Bev tries -- but fails -- to bring rancid 'Solyndra' politics to North Carolina.

 

 Verne Strickland Blogmaster / December 20, 2011

Posted on December 12, 2011 by Brian Balfour in Corruption & Ethics, Economy, Environment

Tweet Share Print Email PDF 

Documents obtained by the Civitas Institute suggest Gov. Bev Perdue is attempting to strong-arm North Carolina’s three major utility companies into supplying more expensive energy to their customers in the northeastern part of the state.

In a political power-play to reward big business reminiscent of the handling of the Solyndra debacle that embarrassed the Obama administration, Perdue is urging for special treatment that would secure a $200 million federal government subsidy for a multi-billion dollar Spanish company.

 UPDATE (12/15/11): According to a report in the Charlotte Business Journal, Iberdrola has announced they will not begin construction on the Desert Wind Power Project in Elizabeth City due to their inability to come to a purchase agreement with a major utility provider.  

 Perdue recently sent a letter to the heads of Duke, Dominion, and Progress Energy stressing the importance of the proposed Desert Wind Power Project in Elizabeth City to be built by Iberdrola Renewables (to see copies of the letters, click the links below). The Project involves the development of a 300 megawatt wind energy farm.


In her letter, Perdue stated: “I urge you to give serious consideration to partnering with Iberdrola Renewables to make the Project a reality.” Perdue also added that it is urgent that a major utility provider agree to purchase power from the wind farm in order for it to be a “long-term success.”

Small problem: North Carolina’s major utility companies already said no to purchasing electricity from the wind power project because the rates Iberdrola were demanding are so much more expensive than the conventional energy currently being used by the utilities.

As quoted in a recent Raleigh News & Observer article, Duke spokeswoman Betsy Alley Conway said, “What we are looking for is wind energy at a price that is cost-effective for the company and our customers. If we receive a proposal from developers that is a good value for our customers and our company, we would execute the contract.”
 
Translation: Iberdrola’s expensive wind energy would force us to hike rates on our consumers too much – so no thanks.

Perdue’s urging utility companies to provide even more expensive energy to consumers appears particularly out-of-touch in light of recent protests of a moderate rate increase approved by Duke Energy. State Attorney General Roy Cooper also publicly denounced Duke’s rate increase in a press release, declaring: “Now is not the time to ask North Carolina consumers to pay significantly more for electricity.”

Iberdrola Renewables is the U.S. arm of the Spanish “renewable energy” corporation, Iberdrola, S.A., a massive company with a presence in more than 40 countries and global revenue exceeding $40 billion.

Despite such massive revenue, in order for the new Desert Wind Power Project to be a “long-term success,” Iberdrola is counting on a $200 million federal subsidy to help finance the $600 million project. In order to be eligible for this handout, Iberdrola needs to begin work on the project before the end of this calendar year.

Without an agreement from a large utility company to purchase the energy generated by the wind farm, however, Iberdrola will not proceed with construction.

In short, Perdue’s letter is meant to apply political pressure on the utilities to purchase expensive energy from the wind farm. As a result, the highly profitable foreign energy company would collect nearly a quarter billion of taxpayer dollars and impose more expensive energy bills onto northeastern North Carolina homeowners and businesses.

According to North Carolina Secretary of State records, Iberdrola has three active registered lobbyists in the state, two of whom registered earlier this year. No doubt, these agents have spent countless hours applying pressure on state lawmakers and the Governor to gain support for the Elizabeth City wind farm.

In Perdue, it appears they found another politician willing to use her political power to further enrich a highly-profitable, giant corporation at the expense of average taxpayers and ratepayers. With these letters, Gov. Perdue yet again shows her true crony capitalist colors.

Time and again, she uses political power to benefit politically-connected corporations – at the expense of taxpayers, small businesses and in this case, energy consumers. Anytime she attempts to position herself as being in favor of “the little guy,” remember the case of Iberdrola.

Perdue will gladly throw the little guy under the bus if it means an opportunity to shower deep-pocketed corporations with more taxpayer money. Making matters worse in this instance, her actions would also force up the bills of struggling energy consumers.

When asked via email if Perdue’s actions indicate her disagreement with Cooper’s stance that “now is a bad time to raise rates on energy consumers”, the Governor’s office did not respond. Her silence speaks volumes.


PERDUE’S LETTER TO UTILITY COMPANIES:
http://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/RogersJim-Duke-Project.pdf
http://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/JohnsonBill-Progress-Project.pdf
http://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/FarrellThomas-Dominion-Project.pdf

http://www.nccivitas.org/2011/perdue-bringing-solyndra-politics-to-north-carolina/

Keystone XL vs. Solyndra? Boring as hell you say? Maybe. But you've got a lot at stake in this one.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / November 29, 2011

Keystone XL vs. Solyndra? What could be more boring?. Sounds like a pilot for a serial starring Super Schmuck Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

But this is a big deal. Too bad the mash media never got interested in it. Oh, but they were interested. They just understood how this would rattle Obama's cage on the one hand, and take a positive step toward U.S. energy independence on the other. They didn't want either one of these options.

To a writer, NCPA -- National Center for Policy Analysis -- is a great resource. Solid research and analysis on critical issues, clearly presented. I like and respect it. So I was impressed by NCPA's coverage of this blockbuster feature on Keystone XL vs. Solyndra. Game of the Week? Whatever. Read on.

NCPA / November 28, 2011

Keystone XL vs. Solyndra

The two big energy stories of the moment are the Obama administration's announcement that it will wait another year before making a final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, and the continued pummeling of the Department of Energy and Energy Secretary Steven Chu for their handling of the $529 million loan guarantee to Solyndra. 

A comparison of these two projects, in the context of the Obama administration's decision to fund one and delay the other, is enlightening: it allows the American public to understand the priorities of the president and the motivations for his policies, says Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

• The Keystone XL is a $13 billion project that doesn't depend on federal loan guarantees or production tax credits from the federal government.
• Keystone could create about 13,000 construction jobs in the United States, along with 7,000 manufacturing jobs -- this contrasts strongly with the 1,100 workers who lost their jobs with the Solyndra bankruptcy.
• Keystone would have supplied 700,000 barrels of oil each day towards the nation's energy mix (which is 37 percent oil).

In these terms, it becomes bewildering that the Keystone XL pipeline is being subjected to another year's worth of scrutiny despite its numerous benefits, while Solyndra was able to receive a public loan without a thorough look at its ability to compete in an international marketplace.  The egregiousness of this pair of decisions becomes even more serious when discussing each project's contribution to national energy.

• The Keystone's 700,000 barrels of oil each day, at 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel, would have generated 380,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day.
• Meanwhile, all of America's solar panel and wind turbine production for the last year amounted to 94.6 million megawatt-hours, translating to 260,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day.
• Therefore, the Keystone project would have generated 46 percent more energy each day than the entire country's solar and wind output.

Source: Robert Bryce, "Energy Smackdown: Keystone XL vs. Solyndra," National Review, November 21, 2011.


NEWSMAX: BOEHNER SAYS SOLYNDRA PROBE WILL BE 'RELENTLESS'

Wednesday, 09 Nov 2011 06:38 PM

By Jim Meyers and David A. Patten

House Speaker John Boehner vows that Congress will be “relentless” in its probe into the role the Obama administration played in awarding solar energy firm Solyndra with $535 million in loan guarantees before it went bankrupt.

“They’re making the mistake that every White House makes — slow down the development of the documents, decide they’re not going to comply, redact the documents to no end,” Boehner tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.

“And all they’re going to do is drag this out.

“We are not going to turn our heads or turn a blind eye to what appears to be some incredibly horrible decisions. So the Congress will be relentless in our pursuit of the truth.

“All we want to do is get to the bottom of this. Because when we get to the bottom of it we provide the constitutional oversight that the Congress is there to provide. We teach our government lessons about what is doable and what isn’t doable.”

Boehner says he gets along with the president fine but admits that his relationship with Obama has been “frosty” in the last few weeks “as the president has decided to shirk his responsibilities to be a leader and gone out and decided to campaign full-time.

“It’s been a bit disappointing to me, and I haven’t talked with the president much during this period.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/boehner-solyndra-obama-issa/2011/11/08/id/417322#

Barack's Watergate -- Solyndra scandal. Big. Deep. Ugly. Beautiful?

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / Nov. 16, 2011

By Tom Cohen, CNN

updated 8:32 PM EST, Tue November 15, 2011

 

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: The White House challenges part of the Republican memorandum
• House Republicans release details of Solyndra investigation before a hearing Thursday
• Memo: The Department of Energy asked Solyndra to delay layoffs until after the 2010 vote
• Solyndra went bankrupt after receiving $535 million in federal loan guarantees

Washington (CNN) -- The Department of Energy last year urged struggling solar energy company Solyndra to delay announcing planned layoffs until after the November 2010 elections, according to information made public Tuesday by Republican congressional investigators.

Solyndra, which had received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009, later declared bankruptcy.
House Republicans are spearheading an investigation of whether Solyndra received preferential treatment because a key investor was a major fundraiser for President Barack Obama.

The White House says the loan guarantee under a Department of Energy program started during the Bush administration was approved by energy officials based on the merits of the plan to manufacture solar panels.

The House Energy Committee will hold a hearing on Solyndra on Thursday to question Energy Secretary Steven Chu about the issue.

A memorandum Tuesday by the Repubilcan staff of the panel's oversight and investigations subcommittee said Solyndra faced financial troubles and was seeking more government help in 2010, after Obama had visited the company to tout its benefits.

It said Solyndra Chief Executive Officer Brian Harrison e-mailed the Department of Energy on October 25, 2010, that the company had received inquiries from the media and potential investors about rumors of financial problems.

Harrison stated he wanted to proceed with a planned internal announcement of layoffs on October 28, the memorandum said, adding that Harrison's e-mail was forwarded to Jonathan Silver, the executive director of the energy department's loan programs office, as well as Chu's chief of staff.

The memorandum said Silver forwarded the e-mail to Carol Browner and Ron Klain, who were top advisers to Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, and another White House staff member in Browner's office.

However, a White House official disputed that assertion, saying the e-mail went from Silver to others, and it was someone else who then forwarded it to Browner, Klain and another official. A spokesperson for the subcommittee staff later confirmed that the memorandum misstated the e-mail chain as pointed out by the White House.

According to the memorandum, Department of Energy officials discussed the situation on October 30, 2010, with advisers for Argonaut Private Equity -- a major Solyndra investor founded by Obama fundraiser George Kaiser.

The Argonaut advisers said the energy officials "did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to November 3," the memorandum stated.

"Oddly, they didn't give a reason for that date," the Argonaut advisers added, according to the memorandum.
The mid-term congressional elections took place on November 2, and the next day, Solyndra announced it was shutting down some operations and laying off workers.

A Department of Energy spokesman, Damien LaVera, said memorandum "cites internal e-mail from Argonaut about the timing of a press release."

"But as the 180,000 pages of documents that the Department of Energy turned over to the Committee indicate, the Department's decisions about this loan were made on the merits, based on extensive review by the experts in the loan program -- and nothing in this Republican Committee memo changes that," LaVera said.

It was the second time in a week that the House Energy Committee's oversight and investigations subcommittee released information that the White House labeled misleading.

In a November 11 letter to the Republican chairs of the energy committee and the oversight subcommittee, White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler cited what she called the selective release of some e-mails and other documents last week intended to create a false impression that political contributors influenced the Solyndra loan decision.

"Your allegation is unfounded," Ruemmler wrote, adding that the way the documents were released presented a misleading and inaccurate account to the public. Democrats on the committee also criticized last week's release of information by Republicans.

In an interview with National Public Radio made public Tuesday, Chu denied that any political influence by campaign contributors played a role in the Solyndra loan process.

"Certainly no decision we made in the loan program had anything to do with who was investing in the company," Chu said, according to an NPR report on the interview.

Mainstream "news" denizens finally realizing that their hero (our president) may actually be full of crap!

Posted by Leon H. Wolf   RED STATE  / Friday, October 7th at 10:30AM EDT

If I were President Obama’s political team, the only hope I would harbor right now for Obama’s re-election would center on the President being able to hold the line with his base – which is to say, the national media. 

Based on the questions asked in yesterday’s press conference (October 6), it may be time for administration officials to start polishing their CVs for employment in the private sector.

Obama fielded, by my count, three hostile questions on Solyndra, and one on the Fast and the 

Furious. 

 Through it all, Obama continually attempted to return the conversation to his jobs bill which has literally zero hope of passing either house, and in fact is so doomed that it probably won’t even be brought to the floor, barring a major change in the political climate. Even this tactic failed to faze the press, who seemed to actually taunt the President over his inability to get anyone to care about his worthless jobs bill:

Q. And secondly, on your jobs bill, the American people are sick of games — and you mentioned games in your comments. They want results. Wouldn’t it be more productive to work with Republicans on a plan that you know could pass Congress as opposed to going around the country talking about your bill and singling out — calling out Republicans by name?

Q. My question has to do with your powers of persuasion. During the debt ceiling debate, you asked for the American public to call members of Congress and switchboards got jammed. You have done a similar thing while going around the country doing this. Talking to members of Congress, there’s not the same reaction; you’re not seeing — hearing about phones being jammed. Talking to one member of Congress, he told me there’s a disillusionment he’s concerned about with the public that maybe they just don’t believe anything can get done anyway. Are you worried about your own powers of persuasion, and maybe that the American public is not listening to you anymore?

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Anybody on Capitol Hill will say that there’s no chance that the American Jobs Act, in its current state, passes either House. And you’ve been out on the campaign trail banging away at them saying, pass this bill. And it begins, sir, to look like you’re campaigning, and like you’re following the Harry Truman model against the do-nothing Congress instead of negotiating.

Both the tone and the substance of these questions should be worrisome to the White House. More worrisome, to some extent, should be the follow-up coverage from the press. It is one thing to notice that Obama is completely disconnected from the country at large and has no effective political power – it is quite another for the media to actually call out Obama on his favorite tactic of attacking strawmen instead of actual Republicans.

In this Associated Press piece (via The Transom) the AP took the unusual step, in a piece dripping with sarcasm, of calling out Obama for lying about Republicans in Congress, opening the bidding by noting that “In challening Republicans to get behind his jobs bill Thursday. . . The rhetoric in the president’s quick-moving press conference dodged some facts and left some evidence in the dust.”

In less than three short years, Obama has gone from the President most beloved of the American media since JFK into an object of scorn for the very same media. If he’s lost his last natural constituency this thoroughly, his re-election chances look very dim indeed.