Government Control of your Thermostat

[JohnRich 4]

News:

California Proposes Taking Control of Thermostats

The California Energy Commission has proposed requiring thermostats that allow the government to control the temperature of homes and businesses in case of high energy prices or shortages, a measure that some critics are calling "draconian."

The proposed regulations would require all residential and non-residential buildings to have a Programmable Communicating Thermostat (PCT)... which can be used by utilities to send price and emergency signals..." Upon receiving an emergency signal, "the PCT shall respond to commands contained in the emergency signal, including changing the setpoint by any number of degrees or to a specific temperature setpoint. The PCT shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during emergency events..."

Full Story: CNS News

[pop 0]

Of course opposed. The last thing I want is government inside my home. Fuhgetaboutit. This would never pass. Here in Texas turning off the thermostat in summer can cause death, more predominantly in older people. Imagine in New York having your heater turned off in the winter. Not happening. California has perfect weather, but having government control what you do inside your home would never fly in California.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Of course opposed. The last thing I want is government inside my home. Fuhgetaboutit. This would never pass. Here in Texas turning off the thermostat in summer can cause death, more predominantly in older people. Imagine in New York having your heater turned off in the winter. Not happening. California has perfect weather, but having government control what you do inside your home would never fly in California.

I got the impression that turning the heating/cooling OFF was not the only option.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

California has perfect weather,

Only part of it. Here in Fresno, the average July high temp is 97. It gets freaking hot here. And I've experienced a couple of blackouts during that high heat.

What they are suggesting, I believe, is that they want to be able to limit the power load so they don't have blackouts. I still entirely disagree with remote control by outside authorities of the thermostat.

Still, it's cali, and there's a good chance that the public would accept it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course opposed. The last thing I want is government inside my home. Fuhgetaboutit. This would never pass. Here in Texas turning off the thermostat in summer can cause death, more predominantly in older people. Imagine in New York having your heater turned off in the winter. Not happening. California has perfect weather, but having government control what you do inside your home would never fly in California.

I got the impression that turning the heating/cooling OFF was not the only option.

What are you refering to?

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course opposed. The last thing I want is government inside my home. Fuhgetaboutit. This would never pass. Here in Texas turning off the thermostat in summer can cause death, more predominantly in older people. Imagine in New York having your heater turned off in the winter. Not happening. California has perfect weather, but having government control what you do inside your home would never fly in California.

I got the impression that turning the heating/cooling OFF was not the only option.

What are you refering to?

Bolded, above

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course opposed. The last thing I want is government inside my home. Fuhgetaboutit. This would never pass. Here in Texas turning off the thermostat in summer can cause death, more predominantly in older people. Imagine in New York having your heater turned off in the winter. Not happening. California has perfect weather, but having government control what you do inside your home would never fly in California.

I got the impression that turning the heating/cooling OFF was not the only option.

What are you refering to?

Bolded, above

I think Kallend, and correct me if I am wrong, is refering to giving people the choice to turn down the heater/coolong based on real time pricing presented to each individual through this thermostat discussed. I like that idea. It would empower the people to make the right/wrong decision, and having real time pricing available at all times is helpfull to controling personal spending. Let the people decide...not the government.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course opposed. The last thing I want is government inside my home. Fuhgetaboutit. This would never pass. Here in Texas turning off the thermostat in summer can cause death, more predominantly in older people. Imagine in New York having your heater turned off in the winter. Not happening. California has perfect weather, but having government control what you do inside your home would never fly in California.

I got the impression that turning the heating/cooling OFF was not the only option.

What are you refering to?

Bolded, above

I think Kallend, and correct me if I am wrong, is refering to giving people the choice to turn down the heater/coolong based on real time pricing presented to each individual through this thermostat discussed. I like that idea. It would empower the people to make the right/wrong decision, and having real time pricing available at all times is helpfull to controling personal spending. Let the people decide...not the government.

Well, if lawrocket is correct and the purpose is to prevent brownouts and blackouts, then having it done in a controlled fashion makes sense. Otherwise it happens in an arbitrary and uncontrolled fashion and your heating/cooling MAY go off and stay off.

Richard Nixon is known to have had a log fire during the summer, and have the A/C turned on full blast to compensate. I'm sure there are other people just as antisocial.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

That is one of the wackiest things I have ever heard.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 2,991]

The way this would work -

You'd have a setback thermostat, one that decreases the temperature of your hot water heater from 110F to 100F, or changes your A/C setting from 72F to 75F. When there's a power shortage, the utility sends out a signal and those devices go to the power-saving setting. In return you get cheaper power rates.

During a shortage (i.e. power is short) the thermostat would change and you'd be able to set it back if you so desired. During an emergency (i.e. the grid is about to go down) it would change and you couldn't change it back.

[DJL 235]

Quote

The way this would work -

You'd have a setback thermostat, one that decreases the temperature of your hot water heater from 110F to 100F, or changes your A/C setting from 72F to 75F. When there's a power shortage, the utility sends out a signal and those devices go to the power-saving setting. In return you get cheaper power rates.

During a shortage (i.e. power is short) the thermostat would change and you'd be able to set it back if you so desired. During an emergency (i.e. the grid is about to go down) it would change and you couldn't change it back.

The way it would actually work if this were put into affect: DJL would light a candle and set it under the thermostat so it has a false reading.

This is almost as idiotic as the whole LEED program; regulate power so that we don't have to insulate or make smarter use of lighting.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[livendive 8]

Part of me says there's a greater good thing going on...during a heatwave, those people on the upstream side shouldn't be able to kill those farther downstream by keeping their own house at 60 degrees and thereby causing blackouts. Still, it seems to intrusive to me. If you buy the electricity, you should be able to use it for whatever you want. Better would be some sort of remote control limiter outside each house by which they could decrease either peak or daily consumption. This would allow the seller to ration power during an emergency, but the consumers would still be free to use their power however they saw fit. In California, this would likely make many people have to choose between their heat/AC and their grow lights.

I do like the idea of some sort of display on the power meter that would tell users how much they're spending at a particular moment, and over the past 24 hours, and maybe over the past week.

Edit to add: Fortunately for me, I live in an area with much more power supply than power usage. We ship a lot of our power to California, so currently I don't have to worry about such devices. The worst they'd do up here is raise our rates to make up for the difference in pricing between here and California. That'd be inconvenient, but eventually the economy would adjust for higher cost of living here, just like it has there.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 2,991]

>This is almost as idiotic as the whole LEED program . . .

I don't think the concept is idiotic at all. "Smart loads" are going to be one of the changes that allows continued growth in power grids throughout the country without seeing more blackouts/coal fired power plants/powerlines run - and also allow people to afford energy as the price of fuels increase.

However, I also think that it is better administered by utilities than by government.

[kelpdiver 2]

Did anyone besides CNS pick this up? It looks like a proposal thrown out for consideration that will go away.

Since heating/power grid issues never arise, it's really about controlling A/C in the summer. Everyone in the valley would just go buy some space coolers which are less efficient and thus make the problem worse. Seems like a DOA solution.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

The way this would work -

You'd have a setback thermostat, one that decreases the temperature of your hot water heater from 110F to 100F, or changes your A/C setting from 72F to 75F. When there's a power shortage, the utility sends out a signal and those devices go to the power-saving setting. In return you get cheaper power rates.

During a shortage (i.e. power is short) the thermostat would change and you'd be able to set it back if you so desired. During an emergency (i.e. the grid is about to go down) it would change and you couldn't change it back.

The way it would actually work if this were put into affect: DJL would light a candle and set it under the thermostat so it has a false reading.

EXACTLY.

Hey, here's a nucking futs idea:

How about we invest in infrastructure???!!!

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How about we invest in infrastructure???!!!

Investing in capacity that is only used a couple days a year? It seems more practical to invest in lowering the max usage. We're not remotely close to efficient and there is still a hell of a lot of low hanging fruit.

[nathaniel 0]

How about they let excess demand cause the grid to descend into undervoltage and ruin your appliances instead?

I'd prefer a bidding system like ebay's auto bid system, but this seems like a step in the right direction.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[livendive 8]

Just out of curiousity, would you support such a concept if it would only be put to use in HUD-assistance homes, the homes of people receiving state aid, and other situations where it's the taxpayers paying the power bill?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

How about we invest in infrastructure???!!!

Investing in capacity that is only used a couple days a year? It seems more practical to invest in lowering the max usage. We're not remotely close to efficient and there is still a hell of a lot of low hanging fruit.

Well, in America we don't let the government control our A/C. More efficient appliaces? Yes. A control system that overrides our choices inside our home? No way. The slippery slope that would create would be a nightmare.

And everyone would just find a simple workaround anyway.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 2,991]

>Well, in America we don't let the government control our A/C.

Actually, you do. The only people that don't let the government (or more accurately a governmentally-regulated utility) control their A/C are the people who generate their own power. Once you exceed the available power they WILL shut you off.

An alternative would be to shut down partially i.e. disable hot water heaters, A/C compressors etc. That would keep things like phones, dialysis machines and elevators running.

[Amazon 7]

I oppose it on the basis of redundancy.


The government is already in control of the thermostat by virtue of its VERY lucrative ( to the energy suppliers) energy policies that have driven prices up so much that average americans HAVE to turn it down in winter and turn it way up in summer to prevent going bankrupt just trying to heat or cool their homes in winter or summer. Oh I also noticed how this administration ALSO enacted legislation making it FAR harder to declare bankruptcy.. so you can not escape from massive debt as easily...

. they have to keep their sharecroppers PO as DIRT and caint let em xcape now can you.;

[1969912 0]

The thermostat program will be funded using all the money the state saves as a result of the TerminatorCare program.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[PLFXpert 0]

If they get the thermostat, I get the remote control.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

>Well, in America we don't let the government control our A/C.

Actually, you do. The only people that don't let the government (or more accurately a governmentally-regulated utility) control their A/C are the people who generate their own power. Once you exceed the available power they WILL shut you off.

An alternative would be to shut down partially i.e. disable hot water heaters, A/C compressors etc. That would keep things like phones, dialysis machines and elevators running.

Apples and Oranges. Shutting you down does not involve any intrusion into your home.

And what about people who use solar power and sell energy back to the utilities, or supplement their usage some other way?

It is moot anyway. If you force people to do this they will just install a window unit. Many, many people use them already.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[jm951 0]

Just the response I've been thinking about. If they turn down the thermostat, There will probably be a run on A/C window units that will totally thwart what the liberals in charge of the PRK is trying to do. Now move forward to heating issues, let somebody decide they're too cold and they go out and buy a similar standalone unit. No net change in power usage. How are they going to regulate this scam?

One other item to consider, if they are turning the thermostat during the heating season, how many people are going to resort to kerosene heat, or will install wood stoves? Add to that, somebody is going to die from either the heat going up or an accident with heaters.