There is a bill, Title 24 heading for the legislature. It has many things in it that make sense. However, requiring new homes and remodeled homes to have a certain thermostat with an FM receiver in it so the power company can automatically adjust it is too big brotherish for me. What about people who have to have a certain temperature range because of illness? What are they supposed to do? Put on 3 coats in the winter?
I guess I have to start contacting my legislative critters.
That is crazy! At first I thought, not a big deal but just the fact that someone can do something like that is crazy. For the good of the world, a good idea but there would have to be exceptions. I just don't like that big brother is basically watching you and doing what they want to do.
Have you seen where there was talk of putting R ratings on movies because someone is smoking in the movie? Again, crazy! smoking is not obscene...what's next?
Are there any cites/links to the pending bill so you can see the exact language? As a general rule, no, the gov't/utilities shouldn't be controlling home temps, etc. But if a blackout is imminent unless consumption is cut (say during a heatwave), that might be preferable to a blackout. Better to have it say 10 degrees warmer in summer & still have air conditioning than to have no power at all. Overall, a slight warming would probably be better for people healthwise than no air conditioners or electrically operated medical devices (including life support).
From a quick glance, the references to thermostats being controlled seem to be more during "emergency events" such as this wording on page 64 (their pagination, not the PDF pagination):
Quote:
B. Emergency Events. 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.
While I'd certainly want to have that clearly defined & make sure it's not being abused, it does seem to fall more into the imminent blackout type of category I was thinking of. Having walked down 30 flights during the last citywide blackout here in NY, I can see an advantage to preventing blackouts when possible. I know here in NY, during heatwaves, they ask people to conserve power to keep the electricity working, but people don't always comply. And blackouts sometimes result (though they're usually localized vs. the whole city).
I would think that it should be implemented in new commercial building construction as well as homes if they are really wanting to conserve during impending crisis times.
My concern is that it is the first step towards them taking complete control of it. You know - give a politician an inch....... I liken it to a "temporary" tax.
As the bumper sticker says, "I love my country. It's the government I don't trust".
Oh my. I don't like the thought of a government controlled thermostat! Have you read the literature from the electric companies for saving electricity? They say to keep your thermostat at 78 degrees. Say what???!!! Talk about a permanent hot flash!
If it really is just for emergency use, then I think it's a very good thing.
If it's to be used for less than emergency status, then I think it could become a complicated issue. People with health issues could be exempt. People that purchase Green power could be exempt.
Throwing in my $.02 to give some contratst - I live in China where the government controls, well, pretty much everything. One example of this is the heating system in China, which is completely controlled by the State. Depending on the part of the country where you live, the heat (radiators usually powered by burning coal for energy) comes on either November 1 or November 15, and goes off somewhere around March 1. This is if you are lucky enough to have heat - those in the South of the country have no hat provided and are pretty cold most of the time. Where I live the heat comes on November 1 but it's already VERY cold by the middle of October. I end up sleeping in sweats and fuzzy socks.
Obviously I'm not trying to say that the States should take its heating and cooling cues from China (!) but I am saying that it could be worse. And, yeah, some of us do wear 3 coats inside.
We do waste an awful lot of energy in this country, and some incentives to waste less would be a very good thing, I think. I think when you're dealing with the alternative of everyone having no power, limiting power at certain times certainly makes sense. Finding a fair way to do so, is going to be a complicated mess though.
As long as Big Brother doesn't detect what is plugged into a wall outlet, I have a space heater I can sit in front of. Ha.
(always cold, never a hot flash 3 years post-menopause, normal body temp - 97.0. brrr.)
The problem is that when the government asks people to limit water use, turn down the heat, or not run so much AC because of shortages etc, there are always those people that feel it doesn't applyto them, their grass HAS to be watered every day, they HAVE to keep the AC going on high, etc. and then the rest of us suffer. Keep us posted on how that finishes up. I'm very interested in the outcome.
The argument in favor of this seems to be that people can't be trusted to make good decisions so the government should do it for them. It's typical thinking, especially here in California, to believe that the government can always run things better.
The truth is that the power crisis in California is a direct result of poor and sometimes illegal decisions made by the same lawmakers whom we are now supposed to trust to decide how warm/cold our homes should be. In the last several years there have been many times that there were warnings to conserve energy due to looming emergencies. Virtually everytime, they come out and thank everybody for pitching in and tell us what a difference it made. Why then, if a voluntary system is working just fine, do they feel the need to give themselves absolute power over the system?
Anybody who thinks that this will be limited to times of emergency is incredibly naive. Sure they will call the situation an emergency, but the definition of emergency will evolve to mean anything they wish it to mean. Many people see global warming as a crisis that requires immediate steps. That clearly isn't the type of emergency that this legislation intends to cover, but how long before it is expanded to include it, "for our own good"? The government always takes as much control as people will allow. It bothers me to see so many people willing to hand their freedoms over to the government.
Thank you! You said it so well, Robin 41. I do remember those days when Czar Davis and his overpaid minnions created an absolute fiasco for this state. I said it early in this thread - Give a politician an inch............
I don't like it at all. It won't stop there. Not in this state.
That's why there is a link at the bottom of the article to contact your local political critter.
We have this option here in Ontario. You can have a thermostat installed in your house that can be centrally controlled. There are rules and regulations surrounding its use. The purpose of these is primarily for the summer-time, when BONEHEADS like my NEIGHBORS like to keep their home at 63F all the time during the summer. Enough people do this routinely, and we wind up with energy shortages and blackouts or rolling brown-outs, where the power is turned off or down for periods of time within an area. Which puts people at risk of heat issues IN DANGER because they have no power as a direct result of others who just don't care because gosh DARN it it's their CIVIL RIGHT to supercool their homes and how DARE you suggest that I think about others. The other issue concerns retail centers and office buildings. How many of you go to the mall in the summer and wish you actually had a sweater? Alot of retail outlets keep their thermostats FAR. TOO. LOW. Right now, energy management relies a whole lot on their volutary cooperation to raise their thermostats when it gets really hot out, so that others (like the elderly widow who is sensitive to heat and is trying to make ends meet on a fixed income) simply DON'T DIE for the sake of letting us fat consumers shop in a 60 degree mall.
So the law and regulation here is that IN periods of HIGH ENERGY USE, such as a heat wave, thermostats can be centrally controlled to TEMPORARILY ADJUST the temperature inside a home/office/retail outlet up or down 2-3 degrees. That's IT. And just a 2-3 degree difference makes a HUGE POSITIVE IMPACT on energy demands in peak times.
I personally think we should all stop worrying so much that the "government" is going to mess us over and play recklessly with our thermostats, because quite frankly there are OTHER BIGGER fish to politically fry, and should think about the elderly and medically compromised and those vulnerable to extremes in temperature and REALIZE that this action is simply to assist EVERYONE IN TIMES OF NEED. And the thought that some could care less about those in need makes me sad.
JMHO
Maya
I don't want the state controlling my thermostat
One example of this is the heating system in China, which is completely controlled by the State. Depending on the part of the country where you live, the heat (radiators usually powered by burning coal for energy) comes on either November 1 or November 15, and goes off somewhere around March 1. This is if you are lucky enough to have heat - those in the South of the country have no hat provided and are pretty cold most of the time. Where I live the heat comes on November 1 but it's already VERY cold by the middle of October. I end up sleeping in sweats and fuzzy socks. 
Give me a break ...
