Biden “stimulus” anniversary tour avoids Obama’s hand-picked, bankrupt green energy project

By |2016-02-22T21:38:21+00:00February 22nd, 2016|CFACT Insights|13 Comments
arraIn a week of big news stories, few noticed the 7-year anniversary of Obama’s $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—signed into law on February 17, 2009. Commonly known as the “Stimulus Bill,” Politico calls it “one of the Administration’s most consequential and least popular initiatives.” In fact, according to Politico, “The package of tax cuts and government spending…became so unpopular that the word ‘stimulus’ disappeared from the Administration’s rhetoric.” 
Despite the bill’s reputation, on Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden embarked on a three-city victory tour to celebrate the anniversary of the act for which he oversaw the implementation. 
His first stop was New Orleans. There he “toured a new rail container facility paid for bidenhistimethrough the 2009 stimulus,” reports the New Orleans Advocate. Outside of Memphis, he “viewed progress on an upgrade to the Mississippi River Intermodal Terminal and yard,” that, according to Politico, had “modest crowds of government and corporate officials.” Though the audience was “pre-selected,” their response to Biden’s zest for the program was “politely supportive but not wildly enthusiastic.” Politico adds: “they didn’t seem too excited by his stay-the-course-but-build-more message.” 
bidjThe next day, at his third stop, he spoke to an “invitation-only crowd of more than 100 guests” at the stimulus-funded renovated Union Depot in St. Paul, MN. There, Biden was unapologetic about the stimulus, saying: “We have created more jobs in this country, because of projects like this.” The Twin Cities Pioneer Press states: “The vice president did not address criticisms of Union Depot, which last year brought in $1.7 million in revenues but cost $7.7 million in costs.”
During his trip, Biden gushed that the stimulus was “the most ambitious energy bill in history.” Politico cites the $90 billion it “pumped into renewable power, advanced biofuels, electric vehicles and other green stuff” as helping to “triple U.S. wind capacity and increase U.S. solar capacity more than 20-fold.” Yet, probably because he, obviously, wanted to focus on the positives, Biden didn’t visit any of the “green stuff” projects. 
abOn the same days the Vice President was crowing about the success of the stimulus, the Spanish company that received more than $3.67 billion of taxpayer funds—the majority (thanks to connections with high-ranking Democrats) through the 2009 stimulus bill—released its Industrial Viability Plan that laid out its plans for survival. The Financial Times reports: “The company is trying to avoid collapse as it restructures its debts and raises cash. Abengoa sought creditor protection in November, and if it were to default it would count as the largest bankruptcy in Spanish history.”
Everybody knows about Solyndra’s brief history, costing taxpayers over $500 million, but Abengoa has managed to use tricks and reported illegal practices to stay alive—until now.
I first became aware of Abengoa, through a series of green energy reports I wrote with researcher Christine Lakatos—known as the Green Corruption blogger—in the summer of 2012. After my piece, How Democrats Say “Crony Corruption” in Spanish: Abengoa, was published, a whistleblower contacted me. After being contacted by several others that corroborated what I’d heard from the first, we dug deeper into the company. In January of 2013, I met with House Oversight Committee staffers who were investigating Abengoa and we shared what we’d learned. Since October 2013, Abengoa has been under investigation for a variety of violations including immigration, employment, and insurance fraud. In addition to several columns on the atrocities at Abengoa, I wrote a comprehensive report on the company that was published by the Daily Caller in March 2014.
abstpNow, it appears that the second largest recipient of taxpayer dollars from Obama’s clean-energy stimulus funds is nearly bankrupt—with the U.S. government being the largest creditor. In November, after Abengoa started insolvency proceedings, the Washington Times wrote: “Abengoa is a Spanish company that was another of President Obama’s personally picked green energy projects, and it’s now on the verge of bankruptcy, too, potentially saddling taxpayers with a multi-billion-dollar tab and fueling the notion that the administration repeatedly gambles on losers in the energy sector.”
Abengoa could be bankrupt by this time next month, as Spanish law gives it four months from the initial filing to try to restructure its debt. Last week, ratings agency Moody’s declared that Abengoa’s underlying operating business is still “viable.” Yet, according to the Financial Times, Moody’s is “maintaining a negative outlook…given that discussions on debt restructuring might not be successful and the company might end up in a formal insolvency process.”
While “discussions” are going on in Spain, the trouble continues here in the U.S. In December, citing “financial difficulties,” Abengoa shut down seven bioenergy plants—including its Hugoton, KS, cellulosic ethanol plant after it sold, according to Biomass Magazine, just one railcar of product. Watchdog reports that the Hugoton plant received a $132.4 million loan guarantee and a $97 million grant.
ABHUGGOThe cellulosic ethanol plant—which was designed to produce fuel from leftover, post-harvest, crops—opened just a little more than a year ago with dignitaries such as U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, and former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar participating in the “Ceremonial start-up.” The Garden City Telegram states: “Despite the initial fanfare, the plant never lived up to its billing.” It continues: “At opening, the plant was billed as the first commercial-scale, next-generation biofuel plant.” According to Watchdog, the closure could be a “signal of problems that run much deeper for the industry.” Charlie Drevna, distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, says: “This is just another example of the technology not being there, at least as a competitive commercial technology.”
And there’s more. On February 10, the California Energy Commission finally rejected a new plan for the Palen solar farm Abengoa had been developing. The Desert Sun, which has been following developments with the project, reports: The company missed a construction deadline “after entering into pre-bankruptcy proceedings in November.” Though Abengoa is known for energy projects like solar farms and ethanol plants, a water pipeline project it’s been preparing to build near San Antonio, TX, is now seeking a buyer.
Then, on the very day Biden was touting stimulus successes, a group of grain sellers, who had not been paid by Abengoa Bioenergy, filed an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in Kansas. Another suit was previously filed in Nebraska. American companies that haven’t been paid for deliveries, dating back to early August, are owed more than $10 million. They hope the suit will require U.S. creditors be paid before funds from any asset sales are retained by the parent company in Spain—which was just granted by the court.
Abengoa has also been sued by shareholders, who say that the company misled them about its financial plans. Stock prices have been declining throughout late 2015 and plunged after the November bankruptcy announcement. After a 2014 high of $28, the company’s stock is currently trading at $0.81.
felipeIn Spain, former Abengoa executives have been accused of insider trading and mismanagement. Their assets have been frozen and seized. On February 17, former chairman Felipe Benjumea’s passport was revoked to prevent him from leaving the country.
Drevna, in Watchdog, points out if the plants “can’t even compete in a mandated market. How can they compete in a free market?”
With Abengoa in the news while Biden was on his victory tour, it is clear why he chose to stick to infrastructure projects and avoid the “green” disasters created by, as he called it, “the most ambitious energy bill in history.” Politico suggests that the lack of popularity for his projects is “surely one reason” he decided not to run for president. 
While Biden isn’t currently on any ballot, Senator Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are. (Since Abengoa is a foreign company that received U.S. taxpayer dollars, I wonder if the State Department was involved.) Both Sanders and Clinton will double down on Obama’s green energy policies like those that created the embarrassing Abenoga debacle—and many others. 
Addressing Abengoa, Biomass Magazine’s senior editor Anna Simet said: “People have a problem when government money is given to projects like these, and they experience failure. We all know that.” Ya think?


  1. marykaybarton February 23, 2016 at 9:56 AM

    “Transfer of wealth scheme” doesn’t even begin to cover the immensity of the massive CONSUMER FRAUD that is “green” ($$$) energy!

    Thank you for your continued work shining the light on this situation Marita!

    In case you missed it, apparently even a 17-year-old was able to predict Abengoa’s failure:

    Spanish energy giant Abengoa’s collapse predicted by 17-year-old:

    • Dano2 February 23, 2016 at 10:52 AM

      Wowie! Imagine the umbrage when the subsidies to fossil fuel come up!



      • marykaybarton February 23, 2016 at 11:49 AM

        Unfortunately, there was a bill to end ALL subsidies a few years back which failed by a vote of about 60 – 30, due to the fact that way too many politicians (both Republicans & Democrats) are more interested in serving pork to their crony-pals in Big Energy, than they are in protecting the welfare of American taxpayers & ratepayers.

        When it comes to the ‘green’ ($$$) fiasco going on across America, U.S. taxpayers & ratepayers are being taken to the cleaners! According top EIA numbers, each wind job costs taxpayers $11.45 million a piece, plus more than four jobs that are lost elsewhere in the economy (largely due to the resulting “skyrocketing” electricity rates) – all while wind is subsidized over 52 times MORE than conventional fossil fuels on a unit of production basis.

        EIA Report: Subsidies Continue to Roll In For Wind and Solar:

        Wherever Sited, Industrial Wind is a Loser:

        • Dano2 February 23, 2016 at 12:18 PM

          And yet dirty fossil subsidies dwarf clean renewables.



          • marykaybarton February 23, 2016 at 12:54 PM

            The fact that fossil fuels still provide the bulk of our power is a large part of the reason, but also – as you apparently missed — According to the EIA, “Wind is subsidized over 52 TIMES MORE than conventional fossil fuels on a unit of production basis.”

            • Dano2 February 23, 2016 at 1:05 PM

              And yet dirty fossil subsidies – to a mature, highly profitable industry – dwarf clean renewable subsidies. Not even counting the subsidies to public health to pay for the cardiopulmonary damage to humans and the damage from Hg deposition.



              • marykaybarton February 23, 2016 at 1:18 PM

                Since wind and solar do NOT provide reliable, dispatchable baseload power, they can NOT replace our conventional sources that do. A good book to further your understanding is:

                Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future:

                • Dano2 February 23, 2016 at 1:25 PM

                  And yet dirty fossil subsidies to mature, highly profitable industries continue.



                  • stopspending4 March 9, 2016 at 1:45 PM

                    dano, you sound like a freakin broken record. Facts do not support your limited statements.
                    btw, what are you using to power your computer? Do you have a windmill in your yard? How about water power? Or do you run totally on solar and therefore you go to bed at sundown since you have no power.

                    • Dano2 March 9, 2016 at 2:56 PM

                      Facts do not support your limited statements.

                      They do, in fact, support my statements, thanks!



      • Brin Jenkins February 25, 2016 at 6:45 AM

        Subsidies, you fib again.

        • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 8:24 AM

          You lack talent to show I’ve ever fibbed.



  2. Dano2 February 23, 2016 at 10:52 AM

    The fund is in the black, so who knows what this article is going on about.



Comments are closed.