While I agree that we should be free what we can and can't do, with energy beginning to be a serious issue I think we need limitations. It's like the guy driving the huge SUV going "I have a right to buy and use as much gas as I want, I'm paying for it!".. well yea, but it's that sort of thinking that's making me pay $3/gallon at the pump.

I agree somewhat with Rolex.....except that I do not like the use of strict tax.

I believe that options should be given to customers of electricity. They should be able to live their lives they way they want.....but they will have to pay for it.
Example:

The electrical company uses past electrical usage bills + asks for sq footage of the house, condo, or apt. (to calculate and be fair to everyone the kw/sq ft))
The customer then is given a choice:
Choose to live decreasing electrical usage by 15% from monthly averages (because usage changes seasonally) and pay a fixed lower rate......or pay a higher rate and use the same amount of electricity. Increased usage of electricity beyond the overall average (kw/sq. ft) has a higher rate.
Other choices could be available....like supplement the additional electrical usage cost as a donation to renewable energy projects.....or support the lower income class who struggles paying the bills.
To allow the government or a company to dictate or "control" their customers usage will only lead to the tampering and negative aggression toward the utility provider.
We need to be careful about allowing corporations to control any of our lives. The use of "green" and the environmental movement has to come from the people, not the government. Otherwise this important environmental movement becomes political and therefore segments the population.
I have already heard people bragging on conservative talk radio about how much electricity they use......how absurd!

I am all for personal liberties and would rather have less govt. intervention than more in my life. But when society begins to face serious problems that can have important negative impacts on significant numbers of people due to the irresponsible use of rights and freedoms of a subset of individuals within society, than that society has to take measures to reign in and eliminate those irresponsible individuals behaviours. If people don't want govt. to interfere in their lives than they need to take it upon themselves to modify their irresponsible behaviours so that these negative problems go away WITHOUT govt. intervention. In case this point eluded them: they themselves are the reason the govt. is intruding in their lives.

I have a hard time seeing how this will be enforced.

Couldn't somebody go to the hardware store, wire up a second thermostat? They have like four wires on them, so probably easy to figure out.

Or buy a window unit AC for when the main central air is "controlled" If this happens in mass, since window AC units are less efficient than larger central air units, California's power consumption could actually go up.

Remember, people in California dealt with the power outages a few years back by buying batteries and inverters intended for off grid solar applications, and didn't for the most part bother to buy the solar panels due to the cost. They adapted and dealt with the issue at hand, and not in a way that truly solved the problem.

I suppose some sort of other options could be created for those "libertarian" minded that hate any form of outside control. In a true libertarian world a power company would have the right to not sell power to whomever they wanted, or to make it conditional in some way.

So if a particular power company/district felt it was in the common good to implement demand side management such as controllable thermostats, they could offer a different option for those not wishing the invisible hand reaching in their home... outside the house their meter could be set to simply disconnect all their power when curtailment was required. That way they'd be free to keep their thermostats set wherever they pleased. If they had a solar panel or some other source of power they could even possibly get the thermostat to do something useful.

This is nothing short of tyranny. California is soooo screwed.

Last I checked, access to electricity isn't listed in the Bill of Rights (or elsewhere in the Constitution.) As with other services and utilities (like cable or cell phone service), the providing company can set conditions on usage. Utilities are regulated by the government, but that doesn't mean companies can't have control over the services they provide.

Now - whether this is the best PR move on the part of the utility companies...

Last I checked, access to electricity isn't listed in the Bill of Rights (or elsewhere in the Constitution.) As with other services and utilities (like cable or cell phone service), the providing company can set conditions on usage. Utilities are regulated by the government, but that doesn't mean companies can't have control over the services they provide.

Now - whether this is the best PR move on the part of the utility companies...

Last I checked, access to electricity isn't listed in the Bill of Rights (or elsewhere in the Constitution.) As with other services and utilities (like cable or cell phone service), the providing company can set conditions on usage. Utilities are regulated by the government, but that doesn't mean companies can't have control over the services they provide.

Now - whether this is the best PR move on the part of the utility companies...

I personally think this would be outrageous, despite the fact that I don't really use a heater in my place, and not even a air conditioner (I live in LA and thankfully like being warm :))

However I believe very firmly in an individual's rights and freedoms. For every individual we see out there driving in an SUV it's not that hard to find a prius, or any other random small car out there. While SUVs are not the most fuel efficient vehicle out there they are not solely to blame for every single problem regarding the environment in the US right now, and many people do make active use of them as well. I'm 6'3" and I'll admit my volvo is kind of cramped so I personally would be interested in getting a SUV (would be easier to carry around my surfboard too... my wagon isn't as long as I thought it was).

As for the high end computer taxes I certainly doubt that every gamer or computer user is out there having the computer crank out top performance at all times, my gaming rig is off while I'm typing on my laptop with this.

So with that, I'm against any form of additional taxation, and certainly against the idea that someone outside my immediate having control of what temperature I, or my neighbor chooses to have their house as. Rolling black outs suck, and so far I've yet to be a part of one. What I think would work however are incentives for individuals to not use as much electricity, reward those who are doing their part to reduce the stress on our electric grids, don't come down heavy handed on those who for their own reasons choose not to help. It's kind of the whole you get more bees with honey or whatever it is analogy.

Whether you agree or disagree with the idea of remote-controlled thermostats is made completely irrelevant by the fact that they are trivially easy to defeat. I once was a member of a health club where the set point on the steam generator was set far lower than most of the members would have wanted it. The solution was simple: soak a towel in cold water and wrap the thermostat's temperature probe with it. Unfortunately, most members were not bright enough to realize that leaving it that way when they left would result in the steam generator's self-destruction from constant operation.

Once this thermostat is installed it can also be defeated by simply enclosing the temperature probe in an insulated box. I would attach a foam container to the wall with Velcro for easy removal. A light bulb or hair dryer can be used to raise the apparant temperature of the whole house, resulting in the activation of the cooling system. Likewise, ice cubes would trick the system into turning on the heat.

I expect the billions of dollars forcibly moved from the hands of homeowners and buyers to the hands of electronics manufactures and sellers (the state or utility copanies, no doubt) can be easily defeated by spending a tiny fraction -- 1% at the most, and more likely 0.01-0.001% -- on the sort of simple workaround I've described. The inevitible response will be a requirement to allow no-notice 24/7 access to inspect the equipment, something which is clearly forbidden by the Bill of Rights.

So, good idea or bad idea, it will be at best a large waste of money, and at worst another excuse justifying further Fascist reforms.