California To control home thermostats

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

January 04, 2008

Who Will Control Your Thermostat?

By Joseph Somsel

"There is nothing wrong with your thermostat. Do not attempt to adjust the temperature. We are controlling your power consumption. If we wish to make it hotter, we will turn off your air conditioner. If we wish to make it cooler, we will turn off your heater. For the next millennium, sit quietly and we will control your home temperature. We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your thermostat. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... SACRAMENTO!"*

What should be controversial in the proposed revisions to Title 24 is the requirement for what is called a "programmable communicating thermostat" or PCT. Every new home and every change to existing homes' central heating and air conditioning systems will required to be fitted with a PCT beginning next year following the issuance of the revision. Each PCT will be fitted with a "non-removable " FM receiver that will allow the power authorities to increase your air conditioning temperature setpoint or decrease your heater temperature setpoint to any value they chose. During "price events" those changes are limited to +/- four degrees F and you would be able to manually override the changes. During "emergency events" the new setpoints can be whatever the power authority desires and you would not be able to alter them.

In other words, the temperature of your home will no longer be yours to control. Your desires and needs can and will be overridden by the state of California through its public and private utility organizations. All this is for the common good, of course.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/who...r_thermost.html

[Scott & Lai 12]

I think we're overdue for a revolution

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

I think we're overdue for a revolution

Maybe?!?

[Ban Hammer 15,140]

All this is for the common good, of course.

sounds like something hillary once said.

i'm so glad i don't live in cali.

Edited January 10, 2008 by charlesandnessa

[almaty 19]

wow, that is strange and something out of 1984

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Wow! I work with energy codes, attending most national conventions on the subject. I usually agree with most of the agressive steps that California takes. For one, they banned edison type (screw base) light fixtures, which makes it basically impossible to use inefficient incandescent lights. I agree with that. Controlling thermostats is absurd.

One of the most basic rules of energy management and code enforcement is that you cannot dictate comfort points for inhabitants. Different people have different comfort points. I like it around 69 - 70 degrees. My parents keep their house around 74. I think my dad would keep it 76 if he could. I would be really uncomfortable at 76.

This is overstepping the purpose of energy codes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its unlikely that would pass.

[eau_xplain 2]

And so the drive to breed a generation of people who has to have government make decisions for them continues.

[rebeccajo 14]

And so the drive to breed a generation of people who has to have government make decisions for them continues.

[Ban Hammer 15,140]

And so the drive to breed a generation of people who has to have government make decisions for them continues.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Ridiculous. The state wants control over our personal comfort? What's next, how hot we can take a bath? Personal freedoms are slipping away folks.

[eric&gen 0]

Next thing they want to control how we take a dump.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Next thing they want to control how we take a dump.

They'll have little dispensers that give you toilet paper one square at a time and is limited to 3 per minute.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

On the other side of it I can see where they're coming from - California has problems supplying the demand for energy during the summer when everyone puts their a/c on full blast 24 hours a day. And the article does say this would be limited to emergency (presumably maximum demand) periods. Still outside of overriding people's ability to control the temperature in their homes, it seems to be a half-measure at best - surely the state and the power companies should ensure that there is sufficient supply to support the infrastructure.

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

If it doesn't pass then there's no issue. How many crackpot proposals like this get shot down on an annual basis? My guess - quite a few.