Thermostats, Economy, and State

Fans of electricity policy, sorry if you've felt neglected here of late. Take a look at this interesting post by Lynne Kiesling (with many useful links to continue your edification) on the dilemma market-loving electricity policy mavens feel toward recent moves on California's part to mandate the installation of "programmable communicating themostats." Which are?

a fully-enabled two-way digital communication device. It can receive data, be programmed to respond to data, and send data back about its actions. For example, a PCT can receive a price signal, be programmed with a set point and trigger prices at which to change the set point, and then it can change its settings on your behalf depending on how you've programmed it.

Lynne Kiesling, formerly with the Reason Foundation, sums up the conundrum that these devices present to those who love the idea of a more resposive market in energy, but hate government mandates:

In the current regulatory environment, we are stuck in a chicken-and-egg limbo. If we do not mandate the installation of PCTs to accelarate "fleet turnover" in building thermostats, the distribution utilities have no incentive to install them or offer them to customers. But if there are no PCTs, the demand for innovative retail products and services is less likely to develop. We can't have the retail innovation without the technology, but the parties who currently have the retail relationship have little incentive to engage in retail innovation, and they therefore do not value the technology. From a liberty and coercion perspective it's an imperfect policy in an imperfect world, but it's one that is likely to break the chicken-and-egg cycle and let the camel's nose of retail competition under the tent.

One part of California's thermostat proposal has already gotten some strongly negative press...the part where they say, hey, the government should be able to set your thermostat for you (Jimmy Carter, thou shouldst be living at this hour! Wait, you are? Never Mind.) Anyway, back to electricity policy, from Kiesling:

.....I find one specific piece of language in section 112(c) extremely troubling (and the links above indicate that I am not alone):

Emergency Events. Upon receiving an emergency signal, the PCT shall respond to commands contained in the emergency signal, including changing the setpoint by any number of degrees or to a specific temperature setpoint. The PCT shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during emergency events.

.....An emergency means a Stage 2 alert or worse; a Stage 2 alert occurs when supply reserves available to the system in an are only 5 percent larger than the anticipated demand in that hour (called an operating reserve shortfall). If the authors of the document were sensitive to the public's knowledge and interests they would have bothered to define the conditions under which a customer would receive an emergency signal.

Note also, though, that the California ISO annual report for 2006 indicates that even in the record-breaking heat wave in July 2006, there was only one Stage 2 alert (and no Stage 3 alerts). So these "emergency signals" are extremely infrequent, and are more likely to become even more infrequent as the price-responsive demand capabilities and retail choice enabled by the PCT reduce the strains on the system in peak hours.

That said, however, I disagree with this provision requiring mandatory, automated emergency response of all customers.

Read the whole thing, and all the links contained therein, for an electrifying morning.

Comments

sage | January 17, 2008, 11:48am | #

I can just hear the governator now:"All deez wusses in this state need to sock it up and live in a cooler house during the winter. Set all da thermostats for 55 degrees."

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 11:52am | #

So these "emergency signals" are extremely infrequent

Until they change the standard of what constitutes a smog alert or emergency.

The Jimmy Carter crack is a thread-winner (you may not be eligible however)

too many steves | January 17, 2008, 11:53am | #

I yearn for the day when I can be all revolutionitized by refusing to install, or actively disabling, one of these devices. And don't you fret, I have several old mercury based rotating thermostats in the man cave - I keep forgetting to bring them to the local hazardous waste drop off event (along with my non-functional CFLs).

Reinmoose | January 17, 2008, 11:54am | #

Interesting.

I for one am in favor of energy meters that allow consumers to puchase energy at different rates during periods of differing usage rates.

I don't understand this though. A thermostat that responds due to energy prices? Do they all have electric heat?
I just don't get it.

R C Dean | January 17, 2008, 11:55am | #

If we do not mandate the installation of PCTs to accelarate "fleet turnover" in building thermostats, the distribution utilities have no incentive to install them or offer them to customers.

I didn't RTFA, but I have personally installed programmable thermostats in my last three houses (maybe four) simply because of the cost savings. Why is she talking about how no one has any incentive to install these things?

And how do we make the leap from a programmable thermostat to one that the state controls? Why can't you have one without the other?

JW | January 17, 2008, 11:58am | #

I wonder what he penalty will be for ripping one of these things off the wall with your bare hands (in your own home of course) and smashing it to bits with any available blunt and heavy instrument?

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 12:05pm | #

I don't think libertarians would have a (philosophical) problem with a private electric company mandating that its customers install these things, even if control of them can be commandeered by the electric company in an emergency. However, since we don't have real competition in electricity delivery, we're dealing with a situation where the state has to act as a reasonable private owner would.

It's a similar situation to traffic laws. Blowing a stop sign is hardly a coercive act, yet I know few libertarians who oppose laws against this. If the roads were privately owned, the owners would have to implement some type of traffic control at intersections, so the state making the same rules that a reasonable private owner would is justified.

Warren | January 17, 2008, 12:06pm | #

Privatize the grid.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 12:09pm | #

I have personally installed programmable thermostats.....

RC, in that regard, when I replaced the heating and a/c three years ago, the company GAVE me a brand spanking new, top drawer, state-of-the-art programmable thermostat for free. It works pretty well, except we keep over-riding it manually. Hey! it's too hot in here. Hey, it's too cold in here.

Secondarily, in So Cal, SCE is run by eco-fascist refugees who dreamed up the concept of NEGAWATTS, which in English means they are more interested in conserving energy than generating energy. SCE is constantly offering incentives to install energy efficient stuff in your house. From whole-house fans to efficient appliances o programmable thermostats, SCE is constantly sending out glossy four-color brochures printed on non-renewable heavy stock paper begging and cajoling use to conserve.

Reinmoose | January 17, 2008, 12:09pm | #

I think that's the right angle on this, crimethink.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 12:11pm | #

Reinmoose,

Thanks. I was (and indeed still am) expecting the "drunk driving is a constitutional right" crowd to accost me.

P Brooks | January 17, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Will the thermostat call in the SWATters if you exceed permissible heating or cooling paramters?

de stijl | January 17, 2008, 12:13pm | #

The Invisible Hand keeps changing the temperature!

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 12:15pm | #

drunk driving is a constitutional right

If you can get from Point A to Point B with a Point One Five without incident have you then, in fact, committed an aggression against anyone?

:-)

There, how's that?

BTW, I see your point on the stop sign but I don't agree that it translates to a license to control energy use remotely.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 12:17pm | #

The Invisible Hand keeps changing the temperature!

Nicely done. Thread Winner sez I.

Now, much as I love hanging around here instead of working, I'm going for something even more fun. A root canal at 10:15.

Send drugs!

jbk | January 17, 2008, 12:21pm | #

The difference between these and the regular programmable thermostats is that these take the price of energy into account. If these types of devices were installed everywhere, as energy prices rose, devices would gradually turn themselves off according to how expensive electricity became. For this to make sense, it also requires real-time billing for electricity use, instead of an averaged rate for the month, like Reinmoose said.

Yes, most of us in Califronia have electric heat (if we have heat at all; most places I have lived have had no heat or AC).

And Brian, I'm not sure if you live in California, but every summer we have the constant threat of rolling blackouts. Having people's thermostats cranked by a few degrees a few hours once or twice a year is much less coercive than the current system. It is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Absent outright privatization, if you want to encourage conservation, then you have to implement a pricing strategy that in some way rewards thrift and conservation.

Because we live in the sticks we use propane for heat. It used to be cheaper than natural gas, now it's not. In fact, it's expensive as all get out but probably cheaper than electric heat.

My incentive to conserve is the huge frikkin' gas bill that comes every month. Even with the thermostat set at 60 degrees at night, and never setting it above 68 degrees during the day, our propane bill is still between $200.00 to $250.00 a month. And it doesn't get that cold here (today was a cold morning and it was 38).

Point is, I don't need a remote computer to turn off my heat for me. The got dam bill is enough incentive for me to turn off the heat.

jbk, most places I've lived in So Cal from the beach to the desert have had natural gas heat. The one house I lived in with an electric heat pump was useless.

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Or maybe they could build a couple nuke plants instead????

Reinmoose | January 17, 2008, 12:27pm | #

Yes, most of us in Califronia have electric heat

See, now this makes more sense. In the northeast most of us have oil heat.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 12:41pm | #

Maybe us NYers can have thermostats dialed in to the real-time oil prices on the NYSE. (I'm actually lucky enough to have natural gas heat -- heating oil is teh Pain)

jbk | January 17, 2008, 12:43pm | #

TWC, wouldn't it be nice if the thermostat just did it for you? And if you weren't paying an averaged rate, your bill would be less if you used less energy during peak demand times, even if you used more energy overall.

Most places have had natural gas? I've lived in San Diego for about fifteen years, and I don't think I've lived anywhere that had anything but electric or nothing. Besides, it's not the heating system that is important for this, it is AC, because the summer is when we run out of juice. I've never seen a natural gas AC system...

Reinmoose | January 17, 2008, 12:44pm | #

Maybe us NYers can have thermostats dialed in to the real-time oil prices on the NYSE.

Actually, crimethink, I believe I've heard talk of National Grid (and maybe other power companies) requesting PERMISSION from the NY government to install variable-pricing electricity meters. Unlike California, where the government is mandating it.

Whatever. Spitzer or bruno or someone will probably write a bill mandating the meters that the electric companies are asking to use (so they can meet their green targets) so that they can take credit for the resulting energy savings.

dead_elvis | January 17, 2008, 12:50pm | #

We have one of those useless gas wall heaters that does a great job of heating all of two rooms. For the rest we have to use electric.

Which brings to mind- is the emergency restriction (or eventual mandatory energy saving that will no doubt be implemented down the road) going to have any relation to square footage, or number of rooms? If I can keep my 690 sq. ft. house (or just the rooms I choose to use at any given moment) a toasty 80 degrees for less energy use than it takes for Tom Cruise to keep his mansion at 68, shouldn't I be allowed?

Jennifer | January 17, 2008, 12:53pm | #

If we do not mandate the installation of PCTs to accelarate "fleet turnover" in building thermostats, the distribution utilities have no incentive to install them or offer them to customers.

Bullshit. There's already instances where (for example) people or companies will get lower electric rates in exchange for being on the "brownout list" or whatever you call it; you volunteer to have your power temporarily cut off if there's trouble meeting demand. One afternoon last summer my workplace switched to generator power for a couple of hours, for exactly that reason. So if these things are so important and useful and vital, let the electric company offers price deals to people willing to have them in their property. Otherwise fuck off, and don't give me shit about the lifetime supply of soon-to-be-banned incandescent bulbs I have stored in my closet, either.

dead_elvis | January 17, 2008, 12:56pm | #

Predicted unintended consequence: a higher use of non-central AC and space heaters, which are less efficient. If my thermostat is killing the AC* and I'm still hot, just crank up a window unit that isn't attached and I'm set.

Jackanapestarian | January 17, 2008, 1:06pm | #

constantly sending out glossy four-color brochures printed on non-renewable heavy stock paper begging and cajoling use to conserve

Indeed, can you think of any other product whose creator begs you not to use it?*

*Tobacco companies don't count. They are forced to.

Russ 2000 | January 17, 2008, 1:11pm | #

Point is, I don't need a remote computer to turn off my heat for me. The got dam bill is enough incentive for me to turn off the heat.

There's gold in them thar obsessive-compulsives.

Jeff S. | January 17, 2008, 1:21pm | #

"Yes, most of us in Califronia have electric heat."

This is completely wrong. Most homes are heated by natural gas. Electricity merely controls the thermostat (and runs the fan to distribute hot air). But in fact the PCTs are envisioned as a solution to rolling blackouts when electricity demand exceeds capacity, which is in the summer when people are cranking the AC...which is powered by electricity.

R C Dean | January 17, 2008, 1:23pm | #

However, since we don't have real competition in electricity delivery, we're dealing with a situation where the state has to act as a reasonable private owner would.

Ah, see, but that's impossible. Christ, we can't even get the eminently reasonable people in my office to agree on the thermostat setting, because reasonableness is a range.

Not to mention that its reasonable for a private owner to balance his personal preferences for climate control against their budgets.

R C Dean | January 17, 2008, 1:26pm | #

Having people's thermostats cranked by a few degrees a few hours once or twice a year is much less coercive than the current system.

First, you rather charitably assume that Your Masters in California will use their newfound power sparingly.

Second, rolling blackouts are only the product of coercion to the degree that they occur because Your Masters in California won't let new plants be built. The spike in demand by your neighbors isn't coercive. The lack of supply to meet that demand isn't, viewed in isolation, coercive. The reason there is a shortage on the supply end, now, there's your coercion.

J sub D | January 17, 2008, 1:32pm | #

The Jimmy Carter crack is a thread-winner (you may not be eligible however)

[checking the fine print]

Employees of the Reason Foundation, Reason Magazine, and reasononline, and their families, are ineligible to receive threadwinner recognition.

Nope, he's not.

J sub D | January 17, 2008, 1:41pm | #

So if these things are so important and useful and vital, let the electric company offers price deals to people willing to have them in their property. Otherwise fuck off,...

Hear, hear!

J sub D | January 17, 2008, 1:45pm | #

Jeff S.

I've lived in three differen homes in San Digo county. Every one had electric radiant heat. No natural gas or oil in the whole dwelling. The all-electric house, you've may have heard of that, is a reality. At least it is in San Diego. I suspect LA and Orange counties are the same.

jbk | January 17, 2008, 1:49pm | #

RC,

First, I of course assume no such thing. I was responding to the what the article said, which is that this would only kick in a Stage 2 emergency. Since I work in industrial manufacturing, stage 2 emergencies are a big deal to me and we need better ways to handle them than just watching the meter tick up inexorably to Rolling Blackout. Raising the thermostat a few degrees across the state once in a while is much better than bringing down the grid in certain areas, the way we do it now. Would the governator change the implementation and make it so that they could set anyone's thermostat to any thing at any time? Maybe. Right now they could just send in a SWAT team to everyone's house and change the thermostat to whatever they want and post a guard. Gladly, that proposal is not on the table.

As to the second point, another way to look at is that new plants are not built because the ROI does not justify the capital investment.

Real-time charging for electricity is the way to go. It is insane that I pay the same for a kW-hr at 10:00 pm as I do at 1:00 pm. Making smarter devices that let us more efficiently charge for and distribute existing electricity is much easier than building new power plants.

Jammer | January 17, 2008, 1:56pm | #

but it's one that is likely to break the chicken-and-egg cycle and let the camel's nose of retail competition under the tent.

All this serious discussion and not one bit of snark at this lovely mixed up chain metaphor?

I am disappointed.

Paul | January 17, 2008, 2:27pm | #

From whole-house fans

Ever used one of these when it gets really hot? Shyeah, I thought so. Next suggestion...

Paul | January 17, 2008, 2:30pm | #

One afternoon last summer my workplace switched to generator power for a couple of hours, for exactly that reason.

And you further contributed to global warming. How many gallons of precious diesel did you burn during that power outage? I'm shocked...SHOCKED that this form of cheating is occurring.

Ammonium | January 17, 2008, 2:39pm | #

My whole house fan completely eliminates my need for air conditioning during times of low humidity. Just bring in the cool air at night, and it never gets above 80 until the outside air is back into the 70s.

Unfortunately, there are only about 15 days a year in Illinois where this works because of the humidity. I hope to move to the mountains where I can use my fan all summer long.

Francisco Torres | January 17, 2008, 2:43pm | #

Joe Allen, nice essays. I especially liked the one about Schelling's experiment.

JW | January 17, 2008, 2:44pm | #

My last house had a wjole-house fan. It was great for sucking out the hot air after the house roasted all day while we were out at work, but it was just too damn noisy to have on for more than a few minutes. It sounded like a small airplane taking off.

Sara | January 17, 2008, 3:16pm | #

This is a big money-maker for the utilities because they won't have to pay for peaking power plants - super expensive. They are passing that savings on to larger customers by implementing programs like this on a larger scale.
But it's optional, the customers get a big check, and ... it's Optional.

I would rather see time of use billing in residential areas so that we can individually decide that it's cheaper to turn on the fan than the AC for a few hours. That would be way better than forcing people to shut off the official AC, while dead elvis is running the window unit and killing the grid.

J sub D | January 17, 2008, 3:30pm | #

Joe Allen, get a life.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 3:44pm | #

jbk, so, you're stuck with SD Gas & Electric? Bummer. Those guys are awful.

I've not lived in San Diego except at MCRD for a while.

The OC, LA, IE, the deserts, OTOH, seem to all cooking with gas. :-) So Cal Gas Co, Glad To Be of Service.

There was a period of time I recall when all electric homes were the rage. Medallion Homes I think they were called. The benefit was that electricity was clean in the home as opposed to dirty gas and dirtier heating oil. Having a natural gas furnace is like living with a part time smoker, the walls turn yella after a while. Course compared to oil or coal......

Gas A/C, indeed! But you said that most of us in California have electric heat. To which I responded, not everybody. Smirks.

Jennifer | January 17, 2008, 3:45pm | #

But it's optional, the customers get a big check, and ... it's Optional.

Is it? I first read of this a few days ago on another site, and seem to recall it being mandatory in new construction and renovation.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 3:45pm | #

Joe Allen, I probably agree with a lot you have to say, but don't come onto this thread with a spam post that has nothing to do with thermostats. That's rude. If I were king, I'd delete the post.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 3:56pm | #

I suspect LA and Orange counties are the same.

They aren't. I've lived in at least 20 different apartments and homes in So Cal and only one didn't have gas heating.

Southern California Gas Company is the largest gas utility in the US and has over FIVE MILLION gas customers.

It should be noted that San Diego is served by a different utility. San Diego Gas & Electric, which also offers natural gas service to a number of homes in San Diego.

R C Dean | January 17, 2008, 4:00pm | #

As to the second point, another way to look at is that new plants are not built because the ROI does not justify the capital investment.

I find it difficult to believe that electric plants have been going up all over the country except CA, and electricity demand has gone up in CA, but its uneconomic to build plants in CA for reasons that have nothing to do with government interference.

Paul | January 17, 2008, 4:04pm | #

Joe Allen, get a life.

Clearly, he's got one. Not one I would choose, but it appears he keeps quite busy. I on the other hand...

jbk | January 17, 2008, 4:06pm | #

TWC,

You are right. I checked the census data and gas heat is actually more common in California than the nation, and electric heat is less common. But I have lived in many different places in San Diego, and all of them had electric or nothing.

But it is still the AC that kills us. You don't know what an electric crunch is like unless you've spent a whole day watching FlexYourPower.org, hoping that the California Independent System Operator doesn't decide to kill your million-dollar product run so that a million housewives can feel cool as cucumbers in the middle of summer.

Paul | January 17, 2008, 4:07pm | #

the ROI does not justify the capital investment.

So what you're saying is, there's a large, insatiable demand for a thing-- a demand so insatiable, that the entire state is thinking of putting high-tech, remote controlled thermostats in every structure so as to choke that demand, but no one can find it economically feasible to provide that thing.

J sub D | January 17, 2008, 4:12pm | #

TWC, thanks.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 4:34pm | #

jbk, you're right, of course, it is the a/c in the summer. And, although San Diego is pretty mild I've been there for the Over The Line contest when it was blistering hot.

You're also right, it would nice to have real-time billing and rates that fluctuated based upon demand and cost to produce. I think that is possible.

SCE has a variable rate based on a completely arbitrary baseline that bears no relationship to anything that I can determine, except that it bumps you into incrementally higher rates as you use more electricity.

But, the incentive doesn't work because the rate on my house is so low that we exceeded it last summer even when we were out of town for three weeks of the billing cycle. Aside from that there are probably 20 different charges at different rates for different things on every bill. I'd sooner calculate Alternative Minimum Tax by hand than try to figure out a So Cal Edison bill.

jbk | January 17, 2008, 4:51pm | #

RC,

What I am saying is that the whole project is unjustified. Now in some other world, with different laws, regulations and consumers maybe it would be. So what.

The fact is, we have plenty of electricity about 360 days a year. Of the other 5, about four of them we don't have big problems. One day a year (usually), we are biting our nails.

My contention is that the government is so intertwined with sale of electricity that it is hopeless to sort out. Instead, the place to start is by making people pay for the cost of their electricity, and the only way to do that is real-time pricing, which these thermostats are designed to encourage. Then our supply issue disappears without me, as a ratepayer, being on the hook for any multi-billion dollar boondoggle gas-fired plant that will run for a total of 500 hours a year.

JW | January 17, 2008, 5:05pm | #

jbk--I think we're all good with the dynamic response to price information. What I and others object to is the mandatory nature of it and the "emergency" conditions where the state will take over your thermostat, no matter what your needs or wants are.

They say it's only "Stage 2" emergencies now. I'll place a nice wager with you that either the definition of "Stage 2" will change within the next 3 years or the CA legiscritters will alter the terms of the law to allow for greater state control of your thermostat.

I sincerely hope this initiative fails as I live in Cali-East: Maryland. This state falls over itself to ape anything that CA does.

But as already said, create more supply to meet demand? A sensible reposnse by any business, but Crazy Talk™ to politicians.

jbk | January 17, 2008, 5:23pm | #

JW,

You still aren't seeing what the options are as they actually exist. The choice is between people losing some control over their thermostats, or the current condition, where occaisionally whole sections of the state are denied any electricity at all for a few hours until the emergency ends. And these are not fake emergencies, they really do represent a lack of supply at the time they are occuring.

I'm not really sure why you are assuming that just because there are a few hours a year where demand outstrips supply, there is automatically an ROI that justifies major capital improvements, and that these capital improvements are being prevented by the state. That may well be true, but just saying it doesn't make it so.

Here's another possibility for why everybody else builds more power plants than we do: other states are oversubsidizing the production and distribution of electricity. Asserted without evidence, for your enjoyment.

alisa | January 17, 2008, 5:28pm | #

A naive thought on this --
what if it were perfectly legal to dismantle your price-sensitive thermostat and get a normal one? (I haven't read all the laws -- maybe this is already the case.) If so, it's somewhat less coercive, but I'd bet that few would make the effort to tinker with wiring.

R C Dean | January 17, 2008, 5:39pm | #

What I am saying is that the whole project is unjustified. Now in some other world, with different laws, regulations and consumers maybe it would be. So what.

Way to blow off the whole point, jbk.

Having created an artificial scarcity with their laws and regulations, these clowns are now attacking it from the demand side by going into houses and resetting their thermostats, rather than fixing what they broke on the supply side.

The choice is between people losing some control over their thermostats, or the current condition, where occaisionally whole sections of the state are denied any electricity at all for a few hours until the emergency ends.

Again, you miss the third option: BUILD MORE GENERATORS.

[apologies for caps, but it seems justified]

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 5:43pm | #

Yes, it would be nice if the utilities would focus on providing enough electricity to meet the demand.

Paul | January 17, 2008, 5:51pm | #

I'm not really sure why you are assuming that just because there are a few hours a year where demand outstrips supply, there is automatically an ROI that justifies major capital improvements,

jbk

It's a perfectly fair and reasonable assumption to make. After all, just because there are a few hours a year where demand outstrips supply, the regulators are considering a statewide mandate requiring "programmable communicating thermostats" in every structure built. For such a small problem (as you imply it is), that seems a pretty significant and unprecedented step to take, wouldn't you think?

Let's put it this way, if it's only a few hours a year, you'd think they could just boost capacity of each power generating facility by a few micro-percentage points. There probably wouldn't be a need to build any new facilities at all. Right?

JW | January 17, 2008, 6:33pm | #

And these are not fake emergencies, they really do represent a lack of supply at the time they are occuring.

No one is denying that these emergencies are real and actual events. But it's clear that California has bungled it's management of the state's electrical grid by not planning and/or arranging for adequate power generation to meet demand. It's incompetence in this area was writ large by their electrical "deregulation" folly.

What I am saying is that I have no doubt whatsoever that this new power to control thermostats will ultimately be perverted by poltical interests to achieve other measures, less politically viable at birth, never even mentioned in the bill.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 7:33pm | #

As of today, they've dropped the requirement of mandatory programmable communicating thermostats in every new structure built.

Sara | January 17, 2008, 7:33pm | #

Jennifer -
Sorry I wandered off and forgot to check on this...

The optional programs are for the big users, like colleges and industrial sites. For being available to shut things down, they get a capacity payment, which is big money, but still a huge savings for the utility over having to pay for MW from a peaking power plant. It's a great deal for the utility, because they only have to pay for the bodies to make the calls on those days and manage a $ program, vs having to build and operate a peaking power plant. It's a great deal for the large customer who gets a check for the capacity to curtail, even if they are rarely asked to do so. Plus, the customer gets some notice that the gridshit is about to hit the gridfan, so they can opt to shut down some of their more sensitive processes just in case there is a full blown nasty blackout.

What isn't optional is this new stupid residential program, apparently. It sucks balls. No incentive besides a mid-afternoon heat stroke. Woo!

Sorry for any confusion.

Sam-hec | January 18, 2008, 11:50pm | #

I have solved the problem (sorta) for my California condo.

My AC stopped working a couple years ago!
=D

(didn't really need it anyway, I just keep the windows open at night)