California to require programmable communicating thermostats. It's a
thermostat with a built-in FM receiver so the state can set the temperature
of your HVAC system to whatever they think is appropriate.

"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/..._thermost.html

HeyBub wrote:
California to require programmable communicating thermostats. It's a
thermostat with a built-in FM receiver so the state can set the temperature
of your HVAC system to whatever they think is appropriate.

"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/..._thermost.html


I do part time consulting on chemical regulatory affairs. I make many an
extra buck thanks to regs in the land of the fruits, nuts and flakes

Frank

On Jan 4, 12:07*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
California to require programmable communicating thermostats. It's a
thermostat with a built-in FM receiver so the state can set the temperature
of your HVAC system to whatever they think is appropriate.

"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/..._your_thermost...

If you're going to read the americanthinker side of the story, you
should also read this site:

http://topics.energycentral.com/cent...l.cfm?aid=1622

Aside from the fact that it appears to be a fairly friendly discussion
related to the pros and cons of PCT's by every day people, there seems
to be some discrepencies between the main article at that site and the
one at americanthinker. Well, maybe they are not 'discrepencies' in
the literal sense, but the way each site explains the process
certainly differs.

Specifically, americanthinker implies that the "state" will control
your PCT during price events with manual overide by the homeowner
possible, while the energycentral site seems to imply that the
consumer can "opt-in" for these controls if desired. Yes, in both
cases the utility will take control of your PCT, but the way it is
worded at energycentral doesn't make it sound as big-brother-esque as
americanthinker. If the homeowner gives the utility permission to
control the PCT during price events, then no one has lost any
freedoms.

As far the emergency conditions go, call me a wimp if you want, but if
the utility decides to increase the set points of all the PCT's in my
neighborhood so our AC only keeps our houses at 80, but our fridges,
freezers, computers, TVs and phones keep working, let 'em! Given the
choice of what devices to keep running in order to avoid a blackout,
I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. Look at it this way
- the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the grid if
they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e. rolling
blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80 degrees or a few
hours with no power at all? I'll opt for the former.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 12:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
California to require programmable communicating thermostats. It's a
thermostat with a built-in FM receiver so the state can set the temperature
of your HVAC system to whatever they think is appropriate.

"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/..._your_thermost...

If you're going to read the americanthinker side of the story, you
should also read this site:

http://topics.energycentral.com/cent...l.cfm?aid=1622

Aside from the fact that it appears to be a fairly friendly discussion
related to the pros and cons of PCT's by every day people, there seems
to be some discrepencies between the main article at that site and the
one at americanthinker. Well, maybe they are not 'discrepencies' in
the literal sense, but the way each site explains the process
certainly differs.

Specifically, americanthinker implies that the "state" will control
your PCT during price events with manual overide by the homeowner
possible, while the energycentral site seems to imply that the
consumer can "opt-in" for these controls if desired. Yes, in both
cases the utility will take control of your PCT, but the way it is
worded at energycentral doesn't make it sound as big-brother-esque as
americanthinker. If the homeowner gives the utility permission to
control the PCT during price events, then no one has lost any
freedoms.

As far the emergency conditions go, call me a wimp if you want, but if
the utility decides to increase the set points of all the PCT's in my
neighborhood so our AC only keeps our houses at 80, but our fridges,
freezers, computers, TVs and phones keep working, let 'em! Given the
choice of what devices to keep running in order to avoid a blackout,
I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. Look at it this way
- the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the grid if
they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e. rolling
blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80 degrees or a few
hours with no power at all? I'll opt for the former.

I've not read the articles in question and (fortunately) do not live in
the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.

My thought on the general subject is that without requiring any sort of
direct state or even utility control, it would be possible to
significantly reduce the peak utility loads and therefore the size and
number of generating plants required by implementing a simple form of
load management.

Big commercial buildings have done load management for many years, using
simple controls to insure that large loads like heating and cooling that
serve different parts of the building are not active at the same time.
With the ease of receiving accurate time signals from the WWVB
transmitters or from GPS, just creating thermostats that only operate
the attached electrically powered heating or cooling equipment in a
given half of the hour could substantially reduce peak loads with little
to no impact on comfort. If your 5kW A/C unit and you neighbors 5kW A/C
unit never operate at the same time, you give a more constant 5kW load
to the utility instead of 0kW/5kW/10kW variability.

In article , DerbyDad03 wrote:

[snip of post that is entirely good points except this last]

I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. Look at it this way
- the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the grid if
they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e. rolling
blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80 degrees or a few
hours with no power at all? I'll opt for the former.

Trouble is, that's probably not the tradeoff you face. The tradeoff probably
will look more like a few *days* at 80 degrees vs. a few hours with no power.
Not to say that you wouldn't still come down on the same side of the
decision... just pointing out that it's not likely to be a simple
hours-for-hours trade.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Jan 4, 2:30*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 12:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
California to require programmable communicating thermostats. It's a
thermostat with a built-in FM receiver so the state can set the temperature
of your HVAC system to whatever they think is appropriate.

"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/..._your_thermost....

If you're going to read the americanthinker side of the story, you
should also read this site:

http://topics.energycentral.com/cent.../detail.cfm?ai...

Aside from the fact that it appears to be a fairly friendly discussion
related to the pros and cons of PCT's by every day people, there seems
to be some discrepencies between the main article at that site and the
one at americanthinker. Well, maybe they are not 'discrepencies' in
the literal sense, but the way each site explains the process
certainly differs.

Specifically, americanthinker implies that the "state" will control
your PCT during price events with manual overide by the homeowner
possible, while the energycentral site seems to imply that the
consumer can "opt-in" for these controls if desired. Yes, in both
cases the utility will take control of your PCT, but the way it is
worded at energycentral doesn't make it sound as big-brother-esque as
americanthinker. If the homeowner gives the utility permission to
control the PCT during price events, then no one has lost any
freedoms.

As far the emergency conditions go, call me a wimp if you want, but if
the utility decides to increase the set points of all the PCT's in my
neighborhood so our AC only keeps our houses at 80, but our fridges,
freezers, computers, TVs and phones keep working, let 'em! * Given the
choice of what devices to keep running in order to *avoid a blackout,
I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. *Look at it this way
- the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the grid if
they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e. rolling
blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80 degrees or a few
hours with no power at all? *I'll opt for the former.

I've not read the articles in question and (fortunately) do not live in
the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.

My thought on the general subject is that without requiring any sort of
direct state or even utility control, it would be possible to
significantly reduce the peak utility loads and therefore the size and
number of generating plants required by implementing a simple form of
load management.

Big commercial buildings have done load management for many years, using
simple controls to insure that large loads like heating and cooling that
serve different parts of the building are not active at the same time.
With the ease of receiving accurate time signals from the WWVB
transmitters or from GPS, just creating thermostats that only operate
the attached electrically powered heating or cooling equipment in a
given half of the hour could substantially reduce peak loads with little
to no impact on comfort. If your 5kW A/C unit and you neighbors 5kW A/C
unit never operate at the same time, you give a more constant 5kW load
to the utility instead of 0kW/5kW/10kW variability.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who decides who gets which half hour?

Big commercial buildings that do load management typically have a
single owner/contractor responsible for the power management. A
neighborhood full of individual houses does not. Even if they
implemented something as simple as odd house numbers get the top half
of the hour and even numbers get the bottom, someone in "authority"
has to make that decision and processes need to be put into place to
make it happen. That implies some type of "direct state or even
utility control". You certainly can't expect mere citizens to get
together and agree on a schedule. So whether it's remote controlled
thermostats or a "half hour on, half hour off" duty cycle, there would
need to be some body of authority in charge.

On Jan 4, 3:10*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , DerbyDad03 wrote:

[snip of post that is entirely good points except this last]

I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. *Look at it this way
- the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the grid if
they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e. rolling
blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80 degrees or a few
hours with no power at all? *I'll opt for the former.

Trouble is, that's probably not the tradeoff you face. The tradeoff probably
will look more like a few *days* at 80 degrees vs. a few hours with no power.
Not to say that you wouldn't still come down on the same side of the
decision... just pointing out that it's not likely to be a simple
hours-for-hours trade.

--
Regards,
* * * * Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Point taken...and yes, I'd still opt for a few days in a state-
mandated 80 degree house in exchange for always cold beverages.

On Jan 4, 3:10*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , DerbyDad03 wrote:

[snip of post that is entirely good points except this last]

I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. *Look at it this way
- the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the grid if
they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e. rolling
blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80 degrees or a few
hours with no power at all? *I'll opt for the former.

Trouble is, that's probably not the tradeoff you face. The tradeoff probably
will look more like a few *days* at 80 degrees vs. a few hours with no power.
Not to say that you wouldn't still come down on the same side of the
decision... just pointing out that it's not likely to be a simple
hours-for-hours trade.

--
Regards,
* * * * Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Ya know, now that I've thought about it a bit, I wonder if it might
indeed be just a few hours at 80 degrees.

We'd have to crunch a lot of numbers, but here's my 30,000 foot view:

From what I have been able to gather, CA's rolling blackouts shed
about 550 MW from the grid with each segment they shut off. Each
outage lasts 60 - 90 minutes in each of the 14 segments. So all we
need to know if it is possible to shed 550 MW by setting back every
PCT in all 14 segments at once.

If the goal is to shed 550 MW during the peak periods and it could be
done across all 14 segments at one time, then each set back would only
last as long as the peak usage hours would be. Come to think of it, if
having everybody's AC set at 72 is the major cause of the peaks, then
the set back itself would ease the load and they might be able to
shorten the time of set back.

I'm not sure if that makes sense but it would be fun to noodle through
it a bit.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jan 4, 3:10 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:

[snip of post that is entirely good points except this last]

I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. Look at it this
way - the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the
grid if they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e.
rolling blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80
degrees or a few hours with no power at all? I'll opt for the
former.

Trouble is, that's probably not the tradeoff you face. The tradeoff
probably
will look more like a few *days* at 80 degrees vs. a few hours with
no power.
Not to say that you wouldn't still come down on the same side of the
decision... just pointing out that it's not likely to be a simple
hours-for-hours trade.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Ya know, now that I've thought about it a bit, I wonder if it might
indeed be just a few hours at 80 degrees.

We'd have to crunch a lot of numbers, but here's my 30,000 foot view:

From what I have been able to gather, CA's rolling blackouts shed
about 550 MW from the grid with each segment they shut off. Each
outage lasts 60 - 90 minutes in each of the 14 segments. So all we
need to know if it is possible to shed 550 MW by setting back every
PCT in all 14 segments at once.

If the goal is to shed 550 MW during the peak periods and it could be
done across all 14 segments at one time, then each set back would only
last as long as the peak usage hours would be. Come to think of it, if
having everybody's AC set at 72 is the major cause of the peaks, then
the set back itself would ease the load and they might be able to
shorten the time of set back.

I'm not sure if that makes sense but it would be fun to noodle through
it a bit.

To be quite frank;

If we all had less "childeren" there would be less need for electricity,
water, etc.

Instead, we all think that we can "cut back" our usage to deter the need for
more ..... What does that mean? We're just pushing back the inevitable.
No matter how you look at it, we as a society need more power generation.
Just as fast as we're saving and conserving, our hungar for more continues
to grow as that population does.

What's needed is a new generation of power. We need to generate more power
in conservative and environmentally sound way.

--
Zyp

"Zyp" wrote in message
news:Z6ydnY8nWJBwNePanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@championbroa dband.com...
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jan 4, 3:10 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:

[snip of post that is entirely good points except this last]

I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. Look at it this
way - the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the
grid if they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e.
rolling blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80
degrees or a few hours with no power at all? I'll opt for the
former.

Trouble is, that's probably not the tradeoff you face. The tradeoff
probably
will look more like a few *days* at 80 degrees vs. a few hours with
no power.
Not to say that you wouldn't still come down on the same side of the
decision... just pointing out that it's not likely to be a simple
hours-for-hours trade.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Ya know, now that I've thought about it a bit, I wonder if it might
indeed be just a few hours at 80 degrees.

We'd have to crunch a lot of numbers, but here's my 30,000 foot view:

From what I have been able to gather, CA's rolling blackouts shed
about 550 MW from the grid with each segment they shut off. Each
outage lasts 60 - 90 minutes in each of the 14 segments. So all we
need to know if it is possible to shed 550 MW by setting back every
PCT in all 14 segments at once.

If the goal is to shed 550 MW during the peak periods and it could be
done across all 14 segments at one time, then each set back would only
last as long as the peak usage hours would be. Come to think of it, if
having everybody's AC set at 72 is the major cause of the peaks, then
the set back itself would ease the load and they might be able to
shorten the time of set back.

I'm not sure if that makes sense but it would be fun to noodle through
it a bit.

To be quite frank;

If we all had less "childeren" there would be less need for electricity,
water, etc.

Instead, we all think that we can "cut back" our usage to deter the need
for more ..... What does that mean? We're just pushing back the
inevitable. No matter how you look at it, we as a society need more power
generation. Just as fast as we're saving and conserving, our hungar for
more continues to grow as that population does.

What's needed is a new generation of power. We need to generate more
power in conservative and environmentally sound way.

--
Zyp

The answer is to build more power plants, not add PCT's.

Let me see if I got this straight...

You're thinking that I should be upset that any entity outside my
domicile should want to exercise control over the largest energy
consuming device in my home. There is a certain "cold dead finger"
feel to the issue. I'm certain that had then been electric powered
air conditioners available to our original framers they would have
felt it necessary to protect them in the bill of rights, much the same
manner that operating a motor vehicle and separation of corporation
and state would have been - if they'd only known.

Of course, they* could just cut the power off completely and I'd
pretty much be screwed, so I guess if I wanna continue to suckle on
the nanny-state's gridded teat I'll comply with their totalitarian
demands. Oh, wait - dang! I've got thumbs - I'll just grow my own
electricity, there aren't even emission controls regulations on the
small displacement engines that I might choose to use - that'll show
'em! I'll spew as much as I damn well please and they can't stop me,
Baa haa ha.


*assuming some sort of collusion between the now deregulated,
completely privatized electricity providers and the democratically
elected republicans that do my biding in the government as you have
alluded to.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 2:30 pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 12:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
California to require programmable communicating thermostats. It's a
thermostat with a built-in FM receiver so the state can set the temperature
of your HVAC system to whatever they think is appropriate.

"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/..._your_thermost...

If you're going to read the americanthinker side of the story, you
should also read this site:

http://topics.energycentral.com/cent.../detail.cfm?ai...

Aside from the fact that it appears to be a fairly friendly discussion
related to the pros and cons of PCT's by every day people, there seems
to be some discrepencies between the main article at that site and the
one at americanthinker. Well, maybe they are not 'discrepencies' in
the literal sense, but the way each site explains the process
certainly differs.

Specifically, americanthinker implies that the "state" will control
your PCT during price events with manual overide by the homeowner
possible, while the energycentral site seems to imply that the
consumer can "opt-in" for these controls if desired. Yes, in both
cases the utility will take control of your PCT, but the way it is
worded at energycentral doesn't make it sound as big-brother-esque as
americanthinker. If the homeowner gives the utility permission to
control the PCT during price events, then no one has lost any
freedoms.

As far the emergency conditions go, call me a wimp if you want, but if
the utility decides to increase the set points of all the PCT's in my
neighborhood so our AC only keeps our houses at 80, but our fridges,
freezers, computers, TVs and phones keep working, let 'em! Given the
choice of what devices to keep running in order to avoid a blackout,
I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. Look at it this way
- the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the grid if
they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e. rolling
blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80 degrees or a few
hours with no power at all? I'll opt for the former.

I've not read the articles in question and (fortunately) do not live in
the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.

My thought on the general subject is that without requiring any sort of
direct state or even utility control, it would be possible to
significantly reduce the peak utility loads and therefore the size and
number of generating plants required by implementing a simple form of
load management.

Big commercial buildings have done load management for many years, using
simple controls to insure that large loads like heating and cooling that
serve different parts of the building are not active at the same time.
With the ease of receiving accurate time signals from the WWVB
transmitters or from GPS, just creating thermostats that only operate
the attached electrically powered heating or cooling equipment in a
given half of the hour could substantially reduce peak loads with little
to no impact on comfort. If your 5kW A/C unit and you neighbors 5kW A/C
unit never operate at the same time, you give a more constant 5kW load
to the utility instead of 0kW/5kW/10kW variability.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who decides who gets which half hour?

Big commercial buildings that do load management typically have a
single owner/contractor responsible for the power management. A
neighborhood full of individual houses does not. Even if they
implemented something as simple as odd house numbers get the top half
of the hour and even numbers get the bottom, someone in "authority"
has to make that decision and processes need to be put into place to
make it happen. That implies some type of "direct state or even
utility control". You certainly can't expect mere citizens to get
together and agree on a schedule. So whether it's remote controlled
thermostats or a "half hour on, half hour off" duty cycle, there would
need to be some body of authority in charge.

By serial number of the thermostat, i.e. odd sn runs in the first half
of the hour, even in the second half. If every single thermostat off the
production line is alternating and all the shipments have this same
alternation then while the distribution might not be perfect at the
street level, as a whole it would work.

On Jan 4, 6:42*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 2:30 pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 12:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
California to require programmable communicating thermostats. It's a
thermostat with a built-in FM receiver so the state can set the temperature
of your HVAC system to whatever they think is appropriate.

"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/..._your_thermost...

If you're going to read the americanthinker side of the story, you
should also read this site:

http://topics.energycentral.com/cent.../detail.cfm?ai....

Aside from the fact that it appears to be a fairly friendly discussion
related to the pros and cons of PCT's by every day people, there seems
to be some discrepencies between the main article at that site and the
one at americanthinker. Well, maybe they are not 'discrepencies' in
the literal sense, but the way each site explains the process
certainly differs.

Specifically, americanthinker implies that the "state" will control
your PCT during price events with manual overide by the homeowner
possible, while the energycentral site seems to imply that the
consumer can "opt-in" for these controls if desired. Yes, in both
cases the utility will take control of your PCT, but the way it is
worded at energycentral doesn't make it sound as big-brother-esque as
americanthinker. If the homeowner gives the utility permission to
control the PCT during price events, then no one has lost any
freedoms.

As far the emergency conditions go, call me a wimp if you want, but if
the utility decides to increase the set points of all the PCT's in my
neighborhood so our AC only keeps our houses at 80, but our fridges,
freezers, computers, TVs and phones keep working, let 'em! * Given the
choice of what devices to keep running in order to *avoid a blackout,
I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. *Look at it this way
- the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the grid if
they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e. rolling
blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80 degrees or a few
hours with no power at all? *I'll opt for the former.

I've not read the articles in question and (fortunately) do not live in
the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.

My thought on the general subject is that without requiring any sort of
direct state or even utility control, it would be possible to
significantly reduce the peak utility loads and therefore the size and
number of generating plants required by implementing a simple form of
load management.

Big commercial buildings have done load management for many years, using
simple controls to insure that large loads like heating and cooling that
serve different parts of the building are not active at the same time.
With the ease of receiving accurate time signals from the WWVB
transmitters or from GPS, just creating thermostats that only operate
the attached electrically powered heating or cooling equipment in a
given half of the hour could substantially reduce peak loads with little
to no impact on comfort. If your 5kW A/C unit and you neighbors 5kW A/C
unit never operate at the same time, you give a more constant 5kW load
to the utility instead of 0kW/5kW/10kW variability.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who decides who gets which half hour?

Big commercial buildings that do load management typically have a
single owner/contractor responsible for the power management. A
neighborhood full of individual houses does not. Even if they
implemented something as simple as odd house numbers get the top half
of the hour and even numbers get the bottom, someone in "authority"
has to make that decision and processes need to be put into place to
make it happen. That implies some type of "direct state or even
utility control". You certainly can't expect mere citizens to get
together and agree on a schedule. So whether it's remote controlled
thermostats or a "half hour on, half hour off" duty cycle, there would
need to be some body of authority in charge.

By serial number of the thermostat, i.e. odd sn runs in the first half
of the hour, even in the second half. If every single thermostat off the
production line is alternating and all the shipments have this same
alternation then while the distribution might not be perfect at the
street level, as a whole it would work.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who is going to tell (force?) all the various manufacturers of
thermostats how to number and ship their product?

At my company, T-Stats by DerbyDad, we chose to number our products
with the first 4 digits being the model number, the next 8 being the
serial number, and the last 6 being the date code. My competitor,
Feng Shui TempControl (a Japanese company) chooses to end all of their
serial numbers with a 4 digit plant code based on where the devices
were assembled.

Who is going to make us change the way we chose to run our private
enterprises?

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 6:42 pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 2:30 pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 12:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
California to require programmable communicating thermostats. It's a
thermostat with a built-in FM receiver so the state can set the temperature
of your HVAC system to whatever they think is appropriate.

"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/..._your_thermost...

If you're going to read the americanthinker side of the story, you
should also read this site:

http://topics.energycentral.com/cent.../detail.cfm?ai...

Aside from the fact that it appears to be a fairly friendly discussion
related to the pros and cons of PCT's by every day people, there seems
to be some discrepencies between the main article at that site and the
one at americanthinker. Well, maybe they are not 'discrepencies' in
the literal sense, but the way each site explains the process
certainly differs.

Specifically, americanthinker implies that the "state" will control
your PCT during price events with manual overide by the homeowner
possible, while the energycentral site seems to imply that the
consumer can "opt-in" for these controls if desired. Yes, in both
cases the utility will take control of your PCT, but the way it is
worded at energycentral doesn't make it sound as big-brother-esque as
americanthinker. If the homeowner gives the utility permission to
control the PCT during price events, then no one has lost any
freedoms.

As far the emergency conditions go, call me a wimp if you want, but if
the utility decides to increase the set points of all the PCT's in my
neighborhood so our AC only keeps our houses at 80, but our fridges,
freezers, computers, TVs and phones keep working, let 'em! Given the
choice of what devices to keep running in order to avoid a blackout,
I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. Look at it this way
- the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the grid if
they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e. rolling
blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80 degrees or a few
hours with no power at all? I'll opt for the former.

I've not read the articles in question and (fortunately) do not live in
the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.

My thought on the general subject is that without requiring any sort of
direct state or even utility control, it would be possible to
significantly reduce the peak utility loads and therefore the size and
number of generating plants required by implementing a simple form of
load management.

Big commercial buildings have done load management for many years, using
simple controls to insure that large loads like heating and cooling that
serve different parts of the building are not active at the same time.
With the ease of receiving accurate time signals from the WWVB
transmitters or from GPS, just creating thermostats that only operate
the attached electrically powered heating or cooling equipment in a
given half of the hour could substantially reduce peak loads with little
to no impact on comfort. If your 5kW A/C unit and you neighbors 5kW A/C
unit never operate at the same time, you give a more constant 5kW load
to the utility instead of 0kW/5kW/10kW variability.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who decides who gets which half hour?

Big commercial buildings that do load management typically have a
single owner/contractor responsible for the power management. A
neighborhood full of individual houses does not. Even if they
implemented something as simple as odd house numbers get the top half
of the hour and even numbers get the bottom, someone in "authority"
has to make that decision and processes need to be put into place to
make it happen. That implies some type of "direct state or even
utility control". You certainly can't expect mere citizens to get
together and agree on a schedule. So whether it's remote controlled
thermostats or a "half hour on, half hour off" duty cycle, there would
need to be some body of authority in charge.

By serial number of the thermostat, i.e. odd sn runs in the first half
of the hour, even in the second half. If every single thermostat off the
production line is alternating and all the shipments have this same
alternation then while the distribution might not be perfect at the
street level, as a whole it would work.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who is going to tell (force?) all the various manufacturers of
thermostats how to number and ship their product?

At my company, T-Stats by DerbyDad, we chose to number our products
with the first 4 digits being the model number, the next 8 being the
serial number, and the last 6 being the date code. My competitor,
Feng Shui TempControl (a Japanese company) chooses to end all of their
serial numbers with a 4 digit plant code based on where the devices
were assembled.

Who is going to make us change the way we chose to run our private
enterprises?

Now you're just being silly. The point is to have alternating settings
in the production stream. If every case of t-stats you ship is half and
half the overall distribution will be just fine.

On Jan 4, 11:24*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 6:42 pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 2:30 pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 4, 12:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
California to require programmable communicating thermostats. It's a
thermostat with a built-in FM receiver so the state can set the temperature
of your HVAC system to whatever they think is appropriate.

"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/..._your_thermost...

If you're going to read the americanthinker side of the story, you
should also read this site:

http://topics.energycentral.com/cent.../detail.cfm?ai...

Aside from the fact that it appears to be a fairly friendly discussion
related to the pros and cons of PCT's by every day people, there seems
to be some discrepencies between the main article at that site and the
one at americanthinker. Well, maybe they are not 'discrepencies' in
the literal sense, but the way each site explains the process
certainly differs.

Specifically, americanthinker implies that the "state" will control
your PCT during price events with manual overide by the homeowner
possible, while the energycentral site seems to imply that the
consumer can "opt-in" for these controls if desired. Yes, in both
cases the utility will take control of your PCT, but the way it is
worded at energycentral doesn't make it sound as big-brother-esque as
americanthinker. If the homeowner gives the utility permission to
control the PCT during price events, then no one has lost any
freedoms.

As far the emergency conditions go, call me a wimp if you want, but if
the utility decides to increase the set points of all the PCT's in my
neighborhood so our AC only keeps our houses at 80, but our fridges,
freezers, computers, TVs and phones keep working, let 'em! * Given the
choice of what devices to keep running in order to *avoid a blackout,
I'd choose to live without my AC over the others. *Look at it this way
- the utilities already have the abilty to take areas off the grid if
they feel it is in the best interest of the "whole" - i.e. rolling
blackouts. Which would you prefer: A few hours at 80 degrees or a few
hours with no power at all? *I'll opt for the former.

I've not read the articles in question and (fortunately) do not live in
the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.

My thought on the general subject is that without requiring any sort of
direct state or even utility control, it would be possible to
significantly reduce the peak utility loads and therefore the size and
number of generating plants required by implementing a simple form of
load management.

Big commercial buildings have done load management for many years, using
simple controls to insure that large loads like heating and cooling that
serve different parts of the building are not active at the same time.
With the ease of receiving accurate time signals from the WWVB
transmitters or from GPS, just creating thermostats that only operate
the attached electrically powered heating or cooling equipment in a
given half of the hour could substantially reduce peak loads with little
to no impact on comfort. If your 5kW A/C unit and you neighbors 5kW A/C
unit never operate at the same time, you give a more constant 5kW load
to the utility instead of 0kW/5kW/10kW variability.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who decides who gets which half hour?

Big commercial buildings that do load management typically have a
single owner/contractor responsible for the power management. A
neighborhood full of individual houses does not. Even if they
implemented something as simple as odd house numbers get the top half
of the hour and even numbers get the bottom, someone in "authority"
has to make that decision and processes need to be put into place to
make it happen. That implies some type of "direct state or even
utility control". You certainly can't expect mere citizens to get
together and agree on a schedule. So whether it's remote controlled
thermostats or a "half hour on, half hour off" duty cycle, there would
need to be some body of authority in charge.

By serial number of the thermostat, i.e. odd sn runs in the first half
of the hour, even in the second half. If every single thermostat off the
production line is alternating and all the shipments have this same
alternation then while the distribution might not be perfect at the
street level, as a whole it would work.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who is going to tell (force?) all the various manufacturers of
thermostats how to number and ship their product?

At my company, T-Stats by DerbyDad, we chose to number our products
with the first 4 digits being the model number, the next 8 being the
serial number, and the last 6 being the date code. *My competitor,
Feng Shui TempControl (a Japanese company) chooses to end all of their
serial numbers with a 4 digit plant code based on where the devices
were assembled.

Who is going to make us change the way we chose to run our private
enterprises?

Now you're just being silly. The point is to have alternating settings
in the production stream. If every case of t-stats you ship is half and
half the overall distribution will be just fine.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*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.

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.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

At my company, T-Stats by DerbyDad, we chose to number our products
with the first 4 digits being the model number, the next 8 being the
serial number, and the last 6 being the date code. My competitor,
Feng Shui TempControl (a Japanese company) chooses to end all of their
serial numbers with a 4 digit plant code based on where the devices
were assembled.

Who is going to make us change the way we chose to run our private
enterprises?

Somebody should.

Eighteen digits is something like 123,456,789,123,456,789 which is enough
numbers to assign over a million unique identifiers to every person on the
planet!

Does your product number include a check-digit? No? With eighteen digits,
you're guaranteeing trouble.

How hard would it be to take the serial number and LOOK UP the model and
date?

its just another right being taken from americans, based on its good
for us.

just look at what we have lost in the last 10 years................

the US ignores the geneva convention

has indefinite detainees

has black prisons

waterboards and tortures, then destroys the evidence

look at the hassle of getting on a airliner.... cant find your drivers
license? you cant fly sorry.

US tracks all our spending

US wiretaps phone calls without court order

US congress and wite house largely ignores open porus borders and at
most gives lip service to fixing illegal immigration. no doubt because
those illegals are essential for ouur economy.

vehicles are we regulated adding thousands to costs but the bump safe
bumpers, that allowed a 3.5 mile hit were dropped, so car makersa can
get wealthy everytime a minor bump occurs.

these regulations although sold to us for our benefit often benefit
others, like big business.

the US is well along to be a declining country, debt ridden, congress
handing out pork as payoffs to whoever gave them money to get re
elected. without concern for the good of the people or our country.

we lost manufacturing, and are losing food production.

one day soon our country run by special interests will collapse of its
own bureacratic money wasting ways.....

our standard of living will collapse, perhaps energy needs will tank
at that time?

On Jan 5, 7:54*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:

At my company, T-Stats by DerbyDad, we chose to number our products
with the first 4 digits being the model number, the next 8 being the
serial number, and the last 6 being the date code. *My competitor,
Feng Shui TempControl (a Japanese company) chooses to end all of their
serial numbers with a 4 digit plant code based on where the devices
were assembled.

Who is going to make us change the way we chose to run our private
enterprises?

Somebody should.

Eighteen digits is something like 123,456,789,123,456,789 which is enough
numbers to assign over a million unique identifiers to every person on the
planet!

Does your product number include a check-digit? No? With eighteen digits,
you're guaranteeing trouble.

How hard would it be to take the serial number and LOOK UP the model and
date?

I'll assume you are being as facetious in this response as I was in
mine.

I'm sure you've heard it before, but misapprehensions should not be ignored.
See imbeded comments.

wrote:
its just another right being taken from americans, based on its good
for us.

just look at what we have lost in the last 10 years................

the US ignores the geneva convention

## If you refer to the folks at Guantanamo, there is no Geneva Convention,
treaty, or protocol that covers unlawful enemy combatants. The folks there
are not criminals (so our constitutional safeguards do not apply) nor are
they POWs.


has indefinite detainees

## The usual practice throughout the centuries has been to summarily execute
sabateurs, spys, guerrillas, fifth columnists, and other forms of unlawful
enemy combatants. I remind you that the last of the German POWs were not
repatriated until late 1949, almost five years after the cessation of
hostilities.


has black prisons

##True. Having worked in a jail, I can say you can't integrate one person
with 100 of a different type, be that type race, sexual orientation,
national origin, or whatever. The cellblocks - or prisons - have to be
roughly equal or all of one type. The reason we have "black prisons" is
because there are more black prisoners.


waterboards and tortures, then destroys the evidence

## A rational person wouldn't want to KEEP the evidence, now would he?


look at the hassle of getting on a airliner.... cant find your drivers
license? you cant fly sorry.

US tracks all our spending

## ???


US wiretaps phone calls without court order

## The first wiretaps took place when both the Union and Confederate forces
intercepted telegraph messages. This is standard practice in wartime. There
are no laws, treaties, or anything else proscribing such.


US congress and wite house largely ignores open porus borders and at
most gives lip service to fixing illegal immigration. no doubt because
those illegals are essential for ouur economy.

## Only the Republicans have the economy as their goal; Democrats want the
votes.


vehicles are we regulated adding thousands to costs but the bump safe
bumpers, that allowed a 3.5 mile hit were dropped, so car makersa can
get wealthy everytime a minor bump occurs.

## ???


these regulations although sold to us for our benefit often benefit
others, like big business.

## Agreed.


the US is well along to be a declining country, debt ridden, congress
handing out pork as payoffs to whoever gave them money to get re
elected. without concern for the good of the people or our country.

## The US is not a declining country. Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the
last five years is greater than the entire GDP of China.


we lost manufacturing, and are losing food production.

## It is good that we lose unprofitable manufacturing (or any other type of
job). Adam Smith proved this in his "Wealth of Nations," published in 1776.
Some people just need to keep up.

## We ARE losing food production because much "food" is being converted to
fuel. When the problem gets severe enough, somebody will find a way to make
food out of oil. It'll average out.


one day soon our country run by special interests will collapse of its
own bureacratic money wasting ways.....

## "Special interests" are good. They act as a brake on the ignorant cries
of the great uwashed mob. It's called "separation of power." Do you want to
take a vote on what the tariff should be for hauling rendered Yak Fat on
interstate railroads? Do you want your congress-critter to decide? Or would
you rather the regulators have input from those who know how important Yak
Fat is to homeland defense?


our standard of living will collapse, perhaps energy needs will tank
at that time?

## The life expectancy of an American and the average African in 1910 was
roughly the same - about 45. Today Americans live to 80 while Africans have
shrunk to about 40.

I'm the author of the American Thinker article. I also commented on
the EnergyPulse article - it got me digging on the issue.

There are definitely differences in viewpoints. I based my article on
the direct words of the California Energy Commission's proposed
revisions and linked those documents in my article. I even quoted
them. The authors of the EnergyPulse article hope to sell
programmable communicating thermostats and supporting equipment. I
want to build new nuclear power plants and set my own damn thermostat.

The state is trying to take control of your thermostat according to
the plain words of the proposed Title 24. See page 63 in particular.
The rules on who and when the override features are activated have yet
to be decided. The supposition is that the local utility will
actually push the button but in most cases, the California Independent
System Operator (CAISO), the state agency that runs the grid, will
give the order. They already are in charge of rolling blackouts,
etc. What exactly is an "emergency" in this context?

My political basis is that the state of California has made it very
difficult to build new, effective generation in the state. They "fix"
this government-made problem by taking control of your personal
property when they want to. The proper solution, in my opinion, is
to build several new nuclear power plants. The billions we've spent
on wind and solar hasn't and won't help.

The choice is not loss of control of your thermostat versus
blackouts. The choice is nuclear power plants versus continued loss
of freedom and further invasion of one's life by the state.

Ultimately, PCTs will be used to implement real time pricing. There
are lots of arguments pro and con on this. Anyone want to bet that an
average home's electric bill will DECREASE under real time pricing
without radical reorganization of one's family life and habits?

wrote:
I'm the author of the American Thinker article. I also commented on
the EnergyPulse article - it got me digging on the issue.

The choice is not loss of control of your thermostat versus
blackouts. The choice is nuclear power plants versus continued loss
of freedom and further invasion of one's life by the state.


Law I in politics is "tax the few, benefit the many."

In California, it's "regulate the many, benefit the loudest."

HeyBub wrote:

wrote:

I'm the author of the American Thinker article. I also commented on
the EnergyPulse article - it got me digging on the issue.

The choice is not loss of control of your thermostat versus
blackouts. The choice is nuclear power plants versus continued loss
of freedom and further invasion of one's life by the state.



Law I in politics is "tax the few, benefit the many."

In California, it's "regulate the many, benefit the loudest."


Hi,
To me, it is ignore the silent majority, pleaae the loud minority
Silent majority should rise up and take their place.