Fuel costs on the rise in rural Alaska
Published Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!ANCHORAGE -- The poorest families in rural Alaska will be paying much more for power and heat in the coming year than their urban counterparts, according to university researchers.
Those in the most remote towns and villages are expected to spend more than 40 cents out of every dollar, while Anchorage's lowest-income households will spend about 4 cents from every dollar on energy bills.
The figures come from a University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research report released earlier this month.
In the village of Nunapitchuk, about 20 miles from Bethel, one family is watching less TV and rationing video game time for the kids in hopes of shaving power bills.
"Everybody's trying to, you know, go on to public assistance or trying to conserve as much as they can," said James Angaiak, who earns $10 an hour, six hours a day as a land planner for the city.
The report does not factor in gasoline prices or water and sewer bills. It also can't predict how much people are scaling back their heat and power usage in the face of rising costs.
But researchers say it shows what people must spend on household energy costs depending on where they live and how much they earn.
One reason energy is more expensive in rural Alaska is that most people use diesel fuel to heat their homes, while the majority of Anchorage families use natural gas.
ISER estimates that the median annual cost of power and heating costs for an Anchorage family is about $2,400, compared to about $4,100 for midsize towns and cities and $6,600 for remote rural villages.
Gov. Sarah Palin has proposed giving $1,200 to every Alaskan to cover the costs.
Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, says giving more to people who are hit the hardest makes the most sense.
"We give cost of living (pay) to state employees because they live in a higher cost area. And we give differentials for schools -- so I think there is an argument that if we are going to address the high energy costs, we should also take that into consideration," he said.
But Rep. Kevin Meyer, R-Anchorage, said that debate would only open old wounds by pitting urban and rural Alaskans against each other.
"I think the argument's going to come up that people live in rural Alaska by choice," he said.
The governor proposed a flat payout plan - rather than payments based on people's individual needs - because there are already other programs that benefit low-income or rural Alaskans, said Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow.
She said Palin is considering offering grants to power utilities to lower bills, and that the governor is willing to "consider all options" when it comes to energy assistance legislation.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Which mid-sized cities is this article talking about; it is not Fairbanks as our electric and heating cost are sure more than $ 4,800 a year. Plus we have the highest real estate tax's in the state.
To all members of the Alaska Legislature: It is a worse situation in rural Alaska than what the University of Alaska study reported. And what we got is; NERO PLAYING HIS FLUTE WHILE ROME BURNT!!!
ditto to the last two post!!
I agree with the posts as well.
If we had a food shortage in the state we would send the most supplies to areas hit the hardest! We wouldn't send sacks of rice to Anchorage when they have new york steaks available.
I appreciate the fairness but its time to recognize that rural and interior Alaska have been and will be rapidly changing with the current crisis.
$1200 dollars in a rural area is barely a drop in the proverbial energy ocean, $1200 in Anchorage is going to be a shopping spree for the half million people in Anchorage plus the Valley etc. One is barely enough for survial the other will be one heck of an economic stimulus package.
We needed university researchers to spend time and money to figure this out? hmmm
First, the proposal is $1200 for each person in the family. Second, it's intended to defray the cost of energy, not cover it in its entirety. Third, cost of living allowance is intended to attract qualified candidates to a particular job. I really don't believe it's in our interest to attract more people who can't afford energy to places where there are no jobs, and never will be any jobs. If we really want to help these people, then lets send in some airplanes to move them out of those remote places. If they wish to live as their ancestors did, then that's their right, but surely diesel fuel and heating oil has nothing to do with that. I'm sick of tax dollars going to fund lifestyle choices of various small groups.
We are suppose to than fund lifestyles of people who are whinning that they cannot afford to heat their mini mansion and drive their hummers? What tax dollars, exactly how much state income tax have you paid? I am sick of State money being spent to support urban lifestyles. I wonder how much State money is spent on projects in Anchorage verses a small community in rural Alaska?
Alaska should sell royalty-oil refined products to residents at reduced, below-market prices. It would help the entire economy to reduce the cost of transportation, beginning with groceries and building materials, power generation and gasoline.
woodman: I never said "taxes I paid". They're tax dollars taken from returns on many billions of dollars that have been invested in this state. They're tax dollars that, if left in play could have been reinvested in enterprises and infrastructure that would have lead to more jobs. Cities large and small are where the majority of people live, and are really the only sustainable way for people to live. Cities are filled with people who pay taxes.
I agree with your sentiment insomuch as we should have a state sales tax to make everyone pay taxes. As things sit now, over 80% of the money our state needs to function comes from taxing the earnings of oil companies. Essentially, as far as we're concerned, it's free money. Maybe that's how so many justify standing around with their hand out. Maybe that's why America's proud tradition of self-reliance is all but dead. We've become dependent socialists with the many depending on the few who still work and save and sacrifice, and invest. Take some responsibility for your self and your own life for god's sake!
este...instead of solely taking money from big oil, offer tax breaks and incentives for them to sell some product locally to local energy companies. But then you have to hope they'll sell it here, and not export to Japan.
The government is not fit to run a business. If you think they are, just look at the Mat-Maid dairy, or Amtrack. That's not what government is for. Where do all you socialists come from??
Well Well Well why doesn't the State send out enough money for everyone who wants to move out of the State of Alaska so they can go somewhere warm? We won't be able to afford to live here hell one winter is going to cost the average person 6,000.00 to 8,000.00 just to heat their homes.
Like I have said before this rebate is really not going to be viewed as fair since hundreds of thousands of Anchorage residents are feeling no pain in energy bills and the colder parts of the state are really feeling the crunch. A family of 3 in Fairbanks is gonna get some much needed help on heating oil prices (and its help but its not gonna pay the bills solely)....that they will be taxed on come tax season. A family of 3 in Anchorage is gonna get enough cash to take their family to Hawaii on vacation mid winter. And the folks in the bush are still gonna need even more help to get by. So really the $1200 though it will help some, the majority of the $ will be wasted. Lets not forget the 50,000 or so people that are unjustly receiving PFD's and living in the lower 48 are gonna get an extra $1200 a piece too. But I guess the sad part is that at least some folks who really need the help will get it. I still beleive that the only appropriate way to use the money is direct discounts (subsidies) to electricity, heating oil,propane and natural gas in the places that it has risen in cost soo much. Then the folks wont be taxed on it, and only those who are really in need will get it. Plus the 50,000 or so unjust PFD recipients wont be milking the cow too.
i agree, we should get a fuel credit so that every fuel tank benefits, not person, a family of 5 thats renting with heat included would get 6000 dollars to spend where a household of 2 that have to pay for heat would get 2400, if you put it toward fuel then the people in need will get fuel where the ones who dont need the fuel wont get it. however the owners of the renters property will get the fuel break, i think thats the simple and fair way to go
How is it that folks are getting the PFD without living in AK?
The correct way to go is to first off get rid of the rest of the good ole boy network (notice i did not say corrupt)---> ;) Lets get some fresh ideas in the house and senate. To bad the change will not happen beofre ole man winter shows up.
"How is it that folks are getting the PFD without living in AK?"
Thats another whole debate of confusing grey area facts and explanations of laws. But it all boils down to folks who no longer live here but use the loop holes in the system to still claim they live here or are residents of Alaska.
The rebate isn't about energy relief, it's about sharing the wealth equally. For the Article to mean something it should tell us if there is an increase in the rate of difference in energy costs. It has always been more expensive to live rurally in Alaska and have the same services as urban areas. Give us some facts to back up the innuendos about supposedly dramatic new cost differences between the bush and urban life. Otherwise, don't look here for sympathy and don't try to get more than your share of the rebate.
What will help offset the rise in costs and difference in regional increases should be the comprehensive plan being developed by the Governor's office. A 50% increase for Fairbanks is no different than a 50% increase in the bush. It may look bigger in dollars, but it's not when you consider the amount of fuel consumed because of driving distances for urban commuters and relative low use of motor fuel in the bush.
If you isolate any one aspect of the fuel increases you can make a case for a government assistance program even to independently wealthy home owners. Base the study on cost per square foot to heat a building and compare large with small and the larger wins.
Although the larger building has a higher bill, it can house more people for a lower average cost giving the state more bang for the buck on heating assistance. I don't like the way UA spends money to half-way study problems and the media often reports their results very skewed without any tough questions.
Unfortunately, Mr. Hoffman is uninformed about the Governor's plans and the current state assistance programs in place to assist rural Alaskan communities which go way above and beyond what is spent in larger communities that actually have viable economies. It goes back to the big house needs less money per person to have the same conveniences as a small house. The same economic principles apply to communities. That fact did not suddenly change because we have higher fuel costs. Hopefully, the Governor's energy plan will consider adjusting the rural benefits overall to match any difference in the percentage of increased costs.
Don't get in a bunch because the rebate plan is fair to all. Prepare instead to debate the merits of the forthcoming comprehensive energy relief plan.
"Although the larger building has a higher bill, it can house more people for a lower average cost giving the state more bang for the buck on heating assistance."
I highly doubt it. Do you think there are more people living in the McMansions in Fairbanks than in more modest dwellings? The usual scenario is that fewer people live in the big houses--larger families can't afford such massive structures.
Instead of sending our crude oil down to valdez and low-48 for refinement we need as a state is build our own refinery here in interior-Fairbanks and distribute our gas back to our people in the rural cheaper!
Ever wonder what folks would be talking about if gas was still under a dollar? Remember the days when the weather was the big topic of the day. Moose season can't come soon enough. Got my fire wood, got my fish, got my garden, got my family, have lived long enough for 5 generations to be alive, got my health, own my home, got some money in the bank and will hopefully get my moose. What more could one man ask for.
allhaileris- the State of Alaska runs the Alaska Railroad system which happens to be the only working railroad in the entire U.S. that makes a profit.
AKhusky,
More people live in an apartment building than a single family home. Admittedly, my example is just as skewed as the UA study as reported by the AP. But my point is they need to get the whole moving picture not just a snapshot.
Take the $1200 and pledge it to a pool [hang onto the money, just pledge it first]..
once we have a pledge pool then we can find some accountants and lawyers among us..
then we can form a gasline cooperative.
www.fairbanksgas.com
First Gasline to Fairbanks Wins!!!
DT
Would it not be more efficient to build the power plant near the fuel?
ONAPA..
I'm not in favor of putting more heavy industrial footprint and HEAT into the arctic. Put on some infrared goggles and fly over Prudhoe, you'll get the picture quickly.
The thermal management of the arctic is in a tricky balance..
..as a result we had a huge tundra fire between the Nanushuk and Itkillik Rivers a year ago. New Lightning has been migrating in a string of cumulus clouds trickling through Anaktuvuk Pass..
..this interacts with the increased sublimation of sub-soil methane-hydrates widespread through the NorthSlope.
Huge flashfires and catastrophic explosions are a real threat now.
Plastic-gaslines for gathering gas from gasfields is standard practice.
Gathering Slope&Foothills gas and distributing it southward through all of the passes in the BrooksRange is the most immediate and cost effective way to get the gas to the market that needs it the most.
Technology is rapidly advancing for plastic gaslines, and in many countries it's now the preferred material to build gasline networks.
It's better to ship Alaskas gas through 25 plastic gaslines than to build one big expensive steel one.
There's more gas being lost to atmosphere on the slope than the big-deal pipeline will ever transport thru Canada.
Building a plastic gasline network is amazingly simple and cheap.
It will provide fuel, heat, jobs, and fiberoptic communication infrastructure all throughout rural Alaska... Roadless Roads.
www.fairbanksgas.com
check out the slideshow..
...nearly 9000visits in the past 2weeks !!
Instead of just giving people money to buy more gas, how about giving them money to make changes so they need less gas? Give people money for new furnaces, better windows, more insulation, etc... That would be more of a long-term solution.
Homeowners and business owners are the only ones that should get the $1200. This money needs to be given in a way that it can only be used on energy costs. Otherwise half the Alaskans will use the money on a shopping spree.
It really peeve's me when I hear the phrase "You live here by choice in the interior of Alaska in a small town" yes.. .. it is where I grew up..I was raised up in this small town with the rest of my siblings. Its home..its my roots.. its by CHOICE I live here still .. however..to pick up and MOVE to the CITY would mean that I would have to find a place to RENT .. a place that would allow me to keep my dogs who have been with me all of their 3-13 yrs now..and my horse. To find a place... be able to afford to pay the RENT and even get a job to cover those costs would kill me with the low income wages I am getting now for my lack of ability to get a decent job that pays me $25 an hour. It will never happen for me. Why would I leave MY home town where I own the land, the small house and have family and friends here that care about me?
Why would I move to the city and toss that blessing into the air just so I can satisfy someones opinion that i live here by choice and things are EASIER in the City? ARe they really? I dont see how being I know for a fact most decent places to rent where I would need to live would cost me over $700 + a month. And that isnt really a decent place according to what my friends who have done just that have told me..its more like paying $1200 and up for an apartment that wont' allow dogs or has room to keep my horse...thats just RENT folks.. that isnt including my personal expenses. I barely make half that less a month year round ..there is NO way I can make it in the city and be happy too.
Is it so wrong to NOT want to be in the City and have to pay a LOT more to just survive and be unhappy too?
Is being in the CITY the answer? no...... I dont think so......
Please be careful how you people judge those of us that live in the rural and bush areas of Alaska. thankyou
Wait_for_it-
I know it's true that Alaska Railroad turns a small profit, but that's apples to oranges. The railroad has a monopoly on affordable moving of freight to the interior, plus it's a friggin' tourist attraction. What other organized package tour of Alaska is available to these fogies? Grayline bus? When you could ride a train through Alaska?
My point is they face no serious competition. I guarantee the Alaska Railroad would turn more than a mere $10-12 million dollars in annual profit if it were privately owned. That's only enough money to hire 671 wal-mart workers for 1 year.
JustMe-
It's all in the attitude. You want to live your way on someone else's dime. I don't care if you're living in an east Anchorage rat trap squeezing out babies for the welfare money, living in a Mat-Su valley subdivision looking for a hand-out to pay for gasoline because you work 50 miles away in Anchorage, choose a drafty shack in the woods around Fairbanks because you prefer "the real Alaska" but need help paying for heating oil, or live in a far-flung village 150 miles from the nearest town because you've always lived there, but need someone to give you diesel, on top of everything else, to run your generator so you can watch satellite television. It's all the same. You want to live YOUR WAY on SOMEONE ELSE'S DIME.
I was born 37 years ago in a little town called Athens, Texas. Through my adolescence and teen years I lived in Louisiana, California, Germany, Texas, Idaho, Alaska, New Mexico, and Alaska again. In my 20's Came Washington, Alaska again, Texas again, Georgia, Florida, Texas again, Florida again, then Texas yet again, before making my way back to Alaska for a fourth time, where I have remained living since 1999. These are moves, I've been many other places on trips and travels. You don't need to tell me about the uncertainty of moving, of saying goodbye to old friends, and letting go. The truth is there's nothing to be afraid of. You meet new friends, you see new sights, and the old ones are always with you. When you travel as much as I have, you learn that people are all essentially the same underneath.
If you can't sustain your own life as you live it, then it's your responsibility to find a way to do so. If that means moving someplace new, or not having a dog, then so be it. Heck even criminals are DOING something about their situation, they risk life and limb, especially around these parts where we're all armed. Folks on this blog sound like a bunch of begging urchins.
to Allhaileris;
first of all I am doing my BEST to NOT live on someone elses dime!!
I live off my own hard work and what I can do myself.
I dont watch TV period because I choose not to.. so satelite TV is out of the question. I live very simply , I bike to work, I do as much of my own stuff as I can without asking for help.
Why would you judge someone like myself?
Even if I wanted to live in the City..am I any better off there? I doubt it.
You must think that everyone that lives in the bush all have toys to play with while living off someone else's dime?
I dont pump out children either. I have one child and she is on her own now providing for herself just fine.
I have ONE vehicle and its over 12 yrs old.
I have no reason to MOVE when I am better off where I dont NEED to pay RENT .......that would be stupid in my opinion. Go move to the city to pay RENT and taxes for a place to live in just to say I met new people and saw new places? If that is what YOU want to do..fine do it... but dont Expect OTHER people to do that just because you believe that is the ONLY right way there is to live.
Instead of $1200 for each who qualified for 2008 PFD the State should give each adult $1200 plus a $500 per child. What the tax stimulas payment was $600 per adult/$300 per child. Since we pay taxes on PFD's already, this additional payment should be as the stimulas payment reported, but not taxable.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.