DerbyDad03 wrote:

*I'm* being silly? Do you really think your suggestion is viable?

How many thermostat manufacturers are there - worldwide? How are you
going to get them to go along with your suggestion? What's in it for
them to put in place the processes required to have thermostats with 2
different settings produced and packed half and half? If they won't
do it voluntarily (and I doubt they will) then some authoritative body
would have to make them "want" to do it - perhaps with incentives and
all the grabage that goes along with that sort of program. Lucky for
you, no such worldwide body exists, because that would put us right
back where we started with the "direct state or even utility control"
that you are trying to avoid.

Oh, by the way, please don't suggest that not every manufaturer has to
play along for your suggestion to make a difference. If consumers
have a choice between a thermostat that only works on a 50% duty cycle
sitting on the shelf next to ones that work whenever the consumer
wants it to, which one do you think they are going to buy? Which of
course means that as soon as the full-time T-stats start outselling
the 50% models, no one will make 50% models anymore.

Granted, on paper your suggestion makes sense, but it is simply not
practical. Sorry.

The state will mandate the change.

Not every manufacturer will comply with the state's directive, only those
who want to sell their stuff in California.

You're right about a consumer's decision when he has a choice, but the state
makes that choice for him.

You think I exaggerate? Consider automobiles.

A more likely scenario involves defeating the thermostat's on-off cycle.