

Solyndra's headquarters in Fremont, Calif. on Halloween, 2011. (AP/Paul Sakuma/ASSOCIATED PRESS)

A Bloomberg News article last week claimed that the Obama administration's infamous clean-energy loan program -- which had funded bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra -- would actually earn at least $5 billion for taxpayers over the next two decades. Several other publications (including this one) followed the story. An official Department of Energy report came out later with the numbers, suggesting the program had already collected $810 million in interest payments -- delighting White House officials who had been pilloried by the press and by Congress over Solyndra during President Obama's first term.

But, according to a respected economist and experienced Washington budget hand, these numbers are misleading.

In a blog post Monday, Donald Marron, a former acting director of the Congressional Budget Office and director of economic policy at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, wrote that taxpayers are losing more money in financing the clean-energy program than they are getting back in interest on the loans. Yes, the government has collected $810 million so far, and indeed it may collect about $5 billion in interest on loans over the next two decades or so -- which is more than the amount the government expects to lose on loans like Solyndra's that go bad.

But, that's not the whole story. "It’s technically true, but tells you nothing about profits," Marron writes.

Let's look at the math. To finance the Energy Department's loans, the Treasury Department borrows money from global investors by issuing bonds. The loans to clean-energy companies were at rates only slightly above what the Treasury paid to borrow. Thus, while the interest that the Treasury collects is substantial, the Treasury itself will pay close to the same amount in interest to global investors.

When you add the administration's $780 million in losses on Solyndra and other firms to the interest Treasury pays bondholders, it's almost certainly more than the $810 million in interest the government has collected from successful borrowers like Tesla and Ford, Marron writes.

Relative to the massive scale of the loans, the program is close to breaking even either way, but there's still a difference between profit and loss.

Dawn Selak, an Energy Department spokeswoman, said the goal of the agency's loan program was "not to make a profit," but that officials were managing the program in a fiscally responsible way.

"Congress established these programs to accelerate the construction of innovative clean energy projects and advanced vehicle manufacturing facilities in the U.S. in order to advance our clean energy future, create economic opportunities, and address the threat of climate change," she said in an e-mail. "An important indicator of the program's success is whether borrowers are repaying loan principal and interest. Based on those criteria, the report shows that the Department is making prudent investments and our portfolio is strong."

While Marron rejects what he calls the agency's "spin," he essentially agrees. He says the loans were intended to encourage private-sector research into clean technology. By the government's reckoning, the loan program has prevented some 14 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The fact that the loans are losing money is, in itself, "not an indictment" of the program, he said in an interview.

"These programs are making losses. They're costing us money," he said. "We should be open and honest about that."

Welcome to Wonkbook. To subscribe by e-mail, click here. Send comments, criticism or ideas to Wonkbook at Washpost dot com. Follow Wonkblog on Twitter and Facebook.

What's in Wonkbook: 1) Senate to vote on Keystone 2) Opinions: 3) Missouri declares emergency 4) Poll finds public split on immigration 5) Japanese election, rising seas, white men on Wall Street, the duck-hunting "tax" and more.

Number of the day: $2.2 billion. That's how much investor Bill Ackman made when he lost a bet on a pharmaceutical merger. Andrew Ross Sorkin in The New York Times.

Chart of the day:

Kids are much, much more likely to be poisoned by diaper cream than by marijuana, even though both are widely used. Christopher Ingraham in The Washington Post.

1. Top story: Senators will vote on Keystone XL

As of Monday night, supporters looked to be one vote shy. Sen. Mary Landrieu said 59 senators had agreed to vote for the bill. Sixty votes are required to overcome a filibuster and send the bill to the president's desk. Laura Barron-Lopez in The Hill.

Obama may veto the bill, but there is a good chance the administration will eventually approve the pipeline. Coral Davenport and Ashley Parker in The New York Times.

At this point, Keystone is basically irrelevant. Declining oil prices have forced companies to look to other sources for supplies anyway. Rebecca Leber in The New Republic.

How did we get here? The pipeline became a rallying point for environmentalists after a climate-change bill failed in Congress. Supporters say the oil will be extracted whether or not the pipeline is built, but opponents say that stopping global warming means stopping the pipeline. Brad Plumer at Vox.

The bill would give TransCanada special treatment. It's arguably a violation of the principle of the separation of powers. Chris Mooney in The Washington Post.

MILBANK: Environmentalists are becoming the tea party of the left. They insist on ideological purity within the party, and they'd welcome Landrieu's defeat by a Republican. The Washington Post.

NIKIFORUK: Extracting oil from tar sands is incredibly destructive. Bitumen mining has already turned an enormous swath of Canadian boreal forest into a wasteland of toxic sludge, threatening caribou populations and groundwater supplies. The New York Times.

2. Top opinions: The NSA, the CBO, the Fed and politicians' sex lives

Pass the bill to reform surveillance. It isn't perfect, but the USA Freedom Act would rein in the worst abuses of the intelligence apparatus. The New York Times.

JONATHAN COHN: Will Republicans put a hack in charge of the CBO? Congress should reappoint Doug Elmendorf, a centrist economist with a long history of pointing out politically inconvenient facts, as the director of the CBO. The New Republic.

Sens. WARREN & MANCHIN: Obama should appoint regulators to the Federal Reserve. The central bank needs people who aren't too cozy with the industry if it is to police Wall Street effectively. The Wall Street Journal.

MARK GILBERT: The Fed is straining to lift the world economy. The dollar has surged against foreign currencies as the U.S. economy has recovered, which is bad for exports. The central bank should make clear that other countries also have a responsibility to create economic growth. Bloomberg.

RICHARD COHEN: Don't judge people's sex lives. From Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton and Gary Hart, plenty of philanderers have also been devoted and effective leaders. The Washington Post.

3. Missouri declares state of emergency in Ferguson

Gov. Jay Nixon made the declaration preemptively, anticipating unrest. Authorities expect protests when the grand jury's decision in the case of a fatal police shooting in August is announced. Most observers do not think that the officer will be indicted, and the FBI is predicting violence. Wesley Lowery in The Washington Post.

Nixon also called up the National Guard. The Guard was also in Ferguson this summer. "Although the Guard’s role was limited to protecting a police command post, its presence drew vehement criticism from demonstrators, who said it was further indication of a military-style approach by the law enforcement authorities." Monica Davey in The New York Times.

Has law enforcement learned from its mistakes? Nixon did not acknowledge that police's draconian response to protests this summer led to tension and likely incited violence as well. Bloomberg.

4. Polls show the public split on Obama's reported executive order

A narrow plurality of Americans think Obama should wait. Those surveyed favored a delay, 46 percent to 42 percent. Opinions on the question reflected a partisan divide. Susan Page in USA Today.

Executive action would be a reversal of Obama's past position. The president has said in the past that he cannot legally delay deportations for those who entered the country without papers as adults. Michael Shear in The New York Times.

FRUM: Obama shouldn't declare amnesty. The president's plan would invite new immigrants to try to enter the country illegally, and cost the government money. The Atlantic.

FELDMAN: The president has the authority to take action on deportations. But the Constitution also gives Congressional Republicans the authority to retaliate -- that's the principle of checks in balances in action. Bloomberg.

WILKINSON: Executive action will put Republicans in an uncomfortable position. They don't really have an alternative of their own to offer, since the Republican base will not be satisfied with anything except deportations for millions of undocumented families. Bloomberg.

5. In case you missed it

Abe calls a snap election. The Japanese prime minister is taking Abenomics to the streets, seeking a popular mandate to delay the introduction of a sales-tax hike after a dismal quarter for the economy. Toko Sekiguchi in The Wall Street Journal.

Flooding from rising seas is proving costly coastal U.S. cities. A study of just five cities in northern Virginia found that the federal government would have to pay at least $430 million to protect waterfront property from damage. There are hundreds on the waiting list for homeowners seeking federal help. Lori Montgomery in The Washington Post.

A drug to prevent HIV has one vocal critic. The pill would give gay men a false sense of safety and discourage them from using condoms, says a foundation's president. Josh Barro in The New York Times.

Would there be fewer bubbles if there were fewer white men on Wall Street? That's the implication of a fascinating experiment conducted by a group of researchers, who found that an ethnically diverse group of traders set prices 21 percent more accurately. Neil Irwin in The New York Times.

Congress would rather you drive to work than take public transit. Inaction on the Hill allows a weird tax provision to go back into force that favors those who drive to work and park over those who take the train or the bus. Emily Badger in The Washington Post.

Republicans vote to raise the cost of duck-hunting permits. The House approved a bill to raise the cost of a permit from $15 to $25, which a conservative group is calling a tax. Rachael Blade at Politico.