California To control home thermostats

[Peikko 1,575]

It isn't the right approach, but I don't think you'll find the powers that be would be interfering with anything but extremes in consumption, hardly the 'controlling your environment' the piece is trying to generate in terms of outrage.

What happens currently, blackouts, is hardly fair either and is a bigger imposition than controlling extreme consumption.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

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.

Actually, it's not limited to emergency period. It can also be ratcheted back during peak demand, which happens daily. That is the one that is more important. The issue with California's energy crisis is total bullcrap. They, as a state, have chosen to outsource energy production. They don't want to build power plants in their back yards, like they don't want oil rigs off of their coast. They prefer to use other state's resources, which causes serious grid problems within the state.

They're also considering passing a law to make it so that ONLY green power can be used in the state, which is just plain stupid. It is unrealistic and kind of offensive that they would even mention it.

[Ban Hammer 15,140]

good thing i have a generator.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

It isn't the right approach, but I don't think you'll find the powers that be would be interfering with anything but extremes in consumption, hardly the 'controlling your environment' the piece is trying to generate in terms of outrage.

What happens currently, blackouts, is hardly fair either and is a bigger imposition than controlling extreme consumption.

Where do you draw the line, though? A person with a one bedroom apartment can't run his A/C at 65 while the hollywood stars' homes use probably 10 times as much power to stay at 72.

I understand the idea that reducing A/C loads during peak demand can loosen gridlock, but it's a step in the wrong direction. They will not stop at this if it passes.

[Ban Hammer 15,140]

It isn't the right approach, but I don't think you'll find the powers that be would be interfering with anything but extremes in consumption, hardly the 'controlling your environment' the piece is trying to generate in terms of outrage.

What happens currently, blackouts, is hardly fair either and is a bigger imposition than controlling extreme consumption.

Where do you draw the line, though? A person with a one bedroom apartment can't run his A/C at 65 while the hollywood stars' homes use probably 10 times as much power to stay at 72.

I understand the idea that reducing A/C loads during peak demand can loosen gridlock, but it's a step in the wrong direction. They will not stop at this if it passes.

not to mention the stars will buy their own generator and go off grid.

[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.

Actually, it's not limited to emergency period. It can also be ratcheted back during peak demand, which happens daily. That is the one that is more important. The issue with California's energy crisis is total bullcrap. They, as a state, have chosen to outsource energy production. They don't want to build power plants in their back yards, like they don't want oil rigs off of their coast. They prefer to use other state's resources, which causes serious grid problems within the state.

They're also considering passing a law to make it so that ONLY green power can be used in the state, which is just plain stupid. It is unrealistic and kind of offensive that they would even mention it.

Well its partly due to environmentalist policies - but largely, I think due to market manipulation caused by overregulation and corruption.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

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.

Actually, it's not limited to emergency period. It can also be ratcheted back during peak demand, which happens daily. That is the one that is more important. The issue with California's energy crisis is total bullcrap. They, as a state, have chosen to outsource energy production. They don't want to build power plants in their back yards, like they don't want oil rigs off of their coast. They prefer to use other state's resources, which causes serious grid problems within the state.

They're also considering passing a law to make it so that ONLY green power can be used in the state, which is just plain stupid. It is unrealistic and kind of offensive that they would even mention it.

Well its partly due to environmentalist policies - but largely, I think due to market manipulation caused by overregulation and corruption.

But they just keep overregulating...

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't really give a fig what 'Hollywood Stars' do, they are hardly significant in overall energy consumption terms and they will always get to do their own thing regardless. As for 'will this be a slippery slope' if it gets passed? I doubt it, but it would be great if people did take a look at making everything more energy efficient.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I don't really give a fig what 'Hollywood Stars' do, they are hardly significant in overall energy consumption terms

Not really true at all. They are a VERY wasteful bunch in terms of energy usage. Megamansions require an absurd amount of power.

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe, but there aren't that many of them. So, overall, in terms of the consumption of energy in California, the stars' impact is negligible.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[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.

Actually, it's not limited to emergency period. It can also be ratcheted back during peak demand, which happens daily. That is the one that is more important. The issue with California's energy crisis is total bullcrap. They, as a state, have chosen to outsource energy production. They don't want to build power plants in their back yards, like they don't want oil rigs off of their coast. They prefer to use other state's resources, which causes serious grid problems within the state.

They're also considering passing a law to make it so that ONLY green power can be used in the state, which is just plain stupid. It is unrealistic and kind of offensive that they would even mention it.

Well its partly due to environmentalist policies - but largely, I think due to market manipulation caused by overregulation and corruption.

But they just keep overregulating...

Well Enron was involved in the 2000 crisis. So what can you expect.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Maybe, but there aren't that many of them. So, overall, in terms of the consumption of energy in California, the stars' impact is negligible.

Given that pretty much everyone has at least one a/c unit in their home - and the electricity used to run it can easy double your average monthly bill its not surprising that they have this problem.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Maybe, but there aren't that many of them. So, overall, in terms of the consumption of energy in California, the stars' impact is negligible.

Then 4 degrees in a one bedroom house is negligible. There is scale at play here.

[Peikko 1,575]

True. Of course it would be better for everyone if they could keep coming up with ways to increase efficiency...and end corruption but hey, who's holding their breath for that one?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don,

Can you find the actual revision proposal for this legislation? No offense, but the way it's been presented sounds like the writer's exaggerating.