jcommerce
Well-Known Member
Interesting article:
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_19176562?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com
[h=1]PG&E seeks reform in CARE program, looks to rein in abuse of low-income rates by pot growers[/h]Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standardtimes-standard.com/
Posted: 10/23/2011 02:18:22 AM PDT
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is asking the California Public Utilities Commission to authorize changes to its discount electric rate program for low-income households -- a program that law enforcement officials recently criticized as rife with abuse by indoor marijuana grow operations.
Our intention is not to remove the discount from those who are truly eligible, but rather ensure that those customers who either no longer need the discount or are taking unwarranted advantage of it are moved off as quickly as possible, said PG&E spokeswoman Brandi Ehlers in an e-mail to the Times-Standard.
The public utilities commission requires all four of the state's major power companies to offer a subsidized rate program for low-income households. PG&E's version, the California Alternate Rates for Energy, or CARE, program, offers qualifying households discounts of at least 20 percent that are subsidized through an almost 5 percent fee on the bills of ratepayers who don't qualify as low-income.
As recently reported in the Times-Standard, the program is intended to help low-income families keep the lights on but is being widely abused by indoor marijuana growing operations that make large profits and gobble up huge amounts of electricity.
Arcata Police Chief Tom Chapman said that more than 70 percent of the grow houses searched by his department in the past two years have been utilizing the CARE program. In one recently prosecuted case, a house on
[HR][/HR]Advertisement
[HR][/HR]
the 700 block of Fickle Hill was found to have received an almost 70 percent discount on its $1,500 electric bill as it used 4,676 kilowatt hours of electricity in December 2010 -- an amount roughly 10 times the average monthly consumption of a Humboldt County household.
When officers searched the house in February, they reported finding more than $34,000 in cash, snowboards, mountain bikes and a flat screen television -- not items found in the typical low-income household.
That's just one of many examples. There was the house on Cedar Drive, where officers found about 500 growing marijuana plants and PG&E records indicating the place drew about 5,757 kilowatt hours of electricity in a one-month period but paid just $546 of an $1,850 bill, the balance subsidized through other ratepayers under the CARE program.
Then there was the most egregious recent example, a home on California Avenue that Chapman said was growing about 700 plants. In a one-month period, Chapman said the house used 14,501 kilowatt hours of electricity, paying $604 of a bill that would have cost a non-CARE customer almost $2,500.
Part of the reason the program is widely abused, according to officials, is the fact that PG&E, per the guidelines outlined by the public utilities commission, allows households to self-report their eligibility for the program, doing subsequent income verifications on only 11 percent of applicants. There's also no cap on the amount of subsidized electricity a household enrolled in the program can consume, making it an attractive option for marijuana growers looking to lower their bills and increase their profits.
In the previous Times-Standard story, Chapman said PG&E simply has no incentive to regulate the program because it's revenue neutral for the company, meaning the discounts aren't coming out of its pockets. Ultimately, it's other ratepayers who are subsidizing the grow houses taking advantage of the program.
In a recent e-mail to the Times-Standard, Ehlers said PG&E has filed a request with the public utilities commission looking to make some changes to the CARE program aimed at reining in abuse.
Specifically, Ehlers said PG&E is seeking to mandate that households with monthly usage levels four to six times higher than the average household be required to verify their reported income. In the proposal, these high-usage CARE program customers would also be forced to enroll in PG&E's Energy Savings Assistance Program, which requires in-home audits to help customers lower their energy usage.
Ehlers said PG&E has also asked the commission to deem customers with usage levels greater than six times that of the average household ineligible for the CARE program.
Per studies cited in PG&E's testimony, this level of usage is not possible for a truly eligible residential household, and therefore they should be removed, Ehlers said.
While Ehlers said PG&E filed documents requesting the changes with the public utilities commission in May, she did not mention them when interviewed for the Times-Standard article that ran earlier this month. At that time, she said the company's primary concern was making sure its employees are safe and not thrust into the law enforcement role of having to investigate potentially criminal behavior. Further, Ehlers said at the time that customer privacy issues trumped the need to look into high rates of electricity usage by CARE program homes.
We take the expectation of privacy very seriously, she said. If there is a (electric) load increase, it would be inappropriate for us to investigate that.
Somewhere along the line, it seems, PG&E has had a change of heart.
Susan Carothers, a spokeswoman with the California Public Utilities Commission, couldn't confirm that PG&E's requests to reform the CARE program are on file with the commission, but she spoke generally about the process proposed changes to the CARE program would undergo. First, she said the proposals are assigned to an administrative law judge and a commissioner for review and, if deemed necessary, the holding of public participation hearings and a call for public comments. After gaining input and researching the issue, the judge would write a proposed decision that would come before the full commission for a vote.
Carothers said public input is always encouraged, and said anyone wanting to weigh in on the topic of the CARE program should e-mail their comments to [email protected] or mail them to Attention: Public Advisor, CPUC, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102.
North Coast Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, said he's been in contact with both the public utilities commission and PG&E in recent weeks to discuss various ways to bring abuse of the CARE program to a halt. Chesbro said the conversations were spurred by the previous Times-Standard article.
The extreme use documented in the article really justifies us trying to determine what is a reasonable level for the public to subsidize, Chesbro said, adding that he is working to ensure the public utilities commission has the statutory authority to make whatever changes are needed to rein in abuse of the program.
News of PG&E's proposed changes was welcomed at the Arcata Police Department.
It's certainly a step in the right direction, Chapman said.
Chapman said he'd like to see the company go further, doing a complete audit of the CARE program to ensure that all who are reaping its benefits are truly eligible.
People who are eligible for the CARE program need to show proof of eligibility, just like we do for any other public assistance program, he said. I appreciate they're taking steps in the right direction but, to me, there needs to be more. To me, this is a Band-Aid on a much bigger wound than a Band-Aid can hold.
Ehlers said there is not specific timeframe under which the public utilities commission has to take action on PG&E's request, but she said the company anticipates a decision by mid-2012.
Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or [email protected].
Copyright 2012 Eureka Times-Standard. All rights reserved.
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_19176562?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com
[h=1]PG&E seeks reform in CARE program, looks to rein in abuse of low-income rates by pot growers[/h]Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standardtimes-standard.com/
Posted: 10/23/2011 02:18:22 AM PDT
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is asking the California Public Utilities Commission to authorize changes to its discount electric rate program for low-income households -- a program that law enforcement officials recently criticized as rife with abuse by indoor marijuana grow operations.
Our intention is not to remove the discount from those who are truly eligible, but rather ensure that those customers who either no longer need the discount or are taking unwarranted advantage of it are moved off as quickly as possible, said PG&E spokeswoman Brandi Ehlers in an e-mail to the Times-Standard.
The public utilities commission requires all four of the state's major power companies to offer a subsidized rate program for low-income households. PG&E's version, the California Alternate Rates for Energy, or CARE, program, offers qualifying households discounts of at least 20 percent that are subsidized through an almost 5 percent fee on the bills of ratepayers who don't qualify as low-income.
As recently reported in the Times-Standard, the program is intended to help low-income families keep the lights on but is being widely abused by indoor marijuana growing operations that make large profits and gobble up huge amounts of electricity.
Arcata Police Chief Tom Chapman said that more than 70 percent of the grow houses searched by his department in the past two years have been utilizing the CARE program. In one recently prosecuted case, a house on
[HR][/HR]Advertisement
the 700 block of Fickle Hill was found to have received an almost 70 percent discount on its $1,500 electric bill as it used 4,676 kilowatt hours of electricity in December 2010 -- an amount roughly 10 times the average monthly consumption of a Humboldt County household.
When officers searched the house in February, they reported finding more than $34,000 in cash, snowboards, mountain bikes and a flat screen television -- not items found in the typical low-income household.
That's just one of many examples. There was the house on Cedar Drive, where officers found about 500 growing marijuana plants and PG&E records indicating the place drew about 5,757 kilowatt hours of electricity in a one-month period but paid just $546 of an $1,850 bill, the balance subsidized through other ratepayers under the CARE program.
Then there was the most egregious recent example, a home on California Avenue that Chapman said was growing about 700 plants. In a one-month period, Chapman said the house used 14,501 kilowatt hours of electricity, paying $604 of a bill that would have cost a non-CARE customer almost $2,500.
Part of the reason the program is widely abused, according to officials, is the fact that PG&E, per the guidelines outlined by the public utilities commission, allows households to self-report their eligibility for the program, doing subsequent income verifications on only 11 percent of applicants. There's also no cap on the amount of subsidized electricity a household enrolled in the program can consume, making it an attractive option for marijuana growers looking to lower their bills and increase their profits.
In the previous Times-Standard story, Chapman said PG&E simply has no incentive to regulate the program because it's revenue neutral for the company, meaning the discounts aren't coming out of its pockets. Ultimately, it's other ratepayers who are subsidizing the grow houses taking advantage of the program.
In a recent e-mail to the Times-Standard, Ehlers said PG&E has filed a request with the public utilities commission looking to make some changes to the CARE program aimed at reining in abuse.
Specifically, Ehlers said PG&E is seeking to mandate that households with monthly usage levels four to six times higher than the average household be required to verify their reported income. In the proposal, these high-usage CARE program customers would also be forced to enroll in PG&E's Energy Savings Assistance Program, which requires in-home audits to help customers lower their energy usage.
Ehlers said PG&E has also asked the commission to deem customers with usage levels greater than six times that of the average household ineligible for the CARE program.
Per studies cited in PG&E's testimony, this level of usage is not possible for a truly eligible residential household, and therefore they should be removed, Ehlers said.
While Ehlers said PG&E filed documents requesting the changes with the public utilities commission in May, she did not mention them when interviewed for the Times-Standard article that ran earlier this month. At that time, she said the company's primary concern was making sure its employees are safe and not thrust into the law enforcement role of having to investigate potentially criminal behavior. Further, Ehlers said at the time that customer privacy issues trumped the need to look into high rates of electricity usage by CARE program homes.
We take the expectation of privacy very seriously, she said. If there is a (electric) load increase, it would be inappropriate for us to investigate that.
Somewhere along the line, it seems, PG&E has had a change of heart.
Susan Carothers, a spokeswoman with the California Public Utilities Commission, couldn't confirm that PG&E's requests to reform the CARE program are on file with the commission, but she spoke generally about the process proposed changes to the CARE program would undergo. First, she said the proposals are assigned to an administrative law judge and a commissioner for review and, if deemed necessary, the holding of public participation hearings and a call for public comments. After gaining input and researching the issue, the judge would write a proposed decision that would come before the full commission for a vote.
Carothers said public input is always encouraged, and said anyone wanting to weigh in on the topic of the CARE program should e-mail their comments to [email protected] or mail them to Attention: Public Advisor, CPUC, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102.
North Coast Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, said he's been in contact with both the public utilities commission and PG&E in recent weeks to discuss various ways to bring abuse of the CARE program to a halt. Chesbro said the conversations were spurred by the previous Times-Standard article.
The extreme use documented in the article really justifies us trying to determine what is a reasonable level for the public to subsidize, Chesbro said, adding that he is working to ensure the public utilities commission has the statutory authority to make whatever changes are needed to rein in abuse of the program.
News of PG&E's proposed changes was welcomed at the Arcata Police Department.
It's certainly a step in the right direction, Chapman said.
Chapman said he'd like to see the company go further, doing a complete audit of the CARE program to ensure that all who are reaping its benefits are truly eligible.
People who are eligible for the CARE program need to show proof of eligibility, just like we do for any other public assistance program, he said. I appreciate they're taking steps in the right direction but, to me, there needs to be more. To me, this is a Band-Aid on a much bigger wound than a Band-Aid can hold.
Ehlers said there is not specific timeframe under which the public utilities commission has to take action on PG&E's request, but she said the company anticipates a decision by mid-2012.
Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or [email protected].
