“It is deeply disturbing that one in five veterans under the age of 25 is unemployed. The men and women who fought for our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan have to fight for a job when they return home — and the odds are stacked against them” Harkin said Thursday during a conference call with reporters.

“We have a solemn obligation to do right by the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk for our nation.”

Government officials estimate that roughly 240,000 veterans who served in the Middle East are currently unemployed. The bill approved by the Senate provides tax breaks of up to $9,600 to businesses that put them to work.

The tax breaks were included in the Obama administration’s American Jobs Act, a $447 billion package that was wholly refused by Republican lawmakers last month. U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley says the initiative dates back to May 2010 and this past January, when he and U.S. Sen. Max Baucus introduced and reintroduced the Veterans Employment Transition Act, or the VETs Jobs bill.

“These men and women are extremely capable,” Grassley said. “They have a lot of skills to offer in the workplace. The legislation that Senator Baucus and I put together clears some bureaucratic hurdles and adds a financial incentive to encourage employers to seek out veterans.”

The legislation reinstates a tax credit that expired at the end of 2010, and makes it easier for veterans and small businesses to use. The credits will range from $2,400 to $9,600 in 2012, depending on the veteran hired. Tax exempt organizations are eligible for the credit.

• $9,600 for veterans with service-connected disabilities unemployed for 6 months or longer in the past year
• $5,600 for veterans unemployed for 6 months or longer in the past year
• $4,800 for service-disabled veterans hired within 1 year of being discharged
• $2,400 for veterans who do not fit any of the above categories and are unemployed for between 4 weeks and 6 months in the past year

Any veteran who has left active duty in the past five years who has discharge paperwork showing 180 days of qualified active duty would be eligible for the credit. This would include those men and women who were activated by their states as members of the National Guard. The bill also helps service members market themselves to prospective employers by requiring the military to educate service members about how the credit works.

The only senator to vote against the Vow to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 was South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint, who indicated the measure gave veterans an unfair advantage.

“I cannot support this tax credit because I do not believe the government should privilege one American over another when it comes to work,” DeMint said on the floor Thursday.

The U.S. House is expected to take up the measure next week, and U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack is optimistic that the bill will be quickly passed.

“Tomorrow, we set aside time to honor the men and women who have served our great country in uniform. As we pause to pay tribute to them, we must also remember that we have a moral obligation to serve our troops and veterans with the same dedication and honor with which they serve us. Yet our troops are returning home from the battlefield to face the same economic reality that families across our country are facing,” Loebsack said in a Thursday statement.

“The World War II generation returned home and became part of our nation’s economic recovery. Today, as we work to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it is up to all of us as a grateful nation to ensure that those who have fought for us overseas do not have to fight for a job here at home. This generation of veterans can and will be part of our economic recovery, but we must give them the opportunity to do so. This bipartisan legislation demonstrates the progress we can make when both sides of the aisle work together.”

Two members of Iowa’s federal delegation are veterans. Harkin served as an active-duty jet pilot in the U.S. Navy from 1962 to 1967. U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell served 20 years in the U.S. Army, including two one-year tours of duty as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam.

According to a January 2011 report by Jennifer Rizzo of CNN, only 20 percent of the members of Congress have served in the military — 25 from the Senate and 90 from the House. It is the lowest level since World War II.

The wind energy industry employs about 3,000 people in Iowa and accounts for 20 percent of all electricity generated in the state, according to the Iowa Wind Energy Association.

Bruce Braley

“Investments in Iowa’s wind energy industry have created thousands of jobs and made Iowa a world leader in clean energy technology,” Braley said.  “Extending the renewable energy production tax credit will keep the economic momentum going. Wind energy is still a widely untapped resource in Iowa – and that means there’s still untapped potential for business investment and job creation.”

GOP candidates for president offered very different assessments of the tax credit during a forum Tuesday morning in Pella. The tax credit is due to expire at the end of 2012.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) called for ending the wind energy tax incentive.

But former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) took a different tack, calling for long-term renewals of such programs.

Braley introduced similar legislation to extend the renewable energy production tax credit in 2008 and 2009.

“Wind energy is good for the economy, good for the environment, and good for farmers,” he said. “Our bipartisan bill will promote job-creating wind energy projects and provide incentives to expand wind energy production.”

Those two government initiatives have paid big dividends for the Hawkeye State, spurring major growth in the wind and renewable fuels industries.

The wind energy industry employs about 3,000 people in Iowa and accounts for 20 percent of all electricity generated in the state, according to the Iowa Wind Energy Association. And the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association says biofuels support 83,000 jobs in the state, adding nearly $12 billion to Iowa’s GDP.

But some candidates said they would work to greatly limit or even do away with the programs.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is against both wind energy tax credits and a renewable fuel standard, at least at the federal level.

“I happen to believe the federal government needs to be completely out of the energy business, picking winners and losers,” he said.

Perry said if states want to compete against each other by putting similar credits or standards in place, “that is a correct and proper role for the state.”

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said she’d also like to see those programs eliminated, along with subsidies for other forms of energy.

“What I would like to do is a re-examination of those credits because quite frankly I’d like to pull them back and let these industries be more self-supporting and stand on their own,” Bachmann said.

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) said he supports keeping a renewable fuel standard in place because of its impact on clean air. But he would like to see incentives for ethanol and other forms of energy phased out over a five-year period.

“I believe we have to get rid of all tax incentives for all energy. I believe we need to have a level playing field,” Santorum said.

At the other end of the spectrum was former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia), who said he’d much rather see money for energy go to Iowa and South Dakota than overseas.

“I’d like to see some kind of encouragement for every vehicle to have flex-fuel capabilities and every gas station to be a fuel station, not just a gas station,” he said.

Gingrich also called for long term renewals of tax credits, rather than every year or two.

“I would like to see a minimum 10 years tax credits with a rolling annual renewal like football coaches,” he said. “That’s a pretty good model to keep people focused.”

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was also at the forum but didn’t address the topic. National frontrunners Herman Cain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney didn’t attend the event.

The Hill reports:

Under the draft, tax credits would be awarded for improvements in energy efficiency, integrating renewable electricity onto the electric grid, and creating technologies and equipment that capture biogas to produce energy and other “post-consumer waste-to-energy” facilities.

The draft’s centerpiece extends through 2014 the Section 48C manufacturing tax credit for investing in renewable energy. The tax credit was created in the 2009 stimulus bill and has been touted by President Obama as being instrumental in helping companies become energy efficient. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates the extension will cost approximately $6.9 billion.

“In swiftly making the First Time Homebuyer Credit immediately available to more than 2.6 million homebuyers, a very small number of payments were made to prisoners incorrectly, which the IRS is now taking all steps to recapture and to prevent going forward,” the IRS said. “The IRS will follow up on every instance of an improper prisoner payment and take swift and appropriate enforcement actions.” It has also promised to go after and recoup any other losses from fraudulent claims on the effective, if easy-to-game, program.

Other issues in the full report: 2,555 taxpayers received $17.6 million for homes purchased prior to the dates allowed by law; 241 prisoners claimed the credit while serving life sentences. (None of the prisoners cited in the report were filing joint returns either, by the way.) In one case, 67 taxpayers claimed the credit on the same home. All in all, more than 10,000 filed for the credit on homes used by other taxpayers to claim the credit. And, 34 IRS employees claimed the credit despite already owning homes — in addition to the 53 IRS employees publicly censured for doing the same last summer.

The official yearly statistics, to be released in September, will account for medical costs, transportation costs and updated costs of living when determining poverty, and add in food stamps and tax credits (like the fully refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, which often pays the working poor more in refunds than they paid in taxes) as income. Elderly people are expected to see the largest rise in their poverty rate due to medical expenses, while children are expected to appear less poor because of Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) funds. High costs of living are expected to drive up poverty rates in major urban areas like New York, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

What the government will not do is allow the more realistic poverty calculations help determine which Americans qualify for transfer payments such as food stamps, Medicaid, housing benefits, WIC and child care benefits. That might be considered too generous for the likes of some in Congress who prefer to complain about budget deficits for the benefit of the television cameras rather than extend unemployment benefits to those Americans who can’t find jobs in a jobless economic recovery.

Showing signs that they can learn from history, lawmakers are now eying another tax benefit, but only for businesses that create new jobs. That proposal, still in the nascent stages, is designed to address the runaway unemployment numbers that plague many regions, while having the additional advantage of appealing to members of both parties. Indeed, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told The New York Times that there’s “a lot of traction for this kind of idea.”

If the White House will take the lead on this, I’m fairly positive it would be welcomed in a bipartisan fashion.

There’s good reason for Congress to do something. On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the economy shed an additional 263,000 in September, knocking the unemployment rate up to 9.8 percent — the highest level since 1983.

The good news here, if Cantor’s comments are indication, is that Republicans, while poised to exploit the jobless numbers to their advantage in next year’s elections, also wouldn’t stand in the way of every proposal addressing the problem.

The report totals government expenditures on different energy sources, both in direct spending and in foregone revenue resulting from tax breaks. It found that while the government spent $72.5 billion on fossil fuels between 2002 and 2008, it spent just $29 billion on renewables. And if the subsidies for corn ethanol – which is of questionable environmental benefit – aren’t included on the renewables side, the government spent just $12.2 billion on renewable energy over that period.

The government directly spent $16.3 billion on petroleum, natural gas, and coal products, and gave the industry another $53.9 billion in the form of tax breaks. Another $2.3 billion was used for carbon-capture-and-storage technology, nearly all of that in the form of direct government spending. A large portion of that spending — $15.3 billion – is actually designed to support overseas production of oil through the Foreign Tax Credit, which allows U.S. companies to avoid domestic taxes if they have paid royalties in the country of origin.

For renewables, the government allocated just $6.2 billion on tax breaks and $6 billion in direct expenditures. And while most fossil fuel subsidies are written into the U.S. Tax Code as permanent provisions, most subsidies for renewables are short-term provisions included in energy bills or other legislative measures, which has limited their usefulness to the industry.

But his enthusiasm isn’t universal.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Amid the buzz the program has generated over the possibility of jumpstarting the sluggish housing market, some worry that “monetizing” a tax credit – which means providing homebuyers with short-term loans secured by their expected tax refunds, so they can gain quick access to the money – isn’t quite as simple as it sounds.

It could make borrowers vulnerable to the same predatory abuses that plague the Earned Income Tax Credit program, an anti-poverty government effort. That program remains a regular target of tax preparation companies, which partner with banks to aggressively market short-term, high-rate Refund Anticipation Loans secured by the refund. Recipients – the working poor – often fork over as much as one-third of their refunds in charges and fees, in order to get their money a week or two earlier. The loan is repaid when the actual refund arrives.

It’s possible that unscrupulous lenders could launch homebuyer tax-credit programs of their own, profiting from the publicity over HUD’s initiative. It’s not clear if the Federal Housing Administration, which has seen its share of the mortgage market explode from less than three percent to more than 30 percent in the past few years, will have the resources to police the program adequately. And with government the largest source of mortgage money in a tight credit environment, “people are going to try to take advantage of it” through fraud, said Ann Fulmer, of vice president of business relations for Interthinx, a provider to lenders of fraud prevention services.

Beyond all that, some decry the idea of helping people buy homes who can’t come up with downpayment money on their own, calling it the kind of thinking that led to the mortgage crisis in the first place. Congress approved the credit as part of the stimulus package approved in February.

Interest in the downpayment program is so intense that earlier this week, when HUD mistakenly posted a mortgagee letter with guidance for the program on its website, then took the letter down, reports spread in the blogosphere that the program had been killed. A HUD spokesman confirmed the speculation was false and that the program was going ahead as planned.

And so is the controversy.

At Minyanville, a financial information Website, real estate consultant Andrew Jeffery declared that “subprime lending has come roaring back,” noting that a few states already have started similar tax credit programs. Financial recklessness, he said, isn’t coming from Wall Street this time around, but from the government itself. As Jeffery put it, federal and state governments are “in a rush to prop up home prices and delay the ultimate day of reckoning” by insisting on “coercing taxpayers to over-leverage themselves” and take on debt they can’t afford.

Peter Morici, an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, was equally blunt. “If you can’t save for a downpayment, should you be buying a house? It’s like we’re saying, ‘People who can’t save a cent and who can’t let go of their credit cards should get downpayment assistance.’”

Morici also called the program a “total payoff to builders,” who lobbied heavily for the tax credit.

But others aren’t so quick to criticize. They point out that the government is just trying to balance helping out a housing market desperate for buyers with avoiding the kind of risky lending that created the crisis. Fulmer, of Interthinx, noted that the FHA is working hard to “walk a tightrope” – making sure that moderate income buyers still have a shot at buying homes, given steep new downpayment requirements, while backing responsible and sound lending.

“There are competing goals,” said Brian Chappelle, a former FHA official and founding partner of Potomac Partners, a Washington mortgage industry consulting firm. “They want to stimulate housing and economic activity and they also want the borrower to “have skin in the game.”‘

The downpayment idea has attracted widespread interest, with the Wall Street Journal calling it a possible “game changer” for the moribund housing market. In the end, said Chappelle, “our economic problems trump risk concerns.”

In his speech to the National Association of Realtors, HUD’s Donovan said that “we all want to enable FHA consumers to access the tax credit funds when they close on their home loans so that the cash can be used as a downpayment.” He said the FHA will allow “trusted FHA-approved lenders,” as well as HUD-approved nonprofits, and state and local government entities, to monetize the credit through short-term bridge loans.

HUD spokesman Brian Sullivan said he couldn’t comment further, except to say that the FHA is continuing to work out final details.

The program is expected to mirror efforts already in place in a handful of states, including Missouri, Delaware, New Jersey, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Under those programs, the states offer bridge loans that allow buyers to borrow against their tax credit for down payment and closing costs, then repay it when their tax refunds arrive. If the borrower doesn’t pay, the unpaid loan becomes a lien on the property, at a slightly higher interest rate, which means the borrower faces higher monthly payments over the next decade.

The FHA has run into trouble in the past with down payment programs. Congress last year banned a seller-funded down payment assistance program that led to high default rates on FHA loans. As TWI reported recently, supporters of the banned program, including builders, Realtors, mortgage brokers, and some in Congress, are trying to revive it.

Under the seller funded program, the FHA allowed homeowners to get down payment help from nonprofits or charities funded in part by sellers. But sellers often raised the sales price of a home to cover the cost of the down payment “gift.” The charity or nonprofit that supplied the down payment money was reimbursed by the seller for it, along with service costs and fees, once the deal closed. Borrowers paid for it all, whether they realized it or not. The Internal Revenue Service called the whole thing a scam and revoked the charitable status of seller-funded providers.

Aaron Krowne, founder of the Mortgage Lender Implode-o-Meter, a website that tracks the mortgage industry and is leading a campaign in the blogosphere to block any reinstatement of the seller-funded down payment assistance program, said he doesn’t have the same concerns about the homebuyer tax credit idea.

“It differs significantly from SFDPA (seller funded down payment assistance) in that the seller has no specific inducement to inflate the price, nor is there any third party who earns a fee for laundering a “contribution” from the seller,” he said. “So, in my opinion, it is a bad macroeconomic inducement and is bad policy — but it isn’t criminal and dishonest with likely knock-on effects like SFDPA.”

In addition, the FHA is likely to keep a close watch on the entities it approves to make the short-term loans, and will limit the costs and fees that can be charged, noted Robin Medecke, a researcher at the Mortgage Lender Implode-o-Meter.

Her worries about the program, she said are different.

“Where I would be concerned is the possibility of Fannie and Freddie adopting similar guidelines with limited or no power to dictate or enforce similar restrictions,” she said. “That’s the real as-yet-unopened can of worms, in my opinion, and if it’s further extended to the secondary market, thereby opening up the tax credit advance to private investors, the potential for abuse increases exponentially.”

HUD’s goal in developing the program was to encourage lenders issuing the mortgages to also make the short-term loans to the borrowers, noted Chappelle, the former FHA official. But Chappelle spoke with several small and regional lenders last week, who said they aren’t interested in doing so. Only government agencies and approved nonprofits can issue a lien on the property if the loan goes unpaid, he said.

“While the lender can make the loan, I hear that most won’t do it because it must be unsecured,” Chappelle said. “It can’t be attached to the property. No question some of the tax credit could be abused by entities that will step-in and make these loans.”

Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, which covers the lending industry, agreed, saying an “obvious problem” is that predatory lenders will start marketing similar homebuyer tax refund anticipation programs, “piggy backing on the publicity surrounding the non-profit products authorized by HUD.”

While Donovan referred to “trusted” FHA-approved lenders that will be allowed to participate, Cecala also questioned that assurance. “It gets a little trickier when you bring FHA-approved mortgagees into the mix since that group includes brokers – and probably former subprime lenders,” Cecala said.

Business Week magazine reported last year that subprime lenders with histories of abuses were turning to FHA-backed loans.

The biggest question about the program is whether of the agency has the ability to monitor it for fraud, said Sonia Garrison, a senior researcher with the Center for Responsible Lending. The FHA was downsized over the past decade as it played a smaller role in the mortgage market.

“We’ve got to be able to get the FHA the resources it needs to police the program properly,” she said.

And to draw the fine line between helping the housing market, and keeping a lid on risky lending.

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.”