GOP Questions Chu's Competence As Energy Secretary

By Adrianna McGinley

Energy Secretary Steven Chu emphatically denied any wrong doing on his part or that of his Department in the decision to provide the now bankrupt solar energy company Solyndra with a $535 million government loan guarantee in 2009.

Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations rigorously questioned Secretary Chu about what he knew regarding the decision to move forward with the loan and when he knew it. Republican members referenced numerous emails they said clearly showed the eminent failure of the company.

Chu denied having any knowledge of the emails at the time the loan was approved and said given the information that was available at that time “competent decisions were made”.

Chu attributes the failure of the company not to bad decisions, rather to an unforeseeable economic downfall spurred by rising competition and government support in China to further solar energy development. Chu added that the U.S. must be willing to take risky decisions and make risky investments in order to support a sustainable future and create jobs.

“There’s a heavy expectation in the business world that these technologies will become competitive without subsidy in a relatively short period of time,” Chu said. “The whole issue is…do we want to be buyers or sellers?”

GOP members also grilled Chu on whether or not he was aware of any communication between the White House and the DOE regarding the decision to restructure the loan and the decision to delay the announcement of Solyndra layoffs and looming financial default until after the 2010 midterm elections.

Chu emphatically denied any pressure or influence from the administration on these issues, saying “I’m not sure what communications there were between DOE and the White House, but certainly we did not communicate with the White House on whether we should approve the loan…that was our responsibility.”

Chu also denied White House pressure to restructure the loan in February 2011, adding that the decision was a difficult one.

“We either had to stop the loan, which would have made Solyndra go into immediate bankruptcy with a half completed factory, or we could say we can continue on the contract of the loan, which was to build this factory,” Chu said. “Once the factory was complete Solyndra would have a fighting chance of continuing or it could offer that factory sale as a whole unit.”

“We were always focused on that path that could get as much taxpayer recovery as possible,” Chu emphasized.

Chu added these loans are inevitably risky in nature and the legislation of the entire DOE loan program reflects that. Chu said the legislation passed by Congress includes $10 billion budgeted for losses, but when asked how much of the lost tax payer money would be recovered, he said “not very much.”

Members on both sides of the aisle also questioned the legality under the 2005 Energy Policy Act of the decision to subordinate tax payer recovery for corporate interests during the process of restructuring. GOP members maintained Chu broke the law in making that decision, sparking several members to question whether Chu is competent as energy secretary and whether resignation should be considered.

“Have you discussed with your boss whether or not you should continue in your position having violated the spirit of the Energy Policy Act of 2005?” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) questioned.

Chu responded, “we believe there was no violation of the law.”

Closing Of Yucca Mountain Raises Discrepancy Between Energy Department And Congress

By Monique Cala
University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

During testimony Wednesday before the House Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee, U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu defending the process by which his FY 2011 budget request of $28.4 billion will help the U.S. lead in the ‘21st century global economy.'

“It’s going to create new clean energy jobs, expand the frontiers of science, reduce nuclear dangers, and help curb the carbon pollution that threatens our planet,” said Chu.

Concerns were raised about the future of Yucca Mountain and the creation of a second nuclear waste site.

“We have known for years that a second repository was going to be needed, but that shouldn't make us throw away billions of tax and rate payer dollars dedicated to building the first one,” said Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.). “Scientific opinion was that Yucca Mountain was a good choice. From where I am sitting, the scientific consensus hasn't changed one bit, nor has the expressed will of Congress or this subcommittee. It is politics that has changed.”

Chu responded that due to the Obama Administration’s intent to close down Yucca Mountain, his department had began to look at the expense of closing the waste site.

Other members of the committee, including Frelinghuysen, explained to Chu that his budget plan is merely a ‘request’ until Congress approves it.

“Mr. Secretary let me perfectly clear, there will be no authority granted unless Congress grants it,” said Frelinghuysen. “The dollars we appropriate are not yours, nor the President’s, but belong to the people we represent. This committee by law will determine how they are spent.”

Senators Face-Off Over Kerry-Boxer Bill

By Leah Valencia, University of New Mexico- Talk Radio News Service

Senators faced off over the cost of the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill Tuesday when co-author Sen. John Kerry testified that he believed although the legislation would increase energy costs, a lack of action would cause worse problems for the environment and U.S. security.

"Are there some costs? Yes sir, there are some costs," said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "[But] none of them factor in the cost of doing nothing."

However, some Republican members were not so willing to brush aside the prospect of higher energy costs.

"Cap and trade is very expensive. This is something the American people can't tolerate and I don't think they will," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the committee’s ranking member.

The Clean Energy Jobs And American Power act seeks to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 percent within the next decade.

Kerry added that working to reduce dependency on fossil fuels would allow the U.S. to be a leader in developing new technologies, and thus creating new jobs.

"America's leadership is on the line here," Kerry said.

White House Officials agreed with Kerry's assertion during their testimonies before the committee.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu warned that if the U.S. does not act fast to be on the forefront of developing green technologies, other countries would.

Many committee members, including some Democrats like Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), questioned the feasibility of the ambitious bill.

Post-Recess: Senate Takes Their Turn On Energy/Climate Discussion

By Courtney Ann Jackson-Talk Radio News Service

The energy and climate debate is making its way to the Senate, just two legislative days after the House passed the Waxman-Markey energy bill. The Committee on Environment and Public Works heard from White House and other government officials Tuesday. They highlighted the importance of making the U.S. a leader in the clean energy market, reducing the effects of global warming, and creating new jobs in the process.

“Clean energy is to this decade, and the next, what the Space Race was to the 1950s and ‘60s. America is behind,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “American businesses need strong incentives and investments now in order for this nation to lead the twenty-first century global economy.”

Other officials present included: Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Chu said that he applauds the House for passing the clean energy bill and said he looks forward to working with the Senate to pass “comprehensive energy legislation.” He also noted that denial of the climate change problem will not change the outcome but comprehensive legislation that caps and then reduces carbon emissions will.

Committee Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said, “I expect you will hear fierce words of doubt and fear and worse from the other side of the aisle regarding our legislative efforts to move forward with clean energy jobs legislation. This is consistent with a pattern of “No we can’t.” I believe this Committee, when the votes are eventually taken on our bill, will reflect our President’s attitude, which is “Yes, we can, and yes, we will.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) agreed that the bill will pass through their committee but he does not believe it will pass on the Senate floor. He said the Senators will have more time to review the many points of the legislation than House members did prior to their June 25 vote.

Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) also testified Tuesday and stressed the importance of informing the public about the facts of energy policy.

“The gigantic effect of energy policy on American life means Congress should work particularly hard to ensure Americans know the facts about the policies Congress is considering. To the contrary, the House of Representatives added more than 300 pages of its 1200 page energy bill a few hours before it was brought to the floor and passed. That is just the opposite,” said the Governor.

Energy Debate Continues on Earth Day

By Suzia van Swol, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News
The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee celebrated Earth Day by hearing testimony on the American Clean Energy and Security Act from 21 witnesses, including U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson.

Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) released draft legislation three weeks ago to reduce American dependence on foreign oil and introduces a clean energy requirement for electric utilities and new energy efficiency programs. The legislation also places a cap on greenhouse-gas pollution and institutes low-carbon requirements for vehicles and fuels.

Rep. Waxman said that “it is no longer a question whether we will act to reduce CO2 emissions,” but “the real question is whether we will do so in a way that strengthens our economy, creates new jobs, and ends our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.”

Rep. Markey said: “We cannot continue energy policies that look to last century’s energy sources while other nations race ahead to take the lead in developing and marketing clean energy technologies and green jobs.”

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said America “will continue to use coal as a fuel, but we must learn to do so in a cleaner way.”

The Obama administration believes a Renewable Electricity Standard would create jobs and that a gradual, market-based cap on carbon pollution would restore America’s leadership in clean energy technology.

“We need not only jump-start our economy today but to lay the foundation for America’s long term prosperity,” said Chu.

Lisa Jackson, Administrator with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said that “lasting economic recovery will come only when the federal government looks beyond the quick fix and invests in building the advanced energy industries that will help restore America’s economic health over the long term.”

Republicans fear that this legislation is going to cost Americans up to $3,128 in raised energy costs and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) said that “you name the cost, and it’s going to go up.”

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) said that nuclear power needs to be addressed and he feels the middle class will end up paying for raised energy costs. We will “essentially kick working families when they’re down,” said Upton.