News-Miner Editorial
A power ploy
Providing energy rebates is an easy, but wrong, idea
Published Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!EDITORIAL
It may sound uncaring to say it, but having the state give energy rebates to Alaskans is one idea that needs to be unplugged.
Rising energy prices do hurt people and businesses.
But providing an energy rebate isn’t the right idea. The state and national governments have well-established recurring programs for aiding those who need help.
The proposal to give an energy rebate to Alaskans, however, would only be a onetime action. While the money would certainly help some people, what about next year? What about the year after that? There’s no indication that the price of fuel, be it for the automobile or the home, is going to go down anytime soon.
So is the state going to provide widespread assistance until the price does fall? No. Nor should it, by the way.
Rep. Bill Thomas, Republican from Haines, started this nonsense with his idea to provide an energy rebate of $500 to every Alaskan who received a permanent fund dividend last year.
The idea has a few practical problems.
First, there’s nothing to keep people from spending the $500 on something other than fuel. A family of six — two adults and four kids — would get $3,000. Wanna bet that a fair number of people would use a good chunk of that, including their kids’ rebates, to buy something that actually consumes more fuel? That’s not necessarily a bad idea if the idea is to stimulate the economy, as the federal government will be doing with its own general rebates later this year. But Rep. Thomas’s idea is called an energy rebate.
Another problem is that lots of people who really don’t need the money would receive it under Rep. Thomas’ idea.
Also, don’t Alaskans already get a payment from the state? Last year’s permanent fund dividend was $1,654, and this year’s is expected to be even higher. High energy prices haven’t just popped up, so perhaps people who can afford to should be more conscientious about putting some of that permanent fund money toward energy bills rather than spending it on items that might be considered frivolous.
Rep. Thomas’ plan, which has yet to be introduced as a piece of legislation, would cost a hefty $360 million. But he isn’t the only one ready to shovel out some election-year millions — Sen. Gene Therriault, Republican of North Pole, is one of two senators reportedly modifying one of their earlier efforts to help people pay their energy bills.
There’s no arguing that the budgets of some people are a whole lot tighter because of the high cost of fuel. That’s especially the case for those living in the state’s remote reaches, where fuel costs are exceptionally high.
But a one-time government handout isn’t the way to deal with it.
If it is, why stop with an energy subsidy? Let’s also have, say, a vehicle subsidy. Alaska’s highways are tough on our cars and trucks, and we need them so we can get to work. The government certainly has an interest in seeing us be productive, so why can’t the government help to ensure we have a reliable vehicle to get to the office each day?
It makes no sense, that’s why.
The discussion about energy prices should center on providing targeted help through existing programs to help those truly in need and on seeking to enhance energy efficiency and increase the use of alternative energy sources.
That’s what makes sense.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
"The discussion about energy prices should center on providing targeted help through existing programs to help those truly in need and on seeking to enhance energy efficiency and increase the use of alternative energy sources."
Hear, hear! While the high price of heating oil stings nearly all of us (certainly it stings my family), it at least has one good effect: it spurs us to pursue less wasteful, more energy-efficient living. By (1) building housing with better insulation, (2) massing houses together (as in apartments, condos, or row houses), and (3) living as closely as possible to the destinations we usually drive to, we can consume less fuel and not be hit as hard by the price increases.
Rather than a handout that does nothing to address our wasteful energy use, how about grants or easy loans for home re-insulation? or grants to municipalities for public transit?
As long as the state brings in more revenue as a result of oppressive cost's of energy the state should send out the profits to those it belongs too.
Every year that oil runs above lets say 80 dollars a barrel and state services are fully funded plus any money that is not placed in the PFD (Maybe the PFD principal should be capped at 40 billion?) should be returned to the rightful owners (The people of Alaska).
Also, don’t Alaskans already get a payment from the state?
This statement makes it painfully obvious that our hometown newspaper is being run by outsiders! We do not receive a PAYMENT from the state!! We receive a DIVIDEND on our savings account. You would never hear an Alaskan classify our dividend as a PAYMENT FROM THE STATE!!
Much agreed regarding the Permanent Fund, John.
This "energy rebate" is an idea implemented in a bad way and is a payment from the state. Really, it is a "surplus rebate," or "bribe," but who wants to hear that? While I would love an extra $2000 in my coffers (indeed, it might even pay for a year or more supply of heating oil depending on how steeply the prices rise), I would much rather see these funds invested to provide long-term benefits.
This idea is frivolous and wasteful. I find it shameful that our representatives would seriously consider it.
Right now we are paying $2.10/g. to the State budget surplus for every gallon of gasoline and $2.02/g. for every gallon of heating oil. The refinery buys their crude from the State of Alaska's royalty oil that supposedly belongs to the residents of Alaska. I would like to elect to recieve my share of the $20 billion dollars a years as moderately prices gasoline and heating oil. If that is now possible I would like to recieve a rebate from the State's windfall royalty payments. This is not a handout. This is a dividend on the sale of our non-renewable resources. In Alaska we use three times as much energy per capita to live in this extreme climate. We should not be punished twice by having to pay more for heating oil and electricy as well. If you want to see price comparisons to the rest of the US go to www.fairbanksgas.com .
When people can not afford their lifestyle, why do they look to the government to bail them out? I don't think the problem is high fuel costs as much as it is that people feel entitled to lifestyles they can not necessarily sustain.
What about next "year"????? YEAR??? What about next month? After I spend the money on heat, I need more heat next MONTH!!! Rebates are a bad idea, unless you want to give me a PFR (Permanant Fuel Rebate) to go along with my PFD.
'The discussion about energy prices should center on providing targeted help through existing programs to help those truly in need and on seeking to enhance energy efficiency and increase the use of alternative energy sources.'
Your article should have centered on these topics as well. Another state handout would only encourage more of the same pattern of over-consumption and energy inefficiency. The state should undertake large scale solar and wind projects to actually stop people's complete dependence on high priced oil and state coal. Yet, just as our federal goverment helps keep oil as the only alternative, our state government has agreed to do the same as well and preserve our beautiful status quo (massive oil industry subsidies and little to none for other energy potentials).
You still should have the integrity/bravery to claim authorship of your opinion pieces. You were even on the right track here...
Like I've always said - Don't like the high cost of fuel, use less. We've had it so cheap for so long, now that fuel actually costs something, everyone starts complaining. Fuel is STILL so cheap it's not even funny. Remember, one gallon of fuel really is equal to 500 human hours of labor. At $3.50 per gallon that's still LESS than 1 cent per hour, which is pretty close to nothing. Someday soon even WATER will cost real money. Then what, smelly people will riot and we'll have to issue subsidized car wash coupons? Give me a break.
And to those who say becasue it's OUR oil we should get to pay less. It is ours, when its sludge, deep down in the ground, 600 miles away. And until you personally are willing to pony up the Billions of dollars it takes to pump it, pipeline it, refine it and distribute it, you may as well have nothing.
If anything, the cost of fuel is one of the ONLY fair commodities we have in that everyone pays the same, market value. And if you can't afford more, then guess what, you don't get more. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad that some people can't afford to stay warm. Some people can't afford to stay healthy through medical care either. And there are even people who can't afford to eat. As a compassionate and wealthy Nation we should be able to provide the opportunity for people to help themselves with at least the bare necessities of life. However, believe it or not, Fuel is not one of them.....
The state could help with energy needs easily by selling royalty oil at reduced prices to residents. This could help villages in their generator plants as well as homeowners who heat with oil. And if they wanted to help everyone, they could subsidize the cost of refined products like gasoline, and even jet fuel. It would ripple through the whole economy by reducing the cost of goods such as groceries and building materials. And it would not have to be a direct appropriation; just a reduction of profit. We would all benefit.
Dear government, I appreciate the fact you want to give money to me and my family to offset the high cost of fuel oil. This appears to be a good idea and we can use the money but I don't want the money unless you agree to a payment plan.
Here's the deal. My friends and I are worried sick that we'll spend the money on non fuel related items. Please do not send the check.
My other group of friends think I live beyond my means and it's my problem. Well, I live on social security and I had no problems paying my bills 2-3 years ago. Even though I have not purchased anything new and live in the same shanty of a home, climbing oil prices are taking a toll on me. I must pay for oil, but now I can't buy much food and I stay home more often because I can't afford to drive very far.
If you do send money, I will burn the check or give it to Jim Hayez for safe keeping (misspelled on purpose). I don't want any money unless you promise to send more each year.
---Is that enough perspective for the day! Are you people tired of whining yet? It's free money that you may never get again. How many of you cashed that check from Bush awhile back? Did you write and ask for more?
The high cost of oil is not going to go down. Nobody is going to pay you year after year because of it. People wine about the cost of oil, yet, purchase bottled water that cost 20 times as much per gallon. The justification is "it's spring water". Call the companies and you'll find out it's actually your local tap water. Glacier (Tap), Dusani (Tap) and more.
The government is handing out kindness. If you don't want it, give it to the poor, homeless, hungry people on this earth.
Truth
"The state should undertake large scale solar and wind projects to actually stop people's complete dependence on high priced oil and state coal". corporate_news_decoder 2/20/2008, 11:51 a.m
And, just where would the State of Alaska get all the copper for such 'large scale solar and wind projects'?
One day your all for killing 'large scale' mining and the next your advocating for the 'large scale' use of the very metal 'large scale' mining could produce.
Would you make up your mind? You can't have it both ways.
Please tell me. How do you manage to keep one foot in your mouth while stomping on the other one?
I would rather see the money given to citizens as a form of health-care voacher to encourage preventive health-care such as physicals and teeth-cleanings.
Fuel is not a bare necessity??? In Alaska??? Well, I guess we could consider the alternative - freezing to death.
We must not lose sight of the fact that many, many Alaskans, and most especially our elders, live on fixed incomes with no means or ability to generate additional income. When fuel costs and, as a result, rent, goes up, where is the extra money supposed to come from?
"The state and national governments have well-established recurring programs for aiding those who need help."
Thankfully, there are some programs in place to help. But they don't cover even the bare necessities for many people. I know people who routinely run out of food before the end of the month because food stamps are just not enough. I know people who are doing without prescription medication and other medical care because they do not have insurance and cannot afford medical care.
Maybe we should have some programs where people who want to work can put in time earning money toward life's necessities? Perhaps some kind of credit system that doesn't affect their eligibility for other much-needed programs. Many of our elders would like to work if there was something that could fit their abilities and life circumstances.
Dear "Truth",
The government never "hand(s) out kindness". Politicians hand out whatever they think will get them re-elected. If that benefits you, then great. But they're not all sitting there in Juneau wondering what they can do to be kind. They're sitting there wondering what they can do to get you to vote for them again. "Kindness" has nothing to do with it.
Man, some people just don't get it. What I'm saying is, if you can't afford a boat, don't live on an island.
I wouldn't claim for a minute that our (State and Federal) social net systems are anything better than a complete patchwork of inconsistent policies with glaring defects and holes. But what do you expect from a system that the Gov't has no right or obligation to be involved in. All they do is create a bureaucracy which makes the most simple and usually poor choice. For instance we would rather incarcerate people than provide cheaper (mental health) treatment services to them. Same with drug users. That is a CHOICE that our elected officials made and continue to make - and it is the WRONG one. But until communities (and voters) speak up and tell our elected officials that they are screwing up, nothing will change.
Likewise, we can (nationally) give the oil companies Billions in tax breaks but can't fund Gov't mandated educational requirements. Who's choice is that? Ours, through the people we consistently elect, plain and simple. You can whine, and I can complain until we're both blue in the face. But unless we're willing to elect new people who are not beholden to campaign contributors, we will continue to get what we elect - the best Gov't money can buy.
Idiots!!!
What part of the statement" the profit from selling the oil resource belongs to you and everyone else that is a resident of Alaska"
If the damn profits are yours then how the heck can you call it a hand-out or free?
If our represenatives have determined that there is additional revenue available after funding state services, dropped a few mill in the PFD to increase it's principal, and also placed funds into Constitutional Budget Reserve, then by all means return some of the profits that came out of my left pocket and place it in my right.
I will then either purchase additional fuel, save it, or use the funds on the local market since the funds I would have had went to pay the marked up fuel prices already....
If the profits continue to be high as a result of oppressive fuel cost then by all means once State services are paid send the rest back to the people it belongs too in the first place..every year the price of oil exceeds "IMO" 80 dollars a barrel.
The rest of you with all the grand ideas of solar panels and wind providing energy for all Alaskans need to lay off the crack pipe...
It's not a hand out, it's not free. Resources that belong to you where removed processed and shipped out for profit as well as locally.
First, very few people live in Alaska so that they can be cramped into an apartment complex that strangles any sense of wilderness from their existence. The person making that suggestion should move back to New York City if that's the lifestyle he/she wants to pursue. Have fun! Stop cluttering up my state!
Solar and wind energies are two of the most wasteful alternative energies available. Solar panels require oil (for the plastics, don't you know) and they are so inefficient (esp. in a state where night rules all winter) that its estimated you could fill the undeveloped, non-river floor of the Tanana Valley with them (oh, how pretty!) and it wouldn't produce enough electricity for Fairbanks to use as a sole-source of electricity and it would take something like 50 years to recoop of the initial installation from coal savings. Wind can only be located in high passes and the voltage drop from there to here would be something like 75 percent of the energy lost in transmission. It's like the whole electric car idea. Yeah, I'd save $40 in fuel a week, but it would cost me $200 a week in electricity. It's a great idea until you actually figure out what it costs.
Now, if they find a nice big geothermal vent near Fairbanks or we build a nuclear power plant, now you're talking energy savings, a potential drop in electricity costs, maybe (if geothermal) even heating costs and you can start talking about implementation. Otherwise, you're talking pie-in-the-sky greenie fantasies that will cost more money than they save.
Just for the stupid among us -- the idea is for us to pay LESS for our energy!
Why people have to attack others by calling people "idiots" and telling them to move back to New York is beyond me. If I had the same opinion (because that's all these are -opinions- believe it or not) as everyone else life would be horribly dull. I truly believe all of us can express interesting, articulate opinions without insulting each other or calling each other names.
I'm sitting here, reading all of these comments and the first thing I think of is 'boy, everyone sure feels strongly about this' I don't know the absolute details of why I pay what I do for electricity or for heating oil, all I know is that I am more than willing to work for what I have, I just need access to an alternative ways to make it easier to meet those higher prices. I've already committed my family to "minimizing our carbon footprint" as they say, I haven't bought anything frivolous in over a year and I'm educating myself on how to get back to the simple things. I make a pair of pants last longer because I can repair a rip instead of buying a new pair. I've started canning in the summer and plan on a garden to help support my family thru the winter. All that I'm doing is directly related to minimizing my spending so I can afford heating oil - the price for which is NOT going to go down for a while if at all. If I didn't have a furnace then I'd have to burn wood, and then I'd have to spend money on that too after awhile. My point is, it's only going to get more expensive from here on out, we've got to relearn some things in order to make ends meet.
Just send out the checks. If Alaskan were truly reaping the benefits of the oil revenue, we would be like an other oil producing nation, rich and paying for cheap gas and heating oil here at home. Not the crazy $3.40 for diesel. Outrageous. A monthly refund is what is need. Interior residents are paying out over $600 a month, in fuel bill (heating oil) just to stay warm. Tell me again, what are the benefits of producing OIL,
Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has cognates in many other languages.
History
"Idiot" was originally created to refer to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning".[6][7] Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are "stupid". In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed).
Just calling it like it is. The term "idiot" fits the writers who suggest that revenue produced from resources that belong to you and I as a handout or free...
Screw it...drop the bomb.
While I do not choose to call those who say the State is giving us a handout an idiot, they are sorely mistaken. Gov. Palin is working to make sure we get the prime benefit for our resource. This is NOT a FREE HANDOUT!! The checks we receive each year are NOT for living here, they are OUR dividend from a savings account!! No Alaskan I know considers it a handout as if we were poor beggars, we are proud Alaskans that own an incredibly valuable resource.
Well Gosh, Perhaps we really should allow the Pebble Mine to be developed. That way we would have plenty of copper to carry all the electricity all those alternatives out there will produce. We wouldn't need to burn hydro carbon and we wouldn't need a hand out from the State to pay for it.
Is that NICE enough?
User6244 thanks for the (lol) language,terminology,history lesson it sure did break the minotony of all the boohooing. Oh Starman shame on you for your rediculous two cents worth, maybe you should hook up with tundrabunny. Ya'll have a great day.
The comments about manufacturing processes are an important consideration regarding renewable/alternative energy sources! Hadn’t given that one much thought until today. That being said:
Solar Thermal would be the choice for greatest impact on energy consumption for the price of installation, reliability, payback time and maintenance as far as residential applications is concerned in my opinion. Commercially, it’s possible to do quite a bit more. Granted; the solar resource is limited from Oct to end of Feb here in the interior, yet beyond those 4 or 5 months the potential output is great (Solar Thermal).
Power generation from Geothermal like out at Chena Hot Springs is surprisingly older technology although a great idea. If you do research, there’s plenty going on in the Low Level Geothermal /Waste Heat to power area.
We should consider in my opinion funding research in alternative/renewable energy sources impact with this money on standard/typical homes and businesses already constructed - vs. - one time rebate.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.