Energy programs may get financial boost from state
Published Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!JUNEAU — As Alaskans struggle with the high cost of heating their homes, state lawmakers are considering a huge, one-time boost to two home weatherization and energy efficiency programs.
Under the proposal, a weatherization program that helps tighten up about 600 homes a year would get enough money to cover more than 17,000 homes. A long-defunct program offering rebates to people who make their homes more energy efficient would get enough money to cover thousands more households.
“It’s a short-term fix to try to bring relief as quick as we can to as many Alaskans as we can,” John Weise, a staff member to Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, said Tuesday.
As co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Hoffman last week added $300 million for the two programs to the state’s supplemental budget, which passed out of the committee on Monday and is scheduled for a floor vote today. He also is sponsoring a bill, SB 289, that would make minor changes to state law to allow the proposal to go forward. That bill had its first hearing Tuesday in the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee.
Lawmakers are also considering one-time handouts to help Alaskans deal with high energy costs, but Hoffman’s proposal to put money toward home upgrades has broad support among lawmakers and may ultimately win out over the other proposals.
While a handout would only help this year and would leave Alaskans vulnerable to high costs in coming years, Hoffman said, efficiency upgrades would help reduce costs for years to come.
The scope of the plan is ambitious.
The state’s low-income weatherization program, which is run by the Alaska Housing Finance Corp., currently gets about $3 million a year in state funds and about $2 million in federal funds, according to Weise.
He and Hoffman considered boosting the program 10-fold, to $48 million, Weise said, but decided to shoot for $200 million based on the number of homes that could benefit from the program. They also decided to increase the eligibility level from 60 percent of the Alaska-adjusted federal poverty line to 100 percent to reach more Alaskans.
Under the higher eligibility level, someone living alone and making $39,000 a year would qualify for weatherization services. A family of four earning $76,000 would also qualify.
As it is now, weatherization work would be done by regional nonprofit organizations and municipalities overseen by AHFC.
Jim Lee, who runs the nonprofit organization providing weatherization services in Fairbanks, said a boost in cash like the one being talked about would allow his organization, Interior Weatherization, to make more improvements in each house and cover more houses.
“We’ve always had a wait list — always,” he said. “I would love to see that the actual budget amount goes up per home, and I’d love to hit four, five, ten times the amount of homes in the Fairbanks area.”
Lee said Interior Weatherization was able to do some weatherization work on 127 homes last year with a budget prescribed by AHFC. But he said he’s often forced to take care of home safety issues first, like dealing with a rotting chimney, and can’t provide much weatherization work on a limited budget of about $3,000 to $4,000 per home.
With an investment of about $6,500, he said, homeowners in many cases can reduce their energy bills by 30 percent.
Hoffman’s proposal would also put $100 million toward rebates that would be available to any Alaskan who improved the energy efficiency of his home through an AHFC rating system. Depending on how much they improved their home efficiency, Alaskans would be eligible for rebates of $2,500 to $5,000.
Dan Fauske, chief executive officer of AHFC, spoke in favor of the overall proposal at the hearing Tuesday.
“It’s just an efficient way to spend money,” he said. “If we could reduce the (energy) demand, that’s a 30-year fix for a lot of these homes.”
AHFC’s public affairs director, Bryan Butcher, added that the cash influx would also provide jobs for builders who might be suffering from a slowdown in new building.
Boosting weatherization and efficiency programs would also have an environmental benefit, according to David van den Berg, head of the Fairbanks-based Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
“This is something that’s looking at conserving energy with a direct relationship to cost of energy for homeowners,” he said. “It’s really the right direction, and we’re glad to see it.”
The bill seems to have broad support in the Capitol as well.
Committee chair Sen. Johnny Ellis, D-Anchorage, held the bill over after Tuesday’s hearing but said he would hear it again soon. House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, said he’s discussed the proposal with House and Senate leaders and likes the idea.
“We told them we didn’t really think we had a problem with it,” he said.
Sharon Leighow, a spokeswoman for Gov. Sarah Palin, said Palin hasn’t studied the proposal but generally supports home energy conservation and weatherization.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
A great idea. Cutting people a check would only encourage more of the American way: OVERCONSUMPTION. These programs should get huge permanent funding sources, not 'one time fixes'. This will also help reduce the nasty air we breathe. Another 'PFD' check will only lead to more snowmobiles, big trucks, and gasping for air...
Great now all I have to do is wait till the high energy cost's put me into foreclosure/bankruptcy of course the catch then will be not owning a home which will still leave me and many others out...Thanks alot for allowing some of the obscene profits from my resources not to come back help all Alaskans. Puts real meaning to what the State constitution says about us owning the resources.. ACTUALLY IT'S JUST IN THERE FOR APPEASEMENT ONLY the words have no meaning...
Ruff_Start
You don't really think that the profits from your resources from the land actually should come back to assist you, Do you?
The proposal is mostly about a handout to construction companies, Home depot's and those who meet certain restrictions..like not being able to afford a home with decent insulation which in turn you get some gravy to make your home more efficent and increases it's value. The increased value of the home will become a penalty of course and as a result will increase the property tax leaving them in the same position ..living in or near poverty..
My question is this stated that energey rebates are for those who improve there homes...what happens to those of us that rent apartments and such who then gets that engery rebate the owner of the rental or the renter...???
Good, point. I too struggle yet again in an inefficient rental. There is no liability or responsibility at all to these landlords who churn out inefficiency for a quick buck. Rentals need to face some sort of new 'efficiency-scrutiny certification process'. People complain that we don't need more government restrictions- well then start to care, develop ethics, and don't crap on your air quality and neighbors and the government can do more important things.
and once again the middle class gets nothing. We feel the pinch of high gas/heating oil prices just like everyone. This proposal does absolutely nothing for me. I do not qualify for assistance and I have spent thousands of my own money making my home more energy efficient. There is more I could do, but can't currently afford. Cash rebates give people the choice of how to limit the impact of energy expenses to thier family.
I have a feeling my opinion here is going to be unpopular, but here I go anyways. I applaud our lawmakers for at least exploring proactive options. The one time handout might help many Alaskan families out temporarily, but what about next year? Energy costs are not going to make any significant drops anytime soon. The state would be doing all Alaskans a disservice by spending money in such a manner when it could be put towards helping improve efficiency and thereby lowering energy costs in the future. Give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Ruff_Start - I do not know what the parameters of the current program offered by Interior Weatherization are, however I do know that they apply to both renters and home owners. I believe they're on the web and I'm sure you could Google them to find out more. These programs are direly under funded at this time, but they do exist if one is willing to be proactive and seek them out.
Corporate News - Is giving people incentives to increase the energy efficiency of their homes not a fantastic way to encourage LESS consumption? More energy efficient home = less energy consumed. I do not understand your argument. I agree whole-heartedly that over consumption is a huge problem in our society. We must address it aggressively, and soon. But are the proposed incentives, at minimum, not a step in the right direction?
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
This well intentioned effort to solve a real burden on the lower income Alaskan is littered with holes that fail the truly needy. Many of us live in substandard housing that cannot meet the rules of “Weatherization”, will increase the value of the home—thus add tax value—thus increase rent.. Kinda a Catch 22 program if there ever was one. Cash rebates is the only method of relief that helps the family of four who rents a heat leaky house, has to buy used clothes for the kids, buy substandard food and drive a car so out of tune it won't pass admission testing. These are major problems high oil cost causes and a cash rebate can address. Until you walk in their shoes you cannot relate to their oil related problems. Families living hand to mouth cannot budget nor plan their way around the pain and suffering caused by losing a couple of grand out of their income to the oil companies. Been there did that and know many more right here in the surrounding area bogged down in a mud pit of disparity that must be addressed. If we fail to find solutions, we will find sickness, marriage malfunctions and despoilment of the social order. That is the way I read it.
Looks like I might have to become a AHFC rater and pocket the $250 that everyone is going to have to pay for a rating in order to qualify for this program. I already have a 5-star home so I would not be able to qualify for an AHFC rating program if I wanted to make further improvements. At least the State budget has only increased 10% this year which equals $15,000 per Alaskan and $32,000 per worker.
Snomo – AkFarmer says it well, “This well intentioned effort to solve a real burden on the lower income Alaskan is littered with holes that fail the truly needy.” By no means did I intend to imply that incentives currently being discussed in our legislature are going to be a cure-all, fix-all to the problems Alaskans face due to high energy prices. I simply feel, and believe I stated so in my original post, that it is a step in the right direction. A one time fix would be the easy way out. I am pleased to see that they are seeking alternatives that at least address the problem instead of simply treating the symptoms. I believe that is a step in the right direction, even if the proposed “solutions” are not perfect in their current form.
I am in the same boat as you – my family’s income falls just above the financial cutoff, and we certainly can’t come close to affording to make improvements on our own. The measures being proposed will not do me or my family a lick of good. Instead of relying on sarcasm, whining “what about me” and throwing blanket insults at those whose opinion does not parallel my own, I prefer to direct my energy elsewhere. In this case, that means considering the positive that can come of the proposed legislation, even though it certainly still needs work and regardless of whether or not it directly benefits me. You, of course, are entitled to your own opinion.
I, too, applaud the State for trying to help out those in need. However, my question is 'what constitutes need?' I am a homeowner with a 10 year old, 5 star rated home that could certainly use some upgrades. However, I'm quite sure I would not qualify for this handout. Surely most of us middle-class working folk could use this energy rebate as well. I guess my point is that it is just not "low income" people that are deserving. ALL of us are struggling because of the high cost of fuel oil, gas, electric, and everything else for that matter! I would encourage the State to look at other alternatives. While I certainly understand there are those that are in desperate need, I would also say that by offering the rebate to a choice few, you are inviting more able-bodied people to take advantage of their current situation.....just take a look at our Welfare situation!
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.