Community Perspective
A simple and needed solution to heating fuel woes
Published Sunday, July 13, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!As the days get shorter, we slide toward winter. But this year, the prospect of heating our dwellings is foreboding. Home heating fuel costs are already at unprecedented highs and the price continues to climb.
At four or more dollars a gallon, the average home and apartment owner will not make it. Business owners and institutions are no better off.
The bright side is that we are all in this pickle together. Last winter, our most vulnerable residents were experiencing hard times. These were the ones who were scraping up $25 or so to fill up a 5-gallon can of diesel fuel at the corner station to get through another day. Some were forced to let their dwellings freeze up as they retreated to rooms that could be heated with electric heaters.
There will be more of us joining them this winter unless we pull together. It is a potential disaster.
Frozen buildings mean broken service lines, requiring streets to be dug up in the dead of winter. Water lines serving many dwellings can only be shut off by digging up streets.
We read and hear a lot about alternative energy sources, weatherization, conservation and more efficient heating equipment. While very important, these measures offer little relief for this winter’s pending disaster.
The governor’s plan to send $1,200 to permanent fund dividend recipients is well and good. But it still leaves a gap big enough to drop this disaster through. A large qualified family probably would receive enough funds to tide them through the winter. But that assumption does not include potential price increases for other necessities such as food, clothing, utilities and even local government services.
But we can be thankful that we and our elected officials know the pending crisis is serious and needs to be addressed now.
We know Alaska has many resources that can be developed to make our state energy independent but unfortunately not this winter.
We know that those who make it through this winter should have an easier time in the following years because our elected leaders have both tools and resources to make our state energy supply whole and affordable.
But more importantly, we know that Alaska already has a Power Cost Equalization program, an ongoing program that address energy needs in Alaska’s remote communities. It was created by the Legislature to make electricity affordable to rural residents.
It’s worth taking a look at this program to see how it could be modified to address the immediate crisis that faces most of us. At the very least, PCE is in place and can hit the ground running.
Who would qualify? The PCE program could be modified to include all state users of heating fuels, with the possible exception of wood. State users would include households, businesses and institutions.
Transportation fuels should probably be excluded, as their inclusion would open a Pandora’s box of misuse. For example, the state would probably end up subsidizing airline fuel cost. Airlines would be prone to fuel up in Alaska and load up for out-of-state use.
Further, if we can warm homes at a reasonable cost, Alaskans can deal with their vehicles.
Who would get paid? Heating fuel vendors already have accounting in place with records of how much they sell, to whom, and their price of product. They would simply invoice customers at an indexed price and collect the difference from the state.
Who would benefit? Cost to the user would be based upon Southcentral’s natural gas cost at a specific time of reference. Reimbursement to the vendor would be calculated using the indexed applicable market price at the time of reference and the market price at the time of sale. This would allow Southcentral folks to share in statewide relief when rates rose above the reference threshold.
The issue of cost variances between different vendors, different locations and different fuels are important — but negotiable — issues for legislators to work on.
How long should the program last? Any program should be reviewed annually and include a sunset clause of two or three years. By that time, other, more reasonable, alternatives should start coming on line.
Bob Thomas lives in Fairbanks.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Bob Thomas is right on. If you like his plan, email your vote of support for his plan to Gov. Palin.
palin@alaska.gov
Sounds better than another DNM letter writer's plan, but I would still prefer to just give the money back to the people in a direct rebate based on the surplus until those other ideas come on line. How does that fix the businesses? They can charge the market price and people can theoretically afford to pay it since the surplus is ahead of the curve of price increases. Sunset the rebate but make it pro-active and when the state hits a certain rate of surplus the checks hit the mail. More money into the economy means more spending, more jobs, better wages, and catches people up with the cost of living increases.
More free money means less responsibility, more living beyond your means, more government administration, more social programs, more deadbeats.
Nothing good comes from free money or goods.
You can't just hand this money out to everyone - if it is being used to pay for heating oil to heat our homes, then people need to run it the same as the energy assistance program. That way it goes to pay heat bills and not buy a snow machine for the family.
Energy assistance is paid directly to the fuel company that the person normally purchases their fuel from. If these people aren't paying for heat because they rent or live on base or whatever, then somehow I don't think they should get a payment. There has to be a "correct" way to do this.
sherry29,
You are correct when you say "There has to be a 'correct' way to do this."
https://www.pfd.state.ak.us/
There is no "fairer" way to distribute the wealth of Alaska. And of course, we could also fund our obligations like retirement programs.
Sounds like a good plan, just need to get them Anchorage legislators to approve it. I didn't like the 1200 plan. It costs more to heat homes the further north you go, so a resident in Sitka would get the same as a resident in Kobuk. Even though in Kobuk they are paying $8 a gallon, and it gets -50 in the winter.
I am completely against giving $1200 to every permanent fund recipient for 2 reasons - there are people who receive permanent fund checks because they lived in Alaska in the Armed Forces, yet they have no intention of returning here when they retire. Even if they do, they don't need help with heating fuel if they are living in Georgia! If they live on base they don't have heating costs at all, no matter where they live. Second, the cost of heating a home is not affected by the number of people living in the home yet a household of 5 will receive $6,000 through this program while a household with the same heating costs inhabited by 2 people will receive only $2,400.
I like the idea of helping with the actual cost of heating homes by utilizing programs already in existence. That way, rural residents will receive the most as their costs are highest, followed by towns such as Fairbanks, then towns with the lowest costs (Anchorage). Maybe if Palin surrounded herself with diverse minds instead of a bunch of yes-people, she may occasionally come up with creative ideas like Bob Thomas.
"Second, the cost of heating a home is not affected by the number of people living in the home yet a household of 5 will receive $6,000 through this program while a household with the same heating costs inhabited by 2 people will receive only $2,400."
This statement is not totally accurate.
A family of 5 needs a larger home than a family of 2, therefore requiring more energy to heat. Raising a larger family takes much more financial needs than a family of two. All utilities, food, larger vehicle (more gas), etc. multiply costs to survive dramatically.
I have a large family (6 of us) and these costs also affect us in the way of doing this primarily on my income. My wife works part time ,around my schedule, because we can't afford day care due to the energy costs.
I'm not saying this program is 100% fair to everyone, but it's not as unfair as you presume.
People that choose to have large families should support them on their own, and not rely on government handouts.
KEEP IT SIMPLE!!!! If you don't, you can forget about having a energy "bonus" check in the mail this year. My only suggestion is that the Legislature should double the $1200 rebate. And if Alaskans don't know how to spend it wisely...they deserve to freeze to death in the dark.
It's an election year, they most likely will pass the extra check to people, even if they have to bite their tounges to do it. From what is being said in Anchorage the legislators don't like the 21 billion for alternative programs, this may go down.
Trust the politicians to spend the entire surplus for the greater good or trust your neighbor to spend a little bit of it to make sure they have a warm home to sleep in this winter.
James,
Free money is a myth. It is a revenue surplus. Revenue being the tax on minerals removed from Alaska State land. Mineral rights you and I do not have because the State Constitution does not allow us to have subsurface rights. That policy kept the T.Boone Pickens' of this word out of Alaska, but left the Government to decide who would benefit the most from that revenue. While the State gets richer and oil goes up, wages are flat, and inflation is rising, the people get poorer. The only way to offset those problems is to distribute some of the surplus wealth to the people until the economies stabilize and cheaper energy is available.
There is only one solution that works both short and long term:
We must remove our state resources from the world market ASAP.
Anyone who thinks this isnt the solution, just compare energy prices of Anchorage and Fairbanks. Lets quit complicating this issue, there is no other solution that works; there is no other solution that doesnt have negative impacts; THERE IS NO OTHER SOLUTION.
akjak - Fair or not, here's the deal. IF a rebate to help with energy costs is coming and IF it is coming from Alaska's resources, then all Alaskans should share equally, as they do in the PFD. As I have pointed out many, many times before, you cannot just pick and choose who gets a cash rebate and who doesn't - there are college students living in dorms, college students living out-of-state, and people who live in government subsidized housing (just to name a few) who don't have "fuel costs" but have other costs related to the cost of energy: gasoline, food and groceries, etc etc etc.
In order to reach JUST people with "fuel costs", the government would have to set up some sort of payment to the providers of these energies, which would (in my view) be way too difficult (while creating even MORE government).
The quickest and most simple way to get help to Alaskans is by using those who qualify for the PFD. Ok, so it's not "fair" that the family of 5 gets more than the single person - it's not "fair" to give a rebate on Alaska's resources to some Alaskans and not others.
But hey, I learned long ago (in Kindergarten, was it?) that life isn't fair.
so common sense just cause you have a family of 6 and you have chosen to have 4 kids so that you need a bigger house so you have more space to heat, theres all these programs and tax breaks you get cause of the kids and being married, etc. but is it fair to say that since you have chosen to have a big family you deserve a whole bunch more help then a person who has chosen to not have a big family? i personally believe that every household should recieve the same amount of help. i think the best way is to get the fuel companys involved and they get then asistance thru the programs. that way people that live on the bases and get free electric and heat wont benefit from this where others who dont will
Why focus on just military, polarisdragon? It's NOT a whole bunch more help; it's every Alaskan getting a share of Alaska's resource money to offset ENERGY costs, not fuel costs. Money from the resources of Alaska being put into a rebate check for all Alaskans. Why is this difficult to understand?
How about an income limit instead? If you make x dollars per year per family member, and you don't qualify - if you make less AND qualify for a PFD you get the rebate. That sounds more "fair" to me. A single man who makes $35k a year is way better off than the man with a wife and three kids to support who makes the same money.
Help is help. I suggest that IF there is actually a rebate that comes through, those that get it should be grateful for the help that they receive, rather than begrudging others who may or may not get more than you.
wow!
Families do need the added help. I'm glad it breaks down to qualified dividend recipients. But whether it's a family of 6, or 6 friends that live together, it all breaks down the same.
It seems some people choose not to procreate, and perhaps that's best. To others, the children are our hope for the future. If we cultivate them with love, respect and a sense of honor, then we have contributed to the common good of the human race.
Kudos to parents. Good luck and fortune to you during this trying endeavor.
Why is it the governments responsibility subsidize families?
More dependents means more tax deductions, and more PFD checks.
Money for schools is raised through property taxes, a couple with one child who own a 2500 square foot house pay the same amount to fund education as a couple with 6 children who own a 2500 square foot house, yet the family with 6 children places a much bigger burden on the school system.
People with large families put a larger burden on all of our resources, not just schools.
Now people with larger families want more money for "energy assistance", even though they still have only one home.
For you people that have made the choice to have lots of children, you pay for them!
I'm tired of supporting you.
Whatever happened to Mayor Whitaker's threat pursuing legal action against the state for failing to solicit the best possible price for Cook Inlet royalty gas since Anchorage gets the natural gas at less than Henry Hub price? Was it just a ploy to receive funds for his 20 Billion dollar alternative energy project and a well paying job when his term as Mayor ends like Big Mike, Woodman & others have suggested.
As Mayor Whitaker said, the State has acted "unconstitutionally" by providing Anchorage with low cost natural gas; the only true Power Cost Equalization program, would be one where ALL of Alaska receives the same cost of energy statewide in a program in which we do not have to pay Federal taxes on.
Guess we'll have to see how Gov. Palin's energy program ends up and if it's the same as the two so far proposed, we should all file a class action lawsuit for equal treatment. Hey, Mayor Whitaker, has the lawsuit been filed yet?
AAAAAAAAGHHHHHHH! It's not the government's place or job to hold suckling people to its breast! Why not spend money on group orphanages so children of parents who "just can't make it" can be removed from the homes of these dolts before their parents loser ways rub off on them? You start rewarding poor decision making and punishing good decision making, and that's a one-way ticket to the poor house.
You sick people waiting for the government to come cleanse, powder and diaper your poopy butts and get out there and do something for yourselves! Christ, get second jobs or something! Where's your pride?
Well said allhaileris,, its like watching those 50K dollar pick up trucks drive to the state to apply for food stamps. Free lunches are starting to cost something, look at your pay check, if you still get one. Aren"t you glad to see that you are" Volunteering " more money every year to the "help" they are handing out.. Pride, what is that?
common_sense expresses the classic selfish attitude. Having children is "usually" an elective process and the impact those children already have on society is staggering. They cost the taxpayers literally tens of thousands of dollars EACH not to mention the additional local tax burden and pollution each of them cause or will ultimately cause. Not he wants an extra cut for energy assistance. That is just total BS and shows a lack of common sense.
The per-person basis is completely unfair. common_sense's attitude points this out crystal clear. It should be per-household.
Alaska Constitution, Article 8, Section 2:
"The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people."
Its people...not households, property owners, those qualifying for assistance based on income, non-military, etc. All residents of Alaska deserve an equal share of any monies distributed from the sale/use of the natural resources of Alaska. It is that simple to me. Complain all you want about the people who have 10 children, but those children deserve their share. IF we are going to distribute money (and that is still a BIG IF) it needs to be done equally to ALL residents of Alaska.
It's not the governments job to "subsidize" families and no one here said that they want the government to "suckle" them and their families. What is being said is:
*rebates are an IF
*IF rebates happen, they are to aid residents in ENERGY costs, not fuel costs
*IF rebates happen, they are coming from ALASKA'S RESOURCES
*IF they come, and come from ALASKA'S RESOURCES, then they ought to be shared equally amongst ALL Alaskans (yes, even those that you think shouldn't get one like military or children - despite their being LEGITIMATE Alaska residents) hmmmmm
*The per HOUSEHOLD idea is not a "fair" idea - some households have a much higher income than others (regardless of family size).
An income limit per person/household would still create more government, but it's still a viable option... My bet is some people don't like this idea because they probably wouldn't qualify. But hey, it'd be "fair" since if you earn a certain amount you don't need the government to come in and "subsidize" your energy costs, regardless of how much they are... Right?
no citizen of the USA should go to bed hungry, be denied medical care and should have a warm home. now some may think this is a bit close to a socialist way of life but i think it is just the american way of life. we can send a ton of munitions over to iraq and we can bail other countries out when they are in floods or storms or earthquakes. i think it is time to keep our money here and take care of our own people!
as i said in a different post, we may get $1200 this time that we can use for heating but what about next year when heating oil is $5000 for the same amount (it can and probably will happen). we are not the only part of america that is having it hard. people here dont have to commute as far to work as people do down there, and to heat a house in Minnesota or michigan is not that much cheaper (if it is) than here. i think this problem will not be solved by depending on the Fund, use it to get through a winter but then we have to find another way.
I commented on an earlier post about the negativity of the Interior blogs. 'Nothing will ever work, it appears, and anything anyone suggests is simply bogus.' 'nuf said. Now, to my amusement, I find that children are the root of all evil and are the ones on which to blame our economic woes. "They literally cost the taxpaper thousands of dollars" are a drain on our economy, major contributers to pollution, etc. etc.. They way I see it, unless Scotty beamed us all down here old and kicking, all of us began as babes. That being said, then ALL of us, James, Sandcrab and allhaileris, are the reason for all the troubles of this world. But, let us remember, we age, and in old age have the potential of costing society far more than a babe in the arms does. At least that child still has potential while, Sandcrab and the rest of us are only withering away. Interesting, interesting....
My grandparents didn't ask for government hand outs in their day. If you didn't do it yourself you were going to freeze and starve. If I have to cut wood to make it, so be it. I'm not going to wait for the state to help me survive. There wasn't any welfare, energy assistance back then, they just did it. I think that is why this country is going down the toilet, nobody wants to work for it anymore. There are exceptions, I wouldn't mind the state helping out the elders and disabled though. The people who are capable should get off of their duffs and help themselves out though.
I agree, the State should pay a lump sum per household rather than per person. That is the only fair way---period and end of discussion!!!
My two favorite sentences in the comment posts are when someone post's we are living beyond our means. When you post this do actualy know that person is living beyond thier means? The second is you just want a handout. All i keep hearing is its the peoples oil and it our money to benefit us. I get told by people i am living beyond my means all the time in hear because i saved loose change for two years and the little extra money I had to buy a flat screen for eight hundred bucks but oh my that is living beyond my means oh no. Do i make a car payment nope finaly paid it off no boat four wheeler snowmachine i only eat out maybe once a week but yeah i am living beyond my means. I guess i better move into a dry cabin. Then i cant be told i am living beyond my means. As for the 1200 hundred buck double it and send it now or just lower the price of gas and heating fuel to two bucks a gallon and keep the money anyone who thinks 4.50 a gallon for gas and 4.67 a gallon for heating fuel is a fair price seek help.
millerpa - "period and end of discussion!!!" Really? I respectfully disagree with you.
Per household is not any more "fair" than any other plan. As a matter of fact, there are a number of "fair" ways - they just happen to be "fair" to different people. To play devil's advocate, is it "fair" for the household that makes $130,000 to receive the same amount in a rebate as the household that earns $56,000 a year? Doesn't sound too "fair" to me, but hey - it's "per household," right? Hold your hats, folks, someone has more than you!
I disagree with the idea that the State "should" pay a lump sum to anyone; the idea of "should" is ludicrous - we are not owed - it's nice, but not owed. IF the State should choose to help people out in this time of difficulty though, through the use of monies that come from resources of the State, resources that ultimately belong to the people (my children as much as you or me), then EACH ALASKAN should share equally. That, my friends, is the "fairest" way..
Dana VanDam, I too respectfully disagree with you. In order to be fair it should not matter what your income is to get the assistance. We live in a income tax free state. The wealth to provide the assistance belongs to all Alaskans. I am all for weaning out the military unless they canprove their intent to stay, which most can not.
I am tired of all the very fertile mothers out there reaping all of the help. Please dont insult my intelligence by saying this isnt so. Many families are as large as they only because of the PFD. I for one am fed up with it. It isnt their fault as the system permits it. I am also fed up with the discrimination this causes hard working single folks also just trying to make it!!
"The wealth to provide the assistance belongs to all Alaskans."
Herein is the problem sir. I am a military spouse. I have three children. I was born and raised right here in Fairbanks, as were my children. My husband has been here 9 years and does all things possible to remain here in the State. If we ever have to leave, this is where we will return. Any money from Alaska's resources belong as much to me, my children and my husband as they do to you or any other Alaskan.
The military doesn't have to prove anything to you. All they have to do is meet the PFD guidelines. If you know of someone committing fraud, then go to the PFD website and turn them in.
(In all honesty, I think that you are assuming things that aren't true, but for the sake of discussion...). The size of people's families is also of no concern to you or anyone else, nor is the reasons behind their large family. Anyone who has many children solely to receive a PFD is stupid, but if they think that the $1000 or so a year is sufficient for them to raise that extra baby, so be it.
What discrimination is there against "hard working single folks"? If a single man makes $36,000 a year and only has himself to support, I would think that he is way better off than say, the man who works and makes $46,000 a year and supports a wife and two kids (note: this second man makes more, but has more people to take care of).
You are, however, 100% correct when you say "[t]he wealth to provide the assistance belongs to all Alaskans". ALL Alaskans, sir, not all Alaskan households.
Madam Van Dam, you said it I didnt referring to the stupid part but are they? I did generalize and you may be the exception. I do feel that you are wrong but as am I, you are entitled to your opinion. Good Day Ma'am!!!
qoute: "I am all for weaning out the military unless they can prove their intent to stay, which most can not."
ROFL! ..and how, exactly, does anyone, including you, "prove" an intent to stay? Nobody can prove where they're going to retire,, you can state your preference or say where you PLAN on retiring, but intent is not something that can be proven.
Yes, military families move alot, and many of us have no idea where we might be living 2 years from now. Do you really think we enjoy, or ask for that? It would be nice to have the luxury of settling down in one place, but unfortunately we dont' have that privilege.
Buying a house, which we have, proves nothing. Houses are bought and sold constantly. We have been here one full tour (3 years), are 1 year into a second 3 yr tour and will be asking for a 3rd this fall. This is home to us, but my husband has yet to recieve a PFD, because of frequent out-of-state deployments. It is the same for MANY soldiers. He lives here, he's a resident, owns a house, pays into the economy just like anyone else, but because serving your country requires training and deployments away from home, he doesn't recieve the same pfd that you do, millerpa. But YOU want to claim "discrimination"? Thats rich. Please don't worry about anyone insulting your intelligence,, thats probably not possible.
I was just thinking if the Alaska Railroad quit hauling all that fuel to the Ted Stevens International Airport what a fuel oil glut we would have here in the interior. Or perhaps a cost equalization borough tax on every gallon of fuel that leaves here. What a hardship it would be on the Anchorage economy.
The plan put forth in beginning of this article is a sound one. It fairly addresses heating oil consumption and could be tied to the cost per BTU of natural gas in south central. It also might fly under the federal tax which I doubt the $1200.00 allowance will.
I wonder how many of those Alaskan kids get their dividends. And how many military families collect PFDs until they are discharged only to find out that they really don't intend to return to Alaska? Maybe they should have that money held in trust until they do return and become residents once again.
"Held in trust". Should we hold in trust all PFDs that Alaska students who are attending college out of state receive as well?
"Held in trust". So, what's to say that someone can't have their PFDs "held in trust", come back, collect it and THEN move permanently? The whole hold it in trust idea is frankly, a dumb one.
"Until they return and become residents once again". Not all military people ever give up their residency. If my family has to leave Alaska due to my husband's service to our country, we won't be giving up our residency, we will just be displaced Alaskans until we are able to return. I don't understand why so many are so intent on singling out the military who legitimately receive a PFD.
Things may have changed, but in 2006 the ADN reported that Alaska has the most vets per capita of any state (http://dwb.adn.com/news/military/story/8...). "Veterans make up nearly 17 percent of Alaska's population 18 years and older, compared with 11 percent of the nation as a whole, according to the American Community Survey issued by the Census Bureau in 2005". Huh.
Theres obviously a ton of animosity over this rebate and if some of you folks dont understand why, then your just pig headed or worried your not gonna get it, even though you realy dont need it like your fellow state residents do. I'll leave the villages out of this analogy because I dont completely understand the whole subsidy thing as far as fuel goes. But to make it simple, a family of 3 (an easy figure ) living in the interior would recieve $3600 which is not nearly enough to pay for their heating oil (give or take 50% on average)this coming winter though it will help. A family of 3 in Anchorage or even a family of 3 that lives on a military base in the interior will get $3600 to pay off bills, buy toys or go on vacaton to the lower 48. Now make the equation of a family of 6 in Anchorage with dirt cheap electric, and dirt cheap natural gas will get $7,200 (which is a healthy chunk of change!!) to spend frivolously on whatever their little heart desires, and that same family of 6 in the interior it might cover heating oil and part of their electric bill. This is clear as day as to why their is so much animosity over it and theres not much that can be done about it. I'll be happy with anything my rich azz grandpa (The State) gives me to help offset the ridiculously high costs we are currently facing. I can honestly tell you that I dont think I'd last another year or 2 up here if we werent getting some help, its just getting to be too much and I make a good living. But I can make the same living elsewhere and not fret the ridiculously high cost of living. Folks have to do whats best for their families and without the state doing something to help for the unique geographical location we live in they would find that out right quick!
Just like to clear up a couple things.
First: My previous comment was to enlighten some on the fact that it Does matter how many people live in a house when it comes to being able to afford to heat it.
Second: This has nothing to do whith "Relying on handouts" or thinking I "Deserve" more than anyone else. I even stated the proposal is not 100% fair. I don't budget my families needs on what the state give out. We live on what we earn.
So, yes, I chose to have a large family, and that is a blessing I have cherrished far more than anything this State could, or has, given me.
Lots of interesting comments, things will get really interesting when it is minus 40 and fuel is over 5 dollars a gallon.
I am trying to be proactive. Today I ordered a outdoor coal stove and hope to have ready to install when it arrives in about a month.
Having lived here for about 95% of my life I really do not want to leave because of the issues of keeping a house warm. The $2400 the state will send us should be enough to keep the house warm this winter.
common_sense - You couldn't be more right - bless you and your family.
You chose to have a large family. I chose to have a medium sized family. There are some who choose to have no family at all. My husband chose to join the military. We choose to try to stay here as long as possible. I have friends who have chosen to live in Anchorage. I have family and friends who live in the lower-48.
So many of us Alaskans choose to live here and there was a choice made long ago to allow all Alaskan residents to share equally in money from Alaska's resources. Choice is a beautiful thing, isn't it?
The pfd basis for distribution is short-sided and foolish.
I have a problem sending $1200 to military who are no longer here, still collecting a pfd, living in in a southern state in base housing that's already got the utilities taken care of by the feds.
Plugged nickel from this military retiree.
I forgot to add that we have global warming to look forward to. Less heating fuel to buy.
By the time it is 50 below you will have received your PFD checks and any energy assistance the legislature decides to give ( they want to get re elected). What will people then be complaining about. That they had to spend the money on heating oil rather than trips and toys.
Quit shipping oil to South Central keep it here. Anchorage is just a suburb of Seattle. Make low sulfur locally and quit gouging diesel. Handouts just encourage more low lifes to move here. IE Russians in Delta.
Pat
Ok, so I am completely clueless on a couple things, maybe someone could set me straight?
Gvea is “slated” for a grant of $212,000- and from what it appears, it’s not going to be helping Fairbanks-
http://gvea.com/news/?id=260
BUT they sure don’t have a problem charging me 95.00 big ones, as a “fuel adjustment and customer service charge” (something Ive only ever experienced since moving to AK, Ive always been pretty good about conserving but still living comfortable, but all the “charges just to have monthly service” seem to be a bit excessive, considering it has NOTHING to do with heat at this time of year, what will it be like come December or January?
I understand “putting in your time” to qualify for the PFD, I totally agree with it, this living environment isnt for everyone, you have to have “tough skin” to some extent to live this far north. What I do have a problem with is that being the qualifier for you to be allowed energy assistance in the form of cash assisntance. Ive already been in AK for over a year, but this is my qualifying year for the PFD, so that would exclude me if I’m understanding it correctly? That hardly seems fair, they have to come up with a better way of energy assistance; if they give it to the energy company I have a hard time believing that we will really see much of a difference, and like a previous post stated, look at the number of people that don’t pay heat and electric bills or live in some other state already. Im not sure what the answer is, but this is totally frustrating.
dreamingfool and others who are confused: read the bill (http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/AG...)
In simple terms it's a RESOURCE REBATE based on the "extra" money the state is getting right now because the price of oil is so high. No where does it say this is energy assistance.
And ya' know what? It costs more to live in Alaska. If you didn't know that before you moved here you didn't do your homework. As far as I'm concerned, you have no excuse for walking into the higher costs blindly and should be prepared. The rules for qualifying for a PDF check are clear, even if they may be too lax in some people's opinions, so just wait out your qualifying period like everyone else has/had to and conserve a little more. It's the price you pay for living in the USA's own little third world colony.
No one ever said life was fair, or Alaska either. Ought to be a law posted at the points of entry to the state: No Whiners! <:-)
If you cant afford to live here - Don't!
Is that to difficult to grasp?
Millerpa, maybe the "hard working single folks" should move back in with their parents if they can't afford heat. Or maybe get roommates? Would a per-household plan apply to a house of 4 hard working single folks (quadruple income, no kids)?
The per-person rebate plan is a clumsy "band-aid" but it's simple and would help everyone adjust to the spiked energy prices this winter.
Sure seems many of us are fighting over "selective eligibility" aka "not screw me, screw the guy behind the tree".
FACT: the cost of fuel in the Fairbanks is 100% set by the State of Alaska selling royalty oil at spot market price. Today's, the price is about $145 per barrel.
"AS 38.05.183. Sale of Royalty" sets the price the state of Alaska charges the two local refineries.
... snip ... [cut to fit posting limit] ...
Subsection (e) by statute, sets the factors to be considered when selling royalty oil.
(e) When a sale, exchange, or other disposal of oil or gas taken in kind by the state as its royalty share, or a sale, exchange, or other disposal in whole or in part of a right to receive future royalty oil or gas, ..snip.. shall be awarded by the commissioner to the prospective buyer whose proposal offers the maximum benefits to citizens of the state. The commissioner shall consider
(1) the cash value offered;
(2) the projected effects of the sale, exchange, or other disposal on the economy of the state;
(3) the projected benefits of refining or processing the oil or gas in the state;
(4) the ability of the prospective buyer to provide refined products or by-products for distribution and sale in the state with price or supply benefits to the citizens of the state; and .... snip..."
The governor and the legislature can reduce the tax on the sale of our property till the price is what ever YOU want, just like THEY cut the price of natural gas to users in Anchorage years ago!
Here's an idea, liquidate the Permanent Fund and give every eligible PFD recipient a check for 5 Million Dollars, then put all of the money destined for the Perm. into the Budget Reserve. Even Liberals in SKANCHORAGE and Eagle River will like that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And so will the hippies in Girdwood and Homer.
[quote]I am completely against giving $1200 to every permanent fund recipient for 2 reasons - there are people who receive permanent fund checks because they lived in Alaska in the Armed Forces, yet they have no intention of returning here when they retire. Even if they do, they don't need help with heating fuel if they are living in Georgia! If they live on base they don't have heating costs at all, no matter where they live. Second, the cost of heating a home is not affected by the number of people living in the home yet a household of 5 will receive $6,000 through this program while a household with the same heating costs inhabited by 2 people will receive only $2,400.[/quote]
AKJak: Only those who qualify to receive a Permanent Fund Divident's check can receive it, regardless. The person can be a student, GI, civilian, etc. That's the way it's by law. Also, you are completely wrong about GI's not having to pay for utilities. Are you aware that military housing is not owned by the military? What the military does for GI's is to let them choose where to live. If they decided to live on post or on base, then the military takes their housing allowance. This "housing allowance" is intended for rent, utilities, etc. If the GI decides to move off base, then he pays rent and utilities like anybody else in town.
But since you are complaining about GI's, keep in mind that a lot of GI's are Alaskans serving in the military, much like Alaskan students attending school outside Alaska. Lets say that I have a son or a daughter attending school outside Alaska; by law he or she must spend a certain period of time in Alaska each year in order to receive a PDF check. This applies to civilians, and GI's as well.
If you are going to pick on the military, then you have to pick on the thousands of people who don't return to Alaska, not just GI's.
why do we not cut the children out
* CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE!
* Teach a child to be selfish and greedy and his/her children will suffer
* Take away a childs right to learn and we take away their imagination and curiosity that makes them human
We should not have to take the children out of anything, the people who DECIDE to have more than 0 children are perpetuating out species as a whole they make up for the ones who DECIDE not to have those kids or have less. I have none I have nothing against paying for someone else's child to get an education or paying to provide something that makes that child smile and want to know more. curiosity is the root of knowledge something this country is losing as a whole.
so WHY NOT let a family of six get the possible rebate and WHY NOT let a family of six make more money than a family of 1. Let them buy their children something that makes them curious. If we're greedy towards a child we might as well surrender now.
Bob Thomas's idea sounds alot like Joe Paskvan's letter to the public in a recent news miner edition; and it is a great idea. And the most fair. Being a Military brat myself, I know for a fact that some Military families NEVER intend to return to AK- therefore as soon as they step out of AK those PFD's need to stop. I am also for placing ALL children's PFD's into Trusts to be given to them when they turn 18 yo. Too many parents are abusing those funds and children end up w/o choices when they graduate. How many kids do you see out there having kids with NO financial plan? Most end up on Denali Kid Care (prenatal care/welfare)and ATAP for most of their young adult life. I wish Jay Hammond could read some of these senseless posts; he's probably rolling! As far as the $1200, our PFD's should have been $3000 last fall and $5000 this coming October. We may not be "owed" this money, however men like Jay Hammond realized Alaskan's could greatly benefit from AK's oil production and CHOICE to live and die here. I say to our Legislators WE voted you in and WE can vote you out! Our Governor is at least proposing something as others sit worrying about recorking wine bottles and NOT taxing the Oil companies. Paying heating and energy companies is the fairest way to keep AK money in Alaska.
Mandy04 - There are military members who live here who don't intend to return, sure. But that completely ignores the FACT that there are many who plan to come home (note above statistics: Alaska has the highest per capita population of veterans - 17% here, 11% in the rest of the nation - yes, those bad military people that don't return). I reiterate: if you know someone committing fraud (military or not), turn them in. Otherwise, they qualified for a PFD per State law.
I think ANYONE who leaves the State for over 2 years needs to forfeit the PFD. They could reapply and even become eligible that very year they return(returning students, active duty Military, Veteran's - 17% or not, that's not that much compared to those who return to Lower 48 towns). Don't get me wrong, I am very PRO-Military and SUPPORT where they are...especially if they are deployed & fighting for our freedom. Those Military families have chosen to remain here and they deserve every cent. I returned to Alaska and have spent over 20 years living and spending my income and PFD's here. Let the PEOPLE of AK vote (how many people who say they'll return actually vote...)on this $1200...GOD knows the Legislators will "muck it up"! I am grateful to those voters in 1976 who agreed with then Governor Jay Hammond and "slapped a lid on billions of dollars politicians would have happily spent and still would today, if they could." Hammond, Jay. Tales of Alaska's Bush Rat Governor.1994.pages 323-324. Now Governor Palin can give a little more back to the people who are actually living in this Great State NOW, not 5 or 10 years later.
Dana VanDam you would do well in Russia ... maybe a move is in the cards for you?
Because person X makes $Y doesn't not entitle YOU to the same they have ... geeze ... this is pretty simple!
If you want to make the same then get the same education and skill set ... how about that. Or are you saying that the person at McDonalds should get the same as you? LOL They will be right over for some “equalization” assistance from you.
Dana VanDam having children is an elective process, absolutely preventable and you are horribly mistaken thinking it is not any of my business. Your children cost society tens of thousands of dollars each and you don't pay for that.
Being in the military is also an elective process. If you don't like it or want to bitch about it and calim an entitlement then get out and do something different, I did.
woodman they won't be making that complaint ... they will have already Pi**** it away by heating time ..lol.
James - My children are not now, nor will they ever be your business, for which I am grateful. You are horribly mistaken if you think they are. Should I prove someday to be an unfit parent and they are removed from my care, then perhaps they can become your business. Until that day comes, your opinion means a little less than nothing.
Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote - no where did I say that I was entitled to anyone ELSE'S money. Hello? Can you read? What I said, sir, was that Alaska's resources belong to all Alaskans (if you are familiar with the Alaska Constitution, you know this, if you aren't familiar, then your opinion means little to me). And per THAT Constitution, yes, the Alaskan citizen who works at McDonald's should get the same amount of PFD or other percentage of Alaska's resources. If someone works at McDonald's, are they are less an Alaskan resident than you? Alaska's resources that belong to all residents is a far cry from wanting to take your paycheck.
Having children and joining the military are elective processes - did you again forget to read? Here, I'll copy and paste it just in case you can't scroll up: "You chose to have a large family. I chose to have a medium sized family. There are some who choose to have no family at all. My husband chose to join the military. We choose to try to stay here as long as possible. I have friends who have chosen to live in Anchorage. I have family and friends who live in the lower-48." Seems pretty apparent to me that I understand the decision-making process. Perhaps you should choose to mentally process the comments that you read before passing some sort of angry judgments.
I am very amazed at how many people are getting so upset over children. I think this shows the purest form of selfishness there is. I guess it's because my kids are taking thier money.
I guess I'll just have to appologize for your taxes paying for my children's education. Remember that the next time my taxes re-pave your road or puts out a fire at your house.
I guess what I'm saying is, stop complaining that someone with more kids than you gets more money than you. They do deserve it. Without future generations there wil be no Alaska!
BTW, thanks Dana. I'm glad to see someone can open thier mind beyond thier wallet.
common_sense, (could you think of a less fitting moniker?), you are absolutely right. YOUR children ARE taking MY money.
How does that compare with OUR money fixing OUR roads? I assume that use the same roads that I do, while I do not have the same children that you do (thank god).
People raising children get more public financial support than they should already. You had the children, you support them.
Also, you are wrong when you say that without future generations there will be no Alaska. Alaska was here long before people were here, and Alaska will be here long after people are gone.
The absence of people will not make a place cease to exist, or even make a place not worthy of being there. When I came to Alaska almost 40 years ago there was a lot less people then, and it was a much better place than it is now.
Well Crab, (nice fitting moniker), if you tired of paying for other people's children and like Alaska the way it used to be before all the people why are you still in a borough. Move out in the middle of nowhere. I think we'll all be better off.
mandy04:
Perhaps you should read what is required by the State of AK for a person to receive a PDF check. The law applies to both military and civilians alike. When an active military member becomes aware of a crime being committed by another military member, including unlawfully receiving a PDF check, he or she must immediately report it, or he or she can be charged of a crime.
Why should Alaska residents who also are military members, forfeiture their PFD checks if they can legally receive it? If that should be the case, then the law has to be equally applied among military members and civilians.
http://www.pfd.alaska.gov/eligibility/in...
Also, you have Alaska military members who are in the Middle East. Some are returning home in a casket, while most are returning to Alaska on their rotating tour.
WoW! there sure is a lot of arguing over all this. I read most of the comments here and truthfully see good points from all sides. I'm going to be one of the ones with a household of 5 struggling this winter. For all those that think you shouldn't have kids unless you can afford them well, I could at the time adn still can. I've learned to do with less so my kids have more, I've learned to save years ago so when tyimes get rough I have something to fall back on for a while, I don't have all the "cool" toys most consider a requirement to have in Alaska, and I'm not asking for the government to give me a "free" hand out or support my family and myself. but I can tell you this, if they offer it I sure as heck ain't going to turn it down.
And one more thing, all the bickering and arguing about who gets the money, and what is right and wrong is getting us no where. the legilatures are aware of all this and I believe will do what's best for us.
"The per-person basis is completely unfair. common_sense's attitude points this out crystal clear. It should be per-household."
In a word James.......PERFECT.
Ray - you are totally ignorant if you think military personnel are NOT forging & creating dummy orders that some soldiers say they came back and did not. They are not going to snitch their friends out.
The PFD is looking at all the fraud but it takes time. I hope they succeed. And I am well aware men & women are fighting & some are returning in body bags! Soldiers go to War and War is hell and there is NO draft. Go find another blog to discuss the War...
I am grateful for the original PFD, unfortunately it's original intent has been changed by Legislators over the years and some of the money has been tapped into to allow discrimination against hard working Alaskans...look at your stub in October...I never voted to allocate a % of money to go here & there...too many PFD's are sent outside AK - why is this? Guess crimes are being ignored left & right!
If Soldiers are deployed and return they should collect every cent of the PFD that year.
If Soldiers get reassigned outside they need to forfiet the PFD until they are reassigned to come back. I ahve read the regs. Glad you found the website. I guess I had to spell it out for you, sorry. Figure it out yet?
WOW!!!!!!! So many great points that hit the "BULLSEYE". I have two rental properties. One I pay all the utilities and the other one the occupant pays all utilities. Both of these ar single family dwellings. I feel that the people living in the one place that I pay for the utilities is not entitled to getting this relief even though they do receive and are entitled to a PFD. "IF" the do get a relief check I would consider it fraud. I do want to sound greedy, but I think I should get any relief for the place if any is to be given out. However, I do not support the idea of cash. It is my opinion that in many cases it would not go in the heating oil tank.
God Bless America, God Bless Our Troops and God Bless the Sound of Freedom
It is no longer an "energy relief package" but considered a "resource rebate". That takes care or ANY renter/landlord/whatever objections.
I totally agree IamUSAFRet I rent and don't pay any utilities, however the invoice usually ends up on my doorknob and I once in a while take a peek. I know what my landlord is paying to keep me warm through the winter its not pretty. I would love to have the extra money to buy food and gas for my car, because those prices aren't going down either. But if I were asked to forefit say half to my landlord I don't think that would be too unfair. We can all use the money and if we're not paying for the energy the money should go to the ones who are
So because my husband and I desided to only have three children and work very hard to heat and pay our mortgages we will only get about 6000 and the lady down the road who lives on welfare and lives in a low income house (who by the way drives a newer car and has a snomachine in her yard) who does not have to pay for her fuel and has 8 children gets all this money for what. Having sex? This money for 1200 per person should have limitations to it. I used to like the idea of helping the weak, however when you see too many people misue government funds, I get cynical like everyone else and get the attitude of "its not my problem." I dont think this is very fair to see this lady get 10,800 for so called fuel subsidies and in reality its just "slush" money for her. This money should be for people who buy their own fuel and should not be sent directly to people as cash checks. It would prevent people from misusing this and people who really need it to use it as a form of relief. I am not going to stand in a line to ask for welfare, however it would be nice to receive a little relief for the person who actually does work and who does try to purchase their own homes, or live self supporting and yet it becomes a disrespect when the "free loaders" "welfare rats" etc. (whatever you want to call them) start to scream that they are being left out. We need a better plan than giving out free money to anyone who holds a hand out... we all know the welfare rats know exactally how to hold out their hands to receive anything for free.
Wow "Che"...spoken like a true socialist and revolutionary. Do you also have the obligatory tee shirt emblazoned with your namesakes likeness? I suppose the irony of your bleating about how the U.S. "...can send a ton of munitions over to iraq", when Castro was doing the same thing, exporting his revolution, while his enslaved people were doing without just completely escapes you. Try reading a book about "Che" sometime.
"people here dont have to commute as far to work as people do down there,..." Wow! I bet everyone who lives in Salcha and works in Fairbanks or on Eilson, as my ex-wife and I did for YEARS will be glad hear that. If you happen to live in downtown Fairbanks and have a job a few blocks away you are out of the ordinary, bub.
"i think it is time to keep our money here and take care of our own people!"
Let me fix that for ya to reflect what you are really saying....
"i think it is time to keep your money here and take care of whining socialist freeloaders like me."
There, that should do it.
Why do the mighty landowners keep insisting that lowly renters are not affected by fuel increases? My landlord just raised my rent $100/mont