After Duke Energy and Progress Energy completed their merger Tuesday morning, the combined utility announced that Progress' top executive, Bill Johnson, who had been designated to lead the new firm, has resigned "by mutual agreement."
In an unexpected turn of events, Duke Chairman and Chief Executive Jim Rogers will be CEO of what is now the nation's largest utility.
Rogers had been scheduled to serve as chairman and Johnson as president and CEO.
However, in the announcement early Tuesday of the formal merger closing and the formation of a new board of directors, the new Duke Energy said Rogers was staying and Johnson was out.
Johnson had been a strong advocate for the merger and was planning to buy a home in Charlotte, according to a report in The Charlotte Observer.
Contacted by WRAL.com, a Duke spokesperson in Charlotte said the company had no further comment about Johnson's departure. Company officials also refused to talk about it during a conference call later Tuesday morning.
"That's it," the Duke spokesperson said, referring to the press announcement.
Johnson would not be made available for comment, the spokesman said when asked. He had been CEO at Progress since October 2007, when his predecessor and friend, Robert McGehee, died of a heart attack.
Asked if Johnson's departure would have any impact on Duke's plans for post-merger Progress operations in Raleigh, he replied: "No."
Still, Raleigh officials were caught off guard by the move and expressed some trepidation about the utility's presence in the Capital City.
"(There's) concern and a little disappointment because I think Progress Energy is a great company (and) has been for us for many, many years in the city of Raleigh," City Councilman John Odom said. "I was hoping that they might be a mainstay in downtown Raleigh and Raleigh all over. Now, we have no idea."
Progress previously said it expected to cut at least 700 jobs in Raleigh, where it's name is on the downtown performing arts center and other local groups count on its philanthropy.
"Even though it's a big shake-up on Day 1, you really have to give them some time and see how it plays out," Mayor Nancy McFarlane said. "We're still the state capital. They're still going to be coming to Raleigh for all sorts of things. Right now, I still take them at their word (that) they plan on being a good presence here (and) a good community partner."
Ed Finley, chairman of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, which approved the merger last week, said that company officials never indicated to the commission that Johnson wouldn't be part of the management of the combined utility.
"His departure on the same day the merger is closed and three days after our order may raise questions in the minds of some as to the timing of the decision by those involved in it," Finley said in a statement. "While management structure and succession are important, a more significant emphasis will be on ensuring that the benefits to the ratepayers will materialize as forecasted.
"There is significant management talent within the two companies, and we hope the best lineup will fall quickly into place," he said.
The regulatory approval from North Carolina and South Carolina, which came Monday, were the final hurdles Duke and Progress needed to close the deal.
Progress will now operate as a subsidiary of Duke.
“Having served as CEO of Duke and its predecessor companies for more than 23 years, Jim Rogers is well-suited to lead the integration effort and to drive our combined businesses forward,” Ann Maynard Gray, the lead director of the Duke board, said in a statement. “The board of directors looks forward to working with Jim and the rest of the executive team to enhance our position as a utility with financial strength and a greater ability to meet the needs of our customers.”
Gray made only a brief comment about Johnson, saying he was “instrumental in helping us close the merger with Progress Energy" and wishing him well in the future.
On Thursday Pres. Obama's Opponent Mitt Romney held a Secret Press Conference in front of the Closed Solyndra Plant Headquarters.
Dirty but Brilliant!
I can imagine Pres. Obama was probably steaming when he found out about it.
ITS NO LAUGHING MATTER!
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
In case you haven't noticed the GOP is NOT playing!
Now that its Official Romney has the Delegates needed to become the 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate, Wall Street, the Koch Brothers, Art Pope, the Tea Party, Rupert Murdoch & All that Big Republican Party Money will be used to help Romney Win.
And.....
Tea Partiers are going Hard to gain control of the U.S. Senate just as they took Control of the House back in 2010.
So while Democrats are scrambling like Ants to raise Money to remain Politically Relevant, the GOP is laughing all the way to the Bank!
I don't want to sound like a Killjoy but its the Democrats' Fault!
For 3 1/2 Years Democrats didn't do nearly enough to lower the National Unemployment rate or Stop Widespread Employment Discrimination aimed at BLACK & Latinos.
We can't blame the Filibustering GOP for everything because from January 2009 until January 2011 Democrats had Total Control of the House & Senate.
During that time frame Democrats could have done a lot more to focus on Jobs.
Well What about the Stimulus Package you ask?
And?? What about it????
When all the Smoke cleared about the Stimulus Hype, it was later discovered to be Nothing more than a Political Favor Payback Package.
A Political Payback Package which allocated less than 1% of StimulusFunding to Help BLACK-Owned Businesses.
To make matters worse Billions were Wasted by Governors like Bev Perdue (D-NC) who used it to plug up State Budget Deficits, rather than Create and Save Jobs.
Now BLACKS & Latinos who really want to give more to help Pres. Obama's campaign just CAN'T do it like they did it back in 2008.
However instead of Focusing on the Economy, Democrats are spending their time on Social Issues: ABORTION RIGHTS, Gender Selection ABORTION, Gay Marriage, etc.,
NOT Jobs! NOT helping Small Businesses! NOT the Economy!
SOCIAL ISSUES!
Who IS Laser-Focused on the Economy & Jobs?
Mitt Romney & his Uber Wealthy GOP Cronies that's Who!!
So how does it look for November 2012?
Let's just be REAL shall we?
Its NOT looking too good!
As it stands Romney & Pres. Obama are currently in a Dead Heat and Romney is gaining ground in Florida.
Pres. Obama's 2008 Campaign's Strategy will NOT work in 2012.
But Romney & his Uber Wealthy GOP Supporters are READY!
Is it still possible for Pres. Obama to Win again?
Its Possible but it doesn't look too good!
NO It doesn't look good at all.
Its also possible that Mitt Romney may Win.
If Romney takes Florida in November, its a Wrap!
Please don't call me Pessimistic because I'm just keeping it REAL.
It doesn't look good at all.
If Democrats want to Win in November they Need to Focus More on the Economy, Jobs, Small Businesses, Voting Rights & Stopping Widespread Employment Discrimination aimed at BLACKS & Latinos!!
Democrat Leaders Need to get their Heads out of the Clouds!
President Barack Obama kicked off a two-day energy tour on Wednesday with a stop here at the largest photovoltaic - producing voltage from energy sources such as light - solar facility in the United States, Copper Mountain Solar 1.
Speaking just 30 miles south of the Las Vegas strip, Obama reaffirmed his administration's commitment to an "all of the above" approach to domestic energy production, and called the solar sector an "industry on the rise."
But the president also derided opponents who have dismissed green energy as a viable job creator and aimed sharp words at those who instead call on his administration to take a more aggressive approach towards domestic oil production.
"One member of Congress who shall remain unnamed called these jobs 'phony,' called them phony jobs," Obama said of positions created at facilities like Copper 1. "I mean, think about that mindset, that attitude that says because something is new, it must not be real. If these guys were around when Columbus set sail, they'd be charter members of the Flat Earth Society."
With nearly a million solar panels spread across 450 acres, Copper Mountain 1 provides power for roughly 17,000 homes, but employs just 10 full-time employees.
The solar plant's owner, Sempra U.S. Gas & Power, is in the process of building a second facility nearby that's set to more than triple the output of Copper Mountain 1. Construction of the second facility - Copper Mountain 2 - has created 175 temporary jobs but, according to Sempra's projections will result in just five full-time positions.
Regardless of the size, such job creation is good for the economy, Obama said. And alluding to a plan to cut funding for green energy that was included in the newly released Republican budget proposal, Obama said that supporters of such a move would effectively be killing jobs.
"Given the fact that this is creating jobs, generating power, helping to keep our environment clean, making us more competitive globally, you'd think that everybody would be supportive of solar power," Obama said. "That's what you'd think. And yet, if some politicians had their way, there won't be any more public investment in solar energy. There won't be as many new jobs and new businesses."
Critics of the president argue that his administration's decision to back green technologies is the equivalent of picking economic winners and losers. The biggest example such critics point to is the Obama administration's decision to issue federal loan guarantees to the bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, leaving taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars.
On Wednesday, the president compared failed technologies like those championed by Solyndra to the VCR and Beta tapes, acknowledging that not every new development in is going to succeed.
"Not every auto company succeeded in the early days of the auto industry," Obama said. "Not every airplane manufacturer succeeded in the early days of the aviation. But we understood as Americans that if we keep on this track, and we're at the cutting edge, then that ultimately will make our economy stronger and it will make the United States stronger."
The president also lauded steps taken by his administration "towards leveling the playing field," such as a recent decision to place tariffs on solar panels imported from China, and he repeated his call to end so-called "subsidies" to oil and gas companies, a sector the president said is "doing fine."
"We want to encourage production of oil and gas, and make sure that wherever we've got American resources, we are tapping into them," Obama said. "But they don't need an additional incentive when gas is $3.75 a gallon
"A century of subsidies to oil companies is long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and double-down on investments in an energy industry that has never been more promising."
Mitt Romney called Sunday for three of President Barack Obama's top energy or environment officials to resign or be fired for contributing to rising gas prices through what the Republican presidential hopeful labeled failed energy policies.
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Romney labeled Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson the "gas hike trio" and said it was "time for them to go."
The former Massachusetts governor made a similar call at a campaign event Saturday in Illinois, the next major primary in the Republican presidential race to decide who will run against Obama in November.
According to Romney, Obama and the three top officials want higher energy prices in order to increase the viability of solar, wind and other alternative energy sources. On Sunday, the AAA reported that the national average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline rose to $3.84 for an increase of almost 17% so far this year, according to www.fuelgaugereport.com.
Obama contends that oil prices are set by a global market and there is little that any administration can do in the short term to prevent price spikes like what is occurring now.
The president advocates a broad energy policy that invests in clean energy alternatives while continuing oil, gas and nuclear development. However, Republicans including Romney and the other presidential contenders call for accelerated drilling and development of U.S. oil and natural gas reserves.
In the Fox interview, Romney also claimed that Obama rejected the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast at the same time the government was giving $500 million to Solyndra, the failed solar panel manufacturer. However, Romney's assertion misstated the timing of those events.
The Solyndra loan originated in 2009, Obama's first year in office, while the State Department rejected a permit for the Keystone pipeline earlier this year.
The permit was turned down after congressional Republicans forced a decision as planners continued seeking an alternate route through Nebraska requested by state officials.
TransCanada, the company developing the pipeline, has said it will reapply for approval of an alternate route, and in the meantime will construct one segment of the project from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast that doesn't require State Department approval.
With his re-election fate increasingly tied to the price Americans are paying at the gas pump, President Obama called on Congress to end $4 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies, and vowed to tackle the country’s long-term energy issues while shunning “phony election-year promises about lower gas prices.”
Mr. Obama, in an appearance at Nashua Community College here, took a page out of his jobs strategy of last year, calling on Americans to contact their Congressional representatives and demand a vote on the oil subsidies in the next few weeks.
“You can either stand up for the oil companies, or you can stand up for the American people,” Mr. Obama said. “You can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that’s been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean-energy future.”
The president aggressively tackled Republicans who have called for the country to increase its own oil production, declaring that “anyone who tells you we can drill our way out of this problems doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” With the United States consuming more than 20 percent of the world’s oil while having only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, Mr. Obama said “we can’t rely on fossil fuels from the last century.”
Calling for renewed investment in alternative energy, he vowed to make a “serious, sustained commitment to tackle a problem that may not be solved in one year or one term or even one decade.”
Mr. Obama’s decision to spotlight his proposal to end oil and gas subsidies immediately opened him up to criticism from Republicans, who noted that the proposal was unlikely to help lower the price of gas at the pump. The office of the House Speaker, John A. Boehner, sent an e-mail to reporters citing an analysis by the Congressional Research Service last March that found that ending the subsidies could make oil and natural gas more expensive.
Mr. Boehner also told reporters that, after meeting with Mr. Obama at the White House on Wednesday, it didn’t appear that the president would support tapping into the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way to curb rising gas prices.
“It didn’t appear to me that the president believes using S.P.R. would have any meaningful effect on gas prices,” Mr. Boehner said.
The oil reserve was created four decades ago to help the country deal with emergencies in oil supply.
Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, declined to say whether the president would tap into strategic oil reserves if gas prices continued to rise. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to New Hampshire, Mr. Carney maintained that the president was fixed on long-term solutions to the country’s oil dependence.
Mr. Carney said oil companies “do not deserve and do not need” subsidies or tax breaks financed by American taxpayers. He described the president as “very concerned” about the impact the spike in gas prices is having on American families.
Mr. Obama’s political advisers are concerned as well, and have indicated privately that Mr. Obama will have a tough time getting re-elected if the price at the pump reached or exceeded $5 a gallon.
In New Hampshire on Thursday, Mr. Obama chided Republicans who he said were hoping to gain political advantage from the rise in oil prices. “Now I know this is hard to believe, but some politicians are seeing higher gas prices as a political opportunity,” Mr. Obama said. “You’re shocked, aren’t you? And right in the middle of an election year. Who would’ve thought?” “Only in politics do people respond to bad news with such enthusiasm,” he said.
Appearing in North Dakota on Thursday, one of Mr. Obama’s Republican challengers, Mitt Romney, said the president was out of touch. North Dakota has benefited from the discovery of the Bakken Shale, an oil-rich deposit.
“Today the president is going to be in New Hampshire talking about energy in North Dakota,” Mr. Romney said. “He’s about as far away from North Dakota as he can get and still be in the United States. His idea of course is to be far enough away from the people who know what’s really going on right here to maybe try and blow one past folks.”
Mr. Obama did not mention North Dakota in his speech.
Republicans in Congress, struggling to regain their message as the economy improves, have latched on to rising oil prices and lobbed new accusations of culpability at the White House almost every day this week. But neither Republicans, nor Democrats, have been able to get legislative traction on their proposed solutions.
House Republican leaders tried to pay for a major transportation and infrastructure bill with receipts from federal lands they would open to oil drilling, but that legislative move appears to have collapsed. They continue to press the Obama administration to approve an oil pipeline that would stretch from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
“We are seeing some positive economic news, but it is being overshadowed for many families by soaring oil costs,” Mr. Boehner said on Thursday, as he pressed the president to issue more oil leases in offshore areas and to hasten oil drilling permits.
For their part, Democrats blame the spike in oil prices on speculators, but efforts to mandate a review by the Federal Trade Commission have not gotten far, and the party is divided on whether to press for the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Largely absent from the partisan bickering has been the role tensions over Iran have played in the price rise. Leaders of both parties have pressed the administration and American allies to target Iranian oil exports and gasoline imports as a way to tighten the noose in the Iranian economy. Now that such efforts are starting to bite, neither Democrats nor Republicans want to discuss the collateral damage being done to the American economy.
A bankrupt green energy company will create both real and political problems for President Obama today, as the U.S. House of Representatives continues its investigation into how Fremont, California-based Solyndra LLC used its access to the president and his inner circle in order to secure and lose half a billion taxpayer dollars.
Until last Thursday, the investigation into Solyndra had been coming only from the legislative branch of the federal government. In February, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Michigan ) opened a probe into a $535-million loan guarantee awarded to the maker of innovative solar panels by the Obama Department of Energy. That loan followed multiple visits to the White House by Solyndra officers and by George Kaiser, a Tulsa, Oklahoma billionaire and Obama fundraiser. Late in August Solyndra announced it would declare bankruptcy.
Last week, following a cycle of negative news coverage and revelations about the company’s close ties to the president, the executive branch response began with a raid on Solyndra’s headquarters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Energy’s Inspector General. News coverage highlighting DoE Inspector General Gregory Friedman’s hawkishness about insufficient due diligence in making lending decisions suggests the Obama Administration’s image management apparatus is making an effort to show the president takes the Solyndra scandal seriously.
Because of the depth and documentation of Obama’s relationship with Solyndra, as well as new House revelations that White House officials pressed the Energy Department to expedite its lending to the troubled company, the effort to distance him from the scandal will almost certainly fail.
Obama did a photo opp at Solyndra headquarters last year and has emphasized the company’s cylindrical solar panels in his propaganda for green energy subsidies. Kaiser, whose Argonaut Ventures owned a 35 percent stake in Solyndra, bundled nearly $100,000 for Obama’s 2008 campaign. Solyndra executives met with White House executives about 20 times. In the period before and just after the March 2009 loan guarantee (Solyndra eventually borrowed and blew through $527 million), Kaiser met with senior advisors Austan Goolsbee, Pete Rouse and Valerie Jarrett; chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and others.
FBI and Energy both report to the president. While suspicion of overt crime could have triggered the executive-branch investigation, the involvement of these two departments clouds what had been a straightforward congressional investigation. In addition to the risk that Obama appointees can steer investigators away from evidence harmful to the president, the involvement of a competing presidential investigation detracts from what has so far been very effective work by the House.
Shortly after Solyndra announced its bankruptcy, I made the none-too-daring prediction that this scandal would prove to be durable. The figure of a half-billion dollars is easy to understand yet still incomprehensibly large. There is no distance between the president and the scandal. And the company name is memorably goofy enough that there’s no need to add the lame suffix “-gate.”
Ron Bailey remarked earlier that Solyndra is already getting shoehorned into Republocrat he-said-she-said. Although it would be a shame if this lesson in the folly of subsidizing industry degenerated into simple point-scoring, it’s also true that in this case it is because of competitive politics that we know about the scandal at all. Solyndra’s dim financial prospects, its dubious technology and its unlikely survival as anything other than a ward of the state were known before the loan was approved. (In a Business Insider article, Bruce Krasting says the company’s only valuable item may be its net operating loss.) Yet in the period after that loan, Solyndra continued to behave as a green-energy market leader, even attempting an initial public offering. Who knows how much longer the company could have gone on wasting public money, deluding investors and delaying formal bankruptcy, if not for Upton’s investigation?
It’s also clear that “contextualizing” the Solyndra scandal in the way Bailey regretted (by noting that Republicans do it too) only makes the story more infuriating. While Solyndra will be useful as a campaign issue, the real outrage is that the government is proudly putting your money into companies that private investors are unwilling to put their own money into. Once this violation of common sense has taken place, the story can only end, as it appears to have ended here, in suffering and crime. That’s not a corruption of the system. It’s the natural way the system works.
Republican lawmakers, escalating the political furor over the collapse of a solar equipment manufacturer that received a $528 million government loan, released excerpts from Obama administration emails Wednesday suggesting that the White House pressed federal officials to wrap up their review of the loan quickly for political purposes.
In the emails, officials at the Office of Management and Budget expressed frustration that they were being put under time pressure to sign off on the loan to the company, Solyndra, two years ago so that Vice President Joe Biden could announce its approval at a groundbreaking for a factory.
The White House wanted an announcement that would show progress on job creation.
The disclosure became a focus of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing Wednesday about the loan to Solyndra, which has developed into a political headache for the Obama administration. The administration used the company as a prime example of stimulus-bill dollars creating "green jobs."
But Solyndra recently filed for bankruptcy protection and closed its factory, and its headquarters was raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, apparently in connection with the loan.
The bankruptcy filing and the raid "clearly show that the committee was more than justified in its scrutiny of the deal," said the panel's chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich. "Why did the administration think Solyndra was such a good bet?"
Critics of the loan have focused on whether political considerations played a role in awarding the loan to Solyndra, which the Obama administration denies. But the hearing also cast doubt on the government's competence to assess how sure a bet it is making, regardless of politics.
Officials of the Energy Department's loan office and the White House budget office defended their decisions, which they said were carefully reviewed and not politically inspired. The administration said the emails showed only that the White House wanted to know when a decision would be made for its planning.
"As the emails indicate, there was interest in when a decision would be made because of its impact on whether an event involving the vice president could be scheduled for a particular date or not," said Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman. "But the loan-guarantee decision was merit-based and made by career staffers at the Department of Energy, and the process for this particular loan guarantee began under President George W. Bush."
Suspicions that the administration might have pushed the loan for political reasons have centered on the fact that a major investor in the company is a charitable foundation associated with George B. Kaiser, a billionaire from Tulsa, Okla., who raised $50,000 to $100,000 as a "bundler" for President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
Logs show that Kaiser visited the White House on several occasions during the spring and summer of 2009, while the loan to Solyndra, based in Fremont, Calif., was being considered. Among the officials he met with were chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Pete Rouse and Valerie Jarrett, both senior advisers to Obama.
"It seems like crony capitalism was trumping the smart decision-making," Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., said at the hearing.
Campaign finance records analyzed by OpenSecrets.org show that there were about 235 other bundlers for the Obama campaign in Kaiser's range, while about 326 bundlers raised significantly larger sums.
Administration officials said the White House meetings were not about Solyndra but rather were related to Kaiser's charitable interest in policy matters such as early-childhood education. The George Kaiser Family Foundation has said that Kaiser "did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan."
Three factors pushed the market price of solar arrays below Solyndra's cost of production, according to experts. The cost of silicon, a key ingredient in competitors' cells but not in Solyndra's, fell sharply. The economic crisis in Europe cut demand for solar cells. And China subsidized a huge increase of solar equipment production, producing a surplus.
Republican lawmakers, escalating the political furor over the collapse of a solar equipment manufacturer that received a $528 million government loan, released excerpts from Obama administration e-mails on Wednesday suggesting that the White House pressed federal officials to wrap up their review of the loan quickly for political purposes.
In the e-mails, officials at the Office of Management and Budget expressed frustration that they were being put under time pressure to sign off on the loan to the company, Solyndra, two years ago so that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. could announce its approval at a groundbreaking for a factory. The White House wanted an announcement that would show progress on job creation. The emails were first reported by the Washington Post and on the Web site of ABC News, in partnership with iWatch.
The disclosure became a focus of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on Wednesday about the loan to Solyndra, which has developed into a political headache for the Obama administration. The administration used the company as a prime example of stimulus bill dollars creating “green jobs.” But Solyndra recently filed for bankruptcy protection and closed its factory, and its headquarters was raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, apparently in connection with the loan.
The bankruptcy filing and the raid “clearly show that the committee was more than justified in its scrutiny of the deal,” said the panel’s chairman, Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan. “Why did the administration think Solyndra was such a good bet?”
Critics of the loan have focused on whether political considerations played a role in awarding the loan to Solyndra, which the Obama administration denies. But the hearing also cast doubt on the government’s competence to assess how sure a bet it is making, regardless of politics.
Officials of the Energy Department’s loan office and the White House budget office defended their decisions, which they said were carefully reviewed and not politically inspired. The administration said that the e-mails showed only that the White House wanted to know when a decision would be made for its planning.
“As the e-mails indicate, there was interest in when a decision would be made because of its impact on whether an event involving the vice president could be scheduled for a particular date or not,” said Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman. “But the loan guarantee decision was merit-based and made by career staffers at the Department of Energy, and the process for this particular loan guarantee began under President George W. Bush.”
Suspicions that the administration might have pushed the loan for political reasons have centered on the fact that a major investor in the company is a charitable foundation associated with George B. Kaiser, a billionaire from Tulsa, Okla., who raised $50,000 to $100,000 as a “bundler” for President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Logs show that Mr. Kaiser visited the White House on several occasions during the spring and summer of 2009, while the loan to Solyndra was being considered. Among the officials he met with were the chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and Pete Rouse and Valerie Jarrett, both senior advisers to Mr. Obama.
“It seems like crony capitalism was trumping the smart decision-making,” Representative Steve Scalise, Republican of Louisiana, said at the hearing.
Campaign finance records analyzed by OpenSecrets.org show that there were about 235 other bundlers for the Obama campaign in Mr. Kaiser’s range, while about 326 bundlers raised significantly larger sums.
Administration officials said the White House meetings were not about Solyndra but rather were related to Mr. Kaiser’s charitable interest in policy matters like early childhood education. Mr. Kaiser has declined to comment directly about the meetings. But the George Kaiser Family Foundation has said that “he did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan.”
While Mr. Kaiser’s connection to the Obama campaign and to Solyndra, based in Fremont, Calif., have helped draw attention to the loan, he was not a major topic of discussion at the hearing on Wednesday. Republicans did, however, press those testifying on whether the Solyndra bankruptcy offered proof that the government should not be lending to companies that have trouble raising money from private investors.
“In this time of record debt, I question whether the government is qualified to act as a venture capitalist, picking winners and losers in speculative ventures and shelling out billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat,” Mr. Upton said.
Three factors pushed the market price of solar arrays below Solyndra’s cost of production, according to experts. The cost of silicon, a key ingredient in competitors’ cells but not in Solyndra’s, fell sharply. The European economic crisis cut demand for solar cells. And China subsidized a huge increase of solar equipment production, producing a surplus.
While taxpayers could lose the $528 million the company borrowed from the Treasury, Jeffrey D. Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, said that the system for evaluating such loans was sound. He said it was inevitable that some cutting-edge firms would fail but that over all, the investments would prove worthwhile. He did allow, “The lesson learned here is that marketplaces can change even more rapidly than one would have anticipated.”
Executives from Solyndra are scheduled to testify before the subcommittee next week.
Meanwhile, the White House provided about 900 pages of e-mails this week to the committee, which had asked for all correspondence between Obama aides and Solyndra executives. Most of the correspondence concerned logistics for a visit by Mr. Obama in the spring of 2010.
However, several e-mails from the company to the White House flagged and sought to discredit a handful of articles that had questioned the company’s financial viability as far back as July 2010. A Solyndra official, David Miller, called one such report baseless and noted that Solyndra “had no intention of going out of business” and that its goal was to be “a true success story for this administration to point to.”
Another Solyndra e-mail, from this past May, informed the White House that “things are going well” at the company and that it had “good market momentum, the factory is ramping up and our plan puts at cash positive later this year. Hopefully, we’ll have a great story to tell toward the end of the year.”
A White House official, Greg Nelson, replied: “Fantastic to hear that business is doing well — keep up the good work! We’re cheering for you.”
I haven't written much about the California solar company Solyndra, which recently went bankrupt after receiving over $500 million in taxpayer money as part of the Department of Energy's program of loan guarantees for renewable energy companies. Short story: the sudden demise of the California-based company—which went out of business on Aug. 31, costing more than 1,000 employees their jobs—raised speculation that the Obama Administration may have channeled money toward Solyndra for political reasons.
Republicans in the House launched an investigation, and turned up emails that seemed to show White House staffers pushing officials at the Office of Management and Budget to sign off on the loans in time for a major public appearance by Vice-President Joe Biden at Solyndra's headquarters.
On Sept. 14 , a House subcommittee held hearings on the Solyndra affair, and Republican representatives tried to portray the Solyndra loans, and the White House's renewable energy support policy, as an expensive, politically motivated failure.
My response: meh. TIME's Michael Grunwald has covered this from the start, and while he's unhappy—to say the least—with executives at Solyndra for misleading the government on its financial health, the solar industry more broadly is doing well, thanks in part to the money the Obama Administration has channeled towards more successful companies. And it's worth noting that in addition to government loan guarantees, Solyndra also scored over $1 billion in private capital—including from GOP-friendly investors like the Walton family of Wal-Mart.
Solyndra turned out to be a bad investment—the company failed in part because it made the wrong bet on solar technology, failing to foresee that silicon prices would drop drastically.
Bad investments are a part of business, especially a cutting-edge industry like renewable energy, and failure is a necessary ingredient for innovation. (Just ask the famously fired Steve Jobs.) The idea that the collapse of one solar company discredits the entire solar industry is absurd.
Still, many Republicans would argue that the real question here is whether government policies like loan guarantees and subsidies can actually help support companies and create new jobs rather than simply engendering failure and waste. That's a fair debate to have. But the haters are being hypocritical.
Nosing for federal money and federal support is the name of the game in Washington—otherwise the expense accounts of lobbyists on K Street wouldn't be so generous.
Oil and gas and coal companies all spend millions in lobbying, putting former government regulators on their payrolls to ensure that policy goes their way.
House Speaker John Boehner himself has received more than $1.5 million from the coal industry—money that was spent well. It's not just Republicans—Democrats from oil or coal states know to look out for industry.
And it's not just the energy industry either—every major business sector is happy to lobby in Washington and bend legislation to their favor. That's the way things work—or don't, I suppose.
If Solyndra threw its weight around Washington to pull in that $500 million-plus loan guarantee, the firm was only copying its more entrenched competitors. In fact, maybe it was a sign that the renewable energy industry was finally ready for prime time. You can criticize the White House for spending public money foolishly in support of one of the President's signature policy objectives: building green jobs. But there's nothing here that makes the Solyndra debacle special. It's business as usual.
Instead of working to create jobs, the GOP has focused on an ideological agenda that moves us back into the dark ages – almost literally – in terms of the environment and energy efficiency.
Republicans have controlled the House for 188 days without passing a single jobs bill. Yet they’ve found the time to switch the cups in the Capitol to Styrofoam, replacing the more environmentally-friendly cardboard cups.
Now, House Republicans want to repeal a bipartisan bill signed into law by President George W. Bush that saves American families and small businesses billions of dollars a year. The bill, which helps consumers save money by requiring more efficient light bulbs, was not only supported by bulb manufacturers, but also by the vast majority of Democratic and Republican legislators according to National Journal:
"At the time it was introduced, the legislation was championed by Democratic and Republican leaders alike. The original 2007 lightbulb efficiency language was cosponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Ill. It passed easily through the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was added as an amendment to a bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 86-8, passed the House by a vote of 314-100, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush."
It’s time we focused on job creation that will move our country forward, not more partisan politics. Now there’s a bright idea.
House GOP leaders are ginning up excitement for this week’s high-wattage vote to roll back lightbulb efficiency standards—or, as Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, likes to call it, the “Save the Lightbulb” bill.
The bill, and the rallying cry of “Save the Lightbulb!” have become unlikely hallmarks of the tea party movement, touted by presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann and talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Tea party conservatives have targeted an obscure lightbulb efficiency provision tucked into a broad 2007 energy law as symbolic of what they call government overregulation. They passionately decry the law as a “ban” on the familiar incandescent lightbulbs that Americans have used for most of the last century.
Despite all the political crossfire over lightbulbs, it’s unlikely that Republicans will succeed: The House vote will take place under a procedural rule requiring a two-thirds majority, which makes it uncertain whether it will pass—while it is certain to die in the Democratic-controlled Senate. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R. Va., had scheduled a vote for Monday evening, but it's being pushed back until Tuesday, his office said Monday morning.
The provision requires that by 2012, lightbulb manufacturers produce bulbs that generate the same amount of light but use less electricity to do it. It would not outlaw incandescent bulbs, nor mandate production of the curlicue-shaped compact fluorescent bulbs. The new energy-efficient bulbs, which hit hardware and drugstore shelves this year, are similar in appearance to the old bulbs—they have the familiar shape and cast the same warm light. They are more expensive than the old bulbs but last longer and have the net effect of saving consumers money, according to the Energy Department, which estimates that the bulb law will save Americans $6 billion annually in energy costs.
At the time it was introduced, the legislation was championed by Democratic and Republican leaders alike. The original 2007 lightbulb efficiency language was cosponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Ill. It passed easily through the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was added as an amendment to a bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 86-8, passed the House by a vote of 314-100, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.
So how did Republicans get from there to here on the lightbulb law?
The answer has very little to do with energy policy and everything to do with tea party politics.
Barton, the bill’s sponsor, turned his attention to the lightbulb law last fall, when he found himself pitted in a bitter contest with Upton for chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. The rivalry played out in the weeks after the November elections, when Republicans were giddy with excitement over their tea party-fueled takeover of the House.
The conservative Barton, who has declared that he was “tea party before tea party was cool,” rode that wave in his campaign against Upton, digging up pieces of his opponent’s record that he believed would show that Upton was too moderate to hold a prominent leadership post. Among them: Upton’s sponsorship of the lightbulb standards.
Barton turned Upton’s support of the lightbulb standard into one of his key pieces of ammunition against the moderate Michigander, launching the “Save the Lightbulb” campaign. It was promptly picked up by Beck, Limbaugh, and Bachmann. Barton ultimately lost the contest for Energy Chairman, but his lightbulb campaign became a top talking point for conservatives.
By February, it had gained steam and a Senate companion bill, introduced on February 17 by Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo. In a sign of its momentum, 27 other Republicans signed on to the bill that day.
All of that alarmed manufacturers, who had begun producing the new bulbs, and feared the rollback of the standards would undermine their investments in developing energy-efficient bulbs. Bulb-maker Philips began an aggressive lobbying campaign, meeting with lawmakers and staffers on Capitol Hill, urging them not to roll back the lightbulb law. They brought along samples of the new bulbs, similar in appearance to the old bulbs.
“The new energy-efficient incandescent bulbs look and feel just like the old lights that consumers are used to. The only real difference Americans will notice with the new lightbulbs is their lower electricity bills. Electricity savings per family will be about $100 per year,” said Randy Moorhead, vice president of Government Affairs for Philips Electronics, reprising the pitch he’s been making tirelessly to GOP lawmakers.
After meeting with Philips, some Republican energy-policy staffers privately admitted that rolling back the lightbulb law seemed like a bad idea, especially when they saw that the efficient bulbs looked exactly like the old bulbs, and learned that manufacturers feared they would hurt their bottom line.
Despite the quiet heartburn that the bill is now generating in some moderate Republican offices, GOP leaders are still driving it forward, in hopes that the House floor debate will generate campaign talking points for tea party candidates across the country—including Bachmann.
And in a sign that all this has generated concern in the highest quarters of Washington, Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Friday held a press call with former Republican Sen. John Warner, R-Va., in an effort to shore up support for the law.
“Right now many families around the country are struggling to pay their energy bills, and leaders in the house want to roll back these standards that will save families money,” said Chu.
Under the current law, “You’ll still be able to buy halogen incandescent bulbs. They’ll look and feel the same, but the only difference is that they’ll save consumers money,” he said.
Of tea partiers’s philosophical argument that the law would deprive consumers of the choice of lighting products, Chu said, these standards are not taking choices away, they are "putting money back in the pockets of American families.”
Warner, who now lobbies his former colleagues on energy issues, said rolling back the law would freeze up business growth. "If I were a financier trying to help the small-business community, I would say, 'Wait a minute—if Congress is going to start stripping out provisions of this landmark legislation, then there’s no regulatory certainty—and I’m not going to lend you the money.' ”
"Green For All"! (Van Jones' Organization) Urban Farming, Producing Green Jobs, Green Living & Clean Living Opportunities has finally come To Urban America! Its time for the American Black Community to Get a piece of this "Green" Pie! (i.e., MONEY) President Obama & Van Jones have already Opened the doors. We just Need to Walk through them!
Van Jones introduced Black People to the "Clean Way, Green Way" Business Concept. He also discusses how Black Entrepreneurs can Produce Green Jobs and teaches on the Benefits of Urban Farming & Eco-Equity to the American Black Community.
What about Hosting or Launching a "Green The Block" Party in your Community in order to Educate and Introduce Green Living/ Green Jobs Business Opportunities to Black People (including Black Business Owners) in your region?
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
