Or install a bypass switch to kick the AC back on, over ridding the thermostat. I can see a lot of people getting electrocuted fiddling with there AC system because of a law like this.

All your thermostats are mine.

The alternative (other than building more power plants, which they should do) is rolling blackouts.

Because in CA, brownouts and rolling blackouts happen in the height of the day, in the height of summer, when A/C use is maxed out. Not at night as you may be thinking.

Shut down power to office towers in the middle of the day and you strand elevators, crash data networks, shut down businesses, turn off traffic lights, etc, all kinds of things that are really bad.

To fend off blackouts, better to remotely reduce A/C in some residential neighborhoods. So somebody who wants it 60F indoors during a 110F heat wave and has never bothered to insulate, has to deal with it being 70F for a couple hours.

Not an ideal solution, like I said, but works in an emergency.

Nothing to do with global warming.

It is based on the reality of brownouts and rolling blackouts in California.

...caused by the lack of energy production, because the environmentalists won't allow energy plants to be built because of their insistence on the theory that it is harming the environment, when there is no factual proof of that.

Global Warming is the lever by which our entire standard of living will be destroyed. Wait and see.

I would also prefer an economic incentive like this.

It may be that its is politically impossible to make such a major conservation-encouraging change in CA electricity billing right now, so they are doing what is feasible.

It may also be that the remote meter control feature deals with a different issue, which is local power shortages during brief periods of extreme demand.

When you think about it, the issue of emergency local power shortages and the issue of overall electricity conservation are not the same.

As electricity supply for California is ample for >99% of the time and in >99% of the state, and only inadequate <1% of the time in <1% of the state, can you really say CA doesn't have enough electricity?

Seems to me, CA has plenty of electricity, but needs to work on smoothing out the peaks and valleys. And if you only need to smooth off the top <<1% peaks, makes a lot more sense to do that than to shift the entire mountain range.

So the politicians, rather than face the wrath of the people for their inaction in building the required number of power plants given the growth of the state when the rolling blackouts reach a fevered pitch have sought fit to minimize the impact of those blackouts by intruding on your rights.

Right. Just wanted to make sure I understood what was going on.

Kapt

I'm not a liberal by any stretch but "intruding on your rights" as in rights to buy electricity? I don't think so. But I agree, a better energy policy is what is needed.

How about my freedom of association, to conduct business and buy a lawful product without government interference?

It's time to try nuclear power again. Clean, limitless, and the Navy has been doing it for decades without incident.

California is an energy importer. You are 1 transmission line away from rolling blackouts. California has the fuel (Natural Gas and Oil) but hasn't built power plants in multiple decades, with a few exceptions recently. When the rolling blackouts were going on, 600 MW worth of power gen equipment was sitting in a parking lot in South Carolina, instead of being installed in a plant, because of environmental red-tape. And your governor of the time wouldn't help get that equipment installed on an emergancy basis.

Paradise!

+1

The US Navy powered towns in SC and ID with no problems, and NY also if I remember correctly.

Last time I counted, the US has 66 Nuclear Power Plants operating. I would guess that some people have no clue they are even around.

How many in Kalifornia, which is the subject of the thread?

edit: I checked - two. They have all been closed, except Diablo Canyon and San Onofre Reactor 2

I live 50 or so miles from one.

We like to fry up the three-eyed fish from the reservoir.

"nuclear power ... Clean..."

- Duh!

It has no day to day emissions. It is hardly clean -- unless you have one hell of plan to deal with the nuclear waste generated.

Then there is the problem of one getting hit by terrorists - or of them getting a hold of the waste during shipment or storage.

The Navy DOES do a great job of guarding theirs. A friend of mine was doing studies (on possible radionuclide transport by rattlesnakes as they burrow thru soil & eat rodent burrowers) on the INEEL site - back when it was a Navy run facility.

One day his graduate students forgot to check in before driving around to their study sites. It took about 4 minutes before they were surrounded by naval sharpshooters in helicopters. When challenged by bullhorn, they yelled back "We're just graduate students" and held up some of their snakes.

I'm sure that was amusing.

But unless you are prepared to buy that kind of security at commercial plants, forget it.

Most commercial plants use Wackenhut, which is almost as good as the Navy.

As for the spent fuel problem, U.S. law prohibits reprocessing spent fuel rods, which is by far the best method for dealing with them.

How can a society so convinced about global warming ignore an obvious source of fossil fuel use mitigation? Seems to be hypocritical. The Navy is a shining example of nuclear (pronounced "noo-clee-err") power use, and should make the case that it is safe and viable.