April 19, 2024

Solyndra, Solar Firm Aided by Federal Loans, Shuts Doors

 President Obama praised the company, Solyndra, for its advanced technology during a visit last year. But in a statement on Wednesday, Solyndra said its business had run into trouble because of difficult global business conditions, including slowing  demand for solar panels, and stiff competition.

The Energy Department, which approved the funding, said China’s subsidies to its solar industry were threatening the ability of Solyndra and other American manufacturers to compete. The price of a solar array, measured by cost per watt of capacity, has fallen 42 percent since December 2010, the agency said.

Two other American solar companies, Evergreen Solar and SpectraWatt, also sought bankruptcy protection in August, and both said competition from Chinese companies had contributed to their financial problems.

In the case of Solyndra, some experts said that regardless of the competition, the company’s unique designs, which were expensive to manufacture, were to blame for its failure.

Solyndra was promised loans of up to $535 million under a guarantee program authorized by Congress as part of the 2009 stimulus package. The Energy Department has made more than 40 promises of guarantees, of which Solyndra was the first. It has committed $18 billion in guarantees and expects to allocate several billion dollars more by the time the program finishes at the end of September.

The government calculates premiums for the guarantees, essentially a loan fee based on the risk of default, but it picks up the cost of the premiums for the companies in the subsidy program. By that yardstick, it has spent $2.4 billion in credit subsidies for the program.

Solyndra’s troubles have been growing for some time. Republican budget-cutters in Congress have viewed it as a model of poor government investment.

“In an apparent rush to push stimulus dollars out the door, the Obama administration wasted $535 million in taxpayer funds in guaranteeing a loan to a firm that has proven to be unviable in the global market,” said Representative Cliff Stearns, the Florida Republican who is chairman of an investigative subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

He said the Energy Department might have authorized the guarantee because an Oklahoma oil man who was a donor to the Obama campaign, George Kaiser, was an investor in the project. In a joint statement, Mr. Stearns and Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, the chairman of the committee, said, “We smelled a rat from the onset.”

But the Energy Department dismissed that assertion, saying that Solyndra applied for federal help during the Bush administration and that Obama-era officials merely finished the process the Republicans had begun.

The department says government subsidies are essential to keep the United States competitive in renewable energy, and not all companies will succeed.

“The project that we supported succeeded,” insisted Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Department of Energy.

“The facility was producing the product it said it would produce, and consumers were buying the product,” he said. “The company struggled because the market has changed dramatically.”

Although the government typically guarantees loans made to a company by a commercial bank, that was not the case for Solyndra. Solyndra borrowed the money from the Federal Financing Bank, part of the Treasury Department, so in effect, the government was lending the money to the company directly. The Energy Department gave Solyndra a conditional guarantee for $535 million, in multiple stages, contingent on reaching a variety of milestones, and to date, it had received $527 million.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=b29c413af2f4d27292878778df5552c8

Shippers May Raise Fuel Fees

But rising fuel prices have taken a toll on their business.

With diesel prices near their highest levels since 2008, the impact has started to appear in the first-quarter results of companies like Union Pacific railroad and the Arkansas Best Corporation, which has a trucking subsidiary. Some shippers said they expected to raise fuel surcharges.

The timing, some economists say, could not be worse. Consumers are already paying steeper prices at the gas pump and may see prices climb in stores if diesel prices remain high. American manufacturers, meanwhile, are struggling to get back on their feet.

“The manufacturing sector is hit disproportionately hard by higher diesel prices,” said Donald A. Norman, economist for the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, a public policy and economics research organization in Arlington, Va. “Simply to move all this stuff around, it is really hard to affect any cost savings. You have little in the way of alternatives.”

Brandon Gale, the president of Retail Shipping Associates, said it was only a matter of time before the high fuel prices affected consumers. “It is a very straight-line relationship,” he said. “When you see fuel at the pump going up, it is going to go up at the package, too.”

Crude oil prices started going up early this year as turmoil spread through the oil-producing regions of the Middle East and North Africa. Increased global demand for fuel has added to the pressure on prices.

On Monday, the average price for a gallon of highway diesel was $4.09, according to the Energy Information Administration, which posts fuel prices every week based on a survey of outlets around the country. The current averages are in the highest range since 2008, when prices peaked at $4.76 on July 14, and more than a dollar higher than in 2010.

The Energy Information Administration price functions as a reference point for trucking companies negotiating fuel surcharges with shippers. Railroads can use a less expensive type of diesel that does not reflect the highway taxes.

While some railroad companies say their businesses can benefit from higher diesel prices because shippers may migrate to trains from trucks, they are still paying millions of dollars more for fuel.

Last week, Union Pacific said in its report on the first quarter that it paid average diesel fuel prices of $2.88 a gallon, up 33 percent from the same period in 2010. The higher costs — the company said it paid about $200 million more for fuel in the quarter than the same period in 2010 — sliced 8 cents off the company’s $1.29 in earnings per share. Even so, the earnings were the company’s highest for any first quarter in its history.

The company has already imposed fuel surcharges to recoup some of its higher costs. And while it did not say directly whether it would raise its surcharges, Tom Lange, a company spokesman, said, “It is how we are addressing it.”

Another railroad company, the CSX Corporation, said in its first-quarter results report this month that higher fuel costs added $119 million to expenses in the year, bringing fuel costs to $402 million.

Norfolk Southern reports its quarterly results on Wednesday.

Railroad companies can benefit in some ways from higher oil prices. When oil prices rise, so do the prices of other commodities, a signal of brisk demand for what is a large component of train freight.

“You can’t look at rising oil prices in a vacuum,” said H. Peter Nesvold, a managing director for research at Jefferies Company. “It actually helps the volumes at the rails.”

In addition, some cargo usually moves to trains when diesel prices are high because they are more fuel efficient than trucks, industry officials said.

“Fuel costs are an important factor for us; it costs us more money to do what we do,” said John T. Gray, a senior vice president for the Association of American Railroads. “Fortunately, it costs our competitors typically more money than it costs us.”

He added, “If what we saw in 2008 happens now, there will probably be some customers that will seek out rail service that have not in the past.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=08c7d0c87b3aaaa33795f7ba58b680f4