Solyndra - Obama Administration Scandal

[American Patriot]

Thieves are the worst.

Crony government enablers who buy votes with public money deserve to be tossed in a pit and pissed on.

Before or after the tar and feathering?

[vector7]

White House Fires Back at 'Overbroad' Subpoena on Solyndra Documents

Published November 04, 2011 | FoxNews.com

The White House on Friday all but refused to turn over the documents House Republicans have subpoenaed on bankrupt solar firm Solyndra, firing off a letter saying the request would put an "unreasonable burden on the president's ability to meet his constitutional duties."
.
The feisty response appears to set up a clash between congressional investigators and the White House over the sprawling probe into Solyndra's finances and the administration's involvement in the decision to provide the struggling company a $528 million loan with taxpayer money.

Letter From White House on Solyndra Subpoena

The following is the letter sent Nov. 4 from the White House on Republicans' subpoena for Solyndra documents.

Related Stories

Solyndra Execs Reaped Bonuses Before Bankruptcy, Documents Show

White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, in her letter, scolded GOP lawmakers for demanding more documents, noting the Obama administration has already turned over 85,000 pages of documents in the course of their investigation. Without explicitly refusing to comply with the subpoena, Ruemmler repeatedly described the order as "overbroad."

"The Committee's extremely broad request for documents -- now a subpoena -- is a significant intrusion on Executive Branch interests," she wrote, saying she can only conclude the subpoena was "driven more by partisan politics than a legitimate effort to conduct a responsible investigation."

Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, questioned what the West Wing was trying to "hide" in a response late Friday.

"We have been reasonable every step of the way in this investigation, and it is a shame that the Obama administration and House Democrats continue to put up partisan roadblocks to hide the truth from taxpayers," he said.

"Now, we need to know the White House's role in the Solyndra debacle in order to learn the full truth about why taxpayers now find themselves a half billion dollars in the hole. The White House could have avoided the need for subpoena authorizations if they had simply chosen to cooperate."

Though the White House has turned over thousands of documents, Republicans say the administration has not provided everything they've requested. The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted Thursday to subpoena, and the subpoenas went out late Thursday to the White House and office of the vice president.

"Unfortunately, we had to take this step after the White House has continued to slow walk the production of documents necessary for this investigation by only releasing selected documents and records," Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., chairman of the House panel investigating the matter, said in a statement.

The subpoena called on the White House to produce "all documents referring or relating in any way" to the Solyndra loan guarantee, as well as to investors in the company and to the company's financial condition.
The White House said in the letter Friday that "there is no basis for such a broad request," claiming the administration has acted in "good faith" to accommodate the requests so far.

Ruemmler said the White House is "willing" to continue working with the committee but suggested they "negotiate the scope" of the documents they want produced.

As Republicans pressed the White House for more information, new bankruptcy court documents also revealed that Solyndra executives were paid quarterly bonuses earlier this year worth up to $60,000 apiece.

[American Patriot]

Solyndra Emails Claim Biden Team 'About Had an Orgasm' About Energy Loans to Firm

By Chad Pergram
Published November 09, 2011
| FoxNews.com

• 
  AP
  In this May 26, 2010, file photo, President Obama and Solyndra Chief Executive Officer Chris Gronet look at a solar panel during a tour of Solyndra, Inc.

A series of emails provided to the House Energy and Commerce Committee from individuals tied to Solyndra offer striking characterizations about running strategy with the White House to secure assistance for the now-bankrupt solar energy firm.
Emails among George Kaiser, head of the George Kaiser Family Foundation; Ken Levit, the executive director of the Foundation; and Steve Mitchell, who manages Argonaut Private Equity and was a member of Solyndra's board; show that Vice President Joe Biden's office were very gung-ho.

"They about had an orgasm in Biden's office when we mentioned Solyndra," reads a Feb. 27, 2010, email from Levit to Mitchell. A follow-up email from Mitchell to Levit later that day responds with: "That's awesome! Get us a (Department of Energy) loan."
According to exchanges obtained by Fox News, in an email from Mitchell to Kaiser on March 5, 2010, Mitchell writes that "it appears things are headed in the right direction and (Energy Secretary Steven) Chu is apparently staying involved in Solyndra's application and continues to talk up the company as a success story."

In a Feb. 27, 2010, message from Levit to a party whose name has been redacted, Levit writes that there was a meeting with a group of people in "Biden's office -- they seemed to love our Brady Project -- also all big fans of Solyndra."
In an email from Mitchell to Kaiser on March 5, 2010, Mitchell writes that "it appears things are headed in the right direction and Chu is apparently staying involved in Solyndra's application and continues to talk up the company as a success story."
White House spokesman Eric Schultz said the document dump from the House Energy and Commerce Committee offers only "cherry-picked" emails.
"Even the documents cherry-picked by House Republicans today affirm what we have said all along: this loan was a decision made on the merits at the Department of Energy. Nothing in the 85,000 pages of documents produced thus far by the administration or in these four indicate any favoritism to political supporters. We wish that House Republicans were as zealous about creating jobs as they were about this oversight investigation," he said.
Solyndra received a half billion dollars in loans from the Department of Energy even as questions were raised over whether the California-based firm would stay afloat. The company filed for bankruptcy in September just weeks after the administration weighed a bailout.
One email from Kaiser to Mitchell and Levit on Oct. 6, 2010, reads: "We can possibly reinforce the effort so long as it is in the form of 'I thought you should know, in case it comes up' rather than 'can you help with this.'"
In another communique dated Oct. 6, 2010, Kaiser tells Mitchell and Levit that he is "concerned that DOE/Chu would resent the intervention and your problem could get more difficult. I would see an appeal as only as last resort an, even then, questionable. We need to discuss."
In an email between Mitchell and Kaiser, Mitchell notes that the White House has "started a policy discussion as to whether a company should be able to get a second loan."
House Republicans received the emails after subpoenaing the White House last week. Lawmakers say they want to know how much influence the White House put on the Energy Department to approve the loans. The administration denies anyone tried to influence the decision.
Writing to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler regarding the panel's recent subpoenas, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., suggested seeming inconsistencies in White House responses.
"The White House has repeatedly stated that no political influence was brought to bear with regard to Solyndra, and that Mr. George Kaiser, a Solyndra investor and Obama fundraiser, never discussed Solyndra during any of his 17 visits to the White House. Documents recently obtained by the committee directly contradict those statements," they wrote.
A well-placed source told Fox News that Kaiser was interviewed by investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday. GKFF spokeswoman Renzi Stone on Wednesday told Fox News that Kaiser never was directly involved in the deal.
"To reaffirm our previous public statements, George Kaiser had no discussions with the government regarding the loan to Solyndra," she said in a statement.

[American Patriot]

Russian Billionaire Awarded Controversial Energy Dept. Loan


4 comments, 1 called-out
+ Comment now

Just two months after the bankruptcy filing for publicly-financed solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra, controversy swirls around the latest questionable loan coming from the U.S. Department of Energy. This time, the $730 million loan was given to Russian billionaire Alexei Mordashov‘s steel manufacturer Severstal North America.
Mordashov is the 29th richest man in the world with $18.5 billion. Son of Soviet mill workers, he built Severstal into a massive conglomerate, acquiring acquiring automakers, coal companies, and transportation companies. Mordashov also has ties to some of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s advisers in the Kremlin, The New York Times reported in 2006.

Snapshot: Alexei Mordashov

Follow

• #29 Billionaires

Energy Efficiency Financing Could Create Jobs, Says New Report Mother Nature NetworkContributor

How To Gain Economic Stimulus Without Government Spending Louis WoodhillContributor

Severstal received the loan to to retool and expand operations in Dearborn, Michigan, where it had purchased Rouge Steel Company in 2004. The Energy Department announced in July that the funding will support modernizing existing facilities as well as the “design, manufacture, and construction of new facilities to produce the next generation of automotive advanced high strength steel.” Severstal estimated that the project will create more than 2,500 construction jobs and over 260 permanent manufacturing jobs.
“The Severstal project will help make American automakers more competitive as demand for lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles increases,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the time. “By manufacturing more advanced high strength steel here at home, we rely less on imports and create thousands of new jobs that get people back to work.”
Many Michigan lawmakers supported the deal, but now a wave of politicians and commentators are attacking it. Representative Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) wrote a public letter to Secretary Chu in which he questioned the need for taxpayer funds. Issa alleged that there was enough production of this type of steel to meet demand and that Severstal had already begun these expansion plans without federal financing.
“Given the immense wealth and power of Severstal’s CEO and the fact that the corporation had already made significant investments in the project, it is surprising that DOE would choose Severstal for a loan meant to spark new businesses and technologies within the automotive industry,” Issa wrote.
Two of Issa’s Republican colleagues joined the attack this week. Senators Dan Coats (R-Ind.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) questioned whether an overcapacity of high-strength steel could cost jobs at other mills. Both senators are from states with steel mills of their own.
Energy Department spokesperson Damien LaVera released a statement in response, reiterating Secretary Chu’s original comments.
“Over the nearly two-year due diligence process we have undergone with the DOE, we have met every ATVM loan program requirement, and we are looking forward to making an important contribution to the production of ATVs,” Severstal North American company spokesperson Katya Pruett said in a statement. Pruett also rebutted Rep. Issa’s claims, saying that the high strength steel “is in high demand, is a critical component, and it is in short supply.”

[Ryan Ruck]

Look, another green scam!

Aptera Pulls The lug

December 2, 2011


Just over a month ago, Aptera was promising rebirth with Aptera 2.0. The promise will not be kept. Today, the company announced it is closing its doors, effective immediately.

In an email to supporters, president and CEO Paul Wilbur wrote, "We are out of resources." His letter (available in full after the jump) reveals many details about the behind-the-scenes at the EV start-up, including DOE discussions about development of a plug-in Camry-like sedan. The company was talking to the DOE because it was asking for an ATVM (Advance Technology Vehicle Manufacturing) loan. Aptera was recently given a Conditional Commitment Letter for a $150 million loan but could not find the required matching funds to actually collect the money, even though the company was still raising money this summer.

Speaking of money, this news raises a host of questions, including what happens to the people who put down deposits on an Aptera 2e. Also, will some of the intellectual property that the company developed find a new home elsewhere? Wilbur's letter seems to indicate that is a possibility:

We remain confident, even as this chapter closes, that Aptera has contributed tech new technologies to build a future for more efficient driving. Through the dedicated staff at Aptera, our board and suppliers we have touched this future. All that remains is for someone to grab it. We still believe it will happen.

[Ryan Ruck]

The hits just keep on coming!

Jet Fuel-Gate Is Obama's New Solyndra

December 13, 2011

SolyndraGate was no isolated case of corrupt government misspending. The U.S. Navy was just forced to buy 450,000 gallons of biofuels from an Obama-connected firm at an outrageous $16 per gallon.

The massive Obama stimulus was supposed to generate millions of jobs, but the $535 million loan guarantee it gave to solar panel maker Solyndra on the eve of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy illustrated the fundamental incompetence of Obama's neo-Keynesian economic ideology.

Now we find the Navy partnering with the Agriculture Department to purchase hundreds of thousands of gallons of alternative biofuel in place of standard JP-5 fuel for Navy aircraft — the biggest federal purchase of biofuel ever.

It's part of the White House's "we can't wait for Congress" strategy as the 2012 election year looms. But JP-5 typically costs less than $4 a gallon. If a family on a budget started filling up with $16-a-gallon gas, it might want to adopt the motto, "we can't wait to go broke."

A look at the lucky seller of this environmentalist version of the proverbial $600 Pentagon toilet seat indicates that the move is not just wasteful, but ethically suspect.

As J.E. Dyer noted over the weekend on the Hot Air Green Room, "a member of Obama's presidential transition team, T. J. Glauthier, is a 'strategic advisor' at Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy. Glauthier worked — shock, shock — on the energy-sector portion of the 2009 stimulus bill."

Solazyme had already gotten a nearly $22 million chunk of change out of the taxpayers thanks to the 2009 stimulus. We heard the ludicrous excuse last week from Obama Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, as quoted in the National Journal, that "we are doing this for one simple reason: It makes us better fighters" because "our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy ability to protect America and project power overseas."

What about the "very real threat" to the Navy of not having enough money for the ships, fighters and ammunition it needs to protect America? President Obama's assault on the Pentagon could scrap 60 of the Navy's ships, including two carrier groups.

The biofuel will be used next summer by — we're not making this up — "the Great Green Fleet Carrier Strike Force" in exercises near Hawaii. Mabus painted the picture of America's great naval force advancing from sails to coal to diesel to nuclear, and now finally to biofuels. But if we keep starving the Navy, it may soon not have enough loose change to repair the sails on Old Ironsides.

[vector7]

Animal fat, algae, vegetable oil could fuel US aircraft as Pentagon slashes budget

• From: NewsCore
• July 16, 2010 4:20AM

US President Barack Obama unveils the Navy's Green Hornet, a fighter jet that runs on a mix of biofuel, earlier this year / File Source: AP

• US airforce told to cut back costs
• Mustard oil fuel gets thumbs up
• Meat grease, algae also options

THE US military is preparing to find alternative ways of powering its aircraft after being ordered to cut $20 billion in fuel costs.

Algae, vegetable oil and animal fat are being considered by the armed services for use in aircraft, ships and armoured vehicles as part of the Pentagon’s biggest-ever energy-saving campaign.

The Air Force, the largest fuel-guzzling organisation on the planet, is the first target.

As well as transporting troops and cargo around the world, an average fighter aircraft mission uses 11,000 to 19,000 litres of fuel.

The US Navy plans to have every aircraft and all escort ships powered by a 50-50 mix of standard jet fuel and biofuel by 2016.

The carriers are nuclear-powered “so that’s already alternative”, said Rear Admiral Philip Cullom, the head of the Navy’s Task Force Energy.

He said pilots who recently flew an F/A18 Green Hornet powered with half the fuel tank containing a mustard-extract oil could not tell any difference.

He planned to use the equivalent of eight million barrels of biofuel by 2020.

A C17 transport aircraft is due to attempt flying on tallow (animal fat) on August 26.

Jeff Braun, the director of the US Air Force alternative fuels certification office, said, “What’s left over from the meat process is what we call yellow grease, and you extract the oil from it.”

Algae is another alternative oil source with potential.

“The beauty with algae is that you can grow it anywhere and to grow it needs to absorb carbon dioxide, so it’s not only a very effective fuel, in theory it’s also a carbon sink. That’s a pretty good deal,” said Alan Shaffer, the Pentagon’s principal deputy director of defense research and engineering.

F-35 Fighter Engines, C-17 transport flying on Tallow (ANIMAL FAT)
Obama is Stripping National Defense

By Alan Caruba Wednesday, July 21, 2010



There is no single duty that a President has as Commander-in-Chief that is more important than ensuring the nation’s engines of defense remain at a level that will deter and defend against any attack upon America or its allies.

How is that going under the Obama Administration?

As this is being written, the U.S. Air Force and Navy are seeking alternative ways of powering their aircraft after having been ordered to cut fuel costs by $20 billion.

The Obama solution includes an August test flight of the C-17 transport aircraft attempt to fly missions on tallow, which is a nice way of describing animal fat.

The push for biofuels notwithstanding, the notion approaches absurdity considering the fact that, beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, there are millions of untapped barrels of oil to power military aircraft.

The absurdity is compounded by the White House attempt to shut down deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico which has been struck down by the courts not once, but twice.

My interest in the status of our air defense was piqued while watching a recent C-SPAN broadcast of some Senate committee discussing funding of the C-17. I paid scant attention until one senator said, “We don’t have the money.” Suffice to say, that caught my attention.

Of course we have the money! There are billions unspent in the failed “stimulus” act and millions more wasted weekly across the spectrum of a government that funds all manner of idiotic “research” programs of dubious value. Some $20 million was just spent on signs touting construction projects funded by the stimulus bill.

As Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, recently noted, “Barack Obama came to office promising to ‘fundamentally transform’ America.” Gaffney and others are increasingly concerned that Obama is “changing the United States from ‘the world’s sole superpower’ to a nation that may require the permission, or at least the help, of others to project power and defend its interests around the globe.”

Nothing invites mischief and outright attack more than weakness.

Theodore Roosevelt said, “The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer.” The latter is a good description these days of Iran.

“The backbone of America’s power-projection capability is its ability to get to a fight ‘the firstest with the mostest,’” wrote Gaffney. Something tells me that doing it with aircraft fueled by slaughterhouse renderings is a very bad idea.

No less important is the future of our fighter jet fleet. It is the subject of a huge congressional debate concerning the next generation of fighters, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). More specifically, the debate involves the engine to power it. But the rub doesn’t involve which engine to use; the argument is whether the F-35 engine should be sole-sourced to a single manufacturer or whether production should be shared by two manufacturers.

One engine is the F135, made by Pratt & Whitney. As with any technological advance, Pratt & Whitney encountered various problems in the development process because the F-35 is designed for use by three different service branches, each with different missions and engine requirements.

More to the point, these services comprise the overwhelming majority of our national jet fighter capability so many in Congress are advocating the production of a second engine. That would be the F136, produced jointly by General Electric and Rolls Royce.

The issue centers on fleet reliability and comes down to an easy and obvious question: Is it prudent for 80-90% of the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corp’s fighter jet fleet to be dependent on a single engine from a sole-source provider? The answer is no.

If mechanical flaws or difficulties occur, or if that sole-source provider suffers an industrial accident, a labor dispute or terrorist attack, the entire fighter fleet could be grounded.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) laid it out in starker terms, noting, “Because the JSF is expected to be the primary fighter aircraft in the U.S. inventory, and Pratt & Whitney will also be the sole-source provider of F119 engines for the F-22A aircraft, DOD is faced with the potential scenario where almost the entire fleet could be dependent on similar engine cores, produced by the same contractor in a sole-source environment.”

Despite the strategic risks noted by the GAO, the GE/Rolls Royce engine has been batted about in Congress like a ping pong ball. As Defense Industry Daily noted some years ago, “The Pentagon attempted to remove Fiscal Year 2007 funding from the F-35 Lightning II’s second engine option, the GE/Rolls Royce F136.” But eliminating that funding wasn’t so neat and tidy, and the newspaper further reported, “Many in the U.S. Congress, meanwhile, were openly skeptical of handing Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine the keys to the entire F-35 fleet.”

F136 funding was re-inserted and development continued on schedule until the FY 2008 budget came around and the Pentagon again tried to remove funding. Congress disagreed and, supported by the GAO’s estimate of $20 billion of tax savings over the life of the program with both the F135 and the F136 engines, again reinstated funding.

Production on the F-35 is increasing but testing is not expected to be complete before 2014 and the engine issue remains unresolved. The Obama Administration now considers avoiding the risk of a systemic sole-source engine failure as a luxury and seems willing to back up that position.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has reportedly urged President Obama to veto the 2011 defense authorization bill if the final version includes any money for the GE/Rolls Royce engine.

I cite this to alert you to the irrationality that is driving decisions affecting our most vital national defense capabilities. When a Secretary of Defense proposes a veto of an entire defense authorization over an additional engine for the next generation of fighter jets we’re witnessing something that’s not just absurd; it’s reckless.

The notion that we can’t afford a second F-35 engine is not true. What we cannot afford is to permit our jet fighter fleet and our air transport fleet be put at an indefensible risk when the fate of the nation rests upon both.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

[vector7]

Fat Replaces Oil for F-16s as Biofuels Head to War: Commodities

By Alex Morales and Louise Downing - Oct 18, 2011 9:45 AM CT

Enlarge image Biofuels Head to War


The U.S. Air Force is set to certify all of its 40-plus aircraft models to burn fuels derived from waste oils and plants by 2013, three years ahead of target, Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary Kevin Geiss said. Photo: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg

The U.S. Air Force is set to certify all of its 40-plus aircraft models to burn fuels derived from waste oils and plants by 2013, three years ahead of target, Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary Kevin Geiss said. Photo: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg

Biofuels face their biggest test yet -- whether they can power fighter jets and tanks in battle at prices the world’s best-funded military can afford.

The U.S. Air Force is set to certify all of its 40-plus aircraft models to burn fuels derived from waste oils and plants by 2013, three years ahead of target, Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary Kevin Geiss said. The Army wants 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025. The Navy and Marines aim to shift half their energy use from oil, gas and coal by 2020.

“Reliance on fossil fuels is simply too much of a vulnerability for a military organization to have,” U.S. Navy Secretary Raymond Mabus said in an interview. “We’ve been certifying aircraft on biofuels. We’re doing solar and wind, geothermal, hydrothermal, wave, things like that on our bases.”

Yet the U.S., stung by an oil embargo during the 1973 Arab- Israeli war, won’t deploy biofuels beyond testing until prices tumble. The Air Force wants them “cost-competitive” with traditional fuel, for which it pays $8 billion a year. Producers see it the other way around, saying they need big buyers before building refineries to help slash costs, according to Honeywell International Inc. (HON), which developed a process to make biofuels.

“The first few widgets are always more expensive than the billionth,” said James Rekoske, vice president of renewable energy at Honeywell’s UOP unit. “That’s where we’re at.” Honeywell expects to have delivered about 800,000 gallons of biojet fuel from 2009 through early 2012.

Rekoske said prices need to dive to $3 to $4 a gallon from more than $10 now. Refineries, costing about $300 million each, are “mission critical” and a giant customer like the U.S. government is necessary to carry production to the next level.

Convincing Bankers

“You can’t take a 10-year contract from an American airline to the bank and get the financing that you need,” Rekoske said. “You can if you have a 10-year contract from the U.S. Navy.”

The military’s drive to cut dependence on oil, coal and gas goes beyond biofuels. It’s developing wind and solar farms to power U.S. bases and expanding the use of renewables into combat zones such as Afghanistan, where a study last year showed one Marine is killed or wounded for every 50 fuel and water convoys.

Under a 2005 law, federal government facilities must source at least 5 percent of their electricity from renewable sources in 2010-2012, and at least 7.5 percent afterward.

President Barack Obama on Aug. 16 announced the Navy and Departments of Agriculture and Energy would each plow $170 million over three years into the commercial development of biofuels, with the aim of generating at least as much in private investment. The Navy aims to ramp up its biofuels use to 3 million gallons in 2016 from 900,000 gallons next year.

‘Create a Market’

“The U.S. military is by the far the largest user in the country, so we can create a market for it,” Mabus said. The Navy is the “guaranteed customer” needed to get the industry “across the so-called valley of death from a good idea to commercial scale,” he said.

The armed forces say they’ve been successful testing fuels produced from sources as diverse as animal fat, frying oils and camelina, an oil-bearing plant that’s relatively drought- and freeze-resistant.

Major Aaron Jelinek, the lead solo pilot in the Air Force’s Thunderbirds flight demonstration team, performed aerobatics including loops, rolls and formation flying at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on May 20-21. It was the F-16 fighter jet’s first flight using a fuel made from the camelina plant.

“I could tell no difference between flying that day when I had biofuel in my tank versus flying the day before or the day after,” Jelinek said in an interview. “It was a normal demonstration, one that we perform at 70 shows during the year and in many more practices than that, doing the exact same maneuvers and the exact same show sequence as any other day.”

Green Hornet

The military wants its vehicles, except for the ships that are nuclear-powered, to be able to use new combustibles, cutting fossil fuel imports from politically unstable nations.

“We do buy a lot now from countries that we sure wouldn’t let build our aircraft or ships, but we give them a say in whether they sail or fly because we buy our fuels from them,” said Mabus.

The Navy has flown its Green Hornet fighter aircraft at 1.7 times the speed of sound using a biofuel blend and aims to have certified all of its aircraft for the fuels by year-end.

While the tests were done in the U.S., once certified, the forces will be able to operate aircraft on biofuels anywhere, including war zones such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

“If the fuel is available, whether it’s in Afghanistan or it’s in Kentucky, we want to be able to use it,” said Geiss.

The Navy’s fuel bill rose $1 billion this year because of the conflict that cut off Libyan output, said Mabus.

$8 Billion in Fuel

Volatile prices for oil can hit budgets. At the Navy, which spends about $4 billion a year on fuels, the energy bill rises $31 million for every $1 gain in the price of a barrel of oil, Mabus said. The Air Force has twice the budget.
“When you’ve got a bill of $8 billion, you’re going to look for opportunities to diversify your options,” said Geiss.

The Army aims to approve biofuels for its aircraft and ground vehicles, including Humvees, Abrams battle tanks and Apache helicopters by the end of 2013, a spokesman, Dave Foster, said in an e-mail.

The Air Force certified biofuels for use in F-15s, F-16s and C-17 cargo planes and they’re set for approval for the whole fleet by 2013, said Jeff Braun, director of the Alternative Fuels Certification Office. The force has a 2016 deadline for being able to get half its needs from 50/50 alternative fuel blends, equivalent to 400 million gallons of biofuels or other combustibles, such as synthetic liquid fuels from coal and gas.

Boeing, Lockheed Martin

“We can use an almost unlimited number of feedstocks to produce these fuels,” said Braun. “From a performance stand- point you can’t tell the difference whether you’re burning a camelina blend, a tallow blend, or another fuel that’s made up of a bunch of waste greases -- fry grease or seasoning grease.”

The Air Force has worked with aircraft makers Boeing Co. (BA) and Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and engine-makers Rolls Royce Holdings Plc, General Electric Co. (GE) and United Technologies Corp. (UTX)’s Pratt & Whitney in testing the biofuels, said Braun. The fuels used were made by Honeywell’s UOP, Sustainable Oils Inc. and Dynamic Fuels LLC, a venture by Springdale, Arkansas-based Tyson Foods Inc. (TSN) and Syntroleum Corp. (SYNM) of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The results of the military tests have been shared with commercial airlines, many of which have carried out their own trials -- starting with Air New Zealand Ltd. (AIR) in December 2008, and Continental Airlines -- now part of United Continental Holdings Inc. (UAL) -- and Japan Airlines Co. the following month, according to Honeywell.

Lufthansa Precedent

The data from military and commercial airlines helped ASTM International, formerly the American Society for Testing & Materials, in July approve the fuels for use in commercial planes, paving the way for Germany’s Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LHA), Europe’s second-largest airline, to become the first carrier in the world to offer regular scheduled flights running on biofuel.
“Lufthansa wouldn’t be flying today if we had not done our work to enable development of that ASTM standard,” Geiss said.

The next hurdle is for the fuels to be produced commercially at prices the military would accept.

Honeywell made 800,000 gallons of fuel for the Air Force’s tests, though it doesn’t aim to produce the fuels commercially. It plans to license the technique to refiners such as Valero Energy Corp. (VLO) and Darling International Inc. (DAR), which are building a $368 million plant in Louisiana, Rekoske said. While it’ll be licensed to make bio-jet fuel, Bill Day, a Valero spokesman, said the focus will be on making ground transportation fuels.

The renewables effort extends to electricity. To make the Marines more “combat effective,” they’re pushing the use of solar power, energy-efficient lighting and batteries, said Colonel Bob Charette, director of the U.S. Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office.

Saving Marines

Renewable technologies including energy-efficient lighting, solar blankets and larger solar systems have been distributed to about half the Marines in Afghanistan. A patrol of as many as 20 Marines this year operated for three weeks using small solar blankets to re-charge their batteries, according to Charette.

“When you don’t need as much re-supply for fuel, water, and batteries, you can stay out longer, do the mission at greater distances and you don’t have your Marines at risk,” he said. In Sangin district, there are two patrol bases operating on nothing but solar energy and battery packs, he said.

The Army is seeking a quarter of its domestic electricity from renewables by 2025, up from 2 percent now, said Jonathan Powers, director of outreach for the Energy Initiatives Task Force. The goal is equivalent to an extra 2.1 million megawatt- hours of renewable energy annually, and will require $7.1 billion of private investment, Powers said.

“The benefit for the private sector is we’re committing to long-term power-purchase agreements for cost-effective large- scale renewable energy projects on our bases,” Powers said. “We’re providing land and demand.”

[vector7]

Why wouldn't you put the highest performing fuel in a fighter jet?



The Axis Air Forces are going to have quality jet fuel in their tanks when we meet them in the air.

[Ryan Ruck]

Those OPFOR F-15s look so awesome with those paint jobs!

I wish we'd adopt paint schemes like that fleet wide instead of the boring gray they all are. I know we used to do theater specific camo on aircraft in the past as I've seen tan and green camo'd B-52s in the DM boneyard.

[American Patriot]

I think they should be pink, and other pastel shades....

fucking liars in Washington.

[vector7]

Bankrupt Solyndra seeking to pay bonuses

Court’s OK sought for ‘incentive plan’

By Jim McElhatton
-
The Washington Times
Wednesday, January 11, 2012



Now seems an unlikely time for handing out bonuses at bankrupt Solyndra LLC, but that’s the plan of company attorneys intending to dole out up to a half-million dollars to persuade key employees to stay put.

Nearly two dozen Solyndra employees could receive bonuses ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 each under a proposal filed by Solyndra’s attorneys in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

The attorneys say the extra money will add motivation at a time when workers at the solar company have little job security and more responsibilities because so many of their colleagues have been fired.

The names of the bonus-eligible employees are not disclosed in the court filings that outline the bonus proposal. None of the employees is among the so-called corporate “insiders” — top officers or members of the board of directors, records show.

The proposed bonus recipients include nine equipment engineers, six general business and finance employees and up to two information technology workers.

The biggest bonus, for $50,000, would go to a Solyndra employee whose job title is listed as a senior director with a base salary of $206,499 per year. Two senior managers stand to receive bonuses of $30,000 and $32,500.

Bankruptcy attorneys said the so-called “key employee incentive plan” aims to keep important personnel from leaving the company.

Solyndra went broke just two years after winning a more than $500,000,000 federal loan-guarantee package, and one year after President Obama toured its California headquarters and hailed its prospects.

Most of Solyndra’s employees were laid off last year. The company employed about 1,100 people last year. Just 84 remain. Of those who managed to avoid the mass firings, many have been scrambling to find jobs.

“Within the last few months, the debtors have experienced a serious loss of personnel, which has made the continuation of the sales process in an orderly fashion more difficult,” Solyndra bankruptcy attorneys disclosed in a recent filing.

“The further loss of experienced personnel may seriously jeopardize the ongoing sales efforts and, should it continue, require the engagement of experienced consultants at a much higher cost than maintaining the existing personnel.”

The attorneys argued that the extra bonus money — ranging from 8 percent to 30 percent of the employees’ total base annual salaries — “will motivate the eligible employees to work as hard as possible” to achieve a Chapter 11 restructuring plan and sale.

The workers, often carrying a heavier load because of the layoffs, “are well aware that the clock is ticking on their employment,” the attorneys added.

Three of the employees earn less than $100,000 in base salary, and eight make $150,000 or more. The highest paid employee, eligible for the $50,000 bonus, is paid $206,499 per year.

David Epstein, a visiting scholar at the American Bankruptcy Institute, said the proposal, like any other incentive plan, needs to be approved by a bankruptcy judge. He said it’s not uncommon in corporate-restructuring cases to have companies try to find extra money for key employees.

“You’re always going to have people you’ve got to keep and who would be hard to replace even in good times,” he said. “But they become irreplaceable because of the bankruptcy.

“If you have someone good, she’s going to have lots of opportunities, and see the ship is sinking, and understand that this is a less than ideal job market and be ready to take a job when it’s offered,” he said.

“In theory, [the incentive plan] makes sense,” he said, acknowledging that “abuses and mistakes” can happen.

Meanwhile, most other former employees, including several top former officials, have claims pending in the company’s bankruptcy case.
James Gibbons, a Stanford University professor who served on Solyndra’s board of directors, filed a claim for more than $140,000 last month in the bankruptcy, records show. He did not return phone and email messages this week.

Another claim in the case, for $456,000, appears tied to a severance deal for the company’s founder and former chief executive, Chris Gronet. He left the company weeks before its collapse last summer, avoiding the public interrogations that befell two other top company executives who invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify at a televised congressional hearing.

Bankruptcy filings show a severance deal arranged for Mr. Gronet, also for $456,000, though he never received the money. Phone messages left at a number under Mr. Gronet’s name were not returned.

Bankruptcy records show that some Solyndra executives received bonuses of more than $40,000 in the months before the company’s collapse. The San Jose Mercury News, which reported on the executive bonuses in November, quoted a former employee as saying that retention bonuses were paid to executives because of high turnover.

In some cases, bankruptcy law allows a trustee or debtor to recoup payments to “insiders” of a company, such as top executives and directors and their family members. The payments had to have been made at a time when the company was insolvent.

[vector7]

Obama's first 2012 ad defends record on Solyndra

Published January 18, 2012 | FoxNews.com
advertisement



It's "game on" for the President Obama's re-election campaign, which has bought up ad time in several key swing states and will begin to air its first TV ad starting Thursday, a campaign official told Fox News.

The official said the ads will air in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina and Wisconsin -- all states Obama won in 2008.

The first ad seeks to defend Obama's energy record against criticism from a Republican-leaning outside group in a sign that the presidential race is entering a new phase even though Republicans have yet to pick a challenger.

The ad, released Wednesday, responds to a $6 million ad campaign by a group backed by the billionaire Koch brothers accusing Obama of conducting pay-for-play politics in the bankruptcy of California energy company Solyndra, which imploded despite a $528 million federal loan.

Obama's ad opens by citing "secretive billionaires attacking President Obama with ads fact-checkers say are not tethered to the facts." It says that the president has added 2.7 million clean energy jobs while reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil, calling Obama's record on ethics "unprecedented."

The voiceover ends by saying, "President Obama. Kept his promise to toughen ethics rules and strengthen America's energy economy."

The ad buy signals the beginning of the campaign's on-air message battle against the eventual Republican nominee. And it comes as the president plans to visit a string of battleground states in coming days.

Following the president's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Obama plans to go on a five-state, three-day swing through battleground states. He plans to visit Iowa, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Michigan, according to the White House.

While it is customary for presidents to travel around the country in the days after addressing the nation, the five states Obama will visit this month are all swing states vital to his re-election.

Obama also heads to Florida this Thursday for an announcement on boosting tourism. Florida, aside from being a vital battleground state in the general election, also holds the next GOP primary election after South Carolina holds its contest this Saturday.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that the schedules "are made with a lot of different considerations well in advance."

Carney said the president's message for the tour will be "fiercely focused on economic growth and job creation."

The campaign's first TV ad directly responds to a spot released by Americans for Prosperity charging Obama's campaign with collecting funds from Solyndra investors in exchange for the large federal loan, which failed to prevent the bankruptcy and the loss of more than 1,000 jobs. "Tell President Obama American workers aren't pawns in your political games," the ad says.

Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group headed by billionaires Charles and David Koch, began airing the 1-minute ad in the same states where Obama's campaign will run its first advertising. The Koch brothers' energy company has bankrolled right-leaning causes and drawn frequent criticism from liberal groups.

Obama has raised more than $220 million for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the end of 2011, giving him a strong foundation to run a national campaign across the airwaves and on the ground.

[Ryan Ruck]

Shock: Solyndra Caught Destroying Millions of Dollars Worth of Parts

January 20, 2012

Solyndra is officially the scandal that keeps on giving.

After receiving a generous federal loan guarantee and then filing for bankruptcy, the Fremont solar company still owes American taxpayers half a billion dollars.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, it would appear the Solyndra scandal has taken a turn for the worse.

A San Francisco-based CBS affiliate has just released shocking video of Solyndra employees destroying millions of dollars worth of parts.

“At Solyndra’s sprawling complex in Fremont, workers in white jumpsuits were unwrapping brand new glass tubes used in solar panels last week,” CBS San Francisco reports. “They are the latest, most cutting-edge solar technology, and they are being thrown into dumpsters.”

See the CBS San Francisco news brief:


Solyndra paid at least $2 million for the specialized glass, according to the CBS report. In fact, the solar energy company still owes the German manufacturer of the tubes close to another $8 million.

Why would a company that owes a fortune to creditors indiscriminately destroy millions of dollars worth of assets?

“Solyndra is not commenting,” reports CBS San Francisco. “But court documents reveal the company received permission from the bankruptcy trustee to abandon the high grade glass, the court agreeing that it was of ‘inconsequential value’ because the cost of storing them exceeds their value.’”

An employee for Heritage Global Partners, the company in charge of selling Solyndra’s assets, told CBS 5 they conducted an “exhaustive search for buyers but no one wanted them.”

Apparently, the “exhaustive research” wasn’t all that exhaustive. For instance, the glass tubes were never included on the list of Solyndra assets put up for sale at two auctions last year.

Furthermore, investors have come forward and said that they would have gladly bought the glass tubes from Solyndra.

“We certainly would have bid on them, yes,” David Lucky told CBS 5. Lucky specializes in buying and reselling manufacturing equipment and components.

In fact, when Solyndra shut down last year, Lucky purchased hundreds of their fully assembled solar panels sold them on eBay.

“Our company has bought a lot of stuff over the years. Truck loads and warehouses full of inventory that companies were just ready to send to the dump, because they don’t want to take the time to find markets for it,” he said.

So much for that “exhaustive research.”

One final point: CBS 5 apparently called the German company that made the glass tubes to see if it would have wanted the parts back. Considering the fact that Solyndra still owes it millions of dollars, the European company might have been interested in recouping some of its losses.

The German manufacturers were just as surprised as CBS when they learned Solyndra had decided to destroy the parts.

(H/T Weasel Zippers)

[American Patriot]

Of course they aren't commenting. They don't want to incriminate themselves!

[vector7]

President Obama Mentions An Energy Company In His Big Speech And It Goes Bankrupt Instantly

Michael Brendan Dougherty | Jan. 26, 2012, 1:54 PM | 23,151 | 69

Courtesy of WhiteHouse.gov

Andrew Restuccia of The Hill is reporting that Ener1, a battery company that President Obama referenced in his State of The Union Speech on Tuesday as an example of successful energy investments, has just filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. That's just two days after the speech.

“In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries,” Obama said in his speech.

According to Phil Milford and Dawn McCarty at Businessweek, Ener1 had received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant to make electric-car batteries. And the grant received bi-partisan support, so it is not entirely on Obama's shoulders. From Businessweek:

Under President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package, the Energy Department awarded grants in an attempt to create a U.S. electric-car industry. Ener1 subsidiary EnerDel was the grant recipient and has received about $55 million of its grant so far. A spokesman for the Energy Department, Jen Stutsman, said the department would provide comment soon.

In the 2010 State of the Union address, Obama mentioned Solyndra as another successful investment by the government in private-sector green-energy companies:

"You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy. A North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries. Or in the California business, that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels," Solyndra, that California business, received a $535 million loan guarantee from the government before going bankrupt last September. Its top executives were enthusiastic Obama campaign donors.

Solyndra had also spent nearly $1.8 million lobbying the government prior to receiving the loan guarantee.

It's obviously hugely embarrassing for the president to give another green-energy company a shout-out in his prime-time speech only to have it declare bankruptcy two days later.

DEVELOPING

[American Patriot]

LOL "Instantly"

[Ryan Ruck]

Documents: LightSquared Shaping Up As The FCC’s Solyndra

February 21, 2012

Documents and copies of communications obtained by The Daily Caller indicate that the Federal Communications Commission propped up broadband company LightSquared with favorable regulatory decisions and other special treatment, while driving its competition out of business.

In August 2008, Wall Street hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners, owned by longtime Democratic political donor Philip Falcone, sought to buy a majority stake in the satellite company SkyTerra — the company that would later become LightSquared. On June 27 of that year, just before Falcone’s Harbinger Capital sought FCC approval for that purchase, Falcone donated $28,500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. But on Sept. 3, 2008, $20,000 of that donation was returned for an unknown reason.

The donation was unusual for Falcone: He had only donated to Democrats in and around New York City over the past decade, and he had a long record of donating to Republicans, including to George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns in 1999 and 2004. But Falcone’s DSCC contribution was the first in what would become a pattern of major Democratic donations in the coming months and years.

Before Barack Obama became president, he was personally an investor in SkyTerra. Falcone’s Harbinger Capital Partners donated $50,000 to Obama’s inaugural committee on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. At the time, Falcone was still looking for the FCC’s sign-off on his hedge fund’s desire to purchase a majority stake in SkyTerra. The George W. Bush administration had failed to green-light the deal.

According to White House visitor logs, Obama’s new FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, a classmate of the president’s from Harvard Law School, met with White House Personnel Director Don Gips on Feb. 18, 2009. Gips’ personal financial disclosure forms show he had between $250,000 and $500,000 of his personal finances invested in SkyTerra via stock options. Gips bundled at least $500,000 in donations to Obama’s 2008 election campaign, and served on the advisory board of Obama’s White House transition team.

It’s unclear what specifically Gips and Genachowski were discussing at that White House meeting; but shortly after that meeting SkyTerra named two members of Obama’s White House transition team to senior leadership positions at the company. On March 9, 2009, SkyTerra hired Gary Epstein, an FCC political appointee for the first few months of the Obama administration and a member of Obama’s transition team, as its executive vice president. On May 11, 2009, SkyTerra named Jeff Carlisle, another Obama transition team member, to serve as its vice president of regulatory affairs.

Not too long after those Obama-tied hires, lawyers for Falcone’s Harbinger fired off an email that may suggest FCC coordination to approve the sale of SkyTerra to Harbinger outside of what is procedurally acceptable. In an email titled “we’re signed off with Team Telecom,” Henry Goldberg of Harbinger’s law firm, Goldberg, Godles, Weiner & Wright, wrote to FCC International Bureau Chief Howard Griboff on July 24, 2009.

“We’ll file the final letter early next week,” Goldberg wrote to Griboff, copying his law partner Joseph Godles.

According to an FCC order filed in March 2010, that FCC International Bureau approval didn’t really happen until a month later, on Aug. 24, 2009. Harbinger’s lawyers seemed to know a month ahead of time that the FCC would approve their proposal.

On the same day Goldberg sent that email to Griboff — July 24, 2009 — SkyTerra asked the FCC to allow it to delay the launch of a new satellite because there was a “potential delay in [its] delivery.” The FCC approved the request, but later denied a near-identical one for SkyTerra competitor GlobalStar based on “extenuating circumstances” in 2010. This appeared to be one in a long line of instances in which the FCC favored SkyTerra, the future LightSquared, over GlobalStar.

On Sept. 22, 2009, according to White House visitor logs, Obama’s White House Science and Technology Policy chief of staff Jim Kohlenberger met with Falcone, Goldberg and Sanjiv Ahuja, who would later become LightSquared’s CEO. At the time, Ahuja was leading the broadband company Augere, a position he continues to hold. Augere is aimed at providing high-speed Internet service to underserved communities worldwide.

The very next day, SkyTerra and Harbinger signed their merger agreement, according to Securities and Exchange Commission documents.

One week later, Falcone and his wife each donated the maximum legally allowed — $30,400 each — to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Then, on Oct. 23, 2009, SkyTerra filed a document with the FCC arguing that the agency should allow for Ancillary Terrestrial Component waivers to “make it easier for satellite operators to team with strategic partners and attract investment in this area.” SkyTerra was advocating that such waivers should be available industry-wide.

Three days later, according to documents The Daily Caller has obtained, FCC International Bureau Chief Mindel de la Torre invited the FCC’s Satellite Division chief, Ben Nelson, who he said had “been dealing with these [Skyterra] guys for a while,” to a meeting with “Priya [Aiyar] and the Skyterra gang.” Aiyar was Genachowski’s legal adviser.

That meeting occurred on Nov. 2, 2009. Then, on Nov. 5, 2009, Griboff from the FCC’s International Bureau met with Goldberg, from Harbinger’s law firm.

Similar meetings continued through the end of 2009 and into early 2010. One notable meeting occurred at the White House on Jan. 21, 2010, between Falcone, Goldberg and Obama’s science adviser, Kohlenberger.

Another meeting was a private, confidential presentation senior SkyTerra executives Carlisle, Epstein and Alex Good — the CEO — made to senior FCC staffers on March 12, 2010. More secretive meetings took place throughout early 2010 as well.

On March 22, 2010, SkyTerra’s shareholders approved the merger with Falcone’s Harbinger. Four days later, on March 26, 2010, FCC staffers approved the merger. Commissioners never got the opportunity to vote on the merger, a move that is uncommon for such a large-scale deal with far-reaching implications in the marketplace and in the federal wireless policy realm. Usually, with a decision this important, the FCC would elevate it from the bureaucratic staff level to the full Commission for approval.

Three days later, Epstein acquired several hundred thousand shares of SkyTerra stock, according to SEC filings. On April 5, 2010, Gips, a top Obama aide who later became the U.S. ambassador to South Africa, cashed in his stock options for about a half-million dollars.

One condition on the FCC’s final approval of the deal was that Harbinger’s new post-merger outfit — LightSquared, formerly SkyTerra — would not be allowed to provide spectrum to Verizon or AT&T, the nation’s two largest wireless carriers, without prior FCC approval. That condition was part of a confidential agreement Harbinger’s lawyers made with the FCC in a Feb. 26, 2010 letter. The confidential letter wasn’t made public until after the FCC’s bureaucrats approved Harbinger’s SkyTerra purchase.

On April 12, 2010, just one week after Gips cashed in his personal stock, the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition – a left-wing group comprised of the New America Foundation, Free Press, Media Access Project and Public Knowledge — filed comments with the FCC opposing efforts to reconsider part of the agency’s decision to allow the Harbinger–SkyTerra merger. That coalition wanted to preserve the FCC’s requirement that LightSquared would not provide spectrum to AT&T and Verizon without prior FCC approval.

Left-wing billionaire George Soros is reported to have $200 million invested in Harbinger. His Open Society Institute has donated more than $1 million to the four groups that comprise the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition.

Shortly after the Soros-funded groups began applying pressure to the FCC, on April 21, 2010 Republican Sens. Jim DeMint, Sam Brownback, David Vitter and Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote to FCC Chairman Genachowski raising questions of their own. The senators were particularly concerned about the condition in the deal that forced LightSquared to deny AT&T and Verizon spectrum without prior FCC approval. The FCC, they said, hadn’t involved or notified third parties that would be directly affected by the conditions of the deal. They were also concerned that the FCC had concluded the deal at the bureaucratic staff level, without involving a vote by the commissioners.

Genachowski didn’t respond until May 10, and answered none of the GOP senators’ specific concerns in his reply.

On the day before the Republican senators wrote Genachowski, representatives from the Soros-funded Public Interest Spectrum Coalition met with FCC Commissioner Michael Copps to reiterate their opposition to allowing LightSquared to sell spectrum to Verizon and AT&T. The group followed up with an official letter to the FCC on the matter the next day, April 21, 2010.

But in another indication of the FCC’s interest in helping Falcone and his allies at the expense of other stakeholders, the FCC handled the public disclosure of concerns from those on one side of the debate differently from those on the other side.

Though those GOP senators had sent their letter to Genachowski on April 21, 2010, and Genachowski had responded on May 10, 2010, the letter and the FCC chairman’s responses weren’t published for public viewing until June 1, 2010. In its electronic records database, the FCC also says it didn’t receive the GOP senators’ letter until May 24, 2010, two weeks after Genachowski had already responded to them.

The letter from those Soros-funded groups, however, which was sent to the FCC on the same day as the GOP senators’ letter, was posted in the official electronic records database for public viewing almost immediately — on April 21, 2010, the same day it was sent.

AT&T and Verizon, shocked by the deal, sent scathing comments via their attorneys, questioning the reasoning behind the FCC’s decision.

“Although it is impossible to know what motivated the Commission’s insistence on merger conditions penalizing AT&T and Verizon — since neither the Bureau Order nor any public filing in the proceeding even addresses the issue — there is no possible justification for these conditions,” AT&T’s attorneys wrote, asking the FCC to reconsider the deal’s conditions.

While there is no clear evidence pointing to exactly why the FCC penalized Verizon and AT&T, the publicly stated goals of those Soros-funded organizations that supported the move may be a clue. They believe wireless spectrum “belongs to the public,” and should be subject to as little corporate influence as possible. Their goal is to create a community-oriented, taxpayer-subsidized and highly regulated broadband system, essentially making Internet access a public utility.

The LightSquared plan appears to fit the bill of what Soros’ allies wanted. And after the plan was underway, Goldberg — one of Harbinger’s lawyers — emailed the contact he and Falcone met with inside Obama’s White House just a few months earlier.

“It’s happening,” Goldberg emailed Kohlenberger on July 20, 2010. “Thanks for your help and encouragement. As we bolt together the network, we’ll come in with details.”

“Congrats,” Kohlenberger replied. “Very exciting.”

[Ryan Ruck]

Is Abound Solar the Next Solyndra? Panel Maker Got $400M DOE Loan, Does Massive Layoffs

March 6, 2012

Via the Independence Institute comes word of what might be the next Solyndra - a green-energy scandal involving the U.S. Department of Energy and dodgy loans.

Abound Solar makes “next-generation thin-film cadmium telluride solar modules,” writes Independence Institute's Amy Oliver. The company was "recipient of a $400 million Department of Energy loan, just announced it is laying off 70 percent (280 employees) of its Colorado workforce."

A company going out of business isn't a scandal, of course, but as with Solyndra, the federal money directed to Abound came despite what ABC News reports as a dubious company rating by Fitch's:

"Fitch describes Abound as lagging in technology relative to its competitors, failing to achieve stated efficiency targets, and expecting that Abound will suffer from increasing commoditization and pricing pressures," wrote Rep. Darrell Issa, R.-California, the committee chairman. "DOE's willingness to fund Abound, despite these concerns, calls into question the merits of this loan guarantee."

To date, Abound has used about $70 million of the $400 million total.

The website CompleteColorado.com has an overview of the story, including company documents revealing a holiday shutdown sold to employees as a routine matter.

[vector7]

Obama DOE Says It’s Preparing For Another Round of “Green Energy” Loans…



Because Solyndra, Fisker, Solar One etc. were such resounding successes?
Via The Hill:

The Energy Department said Thursday it expects to begin tentatively approving new taxpayer-backed loans for renewable energy projects in the coming months.

The announcement comes about seven months after Solyndra, the California solar firm that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the administration in 2009, went bankrupt, setting off a firestorm in Washington.

“The Department expects to begin issuing conditional commitments over the next several months after completing a rigorous internal and external review of each application,” Energy Department loan program chief David Frantz wrote to the top lawmakers on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Frantz — in the letter to committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and ranking Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) — stressed that projects receiving loan guarantees will be “subject to a robust monitoring effort to ensure that taxpayers’ investments are protected.”
Keep reading…