Two months before its collapse, solar panel manufacturer Solyndra pushed for California legislation that some say seemed custom-made to help the troubled company.

The company was one of the main proponents of a bill that would have given California-based panel makers help winning state contracts. The pool of those that would have been boosted by the bill was small, potentially as narrow as Solyndra and four other companies.

"It was sort of eye-popping what the bill was proposing," said Ross Warren, chief consultant to the state Assembly's Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee. The legislation, Warren said, was "unprecedented in public contracting law."

The measure, S. 175, from Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett (D), passed the Senate before stalling in an Assembly committee in July. It resurfaced on the political radar yesterday following questions at the federal level about benefits Solyndra has received.

California Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi (D), chairwoman of the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee, yesterday cited S. 175 as an example of the problematic preferences given to Solyndra.

"We should continue to support green energy projects as essential to the future of California's economy," Hayashi said in a statement. "But we have to be diligent and thoughtful in how we support them." S. 175, she said, "would benefit a company just like Solyndra without any accountability."

On Capitol Hill, House Republicans yesterday painted the company as an example of a green business that was promoted by Democrats but that lacked appropriate financial footing. The House Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing on the timing of a $528 million federal loan the company won in 2009.

The company last month filed for bankruptcy protection and ceased operations, laying off 1,100 workers. Days later, the FBI raided Solyndra's Fremont headquarters, apparently in connection with the federal loan.

This summer Solyndra lobbied for help at the state level, asking lawmakers to pass Corbett's bill. That legislation would have given California-based solar panel makers and assemblers an advantage in bidding on state contracts. The measure proposed treated those companies' bids as if they were 5 percent lower than their actual price tag.

Bill author Corbett represents Fremont, the city where Solyndra was based. Corbett spokesman Andrew Lamar said that the bill aimed to help state-based companies and workers.

"It was not in response to a Solyndra request," Lamar said. "There were several companies that were supportive of this. I don't know a solar company in California that wasn't supportive of it."

To some connected with the Assembly committee, it seemed the bill was written for Solyndra.

"Most of us here assumed it was," said Warren, whose committee opposed the measure. "That's the shining star that had risen a year or two ago. It's in the [Corbett] district. We kind of felt they were the impetus behind it."

Solyndra was the main company lobbying for the bill, Warren said.

"We had letters [of support] on file, but the only communication was from Solyndra," Warren said, explaining that the company had called to promote the benefits of the bill.

Corbett's office said that nine companies would have qualified for the 5 percent bidding discount: Solyndra, San Jose-based NanoSolar, Solaria of Fremont, Los Angeles County-based Sanyo, Solar World of Camarillo, San Diego-based companies Kyocera and Siliken, SunPower of Milpitas and MiaSole of Santa Clara.

But, Warren said, only about half those companies would have participated in bidding for state contracts. Before voting on the bill, the Assembly business committee consulted with the California Department of General Services, which oversees state contracts.

Out of the nine that Corbett's office said were qualified, four or five companies had been prequalified to produce public works projects, Warren said.

"So the universe became much smaller," Warren said.

Solyndra lobbying

Solyndra noted the small pool of bill beneficiaries in a letter it sent in support of the measure.

"Solyndra is one of the very few companies that perform their entire solar panel manufacturing process in California," Leslie Bar-Ness, Solyndra's director of state and local government relations, wrote in a June 17 letter to lawmakers. "These are good green manufacturing jobs. Our mean manufacturing wage is near $30.

"Selecting California manufactured panels will help Solyndra and other California manufacturers compete with companies that perform their operations in lower cost U.S. and foreign locations while attracting continued capitol investment in California," the letter added. "This will have a ripple effect by creating infrastructure jobs at local businesses and suppliers throughout the state."

Solyndra in June visited lawmakers' offices, made phone calls and wrote the letter in support of the bill, Warren said.

In addition to Solyndra, the bill was supported by NanoSolar, Solaria, the California Labor Federation, the city of Fremont, the Clean Energy Network, the Sierra Club of California and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.

The California Chamber of Commerce and California Manufacturers & Technology Association opposed the measure, writing that "by limiting bidders, competition will be reduced, resulting in less choice and higher prices on the resulting contracts, making the advancement of energy efficiency goals less attainable."

Political rivals?

Corbett's bill passed the Senate in a 27-11 vote on June 1. But it died July 5 when the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee voted 4-6 to clear the bill out of committee and sent it to the entire chamber.

Even if the bill had passed the committee and then the Assembly, it would have been unlikely to prevent Solyndra from filing for bankruptcy protection, Lamar said, "given the dire circumstances and where they were" economically.

After Solyndra's bankruptcy filing, Corbett cited her measure as a necessary means to support local businesses.

"Unfortunately, it is too late to help Solyndra, but many other companies are struggling and could benefit from legislation I have authored that would give California-based solar companies a bid preference on state contracts," Corbett said in an Aug. 31 statement.

"If California is going to place solar panels on state property, shouldn't we try to use panels made in California?" Corbett added. "Isn't it common sense to use taxpayer dollars to support California jobs? This is a simple measure that can help protect California jobs."

Corbett also offered S. 134, a bill that was similar to S. 175. The Assembly committee's vote on that measure came Sept. 6, after Solyndra's bankruptcy and failed committee passage. Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D), who supported the first measure, opposed passing the second one. Her office did not respond to an inquiry about the reason for the different votes.

The battle over the merits and detriments of S. 175 pits two Democrats against each other. That is not that unusual, given the rivalries between Assembly and Senate, said Steve Maviglio, principal of Forza Communications, a Sacramento-based public affairs and campaign firm.

Hayashi, like many other California lawmakers, is limited in the number of terms she can serve, Maviglio said. Online political journal East Bay Citizen in 2009 speculated that Hayashi wants Corbett's seat. Both are in the same region.

Warren with Hayashi's office did not immediately respond to a question asking about that purported rivalry.