Letter to the Editor
Energy savings
Published Friday, May 16, 2008
May 9, 2008
To the editor:
Regarding the Assembly’s actions to approve the mayor and Assemblymember Brown’s declaration of an energy emergency, they are mostly appropriating money that isn’t theirs — it is Alaska Housing Finance Corp. money appropriated by the Legislature. Taking this on to expedite energy help is an ambitious goal, but certainly worthy as folks struggle to do what they can to cut their energy consumption.
However, the $1 million that was appropriated to be given to the Fairbanks Economic Development Corp. for design work on an experimental coal-liquids is from borough general funds — us taxpayers. I don’t see this addressing the short-term “emergency” that was declared. If this concept is such a good one, why doesn’t Usibelli invest in it?
One might also ask why Usibelli didn’t substantively invest in the nearly $400 million experimental coal power plant in Healy. That was funded by federal and state money. Usibelli stood to benefit the most from the sale of otherwise unsaleable coal and stand to benefit handsomely if the no greenhouse gas emissions coal-liquids concept is proven.
If the Assembly instead appropriated that $1 million toward reducing the borough buildings’ energy costs, that could produce a more immediate benefit through proven methods. For example, they are still using the old inefficient fluorescent lamps in the Borough Administration building. There are hundreds of fixtures that could be retrofitted to reduce their electric use by 30 percent. Or stick some solar collectors on top of borough owned buildings to reduce electric bills or heat the swimming pools. All these savings could go back into property tax savings for our residents.
I honestly don’t understand the skewed priorities.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I guess you won't be buying $1.80 heating oil from the coal liquification plant next fall. I know that I will.
So we (the taxpayers) are in an energy crisis and the borough's solution is to install new light bulbs in their buildings? Wow, there's your government working for you! They just don't seem to get it.
I'd doubt anyone will be buying $1.80 heating oil from coal gasification plus the gas-liquids (Fischer-Tropsch) plant. It will take a proven concept design, which the $1 mm the FNSB is putting up is only the first step, engineering and construction. Even the mayor says one is looking at 5-7 years. And the plant would cost $1-2 billion, per Mayor Whittaker. That's not pocket change nor immediate relief.
Cutting energy consumption now can pay back short and long term. Property tax seems to be about the same annual cost to us as energy and they both come out of our pocket. Any reduction would be welcome.
I think the suggestion for reducing FNSB energy use with more efficient lighting ($10,000 est. annual savings) was an example that $1 mm could be put to provide immediate relief, as opposed to a longer term speculative project which we can't fund ourselves anyway.
The previous commenters are looking for immediate help. I read Newman's letter as suggesting just that with payback to residents in the form of reduced property tax from reducing the cost of operating the FNSB government.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.