Biden’s $42B Green Energy Rush: A Taxpayer Risk?

Have you ever wondered what happens when a government scrambles to spend billions in its final moments? It’s like watching someone pack for a trip they know they’ll never take—frantic, messy, and leaving you questioning their choices. In its last days, the Biden administration’s Energy Department pushed out nearly $42 billion in green energy loans, a move that’s sparked heated debate about fiscal responsibility and political motives. This wasn’t a slow drip of funds but a torrent, raising eyebrows about whether taxpayers are now on the hook for risky bets.

The Last-Minute Green Energy Blitz

The numbers are staggering. In just two days—January 16 and 17, 2025—the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) approved close to $42 billion for green energy projects. That’s more than the office had committed in the entire previous decade. To put it in perspective, this was part of a broader $93 billion spending spree that kicked off after the 2024 election, when it became clear a new administration was coming. It’s hard not to wonder: was this a strategic move to lock in funds before a policy shift?

It’s extremely concerning how many dozens of billions were rushed out without proper due diligence.

– Current Energy Secretary

The deals, fueled by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, tapped into a massive $400 billion pool meant to boost clean energy. But the speed and scale of these final-hour commitments have left many questioning their soundness. Some projects are already faltering, and the specter of past failures like Solyndra—a green energy company that collapsed after receiving hefty government loans—looms large.

Why the Rush?

Picture this: an administration knows its time is up. A new team with different priorities is about to take over. What do you do with a pile of unspent funds earmarked for your pet projects? You spend it—fast. That seems to be the logic behind the Energy Department’s actions. The incoming administration, led by President Trump, had signaled a shift toward traditional energy and nuclear projects, potentially sidelining green initiatives. The Biden team appeared determined to cement their legacy by locking in as much funding as possible.

But here’s where it gets dicey. The department’s own inspector general had warned in December 2024 to pause loan approvals due to potential conflicts of interest. Ignoring this, the LPO forged ahead, signing deals that some argue were more about politics than pragmatism. I can’t help but think this feels like a high-stakes gamble with taxpayer money.

The Deals: Hits and Misses

Not all the projects funded in this frenzy are doomed, but several are already raising red flags. Let’s break down some of the biggest deals and where they stand:

• Solar Company Struggles: A rooftop solar firm received a $3.3 billion loan guarantee, but only $382 million has been disbursed. The company filed for bankruptcy recently, leaving taxpayers wondering if they’ll ever see that money again.
• Battery Recycling Bust: A $445 million loan was approved for a battery recycling plant in November 2024. The company is now up for sale and in bankruptcy, with no funds disbursed yet.
• Electric School Buses: A California company scored a $705 million loan for electric school buses, which cost over twice as much as diesel ones. So far, $21.7 million has been paid out, but the high costs raise questions about scalability.
• Big Battery Bet: A $9.63 billion loan went to a joint venture for an electric vehicle battery plant in Kentucky. Workplace issues and construction delays are already plaguing the project, with over $7 billion obligated.
• Utility Giant Loan: A massive $15 billion loan was approved for a utility company focusing on renewables, the largest of the post-election deals. Details are murky, but the sheer size demands scrutiny.

These examples highlight a pattern: big promises, big money, and big risks. When I read about companies like these filing for bankruptcy so soon after receiving funds, it’s hard not to feel skeptical about the vetting process.

Taxpayer Money at Stake

The core issue here is simple: who pays if these deals go south? The answer is you and me—taxpayers. The LPO’s loans aren’t grants; they’re supposed to be repaid with interest. But when companies fail, as some already have, the government—and by extension, the public—bears the loss. The Biden administration’s changes to LPO regulations in 2023 didn’t help. They loosened oversight, making it easier to approve loans with fewer strings attached. In some cases, “conditional commitments” were treated as final, locking in funds that are now harder to claw back.

They had the Loan Program Office operating like a graveyard energy venture capital fund.

– Trump administration official

This quote sums it up perfectly. It’s as if the LPO became a venture capital firm, but instead of private investors taking the hit, it’s taxpayers. I find it frustrating to think that decisions made in a political rush could cost us billions.

A Broader Context: The Inflation Reduction Act

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is the engine behind this spending. It poured $400 billion into the LPO, transforming a once-quiet office into a financial juggernaut. Before this, the LPO’s biggest year was 2024, with $34.8 billion in commitments. The post-election surge alone dwarfed that figure. What’s left? Nearly $300 billion in uncommitted funds, which the Trump administration is now eyeing for its own priorities, like nuclear energy and grid improvements.

Here’s a quick look at the scale of this spending:

The table shows how the post-election push was unprecedented. But with great power comes great responsibility—or at least, it should. The lack of transparency in these deals is what bothers me most. Why weren’t taxpayers given clearer insight into where their money was going?

The Trump Administration’s Response

The new administration isn’t sitting idly by. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has launched a thorough review of the LPO’s deals, vowing to cancel those that don’t pass muster. Some smaller projects have already been scrapped, and Wright has issued new guidelines to protect taxpayers. These include stricter requirements for financial health, technological viability, and compliance with national security standards.

Here’s what the review is focusing on:

1. Financial health of funded companies
2. Technological and engineering feasibility
3. Market conditions and project viability
4. Compliance with legal and national security requirements

This approach feels like a step toward accountability, but it’s not without challenges. Canceling “obligated” funds is tricky, thanks to the Biden team’s regulatory tweaks. Still, I’m cautiously optimistic that the review will weed out the weakest deals and redirect funds to more stable projects.

What’s Next for the LPO?

The LPO isn’t going away. Despite the controversies, it’s seen as a valuable tool for advancing energy goals. The Trump administration wants to pivot toward nuclear projects and strengthening the U.S. power grid, reducing reliance on foreign supply chains for critical minerals. This makes sense—energy independence is a bipartisan goal, after all. But nuclear projects come with their own risks, like cost overruns and delays, as history has shown.

One promising area is geothermal energy. A $1.2 billion commitment was made in January 2025 to a company extracting lithium from geothermal brine, a move that could bolster domestic mineral production. Another deal, for a Nevada mining project, aims to produce lithium and boron—key for both energy and defense. But even this project has hit snags, with a major investor pulling out recently.

Government policy should encourage projects if we want critical minerals developed domestically.

– Mining company executive

This quote highlights the tension: domestic production is crucial, but government-backed deals need better oversight to avoid waste. I think the LPO could be a game-changer if it focuses on projects with solid business plans, not just political appeal.

Lessons from the Past

If this all feels familiar, it’s because we’ve been here before. The Solyndra scandal in the early 2010s was a wake-up call about the risks of government-backed green energy bets. Back then, a solar company went bust after receiving over half a billion in loans, leaving taxpayers empty-handed. The parallels are uncanny—rushed approvals, questionable recipients, and a lack of transparency. Are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes?

I’d argue no, but only if we learn from the past. The current administration’s review is a good start, but it needs to go beyond surface-level fixes. Taxpayers deserve a system that prioritizes due diligence over political agendas.

A Call for Transparency

At the end of the day, this story is about trust. When billions are spent in a hurry, it erodes public confidence. I’ve always believed that government programs should be as transparent as a glass house—every dollar should be traceable, every decision justifiable. The LPO’s recent actions fall short of that standard. Moving forward, the Energy Department needs to:

• Publish detailed reports on loan recipients and their financial health
• Reinstate strict oversight for all commitments
• Prioritize projects with clear national benefits, like energy independence

Perhaps the most frustrating part is the missed opportunity. The LPO could be a powerful force for innovation, but only if it’s managed responsibly. Let’s hope the current review sets a new standard.

Final Thoughts

The Biden administration’s $42 billion green energy push is a cautionary tale about what happens when politics trumps pragmatism. While some projects may succeed, others are already crumbling, leaving taxpayers to pick up the pieces. The Trump administration’s review offers hope, but the road ahead is fraught with challenges. What do you think—can the LPO be salvaged, or is it destined to be another government boondoggle? I’m curious to hear your take.

In my view, the key is balance. Support innovation, but don’t throw caution to the wind. The LPO has the potential to shape America’s energy future, but only if it puts taxpayers first. Let’s keep a close eye on what comes next.