Jonathan Silver, former head of the DOE loan program, expects the program to make money rather than be a subsidy.

Judge as of 2014-01-14 whether Jonathan Silver, former executive director of the DOE Loan Programs Office, had publicly said he expected the loan program to make money, or cover its costs, rather than act as a subsidy. True: a dated public statement by Silver (interview, op-ed or testimony) before about January 2014 saying the program is expected to turn a profit or produce net returns. Mostly true: Silver said the losses would be well within the budgeted reserves, or that it would roughly break even or earn interest, which differs slightly from 'make money'. Mixed: his statements are ambiguous or mixed. Mostly false: Silver said only that losses would be small or within reserves, which the claim stretches into making money. False: Silver did not hold that role, or his statements contradict the claim.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 Former Energy Official Disputes '60 Minutes' Segment On Clean Tech Crash HuffPost · 8 January 2014

   “"People forget that these are loans, not grants," said Silver. "Not only do they get paid back, they get paid back with interest. When the investment cycle is complete, the government will actually have made a profit on the portfolio."”

2. E2 Exclusive: Ex-head of clean energy loan program breaks silence Fortune · 3 June 2013

   “Less than 10% of the funds Congress appropriated to pay for loan losses has been tapped and several detailed , independent reviews of the program suggested that it would never tap the full amount (even in a worst-case scenario).”

3. E3 5-3-11_Final_Testimony_(Silver).pdf U.S. Department of Energy (Statement of Jonathan Silver, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee) · 3 May 2011

   “It is important to remember that the loan programs are not grant programs; LPO expects that the loans it provides or guarantees will be repaid.”

4. E4 Written Statement for the Record of Jonathan Silver U.S. Department of Energy (Written Statement for the Record of Jonathan Silver, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee) · 23 September 2010

   “The Section 1703 program was designed to be cost‐neutral to the government.”

In a HuffPost report dated 2014-01-08, before the judgment date, Silver is quoted saying that "the government will actually have made a profit on the portfolio" once the investment cycle is complete (E1). That is a dated public statement that the program is expected to produce a profit, which meets the criteria for true. His earlier statements fit with this: he said loans are expected to be repaid (E3), that the Section 1703 program was designed to be cost-neutral (E4), and that less than 10% of the funds set aside for loan losses had been used (E2).