‘Green’ energy: Red ink nightmare
Updated 2 hours ago
Another green energy company generously infused with taxpayer subsidies is circling the drain after reports that it overstated its cash flow.
According to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by a subsidiary, solar energy giant SunEdison faces a “substantial risk” of bankruptcy, USA Today reports. SunEdison also is under investigation over whether it exaggerated its cash position, according to The Wall Street Journal. Company shares have fallen 95 percent in the past 12 months and for the first time traded for less than $1, The Daily Call reports.
And once again, it’s not just shareholders who are on the hook.
SunEdison and its subsidiaries received nearly $650 million in government subsidies and tax credits since 2000. In comparison, Solyndra — the poster child for the government’s failed green dreams — picked up $535 million in loan guarantees before it declared bankruptcy in 2011.
Recently, the Spanish green-energy company Abengoa filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection after receiving $2.7 billion in federal loan guarantees.
Rather than shore up selected “winners,” government’s helping hand oftentimes prolongs the inevitable for too many green initiatives — which would have been better off on their own.
It is government’s incessant meddling that’s turned more than one green dream into a red-ink nightmare.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments — either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won’t tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don’t include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don’t want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won’t publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
"Green" energy: Red ink nightmare
No comments:
Post a Comment