California wants to control home thermostats

[cynatnite]

SAN FRANCISCO: The conceit in the 1960s show "The Outer Limits" was that outside forces had taken control of your television set.

Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.

The proposed rules are contained in a document circulated by the California Energy Commission, which for more than three decades has set state energy efficiency standards for home appliances, like water heaters, air conditioners and refrigerators.

The changes would allow utilities to adjust customers' preset temperatures when the price of electricity is soaring. Customers could override the utilities' suggested temperatures. But in emergencies, the utilities could override customers' wishes.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/11/america/calif.php

[fascisthunter]

1. So, I Guess They are Willing to Socialize the Cost of Energy Too? (nt)

[madeline_con]

2. Some middle schooler in Sacramento will hack the device.

Game over.

[slackmaster]

11. Or the homeowners will simply disconnect the two or three wires that control HVAC

:shrug:

It would make a lot more sense to simply tax people for using excessive fuel, as a way of encouraging them to insulate their homes, bundle up, etc.

[madeline_con]

14. It might be a wireless system.

I dunno.

As for excessive, who's standard do we use? Cold and hot are relative.

[slackmaster]

16. Yes, extremely relative

I was married for 10 years. My wife was acclimated to South Carolina, and found San Diego to be uncomfortably cold in the summer. And as she developed pre-menopause symptoms, her perception of the temperature fluctuated wildly.

I am just getting over a cold. I was freezing my ass off for three days. Normally I am a polar bear (almost 100% German ancestry).

Elderly people generally require much warmer temperatures.

I know an MS patient who can't stand it when the room is over about 65 degrees F.

Having the .gov decide the right temperature for everyone is a ridiculous idea. Whoever thought of it deserves to be tarred and feathered.

[madeline_con]

18. That would warm them up!

I couldn't resist. :rofl:

[slackmaster]

22. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZING!

:rofl:

[XemaSab]

28. How about a tax over so many kilowatt hours a month?

On a curve? :shrug:

[slackmaster]

32. We practically have that now, the way rates are tiered by SDG&E

I don't know if PG&E or Sothern California Edison do the same thing, but if you use very much juice in San Diego it becomes punishingly expensive.

[hiphopnation]

3. this is what you get when you have an asshat governor

who refuses to raise taxes, especially on those that earn <$500,000 and a distracted, over-worked, lazy public who's bought the "don't tread on me" meme hook, line and sinker.

if this plan passes, we're leaving california

[pennylane100]

4. I cannot believe that Californians will allow this.

It is so outrages that it boggles my mind. If the device is going to be operated by wireless, there must be some way to block it.

[slackmaster]

12. We won't.

It's not going to happen.

[NashVegas]

25. Why Not?

They seem fairly comfortable with il-legalizing cigarette smoking in one's home.

[slackmaster]

29. Smokers are a shrinking minority and have little political power

Also we have exactly zero tobacco farms and zero cigarette factories.

When you talk about controlling thermostats, that's going to stir up more of a hornet's nest than repealing Proposition 13.

We California voters can get very ugly.

[ChazII]

5. First they came for the cigarettes

then the our 5 gallon toilets and now the theromostats. (trying to be humorus here) I feel for the folks that don't live along the coast.

[XemaSab]

31. I've got a low flow toilet here

The problem is that even flushing a piece of toilet paper requires multiple flushes. :(

How is it saving water if you have to flush it three times? :shrug:

My mom's got an old high flow toilet in Redding that you can pry from her cold, dead hands. :o

[slackmaster]

33. The obvious answer is to charge a tax on TP

Doubleplus good think, Comrade XemaSab. Your TP ration is hereby increased from six squares per day to three.

;-)

[XemaSab]

35. Yeah, some lawmaker's going to find my yearly TP ration

in the big ornamental tree outside his house is he tries to pull THAT one over. :P

[Raine]

45. I've still got the old toilets

in my bathrooms too and I'll never let them go. I've had to have the inside tank all rebuilt but I'll keep rebuilding them. I'll never give them up for the wasteful water low flow.

[Canuckistanian]

6. Authoritarian measures aren't likely to win over customers

I have no problem with the state mandating energy appliance standards.

But giving the state absolute control over said appliances is definitely not the way to go. I'm surprised they're even considering it.

There may come a time where that may be necessary, but it ain't now.

This is for economic reasons only.

The glaringly obvious solution is to raise taxes to pay for increased power costs.

But you and I know, that isn't the "politically viable" thing to do.

[juno jones]

7. are the utilities to be taken over and run by the government as well?

I was in CA for the rolling blackout era. The private utilies there are larcenous gluttons.

[depakid]

8. Would people rather have rolling blackouts?

These sorts of proposals are inevitable- and Californians will be seeing a LOT more of them in the decades to come.

Better that it's done wholesale, across the board- preferably with transparency and waivers for legitimate medical or business conditions, than to have wealthy Californians thumb their noses (which is what the irresponsible, self-entitled people there do).

In essense, it's a "tragedy of the commons" situation that will REQUIRE actions like this on the part of regulators to ensure that whole communities aren't fucked.

[NickB79]

41. Amazing, isn't it? People still think they have a choice with regard to climate change

And the looming energy crisis.

Surprise: Mother Nature doesn't give a crap if your home isn't a perfect 72 degrees when it's 110 outside.

In all honesty, I expect this to be one of the least draconian measures taken over the next decade to try to hold our society together. Boys and girls, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

[AndyA]

9. Next thing they're going to tell you when to go to bed, when to take a crap,

when and what to eat, and what to wear.

Freedom is grand, ain't it? :sarcasm:

[CreekDog]

17. Cool, I make too many decisions anyway

:dunce:

[Canuckistanian]

23. Gives a new meaning to "Shit, is it 7:00 already?"

Myself, I prefer 6:55.

[TankLV]

51. Kinda like the old guy talking to his friends...

They're all sharing misery stories about their deteriorating bodily functions.

He exclaims that he has absolutely no problems in that area - he pees and has a dump regularly at 6 each morning.

Then he wakes up usually around ten...

[Nevernose]

10. 10 Reasonable Alternatives the CA Legislature Could Take

1. Mandate water restrictions, especially in SoCal. Fountains and lush lawns in summer in the Mojave? Mandate fountains for business use only, especially tourist-oriented businesses that might require them. The single biggest purchaser of electricity is the water company, and vice versa for the biggest purchaser of electricity.

2, 3, and 4. Instead of requiring all new homes to have a government-issued, government controlled thermostat, require all new homes to have high-e glass and super high efficiency insulation and roofing.

5. Require all new homes to have X or Y amount of solar panels on the roof. The cost of the solar panels would be 100% tax-deductible for the year of purchase, costing the state a little the first year bust significantly benefiting the state in the long run.

6. Require all government construction (schools, prisons, offices, etc.) to be largely solar powered. Government parking lost should be covered, like the good spots at the doctors office, and the covering should have additional solar panels on top. Expensive upfront, but cost-saving in the long run.

7. Place a one dollar surcharge on every incandescent bulb sold. The money raised can go towards a no tax policy on fluorescents, or even a government subsidized fluorescent. Some incandescents would still be sold, like for outside uses or on dimmers, but the cost would balance to the break even point.

8. Sponsor, or just give complete tax-breaks to, large-scale solar power facilities in Mojave and San Diego counties. More than enough electricity there for the whole continent.

9. Spend more money on education. Tell people more often to turn their thermostats up or down - and make the power companies do it. Mandate that they spend at least triple whatever they spend now (I promise, they'll still make a profit).

10. Your answer here. (Okay, I couldn't think of anything else offhand)

[TahitiNut]

20. California is already lowest in per capita energy consumption

90% of potable water consumption in California is unmetered agricultural and Central Valley residential. Only 10% of potable water consumption is metered residential in the major coastal metropolitan areas ... but THAT'S what they try to control.

[Nevernose]

30. Okay, that's number ten:

10. Mandate low-water, high-efficiency agricultural watering practices. Less electricity pumping water means more electricity for most people. And if the aqueducts are flowing downhill (which they are), then why aren't they hooked up to hydroelectric generators? Both these things are already done in other countries and in other states.

[XemaSab]

36. No, not facts!

Anything but facts! :scared:

And remember the mnemonic CRAP: Cotton, Rice, Alfalfa, and Pasture.

Those are the top four water users in the state. :(

[TahitiNut]

40. Indeed. The rolling fields of alfalfa along Highway 5 ... always made me thirsty.

Then the feedlots. Yikes. I know folks who'd been hit with water limits based on a long history of water conservation. The strange injustice of it was to impose draconian limits on people who'd actually been the most responsible. (The rice never really bothered me ... at least not the short grain rice.)

I've lived a lot of places. New York, Connecticut, Alabama, Michigan, Washington, Texas ... and nowhere have I known so many people so diligently conservationist ... even though the highway litter really pissed me off.

When Enron/Reliant/et. al. fucked us out of BILLIONS I was livid. And that's NEVER been made right. (Thanks, Arnie.)

[Nevernose]

47. Could be worse: you could be in AZ, w/ the 95/5 theory of water management

It could be worse: you could be in Arizona, with the 95/5 theory of water management:

95% of AZ's Colorado River use is agricultural.
And 95% of the agricultural use is for cattle production.
Yet cattle only account for 5% of Arizona's agricultural production.

I like a good steak as much as the next guy, but that's not crazy, that's just stupid.

[slackmaster]

21. I wish our legislature thought like you, Nevernose

You make way too much sense to get elected in California.

[Nevernose]

27. Thanks. They will if we say it enough.

I live next door, in Nevada, and have been here more than half my life.

Our governor -- the man who tried to rape a hooker in a parking garage two weeks before the election, AND GOT ELECTED ANYWAY -- has recently mandated that all government agencies cut back spending0 by as much as 10 percent. One of the ways the legislature, in its infinite wisdom, decided to cut back on school funding, was to say that new schools in the nation's fastest growing school district didn't have ot meet the green energy standards.

And it works, for today. But what about tomorrow?

What frustrates me about the entire environmental movement is the perception that "good for the environment" is "bad for the economy," when the money saved on health costs, clean-ups, and electricity bills could be filtered by the middle- and lower-classes straight into the great American hobby of buying shit we don't really need and thereby employing most of us.

And, since you mention it -- I really am thinking of running for the school board in a few more years (a position, I've come to realize, that I'm far more qualified to hold than anyone who currently holds it is). The going cost might be, according to Dem Party sources, as much as 300k. I'm thinking that 30k, voter dissatisfaction, door-knocking, and straight talk might be enough.

[XemaSab]

34. There isn't a "Mojave" county

and the parts of San Diego county that aren't paved are national forests and state parks. :shrug:

[slackmaster]

37. Parts of Imperial County are perfect for solar power

So is the southern exposure of my roof in San Diego.

I really want to go photovoltaic.

[Nevernose]

44. If I had more equity in my home, I would, too.

But I've only owned the place for two years, and with no incentives in Nevada, I'm not sure about the financial feasibility even a few years more down the line.

[Nevernose]

42. Sorry, thinking of AZ and the Mojave National Preserve

If it makes you feel better: Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and Imperial County. I didn't realize that the infrastructure of San Diego County extended that far east.

The premise remains the same, though.

And, what's more, blanketing the area in solar panels could be accomplished on the cheap and with no new displacement of flora or fauna. By covering the sides of the Interstate highways and busier roads in these area with solar power -- where there are already billboards and access roads and such -- not only would there be minimal environmental impact, but much of the infrastructure would already be present. Come to think of it, lining the border with solar panels isn't such a bad idea, either; not only do they want to pave and wall most sections anyway, it might be an "in" for a compromise with the Republicans, who still maintain a filibuster-worthy majority at a national level.

Besides which, nobody who wants to experience the beauty of the wilderness does so from 80 miles on hour on the Interstate.

[Le Taz Hot]

55. 10

Or how about getting rid of 95% of this state's golf courses? Talk about water wasters!

[tritsofme]

13. This sounds similar to a program my father in law told me about in Arkansas.

Naturally I wasn't paying very close attention, but it sounds similar.

[Neecy]

15. There's a similar program in Missouri...

KCP&L advertises that they'll install a free power-saving thermostat that you can program for different day/night temperatures. The catch? They can do the same thing as mentioned in the OP - when power demand is high, they take control of your thermostat and lower your heat in the winter or raise your air conditioning in the summer. Best advice - these timed thermostats aren't terribly expensive. Best to have it installed on your own.

[Kansas Wyatt]

52. Exactly why that pamphlet goes in the trash when I get my bill.

It's on the Kansas side too. KCP&L would be better off building a turbine where the city burns methane gas off of the old dump along 71 hwy. It burns all the time, so why not use it to generate electricity.

[rucky]

19. In a battle over the thermostat

my wife would kick California's ass.

[KitchenWitch]

24. They can bite my big fat ass

I have the "saver switch", or whatever it is called here, installed by SC Edison. That is as far as I will go. And if I do not like what Edison is doing to my air conditioning, I will have the damn thing taken off.

As it is, I only do laundry at night, etc. etc. etc. I am replacing all my incandescents with compact fluorescents, I am getting a whole house fan installed this spring. I am doing my damn part, thank you very much.

[NashVegas]

26. I Would Say, "If the State Wants to Pay My Oil / Gas / Electric Bill ..."

They can set the thermostat.

But this is just so stupid. We learned in 10th grade how to manipulate the things.

[Nailzberg]

38. They should control my old roommate's. 60 degrees?

That's what I'd find the AC set to when I'd come home from work.

[Xithras]

39. My house has separate thermostats for each room. I doubt this is compatible.

My house has thermostats in each room, and automatic ducts, to control temperature throughout the house. It's far more efficient than a standard thermostat because it allows you to shut off the HVAC in rooms you aren't using. For example, my living room and home office is permitted to fall all the way to 55 degrees at night while the bedrooms are maintained at 68. If you aren't using the room at 3AM, why waste the energy to heat it?

By the way, I HIGHLY recommend these systems. It cost me about $1,500 to put it in (I did it myself, so it will cost a bit more to have a pro do it), but it paid for itself in under two years. It saves energy and it saves a LOT of money.

[eppur_se_muova]

54. I like that! I've always wondered why it isn't more common.

Sure, it costs more initially, but especially for big houses it really should pay for itself.

[Xithras]

57. More maintenance, longer installation.

Most of it, I think, is simply the time it takes to install a system like this. Commercial homebuilders are usually trying to save time and money, and a system like this takes a bit of both. Still, it's very worth it.

If the state is going to mandate energy saving measures, they should mandate systems like these. They'll save a lot more energy and piss off far fewer people. I'll bet the price would come down if they were more common, as well.

There is a maintenance issue with them that has to be considered though. The duct dampers have electric motors that have to be inspected periodically to ensure they still work, and they generally have to be replaced once every 10 years. Most people don't think about maintaining the ducts in their HVAC system, so that's an issue (a frozen damper motor can overheat and become a fire hazard).

[YvonneCa]

43. Information on this...

...is actually included in monthly billing now. But it is voluntary. I laughed out loud when I read it...and said, "They must be kidding." It was on the news tonight, so I guess they're not kidding.

[Raine]

46. Hah they'll never control mine

cause I don't have one, the heater has been disconnected for years.

[The Straight Story]

48. And just like National Id's, we will just take it in the name of freedom...

Or safety, etc.

[draymond]

49. Put a firewall around your TV remote

The Governor insisted the system also be wired to take control of TV remotes, ensuring that all sets are tuned to any broadcast of a Schwarzenegger movie.

[Gold Metal Flake]

50. Pipe dream.

The cost would outstrip the benefits.

In my neighborhood, in the valleys north of LA, where it is semi-desert and over 100 degrees typically in the summer, the older houses have no, I mean NO insulation in the walls. None at all! Mine included. It would be more cost-effective for the state to subsidise a program for people to have their walls filled with insulating foam than to try to infect new houses with "telescreen" t-stats. Besides, the new houses are very well insululated, indeed.

[NFL80]

53. California wants to control home thermostats

My wood stove does not have a thermostat.

[pinniped]

56. They can have my thermostat when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Portable heater sales will skyrocket if they ever tried to implement this crap.

Customers could override the utilities' suggested temperatures. But in emergencies, the utilities could override customers' wishes.

At this point, the radio antenna gets unplugged. On first thought, I wouldn't let this crap be installed in the first place.

BS

Hey, I don't want this to happen. The only logical solution is to build 20 more nuclear and coal fired power plants.:crazy: