Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Transportation Secretary <keyword id="12026650" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="pete-buttigieg" source="Orion">Pete Buttigieg</keyword> enjoyed his best political year in <keyword id="11908717" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="2021" source="Orion">2021</keyword>.</li><li>Experts say <keyword id="12345069" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="2022" source="Orion">2022</keyword> will be harder for Buttigieg to navigate as he implements the infrastructure law. </li></ul>When he visited the White House in November for the <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-biden-signs-infrastructure-bill-at-white-house">signing</a> of the bipartisan infrastructure law on the South Lawn, former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood huddled with the current occupant of his old Cabinet agency.But amid the celebratory atmosphere and some 800 guests, LaHood had advice—and a warning—for Pete Buttigieg that laid bare the stakes of this political moment for the former 2020 presidential contender."Pete, you got to be the decider," LaHood told him, referencing the hundreds of billions of dollars in grant money that Buttigieg will soon be delivering around the country for big projects like roads, bridges, ports, and tunnels. "Take all the recommendations you want, but in the end, you have to make the decision on every one of these grant programs and projects, because if they're going to be successful, President <keyword id="60973" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="biden" source="Orion">Biden</keyword> will get the credit. If they're not successful, you're going to get the criticism." History is replete with examples of Cabinet officials getting caught in the bureaucratic muck and seeing their career paths go haywire because of it: former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/benghazi-report-hillary-clinton-house-committee.html">spent much of her 2016 presidential campaign</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/us/politics/gop-seeks-criminal-inquiry-of-hillary-clintons-testimony-to-congress.html">answering for her time</a> in the Obama administration. That's why LaHood was talking to Buttigieg and suggesting he assemble a task force within his department of political and career staffers, as well as an infrastructure coordinator, that can be his eyes and ears for any potential obstacles. Buttigieg knows he'll be held to a high standard, and appears to have taken the advice to heart. Even before the law's passage, he held an internal DOT town hall focusing on implementation. In the weeks following, he would act on most if not all of LaHood's suggestions, setting up a DOT working group while partnering with another former mayor—Mitch Landrieu of New Orleans—who is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/14/us/politics/biden-mitch-landrieu-infrastructure.html">serving</a> as Biden's senior adviser and infrastructure coordinator. In the post, the White House said, Landrieu would "oversee the most significant and comprehensive investments in American infrastructure in generations." (Landrieu and Buttigieg have been allies; the fellow former mayor <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/politics/pete-buttigieg-dnc-mayor-endorsements/index.html">endorsed</a> Buttigieg's unsuccessful 2017 bid to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee; the White House declined to make Landrieu available for an interview.) But Buttigieg is also well aware of the political stakes he's facing at the moment. "He knows he's very vulnerable over the next year," a person close to Buttigieg told Insider. <h2>Buttigieg got off to a fast start in 2021</h2>By almost any measure, 2021 was a banner year for Buttigieg. In February, Biden's former 2020 Democratic primary rival had become the first openly gay Cabinet secretary to be Senate-confirmed. At the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/pete-buttigieg-transportation-secretary-profile-2021-3">apogee</a> of his still-young political career, Buttigieg, who turns 40 on January 19, has ensconced himself as one of the most visible members of the administration, racking up appearances on cable <keyword id="11893589" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="news" source="Orion">news</keyword>, Sunday shows, and even late-night television. He's also saturating local media markets through his travels to red states and blue states. He's built bipartisan relationships with members of Congress via some 300 calls to secure the bipartisan infrastructure law's passage, according to his office. He's <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/buttigieg-infrastructure-bill-transportation-secretary-2021-11">jet-setted</a> to Glasgow for COP26, the United Nations climate summit, posing with former President Barack Obama. Buttigieg even enjoyed the global release of an <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/pete-buttigieg-dishes-on-his-future-as-a-presidential-candidate-2021-10">Amazon</a> documentary chronicling his 2020 presidential campaign. And the supply chain<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-store-shelves-are-empty-supply-chain-crisis-shortages-2021-10"> crisis </a>some expected to delay Christmas gifts never quite <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/business/christmas-gifts-delivery-supply-chain.html">materialized</a>. <div type="image" title="Buttigieg visits the Port of Savannah." height="3034" width="4046" msid="88671983" hostid="261"></div>Even at the mercy of the most partisan members of the GOP, Buttigieg's Midwestern demeanor and McKinsey-honed competency haven't attracted the kind of heat-seeking GOP missiles elicited by other Cabinet secretaries. In October, a <a href="https://punchbowl.news/?utm_source=PaidSearch&amp;utm_medium=Search&amp;utm_campaign=Search&amp;gclid=Cj0KCQiA2ZCOBhDiARIsAMRfv9KFcQfties2NDjX8ACgMbSqA28siHbsKRUgKpD0q91ZA_hNkHgWqXIaApTwEALw_wcB">Punchbowl</a> News analysis showed that only <a href="https://twitter.com/RonnyJacksonTX/status/1452663461071163397?s=20">one</a> Congressional Republican had called for his resignation, fewer than any other Biden Cabinet member. However rosy 2021 proved to be for Buttigieg, 2022 could prove a bumpier road for the Rhodes Scholar, as his day job turns from selling the infrastructure bill to steering its implementation. With $550 billion in new infrastructure spending about to go out the door, Buttigieg faces a series of potential political pitfalls in the coming months—including learning how to say "no" to projects that don't make the cut, according to experts in both congressional oversight and transportation policy. In many ways, Buttigieg's political career is just beginning. But the coming years could test his mettle more than the crucible of a 2020 presidential campaign ever did.<h2>Buttigieg's political exposure</h2>Following the infrastructure law's passage, Buttigieg finds himself as a possible target of both the right and the left. Democrats—particularly those in the party's progressive wing—may quibble with some of Buttigieg's moves, said Beth Osborne, a former Obama-era DOT hand and one of Buttigieg's former presidential campaign advisers. She told Insider she's disappointed in the infrastructure legislation that finally passed, based on its delivered-versus-promised impact on climate change and Black citizens of historically divided communities. "He does have a very hard job because he's made promises," said Osborne, director of Transportation for America, an advocacy group for more equitable transportation policies, who last spoke with Buttigieg by phone in February after his Senate confirmation. (Through a round of grants issued to projects to two dozen states in June, Buttigieg's DOT considered climate change and racial equity in their analysis of each project's merit). Osborne added: "I think he needs to be careful about the promises he's making when he's dependent on people who might not have the same priorities he has." That's because much of the law's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/us/politics/racial-equity-states-government.html">provisions</a> around reconnecting communities historically divided by highways or railways allow states discretion on how to spend it — something not likely to happen in red America. Take remarks by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a potential presidential candidate in <keyword id="12020051" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="2024" source="Orion">2024</keyword>, for instance.<div type="image" title="Buttigieg at an infrastructure roundtable." height="2257" width="3010" msid="88671985" hostid="261"></div>In November, DeSantis derided Buttigieg's talk of using infrastructure to help end systemic racism. "I heard some stuff, some weird stuff from the Secretary of Transportation trying to make this about social issues," DeSantis <a href="https://floridapolitics.com/archives/471820-desantis-buttigieg-racist-roads/">said</a>. "To me, a road's a road." Ahead of 2024, rejecting such moves from Buttigieg's DOT appears poised to become a litmus test for any GOP presidential candidates who serve now as governors, as accepting Medicare expansion did for 2016 Republicans.<h2>GOP oversight coming soon?</h2>Buttigieg also needs to be mindful of Capitol Hill and the prospect that Republicans could be wielding subpoena power and the ability to drive the investigative agenda should they win back control of the House or Senate in November.Recent history suggests he has reason to be concerned. Several experts pointed to the Obama-era <keyword id="12873044" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="solyndra" source="Orion">Solyndra</keyword> scandal, which saw the FBI launch a criminal investigation of the California manufacturer of solar cells that had connections to an Obama donor. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2011 despite receiving $528 million in government-backed <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/11/15/142362905/energy-secretary-chu-defends-how-administration-handled-solyndra">loan guarantees</a> via the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. While its downfall was the byproduct of rapidly-changing global market conditions for renewable energy products, Solyndra nonetheless exposed the previous Democratic administration to oversight-hungry Republicans who held countless hearings aimed at embarrassing the president and some of his most prominent Cabinet members. If Republicans take back the House in November, they are likely to ramp up oversight on Buttigieg much the same way their predecessors did with Obama and Solyndra. In a statement to Insider, House Oversight Committee ranking member James Comer said Republicans plan to keep close watch over the infrastructure law's implementation, even as they're in the minority. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is also telegraphing that GOPers will take a tougher approach on oversight should they win the majority, having already sent the Biden administration preservation <a href="https://www.axios.com/republicans-biden-probes-house-majority-25bc5f7a-269e-44c8-94dc-4700574112ca.html">requests</a> for documents related to the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal. Such actions remain little more than talking points unless House Republicans control the chamber and have subpoena power. A DOT spokesperson said the agency isn't tracking any preservation notices—legal requests to keep documents that may later lead to oversight investigations—at this time. "It is unclear how these taxpayer dollars will be used, and as we have seen in the past with debacles like Solyndra, there is plenty of room for waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement," Comer told Insider. Solyndra was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/the-phony-solyndra-scandal.html">written</a> off in many quarters at the time as a manufactured scandal. But it still drew blood, putting the Obama White House <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2012/01/obama-not-afraid-of-solyndra-072058">on the defensive</a> and creating <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/mitt-crashes-solyndra-076916">a literal campaign backdrop </a>for Mitt Romney and Republicans to use in their ultimately unsuccessful bid to stop Obama's second term. Most relevant for Buttigieg, Solyndra also tarnished the reputation of Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who was one of the celebrity members of the Democratic president's Cabinet as the secretary of energy. In the same way the 2009 Recovery Act put Chu's Energy Department at the center of its plans to overhaul the economy, more than half of the bipartisan infrastructure law falls under the aegis of DOT. And Democratic and Republican veterans of political battles around the implementation of Obama's Recovery Act—the most analogous cash infusion into public projects to the infrastructure law—paint a picture of a perilous path ahead for Buttigieg, particularly if Republicans take back the House amid the 2022 midterm elections. "He basically has now until the fall campaign season to go out there and get the nice and easy press," a veteran of the Obama administration's efforts to promote and defend the Recovery Act told Insider. "And then the waters are going to get a lot rougher."<div type="image" title="2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney speaks outside Solyndra's vacant California headquarters during his campaign against President Obama." height="1385" width="1846" msid="88671987" hostid="261"></div><h2>DOT staffing up by the hundreds</h2>There's a big incentive for GOP lawmakers to score political points at Buttigieg's expense and try to sully his future political prospects in the long term, said Kurt Bardella, who handled press for Rep. Darrell Issa when he chaired the House Oversight Committee and led one of two big GOP congressional investigations into Solyndra. To prepare, Buttigieg seems to have followed LaHood's advice down to the letter. The administration and the DOT have been staffing up. Working with Landrieu will be <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-infrastructure-law-appointments/">Katie Thomson</a>, Amazon's former vice president and associate general counsel for worldwide transportation and sustainability. In the new year, she will return to DOT as director of the bipartisan infrastructure law implementation."She understands transportation. She understands people," said a DOT veteran who worked with her during the Obama administration when she served as the department's general counsel under LaHood. A DOT spokesperson told Insider there are plans to hire hundreds of additional staffers to implement the law. According to the DOT spokesperson, Buttigieg also joins weekly calls with Landrieu and his Infrastructure Implementation Task Force. Buttigieg recently invited Landrieu to join a DOT staff call to discuss next steps and take questions from political appointee staff about implementation, the spokesperson said. And the secretary established an internal working group that meets weekly. Ultimately, Buttigieg is the one who will become the decider on infrastructure projects nationwide. And that puts Republicans in position to comb through every aspect of the various projects' backgrounds for threads on which to pull and cause problems for one of the most well known members of the Biden Cabinet. "The Republican effort will be merciless and repetitive because they see him as a threat," Bardella said. "They see him as someone that they need to attack and that puts some dents in his armor because they see him as a potential and future adversary. It will be a hyper-political and partisan effort, and it will be a relentless smear campaign designed to try to injure the political future of the secretary." The Democratic strategist who helped guide the Obama administration through Solyndra said it's almost impossible for Buttigieg and his team to prepare for the storm that's coming.Every single day for a year-and-a-half, a reporter from a Washington newspaper would email him at 3:30 p.m. with a new trove of documents among millions selectively released by the Republican Solyndra investigators, he recalled. The reporter wanted a reaction for a story that was going to run by 4:30 p.m, acknowledging that he still has "nightmares about the daily routine." "I don't know that he or the people around him are really prepared for that level of oversight or scrutiny," the Obama veteran of Solyndra said. "That's not even a knock on him. There's no way you could be, having lived through it."What's more, the Democratic strategist said, Landrieu may not fully insulate Buttigieg from all the blowback in an investigation. "What's gonna end up happening is that you're going to have a big push to spend the money," he said. "And then at that point, once the money is out the door, Mitch Landrieu's portfolio will either evolve or move, or he'll be less front and center. The folks who are gonna be left behind are the heads of the agencies that are implementing and overseeing these grants. So when they find the inevitable scandal, because there will be one—manufactured or not— Mitch will probably be gone. It will be on Pete or whichever agency is in the crossfire, but most likely Transportation."

Political potholes await Buttigieg as he starts a new year implementing Biden's infrastructure law

<div style="float: right; margin: 15px 0 20px 20px;"><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><a href="http://static6.businessinsider.com/category/chart-of-the-day"> </a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-shiller-pe-returns-2013-3"></a></td><td><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-insider-selling-2013-3"></a></td></tr></tbody></table></div><keyword id="1334" type="COUNTRY" weightage="60" keywordseo="China">China</keyword> has for some time been subsidizing its solar industry and betting big on clean energy.
But the huge bet seems to be crumbling now, and at the center of it is <keyword id="193649" type="CITY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Suntech">Suntech</keyword> Power Holdings, one of the world's biggest solar panel-makers.
In November, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/business/global/us-sets-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html">a U.S. trade panel approved tariffs of between 24 - 36 percent on Chinese solar-panel imports, </a>after it ruled that domestic solar panel-makers were hurt by illegal dumping.
They argued that Chinese solar panel manufacturers could sell their products dirt cheap because they were extremely heavily subsidized by their government. Suntech was subject to an even higher 36 percent tax.
Suntech has also been the subject of controversy for some time over its finances. <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-14/suntech-falls-after-maxim-predicts-likely-default-bankruptcy.html">Bloomberg reports</a> that the company had been amassing debt for quite a while and that it reached close to $2 billion as of August 2012.
Another huge blow to the company was its discovery that <a href="http://ir.suntech-power.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=192654&amp;p=irol-newsArticle&amp;ID=1719689&amp;highlight=">€554.2 million in German government bonds</a> that it was given as collateral for its investment in Global Solar Fund "may not have existed and the company may have been a victim of fraud." That dispute was settled last week.
Then, Suntech announced that it <a href="http://ir.suntech-power.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=192654&amp;p=irol-newsArticle&amp;ID=1794390&amp;highlight=">had entered a forbearance agreement</a> with holders of $541 million in bonds due today, and said it will not make the payment but is working with bondholders to restructure the debt.
<a href="http://ir.suntech-power.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=192654&amp;p=irol-newsArticle&amp;ID=1794390&amp;highlight=">In a March 11 press release</a>, the company said it had worked with holders of 60 percent of the company's three percent convertible notes and they had agreed not "to exercise their rights under the Notes and the related indenture" until May 15, 2013.
Now they could be sued by bondholder Trondheim Capital Partners LP, <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/suntech-bondrepayment-idUKL3N0C7O4P20130315">according to Reuters.</a> Suntech is also in talks to be bailed out by the government of Wuxi, China where it is based. 
<a href="https://twitter.com/prchovanec/status/312623140859674625">Patrick Chovanec,</a> chief strategist at Silvercrest Asset Management, tweeted "we may be on the verge of the first major Chinese bankruptcy since GITIC in 1999."
Chovanec has previously said the Chinese solar industry has "a dozen Solyndras." A quick refresher: Solyndra got a massive loan from the Obama administration right before it went bankrupt. Concerns were raised about the impact of political fundraising. <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/npr-whats-going-wrong-with-chinas-solar-industry-2012-12">From his interview with NPR: </a>
"Well, they have a dozen Solyndras. They basically have tried to build up an industry by pouring subsidies into trying to pick winners in that industry and right now those companies are failing badly because there’s a massive amount of overcapacity that’s been created."
Suntech's stock is down nearly 98 percent since 2008 as this chart shows. In the past year, it's been down nearly 80 percent:
<div class="image-container click-to-enlarge" style="width:618px"><div class="image"><a title_source="Yahoo Finance" title_caption="" class="zoomin" href="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/514379b6eab8ea7c7b000005-960/moneygame-cotd-031513.jpg"></a></div>Yahoo Finance</div>

CHART OF THE DAY: China's Solyndra Implodes

<div class="image-container float_right" style="width:401px"><div class="image"></div><keyword id="1628459" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Fisker">Fisker</keyword> AutomotiveThe <keyword id="980145" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Fisker-Karma">Fisker Karma</keyword>.</div>The <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/henrik-fisker-resigns-from-fisker-automotive-2013-3">sudden resignation on Wednesday</a> of Henrik Fisker, co-founder and executive chairman of hybrid electric automaker Fisker, puts the company's already uncertain future on even shakier ground.
In a statement sent to Autocar, Henrik Fisker cited "major disagreements" with "executive management on the business strategy." In its own statement, the carmaker said its strategy has not changed, and that Fisker's departure should not impact its partnerships or financing.
Whatever the details, it is another troubling sign for the hybrid automaker, which is seeking new financing after vastly underperforming growth expectations from September 2009, when it received a $528.7-million conditional loan from the <keyword id="95930" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Department-of-Energy">Department of Energy</keyword>.
For the White House, Fisker has the making of another green loan going bad.
A Troubled History
The $528.7 million loan was part of the DOE's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program, created by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act to allocate $25 billion to fund highly fuel-efficient vehicles.
Fisker was expected to save or create at least 5,000 jobs and build a manufacturing plant in Delaware that would produce as many as 100,000 <keyword id="20632" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Cars">cars</keyword> annually.
More than three years later, however, Fisker has sold only around 2,000 of its high-end Karma model, a car riddled with problems.
<div class="image-container float_left" style="width:299px"><div class="image"></div>FiskerHenrik Fisker co-founded Fisker Automotive.</div>
Since the $110,000 Karma first reached customers in 2011, it has been recalled three times, and its 54 mpg is considered lackluster for a plug-in hybrid. Consumer Reports <a href="http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/09/fisker-karma-earns-a-failing-grade-from-consumer-reports.html">gave it a failing grade</a>.
Just as fellow electric carmaker <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/how-elon-musk-overcomes-challenges-2013-3">Tesla followed its Roadster with the more practical and affordable Model S</a>, Fisker means to build on the Karma with the Atlantic. 
The mid-size sedan was originally meant to go into production in 2012, and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/business/fisker-seeks-federal-loans-to-build-nina-in-delaware.html?_r=0">sell for around $50,000</a>. 
In October, Fisker <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/fisker-pushes-back-atlantic-production-2012-10">delayed production of the Atlantic</a> to late 2014.
On a conference call discussing the delay, Posawatz confirmed the importance of the new model: "The Atlantic is really the volume car that begins to build growth."
That same day, A123 Systems, which provided the lithium ion batteries used by Fisker, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-gave-1-million-a123-2012-11">filed for bankruptcy</a>. Before the end of November, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/fiske-halts-karma-production-after-a124-bankruptcy-2012-11">Fisker halted production of the Karma</a>, due to a lack of new batteries.
(A123 has been purchased by Wanxiang, China's largest auto part maker, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/fisker-could-get-help-from-wanxiang-2013-2">with US government approval</a>, and courts are now dealing with A123's bankruptcy payment plan, <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/03/08/week-ahead-court-to-take-up-a123-bankruptcy-payment-plan/">according to Fox Business</a>. It's still not clear if it will continue to provide batteries to Fisker.)
Meanwhile Fisker has a history of leadership issues, going through three CEOs in a bit more than a year. Former Chrysler CEO Tom LaSorda took over for Henrik Fisker in February 2012. He was replaced by GM veteran Tony Posawatz in August, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/14/tony-posawatz-replaces-tom-lasorda-as-fisker-ceo/">according to Autoblog</a>, who is still at the helm.
Uncertain Future
Fisker has not had access to federal cash since May 2011, when the Department of Energy froze its loan due to Fisker's failure to meet certain deadlines.
A Department of Energy spokesperson confirmed to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/business-insider">Business Insider</a> the loan is still frozen, but said the Department will continue to work with Fisker moving forward, and that the automaker could see its access to the money renewed at some point.
The automaker had already spent $193 million, a bit more than the portion of the loan set aside for investing in the Karma.
The loss of that money was a major blow for Fisker, which counted on the remaining $335 million for getting the Delaware plant up and running.
Fisker has raised <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/03/13/u-s-electric-automaker-fiskers-founder-quits-after-doe-freezes-loan-and-reported-talks-with-chinas-geely/">$1.2 billion in private equity</a> over the past several years, according to Forbes, but it needs more to meet even the late 2014 production date for the Atlantic.
"We need financing or a partner," spokesman <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/01/02/fisker/1800037/">Russel Datz told USA Today</a> in January, a month after Fisker announced it had hired investment bank Evercore Partners to help if find potential buyers and investors, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578163470662104666.html">according to the Wall Street Journal</a>.
Coming Backlash
In October 2011, DOE Office of Public Affairs director <a href="http://energy.gov/articles/fisker-tesla-and-american-auto-innovation">Dan Leistikow justified loans</a> to Fisker and Tesla, saying "cutting our dependence on foreign oil means taking some risks."
That caveat won't go far, however, considering the harsh backlash following the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-department-of-energy-is-an-enormous-embarrassment-2012-5">bankruptcy of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra</a>, which received a $535-million loan from the Obama Administration.
<div class="image-container float_right" style="width:301px"><div class="image"></div>Travis Okulski / Business InsiderThe Fisker Atlantic.</div>Although the Solyndra and Fisker <keyword id="6362287" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="loans">loans</keyword> were part of different programs — and the DOE could potentially recoup funds from Fisker — many would see a Fisker bankruptcy as a repeat of the Solyndra fiasco, and the nearly empty Delaware plant as a symbol of poorly thought out and administered federal loans.
Questions from elected officials began months ago: In October, the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform <a href="http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012-10-22-DEI-to-Chu-DOE-Fisker-Loan-Protection-due-11-5.pdf">wrote a letter to DOE Secretary Steven Chu</a>, accusing the Department of mishandling the Solyndra case, and of "withholding important documents regarding" the Fisker loan.
In July 2012, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney described the federal loan to Fisker as "the kind of crony capitalism that does not create jobs," <a href="http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/fisker-automotive-election-2012.html">according to Inc</a>.
If Fisker does not find financing from an American source — and the Journal reports Fisker is looking for investors primarily in China and Europe — those accusations will have merit.
As it stands, Fisker's best bet for financing may be from China's Geely Automobile, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/03/13/u-s-electric-automaker-fiskers-founder-quits-after-doe-freezes-loan-and-reported-talks-with-chinas-geely/">Forbes reported</a>. That may save the company, but it will mean that a foreign automaker will have a majority stake in a company on which the American people spent nearly $200 million.
Unless Fisker pulls out a miracle, the loan will go down as another mistake for the White House.

An Electric Car Company Is On The Verge Of Becoming The Next Solyndra

First SolarSolar energy is projected to become the No. 1 source of renewable power by 2050.<ul class="summary-list"><li>Solar energy is on track to become the largest source of renewable energy in the US, according to the US Energy Information Administration.</li><li>Chinese companies have long dominated parts of the US solar business. But several US-based companies are gaining ground in the $17 billion market. </li><li>Business Insider compiled a list of the top US-based solar companies, all of which are public, ranked by market cap at the time of publication. </li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/prime?module=article&amp;area=summary">Click here for more BI Prime stories</a>.</li></ul>Solar energy isn't too impressive right now.Last year, for example, solar arrays in the US generated less than 3% of the country's total electricity, according to the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/">US Energy Information Administration</a> (EIA), putting solar well behind other renewables like wind and hydroelectric.And the industry remains relatively small. As of 2018, it was worth an estimated $17 billion, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), which calculated that figure using data on the amount of solar energy that was built that year. But as you look ahead, a different story starts to emerge. In the next five years, total solar capacity <a href="https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data">is set to double</a>. And by 2050, EIA projects that solar energy will account for nearly half of all renewable power generation in the US, or about 17% of all electricity. The falling price of installing solar panels is helping propel the industry forward, with installation costs falling more than <a href="https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data">70%</a> in the last decade, per SEIA. In 2010, an average residential solar system was priced at $40,000, whereas today it's priced closer to $18,000. "There's one thing to desire to transition, there's another to do it because it's the most economical choice," Ron Pernick, who runs the clean-energy stock indexing site, Clean Edge, said. "If you're looking to put in new generation capacity, and you're looking for the most economical sources for those electrons, that choice today is wind and solar."A <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/top-10-clean-energy-firms-sold-most-power-last-year-2020-1">record year for corporate renewable energy buying</a> has also helped fuel the growth of solar. And so have new policies in places like California, which <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/business/energy-environment/california-solar-power.html">passed a bill in 2018</a> requiring that all new homes come with solar energy. <a href="http://newsletter.businessinsider.com/join/4np/power-line">Click here to subscribe to Power Line</a>, Business Insider's weekly clean-energy newsletter.As the <a href="https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data">$17 billion</a> US solar industry takes flight, it's hard to imagine the top players won't rise with it.Many of the largest solar companies are rooted in China, such as Jinko Solar. In fact, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/clean-energy-industry-trends-to-watch-how-to-invest-money-2019-12">experts say it was a manufacturing boom</a> in China that contributed to the demise of American solar companies including Solyndra and SunEdison, because they couldn't compete with lower-cost imported panels.But US companies have also begun to ascend, scoring massive returns in 2019, according to <a href="https://cleanedge.com/indexes/overview">Pernick's indices</a>, which include clean-energy and water companies listed on the Nasdaq. In fact, three of the top five performers across all four of his indices were solar companies, with US-based Enphase in the top spot, seeing returns of over 450%.What does 2020 have in store? With earnings season in full swing, Business Insider compiled a list of the top solar companies headquartered in the US, ordered by the market value at the time of publication. They include residential installers in addition to panel manufacturers and power plant developers. <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/intelligence/bi-intelligence-daily?IR=T&amp;itm_source=businessinsider&amp;itm_medium=ctgr_bii&amp;itm_term=ctgr_subscription&amp;itm_content=tesla&amp;itm_campaign=bi-intelligence-daily"></a>

Meet the top 7 US companies dominating the $17 billion solar-energy industry

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Screenshot via TeslaMaybe it shouldn't be on house.</div></div></div>In decade of covering Tesla, I never honestly thought I would write the name of the company and "roofing" in the same sentence. But now that Tesla is acquiring SolarCity, a solar-panel installer, and rolling out a rather lovely integrated solar roofing solution, the organization formerly known for creating futuristic electric cars is getting into a business that isn't exactly top-of-mind when it comes to most consumers. Even if you own a home, you only think about your roof once a decade or so.There are really two roofing businesses: residential and commercial. If you do a little light research, you quickly learn that the industry is fairly regional, and that most roofing companies with any notable revenue focus on one or the other. The commercial side employs a lot more people and brings in more money. The residential side is comparably smaller, with companies in the top 100 for revenue sometimes staffing in the low two digits.<h2>Remember Solyndra?</h2>For what it's worth, the last buzzy, innovative company in the solar space was ill-fated Solyndra, which captured a lot of attention in Silicon Valley for a revolutionary solar design, but which also went bankrupt in 2011 amid charges of favoritism from the Obama administration (those charges were debatable). And Solyndra's focus was commercial rooftops: large-scale installations, bought by companies that could afford Solyndra's product.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Darren WeaverIt's beautiful.</div></div></div>SolarCity's business is mainly residential, so it makes perfect sense that the merger with Tesla would seek to enhance that side of things through sort of "this changes everything" approach that Tesla has applied to cars. But the thing is that the new solar roof concept is aimed at changing solar installation in residential applications in ways that might not ultimately makes much sense. No one with a decent roof is going to replace it with a solar roof, and when it comes time to actually do a full replacement, homeowners are confronted with a really big cost - $10,000 or more, and for a large house, a lot more.<h2>A good deal?</h2>Tesla argues that the new solar roof design will be both beautiful and less expensive than a regular old-school roof long term because of the offsetting energy cost savings. We can give Tesla and CEO Elon Musk the benefit of the doubt there, but it's going to be rough going to get already financially shell-shocked homeowners to pony up for an even more expensive integrated solar roof when they can simply do the normal reshingling and throw in a limited number of solar panels, adding more late if they like the savings.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Thomson ReutersSolarCity and Tesla are merging.</div></div></div>Big commercial installations is where the real action is, but SolarCity hasn't penetrated that market, while ranking first in residential solar, <a href="http://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2015-top-500-north-american-solar-contractors/2015-top-solar-residential-contractors/">according to Solar Power World</a>. Alarmingly, it's unclear whether there's a clear way for SolarCity and Tesla to make a rapid-growth business, beyond current levels, out of residential solar. With 502 megawatts installed in 2014, SolarCity did almost five times the business of its closest competitor, Vivint Solar. After that, dozens of contractors chop up the remaining market share.<h2>Bigger money</h2>Back to Solyndra for a second. That company's technology was an attempt to radically improve large-scale rooftop solar installations, appealing to major customers who could undertake huge projects. <div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><a href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/SolarCity-Silevo/bf5c9558da0d45abb3a7bd4f5eea382a/36/0">AP/Ed Andrieski</a>Solar panels being installed.</div></div></div>Regardless of how you feel about the bankruptcy, the tech offered a meaningful opportunity to change the game in commercial solar, providing an alternative to old-fashioned, cheap solar panels that could flood the US market from places like China.It's not clear that SolarCity's pre-Tesla-acquisition move into commercial was achieving the company's goals; its was growing, but not as nearly the same rate as residential. <h2>Musk's logic</h2>Tesla's thinking is that a truly differentiated residential solar roof could turbocharge installations, improve SolarCity's entire business, and lend some support to Tesla's energy storage products. A gorgeous home solar roof is also better marketing than a commercial installation.But selling the new solar roof could easily parallel the adoption that Tesla has seen with its vehicles: they're expensive, and they are selling, but they aren't meaningfully displacing gas-powered cars and trucks. The solar roof could move the needle, and there are obviously a lot more homes in the US than there are commercial rooftops. But my sense is that as good as Musk is at selling cars, he's going to find that selling pricey roofs is a lot more difficult. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-unveils-solar-roof-solarcity-video-2016-10">Elon Musk just unveiled something that could revolutionize how you power your home </a></h3> <div> <div> <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="ZtcHQzNzE6rJiNVeNBtErYRi4yljUmMb" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div> </div> </div> </div>

Tesla may have decided to get into the wrong roofing business

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">ReutersU.S., Rep. Ryan listens as author Williamson speaks on the first night of the second 2020 Democratic U.S. presidential debate in Detroit, Michigan, U.S.</div></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li>Moderate Democrats talked a lot about competing with China at Tuesday's Democratic debate, but none of them seemed willing to spend the money to do so.</li><li>None of them seemed to have an ambitious or detailed enough technological development enough plan to do so either. </li><li>China has spent billions on its 'Made in China 2025' plan to dominate the technology space. It's a country-wide effort that has led to a great many failures, but also some great successes.</li><li>Unless the US is willing to match that scale and state input - as it has done with adversaries in the past - it will be outgunned. Moderates seem too scared of being labeled <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/bunch-crazy-socialists-democratic-debate-012243703.html">"crazy socialists"</a> to understand that.</li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/">Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.</a></li></ul>Democrats (and even Republicans) can all agree that the US and China <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/huawei-ban-trade-war-tech-cold-war-2019-5">are locked in a race</a> - <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-china-tech-cold-war-everything-that-has-happened-2019-5">a race for technology and influence</a> and economic dominance. It is a rivalry that will likely dominate the <keyword id="6358883" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="politics">politics</keyword> of this generation.All the more reason why it is disappointing that - at Tuesday's debate - it became clear that the party's moderates lack the ambition to fight it. All of the moderate candidates onstage, especially Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan and former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, failed to put forth any realistic plan for meeting China head on <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/democrats-debate-trade-china-economy.html">despite recognizing the rising economic threat</a> from Beijing."My plan is to create a chief manufacturing officer so we could actually start making things in the United States again, that would pull the government, the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, work with the private sector, work with investors, emerging tech companies, to dominate the electric vehicle market," Ryan said. The congressman mentioned this position three more times in the debate, as if the title in and of itself were some kind of plan. It's not. It's the same kind of pithy so-called solution that got us into this mess. Form a commission. Hire someone with a private-sector sounding title. How about a working group? Let's call some CEOs to the White House and have some ribbon cuttings!Here's why all of that sounds so silly at this point in the history of US-China relations. China is outspending the <a href="https://qz.com/1247527/for-every-1-the-us-put-into-renewable-energy-last-year-china-put-in-3/">US $3 to $1</a> on renewable energy investment. It has a "Made in China 2025" plan that is which, among other things, steers the investment of 800 state and local level funds valued at almost $320 billion, <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/final_made_in_china_2025_report_full.pdf">according to the US Chamber of Commerce</a>. It has whole towns dedicated to making <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-02/china-s-spending-30-billion-to-assemble-its-electric-detroits">electric vehicles.</a>Sure, the electric vehicle industry is about to be completely upended as subsidies dry up. And yes, that means there will be winners and many more losers - but no matter. China got what it wanted, which was the <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-not-tesla-will-drive-the-electric-car-revolution-2019-05-14">development of a high tech industry</a> it can now unleash on the world.And that's the key. If any of these moderates want to go toe-to-toe with China they need to put money where their mouths are. They need to pay a great deal of money for it. And so far none of their plans outline the will or the way to do that <a href="https://timryanforamerica.com/industrialplan/">(especially not Ryan's anemic plan).</a><h2>Getting in the game</h2>The last time the US was locked in technological competition with a rival - the USSR - it did not hesitate to spend. Historians argue about how much this race contributed to the USSR's collapse, but it is certain by the 1970s Soviet officials were warning General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev that aggressive spending on defense and technology development <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm">was consuming way too much capital. </a><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm"> </a>It was the United States government's intention to exhaust Russian resources, and in the process outflank them in the technological sphere. To do that required some ambitious planning. Back during the Reagan administration part of that was a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/10/business/technology-official-quits-at-pentagon.html">Department of Defense project called Project Socrates.</a> It was directed by a then 30-something physicist named Michael Sekora and its aim was to track advances in the evolving technologies of the time including superconductors and high performance computers.Business Insider <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/we-should-have-a-plan-instead-of-a-trade-war-2018-5">caught up with Sekora last year</a>, and he explained how he thought (and the US should think) about technological competition on the world stage."We have cell phones, laptop computers, smart watches, etc. as individual products," Sekora explained to Business Insider over email. "And people think in terms of the impact of these individual products. [They think] if the Chinese gain a technology the impact is they can produce these individual, separate products. MBAs are taught to put products in small little silos which they can then address as neat little packages.""They don't think of technologies as nodes in the technology space, which is the foundation of all competitive advantage... The nodes give the Chinese more ability to maneuver in tech space to increase and maintain the competitive advantage via excelling at satisfying various customer needs through a variety of various products and services (interconnected in tech space) that will come and go over time."In other words, China isn't thinking about developing the next cool tech product. The country's leader's are thinking about dominating certain foundational technologies that will form the basis of those products. This is a huge investment, and American leaders need to commit to the same type of investment if the US is going to compete.<h2>Ready to take an L</h2>Say what you want about the Green New Deal championed by Democrats like Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and candidates like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but at least it addresses the scale of the problem we're talking about here. We're not talking about re-opening a few factories and starting to make some products that China is making here in America.We're talking about reframing the way the US thinks about technological competition. We're talking about the state leading its own strategy, not throwing some money at the private sector and letting it take the reins. That means the government needs to have oversight and influence over outcomes - including failures. During the Obama administration the government handed $535 million to solar company Solyndra and let the company do its thing - that backfired spectacularly when it went bankrupt in 2011. Republicans turned this failure into a talking point, rubbing in the company's failure as a failure for liberals. If anything, though, Solyndra showed the government should have a bigger role in securing that companies spend its money on efficiently developing technology that will be useful to the US.The wonder that was Silicon Valley's capital allocation system has started funding <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/01/juicero-silicon-valley-shutting-down">juice makers</a> and <a href="https://www.eater.com/pop-culture/2018/8/6/17655590/bodega-start-up-name-change-stockwell">glorified vending machines</a>, but won't be enough to truly compete on China's level. There needs to be a concerted, government effort to develop core technology that will beat China because venture capital and Wall Street aren't cutting it.As we take on this expensive and arduous task there will be failures. There will be dead ends. China has had a whole lot of them. Are the ideas needed to keep up, like the Green New Deal, ambitious? You bet. Does it spend a lot of money? Sure as shooting. But don't be naive: We're not going to beat China on the cheap. We're not going to beat China by abdicating responsibility to the private sector - a sector whose mission is profit, not patriotism. This is a race between countries not corporates.The private sector can help, but realistically it's job is not to rack up wins for America. That's the government's job and the government should have the stones to spend enough money to do it right. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hidden-benefits-amazon-prime-power-user-2017-7">7 lesser-known benefits of Amazon Prime</a></h3> <div> </div> </div>

Moderate Democrats don't have the guts to do what it takes to beat China in a tech war

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">SpaceX/YouTubeElon Musk should be getting us to Mars, not bailing out SolarCity.</div></div></div>In just a few months, Tesla has gone from being an upstart Silicon Valley car company on the verge of becoming a major automotive player with the introduction of it's $30,000, mass-market Model 3 and its 373,000 pre-orders to being a budding conglomerate that's about to acquire a struggling solar-panel leasing company to the tune of $2.6 billion.The SolarCity deal, set to be voted on by shareholders next month, will also entail the absorption of $2.5 billion in debt, weighing down Tesla's balance sheet at exactly the wrong time.Make no mistake, this is a SolarCity bailout, and the deal is complicated by the fact that Tesla CEO Elon Musk is the largest shareholder of both companies - and that Musk's cousin is SolarCity's CEO. Since the beginning of the year, SolarCity shares have plummeted by more than 50%, and the solar-panel leasing-and-installing has over a billion in debt payments due by the end of 2016.<h2>The Master Plan</h2><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_left"><div><div class="image on-image">Google FinanceOuch.</div></div></div>For Musk, SolarCity is a critical piece of his Master Plan to accelerate humanity's departure from the fossil-fuels era, debt be damned.Tesla vehicles produce no carbon emissions, although much of the electricity that powers them comes from burning coal. Solar is the fix on that front: clean energy drawn from Musk's favorite source, that giant fusion reactor in the sky, the Sun. As an aside to this discussion, Musk's third company, SpaceX, will provide the escape hatch if everything goes horribly wrong: we'll use Mars colonies to "back up the biosphere," as he puts it, and SpaceX rockets will get us there.It all fits together beautifully, and in fact <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/musk-give-up-tesla-ceo-job-2016-9">I think Musk should step down as Tesla CEO</a> so that he can devote himself entirely to SpaceX.But unfortunately, if the car industry is tough and getting people to Mars currently insurmountable, then the solar business is really just terrible. Yes, it has been improving steadily for a decade, and SolarCity's leasing model is innovative.However, the industry repels technical innovation - controversial and failed Solyndra had a breakthrough technology that was completely overwhelmed by the commodity nature of solar-panel manufacturing when China flooded the market in 2011, sending Solyndra into bankruptcy. And customers need to sign on to an abstract, environment-saving agenda that may not have much impact on their household bottom lines for years.Now Musk wants to yoke electric cars, solar power, energy storage, and possibly ride sharing into one big Tesla party, all while keeping SpaceX on pace to send humans to Mars in a decade.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Thomson ReutersStop before it's too late.</div></div></div><h2>Tesla and SpaceX win while SolarCity loses</h2>As someone who often looks at the Sun and looks at his roof and considers the energy cost-savings possibilities, I'm naturally sympathetic with Musk's ambitions. But where Tesla and SpaceX are concerned, now isn't the time for the art of the possible. SolarCity is going to be a huge drag on Tesla ability to push electric vehicles past a tipping point: if Tesla can hit Musk's targets, it will be selling more EVs every year by 2018 than are currently on US roads in total.SolarCity has clearly become a capital-destroying machine. It's market cap is worth less than its debt, and Tesla is paying a half a billion premium to assume those liabilities. Even the most swashbuckling private-equity buccaneer would conclude this deal looks pretty lousy.It's also one of the largest deals being done right now by an automaker. General Motors and Ford have been buying companies. But they haven't come anywhere near what Tesla will be coughing up for the right to inhale SolarCity. Their acquisitions also seem strategic - GM buying Cruise Automation for self-driving tech, while Ford bought Chariot, a Bay Area bus service that's a big buyer of Ford vans. They aren't fooling around with purchasing oil exploration or gas-refining operations.Of course, it's Musk's job to think far, far ahead, and we should commend him for it. There's not more visionary figure in American business at the moment - and there may never have been, in US history. But that doesn't mean he's incapable of presiding over a merger that could do horrible damage to Tesla, setting the automaker back years and putting and end to its impressive run.I don't know if Tesla can call off the SolarCity deal before it's too late. But if it can, it should. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/kid-car-enthusiast-uk-reviews-tesla-model-s-2016-9">A 13-year-old kid explains why Tesla is the best car</a></h3> <div> <div> <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="FxeGF1NTE6G-Fu2c2rgCh9j1kvA6VXES" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div> </div> </div> </div>

Tesla should bail out on the SolarCity merger before it's too late

<div class="image-container float_right" style="width:400px"><div class="image"></div>REUTERS/Kevin LamarqueNicholas Whitcombe (L-R), of the DOE, <keyword id="1628459" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Fisker">Fisker</keyword> Automotive founder Henrik Fisker and co-founder Bernhard Koehler at Wednesday's congressional hearing.</div>Republican members of Congress <a href="http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=d468a48d-5c7d-4eb8-8a79-09760ae52e8e" target="_blank">fiercely criticized Fisker Automotive executives</a> and Department of Energy (DOE) officials at a House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday.
The hearing, titled "<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CDEQFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Foversight.house.gov%2Fhearing%2Fgreen-energy-oversight-examining-the-department-of-energys-bad-bet-on-fisker-automotive%2F&amp;ei=j415UfuOI9HW0gHF6ICIAg&amp;usg=AFQjCNEo1mhjXc9p7M4kXB7rktvQW2Rerw&amp;bvm=bv.45645796,d.dmQ" target="_blank">Green Energy Oversight: Examining the Department of Energy's Bad Bet on Fisker Automotive</a>," was called to discuss the DOE's choice to award Fisker a $529 million loan.
Fisker, once a promising electric car company, has stopped production of its <keyword id="20632" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Cars">cars</keyword>, fired three quarters of its workforce earlier this month, and appears <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/report-fisker-lays-off-public-relations-team-2013-4" target="_blank">headed for bankruptcy</a>. 
Rep. Jim Jordan (R) of Ohio called the DOE loan program "one of the most disastrously mismanaged and corrupt programs in U.S. history," <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/24/obama-administration-had-advance-warning-on-fisker/">according to Fox News</a>.
He also demanded an explanation, saying: "The Obama administration owes the American taxpayer an explanation as to why this bad loan was made in the first place, and what they are going to do to minimize the loss that taxpayers face."
And Rep. Patrick McHenry (R) of North Carolina questioned the government's role in giving out loans, saying "the government is a very poor venture capitalist," <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/100670483">Reuters reported</a>.
The DOE and Fisker did have some defenders from the left. Democratic Congressman Gerald Connolly of Virginia compared the hearing to "a Soviet show trial," <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/24/autos/fisker-government-loan/index.html">according to CNN Money</a>.
Documents released Wednesday showed the DOE did not realize Fisker had missed a critical production target mandated by the conditions of its loan. The car company was given an extra $32 million before the June 2011 freezing of the loan, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=178732092">the AP reported</a>.
White House spokesman Jay Carney accused the Oversight committee of trying "to stoke false controversy by selectively leaking a few out-of-context documents," <a href="http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1083749_as-predicted-fisker-execs-doe-get-roasted-in-house-hearing">according to Green Car Reports</a>.
Although the DOE could potentially recoup funds from Fisker (and has already seized $21 million from the company) many see a Fisker bankruptcy as a repeat of the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-department-of-energy-is-an-enormous-embarrassment-2012-5">failure of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra</a>, which received a $535 million loan from the Obama Administration. 
A recent <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/fisker-automotive-latest-doe-troubled-loan">press release from the Energy and Commerce Committee</a>, chaired by Republican Congressman Fred Upton, called the Fisker deal "plagued with problems." It listed four other companies that went bankrupt after receiving DOE loans, including Solyndra.
The Solyndra and Fisker loans were part of different programs.
The hearing is not the only current problem for Fisker: It is <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/fisker-faces-federal-lawsuit-after-layoffs-2013-4">facing a federal lawsuit</a> that alleges it did not give adequate notice before dismissing the majority of its employees.

House Republicans Slam Federal Loan To Fisker As 'Corrupt' And 'Mismanaged'

<div class="image-container float_right" style="width:617px"><div class="image"></div><keyword id="1628459" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Fisker">Fisker</keyword> Automotive</div>In 2009, Fisker Automotive was an exciting company: With Detroit in shambles and a huge loan from the federal government, the startup automaker had plans to change the industry.
It was going to build 100,000 <keyword id="20632" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Cars">cars</keyword> a year in Delaware and save or create 5,000 jobs. The Karma, its gorgeous, extremely efficient plug-in hybrid electric car, was on the way.
It <a href="http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0608/070-automakers-fisker-karmas-the-next-detroit_2.html">landed a cover story on Forbes</a> magazine in May, with the title, "The Next Detroit." Justin Bieber and Leonardo DiCaprio were huge fans.
But today, no Karmas are being built. Production of the Atlantic, the car meant to generate real profits, has been delayed to late 2014. The Delaware plant sits nearly empty, and company's namesake and co-founder suddenly resigned this week.
Here's how Fisker went from the up-and-comer that was going to change the game, to a company flirting with disaster, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/fisker-could-be-the-next-solyndra-2013-3">and just maybe the next Solyndra</a>.

How America's Coolest Automaker Crashed So Hard, So Fast

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Agence France-Presse/Saul Loeb via Getty ImagesUS Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, and US Senator Ed Markey (R), Democrat of Massachusetts, speak during a press conference to announce Green New Deal legislation to promote clean energy programs outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC, February 7, 2019.</div></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li>Since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey introduced their roadmap for a Green New Deal last week, critics on the left and right have characterized the ambitious proposal as politically infeasible. </li><li>But a recent INSIDER poll found that a plurality of respondents support the Green New Deal and large majorities support the bulk of the resolution's broad policy goals. </li><li>The proposal bundles aggressive environmental priorities with investments in infrastructure, jobs, and transportation - issues that Americans across the political spectrum are worried about. </li><li>But a plurality of respondents are opposed to the federal government investing and maintaining ownership stake in private businesses - one of the seven pillars of the proposal that INSIDER polled. </li></ul>Since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey introduced their roadmap for a Green New Deal last week, critics on the left and right have called the ambitious proposal politically infeasible. President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/politics/donald-trump-el-paso-immigration-campaign-rally/index.html">characterized the plan as socialist</a> and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/07/pelosi-trump-government-shutdown-1154355">a "green dream."</a>Nevertheless, the <a href="https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf">nonbinding resolution</a> has quickly picked up steam among progressives. The Green New Deal has received 9 Senate sponsors, more than 60 House sponsors, and every Senate Democrat who has declared a run for president in 2020 has endorsed it. Progressive supporters of the deal insist there is broad support among American voters for their calls to decarbonize and turbo-charge the economy. According to a new INSIDER poll, they may have a strong case.<h2>Here's what Americans support in the Green New Deal</h2>To start with, INSIDER's poll found that a solid majority of Americans <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#*">agree with scientific consensus</a> around <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002">climate change</a>. Nearly 62% of those polled said the Earth is warming as a result of human activities, including burning fossil fuels. 26% said global warming is a result of natural patterns in the Earth's environment, and just 11.7% said there's no solid evidence the Earth is getting warmer.Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal House resolution <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ed-markey-green-new-deal-climate-change-2020-democrats-2019-2">broadly calls for the US</a> to address climate change through a 10-year mobilization to make the US economy carbon-neutral by moving to 100% renewable energy, while simultaneously guaranteeing a job to every American who wants one. A plurality of respondents - 43.7% - agreed with the "Green New Deal" proposal as a whole. 16.3% strongly agreed, 13.9% agreed, and 13.5% somewhat agreed. Meanwhile, just 14.7% disagreed with it, and about 24.3% said they didn't know enough to say.Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/a-70-tax-on-the-super-rich-is-more-popular-than-trumps-tax-cuts-2019-1">Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 70% tax on the super-rich is more popular than Trump's tax cuts, new poll shows</a>Next, we polled seven individual ideas or components of the deal that would be linked to policy priorities, all of which are quite vague. Given the loose nature of the proposals, we asked respondents how important it was to implement these policy proposals, on a scale with five options running from "not at all important" to "extremely important."<ul><li>The poll found that 87.6% of respondents think it is either somewhat, very, or extremely important that the federal government invest in infrastructure designed to build resilience against climate change-related disasters.</li><li>87.2% of poll respondents said it's somewhat, very, or extremely important that the US meet 100% of its power demands through renewable or zero-emission energy sources. 12.7% said this goal is either not so important or not at all important. </li><li>86% of those polled said it's important that the federal government enact policies that aim to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (which would mean no added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).</li><li>Support for improving the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings was particularly high at 89%.</li><li>And 87.5% of respondents said it's important that both manufacturing and agricultural businesses and industries be required to be as emission-free as technologically feasible.</li><li>The resolution's call for major investment in energy-efficient transportation was also popular. 87.6% of those polled said it's important that the government invest directly in a high-speed rail system, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and clean public transit.</li></ul>And big majorities of respondents supported a broad call for a much stronger social safety net. 78% said a federal jobs guarantee is important. And 69.8% somewhat approved, approved, or strongly approved of the government providing all Americans with high-quality healthcare, affordable housing, economic security, healthy and affordable food, and a clean environment. While our polling shows significant public support for the general concept of a Green New Deal and most of the plan's key proposals, it's not clear to what extent voters will prioritize the issue when compared with other policy priorities.The survey's findings also reflect a general shift in US public opinion on climate change in recent years.A <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/climate/americans-global-warming-poll.html">recent survey</a> from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University found that 73% of Americans said they understood that global warming is occurring - an increase of 10 percentage points from three years ago. 72% of those polled said climate change was important to them.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">J. Scott Applewhite/AP</div></div></div><h2>But do they support the whole bundle?</h2>While individually these policies may be broadly popular - sure, a high-speed rail may sound like a good idea, even to people who don't think the government should guarantee jobs - the proposals are bundled for a reason.While responding to climate change is important to many, it's not typically policy issue number one for large groups of Americans. In many ways, that's the key innovation of the Green New Deal.According to<a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/05/republicans-and-democrats-have-grown-further-apart-on-what-the-nations-top-priorities-should-be/"> the Pew Research Center</a>, Americans from across the political spectrum prioritize policies that address the economy, transportation and jobs. Further, "the economy" and "jobs" <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2019/01/24/publics-2019-priorities-economy-health-care-education-and-security-all-near-top-of-list/">regularly appear at or near the top of the list</a> for Americans' policy goals for the federal government.So it should come as no surprise that the plan links a jobs and economic stimulus package with environmental priorities. Proponents of the Green New Deal hope the popularity of the economic goals will rub off on that of the climate-related priorities.A reasonable concern would be that one or more of those priorities could be a poison pill for the package as a whole. But, based on INSIDER's survey, there is not a ton of evidence to support those concerns.Of the seven separate planks we surveyed, 30% said all seven were extremely or very important, 17% said six of the seven were important and 12% said five of the seven were important. For comparison, 15% think that none of the seven polled policies are very or extremely important.And adding in those who think the priorities are at least somewhat important, 66% of respondents went seven-for-seven, saying that each and every component of the plan was somewhat, very, or extremely important. That seems to back the notion of bundling these policy proposals. All told, 21% of respondents identified as very or somewhat conservative, 31% identified as very or somewhat liberal, with 48% identifying as slightly liberal or slightly conservative, neither, or they declined to say. Support for a Green New Deal and its proposals was strongly linked to whether the respondent said they believed the earth was getting warmer due to human activity, with the exception of one policy. <h2><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Reuters/Pawel KopczynskiSteam billowing from the cooling towers of Vattenfall's Jaenschwalde brown coal power station is reflected in the water of a lake near Cottbus, eastern Germany December 2, 2009.</div></div></div></h2><h2>The weakest part of the Deal</h2>Just 13% of respondents said they approve of the federal government directly investing and maintaining ownership stakes in businesses working to meet the policy goals of the Green New Deal. About 42% of respondents said they either disapprove or strongly disapprove of such action. The public's opinion on this issue might be informed by Barack Obama's <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-green-tech-program-that-backed-solyndra-struggles-to-create-jobs/2011/09/07/gIQA9Zs3SK_story.html?utm_term=.3a6f186ef73b">largely unsuccessful efforts</a> to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/04/a-closer-look-at-obamas-90-billion-for-clean-energy/?utm_term=.f35b7bf459b2">create hundreds of thousands of green jobs</a> with the $90 billion set aside in the 2009 stimulus package for clean-energy development. The <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/439/create-5-million-green-jobs/">program's shortcomings</a> were highlighted in the government's relationship with Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturing company that <a href="http://fortune.com/2015/08/27/remember-solyndra-mistake/">went under after the administration gave the company</a> a $535 million government-guaranteed loan. The company ultimately filed for bankruptcy after market conditions and unwise managerial decisions caused its revenue to plummet.Obama's auto bailouts in the midst of Great Recession are another recent example of government getting involved with private companies. Faced with estimates of <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/auto-bailout-saved-15-million-jobs-and-likely-made-government-money/355943/">more than one million lost jobs</a> if GM and Chrysler folded in 2009, Obama <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2018/11/07/world/what-did-america-buy-auto-bailout-and-was-it-worth-it">gave billions in loan guarantees</a> to both car manufacturers. At the time, the move was <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/business2.htm">deeply unpopular</a>. Both companies were saved by their "controlled bankruptcies" and rebounded during Obama's years, <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/">repaying the bulk of their loans</a>. By 2012, public support for the bailout rose to 56%, according to a Pew Research Center poll. <ul class="read-more-links"><li>Read more:</li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ed-markey-green-new-deal-climate-change-2020-democrats-2019-2" data-read-more-link="" data-e2e-name="read-more-link">Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiled a Green New Deal that will force 2020 Democrats to take an aggressive stance on climate change</a></li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-senate-vote-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-2019-2" data-read-more-link="" data-e2e-name="read-more-link">Mitch McConnell will hold a Senate vote on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal to force 2020 Democrats 'to go on record'</a></li><li><a href="https://www.thisisinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-biography-2019-1" data-read-more-link="" data-e2e-name="read-more-link">THE TRUTH ABOUT ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: The inside story of how, in just one year, Sandy the bartender became a lawmaker who triggers both parties</a></li><li>SurveyMonkey Audience polls from a national sample balanced by census data of age and gender. Respondents are incentivized to complete surveys through charitable contributions. Generally speaking, digital polling tends to skew toward people with access to the internet. SurveyMonkey Audience doesn't try to weight its sample based on race or income. Total 1,127 respondents collected Feb. 8-9, 2019, a margin of error plus or minus 3.12 percentage points with a 95% confidence level.</li></ul> <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/roger-stone-president-donald-trump-never-change-2017-2">ROGER STONE: Trump is 'never going to change'</a></h3> <div> </div> </div>

Large majorities of Americans support almost all of the key ideas in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image">Warner BrothersThe enemy.</div></div></div>I worked on Wall Street for 30 years and have been studying markets even longer.Wall Street has come under fire in recent years, mostly from people who never worked there, and know little about how and why markets work. The popular view of Wall Street reflects Hollywood stereotypes, not primary knowledge. Here I will attempt to clear up three popular misconceptions.The first is that markets are casinos that provide little value to society. In fact, free capital markets are essential for economic development, which is itself essential for human progress. All developed economies have free capital markets. There are no exceptions. None. Why are free capital markets required for economic development? The ability to attract and retain capital is what allows businesses to design products, hire employees, buy materials and equipment, build products and grow the economy. Capital allocation fundamentally shapes the economic landscape, and free markets are the best way to allocate capital.Why? Because free markets reflect "the wisdom of (informed) crowds" - i.e., the aggregate intelligence of investors worldwide. This doesn't mean that markets are always right, just that they're really hard to beat. Free capital markets financed the modern world and all its wonders. Conversely, when governments allocate capital, we get Versailles, Venezuela, bridges to nowhere and the ghost cities of China. When governments try to direct capital using subsidies, tax preferences, and mandates, we get Solyndra, the housing bubble, and higher food prices (as crops get converted to ethanol). Markets simply know more and forecast better than even the most talented government officials; our aggregate knowledge exceeds that of any individual. The wisdom of crowds beats the hubris of experts.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/houseofhall/8427366371/sizes/l">Flickr</a>Versailles</div></div></div>Market "speculation" also serves a critical economic function. By constantly chasing even the smallest opportunities, speculators improve price discovery and market efficiency, driving market prices ever closer to fair values. Why is this important? When prices are fair, long-term investors can buy or sell with confidence, knowing their returns will reflect long-term trends, not short-term mispricing. Ultimately, by enhancing market efficiency, speculators improve capital allocation and growth.The second popular misconception concerns regulation and the financial crisis. The crisis didn't happen because deregulation unchained Wall Street greed. Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the housing bubble; it had nothing to do with housing or mortgage finance. Prop trading didn't contribute to the crisis either. I am certainly not claiming that there is no greed on Wall Street - greed, or wanting more, is human nature. My point is simply that you can't have a bubble without widespread greed and miscalculation, from homebuyers and lenders to MBS packagers, rating agencies and investors. But greed and miscalculation weren't the only causes of the housing bubble; they were aided and abetted by federal policies designed to promote housing - easy money (an essential component of any bubble); tax preferences for mortgage interest; the Community Reinvestment Act; GSEs; moral suasion, etc.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_left"><div><div class="image on-image">Business InsiderRobert C. Jones</div></div></div>In any case, the solution to too-big-to-fail banks is not more regulation; overregulation caused the problem in the first place. In both the time series (a single industry through time) and the cross section (comparing different industries at a point in time), more regulation leads to greater industry concentration. Regulations create barriers to entry that reward scale and punish smaller competitors with disruptive business models. Not surprisingly, the biggest banks now control a larger share of capital than before Dodd-Frank. Overregulation also drives away bright, creative people, who feel stifled by extensive regulations. Overregulation threatens to leave banks as lumbering zombies that are protected from competition, managed by soulless bureaucrats, and micro regulated by government technocrats. These are hardly the types of vibrant, dynamic companies that should drive the critical capital allocation function. Fortunately, only the SIFIs are grossly overregulated today; most other investment sectors, from venture capital to hedge funds to financial services, - remain highly diverse and competitive (but watch your wallets).Finally, regulations rarely achieve their stated goals. Markets are complex adaptive systems that are resistant to centralized control. They constantly adapt to achieve the goals of their participants. When the rules change, agents adapt their methods, but not their goals. The result is that command-and-control approaches often lead to unintended and undesirable consequences, like housing bubbles, rising food prices, and extensive lobbying (which wouldn't exist without burdensome, constantly-changing regulations).The third and final misconception concerns the culture of Wall Street. Contrary to popular belief, it's not infested with Madoffs and Geckos. The vast majority of the people I've met in finance are hard-working, smart, creative, thoughtful, and ambitious. Not greedy, ambitious. Ambition is far nobler than greed. Ambitious people want success to come from their accomplishments, not cheating. Talent and ambition produced most of humanity's greatest achievements. <div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image">Shannon Stapleton/ReutersBernie Madoff.</div></div></div>Are there some slackers and crooks on Wall Street? Of course, and they get a lot of press, but they are also rare, as they must be in any functioning market system.Wall Street is not the enemy; it has shaped and financed the modern world. We should all be extremely grateful for free capital markets and all they've done to lift the developed world out of poverty. To work its magic, however, Wall Street needs to retain its dynamic, innovative culture so it can continue to attract our most talented, ambitious and creative people. Finance also offers a perfect cure for what ails America's middle class: clean, safe, well-paying, challenging and engaging jobs. Instead of trying to regulate Wall Street into zombie-like submission, our political leaders should be doing all they can to assure our capital markets are the most vibrant, open, and free markets in the world.Robert C. Jones is the chairman and CIO of System Two Advisors in Summit, NJ. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blind-taste-test-popular-chicken-wings-papa-johns-dominos-pizza-hut-buffalo-wild-2016-5">We did a blind taste test of wings from Pizza Hut, Domino's, Papa John's, and Buffalo Wild Wings - the winner was clear</a></h3> <div> <div> <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="1tZGNwMDE6v5lk_FPlkbK3wi35BVyb9l" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div> </div> </div> </div>

Wall Street isn't the enemy

<div class="KonaFilter image-container float_right"><div class="image">Shutterstock</div></div>If you abandoned the American solar story after the Solyndra debacle, you've missed one of the greatest growth stories in the country.
Since 2011, solar generation has <a href="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&amp;fuel=vtvo&amp;geo=g&amp;sec=g&amp;linechart=ELEC.GEN.SUN-US-99.M~~~~~&amp;columnchart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.WND-US-99.M&amp;map=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.M&amp;freq=M&amp;start=200101&amp;end=201310&amp;ctype=linechart&amp;ltype=pin&amp;maptype=0&amp;rse=0&amp;pin=">skyrocketed more than 2,300%</a>. For the first time ever last year, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/more-new-solar-than-wind-in-2013-2013-11">the U.S. added more solar capacity than wind</a>.
Goldman Sachs analyst currently see a 40GW medium-term opportunity in the US residential segment alone, <a href="http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data">and we only just breached 180 MW per quarter</a>. This has all been <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/how-solar-surged-in-america-2013-10">thanks to a combination</a> of falling prices, state subsidies and plain old demand by more environmentally conscious consumers. 
It is true that there have been lots of bankruptcies along the way. At the end of 2012, GTM Research predicted that 180 solar module manufacturers would go under by 2015. This appears to have come to pass: According to Mercom Capital Group, a clean tech consulting firm, global VC investments (which are mostly concentrated in the U.S.) dropped 40% to $600 million in 97 deals in 2013 compared with $992 million in 106 deals in 2012. "Since mid-2012 the new normal for VC funding has been smaller funding quarters and smaller deal sizes," Mercom says. Of the American solar firms <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_renewable_energy_companies_by_stock_exchange">once active on this list</a>, just a handful remain.
This winnowing process has left four main publicly traded American players:
<ul>
<li>San Jose-based SunPower (SPWR) </li>
<li>San Francisco-based SolarCity (SCTY) </li>
<li>Beltsville, Md.-based SunEdison (SUNE) </li>
<li>Tempe, Ariz.-based First Solar (FSLR) </li>
</ul>
The good news is, almost everyone agrees they're poised for another year of incredible growth. But that's not to say it's time to buy the stocks.
It will be a difficult act to top: In the past 12 months, the top three have climbed more than 250%. The "laggard," First Solar, climbed more than 50%. By comparison, the S&amp;P500 gained 25%. Chart:
<div class="KonaFilter image-container"><div class="image">Yahoo</div></div>
<h2>SunPower</h2>
SunPower has the longest track record among the four, having gone public in 2005, and it had a stellar performance in 2013. It also figured among the top-5 fundraisers among U.S. solar firms, according to Mercom. It has led the way in one of the biggest emerging themes in solar: leasing, which allows customers to avoid installation fees and only pay a basic monthly fee. Also, Warren Buffett <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-midamerican-solar-project-2013-1">spent $2.5 billion at the beginning of last year</a> to buy the largest solar photovoltaic project in the world from SunPower.
SunPower is now partnering with Digital Federal Credit Union to provide up to $100 million in loans to finance solar installations using SunPower hardware, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch. IHS says the firm plans to increase its solar cell production capacity by 25%, or 350 megawatts, by 2015.
Goldman is neutral on SunPower shares, Deutsche Bank rates them "hold," and BAML rates them "underperform."
<h2>SolarCity</h2>
Next up is SolarCity, the solar service provider chaired by Elon Musk and run by his cousin Lyndon Rive. The firm just launched the first-ever bonds backed by revenues from solar electricity generation. The $54.4 million facility priced at 4.8%, according to BAML. It now leads market share in the residential sector, and acquired two key companies to beef up customer service and installation.
The company has said publicly that it plans to pursue a second, substantially larger solar bond program in the first half of this year. Goldman estimates they can earner over $350 million for the new round, and get to $700 million by 2016. Goldman also forecasts 50%-60% volume CAGR for the firm through 2016, ahead of 45% market growth. SunPower is rated "buy" by both Goldman and BAML. It is not covered by Deutsche Bank.
SunEdison rounded out the top five U.S. solar fundraisers of 2013, and places in the top-three installers in the country. In 2014, it is likely to be among the first renewable energy companies to form a yield co firm, which are publicly-traded companies formed to own operating assets that produce cash flow. The cash is distributed to investors as dividends. Goldman believes SunEdison will more than double its current installation target to 250 megawatts, which would add to the 200 megawatts it installed in 2014. 
SunEdison is rated "buy" by Goldman and BAML. It is not covered by Deutsche Bank.
 
<h2>First Solar</h2>
First Solar is the only firm on this list with a substantial international presence. It recently opened an operations center in Japan and is expected to partner with local manufacturer TetraSun to distribute there. It also recently bought into a utility-scale project in Mexico. According to Deutsche Bank, it has more than double the cash "of any other player in the industry," and has now "closed the cost gap" with Chinese module manufacturers, which had a slight advantage in the beginning of the year. 
But First Solar shares remain controversial - <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/david-einhorn-cuts-entire-stake-in-controversial-stocks-yahoo-and-first-solar-2012-5">David Einhorn dropped his stake entirely in 2012</a>, it <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/most-shorted-stocks-december-2012-2013-1#first-solar-25">once came in No. 1 on our most-shorted-stocks list</a>, and JP Morgan <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/jp-morgan-said-to-avoid-first-solar-2013-12">named it the No. 1 stock to avoid in 2013.</a> 
Still, as previously mentioned it ended up surging more than 50% - not as much as its peers, but way better than the broader market.
And yet, Goldman has now downgraded First Solar from "hold" to "sell" in its new note. Analyst Brian Lee and his team said First Solar has benefitted from the rush in utility-scale solar projects, but believes the company will get left behind as the rooftop-based market proliferates. That's because the company uses too much "low-efficiency technology" not suitable for smaller projects. Lee also notes First Solar is the only stock he covers that has seen its price-to-earnings ratio expand without any EPS revisions. Deutsche Bank currently rates it "hold." 
While these four firms will get the lion's share of attention since they're public, it's also important to note that there are plenty of private guys out there that are still sailing along. Provo, Utah-based Vivint and San Francisco-based SunRun were among solar's top five fundraisers in 2013, according to Mercom. We've also left out the two major Chinese firms, Yingli and Trina, that survived that country's own massive culling process among solar developers.
But we now have our four protagonists that we'll be watching closely this year.

There Are Just 4 Major Public US Solar Companies To Watch, And Analysts Expect Crazy Amounts Of Growth In 2014

Florida Republican Sen. <keyword id="905890" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Marco-Rubio">Marco Rubio</keyword> delivered his party's response to President Barack <keyword id="16284" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Obama">Obama</keyword>'s <keyword id="97538" type="ENTERTAINMENT" weightage="60" keywordseo="State-of-the-Union">State of the Union</keyword> address Tuesday night, slamming the President for wanting to increase government spending and programs. 
Here's the full text of his speech: 
Good evening. I'm Marco Rubio. I’m blessed to represent Florida in the United States Senate. Let me begin by congratulating President Obama on the start of his second term. Tonight, I have the honor of responding to his State of the Union address on behalf of my fellow <keyword id="66537" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Republicans">Republicans</keyword>. And I am especially honored to be addressing our brave men and women serving in the armed forces and in diplomatic posts around the world. You may be thousands of miles away, but you are always in our prayers.
The State of the Union address is always a reminder of how unique America is. For much of human history, most people were trapped in stagnant societies, where a tiny minority always stayed on top, and no one else even had a chance.
But America is exceptional because we believe that every life, at every stage, is precious, and that everyone everywhere has a God-given right to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them. 
Like most Americans, for me this ideal is personal. My parents immigrated here in pursuit of the opportunity to improve their life and give their children the chance at an even better one. They made it to the middle class, my dad working as a bartender and my mother as a cashier and a maid. I didn’t inherit any money from them. But I inherited something far better – the real opportunity to accomplish my dreams.
This opportunity – to make it to the middle class or beyond no matter where you start out in life – it isn’t bestowed on us from Washington. It comes from a vibrant free economy where people can risk their own money to open a business. And when they succeed, they hire more people, who in turn invest or spend the money they make, helping others start a business and create jobs.
Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity. 
But President Obama? He believes it’s the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn’t tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.
This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it’s just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.
More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back. 
More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.
And more government isn’t going to inspire new ideas, new businesses and new private sector jobs. It’s going to create uncertainty.
Because more government breeds complicated rules and laws that a small business can’t afford to follow.
Because more government raises taxes on employers who then pass the costs on to their employees through fewer hours, lower pay and even layoffs.
And because many government programs that claim to help the middle class, often end up hurting them instead.
For example, Obamacare was supposed to help middle class Americans afford health insurance. But now, some people are losing the health insurance they were happy with. And because Obamacare created expensive requirements for companies with more than 50 employees, now many of these businesses aren’t hiring. Not only that; they’re being forced to lay people off and switch from full-time employees to part-time workers.
Now does this mean there’s no role for government? Of course not. It plays a crucial part in keeping us safe, enforcing rules, and providing some security against the risks of modern life. But government’s role is wisely limited by the Constitution. And it can’t play its essential role when it ignores those limits.
There are valid reasons to be concerned about the President’s plan to grow our government. But any time anyone opposes the President’s agenda, he and his allies usually respond by falsely attacking their motives.
When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can’t control the weather – he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air.
When we suggest we strengthen our safety net programs by giving states more flexibility to manage them – he accuses us of wanting to leave the elderly and disabled to fend for themselves. 
And tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts – cuts that were his idea in the first place.
But his favorite attack of all is that those who don’t agree with him – they only care about rich people.
Mr. President, I still live in the same working class neighborhood I grew up in. My neighbors aren’t millionaires. They’re retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare. They’re workers who have to get up early tomorrow morning and go to work to pay the bills. They’re immigrants, who came here because they were stuck in poverty in countries where the government dominated the economy.
The tax increases and the deficit spending you propose will hurt middle class families. It will cost them their raises. It will cost them their benefits. It may even cost some of them their jobs. 
And it will hurt seniors because it does nothing to save Medicare and Social Security.
So Mr. President, I don’t oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors.
Hard-working middle class Americans who don’t need us to come up with a plan to grow the government. They want a plan to grow the middle class.
Economic growth is the best way to help the middle class. Unfortunately, our economy actually shrank during the last three months of 2012. 
But if we can get the economy to grow at just 4 percent a year, it would create millions of middle class jobs. And it could reduce our deficits by almost $4 trillion dollars over the next decade. 
Tax increases can’t do this. Raising taxes won’t create private sector jobs. And there’s no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficits by almost $4 trillion. That’s why I hope the President will abandon his obsession with raising taxes and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our economy. 
One of the best ways to encourage growth is through our energy industry. Of course solar and wind energy should be a part of our energy portfolio. But God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called “clean energy” companies like Solyndra, let’s open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration. And let’s reform our energy regulations so that they’re reasonable and based on common sense. If we can grow our energy industry, it will make us energy independent, it will create middle class jobs and it will help bring manufacturing back from places like China.
Simplifying our tax code will also help the middle class, because it will make it easier for small businesses to hire and grow. 
And we agree with the President that we should lower our corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the world, so that companies will start bringing their money and their jobs back here from overseas.
We can also help our economy grow if we have a legal immigration system that allows us to attract and assimilate the world’s best and brightest. We need a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here illegally. But first, we must follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure our borders and enforce our laws.
Helping the middle class grow will also require an education system that gives people the skills today's jobs entail and the knowledge that tomorrow’s world will require. 
We need to incentivize local school districts to offer more advanced placement courses and more vocational and career training.
We need to give all parents, especially the parents of children with special needs, the opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice. 
And because tuition costs have grown so fast, we need to change the way we pay for higher education.
I believe in federal financial aid. I couldn’t have gone to college without it. But it’s not just about spending more money on these programs; it’s also about strengthening and modernizing them.
A 21st century workforce should not be forced to accept 20th century education solutions. Today’s students aren’t only 18 year olds. They’re returning veterans. They’re single parents who decide to get the education they need to earn a decent wage. And they’re workers who have lost jobs that are never coming back and need to be retrained.
We need student aid that does not discriminate against programs that non-traditional students rely on – like online courses, or degree programs that give you credit for work experience. 
When I finished school, I owed over 100,000 dollars in student loans, a debt I paid off just a few months ago. Today, many graduates face massive student debt. We must give students more information on the costs and benefits of the student loans they’re taking out.
All these measures are key to helping the economy grow. But we won’t be able to sustain a vibrant middle class unless we solve our debt problem.
Every dollar our government borrows is money that isn’t being invested to create jobs. And the uncertainty created by the debt is one reason why many businesses aren’t hiring.
The President loves to blame the debt on President Bush. But President Obama created more debt in four years than his predecessor did in eight.
The real cause of our debt is that our government has been spending 1 trillion dollars more than it takes in every year. That’s why we need a balanced budget amendment.
The biggest obstacles to balancing the budget are programs where spending is already locked in. One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now. 
I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother. But anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it.
Republicans have offered a detailed and credible plan that helps save Medicare without hurting today’s retirees. Instead of playing <keyword id="6358883" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Politics">politics</keyword> with Medicare, when is the President going to offer his plan to save it? Tonight would have been a good time for him to do it. 
Of course, we face other challenges as well. We were all heart broken by the recent tragedy in Connecticut. We must effectively deal with the rise of violence in our country. But unconstitutionally undermining the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans is not the way to do it.
On foreign policy, America continues to be indispensable to the goal of global liberty, prosperity and safeguarding human rights. The world is a better place when America is the strongest nation on earth. But we can’t remain powerful if we don’t have an economy that can afford it.
In the short time I’ve been here in Washington, nothing has frustrated me more than false choices like the ones the President laid out tonight.
The choice isn’t just between big government or big business. What we need is an accountable, efficient and effective government that allows small and new businesses to create middle class jobs. 
We don't have to raise taxes to avoid the President’s devastating cuts to our military. Republicans have passed a plan that replaces these cuts with responsible spending reforms.
In order to balance our budget, the choice doesn’t have to be either higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need. Instead we should grow our economy so that we create new taxpayers, not new taxes, and so our government can afford to help those who truly cannot help themselves. 
And the truth is every problem can’t be solved by government. Many are caused by the moral breakdown in our society. And the answers to those challenges lie primarily in our families and our faiths, not our politicians.
Despite our differences, I know that both Republicans and Democrats love America. I pray we can come together to solve our problems, because the choices before us could not be more important.
If we can get our economy healthy again, our children will be the most prosperous Americans ever.
And if we do not, we will forever be known as the generation responsible for America’s decline. 
At a time when one showdown after another ends in short-term deals that do little or nothing about our real problems, some are starting to believe that our government leaders just can’t or won’t make the right choices anymore.
But our strength has never come from the <keyword id="6356037" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="white-house">White House</keyword> or the Capitol. It’s always come from our people. A people united by the American idea that, if you have a dream and you are willing to work hard, nothing should be impossible.
Americans have always celebrated and been inspired by those who succeed. But it’s the dreams of those who are still trying to make it that sets our nation apart.
Tonight, all across this land, parents will hold their newborn children in their arms for the first time. For many of these parents, life has not gone the way they had planned.
Maybe they were born into circumstances they’ve found difficult to escape. Maybe they’ve made some mistakes along the way. Maybe they’re young mothers, all alone, the father of their child long gone.
But tonight, when they look into the eyes of their child for the first time, their lives will change forever. Because in those eyes, they will see what my parents saw in me, and what your parents saw in you. They will see all the hopes and dreams they once had for themselves.
This dream – of a better life for their children – it’s the hope of parents everywhere. Politicians here and throughout the world have long promised that more government can make those dreams come true. 
But we Americans have always known better. From our earliest days, we embraced economic liberty instead. And because we did, America remains one of the few places on earth where dreams like these even have a chance.
Each time our nation has faced great challenges, what has kept us together was our shared hope for a better life. 
Now, let that hope bring us together again. To solve the challenges of our time and write the next chapter in the amazing story of the greatest nation man has ever known. 
Thank you for listening. May God bless all of you. May God bless our President. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.
<div> </div>

You Searched For "solyndra" and got 13 results

Political potholes await Buttigieg as he starts a new year implementing Biden's infrastructure law

Adam Wren

CHART OF THE DAY: China's Solyndra Implodes

Mamta Badkar

An Electric Car Company Is On The Verge Of Becoming The Next Solyndra

Alex Davies

Meet the top 7 US companies dominating the $17 billion solar-energy industry

Benji Jones,Benji Jones

Tesla may have decided to get into the wrong roofing business

Matthew DeBord

Moderate Democrats don't have the guts to do what it takes to beat China in a tech war

Linette Lopez

Tesla should bail out on the SolarCity merger before it's too late

Matthew DeBord

House Republicans Slam Federal Loan To Fisker As 'Corrupt' And 'Mismanaged'

Alex Davies

How America's Coolest Automaker Crashed So Hard, So Fast

Alex Davies

Large majorities of Americans support almost all of the key ideas in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal

Eliza Relman,Walt Hickey

Wall Street isn't the enemy

Robert C. Jones, System Two A…

There Are Just 4 Major Public US Solar Companies To Watch, And Analysts Expect Crazy Amounts Of Growth In 2014

Rob Wile

FULL TEXT: Marco Rubio's Response To Obama's State Of The Union

Grace Wyler

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides