• OVERNIGHT ENERGY: House panel to begin

considering GOP energy bills

• Grassley, Thune: Energy Department's

electric car loan caters to the 1 percent

The company has drawn $193 million of the DOE loan

funding thus far, according to press reports.

The Grassley-Thune letter to Chu questions the portion of the funding that

supported the overseas manufacture of the Karma model, even though the

money was used for U.S.-based work.

It also asks a series of other questions about the funding for the two Fisker

projects, such as what “technical expertise” the Energy Department brought to

bear in evaluating, granting and monitoring the loan to Fisker.

A DOE spokesman did not provide immediate comment on the GOP senators’

April 20 letter.

But the department’s public affairs chief, in a blog post last October,

defended the Fisker financing despite delays in the Delaware project, as well as

the $465 million loan for Tesla Motors, a California-based manufacturer of high

-performance and costly electric vehicles.

Dan Leistikow, the DOE official, struck back. “Critics have complained that the

first vehicles introduced by Fisker and Tesla are more expensive, high-end

vehicles.”

“This complaint misses the mark in several respects. First, both manufacturers

plan to start with high end vehicles and then quickly move to more affordable

product lines,” Leistikow wrote in October.

“These are start-up companies that intend to grow over time, so they are

following a common pattern for emerging companies: starting with a premium

product for a smaller customer base, and eventually moving to lower cost, mass

marketed products as they gradually scale up operations,” he added.

Leistikow also noted that other loans under the ATVM program have supported

less expensive vehicles. Ford and Nissan have received the largest loans under

the ATVM program.

But Grassley, in a statement, questioned the DOE support for Fisker.

“It’s important to know what went into the Energy Department’s decision to

fund the production of expensive luxury vehicles. The riskiness of loans to

companies that may or may not be able to pay them back deserves scrutiny. The

taxpayers can’t and shouldn’t have to subsidize these decisions,” he said in a

statement Monday.

Update: An Energy Department spokesman defended the loan program and

the Fisker support specifically in a statement to The Hill.

“The Department’s loan program invests in advanced hybrid electric vehicles

because they have the potential to significantly improve performance and fuel

economy for American consumers. Our loans and loan guarantees have strict

conditions in place to protect taxpayers,” spokesman Damien LaVera said

Monday.

Addressing the Fisker project, he added:

Our loan documents require borrowers to meet certain milestones and

other conditions prior to receiving loan proceeds. As has been widely

reported, Fisker has experienced some delays in its sales and production

schedule — which is common for start-ups. As Fisker works through those

issues and incorporates lessons learned from the production of the Karma,

the Department is working with Fisker to review a revised business plan

and determine the best path forward so the company can meet its

benchmarks, produce cars and employ workers here in America.

electri

...

They still haven't provided any concrete reasons as to why companies like

Next Autoworks Company, who needed nearly $400M in ATVM funds to

manufacture it's high-efficiency, low-cost vehicles, were rejected.

Presumably, a project like that would be more practical and less risky than

pursuing technologies that are quite a ways off from being considered mass-

market options such as Tesla and Fisker. Seriously, how long will it take for

them to drive the cost of the vehicles down to be accessible to the average

American, and if they do, and that many Americans are "plugging in", where

is the infrastructure for that and where does the additional energy come from

on an already strained grid?

Going all the way to Reagan Republicans have done nothing but obstruct

alternative energy. If Reagan had implemented Carter's plan we would now

have radically produced dependence on foreign oil.

And we also could be dominating the solar market but instead China is

rapidly developing a global monopoly with half of all panels built in the

world.

China pays their population pennies on the dollar for their slave

workers, so the cost is less. You wonder why stuff from china is cheaper

and is cheaper for the consumer?