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.
Some further research I did shows that these proposed changes would apply even to homes running “off-grid” (on their own electricity, from solar or otherwise). If this actually makes it into the building codes, the part of California where I live (the chaparral of San Diego County) could be rendered practically uninhabitable in the summertime – temperatures here routinely cross 100°F, and we commonly exceed 105°F.
This proposal is the direct consequence of the anti-market politics in Sacremento. Our government insists on regulating the electrical market, and on impeding the construction of new generating capacity. The result is very predictable: artificially low electricity prices have encouraged greater consumption – and the lack of new generating capacity means that the demand now exceed the supply. The nanny-state solution: enforced restrictions, in the form of PCTs, rolling blackouts, and other such draconian “solutions”. The market, if they just left it alone, would take care of this very nicely: increased consumption would encourage new generating capacity, and if demand exceeded supply prices would rise until that stopped. That's how markets work – if they're left alone by the flippin' government.
I'm getting really, really tired of the government telling me how to live my life and how to spend my money…
This proposal is the direct consequence of the anti-market politics in Sacremento. Our government insists on regulating the electrical market, and on impeding the construction of new generating capacity. The result is very predictable: artificially low electricity prices have encouraged greater consumption – and the lack of new generating capacity means that the demand now exceed the supply. The nanny-state solution: enforced restrictions, in the form of PCTs, rolling blackouts, and other such draconian “solutions”. The market, if they just left it alone, would take care of this very nicely: increased consumption would encourage new generating capacity, and if demand exceeded supply prices would rise until that stopped. That's how markets work – if they're left alone by the flippin' government.
I'm getting really, really tired of the government telling me how to live my life and how to spend my money…
Who are the authorities in this case? Does the electric company get to decide the emergency or some government official that gets campaign donations from them?
ReplyDeleteMight be interesting the first time some old person dies because the government decided they didn't need so much AC.
Larry