CARE Cap To Stymie Exploitation By Pot Growers – April 26, 2012
Daniel Mintz
Eye Correspondent
CALIFORNIA – The enrollment of some indoor marijuana growers in low-income energy assistance programs is being targeted by a state bill and county supervisors are supporting it.
Senate Bill 1207 is being considered by state lawmakers and it puts a cap on electricity and gas usage under the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program, which allows power price discounts for income-eligible customers.
The bill would allow the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and other companies to require proof of income if power usage exceeds 400 percent of baseline consumption. If use exceeds 600 percent of the baseline for over 120 days, participants in the program can be cut from it.
When County Administrative Officer Phillip Smith-Hanes briefed the Board of Supervisors on the bill at its April 17 meeting, he recalled last fall’s presentation by Peter Lehman of the Schatz Energy Lab at Humboldt State. Lehman had talked about “the spike in energy usage in Humboldt County that appears to be related to indoor growing of marijuana,” Smith-Hanes said.
Lehman had also told supervisors that PG&E inadvertently enables the power glut by enrolling growers in the CARE program. He had suggested that PG&E establish a cap on the amount of power customers in the program can use.
Based on what they’d heard, supervisors supported previous state legislation on capping CARE energy use – but it used a different technique, based on a kilowatt per hour standard.
Allison Talbot, PG&E’s government relations staffer, said that although the 400 percent of baseline standard “seems a little large,” her company is backing the bill.
“The problem we face, as you know, is that under the current enrollment and verification system, fraud is easy to accomplish and current laws and regulations tie our hands from those found to be abusing the intent of the program,” she told supervisors.
PG&E wants to continue access to the program for customers who are eligible, Talbot added, but also wants to “address the loopholes that that easy access creates.”
The variety of reasons for higher power use was explored by Supervisor Clif Clendenen, who asked Talbot how the 400 percent standard was determined. Talbot said a PG&E specialist has offered to give a presentation on it and supervisors said they’d like to hear it.
Clendenen said age and health status can affect power usage. “I know, after my dad had had a stroke, how hot he had to have the house, even with blankets on his lap,” he told Talbot. “There’s a lot of energy used to take care of somebody in a medical situation.”
Recalling Lehman’s presentation, Supervisor Mark Lovelace said that “while 400 percent may seem high compared to the baseline, the amount by which some of these grow houses are exceeding that is phenomenal – we’re talking not just four times, but 30, 50, 100 times.”
Still, Lovelace said he’s “curious to hear a little bit more explanation on that number.”
Supervisors unanimously agreed to write a letter of support for SB 1207.
Ha ha ha ha, keep trying to legislate morality dummies. The police are supposed to be here to protect us. http://www.leap.cc Why do they lobby for prohibition when prohibition is far more destructive than any "danger" you would ever face from marijuana? The only thing truly dangerous about marijuana is prohibition. Would marijuana have any monetary value if it was growing in half the yards in the country? Yes, about as much as your tomatoes. Protect and serve….could've fooled me!
Ha ha ha ha, keep trying to legislate morality dummies. The police are supposed to be here to protect us. http://www.leap.cc Why do they lobby for prohibition when prohibition is far more destructive than any "danger" you would ever face from marijuana? The only thing truly dangerous about marijuana is prohibition. Would marijuana have any monetary value if it was growing in half the yards in the country? Yes, about as much as your tomatoes. Protect and serve….could've fooled me!
Ha ha ha ha, keep trying to legislate morality dummies. The police are supposed to be here to protect us. http://www.leap.cc Why do they lobby for prohibition when prohibition is far more destructive than any "danger" you would ever face from marijuana? The only thing truly dangerous about marijuana is prohibition. Would marijuana have any monetary value if it was growing in half the yards in the country? Yes, about as much as your tomatoes. Protect and serve….could've fooled me!
Ha ha ha ha, keep trying to legislate morality dummies. The police are supposed to be here to protect us. http://www.leap.cc Why do they lobby for prohibition when prohibition is far more destructive than any "danger" you would ever face from marijuana? The only thing truly dangerous about marijuana is prohibition. Would marijuana have any monetary value if it was growing in half the yards in the country? Yes, about as much as your tomatoes. Protect and serve….could've fooled me!
Ha ha ha ha, keep trying to legislate morality dummies. The police are supposed to be here to protect us. http://www.leap.cc Why do they lobby for prohibition when prohibition is far more destructive than any "danger" you would ever face from marijuana? The only thing truly dangerous about marijuana is prohibition. Would marijuana have any monetary value if it was growing in half the yards in the country? Yes, about as much as your tomatoes. Protect and serve….could've fooled me!
Ha ha ha ha, keep trying to legislate morality dummies. The police are supposed to be here to protect us. http://www.leap.cc Why do they lobby for prohibition when prohibition is far more destructive than any "danger" you would ever face from marijuana? The only thing truly dangerous about marijuana is prohibition. Would marijuana have any monetary value if it was growing in half the yards in the country? Yes, about as much as your tomatoes. Protect and serve….could've fooled me!
This article has nothing to do with prohibition of marijuana. The subject here is whether or not growers' energy use should be subsidized like a low-income consumer, when growers are only in that bracket because their income is almost always unreported. I don't understand why you use this as an excuse to rant about prohibition (which I agree is counterproductive).
This article has nothing to do with prohibition of marijuana. The subject here is whether or not growers' energy use should be subsidized like a low-income consumer, when growers are only in that bracket because their income is almost always unreported. I don't understand why you use this as an excuse to rant about prohibition (which I agree is counterproductive).
This article has nothing to do with prohibition of marijuana. The subject here is whether or not growers' energy use should be subsidized like a low-income consumer, when growers are only in that bracket because their income is almost always unreported. I don't understand why you use this as an excuse to rant about prohibition (which I agree is counterproductive).
This article has nothing to do with prohibition of marijuana. The subject here is whether or not growers' energy use should be subsidized like a low-income consumer, when growers are only in that bracket because their income is almost always unreported. I don't understand why you use this as an excuse to rant about prohibition (which I agree is counterproductive).
This article has nothing to do with prohibition of marijuana. The subject here is whether or not growers' energy use should be subsidized like a low-income consumer, when growers are only in that bracket because their income is almost always unreported. I don't understand why you use this as an excuse to rant about prohibition (which I agree is counterproductive).
This article has nothing to do with prohibition of marijuana. The subject here is whether or not growers' energy use should be subsidized like a low-income consumer, when growers are only in that bracket because their income is almost always unreported. I don't understand why you use this as an excuse to rant about prohibition (which I agree is counterproductive).
This article has nothing to do with prohibition of marijuana. The subject here is whether or not growers' energy use should be subsidized like a low-income consumer, when growers are only in that bracket because their income is almost always unreported. I don't understand why you use this as an excuse to rant about prohibition (which I agree is counterproductive).
Brandon Merrill – Because this is just another tendril of prohibition sliming its way into our lives. One very good reason a person would become a marijuana patient, in spite of the decades of brainwashing, is that they can provide their own medicine at a small fraction of the cost of the pharmaceutical poisons. Would this look like a good option to a low income MS, or epilepsy, or cancer, or rheumatoid arthritis patient? I think so!
Brandon Merrill – Because this is just another tendril of prohibition sliming its way into our lives. One very good reason a person would become a marijuana patient, in spite of the decades of brainwashing, is that they can provide their own medicine at a small fraction of the cost of the pharmaceutical poisons. Would this look like a good option to a low income MS, or epilepsy, or cancer, or rheumatoid arthritis patient? I think so!
Brandon Merrill – Because this is just another tendril of prohibition sliming its way into our lives. One very good reason a person would become a marijuana patient, in spite of the decades of brainwashing, is that they can provide their own medicine at a small fraction of the cost of the pharmaceutical poisons. Would this look like a good option to a low income MS, or epilepsy, or cancer, or rheumatoid arthritis patient? I think so!
Brandon Merrill – Because this is just another tendril of prohibition sliming its way into our lives. One very good reason a person would become a marijuana patient, in spite of the decades of brainwashing, is that they can provide their own medicine at a small fraction of the cost of the pharmaceutical poisons. Would this look like a good option to a low income MS, or epilepsy, or cancer, or rheumatoid arthritis patient? I think so!
Brandon Merrill – Because this is just another tendril of prohibition sliming its way into our lives. One very good reason a person would become a marijuana patient, in spite of the decades of brainwashing, is that they can provide their own medicine at a small fraction of the cost of the pharmaceutical poisons. Would this look like a good option to a low income MS, or epilepsy, or cancer, or rheumatoid arthritis patient? I think so!
Brandon Merrill – Because this is just another tendril of prohibition sliming its way into our lives. One very good reason a person would become a marijuana patient, in spite of the decades of brainwashing, is that they can provide their own medicine at a small fraction of the cost of the pharmaceutical poisons. Would this look like a good option to a low income MS, or epilepsy, or cancer, or rheumatoid arthritis patient? I think so!
I completely agree with you, but I think you are dodging the point- Why should a for-profit indoor grow (>400% energy usage) be subsidized by other ratepayers that earn more than the CARE discount limit? Could a patient like what you describe find a way to grow their medicine without using so much electricity? As I said before, I think prohibition is flawed and responsible marijuana use has merit, but I really don't think that someone's cost of growing should be subsidized by others who have no choice in the matter other than to go without electricity.
I completely agree with you, but I think you are dodging the point- Why should a for-profit indoor grow (>400% energy usage) be subsidized by other ratepayers that earn more than the CARE discount limit? Could a patient like what you describe find a way to grow their medicine without using so much electricity? As I said before, I think prohibition is flawed and responsible marijuana use has merit, but I really don't think that someone's cost of growing should be subsidized by others who have no choice in the matter other than to go without electricity.
I completely agree with you, but I think you are dodging the point- Why should a for-profit indoor grow (>400% energy usage) be subsidized by other ratepayers that earn more than the CARE discount limit? Could a patient like what you describe find a way to grow their medicine without using so much electricity? As I said before, I think prohibition is flawed and responsible marijuana use has merit, but I really don't think that someone's cost of growing should be subsidized by others who have no choice in the matter other than to go without electricity.
I completely agree with you, but I think you are dodging the point- Why should a for-profit indoor grow (>400% energy usage) be subsidized by other ratepayers that earn more than the CARE discount limit? Could a patient like what you describe find a way to grow their medicine without using so much electricity? As I said before, I think prohibition is flawed and responsible marijuana use has merit, but I really don't think that someone's cost of growing should be subsidized by others who have no choice in the matter other than to go without electricity.
I completely agree with you, but I think you are dodging the point- Why should a for-profit indoor grow (>400% energy usage) be subsidized by other ratepayers that earn more than the CARE discount limit? Could a patient like what you describe find a way to grow their medicine without using so much electricity? As I said before, I think prohibition is flawed and responsible marijuana use has merit, but I really don't think that someone's cost of growing should be subsidized by others who have no choice in the matter other than to go without electricity.
I completely agree with you, but I think you are dodging the point- Why should a for-profit indoor grow (>400% energy usage) be subsidized by other ratepayers that earn more than the CARE discount limit? Could a patient like what you describe find a way to grow their medicine without using so much electricity? As I said before, I think prohibition is flawed and responsible marijuana use has merit, but I really don't think that someone's cost of growing should be subsidized by others who have no choice in the matter other than to go without electricity.
Brandon Merrill – We could go back and forth all day about how the people growing their own medicine would be using less than their 'fair share' on average anyway because of reduced expenses and a belief in reduced consumption, while people complaining about 'subsidizing' those 'welfare losers' waste ten times the energy they need. Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
Brandon Merrill – We could go back and forth all day about how the people growing their own medicine would be using less than their 'fair share' on average anyway because of reduced expenses and a belief in reduced consumption, while people complaining about 'subsidizing' those 'welfare losers' waste ten times the energy they need. Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
Brandon Merrill – We could go back and forth all day about how the people growing their own medicine would be using less than their 'fair share' on average anyway because of reduced expenses and a belief in reduced consumption, while people complaining about 'subsidizing' those 'welfare losers' waste ten times the energy they need. Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
Brandon Merrill – We could go back and forth all day about how the people growing their own medicine would be using less than their 'fair share' on average anyway because of reduced expenses and a belief in reduced consumption, while people complaining about 'subsidizing' those 'welfare losers' waste ten times the energy they need. Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
Brandon Merrill – We could go back and forth all day about how the people growing their own medicine would be using less than their 'fair share' on average anyway because of reduced expenses and a belief in reduced consumption, while people complaining about 'subsidizing' those 'welfare losers' waste ten times the energy they need. Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
Brandon Merrill – We could go back and forth all day about how the people growing their own medicine would be using less than their 'fair share' on average anyway because of reduced expenses and a belief in reduced consumption, while people complaining about 'subsidizing' those 'welfare losers' waste ten times the energy they need. Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
Joseph Tolman , there's no rational reason why a house turned into straight-up factory in a residential neighborhood should be subsidized by other ratepayers to produce and process anything. Especially when the program is intended for low-income individuals. The thousands the growers rake in is off the books, so they appear to qualify, but it's a misuse of the CARE program.
Joseph Tolman , there's no rational reason why a house turned into straight-up factory in a residential neighborhood should be subsidized by other ratepayers to produce and process anything. Especially when the program is intended for low-income individuals. The thousands the growers rake in is off the books, so they appear to qualify, but it's a misuse of the CARE program.
Joseph Tolman , there's no rational reason why a house turned into straight-up factory in a residential neighborhood should be subsidized by other ratepayers to produce and process anything. Especially when the program is intended for low-income individuals. The thousands the growers rake in is off the books, so they appear to qualify, but it's a misuse of the CARE program.
Joseph Tolman , there's no rational reason why a house turned into straight-up factory in a residential neighborhood should be subsidized by other ratepayers to produce and process anything. Especially when the program is intended for low-income individuals. The thousands the growers rake in is off the books, so they appear to qualify, but it's a misuse of the CARE program.
Joseph Tolman , there's no rational reason why a house turned into straight-up factory in a residential neighborhood should be subsidized by other ratepayers to produce and process anything. Especially when the program is intended for low-income individuals. The thousands the growers rake in is off the books, so they appear to qualify, but it's a misuse of the CARE program.
Joseph Tolman , there's no rational reason why a house turned into straight-up factory in a residential neighborhood should be subsidized by other ratepayers to produce and process anything. Especially when the program is intended for low-income individuals. The thousands the growers rake in is off the books, so they appear to qualify, but it's a misuse of the CARE program.
Kevin Hoover – Well, when prohibition redux is over it can be grown outside without the power consumption!
Kevin Hoover – Well, when prohibition redux is over it can be grown outside without the power consumption!
Kevin Hoover – Well, when prohibition redux is over it can be grown outside without the power consumption!
Kevin Hoover – Well, when prohibition redux is over it can be grown outside without the power consumption!
Kevin Hoover – Well, when prohibition redux is over it can be grown outside without the power consumption!
Kevin Hoover – Well, when prohibition redux is over it can be grown outside without the power consumption!
Or, those people can pay the same rates as the rest of us and stop abusing a system that's not meant for them.
Or, those people can pay the same rates as the rest of us and stop abusing a system that's not meant for them.
Or, those people can pay the same rates as the rest of us and stop abusing a system that's not meant for them.
Or, those people can pay the same rates as the rest of us and stop abusing a system that's not meant for them.
Or, those people can pay the same rates as the rest of us and stop abusing a system that's not meant for them.
Or, those people can pay the same rates as the rest of us and stop abusing a system that's not meant for them.
Brandon Merrill – You said "for profit" indoor grow. As far as I understood, these places are supposed to be non-profit. Is that not the case?