Interior lawmakers find holes in Palin's energy proposition
Published Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!JUNEAU — Should a homeowner in Anchorage get the same $100 a month to offset energy costs as a homeowner in Fairbanks, where costs are much higher?
Should big box stores get their electricity rates subsidized as much as homeowners?
Interior lawmakers are still reviewing Gov. Sarah Palin’s plan for short-term energy cost relief, but a few said Monday they were concerned about regional balance and assistance for businesses.
“Wal-Mart and Pike’s don’t need as much help as the neighbors to the left and right of me,” said Rep. Jay Ramras, a Republican from Fairbanks and owner of Pike’s Waterfront Lodge.
Palin’s proposal would give every Alaskan $100 a month — through debit cards — that could be spent on heating fuel, electricity, gasoline or other energy products. It would also give grants to electric utilities that would cover 60 percent of the cost of electricity to residential and commercial customers.
Interior lawmakers reached Monday said they recognized the strain of high energy costs on Alaskans and generally agreed the state should help somehow. But they also questioned the details of Palin’s plan.
Rep. Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks, said he thought it was problematic that Anchorage residents would get the same cash handout as Fairbanks residents despite the differences in energy markets.
A typical Anchorage household pays about $850 a year for home heating, while a Fairbanks household pays more than $4,000, according to state figures.
“I think that will have to be tackled in the legislative halls,” Kawasaki said.
Ramras and Rep. David Guttenberg, D-Fairbanks, both said they thought help with electric bills should apply only to residential customers and not to commercial users as well.
A legislative staff member to Ramras calculated her yearly electric bill at home would drop by about $800 under the plan, while Ramras’ electric bill at Pike’s would drop by more than $100,000.
“That just doesn’t seem very socioeconomically equal,” Ramras said. Business owners can raise prices to cover energy cost increases, he added, while homeowners can’t do anything.
Joe Balash, a special assistant to the governor, responded to the criticisms Monday.
“The cost of energy is affecting more than just residential rate-payers,” he said. “Small businesses in particular operate on small margins (and) when the cost of energy goes up as dramatically as we’ve seen here in the past few weeks, those margins disappear fast.”
Balash added that public buildings like schools, which do not qualify for subsidies under the state’s Power Cost Equalization program, would also benefit from the utility grants.
A $100-per-month handout might go further in Anchorage that it would in Fairbanks, he said, but someone in Fairbanks would get a greater benefit through the electricity rate reductions than someone in Anchorage, where rates are cheaper.
He added that the administration wanted to distribute the money, which would come from surplus oil revenue, equally among all Alaskans.
“Just because you live in one part of the state doesn’t mean you have a greater claim to your share of the wealth of the state,” he said.
Other lawmakers expressed concerns about lessening the motivation for energy conservation and for starting a program people could come to rely upon.
Rep. Mike Kelly, a Republican from Fairbanks, said high prices generally encourage conservation and increased production, and he said he was concerned Palin’s plan would “dull that price signal.”
Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole, said he recognized the state’s budget surplus came from oil production, and that Alaskans owned the oil. But he said he still questioned whether it was better to give that money directly to the people or spend it on things that would build the state’s economy.
“Philosophically, I struggle with government stepping in,” he said.
Rep. Woodie Salmon, D-Chalkyitsik, said he liked the plan but didn’t think it went far enough.
He said he’d like to see the state step in and provide financial support for a small, in-state natural gas pipeline. Building and operating the line would create jobs, and the pipeline would provide a stable energy source for Fairbanks, Anchorage and, through a tap somewhere on the river system, parts of rural Alaska, he added.
“This’ll be just a quick fix,” he said of the governor’s proposal. “We need to look at a long-term fix.”
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Tweak if you must; BUT remember Alaska summers are short and ALASKAN WINTERS ARE LONG, COLD AND DARK.
I knew it was too good to be true. Nice try though Governor, but once the politicians get through with it your program will be a mess like everything else they touch.
I cant believe jay turned down free money! I am shocked!
I thought we already had an oil profits distribution system through the permanent fund?
We have an entire system already setup to pay out one dividend why not make this a second one? She has proposed a payout which yearly, is more than the original amount of the first dividend dividend check (1982).
I want to see the bill have an option whereby recipients of the debit card could forgo collecting it and designate a charity to receive it. That way, the recipient would be making a taxable donation up to the value of the card and not have to pay federal income tax on it when it gets activated. It would help the charities too, which are feeling the pinch of high fuel costs. Charities and churches are tax exempt so their use of these cards would not result in a taxable event.
Rep. Woodie Salmon is right! Governor Palin's plan is a good way to immediately keep up with the cost of fuel with very few dollars in our villages. Our state's economy is at risk and we need the legislature to call itself into an Energy Special Session to give us Alaskans a much needed energy break. That is our oil money and it should not be looked at as any legislator's private bank.
I cannot imagine how any legislator who does not live in the bush right now can ever understand the financial stress that individuals, businesses, and our schools are under due to too much handwringing on the part of our legislature.
Please wake up and give us our money that comes from our oil.
We need to take care of our immediate needs first. Then we can also work on a long term plan that will help ALL Alaskans no matter where they live.
Any plan, no matter how good - always has a few holes - especially the first year. Our politicians need to be reminded this is a one year program - not a 'fix-all' for everything! The legislature had their chance in the last session to do something - and for lack of finiding a perfect solution, opted to do nothing, pass nothing, help nobody. They need to keep out of it - unless their 'better plan' can be put in place before winter sets in.
Just do it and be done with it! The oil revenue belongs to all Alaskans. Quit nitpicking.
Why is it that Anchorage should receive the same as those who pay 5 fold for there energy? Anchorage also has cheaper food, and electricity. Natural Gas and Oil are both going through the roof in Fairbanks. My NG has went up over 350% in 7 years, my pay has not though. I am getting very tired of any politician saying we do not need help and we need to save the money for better things!! Like WHAT! What is better than the poeple of this great state? Please, someone explain what is better. And any body that say's it just another handout can go to you know where! How many times do you need to be told that the constitution was made by the people for the people, don't try and change it, you have no right to. I seem to hear the people with money saying the rest of us do not need help. Can someone please in our state government step up to the plate and defend the very people that placed you into office. I, like others, will probably be bankrupt after another two years of increasing NG, Electricity, and food. Christ, I sure hope I don't get sick, have you seen how medical costs are also going up, which is required for them to stay in business. I would like to see those in goverment live on 50k a year in Fairbanks and then see how fast they will be asking for help! It sure seems to me the only elected official that care's is Govenor Palin, and she will have my full support on what ever she see's as correct. And I will be checking to see who vote's for helping us out. I will not vote next time for anyone who has abandoned the people of Alaska, and there calls for help!!
Why is it that Anchorage should receive the same as those who pay 5 fold for there energy? "
It's very simple. We are all residents of the State of Alaska. The oil revenue is all of ours...equally. People in Anchorage don't get less of a PFD and people in the bush don't get more of one. If you feel like your dollar would be more valuable in Anchorage, Seattle, or Timbuktu, than, by all means, pack up and go there. But to say that we deserve more money in Fairbanks is just wrong. All citizens of Alaska deserve an equal share.
watch how this unfolds very closely, take notes and remember the people that don't want you to get a share of YOUR money, then vote them out the next time they come up.
Any help will be better then the staus quo of nothing. My question is have we looked into hydro electric from the Tanana or the Chena? It is high time to put G.V.E.A. out of business. Better yet any elected officals who are not part of the soultion vote them out too.
From what I've read and learned, the legislature actually did take some thoughtful action to address the high cost of energy for Alaskans. They dramatically increased funding to a weatherization program to help Alaskans make their homes more energy-efficient, and they increased energy cost assistance for low-income families. They had the energy rebate idea before Governor Palin, and after much deliberation did not approve a program in this last session because of philosophical differences about whether rebates should go to everyone or just to those who needed them most (the same debate that is happening now around the Governor's plan). The legislature is 60 people from every part of Alaska, with different constituencies, experience, and political philosophies. We elect them to be statesmen - to take care of short-term needs of the State while keeping an eye on the future of Alaska. It's much easier to be the Governor and announce popular money giveaway plans - you are the leader of the administration and you and your administration naturally speak with one voice (that's a good thing as long as there is healthy debate before the plan is announced). The legislature then has to muster the votes to pass, change or fail the plan - they take most of the heat and get very little credit. To complicate matters, it's an election year for many of them and not, this time, for the Governor.
Instead of trying to think of ways to spend even greater surpluses (remember that we have record state budgets and have socked away quite a bit already in savings), I believe we should change the petroleum profits tax so we are not taking 56% of every dollar and instead return that money to the private sector (the oil companies, our partners in developing our state's resources) to stimulate Alaska's economy with contracts for Alaska's businesses and high-paying jobs for Alaska residents - not a bunch of cash cards so we can have cheap energy for a year. I am not an oil company employee - I am a third-generation Alaskan who wants Alaska to have a strong economy that can support my children and their children and their children...
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.