Beacon Power goes bankrupt Solyndra style.

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-bankrupt-3-million-borrowed-from-taxpayers/

An energy company that received a $43 million loan guarantee through the same federal program that backed Solyndra has followed the path of the failed solar firm and filed for bankruptcy.

Beacon Power Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Sunday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. The company, which develops energy storage systems based on what are known as "flywheels," had received the federal guarantee for a 20-megawatt energy storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y., back in August 2010.

The loan was expected to cover the lion's share of the $69 million project, one of several that Beacon was developing across the country.

But the company's CEO said in a statement to the court that all those projects are "capital intensive," and the firm is struggling to attract the additional investment needed to keep everything running. The fact that the company faced being de-listed from the NASDAQ didn't help, he said.

"At present, the revenues generated from the operation … are not sufficient to fully support those business operations, and the debtors currently operate at a loss," CEO F. William Capp said in the court statement. "In addition, the current economic and political climate, the financing terms mandated by DOE and Beacon's recent de-listing notice from NASDAQ have together severely restricted Beacon's access to additional investments through the equity markets."

The Massachusetts-based company also received $29 million in grants from the Energy Department and the state of Pennsylvania through separate programs for a plant in Hazle Township, Pa.

Beacon Power Corporation has not responded to a request for comment from FoxNews.com.

The bankruptcy filing comes as members of Congress dig deeper in their investigation into the billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees that were committed to alternative energy companies, including Solyndra. The Obama administration has also opened an inquiry.

Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., who sits on the House Energy and Commerce oversight subcommittee probing the program, said the news about Beacon Power is troubling.

"We're very, very concerned about this and many other loans that have been made by the Department of Energy over the last several years," he told Fox News on Monday. Griffith said plenty of companies in the U.S. would make "good prospects" for federal help, but the committee investigation is trying to find out whether the government was "just trying to get the money out the door."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, called the revelation of the bankruptcy another example of "the reckless abuse of taxpayers' dollars in the pursuit of green jobs." He also suggested that crony capitalism had a hand in the decision to give Beacon a loan.

One of the most controversial aspects of the Solyndra case -- aside from the sheer size of the $535 million guarantee -- was a decision earlier this year to prioritize private investors over taxpayers in case of bankruptcy. Republicans have accused the administration of giving precedence to investors in the companies who are also Obama backers.

"As with Solyndra, the head of Beacon Power appears to have been a supporter of President Obama's," Sessions said in a statement.

"Increasingly, we are moving away from our capitalist heritage and towards a system where most Americans play by the rules while some are able to rig the game in their favor. The real divide is not split along income lines, but between the politically-connected and those—whether businesses or individuals—who just want the freedom to earn a living."

But an Energy Department spokesman said the agreement with Beacon included "many protections for the taxpayer" and that the government is the only "senior, secured lender" in the project.

"Protecting taxpayer dollars remains the top priority for Secretary (Steven) Chu and the department," spokesman Damien LaVera said in a statement. "The department's loan guarantee is for the project Stephentown Regulation Services, LLC, not the parent company, and the loan was set up in a way that ensures the department is not directly exposed to the liabilities of the parent company."

LaVera noted that the New York plant, "which is operational and generating revenue," is a "valuable collateral asset" for the company as it enters bankruptcy proceedings.

"Under the terms of our loan guarantee agreement, Stephentown Regulation Services, LLC currently has cash reserves and proceeds from the plant that it was required to hold as collateral on the loan," LaVera said.

According to court filings, the company owes the government $39.1 million under the loan – though it had authority to borrow up to $43 million. LaVera said the company did not borrow the full amount because the plant was under budget.

When the project was approved, the Energy Department reported that the loan guarantee would help save or create 14 permanent jobs and 20 construction jobs.

Capp emphasized in the court filing that the company has a number of positive factors going for it.

After investing $200 million on "research and development" and racking up nearly three dozen patents, Capp said the company’s "long-term prospects are strong."

He said the company’s "engineering and other technical personnel are excellent" and can produce "niche" products demanded by the marketplace.

He also noted a recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decision would make grid operators pay more for faster services -- and said Beacon’s systems, which "react in seconds," should allow the company to "earn significantly increased revenues" this way.

Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow also cited the FERC decision in touting the Beacon loan guarantee on an Energy Department blog Monday. He said the decision could help the company generate more revenue.

Defending the decision to back Beacon, Leistikow said the company is trying to address a lack of energy storage in the U.S., which accounts for a weakness in the country’s power grid.

"Even a small increase in America’s energy storage capacity would make our system more flexible, stable, and reliable, and play an important role in our overall effort to reduce the number of costly power disruptions each year," he said. "One promising new technology for dealing with the moment-to-moment fluctuations in our power grid is flywheel energy storage."

Flywheels like those developed by Beacon, he said, "are ‘charged’ by using electricity to spin them faster and ‘discharged’ by using flywheels to spin a turbine and generate electricity."

He described the Beacon plant as a "shock absorber" for the grid, and said it was the first of its kind in the world.

He also noted that, unlike with Solyndra, the plant funded with help from DOE is still operational.

Campaign finance records show top Beacon officials contributing to Democratic candidates. Capp apparently was an Obama supporter, giving at least $500 to the Obama campaign in 2008. He also donated to Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass.

Beacon employee Matthew Polimeno has donated $750 since 2008 to Tsongas’ campaign and another $250 to the failed campaign of Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. CFO James Spiezio also donated $250 to the Coakley campaign in 2009.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...illion-borrowed-from-taxpayers/#ixzz1cOhMmAg4

Please, someone deride this as Faux News. I would love to post confirmation links from independent sources in your face.

If nothing else, the qualifications for federal loans under this program need some serious scrutiny. Supposedly the administration has ordered a "review" of said procedures but to my understanding of politics such "reviews" are usually more for show. I'm not sure I buy Fox's accusation of the Obama admin showing preference to campaign doners, but from what I've seen of big politics I wouldn't be surprised at that either.

For that matter, has any good come out of this program to date? One would think Obama and co would be touting success stories if there were any.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
How many companies have received help? What percent of the total loans is $43 million?

Your point is, don't invest in the industry? Are you that idiotic?

It was a legitimate question, I wasn't making a point. Guess I should expect p&n to read too far into things.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
It was one of the "lose some." But if you don't take chances, you won't "win some" either, and the pace of progress will slow.

When did the government become an investment bank?

Aren't we in the current situation because of banks taking risks with other peoples' money?

Can you keep your principles straight from day to day, or is it just like a see-and-say up in there?

The Cow Goes...
whoosh.jpg

And another $40 million...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Not in the progressive world. In the progressive world everyone wins and there are no losers. Well, unless you are rich or have something they want to distribute to others.

95% of what's said about the left here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
When did the government become an investment bank?
The Government has been investing for a very long time.
Aren't we in the current situation because of banks taking risks with other peoples' money?
These are manageable risks that we knowingly take for progress of technology.
Can you keep your principles straight from day to day, or is it just like a see-and-say up in there?
And another $40 million...
No inconsistency here. I don't think I ever said there should be no risk-taking because Wall Street screwed up.
The government knowingly takes risk with taxpayer money to promote promising technologies and industries. We are better off for it.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
The Government has been investing for a very long time.

These are manageable risks that we knowingly take for progress of technology.

No inconsistency here. I don't think I ever said there should be no risk-taking because Wall Street screwed up.
The government knowingly takes risk with taxpayer money to promote promising technologies and industries. We are better off for it.

There is more than one way of becoming a third world country. Printing and borrowing huge sums of money to help the most irresponsible but well connected of your businesses is a good start. In capitalism, money needs to be allocated to the most successful endeavors, not ones that screw up the most.

Does anyone find this an appropriate use of taxpayer money? Also, what incentives does it create in our capitalist system when risky loans are rewarded with taxpayer backing, while every other venture is taxed to pay for it either through taxes or inflation?

You know what's the best regulation? Fear of losses. If you remove that, you have to replace that with government regulation, which corrupts the whole system and makes it more inefficient. Now you have good banks have to deal with more regulation, and you equalize well run companies with poorly ran ones by government intervention, making life harder for the good companies. This is fundamentally messing with the system, killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. Capitalism is creative destruction, let it happen.

There is no reason why a government that is not even in position to cover its own existing obligations should take on someone else's.

In capitalism, poorly ran companies that misprice risk go bankrupt. Government can use that $700B to cushion the blows to the system, but it should not bail out those companies, and allow them to hold us hostage.

The government is now creating implicit guarantees for all kinds of debts that it has no business guaranteeing.


Man... you must have been in an awful accident within the last couple years to completely turn around like that...
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
When did the government become an investment bank?

Aren't we in the current situation because of banks taking risks with other peoples' money?

Can you keep your principles straight from day to day, or is it just like a see-and-say up in there?

The Cow Goes...
whoosh.jpg

And another $40 million...

Decades ago? You're currently using one of the products developed in this manner...
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
So was mine.

Guess I should expect you to read too much into it.

No it wasn't. It was an obvious and weak attempt to goad me. You knew damn well that I wasn't saying government shouldn't invest in industry. If you didn't, well then you're just stupid. I could ask that question to my 4th grade cousin and she'd know what I meant. So answer the question and/or contribute to the discussion or go home. Assuming you haven't listed p&n as your permanent residence by now.
 
Last edited:

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Man... you must have been in an awful accident within the last couple years to completely turn around like that...

That was about too big to fail financial institutions like AIG, who only benefited themselves and saddled government with the debt after the fact. This is about innovative companies that actually contribute to the progress of technologies that benefit everyone, that the government knowingly subsidizes to promote such progress. I know your brain can't process such distinctions, but they do exist, sorry to burst your bubble.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Decades ago? You're currently using one of the products developed in this manner...

If you can't draw a distinction between government funded research, primarily through public entities such as the DoD, and a loan guarantee to a private company with absolutely no oversight, after being warned by multiple parties that the investment is unsound...well, you're just dumb...sorry.

As senseamp says, the government has no place guaranteeing others' commitments when it can't guarantee it's own.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
If you can't draw a distinction between government funded research, primarily through public entities such as the DoD, and a loan guarantee to a private company with absolutely no oversight, after being warned by multiple parties that the investment is unsound...well, you're just dumb...sorry.

As senseamp says, the government has no place guaranteeing others' commitments when it can't guarantee it's own.

Agreed that we would be better off with a bigger government that hired all these engineers directly instead of backing private companies :D
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
That was about too big to fail financial institutions like AIG, who only benefited themselves and saddled government with the debt after the fact. This is about innovative companies that actually contribute to the progress of technologies that benefit everyone, that the government knowingly subsidizes to promote such progress. I know your brain can't process such distinctions, but they do exist, sorry to burst your bubble.

So the executives at solyndra didn't benefit themselves before firing thousands of people and saddling the government with debt?

The distinction YOU fail to comprehend is the fact that in one case, the government stepped in to prevent further damage... And in another case, they essentially said, "go ahead, do what you want... We got the tab". I don't agree with either. You seem to cheer one of them to he point of ruin.

How many failed investments are acceptable vs those that produce results?

How much money are you willing to borrow 100% from china to finance these speculative investments? When will that money be paid back? 10 years? 20 years? 50? Never?

You said yourself... Fear of loss is the best regulation, and that's exactly what they took away.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
So the executives at solyndra didn't benefit themselves before firing thousands of people and saddling the government with debt?

The distinction YOU fail to comprehend is the fact that in one case, the government stepped in to prevent further damage... And in another case, they essentially said, "go ahead, do what you want... We got the tab". I don't agree with either. You seem to cheer one of them to he point of ruin.

How many failed investments are acceptable vs those that produce results?

How much money are you willing to borrow 100% from china to finance these speculative investments? When will that money be paid back? 10 years? 20 years? 50? Never?

You said yourself... Fear of loss is the best regulation, and that's exactly what they took away.

You tell me, how many Solyndras are acceptable for every Internet?
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
You tell me, how many Solyndras are acceptable for every Internet?

None, since they are totally different. Like I said, it seems you can't draw a distinction between funding research and funding private production.

How many deepwater horizon blowouts are acceptable for every new synthetic material developed?

You win some, you lose some, right?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
But but... this is where obummer's jobs are coming from, all the green energy stuff! This must be a faux news lie, there's no way these great green projects can fail.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
No it wasn't. It was an obvious and weak attempt to goad me. You knew damn well that I wasn't saying government shouldn't invest in industry. If you didn't, well then you're just stupid. I could ask that question to my 4th grade cousin and she'd know what I meant. So answer the question and/or contribute to the discussion or go home. Assuming you haven't listed p&n as your permanent residence by now.

Lol Craig gets pwned again.