The House Energy and Commerce Committee subpoenaed the White House back in November, 2011, and set a deadline of February 21, 2012 for the handing over of Solyndra related documents. In December 2011, the Committee outlined a list of eleven categories of requested documents.

Last Friday, February 17, the White House supplied 463 pages of documents to the Committee. Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) was, however, not impressed, charging that this submission only covered one of the aforementioned categories.

“Just like clockwork, the White House tries to slip Solyndra documents past the American people late Friday on a holiday weekend. Why did they not turn over this small production months ago?”

“While the White House believes referencing how many documents they have turned over is reason enough to proclaim ‘case closed,’ it is what they are not turning over that is troublesome,” he said.

Representative Fred Upton. Photo Credit: Michigan Radio

“Today marks a year since we commenced the investigation and the Obama White House has employed every stalling tactic and roadblock in the book…No matter how hard the Obama administration wishes, this slow trickle of documents will not make Solyndra go away,” Upton continued.

The White House hit back, claiming the committee’s demands were unwarranted. “Republicans’ allegation of political favoritism is as unfounded today as it was a year ago when they started this investigation,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz.

“Yet, despite no evidence to support their accusations — or perhaps because of it — the Committee continues to demand more materials with no real relevance to the Energy Department’s decision making on the loan,” he said.

The White House turned over over almost 2,000 pages of documents both before and after the subpoena was issued. Other federal agencies have also submitted over 180,000 pages of documents.

But as the February 21 deadline came and went, the White House did not turn over the complete cache of requested internal communications. The Committee chairmen were, once again, defiant in their stance.

“From day one, Obama administration officials attacked our investigation, proclaiming that Solyndra was a smart investment unworthy of scrutiny, destined for success,” said Upton, in a joint statement with Cliff Stearns (R-FL).

“Now, it has been 140 days and nights since we first asked the White House for their internal West Wing Solyndra communications. How much longer does the White House believe the truth needs to wait? The deadline has come, and we will do what is necessary to answer the many outstanding questions surrounding Solyndra,” they said.

According to PV Magazine, the White House sees this push for further documentation as politically-motivated.

“At last month’s House Republican retreat, the Leadership increased pressure on its members to ratchet-up oversight of the Obama Administration for political reasons,” said Schultz.

“And we are now seeing that directive come to life. It is troubling that House members would use their investigative authority and taxpayer resources to seek a political advantage. We believe political motivations shouldn’t drive this investigation.”

The $1.4 billion guarantee was for Project Amp, a large-scale rooftop solar installation by Prologis. Solyndra was to provide panels for the first stage of the project, called Project Photon. The Prologis venture was to be largest U.S. solar panel installation on commercial rooftops.

Representatives Fred Upton (R-MI) and Cliff Stearns (R-FL) have chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation into the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee to Solyndra since February 2011. The investigation was expanded after Solyndra’s September 2011 bankruptcy.

Now, the chairmen have requested all documents related to Project Amp and Solyndra, since January 1, 2010, to be submitted to the Committee by February 24.

Representative Cliff Stearns. Photo Credit: AP

“We have questions about Solyndra’s involvement in Project Amp, and what role Solyndra’s involvement played in DOE’s decision to issue a conditional commitment to Prologis for the project,” said the letter.

“Based on our review of documents produced to the committee, it appears that Solyndra’s involvement in Project Amp was a significant factor both in the negotiations between DOE and Solyndra relating to a possible second restructuring of the loan guarantee in August 2011 and in the closing of the Project Amp loan guarantee.”

The DOE offered a conditional commitment for the loan guarantee to Prologis in June 2011, which it finalized in September 2011. While the initial plan had Solyndra providing solar panels for the first phase of the project, by the time the loan guarantee was finalized, Solyndra had filed for bankruptcy.

Reps. Upton and Stearns claim that despite hestitation to approve the loan guarantee for Project Photon, Secretary Chu personally encouraged the approval of the Prologis loan. The chairmen allege Chu’s enthusiasm was an attempt to prop up Solyndra.

The chairmen cited a June 2011 email from a Solyndra employee, relaying a conversation with an investment banker working on the Prologis deal. “[O]n three occasions this week he thought that the [Project Amp] deal was dead, but Secretary Chu personally pulled it off,” he wrote.

“Chu shared with the team that this deal went to higher levels in the Obama Administration to gain approval than any other transaction in the Loan Guarantee Program, and that he personally committed to seeing it through to a successful conclusion,” he continued.

The committee also cited the minutes of a DOE meeting that indicated Secretary Chu had personally requested a meeting to review the Project Amp loan guarantee.

The chairmen argue that Project Photon was crucial for Solyndra to improve its financial position and meet sales projections for the second half of 2011, factors which may have impacted the DOE’s deliberations on whether to restructure Solyndra’s loan guarantee.

“Documents obtained by the Committee indicate that DOE had some hesitation in approving the loan guarantee and that Secretary Chu intervened on behalf of Project Amp,” said Rep. Stearns in a statement.

“This brings up many questions, including if this was an attempt to support the faltering Solyndra since it occurred during discussions over the second restructuring of the Solyndra loan guarantee.”

However, the DOE claims that Chu did not support Project Amp because of potential benefits to Solyndra, since Solyndra had filed for bankruptcy weeks before Prologis’ loan guarantee was finalized.

“Secretary Chu strongly supported Project Amp because it will be the largest rooftop project in U.S. history and is expected to generate enough clean, renewable electricity to power over 88,000 homes while supporting at least a thousand jobs all across the country,” department spokesman Damien LaVera said in a statement.

“As has consistently been the case in course of this committee’s year-long political investigation, critics of our effort to support innovative, job-creating clean energy projects will say anything to distort the record,” he said.

Read the full text of the letter from Reps. Upton and Stearns here.

The company released an update of it’s environmental report, titled “Facilities Report: 2012 Environmental Update,” with details of the installation. The data center, in Maiden, NC, houses Apple’s iCloud service.

The tech giant claims this move shows a “commitment to reducing the environmental impact of [their] facilities through energy-efficient, green building design.”

Apple’s facilities, though, only account for 2 percent of the firm’s greenhouse gas emissions – or around 378,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year. As of now, only a few of it’s facilities worldwide – located in Germany, Ireland, Texas and California – run completely on renewable energy.

Apple's data center in Maiden, NC. Photo Credit: Apple

“Onsite generation allows Apple to meet our energy needs within our own footprint, where possible, while also minimizing grid dependence and reducing environmental impact,” the report said. “[W]e continue to work toward the goal of achieving a net zero energy program for our corporate facilities worldwide.”

The data center purportedly cost $1 billion to build, and was completed last year. The 20 MW solar array will cover 100 acres near the data center, and will supply 42 million kWh of energy annually. The report did not note when the array will be completed.

Read the full report, with details of other energy-saving developments at Apple facilities, here.

Despite the lower price of PV panels, due to last year’s increased supply, Bloomberg reports that better than expected profits sent solar share prices higher on Friday.

Photo Credit: CalFinder

The Arizona-based First Solar also announced approval for a major PV project in California that had been held up due to permitting issues.

These announcements raised these firms’ share prices by 18.9, 11, and 7.3 percent respectively. This good news also raised other solar panel makers’ share prices.

Just the day before, Bloomberg reported that HSBC analysts predicted a “flat” market for PV panel installations in 2012.

“We continue to suggest investors stay cautious given our expectations of flat global installation growth and flat pricing outlook in 2012,” HSBC analysts led by Joseph Jacobelli said in an email. “The sharp surge in January was a result of volume surprises in a number of countries, namely Germany, China, the U.K., Belgium, France and Greece.”

The bank predicts that worldwide solar panel installations will be lower than last year’s 26 GW, at 25.5 GW for 2012.While HSBC forecasts higher installations for China and India, analysts lowered its forecast for U.S. installations for 2013. They expressed concern about financing for large projects and the impact of low gas prices on demand for PV.

The budget proposes a 3.2 percent increase in discretionary funds for the Department of Energy, which the official budget calls “a testament to the importance of innovation and clean energy to the country’s economic future.”

The energy strategy is described as one “that emphasizes priorities in clean energy and advanced manufacturing, through grants, financing assistance, and tax incentives that accelerate fundamental research, technology development, and commercialization.”

Photo Credit: Heritage Foundation

This DOE funding includes $2.3 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), with an almost doubling in funding for energy efficiency activities.

Also included is an increase in funding – up to $350 million – for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, which focuses on pioneering energy research. The SunShot Initiative, which aims to lower the cost of solar energy to be competitive with conventional energy sources by the end of the decade, will continue with $310 million in support.

The proposed budget also eliminates four billion dollars of annual fossil fuel subsidies that “impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to address the threat of climate change.” In strong language, the document argues that “we should not devote scarce resources to subsidizing the use of fossil fuels produced by some of the largest, most profitable companies in the world.”

“These investments in high-performing programs will help position the United States as a world leader in the clean energy economy, and create the foundation for new industries and new jobs,” said the proposed budget.

Key Program Extension

A key request is the extension of the Treasury 1603 Program, which reimburses companies for up to 30 percent of the cost of renewable energy installations in lieu of tax credits. Part of the 2009 stimulus package, Treasury 1603 was extended in 2010, but expired at the end of 2011.

“The lapse of the 1603 Program at the end of last year has had a detrimental impact. Small businesses and entrepreneurs who typically use this program and who would otherwise be hiring workers and starting new solar projects have been left in limbo,” said Rhone Resch, President and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

“America’s solar industry appreciates President Obama’s support for extending the 1603 Treasury Program,” he said.

The budget does not request for further funding for the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program, made famous by Solyndra’s bankruptcy, only $38 million to administer the loans currently in the portfolio.

With almost no chance of enactment, the budget may be merely the President’s blueprint for FY2013 expenditures. However, the sign of support from the administration has been well-received by solar industry players.

The DOE’s SunShot Incubator Program provides funding to small businesses and entrepreneurs to develop technologies that will reduce the cost of installing solar.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu Photo Credit: OSTI.gov

“Investments in American energy and manufacturing are critical building blocks for an American economy built to last,” said Secretary Chu. “The SunShot Incubator program fosters the innovative small businesses that will rapidly bring technological advances to market and pioneer a new era in American energy.”

The Incubator program is now it’s seventh round. As before, the Department is seeking proposals for technologies that will reduce costs for deployment of solar power. These include not only developments in PV and concentrating solar power, but also installation and energy storage methods, and permitting and financing processes.

The Incubator program is just one part of the DOE’s SunShot Initiative, which aims to make solar energy price competitive with other energy forms by 2020, and to reduce the cost of solar energy systems by 75% without long-term government subsidies.

As part of this initiative, the DOE has invested $60 million through the Incubator program since 2007; according to the Department, these investments have involved almost 40 companies and have “catalyzed $1.6 billion in private sector support.”

The Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM) cited an October presentation from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) as further support for the coalition’s allegations that the Chinese government provides illegal subsidies to Chinese PV firms.

The NREL presentation, “Solar PV Manufacturing Cost Analysis: U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Industry,” claims that Chinese have a cost advantage over U.S. producers of less than one percent. When including shipping costs, Chinese firms have a cost disadvantage of five percent.

Credit: NREL

CASM sees this analysis as validating its position that Chinese PV firms do not have lower production costs, but rather benefit from a government export campaign aimed at hurting U.S. competitors.

“This analysis from the renewable-energy research arm of the U.S. government corroborates our view that an export drive sponsored by the Chinese government is improperly intervening in the U.S. market,” said Gordon Brinser, president of SolarWorld Industries America Inc., the firm leading CASM.

“Highly efficient U.S. producers like SolarWorld can vie with any company in the world in legal competition. But the government of China’s illegal trade practices are neither economically nor environmentally sustainable for anyone,” Brinser continued. “Free trade is trade free of illegal foreign government intervention.”

The NREL analysis also noted the differences in U.S. and Chinese PV output. “U.S. private investors encourage technology differentiation,” the presentation said, “[while] China’s government-backed investors fund more mature technologies.”

However, some argue that such a tradition of innovation is at risk without swift action against the alleged unfair Chinese government support to PV firms.

Writing at The Hill, professors George Haley, University of New Haven, Connecticut and Usha Haley, Massey University, Auckland, warn that “if we allow the Chinese to drive the remaining U.S. manufacturers out of the market, we are offshoring the type of advanced, next generation manufacturing we should want to have here in the United States.”

This analysis comes at a time when support for applying tariffs on Chinese PV exports to the United States appears to be gaining momentum, especially since the International Trade Commission’s December decision to continue the investigation into CASM’s petitions.

See the full NREL presentation here.

According to the latest report from NPD Solarbuzz, North American PV Markets Quarterly, this growth is due to falling market prices and regional and national incentives for solar energy.

More than half of the installed systems were large-scale ground-mount systems, with two-thirds of this demand coming from New Jersey, California, Arizona and Ontario.

Credit: Solarbuzz North American PV Markets Quarterly 2012

As expected, the report highlights the expiration of the Treasury 1603 grant program as a key driver for increased installations in Q4 2011. The report also cites changes in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) targets – that is, regulations on how much electricity must be produced from renewable energy sources – as spurring growth in installations in some states.

“The key uncertainties on the rate of US demand growth in 2012 relate to the impact of the end of the Federal Cash Grant and approval timetables for large utility scale projects together with the market impact of states that have met their RPS,” said NPD Solarbuzz Senior Analyst Junko Movellan.

The report predicts that most growth in PV installations will be non-residential and utility projects, while demand for residential PV systems will grow only modestly.

Back in October 2011, the Department of the Interior released an updated list of pre-approved solar energy zones as determined by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These zones were chosen after a BLM survey of public lands that suitable for large-scale solar energy projects with minimal environmental, cultural and historical conflicts.

The plan supplements the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development (Solar PEIS), released in December 2010.

The draft was open to public comment until January 27, 2012. Last week, The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and the Large-scale Solar Association (LSA) announced that they had submitted comments on the solar PEIS.

A solar farm at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. Photo Credit: Suntech

The Brattle Group study was commissioned by the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE), and comes just days after a group of U.S. PV manufacturers, led by German-based SolarWorld, called for retroactive duties to be applied to Chinese imports.

The report, titled “The Employment Impacts of Proposed Tariffs on Chinese Manufactured Photovoltaic Cells and Modules”, considered potential employment impacts at varying tariff rates – a 50 percent rate, or a 100 percent rate – until 2014, with both high and low estimates.

The report claims that a 100 percent tariff would eliminate 16,000 to potentially over 49,000 jobs, while a 50 percent tariff would cause between 14,000 and around 43,000 job losses.

Further, the analysis finds that potential retaliatory tariffs from China – on U.S. exports of polysilicon, a key component of PV panels – could put almost 11,000 more U.S. jobs at risk in the first year of such a tariff.

Solar-Related U.S. Employment Tariff Impacts, including Chinese Retaliation Credit: The Brattle Group

The author of the report, Dr. Mark Berkman, said that although the industry is quite complex, he believes their analysis is sound. “Even under the most conservative assumptions, we did not find a scenario where imposing a tariff would create more jobs than it eliminates,” he said.

“This analysis makes it clear that imposing even a 50% tariff, much less than SolarWorld has requested, would be devastating for American workers,” said Jigar Shah, President of CASE. “We cannot allow one company’s anti-China crusade to threaten the U.S. solar industry and tens of thousands of American jobs.”

Rising Costs for Consumers

The report claims that, on average, module prices would rise by 25 to 30 percent over the next three years.

“Price increases of this magnitude may provide some assistance to  domestic producers facing a highly competitive market, but at the same time will harm consumers, resulting in a drop in overall domestic demand,” the report said.

Adam Browning, Executive Director of the Vote Solar Initiative, highlighted a concern not considered in the Brattle Group study – namely, the impact of potential increase in solar electricity prices on public and government support for solar across the country.

“Cost is the single most important factor in the ability to grow U.S. solar markets. Most U.S. incentive programs are predicated on a declining cost-curve. In these political and economic times, getting to scale will depend on parity with alternatives,” he said.

Read the full report here.