effort.  Still, the evisceration of its relatively small yet critical fossil fuel programs, including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, is very troubling.  As the President pointed out, domestic energy security requires a robust domestic fossil fuel industry.  However, the FY2011 Budget suggests energy security is a lesser value, for  the Administration has targeted existing tax breaks and incentives for domestic oil and coal exploration for termination, apparently because of its single-minded GHG agenda and without regard for domestic energy security or economic efficiency.  This is a problem at many levels, reflecting, in the words of one Brookings Institution expert, a "profound ignorance of our petroleum industry."

Will Green Ooze And Genetic Engineering Save Biofuels?

As the Wall Street Journal reports, the biofuel industry is, yet again, suffering tough times.  The National Biodiesel Board has released a report claiming the industry "could be expected to collapse" unless the federal biofuels tax credit expiring December 31, 2009 is renewed.  However, Congressional action is uncertain, even as state and local governments fail to mandate biodiesel use. The tepid support is due, in part, to the fact feedstocks are typically food crops, as opposed to sugar cane, castor plants or algae, meaning biofuels swap food for fuel

Help may be on the way, though.  First, the Department of Energy is aggressively funding feedstock alternatives to grain and corn including algae.   Second, the USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service is considering a petition from Syngenta Seeds, Inc. to deregulate corn genetically engineered to produce a microbial enzyme that facilitates ethanol production. If APHIS grants the petition, then the GE corn and its progeny would no longer be regulated and could be planted without APHIS permits or oversight, obviating some of the "food v. fuel" concerns through increased yields.