The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News, Information, and Companies.
Untitled Document

Cleantech Stimulus Still Not Stimulating

The stimulus bill along with the $31B cleantech element focused on grants and loan guarantees through the Department of Energy was passed into law over 18 months ago.

About a year ago I wrote about how the cleantech stimulus was not very stimulating to our economy. I suggested at that time that the goals of stimulus and of long-term investment are largely incompatible, and the evidence is bearing that out.  At the time, I felt like a bit of an outcast for having such a critical view and yet being an ardent supporter of clean technologies and the need to wean our nation off fossil fuels. On the anniversary of my first post on this topic it seems appropriate to take a fresh look at where things stand.

While stimulus supporters and the press love to focus on the selection of award winners for grants and loans, funds appropriated but sitting in the U.S. Treasury have zero potential to stimulate the economy irrespective of whether a winner has been selected.  As of September 10, 2010 and about 19 months after the stimulus became law, according to the Obama Administration’s Recovery Act web site,, the Department of Energy had paid out just over 23% of the $31B of funds appropriated to the department for various cleantech activities under the stimulus bill.  At that rate it will take roughly six years for all funds to be dispersed. According to DOE’s more detailed numbers, in the past 12 months, the department has awarded (i.e. selected winners) for about $14B in grants.  Less than 10% of that amount has actually been disbursed to date.  In addition, there are over 730 awards representing $1.2B that were made in 2009 for which no funds have been paid out at all.  Many of these likely still are trying to get their contracts in place, an often-arduous process that can take many months. 

In the Smart Grid segment of stimulus, where stimulus actually slowed spending because utilities stopped work to wait and see whether they would win a grant, less than 8% of the over $4B appropriated has been paid out.   People in the utility industry who have received grants have told me about calls from DOE staff “virtually begging them” (in the words of one source) to spend money against the grants that have been awarded more quickly.  In other words, the government seems more concerned about optics of getting the money spent than having it spent wisely.

As stated on, the goal of the Recovery Act was to “… jumpstart our economy, save and create millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so that our country can thrive in the 21st century.”  It’s amusing that the recently released Administration Report on the Recovery Act emphasized that its focus would be only on “the ‘Reinvestment’ part of the Recovery Act” and completely avoids any comment on the stimulus’ impact on the economy or jobs.  Seems like quite a testament to failure of the recovery spending to provide stimulus in any meaningful way.   

If the focus of the cleantech “stimulus” was really on reinvestment, then the government would be careful and diligent about naming grant/loan winners rather than rushing to make awards as fast as possible (which is motivated by stimulus).  Yet, while money has been slow to flow from DOE, award winners have been selected for virtually all of the $31B from the recovery program.  As I said earlier this year in a Cleantech Forum debate with DOE Renewable Energy Grants Advisor Sanjay Wagle, the government is simply incapable of both getting grant/loan money out the door quickly and spending it wisely.  I still maintain that programs like Cash for Clunkers and energy efficiency tax credits (whether you agree with the specific policy or not) have a rapid positive impact on the economy.  The evidence on the government’s own recovery site seems to bear that out:  by comparison, 77% of all tax-related stimulus benefits (only some of this cleantech-related) have been paid out to recipients in the form of reduced tax obligations.

While one can debate the degree of impact those funds may have, funds awarded but not transferred from the federal treasury have no chance of stimulating the economy. 

Much of the press focus on the cleantech stimulus has been on the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) funding into early stage cleantech technologies with “game changing” potential.  The government has long played a role in funding early stage research and such a program has worthy goals.  Yet, ARPA-E represents only about 1.3% of DOE’s stimulus funding with most other funding going to much less disruptive grant/loan programs in which the government is trying to play business person and has a notoriously bad track record of doing so.  And ARPA-E’s appropriation for 2011 is likely to be less than 2010 with the House number passed at a 50% reduction.   

The unfortunate reality is that by using the stimulus bill as a vehicle for pushing funds through the slow and ineffectual government bureaucracy rather than focusing on stimulative policies that would have had greater impact on the economy, the Administration may very well have lost the opportunity to enact macro-economic policies affecting the cost structure for energy that could have had much more far-reaching and long-term positive impacts on the goal of reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. I believe time will bear out that many of the grant/loan awards made in such a hurry will turn out to be a waste of money.

Conversely, the macroeconomics of energy are certain to change as finite fossil fuels continue to be consumed… it is only a question of over what time period. It is that reality which is driving the private sector investments that must be the backbone of any sustainable change in our energy economy.  Careful federal policy around carbon-based fuels could have provided greater visibility into the time frame and degree of increase in the market cost of fossil fuels even if there was a very slow phase in of such a policy to avoid collapsing the economy.  The result would have been greater clarity of when (and shorter time horizons for when) clean technologies could become cost competitive.  This would have resulted in a corresponding increase in investment by the private sector in building those businesses to profit from the impending change.  And that would have been extremely stimulative to our economy without needing to borrow a penny to fund it.  

David Gold is a Partner with Access Venture Partners, an early-stage venture capital firm with offices in Colorado and Texas.  This article was originally published on the GreenGoldBlog and was reprinted with permission.

Untitled Document

Get All the Renewable Energy World News Delivered to Your Inbox - FREE!

Subscribe to Renewable Energy World Magazine and our award-winning e-Newsletter to stay up to date on current news and industry trends.

 Subscribe Now



Biomass Energy Potential Far from Being Fully Exploited in China

Liu Yuanyuan Relative to other renewable energy power sectors, such as wind and solar power that have experienced explosive growth...
clean energy

U.K. Labour Party Planning ‘Clean Energy Boom’ for Country’s Cities

Alex Morales, Bloomberg The U.K. Labour Party does not plan to renationalize utilities if it wins the next election, its spokesperson on ener...

US-China Cooperation on Climate Change: Don't Forget Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Ben Sandzer-Bell If the September 25, 2015 meetings in Washington between President Obama and President Xi of China yield no additiona...

DOE Releases Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Hawaii

Jennifer Delony DOE released a final programmatic environmental impact statement for Hawaii to provide federal, state and county gove...


Solar Power World Ranks Florida Solar One a Top 400 Solar Installer

Florida Solar One, a Miami Fort Lauderdale solar contractor is ranked among the top sol...

US Solar Institute Chosen for Military Solar Training at Patrick Air Force Base

In August 2015, the Air Force chose The US Solar Institute (USSI) for a specialized sol...

Canadian Solar Signs Agreement with Mashiki Town and Kumamoto Prefecture to Build 47 MW Solar Plant in Japan

Canadian Solar Signs Agreement for 47 MW Solar Plant

NC State University Installs Student-Funded Spotlight Solar Structure to Drive Awareness and Adoption of Clean Energy

North Carolina State University (NC State) will today showcase its commitment to clean ...



Geothermal Visual: GEA, Clean Energy Organizations Tell Congress: We Need Tax Extenders 'As Soon As Possible'

In a letter dated Oct. 5, over 580 signatories representing clean energy industries, including Geothermal Energy Asso...

Why the Solar PV Industry Should Love Geothermal Heat Pumps Part 3

It’s a marriage made in heaven: Solar PV and Geothermal Heat Pumps Part 3 of a 6-Part Series Geothermal Heat ...

Beyond Utility 2.0: Part 4 “Next Steps”

Principles, Structure, and Policies of Energy Democracy Energy democracy can best be described as an electricity sy...



Volume 18, Issue 4


To register for our free
e-Newsletters, subscribe today:


Tweet the Editors! @jennrunyon



Certified PV Professional - online training

After completing this online training, participants will be able to unde...

Applying Renewable Energy - Online Training

RENAC Online offers a selection of courses on a wide variety of renewabl...

CRGM - Online Training on Grid Integration of Renewable Energy

The training is useful for persons who would like to learn more about me...


The Vice President Stole My Show (Not Really)

When I finished my Solar Power International (SPI) panel discussing what...

The Value Of The Building

If you’re selling efficiency solutions in the built environment, y...

It's The Experience That Counts

One of the best ways to capture a prospect’s attention is to highl...


Renewable Energy: Subscribe Now

Solar Energy: Subscribe Now

Wind Energy: Subscribe Now

Geothermal Energy: Subscribe Now

Bioenergy: Subscribe Now