News Will California Control Your Home Thermostat?

[BobG]

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.

Either the rolling blackouts during peak demand (heat waves in California for example) are because of government interference in the market place (Californians failing to prepare for extreme situations because power generating plants create more pollution, for example) or because the market forces aren't guaranteed to handle extremes (demand for supplies immediately before a hurricane for example).

Both are part of the cause. Of course, I guess you could say the only reason free market forces don't work in extreme cases is because there's laws against price gouging in emergency situations. In those types of situations, I think government interference in the market place would be warranted since it at least reduces the chance that a low income will be fatal.

 

[mheslep]

Years ago I sat in on talk by a large public power CEO to a group of engineers. He was quite frank in stating that public power co's do everything possible to avoid building new power plants (regardless of the technology); instead they want to keep all their existing infrastructure running at as close to 100% utilization as possible. That is what maximizes the bottom line. The reason is that a new project is loaded w/ risk, and is about the only way they can lose money other than making bad bets on fuel costs. This remote thermostat project would be right inline with that reasoning, so I suspect its largely being pushed by the power co's. and as such is not necessarily in the best interest of the individual Californian.

 

[Economist]

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

No. I'm sorry, I will read it.

However, my understanding is that utilities are almost always run/operated by the government. Even when it is a "private" company, the Government usually tells them what to do (such as what prices to charge) and generally interferes. I imagine some of the blackouts and brownouts stem from the governmental interference in this market in the first place.

 

[russ_watters]

There are some catch-22's with such industries, Economist. It isn't easy to add capacity to the power grid because of public opposition to building power plants (nimbyism). So for the past few years, demand has been growing faster than supply and the result is any little hickup causes an enormous blackout. But even when there aren't any hickups, demand sometimes outstrips supply, causing the power company to do things like lower the voltage or just simply black out parts of the grid. Some companies already can voluntarily get "interruptable" service for reduced rates. Offering that to residential users would be fine too.

It would be easy to deal with a fuel shortage by limiting people to 10 gal per fill-up and one per week, for example. Electric power doesn't work that way. They call it demend, because it really is - your house will pull whatever it can pull from the grid and the only way to reduce what it pulls is by shutting things off.

Mandatory conservation may be allowable and you could penalize people for drawing too much on a given day, but I don't think it would be consitutional to reach into their house and turn down their thermostat.

The real solution, of course, is to fix the way we approach power generation. We need more and we need to do it better and more efficiently. Doing all of those things is almost completely a political issue. This assumes, of course, that we want to continue our standard of living (I do).

 

[NeoDevin]

The real solution, of course, is to fix the way we approach power generation. We need more and we need to do it better and more efficiently. Doing all of those things is almost completely a political issue. This assumes, of course, that we want to continue our standard of living (I do).

Or else to fix the way we approach power consumption.

 

[Evo]

Although I can see the practical side of limiting power consumption, I would go balistic if my air conditioning got cut off. I will give up all other appliances as long as I stay cool.

When they state they would control the thermostats, what temperatures do they deem acceptable? That would be my main concern.

If done at all, why not on a fairness basis? If I'm cooling a one bedroom apartment, is it fair to cut me back when someone is cooling an enormous house with unused rooms and doors opening and closing all day? If they are going to mandate that new or modified heating and cooling systems have the remote control, the new systems should be set up to shut off air to unused rooms by owners. Then if someone is using more than their fair share, they can be cut back remotely. It would tend to drive more prudent use. When I lived in a huge house, I closed all of the vents to seldom used rooms and kept doors to those rooms closed.

 

[russ_watters]

Or else to fix the way we approach power consumption.

Again, I operate on the assumption that we want to continue (or improve) our standard of living. Given that assumption, there is nothing that can be done to reduce our power consumption overall. Things like compact fluorescents are nice, but as our development continues, the proliferation of air conditioning (and other technologies that use energy) will more than swamp the improvements in efficiency in other areas.

Now air conditioing does stand to get a little more efficient in time, but not much. We just had a big jump in the mandatory residential efficiency requirement last year (30%), to where it really needs to be, but going much beyond that is unrealistic.

But this is, as I said above, an irrelevancy anyway: we have all the energy we need, we just need the political will to utilize it.

 

[Art]

Although I can see the practical side of limiting power consumption, I would go balistic if my air conditioning got cut off. I will give up all other appliances as long as I stay cool.

When they state they would control the thermostats, what temperatures do they deem acceptable? That would be my main concern.

If done at all, why not on a fairness basis? If I'm cooling a one bedroom apartment, is it fair to cut me back when someone is cooling an enormous house with unused rooms and doors opening and closing all day? If they are going to mandate that new or modified heating and cooling systems have the remote control, the new systems should be set up to shut off air to unused rooms by owners. Then if someone is using more than their fair share, they can be cut back remotely. It would tend to drive more prudent use. When I lived in a huge house, I closed all of the vents to seldom used rooms and kept doors to those rooms closed.

On that note what allowances would be made for folk with new born babies or the elderly who need a warmer environment than young healthy adults. If this happens I can see an awful lot of people getting very annoyed.

 

[Evo]

On that note what allowances would be made for folk with new born babies or the elderly who need a warmer environment than young healthy adults. If this happens I can see an awful lot of people getting very annoyed.

Since the remote will only control the thermostat on central heating and cooling systems, things like space heaters, gas or oil heat, and window air conditioners would not be controlled.

 

[EnumaElish]

An alternative method would be to send price signals to consumers' "smart" meters and "smart" thermostats.

Right now my thermostat is programmed to run at 67F during the workday, but 70F during early AM and early evening. (BTW, does this save me money relative to setting it to 70F at all hours? I am not sure that it does. Will appreciate any input.)

If the power co. could beam their prices instantaneously, and if my thermostat could read those signals, I could program something like "during daytime if the price is less than X then heat to 67F, if the price exceeds X then 65F." Or "drop heat by 2F for every $Y increase in price." Wouldn't that stop a black/brownout before it started?

 

[Evo]

I don't understand the "high price" times. Is this some kind of billing plan that some electric companies have were they bill higher prices for electric usage during peak periods? I've never heard of it, we don't have anything like that here.

I also keep my thermostat at 65 during the winter, I like it cool. I have all electric appliances, no gas, and my electric bill has been averaging $25 a month since I moved in September. I have about 1200 sq feet and a full size electric washer and dryer.

Edit: From September 12th to Jan 4th, my total electric was $97 and that included the fee to move service!

 

[EnumaElish]

There are smart meters that are being tested at a pilot stage at various parts of the country -- and I'll bet they are already being used in Europe. They record consumption at different times with different prices.

My plan is somewhat more involved, but it cannot be more complicated than wiring all thermostats to the Central Heating Bureau.

 

[mheslep]

Since the remote will only control the thermostat on central heating and cooling systems, things like space heaters, gas or oil heat, and window air conditioners would not be controlled.

Very good point. It's possible that people working around this central planning scheme could make things worse both in terms of efficient power usage and emissions.

 

[chroot]

I also predict that it won't be long before smart toilets will be reporting your diet and other activities to employers and insurance companies via the internet.

What kind of "other activities" do you do on the toilet, Ivan?

- Warren

 

[Evo]

Very good point. It's possible that people working around this central planning scheme could make things worse both in terms of efficient power usage and emissions.

When ever humans start messing with things in the name of making things better, we always seem to make more of a problem. By assuming everyone will do what's right, they end up driving the opposite behavior.

 

[Evo]

What kind of "other activities" do you do on the toilet, Ivan?

- Warren

I don't think we want to know.

 

[turbo]

When I was a process chemist at the local pulp mill, the mill had the capacity to generate more electricity than it consumed, so our "tie line" to the grid fed excess power to CMP for export to other states. (Maine is a net exporter of power, due to our hydro dams.) The touchy times came when it was very hot or very cold in the region and CMP was exporting power and feeding the local grid at near peak power. In those situations, we had to back off our power generation until the net current flow through the tie line was zeroed out and disconnect from the grid. The reason? Even though we were building energy credits with CMP by feeding the grid, if we had an unexpected boiler outage, or if the T-G set tripped due to vibration, faulty sensors,etc, we would pull a surge from the grid, and if we exceeded CMP's peak load we had to pay stiff penalties supposedly earmarked for building additional generating capacity. In this way, the mill had uninterruptible power during periods of normal usage, and very decidedly interruptible power during peak usages. BTW, CMP (generators sold to FPL 8 years ago) has not built any new generating capacity (to my knowledge) in the 30 years since then.

The sad part is that when CMP was operating at near peak load, they certainly could have used the extra power we were generating, but the risk of incurring penalties should we have an equipment problem at the mill made us cut the tie line and withhold that extra power. I don't know what arrangement that mill has with the power company today, but I hope it's better than what we had in 1978.

 

[russ_watters]

Right now my thermostat is programmed to run at 67F during the workday, but 70F during early AM and early evening. (BTW, does this save me money relative to setting it to 70F at all hours? I am not sure that it does. Will appreciate any input.)

It does save you money, but not all that much. Heat loss through your walls is directly proportional to the temperature difference between inside and outside, so you can calculate just how much it saves you.

For example, if it is 70 inside and 20 outside, dropping it to 67 will save you 6% during the hours when the house is at equilibrium (note: if the house never cools to 67 or takes a long time to do it, most of the savings is just lost when the house is heated back to 70)

 

[EnumaElish]

It does save you money, but not all that much. Heat loss through your walls is directly proportional to the temperature difference between inside and outside, so you can calculate just how much it saves you.

For example, if it is 70 inside and 20 outside, dropping it to 67 will save you 6% during the hours when the house is at equilibrium (note: if the house never cools to 67 or takes a long time to do it, most of the savings is just lost when the house is heated back to 70)

Thanks. What did you think of my "price sensitive thermostat" proposal? Does it make sense to you?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't understand the "high price" times. Is this some kind of billing plan that some electric companies have were they bill higher prices for electric usage during peak periods? I've never heard of it, we don't have anything like that here.

This is already available for business customers everywhere. It's called "time of day" metering or a "night service" rider. Businesses are charged separately for the demand and the consumption, with the demand being read during peak hours. This is especially critical because your demand also affects the rate you are charged for the consumption. The first kWh a business uses in a month costs 24 cents. The last costs as little as 4.5 cents. (in southeastern PA). The opposite principle applies for residential usage, but to a lesser degree. The first 500 kWh costs 14.3 cents each and after that, they are 16.3 cents each.

see pdf page 45 for the commercial rate schedule: http://www.exeloncorp.com/NR/rdonlyres/71890D18-6BF8-4F13-A998-298A22A4D995/4111/s77_complete_011008.pdf

You can look in the table of contents for the night service rider and interruptable service rider.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks. What did you think of my "price sensitive thermostat" proposal? Does it make sense to you?

Since electricity isn't a commodity for consumers (the price does not fluctuate from day to day...yet) and the rates are all published, you don't really need a price sensitive thermostat, just someone who understands the utility rates well enough to take advantage of the issues I discussed in my previous post. For consumers, this isn't much of an issue, but for businesses --- well, my dad makes a very comfortable living dealing mostly with this exact issue for businesses. There are all sorts of complexities and some companies do, in fact, use devices that regulate their power use based on the price impact of the usage.

There are some heating units that also do this. Heat pumps can be up to 3x more efficient than regular electric heat, but the efficiency decreases with outside temperature. And at some set of temperature and energy costs (I've calculated it before, but I'm not sure what it is right now), it becomes cheaper to heat your house with gas or oil. Carrier sells a combination heat pump/furnace that has a control algorithm that decides which to use at any given time.

There are other things you can do. My gas service is propane, which makes it only marginally cheaper than straight electric heating. So I use an electric space heater in whatever room I'm occupying at the time (providing some, but not all of the room's heat) and keep the rest of the house much cooler.

 

[russ_watters]

It's largely obsolete now, but here's an article my dad published on manual demand monitoring and its impact on utility costs (today, it's mostly automatic): http://www.utilitycostconsultants.com/demand/demand.htm

This client of his saved $670 a month. That sounds like a lot to a residential user, but chump change compared to what bigger companies save with similar efforts. It can be tens of thousands of dollars a month.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Don't know if ya'll know or not (I didn't read the entire thread), but there was public outcry on this, so they stopped their plans for the moment:

http://www.johnandkenshow.com/archives/2008/01/14/state-wants-to-control-your-thermostat/

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/12/news/top_stories/9_02_1801_11_08.txt

 

[edward]

The University of Arizona completed their new School of Engineering buildings several years ago.

They built an A/C system that freezes water at night during off peak hours. The ice and ice water is kept in an large insulated underground tank. The cold water is distributed to air handlers during the daytime.

The savings has been enormous.

 

[EnumaElish]

Don't know if ya'll know or not (I didn't read the entire thread), but there was public outcry on this, so they stopped their plans for the moment:

http://www.johnandkenshow.com/archives/2008/01/14/state-wants-to-control-your-thermostat/

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/12/news/top_stories/9_02_1801_11_08.txt

IMO that was a plan that would find popular support hardly anyplace, least of all in the U.S.

Why not just "beam" instantaneous price signals to homes/offices, and let the consumers make their own decisions?

I'd guess that when excess demand (roughly load minus generation) was up and the price started to climb toward +infinity, people would willingly take their homes off the grid for a while.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Yeah, I don't like what California is trying to pull at all, IMO this is an example of how environmentalists want to micromanage everyone. I say just build another powerplant!

 

[IMP]

The University of Arizona completed their new School of Engineering buildings several years ago.

They built an A/C system that freezes water at night during off peak hours. The ice and ice water is kept in an large insulated underground tank. The cold water is distributed to air handlers during the daytime.

The savings has been enormous.

The Houston Museum does this too. Rates are better at night, and the A/C unit is much more efficient when the outdoor temperatures are lower. It also means that they are not drawing large amounts of current during the day when there is peak demand. It really is a great idea...
As far as the gov controlling the thermostat in your private home: not a chance.