Thermostat Outrage Over . . . For Now?
Bradley J. Fikes reports:
The California Energy Commission will remove a proposed mandatory control feature from thermostats required in new homes, Claudia Chandler, the commission’s assistant executive director, said Friday.
The control feature, specified in an upcoming revision to building codes, would have required so-called Programmable Communicating Thermostats to be installed with the air conditioning systems of new homes. These thermostats would have deferred in emergencies to a radio signal broadcast by utilities, removing control from customers.
After public protests, Chandler said, the commission decided to remove the mandatory provision from the proposal for the “Title 24” energy efficiency standards. Staff will make the recommendation at the energy commission’s Jan. 30 meeting, and the new proposal would be taken up at a later meeting.
High fives all around.
The way this is written, though, it doesn’t sound like the proposal is being killed — just delayed . . . unless I’m misreading Bradley’s article. Maybe he can fill us in.
The revised proposal will still mandate that the thermostats have non-removable radio control modules, Chandler told me.
I asked why the radio control module couldn’t be removable. Chandler said the next buyer of the home might want to participate in the program.
I report, you decide.
Bradley J. Fikes (a18ddc) — 1/11/2008 @ 5:36 pmAt one point it says “The consumer or customer can overrride the emergency control,” with the change, Chandler said. The system would notify customers of an emergency. If the customer did nothing, utilities could reset the thermostat to a higher temperature, but no higher than 88 degrees.
This sounds like the thermostats are still going to be there but, if you are home, you could over ride them. If you’re not home, you lose.
It’s better but still can be harmful to an elderly person at home in a heat wave who cannot figure out how to override the thermostat.
Mike K (86bddb) — 1/11/2008 @ 5:41 pmGood point, Mike K.
Devil in the details. The revised specifications must read very carefully. When we have the revised specifications, that is.
Bradley J. Fikes (a18ddc) — 1/11/2008 @ 5:44 pmIt’s rare that autocratical impulses are more than delayed… the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Or in other words, the price of freedom is constantly trying to get the leash back on the damned bureaucrats, just so they can’t sneak up and put the leash on you.
Merovign (4744a2) — 1/11/2008 @ 5:47 pmMerovign,
Very eloquent. May I quote you on that?
Bradley J. Fikes (a18ddc) — 1/11/2008 @ 5:54 pmThis is the equivalent of the ‘time out just to get the crowd to stop yelling’ in football.
Al (b624ac) — 1/11/2008 @ 6:51 pmJust more prestidigitation for the hay-seeds.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/11/2008 @ 7:08 pmHere’s how I presume of the commission’s meeting on the issue went:
—
Boss: We have orders to get these devices operational, no matter what.
Engineer: Well, our schedule already calls for installing the units first, then programming them after. The key is just to get them in place; that’s the hard part.
Boss: OK, we’ll just announce the installation part, then. We can make them mandatory after it’s too late for anyone to do anything about it … and still be right on schedule! Excellent.
—
I mean, a modular radio control would work just as well as one that can’t be removed, and it’d be better for maintenance, too. And why install a device for which there is no demand from the customer when you can always put it in later by customer request?
The smiling bastards are winning.
ras (fc54bb) — 1/11/2008 @ 7:10 pmTime for you folks to invest in some wire-cutters
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/11/2008 @ 7:14 pmI don’t much care for this idea, but I can see it from their side, too. Which is worse: turning up thermostats to lower the AC load, or blacking out a neighborhood?
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 1/11/2008 @ 8:51 pmKevin Murphy, you’re right about that point. If we could be certain that imminent blackout would be the only time this emergency control would be invoked, few if any would have a problem with it. And voluntary compliance would be seen as a public-spirited response, especially if accompanied by a price break on the bill. The ability to fine-tune the power supply to prevent greater inconvenience is quite attractive.
But the continued insistence that the radio control portion of the thermostat can’t be removed by customers is worrisome. The only way for customers to be entirely sure of being disconnected from the control network is to remove the receiver. If these receivers can’t be removed, turning voluntary into mandatory would be much easier. A firmware upgrade sent over the wireless network might do it.
Conversely, it should be easy to install such a controller if made into a detachable module. Utilities could even give them out for free. That would make everything entirely voluntary. Plug in the receiver to be part of the network, yank it out if you don’t want to.
Since I am not a software or electronics engineer, I hope readers of this blog and elsewhere will be poring over the updated specs to see if such a scenario is possible. I’ll be watching closely what they find out.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/11/2008 @ 9:15 pmBradley–
Not only am I an engineer, but I am probably the only person on this blog who has actually built RDS systems, both transmit and receive.
At heart, it is an FM receiver chip tuned to a particular station, but it’s a bit of an odd one. It receives and ignores all the station signal that one would normally listen to, and instead grabs a bit of data outside of the audio portion. About 600 bits per second net rate. Just enough to say “units with code 4899, no lower than 75 degrees” of some such.
Yes, it could be removable, or more accurately addable. You would want to somehow correlate the residence with some unit code, so it’s not something you could reasonably just get at the store — if they did it that way they’d be unable to rationally address them, never knowing who has what.
So, either they install them in new construction and make the builder pass along who has what, or the homeowner does that in a voluntary transaction. I favor the latter, of course, coupled with a small credit.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 1/11/2008 @ 9:27 pmTime to redouble the outcry–they’re being almost transparent about keeping the option around for later. Every politician in the country needs to be made to understand that supporting this idea in any way, shape, or form will be the end of their careers.
M. Scott Eiland (f358c7) — 1/11/2008 @ 9:28 pmKevin Murphy and Bradley J. Fikes,
I disagree. Giving the government control of thermostats is far worse than rolling blackouts if you want to actually solve the problem, even if it is only used in the most extreme situations.
California needs more power stations and better grids. As long as there are unpredictable rolling blackouts that affect everyone, there is an incentive to find a widespread solution. Government control is a stop-gap that solves the most extreme problems but makes it less likely the public or government will have an incentive to solve the problem.
DRJ (517d26) — 1/11/2008 @ 9:28 pmDRJ,
Duly noted. I’ll remember that point in future stories.
Bradley J. Fikes (9810bf) — 1/11/2008 @ 9:32 pmDRJ,
What is your proposal for the interim, assuming more grids and power stations were planned for?
voiceofreason (6ad66c) — 1/11/2008 @ 9:33 pmvoiceofreason #16,
I’m not a California power expert so I don’t know what energy plans are in place but it’s my impression California has no plans to build new power stations, and I doubt there are plans to significantly expand the grid.
However, assuming they do have these plans, the only interim solutions I can think of include restricting use (e.g., mandatory thermostat controls like this, rolling blackouts, etc.), encouraging migration out of California to reduce demand, buying power from other points on the grid, and/or increasing prices dramatically.
If I lived in California, I wouldn’t be happy with any of the interim solutions but I would choose the market-based solutions, e.g., price increases and buying additional power from other sources. My preferred solution is obviously more power stations and a better grid but I’m not as concerned with environmental impact as most Californians seem to be.
DRJ (517d26) — 1/11/2008 @ 10:05 pmDRJ,
I don’t think they have plans for expanded facilities either. But I don’t agree that market based solutions are the best fix.
Rolling blackouts occur in the summer and the people impacted most adversely are the elderly and very young who don’t do so well in stifling heat.
If it is purely a market based solution it tends to pit the poor against the not so poor, not an ideal result.
It seems like a catch 22. The people who want more power stations don’t want to pay the taxes to build them and without them the problem gets worse but to put a thermostat control in place to avoid the blackouts is a slap at one’s personal freedom….
Complicated to be sure.
voiceofreason (6ad66c) — 1/11/2008 @ 10:16 pmI agree the elderly, the ill, and the poor are disproportionately affected and that’s why I would choose a market-based solution because it’s a faster way to fix the problem. Admittedly it will adversely affect many people right now but fixing the problem will prevent it from hurting far more in the future. Halfhearted interim solutions will not only adversely affect the elderly, the ill and the poor right now but those same people in the future, making it a doubly bad solution.
DRJ (517d26) — 1/11/2008 @ 10:23 pmI don’t know. If you don’t have elderly loved ones living in the affected area I suppose it is easy to be analytical about it. The rhetorical question is “How many dead elderly and young is an acceptable sacrifice in letting the market drive a solution?”
voiceofreason (6ad66c) — 1/11/2008 @ 10:40 pmBuilding an energy source is not a quick project by any means. Electricity is not a luxury item and in today’s world is practically a necessity.
The elderly who are more likely to live in group home settings, the poor who are more likely to be renters, and working parents who most likely would have not acheived the means to be home owners or if they have are more likely to be subject to home owners associations, are exactly the people targeted by this PCT.
papertiger (3b614c) — 1/11/2008 @ 10:56 pmThey would be forced by landlord or contractual arrangement to have their very existence interpretted as “volunteering” for the program.
Renters would say, “I never volunteered for this.”
The state would answer, “You signed your rental contract.”
This is most enlightening. I’m getting the guidance I need — the technical and economic issues to consider, the questions to ask — right here.
Maybe AP will even detach a reporter from their All Britney All The Time detail to do a story or two.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:00 pmPapertiger,
If I read the material correctly the variance in temperature settings would be 4 degrees plus or minus.
I agree it should have been better explained as to the intent and conditions in which it would be used. I also agree that new sources for energy should be built.
As I mentioned in another thread on this subject I lived in military housing and worked in facilities which had the temps controlled fairly tightly. The purpose was to save energy and tax dollars. It didn’t seem like that big of a deal.
The alternative in the intermediate term is to let rolling blackouts occur and the chips fall where they may. Think through the implications. Loss of electricity not only impacts the temperature – it causes food to spoil and causes medicine to go bad, to name a couple. “balancing the load” is a good idea that ensures that people have electricity.
voiceofreason (6ad66c) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:10 pmvoiceofreason,
IMO if you don’t let the market drive the response, you run a risk that you won’t solve the problem and that will not only punish this generation but also future generations of poor, sick and elderly.
Yes, it will be difficult but it’s a big problem and it doesn’t have a quick and easy solution. In the short term, there’s nothing that prevents people from moving to places where better resources are available provided they can afford to move, but I’m sure some can afford it and others can with assistance. (In a way, it’s like Louisiana’s experience with Hurricane Katrina where the best solution was for some people to leave.) In addition, there’s nothing preventing public or private shelters and aid to those in greater need. But the overriding concern should be to fix the problem.
DRJ (517d26) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:21 pmDRJ–
OF COURSE we need more power stations. We need at the very least more combined cycle natural gas plants built and one of the saner LNG terminal proposals to go forward. Ideally we would be beginning to build modern nukes, and putting in residential solar at every decent opportunity.
Of these the only one *I* can have any say on is solar in my own house, and I have plans to do so when the addition goes on.
The problem is, of course, that people who have, say, jobs can’t compete with the loudmouth meatheads who seemingly have nothing better to do than obstruct all solutions. WE need to find a way to change that, to make politicians feel that they have something to lose every time a blackout occurs. Is this proposal a good idea? No, it’s a cop-out. Managing unnecessary scarcity.
But if your job is to manage that scarcity and you find yourself obstructed by fools down your preferred path, this does seem like a better idea than blackouts.
I did say I didn’t like it.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:28 pmWhen do you reach the point where you can’t manage the scarcity any longer?
DRJ (517d26) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:39 pmBradley J. Fikes – Feel free. 🙂 And with any luck, vigilant.
To those, from entirely honorable impulses, who defend this “program”:
If the government can righteously impose on the general public a scheme to take away control of the home environment (at least with regards to temperature), why can the government not impose on the substantially fewer number of people who oppose the construction of new power plants?
If you concede a need for the former, why not adopt the latter, which is a smaller imposition and forms a less dangerous precedent?
Obviously, being who I am I think they need to just unleash the pricing system and let it sort out, but the number of things you’d have to change in the state government to accomplish that is daunting indeed.
Merovign (4744a2) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:55 pmMy updated story has been posted by the North County Times.
In an about-face, the California Energy Commission plans to give customers final control over the energy-saving thermostats that are to be required in new homes, Claudia Chandler, the commission’s assistant executive director, said Friday. . .
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:09 amHowever, the thermostat will still include a radio control component that utilities could use with consumers’ consent. That component will be a mandatory part of the thermostat, which can’t be removed by the consumer.
Critics say they fear that requiring new homes to include a radio-controlled thermostat will make it easier to enforce mandatory controls later. . .
Thanks for being part of an at least temp. solution, Bradley, for using the blogosphere as a resource, not an enemy (and treating your sources respectfully to boot), and for another good piece.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:17 amChristoph,
I owe it all to Cathy Seipp. She provided the example. At least Cathy still lives on in her insightful and funny articles, which delighted in puncturing pompous posturing pedantic pundits:
Two years ago, for an American Journalism Review story on blogging, I interviewed Washington Post associate editor and senior correspondent Robert Kaiser, co-author of a ponderous book about the media called The News About the News. “I read things I think I should know, not other people’s opinions about what I should know,” he said loftily, explaining why he doesn’t read blogs.
But every single thing we read in the paper, including hard news, is the product of other people’s opinions about what we should know. Problems happen when those in charge believe in their own objectivity so much they know longer know that one simple fact.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:34 amCathy Seipp inspired many, I hear.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:36 amWhat we dont need is big brother regulating our heaters and air conditioners to satisfi the green nazis in the various eco-freak groups i say CUT OFF AL GORES OWN ELECTRCITY
krazy kagu (b1eb84) — 1/12/2008 @ 6:46 amActually sometimes there are other issues that come into play. For example in Ca right now one of their weak points is that state wide they generally have a pretty good margin of generating capacity for even total peak demand, since it usually does not effect the entire state to the same extent.
For example there may be a heat wave in LA but still mild in Sacramento. Where the weak point is has been shown to be the transfer line capacity between grid zones. So in this example excess power capability could be brought online up north, but there is only so much power that can be piped down to the southern end because of the limits on the inter grid transmission lines to share the load.
The other way to fight it is to encourage green independent powering at the site needing the power. Most jump first to the solar alternative because of the well known sunshine out there, but if houses or apartments or offices have incentives to install fuel cells that run off city gas, even if they only provide half the base load for a six doctors office mini health complex that is the same load that would be offset by the usage of thermostat control of probably hundreds of houses.
Fuel cells are mostly now made for medium sized installations and are fairly costly. Research is being done into smaller package units for home use but the sweet spot right now because of the optimization of fuel reaction modules and conversion modules to make small building complex size units.
If they are encouraged via tax incentives the demand will likely result in better economy of scale by the manufactures as the market develops the volume and end up lowering the unit cost to purchase one.
Same goes for encouraging things like new construction usage of Ground Source Heat Pumps, which are much more efficient, or retrofit when old A/C units need to be replaced.
daytrader (ea6549) — 1/12/2008 @ 8:32 amBradley,
Any friend of Cathy’s is a friend of mine.
otcconan (0bb609) — 1/12/2008 @ 8:42 amKevin
the problem is that this Nannystate approach to a/c or heating doesn’t solve the problem of energy supply.
CA residential use of electricity has been essentially FLAT for the past 30 years even as population has grown because most of us HAVE been energy-wise (upgraded our appliances, have timer-controlled ac/heating, timers on lights, etc).
But having the Big Switch in Sacramento to “save” is as logical as the argument that turning existing lanes on So. Cal freeways into TOLL LANES is going to “solve congestion”.
Darleen (187edc) — 1/12/2008 @ 9:16 amA cynic might note that the state has not facilitated new generation additions since the 2001 crisis. Some gas-fueled capacity has been built but the ban on nukes continues and the state has recently banned the importation of coal-fired electricity.
There has been some progress on transmission, such as the upgrade on Path 15 in the Central Valley – the northern end was Los Banos, the southern end at Gates substation near Coalinga. Transmission limitations still exist. They stall development of geothermal resources in the Imperial Valley and just over the border in Nevada.
Rationing makes sense IF and only IF we accept limitations on supply in the long run. But we need not accept limitations! We CAN build adequate transmission (we used to have it, did we not?) We CAN build adequate generation.
I will admit that some features of the automated demand reduction systems being proposed could be useful in grid operations and in restoration following Acts of God. But utility operators got along fine without them before and they can be effective if limited to the neighborhood substation level.
Investment groups have serious plans to build nuclear power plants that can supply California with all the juice we want and are willing to pay market prices for.
A group in Fresno has a site picked out and a deal on water supplies. Mr. Warren Buffett has proposed a nuke in Idaho.
Our cynic might suggest that first the state government creates the shortages through incompetence or other motives then assumes power over you to remedy that shortage.
I’d say to the state, let me and 35 million other Californians do business with Mr. Buffett and other competent business people. If you can’t lead, or follow, then get out of the way.
Joseph Somsel (3b2353) — 1/12/2008 @ 9:45 amJust checked the CEC’s website (Saturday morning) and there is no news release posted yet on any change in position.
I’ll reserve judgement until I see their statement in writing. It WILL be scrutinized closely.
Joseph Somsel (3b2353) — 1/12/2008 @ 9:49 amJoseph,
Good work.
In fairness, we are dealing with a government agency. To expect such a change to be made within a day of announcement may be a bit ambitious. Then again, all the CEC has to do is remove the mandatory verbiage, and specify that the thermostat be compatible with an optional radio-controlled module linking to the state’s demand response network. That can be done almost as easily as I described it. (I know, many Patterico readers would prefer to see the whole thermostat section eliminated).
It would also help if the software to run the thermostat were open source, so all the code jockeys could take it apart and see if there are any issues.
I’ll be checking in with the CEC to find out when the promised change is actually written into the document the CEC will be voting on.
I may or may not attend the Jan. 30 CEC meeting in Sacramento. If not, I’ll be very interested in talking with those of you who attend.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/12/2008 @ 10:14 amThere may well be a compromise proposal that is acceptable. I’ve an open mind but I think a sharp line needs to be drawn between state control and market information.
Again, the REAL political issue is amelioration of shortages or the prevention of shortages.
Joseph Somsel (56f8d8) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:45 pmBTW, notice how suddenly the proposed devices are now “smart thermostats”? There is no intelligence in the devices in the current design. And if there were, was it to be a robot with artificial intelligence installed by the state to dominate your home?
No, they are dumb machines build and installed to follow orders from the power authorities.
Joseph Somsel (56f8d8) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:50 pmYou guys just need a new state. Get away from the one which thinks that a law will keep you warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
nk (dda711) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:52 pmSo … the state is implementing an emergency response to an electricity shortage …. at the same time that it is banning the use of imported electricity?
ras (fc54bb) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:56 pmBradley J Fikes,
Both of your articles were excellent but I especially liked the updated article. Your presentation clarified the issues and the quotes were very good.
DRJ (517d26) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:06 pmI make thermostats for a living and think its a great idea. I have customers that acutally pay to get this, one of which just got a Red Herring ‘company to watch in 2008’ type award. Maybe the State has to rework the program is all. 4F is not much setback, you’d feel good about saving money if you did manage to notice it.
M Duteau (f6f1cc) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:06 amM. Duteau,
“Liberals feel, conservatives think.”
Joseph Somsel (0390f4) — 1/13/2008 @ 2:01 pmvor said “…The people who want more power stations don’t want to pay the taxes to build them …”
Except, the market doesn’t require taxes to build more power stations, it requires a loosening of the heavy hand of government regulation. Investors are perfectly willing to build these things if they have any hope of a return on their investments.
Unfortunately, the investment climate in CA is controlled by NIMBY’s, BANANA’s, and Luddites – but mostly Watermellons.
We say that we need to rise up and metaphorically drive a stake through the heart of this/these proposal(s). More and more, it seems that to be effective, we have to stop being metaphorical (but, that would be illegal).
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/13/2008 @ 2:08 pm