JUNEAU — Alaska residents would receive vouchers to help address high energy costs under a bill introduced Friday in the state Senate.
SB203 would provide every adult recipient of an Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend this fall with a voucher for 250 gallons of heating oil, an equivalent amount of natural gas, or 1,500 kilowatt-hours of electricity.
Alaskans who receive a voucher but don’t directly pay for heating oil, gas or electricity used in their homes can instead have a voucher sent to their landlord, or they can get $250.
The bill does not yet have a fiscal note detailing the cost. A $3.7 billion surplus has been projected between this year and next, and Sen. Joe Thomas, the bill’s primary sponsor, said a goal is to use about 9 cents of every surplus dollar — “mere pennies” of it — to provide relief.
“We in this body must take steps this session to help our constituents weather the energy crisis facing our communities,” Thomas, D-Fairbanks, said in a floor speech.
Alaska is rich in resources like oil and gas, but many residents pay astronomical prices to heat and light their homes and businesses, in large part because of the cost of sending fuel or electricity to outlying communities.
In the Fairbanks area alone, Thomas said, about $660 million is spent each year on energy costs, a figure that comes out to about $6,600 per man, woman and child. Combined electricity and heating bills in the region eat up nearly 30 percent of an average family’s income after taxes, he said, in spite of the fact that there’s an oil pipeline and refineries in the region.
For years, state leaders have been looking for ways to address high energy costs, and Alaska is currently pursuing several projects, like a massive dam, that officials say could help take the edge off, at least in the state’s most populous areas. The state has a program to help rural Alaskans with electricity prices, but it doesn’t address heating oil.
“Every Alaskan faces the high cost of energy. Every member of this body knows family and friends who have faced hard choices because of rising costs,” Thomas said. “Let’s demonstrate to every Alaskan that we can work together smartly, responsibly and creatively to address this growing problem. Let’s show that we can put aside regionalism, partisanship and any other distraction that keeps us from solving the greatest challenge facing far too many Alaska families.”
The bill calls to mind a 2008 effort, under then-Gov. Sarah Palin, in which Alaskans received a $1,200 rebate to help offset fuel prices. But it also seeks a longer-term solution and calls on the governor to evaluate other alternatives to provide energy assistance.
Rep. Lance Pruitt, R-Anchorage, and co-chair of the House Special Committee on Energy, hasn’t taken a position on the bill yet but said if lawmakers do something short-term, it should be coupled with a long-term fix.
Gov. Sean Parnell’s spokeswoman said his office hadn’t had a chance to review the bill but is focused on long-term solutions, including dam projects in different parts of the state.
At least nine senators, representing a mix of urban and rural areas, have signed onto the voucher bill. Sen. Donny Olson, D-Nome, is among them.
Olson said energy costs are driving people from rural Alaska.
“If people can’t afford to live in rural Alaska, they will move to urban areas, assuming they stay in the state,” he said.
With the bitter cold this winter in parts of Alaska, he said there is an immediate need for the kind of relief the vouchers can provide while the state works on a long-range plan.
Comments (25)
Add commentLong term plan?
This just prolongs the problem. Why not focus on systemic solutions?
Help our State
Intertie
And thank you for thinking about all Alaskans Senator Thomas.
Solutions needed
Alaska has many real needs that can be addressed by serious and forward thinking legislative and administration leaders...this bill is not a good example of anything but counter-productive leadership and misguided understanding of how to go about providing solutions to problems. The State clearly needs lower cost energy in almost all area's..so lets focus on how to provide that energy and not how to give away dollars that just fly away...
Of course this is a good
Of course this is a good idea. I think vouchers are better than cash because they will be used as intended.
I do not understand why Geo-thermal wells are not being developed.
Dams are not the answer because they kill our rivers and rivers are the life line of our fisheries. Just look at what has happened down south many dams are being taken down, because they destroyed the fisheries
Deep pockets get filled
Subsidies never help the consumer. Let us remember the fuel tax give away. The price at the pump remained the same until they went up as companies filled their bank accounts. 1, 5, ten percent does not matter. Whatever money given to spend will be taken up in a fuel price increase.
Not one hour did the consumer see price relief. Give out the vouchers and watch the pump price ensure not one penny is left for the consumer.
Unless the consumer systematically forces companies to lower their prices, we will continue to be at their mercy.
yellow flowers:
Geo Thermal has not been further developed in Alaska because most of the commericially productive known geothermal area's are remote...a lot of time and effort has been expended over the years looking at them but other sources of energy have proven cheaper to develop so far. As for Hydro in Alaska, could you name a single Alaskan Hydro facility, or even one currently under consideration, that has harmed an Alaskan river..??..Alaska has been blessed with aboundant Hydro resouces in many area's of the State and many project should have been developed and brought on line years ago for the benifit of all of Alaska's citizens..we charted a course years ago to produce our non-renewable resources and sell them to an energy hungry world and use those dollars to develop in State re-newable resources but along the way focus has often been lost and we are left with the shattered energy the State now faces...
Well I think Alaska has been
Alaska is lucky not to have gone the same route with all the Hydro Dam building like down south, where would are fisheries be if we had?
The facts are that Hydro Dams, and the timber industry destroyed the fisheries down south, lets not allow that to happen here. Being "remote" has not stopped Alaskans before. I think Geo Thermal and Tidal power would be a better choice for remote towns and Southeast because the impact is less.
Alaskans have to make sure that we provide critical habitat designation for Alaskan streams; protecting and preserving our State's marine resources and needed habitat is something we are obligated to do for the survival of our future generations. This is in our states constitution. These protections were torn away from streams down south by energy companies, the timber industry, and other commericial interests. Lets not allow these same mistakes to happen here, lets not allow them to be repeated here.
How does that saying go: you will never get different results by making the same choices.
It was Albert Einstein. He
It was Albert Einstein. He said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
vouchers
if they want to give me vouchers to help offset the price of oil to fill my tank for heating I say bring it on!! Short term until they can figure out a better long term solution. And not just once but every year maybe twice a year. I just filled my oil tank and the price nearly doubled since last year, it's killin me!!
No solution
This does not help Alaskans at all. Its great if you're an oil wholesaler, power company, or landlord. Keep your prices jacked up and the government will pay. It is so ridiculous to have these prices when there is so much oil and natural gas in our backyard. Hydroelectric and dams? Not good, they don't go well with salmon spawning. Washington state is tearing down hydro dams all over the place for fish runs.
Hydro project and dams
Once again please...can any of you site a single Hydro project currently operating in Alaska, or for that matter any project currently under consideration that has harmed a single stream or river in Alaska..??..many of Alaska's Hydro facilities do not even have a dam...
Charlie
Here's one under consideration: Susitna
4th largest king salmon run in Alaska.
http://www.adn.com/2011/10/01/2099183/susitna-dam-project-doesnt-make.html
Latitude58
There are NO king salmon or any other kind of Salmon above any planned river impoundment (dam) planned for the Susitna Hydro Project....once the project is in place the river will only be improved by controlled and even flow without the wild girations of nature that now oftern threaten spawning beds along the Susitna River...once the lake has formed above the dam perhaps it can be filled with land locked silver salmon and provide terrific sports fishing..!!
OK Charlie
I'll take your word for it.
But the staggering cost of Susitna, which will serve an area already rich with energy resources, doesn't make sense. That single project will suck all of the funding away from hundreds of other energy projects while the non-Railbelt areas shrivel away due to high energy costs.
This voucher is just a way to divert the residents' attention while their pockets get picked.
No vouchers! No assistance!
Many problems with this.
1. This assumes that every Alaskan has difficulty heating their home. This is not true. Some people are rich and can afford it. Some heat with wood and have abundance of wood. Some heat with electricity powered with hydro. It's called an incurred cost, simply for living in a cold climate. So to give assistance to every single Alaskan (PFD filer), this means assistance would go to many who don't need it. This is wasting taxpayer money and should not go forward.
2. When Palin gave assistance in 2008, she was simply buying votes for her to be VP. It wasn't real concern or assistance. It was disguised. She was buying votes.
3. Whenever I hear politicians promoting giving money away in an election year, I cringe. Their concerns are not real. They are also buying votes.
4. Hydro power, if done properly is not a threat to streams and fisheries. It is clean. it is renewable, unlike heating oil. It does not pollute like nuclear or coal. Hydro power is Alaska's future. We need more dams. So spend this money on building more dams. Then, wire houses for electric heat instead of oil. Problem solved.
5. If the vouchers only go to PFD recipients, then this discriminates against many other Alaskans such as felons and people who don't apply. This is unfair.
What the hell did pioneers do 100 years ago? I suggest we follow their example and not live in Fairbanks when it's -42 and we wonder why we are cold!
Latitude 58
up until the first North Slope lease sale (in the late 60') nothing much was done about development of larger Hydro resources, other than dream and plan..Southeastern Alaska had a number of "forceful and colorful" legislators with an energy vision. Once the State had some money through a process of bonds and grants the Southeastern Hydro's were constucted and a tie-line planned to utlilize their outputs...for support from railbelt legislators and Bush legislators the rail belt energy fund was created with the expectation at least the first phase of Susitna would be next realized. Once the major Hydro projects of the day were in place more more money that earlier thought was needed for the Southeastern grid system and the cry went up for the need to repeal the "Susitna Blackmail Clause" legislation, which was done. The Susitna costs were inflated and the project ground to a halt...the tie-line did get built between Teland and Healy and later completed from Healy to Fairbanks allowing some low cost thermal generated energy from the Anchorage area to be sold and shipped to Fairbanks. The rail belt also got Bradley but when it was commissioned in September of 1991 many of us had the expectation Susitna would follow quickly but focus was lost!!!!...the AEA was gutted and remaining structure spent somewhere north of $500,000,000.00 on a failed project at Healy, called the Healy clean coal project. Healy was constructed in the 90's only to be shut down uncompleted in the late 90's where is sits in warm storage costing the State well over a million a year ever since...The plant has no current permit, and needs an estimated 50/110 million additional dollars to even made the plant operational if it had a permit...I think the best solution for that plant would be to give it away to some foriegn country and tie it to a coal sales contract for the next 50 years...at least the clean coal award goal of increasing the export of Alaskan coal would be realized..!!!..We needed Sustina 20 years ago and we need it more today...a small percentage of each KWH sold from the project should go to the PCE program allowing its payment to increase for the Non-Grid connected rural areas of the State. The Southeastern grid inter-ties need to be completed ASAP. It took far to many years and far to many dollars because of the delays to build the Tyee/Swan lake intertie...we need to all get on the same end of the wagon and get some of these major energy projects on line...our future largely depends on it. I believe, with the right team in place we could see Susitna permitted in 24 months and constructed in 5 or less years if we get the Political and the public will headed in the right direction. We have a governor that appears to be interested and several key legislator again trying to focus on the needs. Our future will be much brighter and affordable if we stay focused and get the job done.
Where is the demand for all
Where is the demand for all this energy in Southeast?
There has not been an increase in population.
To address high energy costs I think if anything Geo thermal would be a better way to go in our smaller communities.
dougres
If the electrical energy is available at an affordable price, nearly all you can generate will be consumed....Southeastern has no oil or gas well but has aboundant Hydro assets... I don't know what the total percentage of homes in Southeastern are currently heating their homes with electrical energy but it has grown a lot over the last few years as the cost of oil continues to increase.
Give the Healy plant away to
Give the Healy plant away to some foreign country along with a contract for using our coal?
Do you realize that there are no boundaries in the sky that will keep this stuff out of our atmosphere and out of the ocean - that coal pollution will make its way back here from the foreign country as acid rain? Shipping Alaska's coal out to some foreign country only creates huge problems for our state, this is really really really bad thinking - there is no such thing as clean coal.
dougres
I would guess then you are a 'NO' vote for the State to give an operating permit to the Healy Clean Coal project..??..and if so what would you have us do with the plant..??..Some where close to a half a Billion Dollars have been spent on the plant and the State is currenlty spending over a Million a year to look at it...Come on now and lets hear a solution...One thing is clear of course, as long a Obama is President there will be no federal permit for the plant...
Charlie - AELP is hydro and
Charlie - AELP is hydro and their fees keep going up so hydro power is not a great solution either.
I think more than one source is the way to go and that we should have an intelligent grid in SE so we can use the different sources available to us. As the wind dies or oil prices go up we could switch to Geo, or Hydro, or tidal just like others will be doing.
Charlie - I don't have answer
Charlie - I would vote no on a permit for the Healy plant and I don't have an answer for our state about what to do with the Healy power plant but I do know enough not to spend
good money after bad. We need to cut our losses and move on.
Do you realize that many kids today will not attend schools that are using coal for energy. True story.
I also dont understand the Obama comment. Pres. Obama was the one that lifted the bans on most offshore drilling.
Dougres
The university of Alaska in Fairbanks has a coal fired power and hot water plant....works fine....would work better if fired with Natural gas but Fairbanks has only a small amount of trucked gas...every energy option in interior Alaska is expensive.
As for AELP...they have a very expensive management team and Alaskan's in general have not been well served by our utility boards or their managers over the years...The AEA was a big help in holding the line on electrical utility costs for many years but when it was gutted those user protections largely went away....
I have to get ready and head off to church and Mrs. B wants diner right after...so I will see you later.
OK sounds good. I appreciate
OK sounds good. I appreciate your time and the conversation.
Instead of Susitna...
...how about a natural gas line to Fairbanks? Seems like they need the energy help more than the Railbelt does.