Cap and trade Questions

[woodjack]

Hello first of all if cap and trade does finally pass the senate, EPA and the Obama Admin said that it will only raise energy rates by $100.00-$200.00 for the average household. Are they talking monthly or yearly? They did not say whether it was monthly or yearly guess they were hoping nobody read between the lines.

And here is another question. If cap and trade passes can grocery stores and other stores afford to operate 24 hours a day? or will they have to close down in order to conserve their electricty? will this bill be an inconvience bill? closing stores down to conserve electricty would of course put people out of work that work during those hours in those stores or am I wrong? and not to mention if private sector housing electricyty rates go up....what about a grocery store since refrigerators use tons of electricity hmmm so they will have to sell items for alot more ...soo in essence yes your electricty rates will go up but so will your weekly grocery bill....wait I guess there is always fastfood...=) oops I forgot...Obama has already put in for a fast food tax to...

since Obama seems to have all the answers ...for instance his shovel ready projects for the stimulas bill to add/create 2 million construction jobs....oh now it has changed to save 2 million construction jobs......oops Obama forgot to mention that the states hardest hit by the recession are in the north, michigan pennsylvania ohio wisconsin.........and construction cannot be done in the winter time....so it has changed again to save 2 million temporary/seasonal jobs....=)

can anyone help and answer my questions? Or am I totally offbase?

 

[Skull Pilot]

in short WJ, under cap and tax the price of everything (and I do mean everything) that uses any type of fossil fuel derived energy in its production and distribution will rise considerably.

 

[editec]

I suspect that the cap and trade outcomes are as yet quantitativly unknown.

We can intuit that, all other things being equal (which never happens but that's all we have to work with) that anything which increases the price of energy is going to cause a decline in the quality of life for most of us.

There's really no getting around that obvious fact.

Now perhaps, as a result of these taxes, the USA will be motivated (and the research funded) to find us new sources of cheap energy.

But until that newer cheaper energy is online, I see no way that more expensive energy is NOT going cause a decline in the quality of most of our lives.

Hell! millions of us already cannot afford to heat our homes.

 

[DiamondDave]

Edit... that's more of a pretty picture than the reality

The reality is that the 'punishment tax' monies will be a newly made currency that is actually taking fund out of the US to be redistributed to some of these other 3rd world countries... moving us toward global wealth redistribution

Any monies paid in 'punishment' will take away from funds that could already (and do already) go to energy improvement research

And I would love to see the actual stats where millions can't heat their homes.. but even more will feel the crunch if or when this bullshit gets implemented



Cap and trade is horrible, just absolutely horrible

 

[PoliticalChic]

in short WJ, under cap and tax the price of everything (and I do mean everything) that uses any type of fossil fuel derived energy in its production and distribution will rise considerably.

The bill would give the federal government power over local building codes. It requires that by 2012 codes must require that new buildings be 30 percent more efficient than they would have been under current regulations. By 2016, that figure rises to 50 percent, with increases scheduled for years after that. With those targets in mind, the bill expects organizations that develop model codes for states and localities to fill in the details, creating a national code. If they don’t, the bill commands the Energy Department to draft a national code itself.
ad_icon

States, meanwhile, would have to adopt the national code or one that achieves the same efficiency targets. Those that refuse will see their codes overwritten automatically, and they will be docked federal funds and carbon “allowances” — valuable securities created elsewhere in the bill that give the holder the right to pollute and can be sold. The Energy Department also could enforce its code itself. Among other things, the policy would demonstrate the new leverage of allocation of allowances as a sort of carbon currency — leverage this bill would be giving to Congress to direct state behavior. washingtonpost.com.
The Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill Will Control Housing Standards : The Real Estate Bloggers

 

[PoliticalChic]

I suspect that the cap and trade outcomes are as yet quantitativly unknown.

We can intuit that, all other things being equal (which never happens but that's all we have to work with) that anything which increases the price of energy is going to cause a decline in the quality of life for most of us.

There's really no getting around that obvious fact.

Now perhaps, as a result of these taxes, the USA will be motivated (and the research funded) to find us new sources of cheap energy.

But until that newer cheaper energy is online, I see no way that more expensive energy is NOT going cause a decline in the quality of most of our lives.

Hell! millions of us already cannot afford to heat our homes.

"... the cap and trade bill that passed through congress allows for somebody from the government to come into your house and inspect your windows, appliances, A/C, furnace, and anything else that you can think of to make sure your house is on par with the new national building codes. Not only will they inspect your house, but they will then be able to mandate that you, the seller, provide the necessary remedies regardless of cost, within a certain amount of time BEFORE YOU MAY SELL YOUR OWN HOUSE. So unless you bought a house that is seen as suitable through the eyes of the federal government, you can expect to spend plenty of money remaking your house, even if selling your house is a matter of economic survival for you."
Cap and trade allows strangers to enter your home; do you meet the national building code standards?

Do you consider the federal government cheching out your windows and insulation a "a decline in the quality of most of our lives"?

 

[Ravi]

It worked well with acid rain.

Success

Overall, the Program's cap and trade program has been immensely successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[31][32]
In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.[33]
The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.[31]

Acid Rain Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

There's really no getting around that obvious fact.

Now perhaps, as a result of these taxes, the USA will be motivated (and the research funded) to find us new sources of cheap energy.

But until that newer cheaper energy ...QUOTE]


"
The green subsidies are considerable. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in early 2008 that the government subsidizes solar energy at $24.34 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and wind power at $23.37. Yet even with decades of these massive handouts, as well as numerous state-level mandates for utilities to use green power, wind and solar energy contribute less than one-half of 1 percent of our nation’s electricity. Compare the green energy subsidies to the energy sources reviled by environmentalists, such as natural gas (25 cents per MWh in subsidies), coal (44 cents), hydroelectricity (67 cents), and nuclear power ($1.59). With relatively little government largesse, these sources (along with oil, which undergirds transportation) do the heavy lifting in our energy economy.
The alternative technologies at the heart of Obama’s plan, relying on more such government handouts and mandates, will inevitably raise energy prices—and high power prices are job killers. Industries that make physical products, whether cars or chemicals or paper cups, are energy-intensive and will gravitate to low-energy-cost locales—which is why California and New York, with some of the highest electricity prices in the country, have lost manufacturing jobs in droves. But it’s not just manufacturers that need cheap electricity: Google, the poster child of California’s information-technology economy, houses its massive server farms not in the Golden State but in places with lower electricity costs, like North Carolina and Oregon. Policies that drive up energy costs across the nation, as Obama intends, will drive many of these jobs not elsewhere in the country but overseas."
The Green-Jobs Engine That Can’t by Max Schulz, City Journal Winter 2009


Stop 'suspecting' and wise up.

 

[sealybobo]

in short WJ, under cap and tax the price of everything (and I do mean everything) that uses any type of fossil fuel derived energy in its production and distribution will rise considerably.

We shall see. I wouldn't take your word for it though. You are a fear mongerer.

I emailed Obama yesterday that he/they have done a horrible job selling Cap and Trade to America. Seems more like they rushed it thru over the holidays and the righties are saying that its going to cost each person $1500. The Dems have the majorities now, so the media has to listen to them and report what they say. Why are they not denying the rumors, if they are rumors?

But this may be just another lie from the right. I hope so. Then they'll have even less credibility, if that is even possible.

I don't think Republicans will ever change. They just hope/wait for the Dems to fuck up and thats how they win. It isn't like the GOP learned their lesson and now will act better. Instead they stick to their guns, insist tax breaks work and continue to say Dems raised taxes, even if they didn't.

And the bankers spent $9 trillion in the last 8 months, starting on Bush's watch skull. $9 trillion!!! You're bitching about $700 bill tarp and $700 stimulus and not $9 trillion? Oldest trick in the book. Distract you with the left and steal with the right. And then in 4 years you'll say Obama doubled the debt, when in fact the bankers did it, and they did it half on Bush's watch and half on Obama's, but you'll say it was Obama, I'll say it was Bush, and the bankers will still own all of us and all of this.

Voters are morons.

 

[PoliticalChic]

in short WJ, under cap and tax the price of everything (and I do mean everything) that uses any type of fossil fuel derived energy in its production and distribution will rise considerably.

And, on a related front:

"Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation of capital. Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. And at http://tinyurl.com/ccoa5s you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy."

George F. Will: If Spain's reported tale is true, green jobs put us in red - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

 

[midcan5]

since Obama seems to have all the answers ...

You may want to write the white house and ask or are you just joshing?

The Cap and Trade Success Story - Global Warming - Environmental Defense Fund
Cap and Trade 101
Cap and Trade 101: A Climate Policy Primer — Sightline Institute

 

[DiamondDave]

Wow.. midcan linking to more left wing sites in support of a left wing want... color me surprised... not

 

[Skull Pilot]

in short WJ, under cap and tax the price of everything (and I do mean everything) that uses any type of fossil fuel derived energy in its production and distribution will rise considerably.

The bill would give the federal government power over local building codes. It requires that by 2012 codes must require that new buildings be 30 percent more efficient than they would have been under current regulations. By 2016, that figure rises to 50 percent, with increases scheduled for years after that. With those targets in mind, the bill expects organizations that develop model codes for states and localities to fill in the details, creating a national code. If they don’t, the bill commands the Energy Department to draft a national code itself.
ad_icon

I have less of a problem with building code changes than i do with the cap and tax scam.

In fact I have posted many times here that if government was truly serious about reducing CO2 emissions instead of revenue generation that building cosed are the first thing that should be changed.

there are already building methods on the market that can result in houses that are stronger and more energy efficient than standard 2 by 4 stick construction methods and that are only minimally more expensive. that extra construction expense will be more than made up for in energy savings in just a few short years.

That is how you effect a reduction in fossil fuel use.

 

[PoliticalChic]

in short WJ, under cap and tax the price of everything (and I do mean everything) that uses any type of fossil fuel derived energy in its production and distribution will rise considerably.

The bill would give the federal government power over local building codes. It requires that by 2012 codes must require that new buildings be 30 percent more efficient than they would have been under current regulations. By 2016, that figure rises to 50 percent, with increases scheduled for years after that. With those targets in mind, the bill expects organizations that develop model codes for states and localities to fill in the details, creating a national code. If they don’t, the bill commands the Energy Department to draft a national code itself.
ad_icon

I have less of a problem with building code changes than i do with the cap and tax scam.

In fact I have posted many times here that if government was truly serious about reducing CO2 emissions instead of revenue generation that building cosed are the first thing that should be changed.

there are already building methods on the market that can result in houses that are stronger and more energy efficient than standard 2 by 4 stick construction methods and that are only minimally more expensive. that extra construction expense will be more than made up for in energy savings in just a few short years.

That is how you effect a reduction in fossil fuel use.

1) I'm sure that you have read that the truth of the detrimental effects of CO2 is questionable.

2) Shouldn't the free market determine the efficacy of methods of building.

3) If you believe that the government should mandate these methods, shouldn't it be state and local governent, not federal.

 

[sealybobo]

Wow.. midcan linking to more left wing sites in support of a left wing want... color me surprised... not

Find one flaw in the details before you go trashing the source.

When I find right wing drivel, I point out the spin.

Details buddy. Either that or

 

[sealybobo]

I have less of a problem with building code changes than i do with the cap and tax scam.

In fact I have posted many times here that if government was truly serious about reducing CO2 emissions instead of revenue generation that building cosed are the first thing that should be changed.

there are already building methods on the market that can result in houses that are stronger and more energy efficient than standard 2 by 4 stick construction methods and that are only minimally more expensive. that extra construction expense will be more than made up for in energy savings in just a few short years.

That is how you effect a reduction in fossil fuel use.

1) I'm sure that you have read that the truth of the detrimental effects of CO2 is questionable.

2) Shouldn't the free market determine the efficacy of methods of building.

3) If you believe that the government should mandate these methods, shouldn't it be state and local governent, not federal.

1. No, not at all.

2. No.

3. No. Righties always want states to decide when the country doesn't want them to do something, like pollute (so they say let the states decide because they know they can get away with it in corrupt places like Alabama, W. Virginia or Alaska)

But then when they don't like the Florida Supreme Court's decision or the Minnesota Courts decision, then they want to take it to the Federal level.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have less of a problem with building code changes than i do with the cap and tax scam.

In fact I have posted many times here that if government was truly serious about reducing CO2 emissions instead of revenue generation that building cosed are the first thing that should be changed.

there are already building methods on the market that can result in houses that are stronger and more energy efficient than standard 2 by 4 stick construction methods and that are only minimally more expensive. that extra construction expense will be more than made up for in energy savings in just a few short years.

That is how you effect a reduction in fossil fuel use.

1) I'm sure that you have read that the truth of the detrimental effects of CO2 is questionable.

2) Shouldn't the free market determine the efficacy of methods of building.

3) If you believe that the government should mandate these methods, shouldn't it be state and local government, not federal.

No one is as skeptical of global warming as i am. i was merely relating the proposed purpose of cap and tax to a strategy that would do more to achieve that purpose than raising the cost of every single product and service that exists.

Building codes are a public safety issue more than a market driven issue. If building methods are readily available that produce stronger safer homes and are comparable in price to existing methods, the better method should be adopted. these better methods also produce homes that are stronger, virtually fireproof and that the resulting homes are more energy efficient is a bonus.

As far as the federal government is concerned, adopting building codes that result in a lesser dependence on foreign energy sources can be nothing but a good thing for both our country's security and its economy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1) I'm sure that you have read that the truth of the detrimental effects of CO2 is questionable.

2) Shouldn't the free market determine the efficacy of methods of building.

3) If you believe that the government should mandate these methods, shouldn't it be state and local government, not federal.

No one is as skeptical of global warming as i am. i was merely relating the proposed purpose of cap and tax to a strategy that would do more to achieve that purpose than raising the cost of every single product and service that exists.

Building codes are a public safety issue more than a market driven issue. If building methods are readily available that produce stronger safer homes and are comparable in price to existing methods, the better method should be adopted. these better methods also produce homes that are stronger, virtually fireproof and that the resulting homes are more energy efficient is a bonus.

As far as the federal government is concerned, adopting building codes that result in a lesser dependence on foreign energy sources can be nothing but a good thing for both our country's security and its economy.

I don't believe that "stronger safer homes" is the import of the cap and trade scam.

"...adopting building codes that result in a lesser dependence on foreign energy sources ..." Come on now, I went with all the federal laws that traced their provenance to the interstate commerce clause, but this is too much of a stretch. If it were the case, how about putting home construction under Homeland Security?

And if anthropomorphic global warming is bogus, which it is, then the raison d'etre of the bill is just as bogus, and you should not be lending any support to same.

Under the heading of belief in the people, instead of a bill mandating energy efficiency to the extent that one cannot sell their own house without the OK of a federal inspector, how about a bill that allows localities to stamp a title or deed with an imprimateur stating that the house has met certain conditions, and then the buyer can set an appropriate price.

 

[RodISHI]

Billions of dollars are already spent to assist people who cannot afford to pay the utility bills at this point. Add more on there for these nice folks with cap & trade and these figures will be doubled. The energy companies will just tap the customers for more and the vicious cycle of more taxation to line the pockets of the rich continues.

States Report Highest Level of Households Receiving Energy Assistance in 13 Years Additional $1 Billion Appropriated for LIHEAP Provides Essential Support State-by-State Survey Results
Contact: Mark Wolfe, 202-237-5199, [email protected]
National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association
June 7, 2006
Rising Numbers of Households Receiving Energy Assistance: The need for energy assistance is growing rapidly, the total number of households receiving heating assistance has increased by 12.1% to 5.7 million households, the highest number in 13 years, while the number expected to receive cooling assistance is expected to jump to 594,441, 88.6% higher than last year’s level of 279,036 and the highest level in the history of the program. (see Table 1, page 1A).
.
Ten states reported increases of at least 25% in the number of households receiving heating assistance:
Louisiana – 46.2%; Connecticut – 36.9%; Arizona – 33.7%; Florida – 33%; Kansas –
32.2%; Arkansas 30%; District of Columbia 27.2%; Nevada – 26.3%; California – 25%; and Oklahoma 25%. Of the 12 states providing cooling assistance, three did not do so in FT 2005 (Arkansas, Georgia and Illinois) and five are projecting increases of more than 20%: Alabama – 21.3%; Delaware – 525%; Florida – 35%; Louisiana – 30%; and Texas – 219.1.
Major Utility Rate Increases: The need for higher appropriations for energy assistance is
likely to continue into the next few years. Utilities across the country are requesting and
receiving significant rate increases. The following provides a summary of key rate requests and increases by utility:
Approved electric increases:
• 72% ($743/year), Baltimore Gas & Electric (1 million customers)
• 39% ($468/year), PEPCO in Maryland
• 35% ($464/year), Delmarva Power & Light Company in Maryland
• 34%, Unitil Corporation in New Hampshire (71,100 customers)
• 22.4%, Connecticut Light & Power (1.1 million customers)
• 20%, Excel Energy in Colorado (1.3 million customers)
• 14.7%, Kentucky Power Company (175,000 customers)
• 14%, Empire District Electric in Kansas (157,000 customers)
• 10%, Central Maine Power (520,000 customers)
• 9%, Bangor Hydro-Electric in Maine
• 20%, Arizona Public Service
• 30.8%, Duke Energy Ohio
• 19%, Enstar Natural Gas, an average increase of about $16.21 per month. Enstar is the
largest Natural Gas provider in the State of Alaska.
Proposed electric increases:
• 14.4%, after 10% rate increase effected in January 2006 and 7% increase in 2005, Wisconsin
Public Service Corporation; proposed increase to take effect over three years (450,000
customers)
• 10.8%, PacifiCorp in Oregon (535,000 customers)
FY 05 FY 06 Diff. 06-05 % Change FY 05 FY 06 Diff -06-05 % Change
Alabama 91,950 110,340 18,390 20.0% 32,976 40,000 7,024 21.3%
Alaska 9,055 10,700 1,645 18.2%
Arizona 18,563 24,824 6,261 33.7%
Arkansas 57,650 74,948 17,298 30.0% 25,000 25,000 0.0%
California 159,000 198,750 39,750 25.0%
Colorado 96,127 107,500 11,373 11.8%
Connecticut 62,400 85,400 23,000 36.9%
Delaware 12,950 15,430 2,480 19.2% 1,920 12,000 10,080 525.0%
District of Columbia 22,405 28,500 6,095 27.2%
Florida 34,345 45,692 11,347 33.0% 45,379 61,242 15,863 35.0%
Georgia 87,000 102,100 15,100 17.4% 40,000 40,000 0.0%
Hawaii 6,594 6,594 0 0.0%
Idaho 32,362 33,967 1,605 5.0%
Illinois 310,000 360,000 50,000 16.1% 55,000 55,000 0.0%
Indiana 132,836 157,987 25,151 18.9% 46,000 50,000 4,000 8.7%
Iowa 85,678 89,638 3,960 4.6%
Kansas 42,291 55,900 13,609 32.2%
Kentucky 106,467 107,733 1,266 1.2%
Louisiana 21,745 31,800 10,055 46.2% 35,749 46,474 10,725 30.0%
Maine 45,000 48,000 3,000 6.7%
Maryland 83,000 90,000 7,000 8.4%
Massachusetts 135,068 138,269 3,201 2.4%
Michigan 441,571 470,670 29,099 6.6%
Minnesota 117,648 132,000 14,352 12.2%
Mississippi 61,750 61,750 0 0.0% 29,826 34,300 4,474 15.0%
Missouri 113,162 125,000 11,838 10.5%
Montana 20,463 22,500 2,037 10.0%
Nebraska 32,514 39,000 6,486 19.9%
Nevada 17,557 22,177 4,620 26.3%
New Hampshire 30,144 33,209 3,065 10.2%
New Jersey 155,914 165,000 9,086 5.8%
New Mexico 55,685 67,000 11,315 20.3%
New York 822,459 904,705 82,246 10.0%
North Carolina 211,959 243,753 31,794 15.0%
North Dakota 15,362 15,550 188 1.2%
Ohio 305,000 345,000 40,000 13.1% 40,000 45,000 5,000 12.5%
Oklahoma 93,144 116,430 23,286 25.0%
Oregon 58,377 69,000 10,623 18.2%
Pennsylvania 327,279 354,065 26,786 8.2%
Rhode Island 26,692 29,361 2,669 10.0%
South Carolina 21,148 23,000 1,852 8.8%
South Dakota 18,200 18,167 (33) -0.2%
Tennessee 59,600 60,000 400 0.7%
Texas 39,535 28,513 (11,022) -27.9% 44,719 142,706 97,987 219.1%
Utah 34,647 40,000 5,353 15.5%
Vermont 19,327 21,000 1,673 8.7%
Virginia 101,669 110,377 8,708 8.6% 38,836 42,719 3,883 10.0%
Washington 72,000 86,400 14,400 20.0%
West Virginia 72,266 79,493 7,227 10.0%
Wisconsin 137,622 150,000 12,378 9.0%
Wyoming 9,550 11,653 2,103 22.0%
Total 5,144,730 5,768,845 624,115 12.1% 315,405 594,441 279,036 88.5%
Contact: Mark Wolfe, National Energy Assistance Directors' Association 202-237-5199
Heating Assistance Cooling Assistance
Est. Households Receiving LIHEAP Heating & Cooling Assistance by State: FY 05 and FY 06 (6/5/06)
2
• 8.5% , Portland General Electric in Oregon (775,000 customers)
• 10.3%, Union Light, Heat & Power in Kentucky (92,400 customers)
• 41%, Public Service Company of New Mexico (471,000 customers)
• 29%, Philadelphia Gas Works (500,000 customers)
• 26%, Unisource Energy in Arizona (136,000 customers)
• 24.4%, Sierra Pacific Power Company in Oregon (135,000 customers)
• 15.4%, PSE&G in New Jersey (1.7 million customers)
• 11%, North Carolina Utilities Commission (160,000 customers)
• 11%, PSNC Energy in South Carolina (407,000 customers)
Proposed natural gas increases:
• 22%, Central Hudson Electric & Gas in New York
• 9.5%, Cascade Natural Gas in Washington state (210,000 customers)
• Ten natural gas utilities have requested rate increases between 28% and 68% since January 1,
2006.
Uses of Additional $1 Billion in Funding LIHEAP: Congress appropriated an additional $1
billion for LIHEAP on March 23, 2006. These extra funds have been essential in helping states
provide support to the additional households receiving energy assistance this year, as well as
provide increased funding for all households to offset rising home energy costs. In summary the
funds were used as follows:
• Increased regular benefits: AL, AK, AR, CO, FL, HI, IL, MA, MT, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT
• Increased crises benefits: AR, Fl, KY, ID, ME, MI, NC, NY, PA, RI, SC, TN, WI, WV
• Provided additional supplemental benefit: AK, ID, IL, IA, MI, MN, NE, NJ, NV, OK, UT,
WY
• Increased eligibility ceiling: KY, MA, NH, OH
• Extended program eligibility dates: CA, CT, DC, GA, KS, MA, MD, MN, NJ, NY, OH, OK,
PA, RI, WV
• Added funding or expanded cooling assistance: AR, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, VA
• Expanded or began a summer pre-buy program for delivered fuels: CT, DC, MN, MT, VT
• Provide additional Assurance 16 training and outreach activities AZ, NV
• Increased program set-aside for Weatherization: CO, DC, DE, GA, IA, ID, MD, ME, MI,
MN, MT, NC, ND, NE, TX, UT, VA, WY
The following provides a state-by-state summary describing how states used the additional
funds:
Alabama
• Increased the income eligibility level from 125 to 150% of the federal poverty level.
Alaska
• Provided a supplemental payment to previously served households of approximately $275.
Arizona
• Amended the state plan to include an Assurance 16 component. The state currently serves fewer than
10% of the eligible population.
3
Arkansas
• Implemented a summer cooling program.
• Increased the maximum benefit from $300 to $500.
California
• Extended the duration of the FY06 LIHEAP program by an additional 12 months to allow
community-based providers the ability to expend funds and to provide services to more eligible lowincome
households. The program was extended from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2007.
Colorado
• Increased benefits by 40% from $320 to $533.
• Raised the current maximum benefit from $800 to $900.
• Increased the weatherization set-aside by $1 million.
Connecticut
• Increased basic benefits by $200.
• Increased eligibility levels from 150% of Federal poverty guidelines for all households and 200% for
households with a member that was 60 years or older, disabled or under 6 years of age, to 60% of the
state median income.
• Provided a $300 Crisis Assistance benefit for deliverable fuel heated households.
• Extended the application deadline date from April 15th to May 1st.
• Applied a portion of the funds received to support a pre-buy pilot for heating oil customers.
Delaware
• Expanded summer cooling program by providing a flat rate of $275 to eligible households for
summer electric benefits. All income eligible households (defined as at or below 200% of federal
poverty level) are eligible for assistance. In the past, due to limited funds available, only households
aged 60+, and/or with medical necessity (such as children in the house with asthma), were eligible for
help with summer electric bills. Rationale was to encourage use of air conditioning based on need
and not affordability.
• Increased weatherization set aside by $300,000.
• Performed additional outreach about the summer electric benefit in conjunction with
information/education about electric rate hike.
District of Columbia
• Increased all benefit amounts by 30% in the beginning of FY 2006 to meet the increase in home
energy. For the remainder of FY 2006 will maintain our current benefit award amounts.
• Extended program duration from March 24th until late May or early June.
Florida
• Raised regular minimum benefit from $50 to $100 and the maximum amount from $150 to $200.
• Increased the maximum crisis benefits from $300 to $400 a season (two crisis benefits are available).
• Increased weatherization set-aside from 15 to 20%, from $4 million to $4.6 million.
Georgia
• Extended regular benefit period through May 31.
• Began a cooling program on June 1.
• Increased weatherization by $2.2 million.
Hawaii
• Increased regular benefit amount.
4
Idaho
• Provided additional funding for the supplemental benefit issued which was funded by State general
funds.
• Transferred 15% to weatherization.
• Funded a more expansive crisis intervention program to include year-round crises.
Illinois
• Increased regular benefit amounts from $423 to $515.
• Provided supplemental payment of an average of $100.
• Initiated a summer cooling program with an average benefit of $150.
• Directed local agencies to reach underserved areas through targeted outreach efforts.
Indiana
• Increased number of households receiving heating assistance.
• Increased number of households receiving cooling assistance.
Iowa
• Provided supplemental payments to previously served households of approximately $155. This
represents a 50% increase over the average LIHEAP payment of $317.
Kansas
• Provided supplemental payments to previously served households of $355.
• Extended the program application deadline from March 31, 2006 to April 28, 2006.
• Increased the weatherization set-aside by $1.5 million.
Kentucky
• Raised income eligibility criteria from 110% to 130% of the Federal Poverty Level.
• Raised crisis component maximum benefit amount for gas and electric from $125 to $250.
• Raised permissible liquid assets from $1500 per household or $4000 for a household with an ill
household member requiring liquid resources for medical living expenses to the following threetiered
criteria:
- $2,000 per household;
- $3,000 per household if household member is 60 or older or disabled; or
- $4,000 per household if a household member is ill and requires liquid resources for
medical/living expenses.
Louisiana
• Increased the number of new households served.
Maine
• Increased emergency funds and extend the program period.
• Provided benefits for those pre-obligated for 2007, paying benefits in September 2006.
• Increased funding for weatherization to 15% of the total grant.
Maryland
• Distributed bulk fuel benefits early in August to local agencies to allow for better pricing with
vendors. ($10 million)
• Increased weatherization set-aside by $2.75 million.
• Used approximately $4 million to continue program through FY06 program year.
• Started MEAP program September 1 instead of November 1.
5
• Provided $2 million to start a gas arrearage pilot program to offset past due bills that will encourage
the participation of budget billing for the MEAP benefit going forward. Many applicants with gas
arrearages apply the lump sum to cover debt and continue a cycle of catch up each year. Maryland
believes this pilot program will show that breaking this cycle will help make the gas bills more
affordable and keep people on service.
Massachusetts
• Increased benefit levels across-the-board in the amount of $205 in each category. Previous maximum
benefit level is $849; current maximum benefit level is $1,049
• Extended program duration by two weeks from April 30 to May 12, 2006.
Michigan
• Increased amount for weatherization.
• Increased funding for crisis assistance to meet increased costs and crises.
Minnesota
• Provided a supplemental grant of $40 to all current recipients.
• Extended program application deadline from May 31 to July 15.
• Initiated a summer fill program for propane users ($4 million).
• Increased weatherization by $5 million.
Mississippi
• Increased outreach efforts.
• Increased the number of households served.
Missouri
• Provided a supplemental grant of $150 to recipients of regular heating assistance whose head of
household is 65 or older by March 31, 2006 and/or disabled.
• Increased Winter ECIP by $5.3 Million for current season (extended program through June 30).
• Increased Summer ECIP by $4.5 Million for this summer season.
• Increased benefit levels for 2007 and 2008 regular heating season by 10% for natural gas, propane
and electricity.
• Initiated a pilot program for summer pre-purchase of propane.
• Increased funding for weatherization by $2 million.
Montana
• Raised benefits an average of $172 from $459 to $631.
• Provided supplemental payments of $172.
• Increased weatherization set aside by $1.9 million.
Nebraska
• Provided supplemental payment of approximately $215 per household, with a maximum of $250 and
a minimum of $150.
• Increased weatherization by $2.2 million.
• Encouraged local offices to provide maximum flexibility in helping families.
6
Nevada
• Provided “once-in-a-lifetime” arrearage assistance to households that meet specific criteria including
chronic illness resulting in extraordinary electricity consumption or a household crisis resulting in a
significant loss of income.
• Expanded Assurance 16 outreach and related activities.
New Hampshire
• Provided a supplemental benefit to households heating with oil, kerosene, propane and natural gas,
based on the increase in the price over the previous year for each fuel type.
• Increased income guidelines from 185% FPG to 60% SMI serving 3,093 households in that income
category.
New Jersey
• Provided supplemental payments to previously served households of $100 for gas and electric, $450
for deliverable fuels.
• Extended program application period from March 31 to May 31.
• Increased crisis benefits for deliverable fuels to $800.
• Increased weatherization set-aside by $2 million.
New Mexico
• Approved applications are up 32% ahead of last year at this time. Note: without additional federal
funding, combined with a supplemental state appropriation of $23 million, the program would have
had to close prior to the planned closing date of August 31. The average benefit in New Mexico for
FY 2006 is $430, of which $133 will be from federal funds.
New York
• Provided a second crisis payment at an average $400 per household.
• Extended the program application period from 4/15/06 to 5/15/06.
North Carolina
• Provided a second energy assistance check for the year in July in the same amount as the winter
assistance benefit authorized in February. Average check amount is $57.
• Provided additional funds for summer crisis assistance.
• Increased weatherization activities which may eliminate the backlog of individuals and families
identified for this service.
North Dakota
• Increased weatherization set-aside (amount to be determined).
Ohio
• Extended eligibility for emergency assistance by 30 days from March 31 to April 30.
• Expanded summer cooling program by increasing income eligibility from 150% to 175% of the
federal poverty guidelines. The program serves the elderly and persons with medical conditions
requiring cooling assistance. In past years, only breathing-related disabilities qualified. This year, any
documented medical condition will qualify.
• Partnered with Second Harvest of Ohio to increase program outreach. Second Harvest is a statewide network of food banks. A LIHEAP application was placed in every box or bag of goods distributed.
7
Oklahoma
• Provided supplemental payments for natural gas $80, propane $87, electricity and $34 for all others.
• Extended winter heating season (from December 16, 2005) until all funds are encumbered.
• Increased maximum benefit from $150 to $500 for all households.
Pennsylvania
• Extended the program from March 23 to April 28, 2006.
• Updated website and brochures and increase outreach efforts.
Rhode Island
• Extended application period from end of February to end of May.
• Extended crisis assistance through the summer months.
• Expanded crisis assistance to a maximum of $1,000 instead of a one-time assistance.
• Increased weatherization assistance.
South Carolina
• Raised heating assistance maximum benefit from $300 to $500.
• Raised crisis assistance maximum benefit from $500 to $1,000.
• Increased outreach advertising.
• Introduced agencies to “Heat Smart” campaign for quality blankets and throws for households
receiving energy assistance, which can be paid for out of the energy assistance money for the
household.
• Allowed agencies to use the net income at 150% vs. gross income in order to assist more households.
• Allowed agencies to repair/replace HVAC systems if needed to improve overall energy efficiency.
• Lifted the rules to permit more families to qualify for air conditioners (window units) to sustain
during the extremely hot summer months.
South Dakota
• Increased number of households served.
Tennessee
• Increased number of households served.
• Increased benefits.
Texas
• Increased household utility assistance benefit limit from $1,000 to $1,200 per year.
• Increased household weatherization benefit from DOE ceiling to $4,000 per year.
• Allowed LIHEAP regulations rather than DOE for weatherization assistance.
Note: Texas heating assistance for FY 06 followed an extremely trying cooling season, which drained
agency resources. This contrasted with the increasing energy cost of the previous winter. In a climate of
budgetary uncertainty and mild winter weather, Texas agencies and their clients struggled to restrain
spending in anticipation of the brutal summer cooling season ahead. For this reason, the actual number of
FY06 heating assistance households reached only 28,513 – far short of the previously projected 64,388
households.
Ordinarily, Texas only reaches about 7% of the income-eligible households with energy assistance in any given year. The supplemental award of $38.3 million FY 06 anything but an ordinary year. Based on our traditional average household assistance amount, Texas anticipates that the supplemental award will 8 increase the number of households assisted by 81,647 to a total of 142,706 households under utility assistance. This does not count estimated weatherization assistance.
Utah • Increased regular grant from an average of $295 with a ceiling of $500 to an average of $420 with a ceiling of $625.
• Provided a supplemental payment of $125.
• Initiated a pilot program providing year-round sign-up.
• Provided crisis assistance for emergency cooling and other emergency energy needs through 9/30/06.
• Increased weatherization set aside by $1.2 million.
Vermont
• Funds were used to offset increased state support for LIHEAP, allowing the program to maintain
funding levels throughout the winter heating season.
Virginia
• Expanded cooling program.
• Provided 15% of the additional block grant funds for weatherization assistance.
West Virginia
• Increased crisis benefits from $500 to $750.
Wisconsin
• Increased crisis funding from $8.6 million to $16.8 million.
Wyoming
• Increased the set-aside for weatherization to 25% of the grant.
• Provided supplemental benefits for FY 2007.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one is as skeptical of global warming as i am. i was merely relating the proposed purpose of cap and tax to a strategy that would do more to achieve that purpose than raising the cost of every single product and service that exists.

Building codes are a public safety issue more than a market driven issue. If building methods are readily available that produce stronger safer homes and are comparable in price to existing methods, the better method should be adopted. these better methods also produce homes that are stronger, virtually fireproof and that the resulting homes are more energy efficient is a bonus.

As far as the federal government is concerned, adopting building codes that result in a lesser dependence on foreign energy sources can be nothing but a good thing for both our country's security and its economy.

I don't believe that "stronger safer homes" is the import of the cap and trade scam.

i didn't say it was. I was responding to the assertion that building practices should be market driven. they shouldn't be. As i said building codes are a matter of public safety not the market economy. As such building codes should always favor the best construction methods or those that produce stronger safer homes. that these same better practices would result in homes that are more energy efficient is a bonus.

"...adopting building codes that result in a lesser dependence on foreign energy sources ..." Come on now, I went with all the federal laws that traced their provenance to the interstate commerce clause, but this is too much of a stretch. If it were the case, how about putting home construction under Homeland Security?

That's being a little flip isn't it. Building codes are generally a state/ local issue but most states follow the same codes. it would not be a major deal to have all states adopt codes favoring better building practices. it would cost nothing as states and towns already have building inspectors and would not need to hire more.

The benefit of this change would be a lesser dependence on foreign oil and an that would provide a buffer for our economy. Are you saying that these are bad things?

And if anthropomorphic global warming is bogus, which it is, then the raison d'etre of the bill is just as bogus, and you should not be lending any support to same.

i am not supporting building code changes to stop global warming. i support them because the public would benefit from safer, stronger buildings with a benefit of increased energy savings.

I would rather this country be less dependent on foreign energy sources, wouldn't you?

Under the heading of belief in the people, instead of a bill mandating energy efficiency to the extent that one cannot sell their own house without the OK of a federal inspector, how about a bill that allows localities to stamp a title or deed with an imprimateur stating that the house has met certain conditions, and then the buyer can set an appropriate price.

i already said that there would be no need for a federal inspector. And really in this day and age could you tell me why a better built, safer stronger house that reduces heating and cooling costs by up to 50% would need any help being sold? In fact i bet such a home would sell for a premium

Please remember building codes are not retroactive. Obviously homes and buildings built to today's standards would be grandfathered.

i don't understand why you oppose such a common sense measure as a change in building codes when the benefits are so clear.

and remember that I oppose cap and trade and have from the onset. the issue of building codes may be slightly of topic but it is relevant to the overall strategy to reduce our dependency on foreign energy. that building code changes result in much lower energy use is a significant bonus.