Right now in Washington there is a vicious debate going on over one of the largest pieces of legislation in the country’s history. Strong Republican opposition to the size and shape of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – the cornerstone “stimulus” package of the incoming Obama administration and Democratic caucus – has slowed what Dems hoped would be a quick passage. In particular, Republican legislators have pushed for a reliance on tax cuts instead of government spending, and reducing the absolute size of the bill on top of that. While a version of the bill passed the House of Representatives (with zero Republican votes,) the jump to the Senate has only added to the complexity, as the need for 60 votes to avoid a filibuster has forced Democrats to fight further with the GOP in order to spur passage. A group of moderates in the Senate stepped into the breach with their own recommendations for a centrist version of the bill, cutting the size of the package by around $100 billion, but many observers have issued sharp criticisms towards the nature of the cuts, arguing that they excise some of the most important parts of the stimulus package. President Obama and Senate Democrats have also had difficulty in coordinating their message. Through all of this, economists and financial experts have held a parallel debate to the arguments between the Dems and the GOP, focused less upon the poles of spending v. tax cuts and more on the relative size of the package. Some say the $750-850 billion package is too small by as much as 50%, including recent Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, while others say the size of spending overestimates the impact of government cash infusions. This has kept the shape of the bill murky, even as the bill moves into another difficult phase, the negotiation of a final version mediating between the Senate and House, in addition to the ongoing concerns of the two parties.

If all that sounds pretty complicated, keep in mind that I’ve simplified it a great deal, and that I don’t even really understand how truly complicated the situation is. This is a big thing happening at a scary time. Most of the country’s most intelligent and competent people, as well as many of the country’s least intelligent and competent people (and this goes for the entire spectrum), are waging a war of ideas, politics, and policy over an extremely complex set of legislation. News sources right now can’t even agree on the size of the package, as it has gone through a number of drafts and will see still more changes in upcoming days. In this environment, anyone who says they actually know what the final bill will look like is lying or an idiot. But the reason the debate has hit such a fervor pitch is that a set of very real issues are at play: the political futures of the two national parties, the influence of the new administration, the nature of the state’s role in our national economy, the government’s finances, and, most importantly, the economic health of the United States for the next few years. The cuts and amendments and compromise proposals that are forming the tidbits of Internet age news cycles are going to make an enormous difference for a long way down the road. And the fortunes of solar could not be more tied to a great deal of these fundamental concerns.

For the upcoming week, we will continue to give you a look at the local initiatives, industry news, and technological innovations that are shaping the solar landscape far from the nation’s capital. But we’re also going to do our best to track the day-to-day evolution of those provisions of the stimulus package that will have an impact on solar. And this is for two reasons. One, to keep an eye on an incredibly important piece of legislation for both the country and the industry. And two, to have a record of the ups and downs of solar’s fortunes as the legislation takes its final shape. With that record, we can look back in the coming months and see what worked and what didn’t in the negotiating process and have a set of lessons to apply whenever solar has to work its way again through the federal grind. If we pay attention, we can learn a great deal more about who the real allies in government are for the solar cause, what kinds of legislation are most likely to survive sharply partisan debate, and the places where we can make strides.

To kick things off, here is, as of today, a list of those provisions of the stimulus that could affect solar which were cut in the compromise worked out early in the weekend by a group of Senate Democrats and Republicans. I’ve excerpted it from the Democratic-leaked list obtained by CNN (read it all here). It is, like everything else in this process, provisional, but it gives a good idea as to where support for solar is sagging in the legislative process.

• $3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)
• $100 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology
• $200 million for National Science Foundation
• $1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees
• $16 billion for school construction (a great opportunity for green building contracts)
• $3.5 billion for higher education construction (ditto)
• $40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants)

I would point to this last one as the source of greatest concern. More later in the week, but the fiscal situation at the state level is intimately tied to the fortunes of solar, solar incentives, solar tax credits, and other energy initiatives, and until we get comprehensive green legislation at the federal level this is where the action is.

Stay with us, readers. And watch closely.