california
conservation
dictator
ecology
emergency
energy
haters of other peoples freedom
totalitarian
Who Should Control Your Thermostat?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
January 9, 2008 12:50pm CST
In California there are legislators who believe it shouldn't be the residents of the home... it should be them.
Why? Because everyone is too wasteful to be trusted anymore.
The sales pitch is:
"During emergencies, PCTs (Programmable Communicating Thermostats) can provide the option for electric service providers to exercise control over air conditioning (AC) loads to create “partial outages” in all non-exempt customer facilities as a last resort to avoid full rotating outages. Partial outages are more economically efficient than full rotating outages because the effects are limited to the reduction of a single discretionary service such as AC, rather than elimination of all services as occurs in rotating outages. Customers will not have the ability to override this type of load control event."
So, what if that "Emergency" is something as simple as "because you are wasting too much energy".
The government just can't stand the fact that freedom allows for merely citizens to make choices.
~~~~~~~
"Four feet good, Two Feet BETTER!"
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1622
5 people like this
12 responses
@Sissygrl (10909)
• Canada
9 Jan 08
That is nuts! How could the government possible get away with being able to tell you at what temperature to keep your house.. Would that work with solar power too? cause if not then you could always get your own source of heating that doesn't require the governments precious power.. i have seen newer homes in cali that they are building to reduce the consumption of power on tv and they are pretty neat. I live in canada and if we were having power problems their solution would just be to slap some more taxes on it to pay for it. *Giggles*
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Jan 08
They get away with it because the call it "emergency response" and people say, "oh, if it's an emergency, I guess it's ok".
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Jan 08
Ok, what excuse does the state of California have to justify this kind of bullcrap then?
@cynicalandoutspoken (4725)
• United States
9 Jan 08
Yet another reason never to move to CA. As if having Arnold for a governor wasn't enough.
If this law gets passed the next thing they will regulate as how much water you need to take a shower and before you know it some guy will be standing in your home handing you 4 squares of toilet paper when you go to the bathroom.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
9 Jan 08
4? How wasteful of you! 1 should be enough for anyone ;~D
@cynicalandoutspoken (4725)
• United States
9 Jan 08
I'm glad to see you got my point. LoL :)
1 person likes this
@peavey (16936)
• United States
10 Jan 08
What about people with medical conditions that make a warmer temperature necessary? And infants?
This is almost the ultimate in privacy invasion. It's certainly not the government's business what temperature your home is. If we need to conserve energy, education is the way to do it. Oh, wait... that requires effort.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Jan 08
Of course your needs don't matter when there are people who know what is best for you.
@bonbon664 (3466)
• Canada
10 Jan 08
We got a brochure in the mail here in Ontario about the same thing. They are offering a free programmable thermostat that will be connected to them also. There is no way, when it's 100 degrees outside, and I want the air conditioning on, I'm giving the government the power to shut it off. The can take their thermostat and shove it where the sun don't shine.
1 person likes this
@smwilliams (647)
• United States
10 Jan 08
Oh this would erk me to no avail! I would never have the government tell me that I cant set my own thermostat. The only way I would allow that is if they were going to pay the bill too! Fat chance...Im so tired of them taking away freedoms and choices. Its getting old and I guess I just dont understand why more people dont stand up to it. I doubt they would say that Im an energy waster because I have been going green for awhile now. I use the lower energy lightbulbs, my thermostat is set at 68 during the winter, i have energy efficient washer and dryer. Im bad..and getting worse..lol...I am still working on building a windmill for energy and putting it in my front yard..but thats more because I hate my price raping electric company and would love to tell them that they can go #$%* themselves :P
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Jan 08
Apparently you're doing more than Al Gore, and he's the expert with awards and everything! ;~D
@smwilliams (647)
• United States
10 Jan 08
Well where is my award then? lol...Just make sure its made from recycled paper and aluminum cans! :P
1 person likes this
@Uroborus (908)
• Canada
10 Jan 08
An emergency will most definitely not be you, or anyone else, setting their thermostat too high. There is no regulation stating what a thermostat should be set at. If you want to set your thermostat to balmy while opening all the windows, that's your choice as long as energy supply doesn't go below energy demand. The law is in place for times when more energy is being demanded than the power companies can supply. If the energy isn't there and something isn't done to cut down on its use ,then you have a blackout. So, if it came to a choice between having your thermostat lowered a bit, or freezing in the dark, which would you choose?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Jan 08
But what constitutes an "emergency?" Earthquakes? tornadoes? freezing rain? global warming? The governors' mansion needs more heat, so you'll just have to freeze?
Hey, here's an idea, why not just put out an Emergency Broadcast System message that there is an energy emergency and ask people to turn down their thermostats and unplug unnecessary electronics.
It works when there is a water shortage. I've been in many drought stricken areas and have yet to see the government take control of water flow to houses.
@vanities (11395)
• Davao, Philippines
10 Jan 08
well??we dont have such at home ..but in my opinion i think it is fair enough for the constituents that thermostats must be regulated by the government for energy consumption ...if it was the goal and all can be benefited well why not?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Jan 08
Do you still have someone to wipe your butt, or do you expect Mommy & Daddy government to do that for you too?
@Debs_place (10520)
• United States
10 Jan 08
Well, my guess is that if they took over my energy consumption, that it would increase my energy use. My house has no AC, and I keep the heat down in the low 60's during the winter, parts of the house even at the 50's.
You know no matter what they do, people will find a way to circumvent any controls. If you are cold, you pack ice around the thermostat for a bit. It is stupid
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Jan 08
True, so they would have to come up with some bullcrap punishment for circumventing their control over your homelife.
@youdontsay (3497)
• United States
9 Jan 08
At my house, the energy costs control my thermostat! That and my sense of responsibility for the environment. We put on a sweater in the winter and dress in loose light fabrics in the summer. We have weatherized our house.
So, I guess the question is "Should the government require that no home thermostat will go above or below a certain temperature." I vote "no" but with reservations. I think there needs to be some way for people to understand the need for us to use less of the earth's resources, or to at least use them in less damaging ways. I just don't know that irresponsible behavior can be legislated against.
All these behavior laws place a burden on the government as well. How in the world can they be enforced, monitored, etc.?
Let's do a better job of raising responsible people.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
9 Jan 08
That's the problem. People look at others and say, "you're not doing your part!" Which is ok in and of itself, but too many people continue with "so we'll get the government to force you to do your part!"
I guess force is easier for those with no imagination than education.
@RobinJ (2501)
• Canada
9 Jan 08
I do not understand, what the problem is if the power companies can not fill the demand all they have to do is pull the plug which it appears they do frequently now. The part I do not like is if they have the ability to lower your thermostat why not raise it and force you to use power that you neither need or want. and then charge the heck out of you for over using power. The power companies are privately owned and they have shareholders to feed, and you can bet that that is their number 1 interest not householders using their power. it all comes to the bottom line who has the money and how to make more of it.
1 person likes this
@newfette (338)
• Canada
10 Jan 08
It's interesting to say the least. I do understand the concern for it, but it's not the ultimate solution to cut down on energy (and therefore global warming).
It's true, Global warming is indeed happening that is for sure. I live in Ontario Canada, and we usually have chilly weather and snow, in fact we had 4 feet of snow until two days ago when the weather has been plus 10 celcius and now everything has melted. STRANGE! We usually have snow until April!
Anyhow back to the subject on hand here, I tend to get off topic at times. I do agree somewhat with some type of control because there are a lot of people out there who take advange of the energy. Something that some companies are starting to do up here is that your energy is cheaper until you get to a certain amount used for that month and then you pay a higher price if you go over that first step. Wow I'm having a hard time getting that to make sense, but do you understand what I mean?
1 person likes this
