Federal legislators should move rapidly to extend the deadline
for alternative energy companies seeking grant funds for capital
start-up costs, while requiring a certain level of investment with
the money toward American suppliers would maximize the return from
the stimulus-driven program.
Federal legislators should move rapidly to extend the deadline for alternative energy companies seeking grant funds for capital start-up costs, while requiring a certain level of investment with the money toward American suppliers would maximize the return from the stimulus-driven program.
Solargen Energy, proposing to build a 420-megawatt plant in the Panoche Valley, is among hundreds of companies potentially seeking the federal subsidies. For Solargen, it could total somewhere around $300 million on the $1.2 billion project.
Considering the magnitude and complexity of the Solargen proposal, extending the deadline would provide additional time for examination and minimize the risk for misjudgment or errors. To this point, the solar-farm proposal has progressed through planning processes at a relatively swift pace, largely due to the federal deadline. There has been a sense, due to the approaching deadline at the end of December, that the work must be completed fast or there is no hope for a project. It is not the fault of Solargen or the county, but that deadline has left planners, officials and Solargen executives a short window to make crucially-important decisions.
The intention of a deadline is reasonable for the Department of Energy program. Its point is to kick-start the industry, draw interest from the private sector, and help catapult new ventures toward viability. Without such subsidies, the risk and upfront costs in most cases are much too high, and the industry never gets off the ground.
There is a give and take. The government gives, in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars to companies such as Solargen. But it takes away the flexibility normally afforded to companies and local governments in working at their own, often tedious pace. The downside is that it heightens the possibility for flaws and shrinks the time frame for public input.
It is an important investment to consider for the community, and for the nation as a whole, and every dollar matters. That is why the program as it stands contains a flaw in that there are no requirements to spend the American taxpayer funds on American products or suppliers, which runs contrary to the entire point of the stimulus package.
A group of senators led by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer deserve credit for recognizing the problem and introducing a bill to correct it. Their bill would indefinitely suspend the program until provisions can be added to prevent spending on supplies overseas for projects largely funded by taxpayers here. It’s unclear what kind of impact it might have on Solargen and other companies already committing to buy equipment overseas, which does a lot more to stimulate the Chinese economy than it does the American economy.
Unfortunately, much of the supply for solar panels and other alternative energy products, such as wind turbines, is outside the United States. Part of it is a labor issue, but it also comes back to over-regulation in states such as California. Good-old “Green California,” right? It is ironic and sad how a state that touts its infatuation with the environment ends up curtailing prospects for growth in the alternative energy industry with its own stringent rules.
While the imbalance in supply and demand shows a need to curtail regulations, it brings up the point, as addressed in legislation proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., that the nation must incentivize the development of such manufacturing plants domestically in conjunction with the capital start-up program.
