House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats moved quickly yesterday to squelch the flames of their Republican counterparts' findings in a new Solyndra report directed toward the office of White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew.

Six hours after House Republicans unveiled a blistering 154-page report that cast blame for the government's $527 million loss on nearly every high-level political appointee who came in contact with the loan guarantee to the now-defunct solar company Solyndra LLC, Democrats responded with their own memo that accused Republicans of cherry-picking documents, omitting exculpatory evidence and peddling unsubstantiated insinuations.

SPECIAL REPORT

Solar manufacturer Solyndra was given a $535 million loan guarantee and touted by the White House as a model for the clean energy economy -- but it all ended in bankruptcy. E&E examines how the company got there and what it means. Click here to read the report.

"The Republican report released today is a political document, not an accurate portrayal of the facts uncovered by the committee in its investigation of the Solyndra loan guarantee," said ranking member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee ranking member Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

In their report, Republicans were particularly critical of Lew's actions when he headed up the Office of Management and Budget, which was responsible for reviewing the loan program decision. Yesterday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quickly joined the Lew bashing (E&ENews PM, Aug. 2).

The Republican report indicates that when Solyndra was undergoing a controversial restructuring amid deteriorating finances, an internal debate took place at OMB over the specific role the office should play in signing off on that effort. The GOP report states that it was Lew who determined OMB would take a less active role in that review than some career staffers had argued for.

The Democratic report contends that OMB correctly determined the role it should take in the restructuring process.

"As then-Deputy OMB Director Zients testified before the committee, it was OMB's role to 'pressure test' the department's analysis, not to take over the program, which would be beyond OMB's competency," the Democratic memo states.

That memo also states that the Republican report overstates Lew's role in the determination of the office's role.

"None of the witnesses [interviewed by committee investigators] could recall any conversation with Mr. Lew about the specifics of the loan restructuring," the Democratic memo states.

The GOP report also criticizes OMB leadership for ignoring the concerns of its career staff who disagreed with DOE that the restructuring would put the government in a better position to recoup its investment.

"OMB's conclusion [in February 2011] that DOE's analysis that the restructuring would leave DOE in a 'better position' seems remarkable, in light of the email OMB staff sent ... only the day before that explained that DOE's own cash flows showed the opposite: that the restructuring would be more costly than an immediately liquidation," the Republican report states.

The Democratic memo argues that when Energy Secretary Steven Chu testified before the committee, he was questioned extensively about the restructuring decision and explained it was a difficult one.

"The choice was between taking a sure and large loss by denying restructuring or implementing a restructuring that held at least some promise of a significantly greater recovery. As he and every other person who testified before the committee or was interviewed by committee staff emphasized, this difficult decision was made purely on the merits," the memo says.

The memo adds that "it is a sign of good government, not bad," that there was an internal debate among analysts about the decision.

"The Republican report twists this appropriate internal debate into evidence of mismanagement," the report says. "That is an unjustified conclusion based on the evidence before the committee."