“In my 15 years on this subcommittee, we have forged a strong bipartisan tradition of thorough and meaningful investigations. That could have been the case with the Solyndra investigation,” DeGette said today at a subcommittee meeting on oversight and investigations. “We have here a $525 million loan guarantee made with taxpayer funds that went bad. We need to learn the circumstances of the original deal as the restructuring. We need all the facts, all the witnesses, all the documents. Sadly, after seeing the Majority’s conduct of this investigation, I do not believe they share this goal.”

The subpoena authorization is an unprecedented move for the committee, DeGette noted, stressing that the Obama administration has already turned over 85,000 pages of documents related to Solyndra.

“I believe the majority’s action in moving forward with a subpoena resolution today is an act of irresponsible partisanship,” she said. “The Committee has every right to seek and obtain relevant information from the White House to advance its legitimate oversight needs. But a subpoena to the White House is a serious step in a congressional investigation. And it is a step that should be taken only after alternative avenues have been exhausted. We clearly do not face those circumstances today.”

Colorado’s congresswoman was among the first to seek an investigation into the Solyndra loan guarantee after the solar company in Fremont, Calif., flamed out in August. A grim macroeconomic climate, excess capacity, European subsidy cuts and competition from China all factored in its demise.

Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity — an anti-tax group partly founded and funded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch — is spending $2.4 million on television commercials in Florida, Michigan, New Mexico and Virginia attacking Obama over Solyndra and his ties to clean energy.

“Wealthy donors with ties to Solyndra give Obama hundreds of thousands of dollars,” the one-minute ads say. “What does the Obama give them in return? Half a billion in taxpayer money to help his friends at Solyndra — a business the White House knew was on the path to bankruptcy, but loaned them the money anyway. … Now Solyndra is bankrupt and taxpayers are stuck with the bill.”

The ads end with an allegation the president is using taxpayer money for “political favors.”

The link between money and politics is indeed hard to ignore, especially when examining the actions of the Republican congressmen on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Koch Industries and its employees — who help operate Americans for Prosperity — contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the majority of the committee’s Republicans. Koch Industries is grounded in the oil and gas business and is the largest energy donor to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, R- Colo., is the biggest beneficiary of the Kochs’ campaign contributions in Colorado, raking in upwards of $315,000 from Koch-funded organizations in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, according to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other sources.

Gardner, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, voted in favor of the White House subpoena. Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., who is leading the charge in the Solyndra investigation, received a maximum $5,000 contribution from Koch Industries in this election cycle.

DeGette said Upton’s rhetoric has become “inflammatory,” “brazenly inaccurate,” and proof that any objective review of the Solyndra situation has deteriorated into a conspicuous “political sideshow.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The Obama administration is continuing its pledge to reach out to these higher education institutions in New Mexico with a $2 million grant to three community colleges to focus on green jobs training as part of the the State Energy Sector Partnership Program (SESP), a three year, six-million dollar bundle of funds established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

Here’s the story from New Mexico Business Weekly:

The grant, funded through a $6 million award from the U.S. Department of Labor will allow Mesalands Community College in Tucumcari, Central New Mexico Community College and Santa Fe Community College to expand or develop occupational training programs in the wind, solar biofuels, green building and energy efficiency sectors.

Those colleges have been designated “centers of excellence” by Workforce Solutions. They will develop statewide green training programs for their local communities, and for other communities through a “train-the-trainer” approach that will help other New Mexico colleges set up energy-related curricula and courses, said Workforce Solutions Secretary Celina Bussey in a news release.

“The centers of excellence will assist in meeting the training needs for these emerging industries in New Mexico,” Bussey said. “The green energy curricula will be available statewide and will bring training to the areas where the work is taking place.”

Targeting New Mexico for green jobs training could not only good stimulus, say some economists, but targets an industry that’s growing in the Land of Enlightenment.

The solar industry alone employs nearly 100,000 workers, and New Mexico is near the top of the list of where green jobs can be found.

The New Mexico Independent previously reported on several large solar panel farms slated to offer thousands living wages.

The New Mexico state government operates a website where job seekers can link up with green employers, which can be found here. The site includes a listing of colleges that offer green jobs training, as well.

This past winter, bills were introduced in the legislature that would have helped accomplish that.

So far this session, though, they’ve gone nowhere. The renewable energy bill that has advanced is now stalled amid concerns that it would essentially be a gift to Florida Power & Light. A Senate committee killed an amendment intended to promote distributed solar power and to encourage farmers to sell energy from small-scale biomass plants to the grid.

Now hopes for the utility-friendly bill are fading, amid concerns raised by the governor, some lawmakers and outside groups that the unregulated rate increases would impose excessive costs on power customers. The Miami Herald is reporting that an amendment that would give the state’s Public Service Commission more oversight over the rate increases may not be enough to save it, and that its last hope may lie in the Senate, where it is one of dozens of items on next week’s budget panel agenda.

Meanwhile, new data from the Census Bureau shows Florida lagging other states in developing renewable energy.

The state gets less power from renewables than states like Georgia, Idaho, Alaska, Minnesota and Maine, and produces less than one tenth of California’s total. One reason is that Florida has few sources of hyrdo-electric power, by far the biggest chunk of the country’s renewable supply.

Another session may now be poised to go into the books without the legislature passing a bill that would encourage Florida to tap into the sources that are available here, like solar and biomass.

Sen. Mark Udall

Mark Udall has tried several times in the past to model a federal standard after Colorado’s RES, which is the second most aggressive in the United States behind only California. Last year he and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet tried unsuccessfully to at least pass a federal RES even when it looked like a comprehensive climate bill didn’t have enough votes to make it out of the Senate.

The Udalls’ latest bill would require utilities to generate 25 percent of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources by 2025. Colorado’s RES, first approved by voters in 2004 at the 10 percent by 2020 level, has since been legislatively increased to 30 percent by 2020.

The latest Udall bill would require utilities nationwide to generate 6 percent of their power from renewable energy sources by 2013, followed by gradual increases up to 25 percent by 2025. Including Colorado and New Mexico, 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have some sort of RES.

“I was proud to lead the effort in Colorado to pass one of the country’s first Renewable Electricity Standards – and it has helped the state create over 30,000 new good-paying jobs and spurred the growth of one of the strongest renewable energy sectors in the country,” Mark Udall said in a release.

“We can do the same thing across the country with a robust national RES. A national RES would unleash innovation, helping America compete for renewable energy manufacturing jobs and lead in the global economic race.”

A recent PEW Environment report revealed the United States has dropped to third behind China and Germany in renewable energy investment.

The Udalls first introduced a RES in 2002 while members of the House. They later built a coalition in the House that won passage of a national RES amendment in 2007, but it died in the Senate. When both were elected to the Senate, they introduced another national RES bill in 2008.

“Americans want to put our nation on a path towards energy independence, and this bill is our best chance to get America running on homegrown energy while creating good jobs for hardworking Americans,” Tom Udall said in a release.

“Studies show that a federal RES would reduce energy bills, revitalize rural America, slow global warming and strengthen our energy security. With American innovation and ingenuity, we can put our people to work in a thriving, clean energy economy.”

While the bill may be able to make it out of the Senate – although even that isn’t a certainty – it has almost no chance in the Republican-controlled House. A climate change bill made it out of the then Democrat-controlled House last year but later died in the Senate.

Last week Mark Udall introduced a resolution in support of the Clean Air Act, which the GOP-controlled House – including members of the Colorado delegation — has been trying to dismantle in order to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions as a form of air pollution. The resolution was signed by 33 other senators and makes it clear that any anti-EPA bills that make it out of the House will likely die in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Even as many politicians, environmentalists and consumers want renewable energy and reduced dependence on fossil fuels, a growing number of projects are being canceled or delayed because governments are unwilling to add even small amounts to consumers’ electricity bills.

The reason these projects are being canceled is twofold. First, renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.) currently costs more than traditional energy sources like coal and natural gas. Second, the United States has created uncertainty among investors by neglecting to pass policies at the federal level that incentivize renewable energy use.

The Times has a nice example of the problem lower down in the story:

In April, for example, the state public utilities commission in Rhode Island rejected a power-purchase deal for an offshore wind project that would have cost 24.4 cents a kilowatt-hour. The utility now pays about 9.5 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity from fossil fuels.

The state legislature responded by passing a bill allowing the regulators to consider factors other than price. The commission then approved an agreement to buy electricity from a smaller wind farm, although that decision is being challenged in the courts.

In the example, the cost differential between fossil fuels and offshore wind is staggering. But because cost is not the only factor involved in these decisions (others include public health and welfare), the state legislature passed a bill to broaden the discussion beyond the price issue.

Passing such legislation has proven difficult at the federal level. As it stands now, states offer a patchwork of regulations, but uncertainty abounds without federal rules. This drives investment to China.

The Times said:

In its most recent quarterly assessment of the renewable energy sector, the accounting and consulting firm Ernst & Young identified China as the most attractive market for investment in renewable energy.

The Sierra Club has worked for six months to determine how to reduce the United States' oil dependence. (Flickr, The Sierra Club)

Despite the Gulf oil spill, a massive pipeline break in Michigan and broad concerns about global warming, ambitious climate-change and energy legislation is likely dead for the year. That poses a conundrum, going forward, for environmentalists: How to convince lawmakers of the need for legislation to sever the country’s decades-long ties to oil and to reform energy policy more generally?

[Environment1] The Sierra Club is in the process of trying to answer that question. For the past six months, it has worked on a massive study on how to reduce the United States’ oil dependence in an economically and environmentally beneficial way. The group is also building a coalition of environmental advocates and lawmakers to support the project, which will quantify potential oil-use reductions across every industrial sector.

“Over the next 20 years, how steep can we make cuts in oil consumption while allowing the economy to flourish and while creating more jobs rather than penalizing individual workers or communities?” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune asked. “So, this will be a major priority of the club over the next several years — to build a broad based coalition of organizations and elected officials who will want to stand up for a very thoughtful and pragmatic, but visionary and aggressive plan to get off oil.”

In an interview with The Washington Independent, Brune, who took over his post just one month before the oil spill started, outlines the organization’s oil study, talks about the prospects for energy legislation and previews the upcoming mid-term elections.

Here is an edited-down version of our interview:

What is the major issue going forward for the Sierra Club right now?
Our top issue remains fighting climate change in a way that increases the availability of clean energy like solar and wind, while also improving the public health benefits associated with decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels.

Is the focus now on Environmental Protection Agency regulations, Congress or both?
I would say both for sure. We see great opportunity in EPA rulemakings to increase public health benefits by forcing utilities in particular to account for the cost of their pollution. A top priority right now is organizing around EPA’s hearings on coal ash, to make sure that coal ash is treated as a hazardous waste. But, over the next couple of years, we’ll be looking at a whole series of rulemakings, many of which are focused on stationary sources like coal plants, but we’re also looking at EPA rulemakings to cut our dependence on oil.

Is there a serious concern about challenges to EPA’s regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act going forward?
Yeah, certainly many threats have been made to EPA’s authority to act under the Clean Air Act, attempts either to gut the Clean Air Act or eliminate EPA’s authority. So, we’re taking those threats very seriously. We also think that should there be a public debate about these issues that the public overwhelmingly supports strong, effective and cost-effective regulations that have come out of the EPA for the last 40 years under the Clean Air Act. We think there’s broad public support for retaining its authority.

In terms of Congress, it doesn’t seem that anything is going to happen on cap-and-trade any time soon. Is that your thinking as well?
Well, you know, I think it is difficult to predict too far into the future. We think Congress should act. We know that members were put into office with the expectation that there would be a meaningful, substantive response to climate change and that Congress would enact laws that would put a down payment on scaling up clean energy. So, we know that the demand is there. But whether or not senators in particular will respond remains to be seen.

Putting aside cap-and-trade, there’s been talk of a narrower energy bill. It looks like Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sen. Brownback  (R-Kans.) are introducing a renewable energy standard that they are hoping to get passed. Is there a specific RES target that you would like to see or is it that the policy needs to move forward as soon as possible?
Well, let me make a general point. There was far too much of a focus earlier this spring on a single bill to address climate change economy-wide. And, in reality, there are dozens of things that Congress can do to fight climate change and to increase energy security in the country. In regards to this particular RES bill, our focus is primarily on keeping it clean. We want to see a renewable energy standard that is focused on truly clean energy and doesn’t have absurd giveways to nuclear power or so-called clean coal or any one of the other handful of options. And then of course to increase those investments as quickly as possible.

Is there a number that’s being thrown around among your members now?
Yeah, but it’s not something I really want to discuss in the public right now.

What other things are you focusing on in Congress?
I’d say the top thing is a plan to get off oil. We just experienced the largest environmental disaster in our country’s history and in response, Congress has done nothing. There’s not even a plan to fully reform what used to be called MMS and there’s not yet a plan to hold oil companies fully accountable and to lift the liability cap. And most importantly, there’s no effective plan right now to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. So, if there’s one thing that Congress can do in the next couple of months, it would be to challenge the oil industry and deliver us a plan to get off oil.

It’s been sort of an uphill battle trying to get an oil spill response bill to pass, something that is incredibly popular with the American people. And you’re right, it seems like the bill is getting held up on this idea of liability, whether or not an oil company should be held 100 percent liable for spilling thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean. What are your thoughts on that?
We shouldn’t be privatizing the gain and sharing the risk with the public. If oil companies are going to be benefiting from oil drilling, they also have to be able to absorb any of the risks associated with drilling.

Do you expect that Congress will pass an oil spill bill this year?
We do.

I wanted to also touch on the mid-term elections. It’s on everybody’s mind right now. What is the Sierra Club doing in terms of working with individual candidates?
So, there’s lots that we’re doing. The Sierra Club has 1.4 million members and supporters, so over the next several weeks, a big job of ours will be to educate our supporters about what’s at stake Nov. 2., trying to get people out to the polls and to engage our members to become volunteers. So, the Sierra Club endorses specific candidates.

We get very heavily involved in local and state propositions. Arguably our biggest priority this year is to defeat Prop 23, which would undermine the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB32, that was passed in California a few years ago. With that, we’re doing a massive voter mobilization drive. Individual members will be calling voters to encourage them to get out. We are also part of a coalition of groups that is doing advertising, thought we’re not doing any ourselves.

Are there any other races that are of particular concern for you?
We’re looking at the Senate races in Nevada and Missouri. Obviously, Harry Reid has been excellent in fighting the coal industry as well as supporting big investments in clean energy. We are also looking at the Florida race. Democratic Senate candidate Meek has a 100 percent League of Conservation Voting score. He’s been strongly in favor of Florida’s solar bills as well as the ban on offshore oil drilling. There’s obviously dozens or even hundreds of races in which the environmental voice is an important one.

There has been a lot said by the oil industry and Gulf coast lawmakers about the Obama administration’s offshore drilling moratorium’s impact on jobs, though there was a report that came out last week that said job losses might not be quite what people estimated. What’s the Sierra Club’s position on all of this? Should the moratorium be lifted?
No, I think that a full moratorium should be put in place. We’re mindful of the fact that we need to make stronger investments in clean energy jobs so that those who work in the oil industry who want to put food on the table for their families have viable alternatives in growing industries that they can work in.

To be clear, we’re not advocating turning off the spigot in the Gulf. There are more than 4,0000 rigs operating in the Gulf right now and we are not saying there should be no oil drilling in the Gulf, not until we have a clear plan to get off oil. But what we’re saying is that since it’s been proven now that oil drilling offshore is dirty and it’s dangerous and it’s deadly, we need to tighten up the safety regulations to make sure that disasters like this don’t happen in the future. And we need to stop investing in exploring for new oil and instead explore much more carefully and aggressively investments in solar and wind so that we’re not poisoning our coastlines as we’re trying to keep our lights on.

On pipeline safety. There have been a couple major disasters this year. Of course, the natural gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, Calif. And before that there was an oil spill in Michigan from an oil sands pipeline. Looming over this you have a massive proposed pipeline project, the Keystone XL project, that is going to go from Canada to Texas. Has the Sierra Club been looking at the issue of pipeline safety through a new set of eyes now that we’ve had these disasters?
Yes, we have. There’s two things that we’re doing. Clearly, the cost of our reliance on oil — when you talk abut the Michigan spill, the Gulf oil spill and the Keystone pipeline — is so much higher than what we pay at the pump when you consider the foreign policy implications, the fact that our entire economy is held hostage to wild fluctuations in oil prices.

So, what we’ve done over the last six months since I started at the Sierra Club is to build out a much more aggressive, comprehensive plan for how our country can get off oil. Over the next 20 years, how steep can we make cuts in oil consumption while allowing the economy to flourish and while creating more jobs rather than penalizing individual workers or communities. So, this will be a major priority of the club over the next several years — to build a broad based coalition of organizations and elected officials who will want to stand up for a very thoughtful and pragmatic, but visionary and aggressive plan to get off oil.

And then, regarding natural gas, we don’t think we can simultaneously phase out coal, oil and gas at the same time. Gas will need to stick around for a while. But there the challenge is to have much higher and much tighter safety standards so we’re not in this disastrous position again and again and again where people are losing their lives due to an industry is ineffectively regulated.

On oil sands or, as some call them, tar sands. There were senators in Canada last week reviewing oil sands production in there. Is there a message you would like to send to them in terms of how oil sands should be treated? Because there’s an argument out there that it’s better to get oil from Canada, despite the high greenhouse gas emissions of oil sands production, because we’re no longer reliant on the Middle East.
I think that’s just misguided thinking. The Pentagon says that climate change is one of the top national security threats in the 21st century. We have to deal effectively with climate change. Importing oil from the tar sands is 2-3 times more greenhouse gas intensive than conventional oil. You don’t solve a problem by making it worse. So, I understand that the notion that we have oil that is under the sands of our neighbors to the north is attractive to people who think we can have a simply pipeline solve a lot of problems. But the reality is that if we rely too much on a different source of oil that is dirtier, that will accelerate climate change rather than reduce it’s impacts, we’re only going to be replacing one set of problems with an entirely different set of problems. The only effective way to address this problem systemically is to adopt a plan to get America off oil.

Can you be more specific about this plan?
We’ll have a plan that we can introduce probably in the next 3-6 months. It looks at every major industrial source of oil consumption, from the oil that’s used in medium- and heavy-duty trucks, light trucks, cars and SUVs, the oil used for pesticides and paints. Whatever the major source of consumption is, we’re looking at a major, comprehensive plan to phase it out where and whenever possible.

What’s the time frame of this phase-out?
The big challenge is political will. For example, clearly it is technically possible, one would presume, to produce nothing but plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles in the next couple years. Whether that’s politically possible, of course remains to be seen. If the United States were to mobilize as we did in World War II and completely transition the entire automobile fleet to produce a new technology, clearly that could be done.

What we need to do is measure the distance between what we can do and what we’re willing to do as a country and develop what we feel as responsible and pragmatic, but also aggressive tactics to achieve energy independence. To help inform that decision we would look at the cost of different decisions under different time scenarios, the benefits economically, environmentally or socially depending on our foreign policy and what would the oil savings be in real-world terms. Then we’d highlight a few different options. We’ll have the data shortly. Then we’ll figure out how to use it. We’ve commissioned this first study just as the Sierra Club, but we anticipate doing more with a broad coalition.

Sen. John McCain (WDC Pix)

PHOENIX— In one of the most contested exchanges from the first presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama attacked Sen. John McCain’s voting record on alternative energy.

“Over 26 years, Sen. McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy like solar and wind and bio-diesel,” Obama said.

McCain dismissed Obama’s statement as if it were an absurd claim. “No one in Arizona is against solar,” McCain retorted.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Moments later, Obama sought to make another point about McCain and Arizona. The Arizona senator interrupted the Democratic presidential nominee to make a sweeping assertion about his unwavering support for alternative energy development: “I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time,” McCain said, “and no one can be opposed to alternate energy.”

McCain’s legislative record shows otherwise.

Michael Neary, president of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association, a non-profit trade association, said McCain frequently says he supports renewable energy development, but his deeds do not match his words. McCain, Neary said, has skipped many important votes or voted against measures that would spur alternative sources like solar and wind.

“If he was truly an ally of alternative energy, he would have taken the time to get out there and vote and maybe rally some of the troops on the Republican side to get [measures] passed,” Neary said. “That’s something he hasn’t done, and this is extremely important to Arizona.”

McCain’s underwhelming support of alternative energy is well known to Arizona’s solar industry leaders, several of whom were surprised to hear the GOP presidential candidate proclaim his strong support for solar during the first debate. McCain’s campaign and Senate office did not return numerous phone calls and emails seeking comment.

Vivian Harte, chairwoman of the Arizona Solar Energy Assn., a statewide solar-advocacy group, said McCain’s backing was needed last winter when a renewable energy tax-incentive bill came within one vote of clearing the Senate. McCain, however, failed to go to the Senate floor and cast a vote — though he was in the Washington area.

Harte said her ears perked up during the debate when McCain declared that no one in Arizona is against solar. “I was surprised to hear that,” she said, “because he has voted against incentives in the past.”

McCain’s resistance to passing tax incentives threatens to derail Arizona’s solar industry just as it is poised to become one of the biggest players in the world. The state, experts say, has the potential to provide a significant share of the nation’s electricity supply. But so far, there has been relatively little interest in developing Arizona’s most plentiful natural resource — sunshine.

Harte said industry technical studies indicate that 10,000 square miles of solar-energy generating facilities in the state’s Southwestern deserts could produce electricity for the entire county. “We have the space and we have the sun,” she said. “Certainly, the Southwestern U.S. should be using a lot of solar power.”

Arizona’s fledgling solar industry heaved a sigh of relief Friday, when President George W. Bush signed the $700-billion Wall Street bailout bill, which included legislation extending and expanding tax incentives for alternative energy that were set to expire at the end of 2008.

The incentives, says Arizona Public Service Co. spokesman Jim McDonald, are vital to the development of alternative energy here. “It’s important to Arizona,” he said.

McCain voted in favor of the financial-rescue bill last week. In doing so, he reversed his history of opposing tax incentives for renewable energy.

In 2004, McCain introduced an amendment that would have eliminated the alternative energy tax credits. In March 2006, he voted against extension of the incentives. In 2007, the senator missed three votes to extend the tax credits set to expire this year.

McCain’s claim during the first presidential debate to support renewable energy is an extension of assertions made in his campaign ads that have come under fire from environmental groups. One ad links McCain to renewable energy, stating that it would be used to “transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence.”

The Sierra Club said the ad is “completely false and misleading” because McCain “has a long record of consistently voting against renewable energy.” The environmental group said in a statement that McCain voted twice in August to block extending renewable-energy incentives to push through offshore oil drilling legislation.

The environmental group also criticized McCain for being the only senator not present for the February vote on an economic stimulus bill that included incentives for renewable energy. McCain’s campaign plane had arrived at Dulles International Airport, about 20 miles west of Washington, shortly before the vote. McCain skipped the debate and vote, telling the Associated Press that he was “too busy” and “focused on other stuff.”

The bill received 59 votes, one short of that needed to cut off debate and allow it to proceed to the floor, where only 51 votes were needed for passage. The next day, McCain voted for a revised economic stimulus bill — one stripped of incentives for clean energy — and it passed the Senate.

Uncertainty over whether the incentives would be renewed has played havoc with solar projects in Arizona. Some were canceled because there wouldn’t be time to finish them this year to qualify for the tax credits. “The whole solar industry was starting to drag,” said a state economic development official.

One threatened project was construction of the world’s largest solar electric generating station, to be built about 70 miles southwest of Phoenix. The Solana power plant would have been derailed if the 30 percent tax credit on the cost of construction had not been extended another eight years.

Abengoa Solar Inc., a Spanish energy company, is planning to build the $1.2-billion facility near the small town of Gila Bend, Ariz. The facility will produce 280 megawatts of power when completed in 2011, enough electricity for 70,000 homes.

Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest electric utility, has a contract to purchase all the electricity produced by the solar plant, estimated to be worth $4 billion over 30 years. Plant construction is expected to create about 1,500 jobs, and the facility is expected to employ 85 skilled technicians. The plant stores energy in saltwater tanks, allowing it to produce electricity for several hours after the sun sets.

In testimony last March before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, a representative of the Arizona Public Service warned that without the incentives, construction of emission-free sources of electricity like Solana would not happen. “Without these tax credits, large scale solar projects, including Solana, are simply not affordable today,” Barbara Lockwood, APS manager of renewable resources, said in a statement.

Passage of the law clears the way for APS and Abengoa to move forward. Lockwood said the utility is committed to making Arizona “the solar capital of the world and bringing affordable renewable energy to all of its customers.”

Reaching this goal won’t be easy. APS is now reliant on nuclear power, coal and natural-gas-fired generating plants. The utility operates the largest commercial nuclear generating station in the world, with 3,825-megawatt capacity. It owns 29 percent of the triple-reactor Palo Verde Nuclear Generating station, 50 miles west of Phoenix.

The amount of solar power used in Arizona remains a tiny fraction of the energy produced by fossil fuels and nuclear power. APS has installed only 5 megawatts of solar power in the last 20 years. The utility is also planning to build a second large solar facility, working with Nevada utilities, that would generate approximately 250 megawatts. But to keep up with growing demand, APS would have to build one 250-megawatt solar plant a year.

Arizona regulators are pushing the state’s public utilities to generate more power from alternative sources. APS and other utilities must generate at least 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025 under new regulatory rules.

Congress has tried to pass legislation requiring the nation’s utilities to produce more power from renewable sources. McCain has voted against implementing federal standards.

McCain has close ties to APS, and its parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp. Robbie Aiken, Pinnacle West’s chief Washington lobbyist, is an unpaid volunteer for the McCain campaign. He is helping with advance fieldwork and fund-raising. Aiken was also involved in McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.

Pinnacle West executives, including Aiken, have made personal contributions totaling at least $25,000 to the McCain’s presidential campaign since January 2007. Meanwhile, Pinnacle West chairman, William Post, has raised at least $100,000 for McCain by bundling contributions. Steve Betts, president of SunCor, a Pinnacle West real-estate subsidiary, has also raised at least $100,000 for McCain.

Rather than supporting renewable energy, McCain has made expansion of nuclear energy the centerpiece of his energy policy. During the Sept. 26 debate, he said construction of 45 nuclear power plants would create 700,000 jobs and help the U.S. reduce reliance on foreign energy.

McCain’s call for more nuclear energy has triggered concern in northern Arizona, where widespread radiation contamination from the postwar uranium mining boom, whicht continued until the 1970s, harmed the health of thousands of people.

Harte, of the Arizona Solar Energy Assn., said she doesn’t expect McCain to do much for renewable energy if elected president. “He talks with passion about nuclear power,” she said. “That’s really where his focus is.”

But the credits may not be dead. Senate leaders decided to attach the renewable energy bill that prolongs the credits onto the $700-billion financial bailout package that lawmakers hope to vote on tonight.

This actually makes sense, and not just because it’s the government’s last chance this year to save a booming sector of the economy from an uncertain future. (I’ll have more on just how uncertain that future is in a forthcoming piece.)

It also makes sense because the credits will help save Main Street jobs.  With the financial system ailing, unemployment on the rise and energy prices bouncing up and down, Congress can’t afford to end tax credits that have rapidly stimulated the green economy, according to solar and wind industry experts.

For now, folks in the renewable energy industry will have to keep doing what they’ve been doing all year long — nervously biting their nails as they wait to see what lawmakers do.