IBJNews

Lawmakers question Abound loan, citing quality issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

House Republicans want more information about a $400 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Energy Department to Abound Solar Inc., citing reports that significant “technological difficulties” with the company’s solar panels were known before the aid was approved.

Colorado-based Abound filed bankruptcy in July after ambitious plans to open solar-panel plants in Indiana and Colorado were undone by stiff competition from China. The company had hoped to hired as many as 1,200 people to work in the unused Getrag transmission plant in Tipton, north of Indianapolis.

Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and two other Republicans on the panel wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu seeking documents his department used to review the application from Abound.

In the letter, Upton suggests Energy Department officials should have known about problems with the company’s solar panels prior to issuing the guarantee, which was part of the same program that financed Solyndra LLC. The Fremont, Calif., company also later failed.

An engineering report given to the department two months before it closed on the guarantee indicates that “Abound’s panels were already experiencing significant efficiency and technological difficulties,” the letter states.

One customer reported “major performance shortfalls” with Abound’s panels, the letter states, quoting the engineering report given the Energy Department.

The letter, which was dated Wednesday, continues Republican criticism of the $16 billion clean-energy loan program that was funded by the 2009 economic stimulus. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said President Barack Obama erred in directing the money to risky renewable-energy projects.

Administration officials have defended the program, saying the failure rate has been lower than anticipated by Congress.

Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, referred a request for comment about the investigation to an earlier blog posting on the Department’s website that cited allegations Chinese companies were unfairly undercutting market prices for solar panels, putting additional pressure on U.S. manufacturers.

“In such an intense competition and with the price declining 47 percent last year alone, not every company, nor every investment, will be a success—but America will be stronger and more competitive if we continue to support and build a thriving solar industry here at home,” LaVera wrote in the June 28 post.

In an e-mail, LaVera also said the department already had provided the committee engineering and market analyses of Abound’s loan application.

Abound borrowed about $70 million from the U.S. before the Energy Department stopped payments. The Energy Department has said taxpayers may lose $40 million to $60 million on the loan after Abound’s assets are sold and a bankruptcy proceeding concludes.

The company stopped operations in June, prompting more criticism from Republicans who had said Solyndra’s earlier failure after receiving a $535 million loan guarantee showed the problems of trying to pick “winners and losers” in the market.

Republican and Democrat lawmakers from Indiana also supported Abound’s loan.

Craig Witsoe, Abound’s chief executive officer when it closed, blamed “aggressive price-cutting from Chinese competitors” for the company’s collapse. Besides the $70 million from the government, Abound also attracted about $300 million in private investment.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee refused to release the engineering report allegedly showing early technical difficulties with Abound’s solar panels.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT