Home Energy Assistance Administration Act

[Bacon King]

Sponsored by Marokai Blue

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This idea was sparked by NCY in a discussion during the Stimulus debate where he mentioned the fact that we had no serious nation-wide energy assistance program.

Heating prices become more serious each and every year, and the rate at which low income families spend their income is becoming more based around gas and heating and cooling charges as the years go on. This is a plan that can relieve some of that burden, in a long list of proposals we could use to make climbing the income ladder a little less steep, and make being poor less of a social stigma.

The rates are up for debate, but we need to help the people in need that need help in the harsh winters, among other things.

[Lief 🗽]

What's the reason for 2.4 and 2.5 (you accidentally put 2.3 twice)?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support this.

[Hash]

Amendment offered:

Home Energy Assistance Administration Act

Recognizing the great strain of heating and electricity bill costs on families, the upcoming winter, and the economic downturn, the Senate authorizes the following for the relief of needy Atlasians:

Section 1: Establishment

1. The Home Energy Assistance Administration (HEAA) is hereby established.

2. The Home Energy Assistance Administration (HEAA) shall be responsible for assisting needy Atlasian families with the costs of heating and electricity bills and distributing and installing home insulation at an affordable price.

Section 2: Eligibility & Limitations

1. Families making less than $15,000 annually shall be eligible to apply for 90% compensation of monthly home energy and electricity costs.

2. Families making $15,001 - $20,000 annually shall be eligible to apply for 70% compensation of monthly home energy and electricity costs.

3. Families making $20,001 - $25,000 annually shall be eligible to apply for 50% compensation of monthly home energy and electricity costs.

4. No family shall continue to receive financial assistance from the Home Energy Assistance Administration for more than 6 months, consecutively, with at least three months separating the receiving of assistance.

4. No family shall receive assistance from the Home Energy Assistance Administration for more than a total of 5 years.

[afleitch]

I have some issues with this. Income is not the only measure by which to measure energy need; much of it has to do with housing type. The energy bills for multiple occupancy homes are substantially lower than detached housing for example.

Does the Senate have anything in place re replacing outdated and inefficient energy systems in homes and offering better insulation against heat and energy loss? It sounds familiar but I can't find it in any legislation. In the long term that will bring energy costs down, especially after out 5 year limit has passed.

[Lief 🗽]

I have some issues with this. Income is not the only measure by which to measure energy need; much of it has to do with housing type. The energy bills for multiple occupancy homes are substantially lower than detached housing for example.

Perhaps aid could be based on home energy costs as a percentage of a family's income?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I have some issues with this. Income is not the only measure by which to measure energy need; much of it has to do with housing type. The energy bills for multiple occupancy homes are substantially lower than detached housing for example.

Income is the best way to ensure we get as many people as possible. Trying to narrow it down to very specific means-testing measures will simply end up excluding alot of people who would otherwise need help instead of occasionally covering a few people who don't need help (and who probably won't seek it if that's the case anyway) so I'm hesitant to support something other than measuring income.

Amendment offered:

Home Energy Assistance Administration Act

Recognizing the great strain of heating and electricity bill costs on families, the upcoming winter, and the economic downturn, the Senate authorizes the following for the relief of needy Atlasians:

Section 1: Establishment

1. The Home Energy Assistance Administration (HEAA) is hereby established.

2. The Home Energy Assistance Administration (HEAA) shall be responsible for assisting needy Atlasian families with the costs of heating and electricity bills and distributing and installing home insulation at an affordable price.

Section 2: Eligibility & Limitations

1. Families making less than $15,000 annually shall be eligible to apply for 90% compensation of monthly home energy and electricity costs.

2. Families making $15,001 - $20,000 annually shall be eligible to apply for 70% compensation of monthly home energy and electricity costs.

3. Families making $20,001 - $25,000 annually shall be eligible to apply for 50% compensation of monthly home energy and electricity costs.

4. No family shall continue to receive financial assistance from the Home Energy Assistance Administration for more than 6 months, consecutively, with at least three months separating the receiving of assistance.

4. No family shall receive assistance from the Home Energy Assistance Administration for more than a total of 5 years.

I accept this as friendly. And I apologize for the typo.

[Bacon King]

Senators have twenty four hours to object.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Senators have twenty four hours to object.

No objections noted. The bill has been amended and debate continues.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No one has anything to say? I'm a little uncomfortable moving on with a vote on something that has had virtually no debate if it's an important issue like this.

[Rowan]

Wait wait wait, I have something to say. Where is the senate getting the money to pay for this blatant welfare program?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Wait wait wait, I have something to say. Where is the senate getting the money to pay for this blatant welfare program?

The Senate doesn't actually have the balls to deal with the realities of our situation in any way. They're too afraid to touch the issue of taxes or any other forms of raising revenue.

However, you say "welfare program" like it's a bad thing.

[Rowan]

Wait wait wait, I have something to say. Where is the senate getting the money to pay for this blatant welfare program?

The Senate doesn't actually have the balls to deal with the realities of our situation in any way. They're too afraid to touch the issue of taxes or any other forms of raising revenue.

However, you say "welfare program" like it's a bad thing.

Many welfare programs are bad in that they discourage people from bettering their lives in a substantial way. I think this is a bit much though, 90% of their energy bills? I'd support a lower number in the 60-70% range.

[afleitch]

No one has anything to say? I'm a little uncomfortable moving on with a vote on something that has had virtually no debate if it's an important issue like this.

There seems to be less of in interest in economic debate than in the last Senate (see the Welfare Bill for example) social issues appear to be in vogue

[Јas]

I'm not against this proposal per se, but certain issues do arise that would lead me to vote against the current draft.

Some effort should be made to pay for the proposal. An estimate on the costings would also be nice, but would obviously be difficult (maybe a question for the GM?).

A definition of 'families' might also be useful. As I presume the current wording probably excludes students, little old ladies, etc...

Btw, has there ever been an effort to subsidise home improvements aimed towards energy efficiency before? This might be an appropriate opportunity.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The only problem I have with this bill are the strict income criteria for eligibility.  Is there not a way that we can give some leeway for eligibility based on cost of living and other considerations?

I do like the idea of paying a certain percentage of the heating cost since it varies so widely based on heating fuel type, etc.

I also oppose point three, stipulating a 6 month time limit.  As somebody from a cold climate in northern Minnesota, heating is necessary often for 7 or even 8 months of the year.  It is hardly fair to leave needy families in northern climes to pay the full bill during an April coldsnap while those further south benefit from warmer weather.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The only problem I have with this bill are the strict income criteria for eligibility.  Is there not a way that we can give some leeway for eligibility based on cost of living and other considerations?

I do like the idea of paying a certain percentage of the heating cost since it varies so widely based on heating fuel type, etc.

I also oppose point three, stipulating a 6 month time limit.  As somebody from a cold climate in northern Minnesota, heating is necessary often for 7 or even 8 months of the year.  It is hardly fair to leave needy families in northern climes to pay the full bill during an April coldsnap while those further south benefit from warmer weather.

I agree and power bills tend to spike 70% or more in July and August here due to energy consumed by AC's.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes I agree with the 6 month idea being a really stupid thing for me to write in the bill. I did accept an amendment to remove that, though, if you didn't see that.

As for income requirements, I see the easiest and simplest way to cover these things is income. Accepting for the sake of argument that measuring by the cost of living is a more fair way of dealing with the situation, it's also incredibly complicated and we don't really know the cost of living. Further, how would you measure the cost of living in regards to the program? Nationally? Regionally? State-wide? At some point you simply end up the with same problem you criticize income ladders of.

These income requirements measure a very simple way of handling the situation that is a catch-all for poor folk. In almost no place in America is 25k well off. Perhaps, though, exceptions for higher income could be made for dependents, that I would agree with and hope another Senator looks into that.

I'm not against this proposal per se, but certain issues do arise that would lead me to vote against the current draft.

Some effort should be made to pay for the proposal. An estimate on the costings would also be nice, but would obviously be difficult (maybe a question for the GM?).

A definition of 'families' might also be useful. As I presume the current wording probably excludes students, little old ladies, etc...

Btw, has there ever been an effort to subsidise home improvements aimed towards energy efficiency before? This might be an appropriate opportunity.

Yes, PS seems busy as of late but I might send him a PM concerning this bill to get his reaction as immediately as possible.

As for costs, I'm not sure how we could measure that until PS gets here. And as for paying for it, it shouldn't cost a terrible amount. In fact, I can't imagine it costing more than our food stamp program, and this assumed everyone eligible would apply, which they most certainly wouldn't. (Although measures should be taken to raise awareness about welfare and relief programs for individuals to make sure they get what they deserve.)

[Purple State]

Alright, I'm here and read through this. I will try to work on a (very) rough estimate on how much this would cost.

Any ideas on how to actually find that data?

Also, perhaps if not income, you can base it on levels below/above the poverty line by region.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Okay fellas, I've delayed voting or this for a very very long time now, and for all the talk about income requirements and talking about costs and funding, and the talk of a quick GM "report" on the issue, ultimately no one has come up with anything. So I don't want to hear any bitching when..


I hereby open a final vote on the bill below. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye, much needed relief for needy families.

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[Hash]

Aye

[Fritz]

Aye