According to a report from the Energy Department’s inspector general, lithium ion battery manufacturer LG Chem used money from a $150 million stimulus grant to pay workers to watch movies, play video games, and volunteer at local nonprofit groups.

LG Chem cited poor demand for the Chevrolet Volt, the electric car for which the batteries were to be manufactured, as cause for its lackluster grant performance. The company’s Holland, Mich., plant, which received the grant, has not manufactured a single battery that can be used in electric vehicles, according to the IG.

President Barack Obama proposed new measures to fund a renewed push for electric vehicles in his Tuesday State of the Union address. He suggested using oil and gas leasing revenue to pay for the project.

However, House Republicans are considering an official probe into existing electric vehicle subsidy programs, according to a GOP source, who asked not to be identified since the investigation is not yet underway.

Such an investigation would likely make the implementation of another such program difficult. Republicans are already incredulous Obama is proposing new ideas for electric vehicle subsidies, even as existing subsidy programs are plagued by improper federal expenditures.

“Only the government could spend $150 million to start a battery company and not come up with a single battery,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) said. Pompeo has introduced legislation to end all energy tax credits.

“The president last night during his State of the Union address remained confident he could continue to pick winners and losers,” Pompeo said. “No wonder we’re $16 trillion in debt.”

The IG’s findings substantiated claims by employees of the Holland plant, one of whom told a local news outlet that “there would be up to 40 of us that would just sit in there during the day” rather than actually working.

“Through interviews with LG Chem Michigan management and other staff, we confirmed that employees spent time volunteering at local non-profit organizations, playing games and watching movies during regular working hours,” the inspector general said in a report released Wednesday.

“LG Chem Michigan officials indicated that they had not begun production at the facility because demand for the Chevrolet Volt, the U.S. manufactured vehicle for which the plant was to produce battery cells, had not developed as anticipated,” the IG noted.

American purchases of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles over the past two years have only been about a third of the Energy Department’s 2011 projections, according to the Washington Post.

LG Chem told the IG it would need an additional $22 million in taxpayer funds to complete the five lines of batteries called for under the stimulus agreement—$13 million more than DOE has set aside for the project.

The company said even then it “had no plans to complete the remaining lines unless demand improved dramatically.”

LG Chem acknowledged the problems at its Holland plant in a statement provided to the Free Beacon.

“We regret this situation occurred, and we are confident that we are now taking every measure to be fully compliant in our use of the project grant funding,” the company said.

LG Chem began conducting “rolling furloughs” last year. The IG report notes that the project has created less than half of the jobs projected by stimulus administrators.

Obama spoke at the groundbreaking ceremony for LG Chem’s Holland plant in 2010. “These plants will put thousands of people to work,” Obama claimed. “This includes folks who were working at a couple of facilities being built in Michigan by another battery technology company called A123.”

A123 is now bankrupt.

The industry lost more than $6 billion in annual tax breaks along with a valuable import tariff when Congress declined to renew the subsidies at the end of last year. Several trade groups are now attacking ethanol’s last federal redoubt: The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which mandates oil producers blend a certain amount of ethanol with traditional gasoline.

“I won’t say this is the end of the [ethanol] mandate, but the momentum has been swinging against the industry and its lobby for a good year, and a variety of other lobbies are continuing to press the attack on a variety of fronts, making this a moment of great vulnerability for ethanol,” auto industry analyst Edward Niedermeyer told the Free Beacon in an email.

The National Council of Chain Restaurants recently touted a study prepared for it by PricewaterhouseCoopers reporting the federal ethanol mandate costs each restaurant $18,000 a year because of the higher food prices.

The American Automobile Association (AAA) additionally lambasted the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday for approving E15 gasoline, which contains 15 percent ethanol.

AAA argued consumers haven’t been properly informed about the fuel, which can damage engines on older vehicles.

“It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many motorists may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle,” AAA president and CEO Robert Darblenet said in a Friday statement. “Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers.”

Vehicles manufactured after 2001 can handle E15 fuel, the Environmental Protection Agency has said.

AAA noted Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, and Volvo have said E15 damage might void warranties, while BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen do not cover damage from E15 under their warranties.

The Renewable Fuels Association, one of the leading trade groups for biofuels, was quick to strike back.

“Clearly, Big Food and Big Oil are on the defensive,” said Bob Dinneen, president of the RFA in a statement. “They lost in their bid for a waiver of the RFS, so now they are resorting to super-sized myths about the impact of the RFS on food prices.”

“Every reasonable analysis of the factors influencing food prices has concluded that the cost of diesel fuel, gasoline, and other energy inputs is the major driver. This study conveniently avoids that issue. The bottom line is the RFS is working. Renewable fuels have already displaced 10% of annual gasoline demand and dramatically lowered fuel costs for all Americans.”

The Renewable Fuel Standard ethanol target was 13.2 billion gallons in 2012. That will rise to 15 billion gallons by 2015. Many oil producers will likely have to switch to E15 to accommodate the rising requirements. That is not sitting well with stakeholders in a number of industries.

Corn prices spiked by as much as 60 percent this summer after a severe drought earlier in the year, according to Purdue University economics professor Christopher Hurt.

A group of Republican and Democratic governors joined ranchers and poultry farmers, as well as the United Nations director-general for food and agriculture, to petition the EPA to waive the RFS mandate.

The petitioners argued the ethanol mandate was artificially inflating those prices. The EPA declined to waive the RFS mandate, claiming the petitioners hadn’t sufficiently proven economic duress.

The industry faces pressure from the left as well. Environmentalists have long opposed ethanol, arguing it is folly to use a valuable foodstuff such as corn for fuel.

Ethanol remains a potent political totem in the Midwest. The mandate could have a severe economic effect on Midwest farmers if it were struck down.

“The ethanol industry as a whole will continue to exist, as long as the government keeps the RFS in place,” Robert Rapier of Investing Daily wrote recently. “If the RFS is ever abolished, my prediction is that the entire ethanol industry would collapse.”

GOP primary candidates had to tiptoe through the issue when they sought favor in Iowa and Indiana in 2011.

Thirteen Republicans from farm states voted to block the elimination of the $6 billion in ethanol subsidies last year when Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), one of the upper chamber of Congress’ staunchest fiscal hawks, forced a vote on it.

For the second time this year, the bailed out automaker will suspend production of the electric car so popular with Capitol Hill. The Michigan assembly plant that builds the car will close for four weeks between September and October.

The announcement comes after a record-setting August for the Volt. GM sold 2,500 Volts in August, a 700 percent increase from 2011. The new sales were driven by the company’s dropping the monthly price of the nearly $40,000 car to $169 per month—on par with the monthly cost of the $15,000 Kia Forte.

Government has also helped drive sales by providing car buyers with a $7,500 tax write-off for purchasing the Volt. Meanwhile states like California now allow Volts into carpool lanes regardless of how many passengers a driver is carrying. Despite these perks, GM admits that consumers are still avoiding the car:

GM confirmed the plant idling, saying it will continue to “match supply with demand” for both the Volt and the Chevrolet Malibu sedan that is also made at the plant. The automaker declined to specify how long the plant will be closed.

CNN reports on the research document:

Federal support for clean power “will have been largely dismantled by the end of 2014,” a new report by a trio of think tanks warns. More than 70% of the programs now on the books—many of them part of the Obama administration’s 2009 economic stimulus bill—are set to expire in the next two years, the report concludes.

“Neither Congress’ attitude or the public purse right now is going to allow business as usual,” said Mark Muro, policy director for the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program and one of the report’s authors. But he said the end of programs in current law was in sight, “and it’s going to be broader and deeper than people imagine. It’s time to start thinking about this very seriously.”

The report, “Beyond Boom and Bust,” urges Washington to rethink rather than eliminate its support for projects that produce power with little or none of the carbon emissions most scientists blame for an increase in global temperatures. It was produced by Brookings, the Washington-based World Resources Institute and the Breakthrough Institute, a California-based center that focuses on energy and the environment.

The company’s earnings have taken a hit over the past year from reduced government subsidies and heated competition among solar-panel producers. …

“After a thorough analysis, it is clear the European market has deteriorated to the extent that our operations there are no longer economically sustainable, and maintaining those operations is not in the best long-term interest of our stakeholders,” said Chairman and interim Chief Executive Mike Ahearn.

First Solar reported in February it swung to a fourth-quarter loss on write-downs and other charges as net sales climbed 8%. The Tempe, Ariz., company had also cut its 2012 revenue projection, saying it would cut back production at its factories to match supply with weaker-than-expected global solar-power demand.

On top of that, the Colorado state government is offering prospective Volt buyers a substantial incentive of its own, AutoGuide.com reports:

While other states are discouraging people from buying cars like the Nissan Leaf, Colorado is offering up to $6,000 in incentives which combined with the already-available $7,500 in federal tax incentives. That adds up to a maximum $13,500 lopped off the Volt’s price tag, making it a reasonably-riced car for folks living in the mountainous state.

“This rebate in Colorado provides an extra incentive for those that want to purchase or drive an energy-efficient and technologically advanced vehicle like the Chevrolet Volt,” said Volt Marketing Director Cristi Landy. “With the available state and federal tax credits, along with the fuel savings that many owners experience by charging daily, the Volt can fit the lifestyles and budgets of many people.”

“Right now, four billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year. Four billion dollars,” he told a crowd of supports in Nashua, N.H. “These are the same companies that are making record profits off of us right now—tens of billions of dollars a year. Every time gas prices go up, and you fill up your car, they make even more.”

Obama urged Congress to end federal subsidies to oil companies as a way to bring down record gas prices, though it is unclear how doing so would achieve that goal.

“You can either stand up for the oil companies, or you can stand up for the American people,” he said.

The president’s remarks are in keeping with his rhetoric over the past several years. However, he once derided those who attack oil companies for cheap political gain.

“People want serious answers to these problems,” then-Senator Obama said in 2006. “And if you’re going to talk about energy, for example—you know, the easiest thing in the world is to look at Exxon Mobil’s profits last quarter and say these folks are making $36 billion in one quarter, and the CEO is making $500 million, and gas prices are high, and we’re getting gouged.”

His numbers were a bit off. Exxon posted a profit of $39.5 billion for the entire year of 2006. The year before, the company’s CEO Lee Raymond received total compensation of about $70 million, which included salary, bonuses, and stock options.

Obama went on to say that while scapegoating oil companies can be good politics in an election year, it is not a substitute for serious policy proposals.

“That may be sufficient to get us through this election, but after the election, people then are going to say, okay, smart guy, what are we going to do about energy?” he said.

Veteran MSNBC political reporter Chuck Todd recently observed that “there is no issue that has been a bigger bust for the president than energy policy … he’s made no progress.”