The political hand-wringing and posturing over the bankruptcy of the California solar-cell maker Solyndra, which received a $535 million federal loan guarantee in 2009, is both predictable and misplaced.

It is not surprising that one of the many renewable-energy projects supported by loan-guarantee programs and the 2009 federal stimulus bill—which budgeted $45 billion for energy—would fail. The U.S. Department of Energy's loan guarantees program is designed to fund innovative, cutting-edge companies. Such companies are risky, and some inevitably fail, as any venture capitalist can tell you (hence the need for a federal guarantee in the first place). Even more predictable is that the downfall of Solyndra is being held up by politicians and some in the media as an excuse to question federal support for clean energy.

Witness yesterday's hearings held by the House Energy & Commerce Committee on "Solyndra and The DOE Loan Guarantee Program" and the ensuing mainstream media reports, including ones in the Wall Street Journal on "House Probes Solyndra Loan," the New York Times on "Furor Over Loans to Failed Firm," and Bloomberg Businessweek on how White House aides "pressured White House budget officials to complete a review" of the loan. Of course, it all comes down to a stream of endless e-mails. The smoking gun? Apparently, some in the White House were anxious for a decision on Solyndra. It is, some say, SolarGate.

Luckily, the Washington Post confidently assures us, despite the fishy nature of the Solyndra loan, the company's failure doesn't mean that federal support for energy R&D is a bad thing, or that solar is "doomed." And, according to the New York Times blog, "Solar Is Not Dead, Says Prominent Investor." Or as the blog somewhat snarkily adds, "at least that is what John Doerr" says. How silly can it get?

The backlash against federal support for energy projects fails to identify the fundamental policy mistake that produced the Solyndra debacle.

As we warned readers in these pages in June 2009, just months after the stimulus legislation passed, the real problem with the bill was that it conflated two objectives: creating jobs and building a clean-energy infrastructure. As we pointed out, both are very important and worthwhile, but they are very different and require very different policies.

By its nature, stimulus spending needs to be fast and immediate. The switch to clean energy will take decades of work and investment. The development of new energy sources will take patience and thoughtful investments. By conflating job creation with technology objectives, the stimulus bill made a Solyndra almost inevitable. Of course, decisions on funding were made in a hurry; spending the money quickly is the whole point of a stimulus bill. Unfortunately, evaluations of technologies do not lend themselves to rush jobs.

As Daron Acemoglu, an economist at MIT, warned our readers at the time about the stimulus package for energy projects:

"It's very much like pork-barrel politics," he says. As a result, it's hard to properly evaluate the different spending programs. And, he suggests, "when you make investments in bad projects under the name of stimulus and in the name of technological investments, you're doing damage in a number of ways. First of all, you're not helping; second, you're confusing matters; and third, you're poisoning the well for the future."

Elsewhere, the 2009 article points out:

Not only could the federal spending support uneconomical energy sources (as has been the case with ethanol), but the resulting backlash could discourage policy makers, investors, and the public from embracing newer, more efficient technologies. As the stimulus runs its course in two to three years, pressure to reduce the federal budget and cut government spending could make such a backlash even worse.

One renewable sector that could be particularly vulnerable in such a scenario is the solar industry.

The downfall of Solyndra does point to some fundamental mistakes made in conflating job creation and clean-tech development. But the lesson has nothing to do with the importance of federal support of energy innovation. That's as important as ever.

When the Senate comes back from its summer recess on September 11th, the energy bill that was dropped before vacation will still be dead in the water.

In a conference call today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he and other senators will continue to modify the bill in an attempt to win votes. This may include adding a standard that would require States to use a minimum amount of renewable energy. Reid said he hopes such modifications will entice Republicans to vote for the bill after the elections this fall, when Congress is in its "lame duck" session.

"Now it's a time out period," Reid said. "We'll see if we can come up with something before the end of the year. I'm confident we can, and we should," he said.

The bill, which includes provisions to promote home energy retrofits, electric vehicles, and natural gas trucks, will not include a cap and trade system for decreasing carbon dioxide emissions. Cap and trade, he said, "doesn't have the traction that a lot of us wish it had."

A long-awaited energy bill was unveiled today by its Senate sponsors, John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). According to a summary (pdf) of the bill, it would reduce carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and by over 80 percent by 2050 by putting limits on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and heavy industry, and from producers and importers of refined fuels for transportation.

The limits will only apply to those who emit over 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, which works out to about 7,500 factories and power plants, according to the summary. These emitters will have to purchase emissions allowances, cut emissions, or both to meet the targets. Those who pollute less than their allowances can sell them to others in a market-based system.The proceeds from buying the allowances will be divided up--some will go to pay down the deficit; some will fund research and development; some will go to businesses to help them meet the caps; and the rest will be mailed to taxpayers in the form of a refund check. As the years go by, more of the proceeds will go directly to taxpayers.

The plan is very similar to the cap and trade system in a bill the House passed last year, except that one didn't involve sending out refund checks (although there were provisions to help out poor people who are affected by higher energy bills). The new bill also only covers parts of the economy, rather than the whole thing.

Numerous provisions cater to different interests. It supports offshore drilling but lets states opt out. For those worried that a cap on carbon emissions will hurt the coal industry, the bill contains support for capturing and storing carbon from coal plants, which could help them meet the caps. Supporters of natural gas will find tax incentives for people to switch to natural gas powered vehicles, as well as other subtle changes that will make it more attractive to build natural gas power plants. Industries affected by the cap get a couple of boons. First, factories (not power plants) don't get regulated until 2016, and the money from the purchases goes back to them to help them pay for switching to cleaner technology. They also are protected by trade provisions designed to keep business from moving to countries without caps on carbon. Farmers are exempt. And they'll make billions with carbon offsets--such as planting trees that absorb and store carbon dioxide. Nuclear gets $54 billion in loan guarantees, as well as "risk insurance" to help get new power plants financed. There will also be money to promote battery-powered cars.

Renewable energy, carbon capture, and energy efficiency researchers should be happy. Money from the allowances and direct government funding will help extend R&D funding launched by the stimulus package last year.

The summary is careful to emphasize that Wall Street won't make money by buying and trading carbon allowances because of strict regulations. But it didn't mention how much this is likely to increase energy bills.

Now the sponsors have to start gathering votes. We'll soon see if they've spread enough incentives around first to get it taken up on the Senate floor, and then maybe even passed.