US Renewable Energy Grant Rules Exclude Private Equity (Chu's Socialist Folly)

WSJ (subscription required for whole article) ^ | 7/20/2009 | Yuliya Chernova

[mojito]

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--A grant program introduced in the federal stimulus package passed earlier this year was intended to jump-start investment in renewable energy, but the rules of the program threaten to hobble it from the start by restricting private equity involvement in any projects the government backs.

The rules, published July 9, exclude from the program any projects with investors that have tax-exempt status. That was done because the grant program is intended to replace tax credits, which have become less widely used as taxable incomes have fallen....

However, most private equity firms receive backing from tax-exempt limited partners like endowments, pension funds and family trusts, excluding them from the program. Even if the tax-exempt entity holds just a 0.1% interest in the renewable energy project four tiers up the ownership structure, the entire project is disqualified, according to the rules published on the U.S. Treasury Department Web site and several attorneys and industry members. In a similar vein, if any of a project's ownership lands in the hands of a tax-exempt entity within five years of operation, the grant can be reclaimed by the government, according to the Treasury rules.

[....]

A Treasury official didn't respond to a request for comment.

When he announced the new guidelines, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement: "These payments will help spur major private sector investments in clean energy and create new jobs for America's workers. It is part of our broad effort to double our renewable energy capacity in the next few years...."

But the letter from the industry groups counters that the ban included in the guidelines actually "has the effect of discouraging renewable energy investment by private equity funds."

[mojito]

The war on capital continues. 0 loves renewable energy. Just as long as it's the government that owns it.

[theBuckwheat]

Yup, seen it before when I sat on an advisory committee at a big and well known university looking to commercialize the research of its faculty and staff. At the time the leadership was so worried that some private investor might make a lot of money on something they invented, so the rules were so tight that nobody would invest. Then as good liberals they were clueless as to why they didn't have a good commercial ecosystem like at Stanford.

I served on the committed until I asked the Dean in a meeting if he knew how much it cost the institution to educate a student from initial enrollment until a degree was earned. He didn't know. I think the question never entered his mind.

[BOBTHENAILER]

So does this exclude Al Goron and his Kleiner-Perkins VC funding bud's (of which he is a partner)? ? ?

Big Al won't be happy.

[griswold3]

I’m going to quote Robert Newman out of context:

“... you’ve got to go back, in epochal terms to the collapse of the last complex civilizations - the Mayans and the Roman Empire. They didn’t just end because people got bored of being Mayans and Romans.

Societies thrive, when there’s cheap abundant energy, be it topsoil or Greek slaves. They diversify and grow and become more complex and have agriculture and trade at a distance.

When strategies for energy capture are subject to the law of diminishing returns, that’s when complex societies collapse.”

[Carry_Okie]

But the letter from the industry groups counters that the ban included in the guidelines actually "has the effect of discouraging renewable energy investment by private equity funds."

Once one knows who funds the environmental left, it becomes obvious that "renewable energy" has always been a smokescreen. The real plan was to tax oil and gas and then force the public to use them. Consider how hard it is to build a power generation system that runs on wood.