Government controlling your home

...If you wish to deny the obvious, that's your problem.

It is just another example of government assuming it has the right to invade our lives. What is absurd is the defense of this nonsense.

I see this as an example of the core battle for liberty, and nothing less. Liberty is lost by baby steps. It is important to try to understand this.

Surely you could come up with a criticism of what's actually happening, rather than trying to convince everyone the sky is falling?

This is yet another intrusion, pure and simple; just one of many many intrusions that I find completely unacceptable. If you wish to deny the obvious, that's your problem.

No, actually you are just missing the point... yet again

Why not test a new paradigm on yourself that it is perhaps you who has a problem in being unable to connect dots which are clear to everybody else and remember if you have a problem and don't know you have a problem you actually have two problems

The changes would allow utilities to adjust customers' preset temperatures when the price of electricity is soaring. Customers could override the utilities' suggested temperatures. But in emergencies, the utilities could override customers' wishes.

I tend to agree with Hurkyl. You could come up with at least 10 better examples of invading people's privacy. Some are worthwhile even if technically an invasion of your privacy (body scanners for example). Some are just plain lame. Laws regarding the "War on Smoking" and laws against pedestrian use of cell phones have to top the list of lame invasions of privacy (in spite of the fact that I think banning cell phone use while driving would be a good invasion of privacy).

Last December, President Bush signed an energy bill that will ban the sale of Edison's incandescent bulb, starting with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and ending with the 40-watt bulb by 2014.

You say, "Hey, Williams, what's wrong with saving energy, reducing our carbon footprint and stopping global warming?" Before you get too enthused over governmental energy-saving efforts, you might ponder what's down the road.

The California Energy Commission has recently proposed amendments to its standards for energy efficiency (www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC- 400-2007-017/CEC-400-2007-017-45DAY.PDF).

These standards include a requirement that any new or modified heating or air conditioning system must include a programmable communicating thermostat (PCT) whose settings can be remotely controlled by government authorities. A thermostat czar, sitting in Sacramento, would be empowered to remotely reduce the heating or cooling of your house during what he deems as an "emergency event."

Say you disagree with the czar's temperature setting for your house, the California Energy Commission is one step ahead of you with the provision: "The PCT shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during emergency events." In other words, the thermostat must be configured in a way that doesn't allow the customer to override the czar's decision.

Some people might agree with this level of government control over their lives, but if these amendments become law, you can safely bet other intrusive energy-saving proposals are waiting in the wing.

For now, California's energy Nazis are simply testing how much intrusiveness Californians will peaceably accept. I can easily imagine California's Energy Commission requiring remotely controlled main circuit-breaker boxes that control all the electricity coming into your house. That would enable the energy czar to better manage your use.

Say you're preparing a big dinner. The energy czar might decide you don't need so much heat in the rest of the house. Or, preparing a big dinner might mean the energy czar would turn off the energy to your washing machine and dryer while the electric stove is on.

There's no end to what the energy czar could do, particularly if he enlists the aid of California's Department of Health Services. Getting six to eight hours sleep each night is healthy; good health lowers health costs. So why not make it possible for the energy czar to turn the lights off at a certain hour?

California's Department of Education knows children should do their homework after school rather than sit playing videogames or watching television. The energy czar could improve education outcomes simply by turning off the television, or at least turning off all noneducational programs.

Of course, there could be a generous provision whereby if an adult is present, he could use a password to operate the television.

You say, "Williams, you must be mad. All that would never happen." That's the same charge one might have made back in the '60s, when the anti-tobacco movement started, if someone predicted that the day would come when some cities, such as Calabasas, Calif., would outlaw smoking on public streets.

Back in the '60s, had someone predicted that there would be bans on restaurants serving foie gras; citations for driving without a seat belt, that the government said would be unnecessary if cars had air bags; and school bans on kids having peanut butter sandwiches in their lunchbox, I'm sure people would have said that would never happen.

California's Energy Commission, along with its legislature, has the power to mandate that all existing — as well as new — heating and cooling devices have programmable communicating thermostats by 2009. After all, it's never too early to start saving energy or prepare for an "emergency event." The reason they won't is because they would encounter too much political resistance. Their agenda is far more achievable using techniques dear to all tyrants: There's less resistance if liberty is taken away a little bit at a time.

Of course the alternative is to let the market control your house's thermostat. Such a "Ron Paul" approach would involve allowing everyone do anything they want to.... right up to the point where the lights go completely out! Now that's control!

If you really had the lights going out, that would indicate that people are using more energy then is availiable. In such a circumstance, a company would likely raise prices, and then people would actually have an incentive to cut down their use of energy (at the margin). This is among some of the most understood and fundamental things in economics.

This plan was apparently written by someone who doesn't realise how easy it is to by- pass the "controlled" thermostats entirely. Who is going to police all of this??

Why would that happen? That's like saying, "If we let grocery stores control the amount of the food on the shelves, then when you go to the store there'd be no more food left." Or, "If we let department stores control clothing, then when you get there, there won't be any more clothes." Or, "If we let gas stations control the amount of gas, there wouldn't be any when you get there." I could find many more examples.

If you really had the lights going out, that would indicate that people are using more energy then is availiable. In such a circumstance, a company would likely raise prices, and then people would actually have an incentive to cut down their use of energy (at the margin). This is among some of the most understood and fundamental things in economics.

Notice all the rediculous stuff I mentioned in the first paragraph. Interestingly enough, these were all problems under Socialist Governments (read: Government Controlled/Planned Economies). The last one (about gas) even happened in the United States during the 70's when increasing gas prices caused Nixon to implement price controls. Suddenly, in the US there were rediculously long waiting lines, and often times many people had to go home without gas (because it would run out before their turn).

In other words, although your statements seem plausible, they don't have any factual backing. In fact, you seem to have it backwards, that is when Governments control things it's incredible inefficient and often runs out.

Economist, did you read the article? They are having blackouts and brownouts and this is supposed to help alleviate that problem.