Abound Solar Under Criminal Investigation by Colorado DA

Vince Font, Contributing Editor
October 30, 2012 | 37 Comments

In a re-election bid mired with questions about Benghazi, President Barack Obama can now officially add another hot-button issue to his plate: the recent bankruptcy of solar company Abound Solar, which has been called "Colorado's own Solyndra." A criminal investigation is now officially underway, headed up by the Weld County District Attorney's Office in Colorado, for what it calls "possible securities fraud, consumer fraud and financial misrepresentation."

Although an official press release issued by the office of Weld County DA Ken Buck indicated that “no one has been charged with a crime at this early point in the investigation,” the Investigations Unit of the district attorney’s office is probing allegations of securities fraud based on claims that Abound Solar knowingly misled investors about products the company knew were defective.

The second of three allegations claims that Abound Solar misled lenders when applying for a bridge loan that served to keep the company in operation until DOE loans had been received. The third alleges that Abound Solar may have perpetrated consumer fraud if officials within the company were aware their products were defective when they were sold to consumers.

In March, it was reported that Abound Solar had halted production of its first generation thin-film solar modules and would be “temporarily” laying off 180 workers from its Loveland, Colorado-based facility. In June, it was reported that the company would be closing down operations permanently and filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, just two years after receiving a $400 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy — $70 million of which had already been drawn. The company’s final closure resulted in the loss of an additional 125 jobs.

With the Presidential election now only days away, it remains to be seen how these latest developments will impact the public perception of President Obama’s efforts to fund green energy initiatives with taxpayer dollars. In a televised interview with KUSA’s Kyle Clark, Obama said, “These loans that are given out by the Department of Energy for clean energy have created jobs all across the country. Some of them have failed, but the vast majority of them are pushing us forward into a clean energy direction.”

Obama added, “These are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy. They have nothing to do with politics.” Since this statement, emails have surfaced on the website of CompleteColorado.com that point to a possible greater involvement by White House officials to ensure approval of DOE loans to Abound Solar.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has also begun its own probe of the issue. Initially, Abound Solar cited “aggressive pricing actions from Chinese solar panel companies” as the primary reason for its inability to gain a foothold in the market — however a letter of inquiry sent to Energy Secretary Steven Chu by three Republican congressmen pointed to recently published reports and public domain documents that may indicate “persistent technological problems” as the principal cause of the company’s downfall.

The Department of Energy has said that of the $70 million stimulus funds used by Abound Solar, approximately $40 million to $60 million will be picked up by taxpayers. Abound Solar also received an estimated $300 million in private investment funding.

Lead image: Investigation via Shutterstock

37 Comments

James Desmond
November 6, 2012

I think both you guys are right. Irrational (resource-wasting) decisions that harm the environment (buying/driving a Hummer) and raise national health care costs (junk fooders eating themselves into diabetes II and raising my insurance premium rates with increased health care costs) fall into the "brown" category. Ditto for brown power (coal, nukes, oil and gas that spew pollutants).

Brown behavior, brown power -- they both crap on us.

Meanwhile, we must tax something, so why not tax all that is brown, and not tax all that is green, including behavior that creates jobs? Hence, tax coal, oil, junk food, luxury boats, jewelry and other stuff ya just don't need, and don't tax renewable energy, fruits and vegetables, savings income, investment income, corporations, etc.

Look, we know that the core unit of the human operating system is pleasure and pain. Government can alter mass behavior by inflicting pain (taxes on bad behavior) and pleasure (not taxing renewable energy, thus rewarding those who find a way to produce it without gov't hand-outs).

More on "brown taxation" here: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/taxation-policy

lawrence elliott
November 5, 2012

No insult taken

Far more has been thrown my way in the past with much greater ferocity.

One thing we must always bear in mind is that for the common man to act rationally in his own best interests he must first be well informed.

Thomas Jefferson, a man no stranger to savage attacks on his person through the printed word, once said ""If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government," he would take his morning paper.

The newspaper in his day was the strongest and most effective medium for disseminating information to the masses. It allowed even the poorest and barely literate to have at least some grasp on current affairs and issues that affected him and his family.

Although there was "yellow journalism" or information just made up from "hole cloth" in his day, he would now be appalled at what passes for our fifth branch of government. Remember journalism and the press were the only actual businesss mentioned in the constitution. Its' value was that important.

Unfortunately today multi-billion dollar enterprises fund what passes for journalism with the sole purpose of not only deliberately lying but also to misinform and confuse folks to the point of not believing in anything since they have no source of true news. It's all essentially "mind pablum" generated to keep the masses as stupid as possible while their pockets are picked and their government is trashed and turned into something to fear and loathe.

Thus we have the climate skeptics who have no more reason to question science than a blind man should question the direction his pilot is flying the plane.

Very easy to spot these folks.
They actually speak in a sort of code
A code well formulated for them to regurgitate like a parrot.

If they only knew how foolish and gullible they sound to someone who is willing to shut out the noise.

Actually my first step 21 years ago was to literally shoot my TV.
Yes.
A 30/30 Winchester

Felt good

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
November 5, 2012

Larry: I didn't mean to insult you on that point and as you saw in my example of tobacco use, I'm all for shaming people to do the right thing. It's just that these large scale changes in cultural beliefs seldom occur quickly.

In the case of climate change, I hope that you're right and I'm wrong, but my gut tells me that people aren't in any hurry to give up what they think (rightly or wrongly) is important (see granite counter tops).

In psycho therapy there is a saying that, "Nobody changes unless there is enough pain to make them want to change". Personally, I would have thought that the gulf oil spill and this past summer's drought would have been enough to get people's attention, but apparently not.

All that said, we can get frustrated and throw our hands in the air, or we can stay focused and attempt to lay the ground work for when the "people" finally realize (as they are inevitably going to do) that climate change is real and that we need to do something about it. Again, hopefully this point will come sooner rather than later!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

lawrence elliott
November 5, 2012

@the clean energy guy.

"Larry, I think that your argument starts to fall apart when you start criticizing people for making decisions that you don't understand"

Oh I think with a year of college level marketing training I fully understand. Perhaps my clear vision of how contrived and manipulated these 'choices' have become is why I am so critical.

There is another means of changing a persons perception of good and bad choices.

When a person burps in public or perhaps expels last nights dinner in an audible manner in a crowded room he or she is not embarrassed such much for others as himself as others in the room will look down on them and shame them.The shaming is a learned response. It does not come naturally.

I wish to see these poor and quite damaging lifestyle choices start to receive the scorn and shame they deserve.

Peer pressure can be just as convincing as any slick marketing plan.

Is that a self righteous position?

Perhaps no more so than someone being critical of say a passenger on the Titanic demanding another passenger stop drilling holes in the lifeboats because he has become convinced that the holes will actually let the water out rather than sink the lifeboat.

Perhaps the rational passenger should remain silent just to be polite?

I don't agree.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
November 5, 2012

Sorry about the spacing...I edited a typo and the spacing disappeared..so, if any of you are interested in what I had to say, take a lot of breaths while you read that one giant paragraph!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
November 5, 2012

Interesting conversation Larry and Freemarketeer. I think that there is truth in a lot of what you both are saying, but I also think that you both are missing your mark just a bit. I don't mean to be critical, but Larry, I think that your argument starts to fall apart when you start criticizing people for making decisions that you don't understand (your take on the value of granite counter tops, for example). People make decisions like this or to buy a Tesla for an infinite number of reasons; some of which are economical in nature and some might just be cases of group think influenced by slick marketing. In economics the term for this is referred to as 'Utility' and it doesn't really matter why the consumer feels this way, just that he/she does feel that they are receiving this 'utility' when they make a buying decision. Therefore, as much as you might like decisions to be more rational (in your view), I doubt that it's ever going to happen because people are people (my friend ;-) Same thing for you Free. While I understand your point that subsidies can distort markets and be misused (see my comments above on how I feel about the fossil fuel industry still receiving subsidies), I also feel that the government has a legitimate role in promoting our switch to a sustainable energy future. To tie the two thoughts together, look at the governments role in reducing tobacco use in the US. In a purely capitalistic society the government wouldn't get involved and would let the chips fall where they fell. But, we don't live in a purely capitalistic society (there is no such thing) and the government is mandated to 'promote the common good' and promoting the switch to sustainability meets this qualification. So, just as with cigarettes, government policy will influence our 'group think' and attitudes towards renewable energy will (and has) started to change. Bob 'The Clean Energy Guy' Mitchell

James Desmond
November 4, 2012

Your help, as well as those like you, would thus be appreciated. We need good, reliable information. And for consumers there needs to be a Consumer Report for solar, a low-cost third-party warranty source, and all the other things noted in my Free Market Solar Power blog to create a mass-consumer market sector for solar. Solar PV is a big market opportunity, a point illuminated in Tony Seba's "Solar Trillions" book. I say let's find the winning investment point, reap a nice profit AND in the process foster those epic economic/ecologic benefits.

THAT's the American way. Not greenies jawboning Joe to go solar even if it makes no economic sense to him.

Thanks for listening.

BTW, I just got this book, will let you know if it's worth reading: http://www.amazon.com/Rooftop-Revolution-Economy-Planet-ebook/dp/B008V0NV4I

I suspect it's top-heavy with solar fanboy boosterism, but I keep an open mind on these things, hope you do, too.

James Desmond
November 4, 2012

The second market vector is cost-feasible electricity storage, which I write about here: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/electricity-storage No one knows when some 17-year old genius from Bangalore or somewhere cracks that code (perhaps in the molten-metal based storage sector) and history is altered, as my home generates more electricity in 12 days than I?ll ever use in a month, and when rates blow past 20 cents/KWH hour my array?s value (and any storage system) is perversely increased in value. But when those two vectors form ($1/watt solar + cheap home electricity storage), we?ll have places like Germany, which now has 69 square miles of Solar PV on its Alaska-insolation level roofs and fields, plus China and Japan to thank for pushing cost-reducing tech along to the point where ?Joe? can ?barn-raise? an array like I did and feed real (not gov?t-printed) wealth into his pocket, times 100 million Joes = epic economic/ecologic upside. THAT?s worth pursuing. THAT?s what?s propelling me to plod on through all the BS you?ve encountered over the years. I?ve got time, land and money to invest. So do lots of others. We?re just trying to sort out the good stuff from the smog. Subsidies have helped this sector reach a critical mass, but there?s been a huge amount of waste, and now subsidy-dollars are creating bubble-bust cycles and adulterating the investment info channel. And if it?s that confusing for venture capitalist, then it?s ten times as confusing to Joe Six Pack. (Cont?d next post)

James Desmond
November 4, 2012

Larry,

I actually find your comments refreshing, as they belie what many feel. It's an enormously complex issue, and that's reflected in my solar blogs at JamesChristopherDesmond.com. And the whole field is polluted by misinformation from brown-power adversaries, subsidy-tit suckers, solar fanboys and the misinformed.

So sure, flick your system on and tune the rest out. I get it.

I haven't hit that wall yet, though. And I'm excited by my conviction that, for better or worse, one sea-change market benchmark is now being reached: $1/watt Solar PV. Two years ago I (and plenty of others) predicted this in my blog. That's the point where visitors to my prototype home increase, a "Solar Aisle" opens in Home Depot, and mega-scale solar PV begins.

"Based on U.S. Census Bureau data, about 100 million residential units could physically hold rooftop systems one day, generating by one estimate 3.75 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity a year. In 2011, total electrical generation from all sources was about 4 trillion kilowatt hours - 42 percent of that from coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration."

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Solar-energy-is-ready-the-U-S-isn-t-3988796.php

(Cont'd next post)

lawrence elliott
November 4, 2012

Free-Marketeer

Yes I have to agree but I don't have to like it

Reality really sucks sometimes

I suppose you could say I'm one of those guys who has been doing renewables long enough that the whole pay back thing and trying to answer it has become a real pain.

When a guy comes up to me and says "I have a 1000kwhr/month electric bill. How much will it cost me to put PV in to reduce it"?

I don't even try to answer in most cases until I can show him very clearly how he throws away at least %50 or more of the energy he already uses.

Far more productive on so many levels.

I've not been in the retail end of PV for quite some time now for a long list of reasons but the 'head banging' one does to try and convince folks of their wasteful ways just gets too overwhelming.

I actually refused to even talk PV if the potential customer was not willing to first install solar hot water.

Just another reason I'm now just involved in giving folks like you some additional hardware and clever solutions to make your job a bit easier.

When you finally discover that most Americans actually have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome as relates to being culturally kidnapped and abused by utilities,oil companies,junk food purveyors and their controllers on Madison Avenue it becomes harder to view them as rational consumers capable of recognizing TRUE COSTS of their purchases.

James Desmond
November 4, 2012

My site's helping Joe think about Solar PV and helps him decide. Your post basically says that you erected a larger-scale system and "y'all will just have to guess what it costs, and whether it makes economic sense if you want to do the same." It would be far more useful if you said I invested $100,000 and it's making/saving me X dollars/month or year, resulting in an X-year payback cycle. THAT's how Joe thinks. Hence, that is what Joe wants to know. And yes, it's helpful to point out that brown power rips us off and utilities maybe don't pay a fair price for power that producers like you and I feed into the grid. But that's not as helpful as answering the same question I get all the time in my email inbox: "How much must I invest to produce X amount of electricity?" I ask all solar PV investors to do this. The ultimate "user review."

James Desmond
November 4, 2012

I'm asking you to focus on the apple.

You know why. Just because there are plenty of male and female SWCCs blowing their dough on gold-plated appliances does NOT mean that the mainstream, utilitarian consumer channel shouldn't be analyzed. Again, folks ask me all the time how much they have to invest to make their own electricity and how long is the payback cycle.

Solar PV is the apple.

Heretofore, rich greenies (Larry Hagman, Ed Begley, and numerous non-celebrities) have actually hurt the Solar PV movement by overpaying for solar arrays and convincing Joe that "solar's too costly for the average person."

I have personally designed and built a recyclable, positive energy home (ALWAYS produces more electricity than it consumes, makes/saves me $1000/year, $861 check from my utility for last year), that costs $75/sq. ft. You saw it in my prior post. My array cost $14,000 in 2010 ($1.40/watt). At $1000 year, that's roughly a 14 year payback, just over 10 if you figure in other benefits, and I've shown the public my calculations here: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/my-open-letter-to-mage-solar

(Cont'd next post).

James Desmond
November 4, 2012

Larry, I think your argument unproductively mixes apples and oranges. Take this statement: "Yourself or others reading this submit for analysis LCOE or ROI on that granite counter top in your kitchen whose function could just as easily be fulfilled by Formica at 1/10th the cost."

The apple is that I get "Joe Six Pack" (regular folks like me) constantly contacting me with questions that usually go like this: "Read your blog, have been thinking of investing in a solar array for my roof. Based on current market prices, how much would I have to invest to cover the thousand kilowatts of electricity my home currently consumes?"

That's a simple, rational question -- little different, substantively, than what Joe does when shopping for a car (in my case the determinative factors, in order of importance are price, reliability, and mpg, and things like how cool the car looks and how well it handles mountain roads are way down the list, since I'm a strict utilitarian: How much do I have to spend on a machine that gets me from A to B?).

That's the apple.

You've mixed in oranges -- some folks (yeah, sure, women....) are willing to pay $100 for a $1.27 bottle of smelly water otherwise known a Channel Number 5, or something. Stupid Women With Credit Cards (the SWCCs -- pronounced "swick" factor), a term I coined three years ago (now folks in the Savannah GA area say "you're being pretty swicky with that BMW purchase, no?"), are indisputably part of the consumer/investment market as a whole, but undeniably there's also a huge utilitarian consumption channel (you shop for the lowest price quality Window AC unit, you don't much care how fancy the plastic grill on it is).

(Cont'd next post)

lawrence elliott
November 3, 2012

Free Marketeer

Let me add this

Notice I stated that the inverter I installed has the capability of power factor correction as well as grid support or spinning reserve capability.

These features alone,that come essentially as an almost free add on capability (zero's and ones frantically swimming the backstroke in the firmware) in the current utility tarrif model are very difficult to even begin to quantify in terms of dollars and cents.

I can tell you how much money we can save by not incurring premium charges for Kvars. But how much benefit does the utility receive from me when I support their grid but don't get compensated because of a lack of standardized tariffs or practical data collection models.? So we just make it a 'one way street'? Who sets the directions?

Easier solution?

Let's just all install PV whether we need it or not and just make it a new fashion trend or just part of a typical American lifestyle.

Kind of like our addiction (is there another way to describe it)to drinking large quantities of essentially toxic Coke and Pepsi and other obesity stimulators loaded with GMO corn derivatives and by connection massive quantities of Midwest top soil flushed down the Mississippi River, while ignoring the health risks or how about buying an expensive 60" Chinese Plazma TV in spite of there being nothing worth viewing on it even with 200 channels of cable access. No one seems to care what all that costs.

You know.

Just make PV installations another silly American habit.
Let's promote it on the Fox Channel
Their viewers already believe and obey anything they are told.

We already have BirtherNuts
Why not obedient and loyal PhotovoltaicNuts.

So who cares what it costs?

Yes I'm not really serious

Well maybe a little

lawrence elliott
November 3, 2012

Free-Marketeer I think you may be asking the wrong person for this detailed data.

Let me turn this around a bit and illustrate why that is so.

"Show us, for example, that your system makes/saves you X dollars a year, and that your LCOE = $.12 cents a kilowatt hour (KWH). "

OK! I will attempt due diligence in this area when.........

Yourself or others reading this submit for analysis LCOE or ROI on that granite counter top in your kitchen whose function could just as easily be fulfilled by Formica at 1/10th the cost.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to let me know the LCOE or ROI on those expensive mag wheels on a gas guzzling SVU when a second hand Prius would have been a far better economic choice.When will the leather interior 'pay off'?

Perhaps you get my drift.

Comparing my PV investments and their economic benefit in the short term or even long term is the classic "garbage in and garbage out"

There is no way that the PRICE one pays for utility power reflects its true COST. In a fantasy I suppose I could just force my neighbor to pay my electric bill and then my PV system could never compete even if the neighbor also bought the PV system for me.

I have been in the renewables 'business' at one level or another for over 40 years. Long before it was fashionable or economically viable.

Until and unless the average persons' mind is liberated from an endless cacophony of propaganda preaching that more is naturally better and that everything has to be quantified in a simple dollar and sense model we all lose.

Yes you may interpret my comments on the east coast storm as a lack of empathy for the victims of Sandy who are miserable without electric power or fuel.

It's a lack of empathy you would see from me if someone jumped to their death in spite of being well instructed on the dangers of being lulled into thinking there were no adverse effects of defying gravity simply because the principles of how it works is still just a theory.

James Desmond
November 3, 2012

Here's my array (erected 10/1/10 for $1.40/watt after tax credits):

https://picasaweb.google.com/115162333107690986192

James Desmond
November 3, 2012

larryofgalaxy -- It would greatly assist those of us who want the free market to foster a "rooftop revolution" (I've got 10KW of solar panels on my roof) if you would fairly and accurately track your Levelized Cost of Energy data (net capital investment, maintenance costs, reverse-meter credits, etc.) and show the public WHY Solar PV makes economic sense. Show us, for example, that your system makes/saves you X dollars a year, and that your LCOE = $.12 cents a kilowatt hour (KWH).

Simple, E-Z to understand results are needed in this very complicated area, complicated in no small part because the market's clouded by subsidies and the bubble-bust cycles they create. Private investors need to know that yes, they can invest in this area and make a reasonable return, so they need real-time field data, not analysts' projections.

You'll win more hearts and minds showing hard cost/return numbers than by debating political attitudes. Here's my cost-data page (I'm about to update it, recently passed 30,000 KWH of production, exceeding the vendor's estimate): https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/my-open-letter-to-mage-solar

Here's more info on grid-tied Solar PV: JamesChristopherDesmond.com (no, I'm not selling anything, just collecting research and trying to find the right national solar policy to support).

lawrence elliott
November 2, 2012

I find a couple of things amusing as I read criticisms of the solar subsidies minutes after reviewing some of the damage inflicted on the east coast in the recent storm. More specifically I have to chuckle a bit when I see the whining and complaining about a lack of electrical power after I just ran a new micro grid system I designed.

The 70kw PV system (installed using those evil subsidies)recently installed on our 80,000 square foot manufacturing and R&D facility supplied a steady supply of electrical power to our micro grid as soon as the transfer switch was thrown and we simulated a power outage.

Clean and well regulated 480/240/120 power without batteries and on a cloudy day.

From 10am to a little past 5 pm the panels and inverter supplied enough power to our critical loads of lighting,computers,some machine shop equipment and many other loads without a single hitch.

The same inverter regularly supplies power to the grid, can do level 3 charging of EV's,can deliver up to 150 kw of grid support when on batteries,corrects most and at times %100 of our power factor correction needs,and could be dispatched by the local utility as spinning reserve.

All of this for less than the cost of a Tesla Roadster even before the rebates and tax credits.

So yes as I see the poor victims of Hurricane Sandy crying the blues over east coast utilities' lack of ability to spoon feed them electrical pablum I do have to chuckle at least a little.

Just how many of those folks are sitting helplessly in the dark,eating cold food from a can and yet have a vehicle or two in their driveway that singly or collectively cost far more than our "silly" PV system?

I'm quite certain those same folks will continue to be smugly critical of the 'solar hippies' who opt to put their money into a PV system.

At least until the hippies lights are on and they eat a hot meal in the next big storm that we know will have to come.

Heh Heh!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
November 2, 2012

Micro: I agree wholeheartedly!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
November 2, 2012

Larry: I don't think that you have to go as far as looking at military spending to find the wealthy sucking at the government tit! Look at the fossil fuel industry as an example; The purpose of a government subsidy is to support an industry in it's early stages so that the industry can develop and get past the barriers to entry. They're not intended to simply improve the bottom lines of a very mature and profitable industry.

One can also consider the external costs of fossil fuels that are put upon the public in an indirect way, but that are directly attributed to fossil fuels as a subsidy to that industry. For example, The National Academy of Sciences estimates that the external costs of fossil fuels in the US is over 120 BILLION dollars per year!

If these external costs were to be included in the cost of a gallon of gasoline or a ton of coal, renewable energy would accurately look like the bargain that it is and wouldn't need any kind of subsidy!

I challenge any of my conservative friends out there to argue that point with me.....come on, you know you want to do it...BRING IT ON! ;-)

Forrest: Thin film has a lot of potential, but it's hard for that potential to be realized when the bottom fell out of their market as the cost of conventional solar panels plummeted.

When put in the perspective of how big our energy markets are, 40 to 70 million is just a drop in the bucket or a bump in the road as we make the switch to a sustainable energy future.

Jim: It's human nature to be greedy and you're never going to get away from that! But rather than being critical of solar subsidies (that are going to establishing a net good for society), may I suggest that you focus that energy on WASTEFUL subsidies to the fossil fuel industry??? Or towards doing away with subsidies all told and let's let the chips fall where they may???? What do you folks think of that?

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
November 2, 2012

SBTDesigns: I feel your pain in terms of getting a job in the solar industry. What I found after I went back to school for renewable energy technology at 48 years of age and graduated with honors AND then continued my reeducation with a certificate in renewable energy management is that solar is simply to hip and happening a field for us old farts!

I finally gave up and my wife and I have started our own company, Clean Energy Guy, LLC and I couldn't be happier! Yeah, it was a risk, but the process of putting together a business plan that would convince a lender to lend me the seed money has convinced me more than ever that renewable energy is real. It's still in the early stages and there will be a lot of shakeout in the industry as it moves forward, but the industry will make it and the opportunities are real. I wish you the best of luck in your job search. Feel free to reach out to me if you would like to talk.

Eisenhower: You're right that capitalism has many merits, but it's not without it's pitfalls! One of those pitfalls is when too much wealth gets concentrated in the hands of too few. Those people/corporations (because we all know now that, "Corporations are people too, my friend") can then erect barriers that keep capitalism from realizing it's full benefits to society. My belief is that we are past that point now in terms of the power that the wealthy and by extension the fossil fuel industry are influencing our policies and politics.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Robert Goldschmidt
November 2, 2012

The backlash against renewable subsidies is not warranted. Japan and South Korea used massive state planning and subsidies to launch their auto and electronic industries. China is eating our lunch with solar subsidies which have driven many solar companies out of business such as Q-cell which a scant 3 years ago was the largest producer in the world. Rather than self-flagellating over a small fraction of failures, we need to push ahead with greater subsidies for renewables and efficiency. We also should realize that the oil industry is purchasing over 10% of all TV advertising in a massive PR campaign to convince us that they are good for us while, behind the scenes, they are lobbying heavily against natural gas and renewables. They also are the spearhead behind the denial of global warming through organizations like the Heartland Institute. If we look at the military cost of protecting our oil supply from the Middle East, we would quickly realize that this cost does not appear at the pump and represents the largest subsidy to any industry in history. Wake Up America!

jim healey
November 1, 2012

What I see with Solyndra and now Abound is greed. Not just in the solar energy field, in everything. From Government, all parties including congress, to wall street, banks and to corporations everywhere.
Just pure greed Maybe in the field of renewable energy these guys started out with the right frame of mind, but in the end they are over come with the all mighty dollar including the investors. No different than real-estate. I don't believe buying a house was ever meant to be an investment. A house was meant to provide you shelter. Solar cells are to provide electricity at a reasonable cost to MFG and sell.
I also do not believe the government shoujld be doling out millions of dollars to be given to these companies. All it creates is pure greed. I am in the industry and what I see does not make me a happy camper.

Forrest Jones
November 1, 2012

This is not a political issue. Shame on your commendts above that insinuated it as such. The real issue here is that price is set by the Consumer, not by the manufacturer. It is basic supply and demand economics. Although Thin Film has potential, it has not been able to consistently provide a product to the marketplace that will meet or exceed the competition. Without knowing any more of the story than what was stated in the article above, it appears that Abound Solar knew that the market was competitive and that their product was not. They then proceeded spending government (taxpayer) money. The real question that is being investigated is whether some owners/Investors profited while others lost. We are actually extremely lucky that only $60 or $70 Million was lost instead of the full $400 million. They should definitely be investigated though.

lawrence elliott
November 1, 2012

'Seems typical of the pro-solar subsidy crowd to attack people rather than honestly arguing points. I choose to remain anonymous to avoid similar personal attacks.'

Such drivel

'Government subsidies are the Poisoned Chalice of the solar industry.'

I hate to burst your bubble sparky but if in fact you are in the solar industry you're only making a dime due to government subsidy at many levels,including the early satellite industries and rebates and tax credits that literally are the golden nectar in that Chalice.

I agree on one thing. In my wet dreams I see solar standing on its own and free of government interference.

I'll make you and others a deal. I'll stop drinking from the tiny near empty Solar Chalice once the %1 pigs stop slopping at the War Department trough overflowing with a Niagara Falls sized flow of waste,fraud and corruption. Or how about when several thousand banksters are doing the 'frog march' to federal prison for massive theft and fraud and making refunds to us all

Yeah like that will ever be a reality

So keep that Solar Chalice flowing. Perhaps if we get 'drunk' enough on Solar Subsidizes we will be able to bear being financially raped by those who decry them the most vociferously

And anonymous. Care to share your bank statements so we can all see how 'free enterprise' you have been. Left all those rebate checks in the mail box didn't you?

Rich Borba
November 1, 2012

LarryGallaxy, Did I say one word about Romney, Ryan, Bush? And I really could care less about your deviant sexual predilections. If you want to teabag go for it. My point, which you proved perfectly, is quit looking at everything as left or right. look at facts and evidence. Don't attack an investigation just because the prosecutor is republican. Or don't ignore an idea because its by a democrat. The liberal paper that supports the President and the loan guarantee program said it need to be investigated. Kudos to them. Quit looking or for evidence no matter how flimsy that supports your beliefs. Look at facts and evidence and if you have none then wait until you do.What bias did I spout other than capitalism created america and has done more to cure poverty than anything else in the world. If you disagree with that then attack capitalism and show me something that works better. ANd I don't mean crony capitalism that is evil now in projects like solyndra and Cheney and haliburton. REal capitalism is the ability to freely negotiate your wages, or start a business and spend your money on whatever you want AKA Freedom

lawrence elliott
November 1, 2012

Eisenhower?
Eisenhower?

I hope you realize that Dwight Eisenhower would most likely not allow himself to be in the same room as Romney and his wooden dummy Ryan. Eisenhower would have had the Bush Crime Family up on charges of treason.Abound did something wrong that deserves investigation by a TeaBagger??

The Bush Crime Family stole trillions from our treasury and it was completely ignored.
Even by the black man you most likely hate.

"Of just spout stuff that confirms your bias and attack things that don't conform to you little world views."

Wow Ike!
Project much?

Certainly cannot properly form a sentence or spell.

Tim Dolan
November 1, 2012

Based on historical evidence and around 40 companies provided loans or loan guarantees by the energy department and a failure rate of less than 10 of them, while the usual failure rate is far higher for just businesses, much less high-tech fad start-ups (and starting a solar business was a fad until recently). I think the energy department is doing pretty good at picking businesses to support.

I have worked with military programs where they are funding development and watching as fewer then 1 in 4 make it to the deployment stage. Some got funded because they had a good sales pitch, even though we told the bosses (read colonels and generals in this case) it was a piece of crap. Others failed because they just were not ready yet (either the technology or the company promoting it), some of which got to try again later, others went bye bye. My favorite was the one that that demonstrated it could do it better and faster then the current one, which had the effect of getting the current company to deploy technology it already had, but had been keeping back. The program I worked with died, even though it technically cost around 5 million, but it actually saved the government several years and even more money, because the current company had been trying to charge like 23 million for the solution and ended up deploying the changes for less then a million, so a savings of about 15+ million, even though the one I worked on looked like a failure from the outside.

So when talking investment or the government, you have to take the big picture into account. A small number of failures for a big program is not necessarily a bad thing.

just my experience

Steve Shepard
November 1, 2012

This story helps to support my claim that renewable energy jobs are a myth and they pretty much don't exist. Another example, earlier this year I was told I won a scholarship for solar training and NABCEP testing. The vendor offering that scholarship has yet to deliver and I am betting they won't. NABCEP is designed to exclude workers from the solar industry - not put people to work. All of this renewable hype is a scam. Renewable energy businesses are bound to fail because limitations have been put in effect by the utility and oil industries and embraced by the renewable energy manufacturers. Renewable energy technology is the real deal. The only thing that can stop it is us and we are doing a good job of it.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
October 31, 2012

People need to realize that these loan guarantee programs wouldn't exist except for the fact that paving the way to sustainable energy is a risky business! If it weren't, then the private markets would provide all of the funding for it's expansion

As was mentioned above, if there is a reasonable suspicion that there was foul play, then by all means investigate and prosecute if those suspicions are confirmed. But please remember that that it's very likely that a few of them will go belly up due to the risky nature of the business.

What would be riskier is not to pursue these technologies because the consequences of inaction are going to be pretty dire! Tea Party Nutcases aside, let's keep things in perspective!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Rich Borba
October 31, 2012

Does anyone that has the most extreme posts actually read anything or think. Of just spout stuff that confirms your bias and attack things that don't conform to you little world views. In two minutes I found that the Denver post is supportive of this investigation and gave credit to Buck for not grandstanding and only release a press release after numerous requests from the press for info. http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21882937/editorial-shining-light-abounds-failure

This is the Same Denver post that has endorsed Obama for reelection and citing the need to not drill for more oil and increased government investment in renewables. http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21804862/editorial-barack-obama-president

Also read internal emails on WH pressure for Abound and DOE's major concerns. http://completecolorado.com/stories/AboundEmails.html

Lastly Tim capitalism cures the world of hunger and prolongs peoples lives, SEE USA, IF not having a private sector was good for our health and stomachs Cuba and North Korea would be the most immigrated to countries on earth. Even Bono has realized capitalism is the cure to poverty, quote, "said it had been "a humbling thing for me" to realize the importance of capitalism and entrepreneurialism in philanthropy, particularly as someone who "got into this as a righteous anger activist with all the cliches."
"Job creators and innovators are just the key, and aid is just a bridge," he told an audience of 200 leading technology entrepreneurs and investors at the F.ounders tech conference in Dublin. "We see it as startup money, investment in new countries. A humbling thing was to learn the role of commerce. http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/10/22/bonos-humbling-realizations-about-aid-capitalism-and-nerds/

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.

Anderson Hoke
October 31, 2012

If Abound did anything illegal then of course it should be investigated, but it's important to note that DA Ken Buck is a Tea Party activist with national politic ambitions, so it's highly unlikely that this case is not motivated at least partially by his political biases. In the past he cost his county taxpayers $150,000 in fines for performing illegal raids against hispanic workers, and he has refused to prosecute a rapist who was taped admitting to the rape simply because the victim was drunk. This is all publicly available information, published in mainstream newspapers, so decide for yourself whether bringing this case a week before the presidential election seems a little suspicious.

Tim Gulden
October 31, 2012

I agree...if you are trying to avoid government money then no one would be opposed to taking away the billions of annual subsidy dollars the government is giving to the exorbitantly profitable non-renewable energies. This money would then be better spent on bettering our society like feeding the starving children and preventing them from dying...O wait, greed would not have that and neither would the people that harbor this brain cancer as they have the same mental dysfunction/genetic disorder as a murderer but are fulfilling their adrenalin rushing desires through greed at any expense of others. Remember...every living person has the right to a full life and if you are preventing this indirectly or directly from happening then you should be held accountable. Again, when are we going to advance our society past this primitive state and make people accountable for their indirect inflicted pain and deaths?

ANONYMOUS
October 31, 2012

Seems typical of the pro-solar subsidy crowd to attack people rather than honestly arguing points. I choose to remain anonymous to avoid similar personal attacks.

Government subsidies are the Poisoned Chalice of the solar industry. Abound's bankruptcy and the subsequent backlash to those politicians supporting this immoral plundering of taxpayers is just one more example.

Long time solar business entrepreneurs, like me, should strive to avoid government money at all cost if we are to survive.

James Leavenworth
October 31, 2012

Let someone who doesn't post anonymously weigh in, Dear Ken Buck, the fact that you are the instigator of an investigation into a renewable energy company is inherently suspicious. Also you are an extreme anti-woman nut job and that is the reason you are not now a U.S. Senator. Take stock of the fate of other extreme anti-woman nut jobs in the upcoming election and then take the hint: You will never be elected to state wide office. In fact, although your county may be collectively a bit off to even elect you dog catcher in the first place, if I were you I would think long and hard before running for reelection.

James Desmond
October 30, 2012

I've added this story to my "Boondoggle Watch" page:

https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/boondoggle-watch

ANONYMOUS
October 30, 2012

Note that Ken Buck was the Republican candidate for one of Colorado's US Senate seats. He was defeated by Michael Bennet. Possible political agenda in this investigation?

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Vince Font

Vince Font is a professional freelance writer specializing in the fields of renewable energy, high tech, travel, and entertainment. Read his blog at www.vincefont.com or follow him on Twitter @vincefont.