David Rotman

A View from David Rotman

Report Recommends Changes for DOE's Loan Program

A review of the clean-energy funding program points to ways to better manage future risks and minimize potential future failures.

  • February 13, 2012

An independent review of the U.S. Department of Energy’s loan program for alternative energy provides a mixed report card for the management of the funding program, but no smoking gun pointing to any systemic failure in the program.

The review did not directly evaluate the handling of loans for Solyndra or Beacon Power; both companies filed for bankruptcy last year and the review estimates the DOE program’s total “exposure” to the failures is $567 million. The review largely focuses on future risks, recommending a number of steps that DOE can take to manage those risks, stating that the most important factor in “the ultimate performance of the Portfolio will be DOE’s management of it going forward.”

The report looked at 30 loans with a total value of $23.8 billion, of which $8.3 billion has been drawn so far. Of those 30 loans, the review says the greatest risks are in the eight “non-utility-link loans,” including cellulosic ethanol projects, solar manufacturing companies, and small startup automotive manufacturing companies. Such loans account for roughly $2 billion of the total $23.8 billion.

In a statement in response to the review, DOE’s Secretary Steven Chu said:

We have always known that there were inherent risks in backing innovative technologies at full commercial scale, and it is very likely that there will be other companies in the portfolio that won’t succeed, but the vast majority of companies are expected to pay the loans back in full, on time, and with about $8 billion in interest—while supporting a total of 60,000 American jobs and helping us compete for a rapidly growing global industry.”

Not surprisingly in the aftermath of the Solyndra collapse, the review instantly became a political football, with some focusing on the fact that the DOE loan program turned out to be a “safer bet” than originally anticipated while others shouted “Clean-Energy Aid Racks up Losses.”  The Wall Street Journal analysis was, of course, in its “Election2012” section of the publication. 

Become an MIT Technology Review Insider for in-depth analysis and unparalleled perspective.

Subscribe today

Uh oh–you've read all of your free articles for this month.

Insider Premium
$179.95/yr US PRICE

More from Sustainable Energy

Can we sustainably provide food, water, and energy to a growing population during a climate crisis?

Want more award-winning journalism? Subscribe to Insider Plus.
  • Insider Plus {! insider.prices.plus !}*

    {! insider.display.menuOptionsLabel !}

    Everything included in Insider Basic, plus ad-free web experience, select discounts to partner offerings and MIT Technology Review events

    See details+

    What's Included

    Bimonthly home delivery and unlimited 24/7 access to MIT Technology Review’s website.

    The Download. Our daily newsletter of what's important in technology and innovation.

    Access to the Magazine archive. Over 24,000 articles going back to 1899 at your fingertips.

    Special Discounts to select partner offerings

    Discount to MIT Technology Review events

    Ad-free web experience

/
You've read all of your free articles this month. This is your last free article this month. You've read of free articles this month. or  for unlimited online access.