The Biden administration’s aggressive push for green energy, fueled by the Inflation Reduction Act and other legislative measures, has been sold as a bold step toward a sustainable future. However, a closer look reveals a troubling pattern of reckless spending, dubious financial decisions, and a disregard for taxpayer interests that echoes the infamous Solyndra scandal of the Obama era. In its final days, the Biden administration’s Department of Energy (DOE) disbursed a staggering $42 billion in loans and grants to green energy projects, many of which were rushed through with minimal oversight and are now showing signs of collapse. This frenzy of spending not only risks squandering taxpayer money but also threatens the stability of the U.S. energy grid by prioritizing unreliable energy sources over proven, dependable ones.
A Rush to Spend: The Final Days of Biden’s DOE
In the last two working days of the Biden administration, January 16 and 17, 2025, the DOE’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) signed off on nearly $42 billion for green energy initiatives. This amount surpassed the total loans disbursed by the LPO over the previous decade. Documents provided to RealClearInvestigations reveal that the LPO approved at least $93 billion in current and future disbursements following Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss in the November 2024 election. This spending spree appears to have been a deliberate effort to lock in funds for green projects before the incoming Trump administration could redirect them toward other priorities, such as nuclear energy or grid reliability.
The haste was so extreme that it ignored warnings from the DOE’s own inspector general, who in December 2024 urged the LPO to suspend operations due to potential conflicts of interest in post-election loans. The inspector general’s November 2024 report had already flagged “significant risks” to taxpayers from rushed decision-making and inadequate vetting, particularly as the LPO’s authority ballooned from $17 billion to over $400 billion under the Inflation Reduction Act. Yet, the Biden administration pressed forward, prioritizing political goals over fiscal responsibility.
Echoes of Solyndra: Green Energy Failures Mount
The Solyndra debacle of 2011, where the Obama administration’s $570 million loan to a solar company ended in bankruptcy, should have been a cautionary tale. Instead, the Biden administration replicated and amplified this mistake. Several high-profile green energy companies that received substantial DOE funding have already faltered, raising fears of multiple “Solyndras” on a grander scale.
Sunnova Energy: This rooftop solar company, which received a $3.3 billion loan guarantee, has already filed for bankruptcy. Only $382 million of the loan had been disbursed, but the collapse underscores the shaky financial foundations of many subsidized green ventures.
Li-Cycle: A battery recycling company approved for a $445 million loan in November 2024, Li-Cycle was put up for sale and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. No funds have been disbursed yet, but the rapid failure highlights the lack of due diligence in the approval process.
Zum Energy: On January 17, 2025, the DOE approved a $705 million loan for Zum Energy’s “Project Marigold,” an electric school bus initiative in California. Electric buses cost over $350,000 each—more than twice the price of diesel counterparts—yet Zum has only received $21.7 million so far. The high costs and questionable viability of such projects raise concerns about their long-term sustainability.
These examples illustrate a broader pattern: many of the companies receiving DOE funds had “threadbare” business plans, with term sheets essentially discarded in the rush to distribute funds. A Biden EPA official described the process as akin to “throwing gold bars” off the Titanic as an “insurance policy against Trump winning.” This cavalier approach has led to fears that taxpayers will bear the cost of these failures, with little to no return on investment.
The Cost to Taxpayers
The financial toll of these failed investments is staggering. The $42 billion disbursed in the DOE’s final days is part of a larger $93 billion committed post-election, much of it to for-profit enterprises that may not survive in a competitive market. Unlike private investors, who bear the risk of their investments, taxpayers are left holding the bag when these companies go under. If successful, these firms’ shareholders stand to reap significant profits, while taxpayers receive only minimal interest on the loans.
The Biden administration’s EPA also engaged in similar profligacy, pushing $27 billion through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and Solar for All programs in under six months in 2024. An unorthodox arrangement saw $20 billion parked outside Treasury control, funneled to nonprofits with questionable assets and politically connected directors. This lack of transparency and accountability compounds the financial risk, as funds are difficult to track or claw back. Many are accusing former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm of “shoveling out” $93 billion in unvetted loans in her final 76 days in office.
Jeopardizing the Energy Grid
Beyond the financial waste, the Biden administration’s heavy investment in unreliable green energy sources—such as solar and wind—poses a significant risk to the U.S. energy grid. These technologies, while purporting to be environmentally friendly (they’re not), are intermittent and heavily dependent on weather conditions, making them ill-suited to meet the consistent energy demands of a modern economy. The focus on these sources at the expense of more reliable options like nuclear, natural gas, or coal has raised concerns about grid stability, especially during peak demand periods or extreme weather events.
The DOE’s own review, now underway under the Trump administration, has identified 500 programs worth $300 billion for scrutiny, with Energy Secretary Chris Wright emphasizing the need for a “business-like” evaluation of their viability. Wright has already canceled $3.7 billion in awards for 24 clean energy projects deemed financially unviable or misaligned with national energy needs. The Trump administration’s shift toward nuclear projects and grid-strengthening initiatives reflects a recognition that energy reliability must take precedence over ideological commitments to green energy.
Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act funneled billions into unreliable solar projects that increase energy costs and leave taxpayers footing the bill when subsidies dry up. For example, electric school buses like those funded for Zum Energy require extensive infrastructure for charging and maintenance, which many communities are ill-equipped to support. The high cost and logistical challenges make these projects less practical than their diesel counterparts, yet they were prioritized for ideological reasons.
Lessons Unlearned from Solyndra
The Solyndra scandal should have taught policymakers to prioritize rigorous vetting and market viability over political expediency. Instead, the Biden administration doubled down, expanding the LPO’s authority and rushing funds to projects with questionable prospects. The comparison to Solyndra is apt: just as that company collapsed despite massive federal backing, so too are Biden-era recipients like Sunnova and Li-Cycle failing to deliver.
Energy Secretary Wright has criticized the Biden administration for prioritizing fund disbursement over taxpayer protection, stating, “Any reputable business would have a process in place for evaluating spending and investments before money goes out the door, and the American people deserve no less from their federal government.” Yet, the damage is done, and the Trump administration now faces the challenge of clawing back funds or redirecting them to more viable projects.
Moving Forward: A Call for Accountability
The Biden administration’s green energy boondoggle represents a failure of stewardship, with billions in taxpayer dollars funneled to failing companies under the guise of environmental progress. The rush to lock in funds before leaving office, despite warnings from oversight bodies, suggests a prioritization of political legacy over public interest. Moreover, the heavy emphasis on unreliable energy sources threatens the stability of the U.S. energy grid, potentially leaving Americans vulnerable to higher costs and power shortages.
The Trump administration’s review of these programs is a step toward accountability, but the scale of the problem—$300 billion in projects under scrutiny—underscores the magnitude of the challenge. Congress must also act to strengthen oversight and ensure that future energy investments prioritize reliability, affordability, and taxpayer value. The lesson of Solyndra was clear, yet ignored: without rigorous due diligence, green energy subsidies risk becoming little more than corporate welfare, with taxpayers and the energy grid paying the price. As one Trump official aptly put it, “It’s as if you went away and the kids threw a rager in the house.” The cleanup has just begun, and it will take years to repair the damage from this reckless spending spree.