Foreign energy firms getting windfall of U.S. stimulus funds

Foreign energy firms getting windfall of U.S. stimulus funds
Money is used to buy turbines made abroad
By Brooke Williams Watchdog Institute

Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 12:02 a.m.

China’s A-Power Energy Generation Systems lists a vacant office in downtown San Diego as its U.S. address. Brooke Williams

Online: Local wind-energy leaders explain why U.S. firms are falling behind in getting stimulus dollars on 10News.com. And for the workshop’s full investigation into wind-power funding, go to investigativereportingworkshop.org.

Of the more than $2 billion the federal government has given out to boost the economy and create green-energy jobs, more than three-quarters has gone to foreign-owned companies that dominate the global wind-power industry. This latest finding by the Investigative Reporting Workshop, a nonprofit at American University in Washington, D.C., is illustrated clearly in San Diego County, where about a dozen commercial wind developers have offices.

La Jolla is the headquarters for Eurus Energy America, the subsidiary of a Japanese firm that received $91 million in federal stimulus money for a wind farm in western Texas. It plans to apply for more money to fund a wind project in Oregon.

EnXco, a French-owned firm with American headquarters in Escondido, has received $69.5 million in stimulus money for its wind farm in Indiana. It installed 53 German-made turbines at the site. EnXco also is operating the Texas wind farm for Eurus.

A-Power Energy Generation Systems, a Chinese-owned company that might get federal grants through a consortium building a wind farm in western Texas, lists a vacant office in downtown San Diego as its U.S. address on recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Cannon Power Group of San Diego has received $19 million to expand a wind farm east of Portland in Washington. The company spent about half of that money overseas to pay for wind turbines it said it couldn’t get stateside.

The Reporting Workshop’s initial analysis of wind-energy grants was released in October and outraged some lawmakers. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., cited the group’s report — and news that $450 million in stimulus money might go to a group installing Chinese-made wind turbines in Texas — when he asked the secretary of energy to deny federal financing to firms that use foreign-made turbines.

American wind companies are receiving stimulus grants, but some such as Cannon Power spend much of that money abroad because few U.S. companies manufacture turbines.

Mark Anderson, chief executive officer of Eurus Energy America, a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Eurus Energy Holdings Corp., said his company would not have been able to move forward with other projects without the guarantee of stimulus money.

Eurus received $91 million in grants for the Bull Creek Wind Farm in Texas. It has the capacity to power about 48,000 homes a year.

Eurus is building a wind farm in Oregon. The company plans to seek green grants for that project, Anderson said.

“We plan to put more and more money into the United States,” he said.

Eurus employs 20 people in San Diego, Anderson said, and has assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Its Texas project created between 300 and 400 jobs for construction, including 10 for operation, and is benefiting the local economy through property taxes and land leases, Anderson said. For the project, Eurus bought Mitsubishi turbines, which are manufactured abroad.

EnXco, the French-owned firm based in Escondido, also went abroad to buy turbines, from German manufacturer REpower. A spokesman for enXco said the project created more than 200 construction jobs as well as a dozen permanent jobs. It has the capacity to power about 29,000 homes per year.

A-Power, based in northeast China, is part of a group building a wind farm in western Texas using turbines it is manufacturing in China. This is the project that affronted Schumer after the group announced plans to collect $450 million in stimulus grants.

In a letter, Schumer asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu to reject requests for stimulus grants from companies that buy key components abroad.

“In all due respect, I remind the secretary there is a four-letter word associated with the stimulus — J-O-B-S,” Schumer told ABC News. “Very few jobs here, lots of jobs in China. That is not what I intended or any other legislator who voted for the stimulus intended.”

Chu responded on Facebook: “But manufacturers will not build plants here and grow their production capacity here unless there is domestic demand; and, until recently, that was not the case.”

In SEC filings this year, A-Power Energy Generation Systems lists a suite in a high-rise in downtown San Diego as its business and mailing address. However, the suite door is locked, and a building manager said A-Power is not a tenant.

When reached on his cell phone, Chief Operating Officer John Lin said he did not have time to answer questions.

Gary Hardke, president of Cannon Power Group, a renewable-energy company near Torrey Pines, said his company had no choice but to go abroad to buy parts for its wind farm in Klickitat, Wash. Two main U.S. manufacturers, GE Energy and Clipper Windpower, either did not make a turbine the size that Cannon wanted or were sold out.

Cannon bought the turbines — made up mostly of blades, towers and nacelles (the part in the middle that houses components such as the rotor and generator) — from Siemens, a German company that also was the main contractor.

Find the rest of this article at:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/09/foreign-energy-firms-get...

------------------------------------------

Gee you think with foundries, machine shops, motor plants, and factories idled and mothballed here in NW Ohio and SE Mich and thousands of highly skilled laid off workers we could maybe make a few wind trubines of our own??

Nah...

Sit down, shut up, and pay your taxes....it's the new patriotism...

No votes yet

Let’s ask Richard Shelby.

Funny, when Marcy Kaptur brings home money for jobs in NW Ohio you bitch too.

I love how both Iott and Smith have commited to not bring any money to NW Ohio. They should do wonders for the area when competing against Republican senators holding up scores of appointments so they can get billions for foreign companies that have low wage plants in their states.

Your post didn't entirely make sense to me but I think I got the drift of it. What Iott and Smith are saying is the money that Congressmen bring back to their districts (also know as "pork") is our own money to begin with! It should stay in the pockets of workers and the accounts of businesses rather than paying exorbitant taxes to Washington and then have Washington dole back a small amount of it to us as if it was "free money". If you want to reduce frivolous and excessive Washington pork barrel spending (bridges to nowhere, studies of the mating habits of horned toads, etc.), then you have to not expect freebies.

Smith and Iott want to reduce taxation of both individuals and businesses and leave the money in the district right from the beginning! And guess what? People will save, invest, or spend that money and businesses will do the same. That creates growth in the local economy; and that growth creates jobs. That is the only way jobs are created: by private sector investment, not by Obama throwing money at it. Not only that, but under Marcy's way, after $$ is filtered thru DC and OUR money comes back to us per Marcy's oversized checks, it's but a fraction of the initial amount. Good photo op for her and PR for people who don't understand her ploy of using them and are impressed with giant checks with tiny, reduced amounts of money.

If the Stimulus was so successful, why is only the sector of the economy where jobs are growing the government sector and not the private sector? And if the Stimulus worked so well, why do we need another? Generally, if an action is successful, you don't have to do it again! Get the government out of our pockets and out of our business; the people can run the economy better than the government!

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Spam.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Osler is well known in the field of gerontology for the speech he gave when leaving Hopkins to become the Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford. His speech "The Fixed Period", given on 22 February 1905, included some controversial words about old age. Osler, who had a well-developed humorous side to his character, was in his mid-fifties when he gave the speech and in it he mentioned Anthony Trollope's The Fixed Period (1882), which envisaged a College where men retired at 67 and after a contemplative period of a year were 'peacefully extinguished' by chloroform. He claimed that, "the effective, moving, vitalizing work of the world is done between the ages of twenty-five and forty" and it was downhill from then on. Osler's speech was covered by the popular press which headlined their reports with "Osler recommends chloroform at sixty". The Fixed Period speech is included in the book of his collected addresses, "Aequanimitas with other Addresses to Medical Students etc.")

----------------------------

You are one sick bastard I'll give you that...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

it's the new nonsense being spilled by the new nonsense party.

And it is no surprise to those of us with any sort of memory, that China is getting tons of American Taxpayer money in the form of the "stimulus package"

Remember "Chinagate"? The same party that was happy to sell America to China in 1996 is in charge today.

1996 United States campaign finance controversy

"The issue first received public attention in early 1997, with news that a Justice Department investigation had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in violation of U.S. laws regarding foreign political contributions.[1] The Chinese government denied all accusations. Twenty-two people were eventually convicted of fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections, and others fled U.S. jurisdiction. Several of these were associates of Bill Clinton or Al Gore."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Some excerpts from the wikipedia entry:
The investigation was lengthy, spanning both the 105th and 106th Congresses, and according to a Democratic report had cost over $7.4 million as of August 31, 1998, making it the most expensive Congressional investigation ever (the Senate Watergate investigation cost $7 million in 1998 dollars).[40]
The Burton investigation itself was controversial. A New York Times editorial in March 1997 characterized the committee's investigation as a "travesty" and a "parody".[41] A Washington Post editorial in April 1997 called the House investigation "its own cartoon, a joke, and a deserved embarrassment".[42] Norman Ornstein, a Congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute said in May 1998, "Barring some dramatic change, I think the Burton investigation is going to be remembered as a case study in how not to do a congressional investigation and as a prime example of investigation as farce."[43]

-

...What is your point? America doesn't mass-produce large-scale wind turbines, and has pretty limited capacity to supply. Stimulus money was spent to help stimulate the "green economy", and to help contribute to changing our energy architecture.
- Money should go to retooling extant factories to produce wind turbines? Are there companies stepping forward to propose this? I'm guessing that it would then need to be subsidized until domestic demand could rise, or to keep costs competitive with overseas options.
- We shouldn't have taken stimulus money to invest in green projects at all?
- There shouldn't have been a stimulus at all?

What are you trying to say?

Back in 1996, Democrats were selling out America to China for campaign money.

Now that the Dems are in charge again, they passed the "stImulous" package to take money from American taxpayers and pay back their foreign friends in China. After all, if the "stimulous" package was to create American jobs, where are those jobs? Why is unemployment hovering around 10% still?

And the "Green Economy" is another Democrat farce like "Global Warming". A cover for payoffs to Democratic owners in China and other communist countries.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

I'm saying this is BULLSHIT.

The stimulas money was spent to keep unemployment and I quote "below 8%"...

There is NOTHING we cant make here in America.

But thanks for illustrating that there is NOTHING that the obama administration will ever do that will piss you off...ever...

You bitched for days about foreign corportations...now you are defending given them 1.5 billion...

I will also remind you that 787 billion was enough money to send a check for $70,000 to every American who holds a residential mortgage...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Yes, the money was intended to give the economy a jolt and help keep the unemployment rate down (they estimate 8%, and were wrong). But it also had apportioned monies to give boosts to certain industries, like highway construction, green infrastructure, etc. So in part it was also an attempt to direct investments in areas were felt need investing in.

There ain't nothing we can't build here, I agree. In fact, a lot of folks feel that we should be making wind turbines, solar products, etc. here. But we need enough demand to be able to support a domestic industry. Part of the energy agenda needs to push not only our R&D portfolio into green energy sources, but also look to how to help create the infrastructure that will help the nascent industry take hold. We spend billions on subsidizing oil (via taxes, supporting their infrastructure, tax them at a lower rate than other industries, etc.), helped to build the oil infrastructure that currently exists, and there should be investment in new technologies that will secure our future energy needs.

I don't know who you said bitched for days about foreign corporations, but wasn't me. Please direct your comments to whom you speak, or get your facts straight.

Of course there are things that the Obama administration have done that upset me, and will continue to do so. Just as there are things that the Bush administration did that I liked. Not everyone sees things in such black or white, republican or democrat party-line like you (and libs). Or attribute all the goods and bads of everything to one party or the other. Giminy, go watch the West Side Story. Which side is the Jets?

Just look at the trade agreements that the Repubs have given us. The cash-for-clunkers program helped foreign car companies over the domestics because of the exclusion of the Buy American clause. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/22/clunkers-program-benefits-for... Then we have the cash-for-clunkers program in Japan that exclude American products because we don't enforce trade agreements. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/12/us-cars-...

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Democrats control congress...

And a democrat signed it.

You want to pretend democrats actually care about people...go right ahead...wont make it true...

They will kill your job just like it was a baby....with the same glee...

NO to Union OIL workers...you dont need to work..

No to union steel workers...we'll buy chinese steel to build bridges...

No to union glass workers...we'll buy chinese glass for the freedom tower...

NO to union coal workers! who cares if half our electricity comes from coal...

No no no no no.....

No to cheap energy...you use too much and must pay MORE...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Opps. Sorry. NAFTA and letting China into the WTO were both Bubba Clinton.

You must be so proud to have been bent over by your own political party.

Democrap "heros" Bill and Hillary Clinton with Johnny Chung who was  convicted of bank fraud, tax evasion, and two misdemeanor counts of conspiring to violate election law..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Chung

Oh, and by the way, "Cash for Clunkers" was written by, voted on and passed by the Democrat Controlled Congress.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31183767/

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

And ALGORE took them shiney new GM and BOEING plants...

Gotta keep those chinese working you know...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Why NAFTA Was a Very Good Thing
By John Steele Gordon
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20071217-north-american-fre...

Fifteen years ago today, on December 17, 1992, the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It created a huge free trade area of more than eight million square miles, 430 million people, and almost uncountable economic resources. It is the largest free trade area in the world in terms of gross domestic product, $15.3 trillion in 2006.

It began as an extension of a 1989 free-trade agreement between the United States and Canada, and it called for the immediate elimination of tariffs on about half the American goods exported to Mexico, and the phasing out of the rest over a period of up to 15 years. In addition, it strengthened intellectual property rights and made the export of American services easier.

Although the treaty was principally negotiated by the George H. W. Bush administration, and was signed in its last days, it was the Clinton administration, which came into office a little over a month later, that had to push its ratification through Congress. That took a great deal of political muscle and became the most significant accomplishment of President Clinton’s first year in office.

It was in many ways an unusual treaty. Canada and the United States have fully developed first-world economies with very high GDP per capita ($43,800 and $35,700 respectively, as of 2006). They also have relatively unregulated capitalist economies. Mexico, however, is still very much a developing nation, with a much lower GDP ($10,700 per capita). Its domestic economy is much more regulated, and significant portions of it are state-owned. Mexico’s vast, and vastly inefficient, oil industry, for instance, is a state monopoly. While the United States ranks fourth on the Heritage Foundation’s latest Index of Economic Freedom, and Canada tenth, Mexico ranks only forty-ninth. Furthermore, while NAFTA is a treaty involving three nations, much of it was negotiated bilaterally, not trilaterally, and three separate sets of negotiations had to be melded into one treaty.

The arguments in NAFTA’s favor were simple: More trade means more wealth is created, so any trade barriers, such as tariffs, that can be removed will result in increased economic activity and a higher standard of living for everyone, thanks to something economists call “comparative advantage.”

Economies with low labor costs, many low-skilled workers, and a shortage of capital, like Mexico’s, can produce goods such as textiles and clothing at much lower costs than can countries such as the United States and Canada. Richer nations, in turn, can produce goods requiring high skills and high capital costs, such as microchips, more efficiently than can a Mexico. Services, a major American strength, would also often be more attractive then what was available locally in Mexico. Conservatives, who tend to favor free trade intellectually, and major corporations, which wanted better access to Mexico’s and Canada’s markets and Mexico’s low-cost labor, were the biggest backers of NAFTA.

The arguments against NAFTA were also familiar. Ross Perot, the businessman and sometime presidential candidate, said the agreement would produce “a giant sucking sound,” as manufacturing jobs moved massively to Mexico, hollowing out the American economy, driving up unemployment, lowering American wages, and even endangering American security as domestic manufacturing capabilities diminished. Liberals, increasingly opposed to free trade, and labor unions provided the most powerful political opposition to the treaty.

President Clinton knew it would be a tough sell within his own Democratic party, which had majorities in both houses of Congress. Although the treaty itself could not be altered if it was to pass Congress under the President’s “fast-track authority,” he negotiated separate agreements on labor rights and environmental protection that made the deal less objectionable to Democrats.

The treaty (technically a congressional-executive agreement, under American law) passed the House 234 to 200, with 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats in favor. The Senate then passed it by 61 to 38.

Fifteen years later, NAFTA remains controversial, although more so in the United States than in the other two countries. Canadian labor unions recently removed their objections to it from their platforms, but the AFL-CIO and the more liberal parts of the Democratic Party remain adamantly opposed to it.

Nothing as large and complex as NAFTA could produce only good, of course. In any fundamental change such as the treaty, there will be winners and losers. But NAFTA has produced far more winners than losers. Since 1993, overall trade in goods between the three countries has almost tripled, from $297 billion in 1993 to $883 billion in 2006. American exports of goods to Canada and Mexico are up 157 percent, services up 125 percent.

American manufacturing, meanwhile, has been growing steadily, although huge increases in productivity in recent years have kept manufacturing employment rising much less sharply. Opponents of NAFTA claim that it has cost the country a million jobs. That may well be true, but it has to be put into context. In a capitalist economy, especially in such revolutionary economic times as we now live in, jobs are being destroyed all the time. Lately the United States has been losing about seven million jobs a year to the “creative destruction” of capitalism—while it has created far more. Indeed, since 1994 there has been a net increase of more than 23 million jobs in the American economy, and the unemployment rate has fallen from 6.1 percent to 4.7 percent.

Nor has American investment shifted to Mexico. American manufacturing companies invested more than $200 billion in new plant and equipment in the United States between 1994 and 2001, and invested only $2.2 billion in Mexico.

NAFTA is part of the massive integration of the world economy over the last few decades, a trend that is only accelerating as telecommunications and shipping costs continue to fall. It is also a trend that is unstoppable without withdrawing from the world and turning the United States into a modern version of pre-late-nineteenth-century Japan. So the real question is not whether we should continue with NAFTA and other free trade agreements. It is how we will manage the inevitable continuing creation of a single world economy.

There will be plenty of losers in that creation. But if it’s managed wisely, there will be far more winners in the long and even medium term.
Remember this story was written in 2006 before the Bush FREE TRADE DREAM unraveled

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Love how you gloss over this to excuse the democrats:

President Clinton knew it would be a tough sell within his own Democratic party, which had majorities in both houses of Congress. Although the treaty itself could not be altered if it was to pass Congress under the President’s “fast-track authority,” he negotiated separate agreements on labor rights and environmental protection that made the deal less objectionable to Democrats.

The treaty (technically a congressional-executive agreement, under American law) passed the House 234 to 200, with 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats in favor. The Senate then passed it by 61 to 38.

Just like blaming the obama failures on those obstructionist republicans while dems had a supermajority for a year.

Keep dry humping that leg dogboy!

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.