“Due to a rare energy emergency that may affect the local energy grid, your temperature slider has been changed from 8:00 am — 8:00 pm because you enrolled in a Community Energy Savings program.”
Specifically, one that offered them incentives in exchange for some degree of remote control over the smart thermostats. Those customers, for example, get a $100 credit at sign-up, and $25 each year.
It seems that customers were aware of that because of the participation benefits
I bet most of them will cancel their participation in the program as fast as possible. Yes, they were aware of the consequences, but most people tend to believe that that won't happen because we live in a reasonable world.
Do you guys realize that the alternative to things like this soon may be a blackout with much harsher consequences at some point?
Soon we won't have those fixed prize contracts anymore anyway, and it is then again up to your full control to spend your full month salary for AC on a hot day in crisis times..
Come on, the choice isn't just between conservation and blackouts.. This is only an issue because we sacrificed the reliability of the power grid for 'green' technologies.
Forget enforced conservation or blackouts, I choose a reliable power grid, obviously, and that means ditching worthless renewables and building out proven technology.
People who are sensitive to heat may need to cool down and 78 deg may not be cool enough.
My wife is particularly sensitive to heat, as in hospitalization is possible if she gets over heated for too long. She very easily triggers heat stroke symptoms. And some days in the summer it's "run the AC full blast" whatever the temperature is set at.
Sometimes that's even when we are down to 73 thermostat temp. Usually not that low but it has happened. 78 is frequently enough, but not always, many factors are involved.
I won't touch this tech with a 10 foot pole. We require full control of the environmental controls.
It's likely grey cause folk hate to be reminded of the human condition to think: "it won't happen to me" & the follow-up "when it does I'm surprised and mad".
I didn't downvote but there appears to be an unprecedented energy crisis on the horizon and I suspect this story is a taste of things to come. In that sense, being logically correct in assigning blame to the peasants might still be a bad look overall?
It seems to me that there is absolutely no way for the customer to be able to price the risk in this deal, and that the companies offering the program have a million ways to evaluate the risk, and possibly a bunch of contracts with other companies that completely lay off the risk.
Far too much imbalance of information between vendor and customer intrinsic to the situation to allow this to be a legal agreement. I'm a fan of letting people make their own decisions, but letting them make their own decisions when there's no way they could make one with a positive expected outcome is just a legalized swindle.
Actually does seem like another valid framing to the consumer: this is insurance against an outrageous bill for you, it’s insurance against grid failure for us (and you)
Legalized swindle? Here take our money and just hope that what you trade it in for will never happen? If you don't want it to ever happen, just say no to this 100$, no? Seems pretty transparent..
Your thinking is especially confusing to me as I assume you are also a citizen of the land of the free, that usually favors self-sovereign and capitalism in all its flavors with all its consequences on much more apparent absurd levels? ;)
But back to topic, can someone just set for me into relation how "bad" that was it all? It sounds like this was more a sweaty luxury annoyance and not life-threatening? And then this outcry seems to be absurd.
Welcome to climate change and our general still accelerating resource wastage aa if there wouldn't be a future. In 20 years you will laugh about that, it'll only become much worse.
> It seems to me that there is absolutely no way for the customer to be able to price the risk in this deal
Here is $100. In exchange, if there is a shortage of energy, you will be a bit hotter or colder than you might normally want. You can quit the program at any time.
What is so complicated there?
This is no different than buying BBB rated debt or smaller company stocks. If this is too much for the average person, investment in nearly anything should also be banned.
The "convenience" here is that the users literally get paid for this remote control option. The company gives them money, so they can prevent excessive energy use in case of emergency… This is not a convenience compromise, it’s "get paid for inconvenience"
The "inconvenience" here is that their thermostat is "locked". Like I said: for every convenience, there is an inconvenience. It isn't going to please everybody, but where people draw the line as individuals is going to vary as much as preference for food and drink.
You can still buy the X10 Powerhouse thermostat setback controller [1].
"Mounts on the wall under your thermostat and plugs into an appliance or wall receptacle module. Selector switch (low, medium, and high) 'fools' your thermostat into 'thinking' the room is 5, 10, or 15 degrees F warmer than it really is."
It reminds me of how my google nest resets the temperature range I've set, and then even within that range sometimes decides to tolerate large variations. I don't like sweating at night.
I'm sure there must be a good reason, but next month the nest is going to end up on ebay (or the trash?) and be replaced by a "dumb" thermostat.
Yes I did. And disable the eco function and other things. I've tried various combinations of settings.
> I know a weirdly large number of people that don't realize their Nest has a schedule.
I have spent 10 minutes, then 30 minutes, then 1 hour looking at every single menu option.
Keeping temperature within a range shouldn't be rocket science. Sweating in the daytime is bearable. Sweating at night too isn't acceptable.
Now this P.O.S. is leaving my home since it can't do its simple job right!
It's got in chance, but like most google products outside ads/search/email, it's not worth my time or effort to try to make it work correctly (which at this point I doubt is ever possible)
Is it not for our own good? The whole grid collapsing and needing a lengthy, expensive restart process while everyone goes without electricity sure doesn't sound like a better option. Even Texas bit the bullet to prevent that happening. We already have the power to do this by just imposing rolling brownouts and blackouts; this is the same thing but not nearly so bad as outright power cutoff.
This is not an emergency program, it is planned for years in advance. If people sign up for demand management programs like this, utilities do not need as much power during peak periods, and that results in the construction of less power generation and storage. If no one wants to pay the price in inconvenience, the utilities simply have to build more capacity to cover these shortages and charge somewhat higher prices accordingly.
Wholesale rates are set in a free market for a variety of reasons, but it is true it is ultimately up to governments whether to let residents suffer in the heat or freeze in the dark, either by discouraging new, adequate generation or refusing to allow retail rates to rise to pay for it.
It's for our own good within a flawed system. I believe America should have more nuclear power. Politicians need pressure for this, especially where I am in California. Pressure on the electrical grid is political pressure. If that translates to action, it's the long term greater good.
industrial and (gasp) uniformed services energy use is very large compared to residental; pointless, wasteful energy use by commercial small business and local government is rampant. Controlling individuals in their "pen" is simply exerting control against the group that has the least ability to push back / most helpless.
I get what you say, but I always keep in mind that usually very large companies or business doesn't spend for the sake of it: they spent to sell to us, the small individuals. I know some people that spend their sundays in the mart just because they have the thermostate set to 20ºC (70ºF) for free, something they can't afford in their homes. And the very energy thirsty aluminum sector is working to keep our freezers filled with beer cans.
But of course, when the municipality spends in watering the flowers in the highway, it's a bit more dubious who is benefiting.
I don't feel like I have that much control over companies that I buy from. If I would prefer that they ramp down energy use during peak times, how would I accomplish that?
On a prospective basis the alternative to this kind of demand management is to build more natural gas or nuclear power plants or grid scale batteries. There is no requirement to maintain an infrastructure that cannot handle a relatively ordinary hot afternoon during the the summer.
Every jurisdiction already has a less-specific and mandatory version of this. When demand exceeds supply, they just start disconnecting loads from the grid, perhaps randomly.
Every jurisdiction also has some sort of plan to generate or acquire enough electricity so they do not have to engage in rolling blackouts under normal circumstances, and a hot afternoon during the summer certainly counts as normal. If there is ever a blackout someone has failed their job description.
I prefer the price signaling than hard prohibition. In this case the utility company might charge a lot for what they consider unreasonable consumption, and that should spark "voluntary" savings.
We have this where I live for water: under 10 m3 per person monthly is very cheap. The 11th m3 could cost more than bottle water. Technically you can consume as much as you can afford, but almost nobody is watering the grass with potable water.
We may need a middle ground on energy soon. If european prices continue rising, energy costs will be higher than rent. Sure people will cut back, but I need heating, and lighting. Rationing will be necessary to preserve basic consumption ahead of conspicuous consumption by wealthy interests.
European conditions aren't normal though - given adequate time new sources will be brought online and a new normal will be established. The prices can't and won't stay as high as they are projected to be under crisis conditions, new supply is less expensive than that.
The problem with that is people don't monitor their usage. I'm sure some do but most I know just use power willy nilly and pay the bill at the end of the month. Doing this will result in alot of pissed off customers when they see a 5X increase in their bill.
All my work colleages bought at least one of (this)[https://www.amazon.es/dp/B07B6RYQXC] this year. From having a thermo and let it start and stop when it needed to, to track the cheapest hours of the day and let it run only for 90 minutes or so. Some of them installed a pellet stove advancing a winter with gas/electricity too expensive. Some installed a solar thermal collector (following my advise, I must say). Sadly, I couldn't convince anyone of installing PV.
I don't like prices going up, but I don't remember seeing any other way of pushing consumer restrictions as effective as prices. When something is scarce, its price must go up, and people start to ration or look for substitutes. Even government prohibitions/rationing tend to cause grey or black markets instead of consumption reduction.
This has nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with a tangential topic: energy generation. Colorado has more residents with larger domiciles than ever before, and the supply has not kept up with the demand. Additionally, almost all investment has been in areas that are inconsistent in their ability to provide energy when it’s needed.
Simply deciding for other people that they shouldn’t have access to energy because of your misplaced fears around climate change is a recipe for envy, bitterness, and significant societal unrest.
Key point:
“It’s a voluntary program,” Emmett Romine, vice president of customer solutions and innovation at Xcel, told local news station KMGH-TV. “Let’s remember that this is something that customers choose to be a part of based on the incentives.”
This is fairly common with other utilities as well, my local utility did the same thing a few years ago.
Furthering the point, even at the bottom of the "Your Thermostat has Been Disabled" Message, they say that you can re-enable the thermostat by going online and opting out of the program. So if it's getting unbearable you can go online, opt-out and be back in control of your thermostat.
EDIT: I just read that the temp was capped at 78, Colorado has low humidity so 78 here is much more comfortable than 78 in say Florida. Sure the message is culture war outrage fuel, but the underlying policy seems quite reasonable.
Except I have been trying to opt out for more then a year and half. I also tried again when this message popped up.It happened because I clicked enable on the ecobee app, and there is no effective way to cancel it.
Actually it's not just them. I have it for my local area hydro company in Canada, it's the same thing. I can't find where to cancel at all.
EDIT: So I did some digging, and it's confusing to say the least. In the app, it points you to the Google store page when you tap more info about the program. A search points to a page that tells you to contact your hydro company. On my hydro company's page, there is ZERO information about this, then a second search that landed me on Google Support page, which finally mentions the program is administered by some company in the US that is "partnered" with my hydro company, hidden deep inside the terms and conditions. And on that page, it says I actually have to call Google to unsubscribe.
Typical dark pattern, very easy to accidently opt in, impossible to opt out. You have to call, and as you might imagine, could not get through.
It also doesn't help that the opt-in was not done by me, but by the builder, who set the ecobees up in that manner (new build). It's part of the "energy efficiency" that they offered.
If 78F is 25C, it is seriously tolerable. In France where we dont have AC, we spend the summer in front of fans and Im sure americans can use those too.
It all depends on humidity. I used to live in the US South where humidity would be >90% and 78F is unbearable. I live in Colorado now and the humidity here barely goes above 10-15% and the same temp is way more comfortable.
While I grew up in the US South, in a house without A/C. >90% and 78F sounds like a cool summer evening.
Hah, I'm right! In Tallahassee right now it's 82°F and 81% humidity, with a dew point of 76°F. At 5am tomorrow morning the temp will be down to 78°F. If you're out that early there will likely be fog in the low spots.
I live in Buenos Aires and 25°C is with air conditioner is perfectly tolerable. The official recommendation here is 24°(75°F), but at my home we keep the thermostat at 26°C (79°F) and sometimes more.
The air conditioner acts as a dehumidifier, so 26°C is nice, but you must change the water deposit of the AC quite frequently.
I opted out of this program, but did the energy saver AC program with little affect on the cooling. I didn’t want the power company to have control of my home comfort.
Imagine a program where by signing up, you'd be given a million dollars today, but then a year from now, you'd be sold into slavery for the next ten years. Should we allow that just because it's voluntary?
Imagine a program where a person can sell a kidney for a transplant to keep a willing buyer alive.
Imagine a program where we ramp up the price of college by making college debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, then create fluff degrees which won't help the person earn enough to pay off the debt over the next couple decades.
The county where we live is increasingly moving to unreliable sources of energy and changing their building code to mandate only electric sources. We're worried about a texas like winter grid emergency so we'll probably have to waste some money on a natural gas generator.
Are you sure that the thermostat lock would, in this case, prevent the heating from being set above the freeze point? Because the way it worked in the situation cited here, residents were unable to set their thermostats below 78 degrees. In other words: The thermostat was not entirely disabled, allowing unlimited indoor temperatures, you just couldn't go lower than 78.
It was a lower limit this time because it was summer, so people wanted to run the A/C. The equivalent program in the winter will be an upper limit instead, since then people will want to run the heater.
all-electric heating, cooking and cooling is part of a transition plan for lowering carbon emissions. Importantly, electricity sources can be substituted over time more economically, to replace more polluting energy. Serious cold is not the energy emergency they are talking about today, though your concern is for your very life, so respect to that of course. As your ancestors did, you have to look out for yourself first, acknowledged. The move to electricity is modern and not the enemy here though, IMHO.
It seems crazy to be building new houses with natural gas. I would think with people staring down the barrel of $5 petrol, it would feel more like fossil fuel's days are numbered. Building efficiency and high efficiency heat pumps (for HVAC and water) make electric look pretty compelling.
Building a new house targeted at today seems really shortsighted. I'm in a 50 year old house, I can see why you'd build a new house looking to the future where gas isn't a thing.
it’s fine to plan to be in all electric future. but a 50 year old house would have had its hot water water heater replaced a few times. there’s no reason one can’t go there when it makes sense.
Possibly, as long as accommodations are made... For me to add electric hot water to my house would be ~$5-7K, and has the additional issue that my hot water heater is not really in a place that a heat pump hot water heater would work so it'd likely have to be relocated.
But, the electric future is much, much closer than 50 years, probably even closer than a hot water heater replacement.
With climate change worsening and more demand for energy this is an unfortunate necessity to prevent the situation from getting even more worse than it already is.
Until we have viable energy sources that are carbon free and sustainable without major risks like past nuclear implementations we need to get used to this or the problem will get far far worse.
I live in CO and signed up for this program when it was first announced. I was pretty surprised to see the interview going around with the resident that was so mad about it, as mentioned it is a voluntary program.
But, I am also probably biased: I signed up for it without knowing that they were paying me to do it; I was happy to cooperate in the case of grid stress, without knowing that I was going to get paid for it.
This feels a bit like this guy is saying "Where is my freedom to make brownout or blackout?" :-)
The percentage off system is far better than many others that do $x/year or "free installation". Otherwise heavy-users don't opt-in, even though their participation would have the greatest effect.
Maybe the utilities should be crediting the value of the electricity the customer is ‘saving’ during these peak hour ‘crises’.
The way this is written, there is nothing to disincentivize the utilities from creating artificial shortages because the people wholesale price for electricity is ‘too high’. The only way I can see for this to be balanced is to credit the retail value of the electricity being withheld from the customer.
I'm not against regulating the demand in principle, I'm against IMPOSING the regulation from PRIVATE parties, no matter if this very specific case is an experiment on volunteers.
We need to state the principle that ONLY public bodies can act on public, private parties can ASK, can eventually propose different tariffs to incentivize or disincentivize certain behaviors but MUST NOT have any control at all. The danger of founding a car who initially start to display ads, than make seeing them mandatory just to open the door, than get briked from remote is so high that any potential step in this direction must be nuked with an extraordinary excessive and fierce force.
Beside that: a general regulation even from public bodies is an issue sometimes because you need mechanisms to avoid it, for instance for medical reasons case-by-case (in this thermostat settings case), but if such mechanism do exists surely get abused. So in the end my idea is that if something is needed but scarce than can't be private at all. So for instance TLCs, energy grid, water etc can't be given to private company at all if they can't guarantee full services all the time with the sole exception of extraordinary events that can't last more then a very little time (like a flood, a storm etc vs "eh, there is a global crisis who might last years").
103 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadSpecifically, one that offered them incentives in exchange for some degree of remote control over the smart thermostats. Those customers, for example, get a $100 credit at sign-up, and $25 each year.
It seems that customers were aware of that because of the participation benefits
A company is giving away money for you to sign up and the reasonable thing is to assume it will never happen?
The only reasonable expectation is that it will happen, just like the comment said.
source - live here and signed up for the program.
Do you guys realize that the alternative to things like this soon may be a blackout with much harsher consequences at some point?
Soon we won't have those fixed prize contracts anymore anyway, and it is then again up to your full control to spend your full month salary for AC on a hot day in crisis times..
Forget enforced conservation or blackouts, I choose a reliable power grid, obviously, and that means ditching worthless renewables and building out proven technology.
People who are sensitive to heat may need to cool down and 78 deg may not be cool enough.
My wife is particularly sensitive to heat, as in hospitalization is possible if she gets over heated for too long. She very easily triggers heat stroke symptoms. And some days in the summer it's "run the AC full blast" whatever the temperature is set at.
Sometimes that's even when we are down to 73 thermostat temp. Usually not that low but it has happened. 78 is frequently enough, but not always, many factors are involved.
I won't touch this tech with a 10 foot pole. We require full control of the environmental controls.
Far too much imbalance of information between vendor and customer intrinsic to the situation to allow this to be a legal agreement. I'm a fan of letting people make their own decisions, but letting them make their own decisions when there's no way they could make one with a positive expected outcome is just a legalized swindle.
Actually does seem like another valid framing to the consumer: this is insurance against an outrageous bill for you, it’s insurance against grid failure for us (and you)
Your thinking is especially confusing to me as I assume you are also a citizen of the land of the free, that usually favors self-sovereign and capitalism in all its flavors with all its consequences on much more apparent absurd levels? ;)
But back to topic, can someone just set for me into relation how "bad" that was it all? It sounds like this was more a sweaty luxury annoyance and not life-threatening? And then this outcry seems to be absurd.
Welcome to climate change and our general still accelerating resource wastage aa if there wouldn't be a future. In 20 years you will laugh about that, it'll only become much worse.
Here is $100. In exchange, if there is a shortage of energy, you will be a bit hotter or colder than you might normally want. You can quit the program at any time.
What is so complicated there?
This is no different than buying BBB rated debt or smaller company stocks. If this is too much for the average person, investment in nearly anything should also be banned.
For every convenience, there is inevitably a compromise.
"Mounts on the wall under your thermostat and plugs into an appliance or wall receptacle module. Selector switch (low, medium, and high) 'fools' your thermostat into 'thinking' the room is 5, 10, or 15 degrees F warmer than it really is."
[1] https://thex10shop.com/products/x10-powerhouse-th2807-thermo...
I'm sure there must be a good reason, but next month the nest is going to end up on ebay (or the trash?) and be replaced by a "dumb" thermostat.
The google nest was too smart for its own good :)
Yes I did. And disable the eco function and other things. I've tried various combinations of settings.
> I know a weirdly large number of people that don't realize their Nest has a schedule.
I have spent 10 minutes, then 30 minutes, then 1 hour looking at every single menu option.
Keeping temperature within a range shouldn't be rocket science. Sweating in the daytime is bearable. Sweating at night too isn't acceptable.
Now this P.O.S. is leaving my home since it can't do its simple job right!
It's got in chance, but like most google products outside ads/search/email, it's not worth my time or effort to try to make it work correctly (which at this point I doubt is ever possible)
But, will it stay that way?
If these people cannot be trusted to pick a sensible temperature for their own homes I don't see why you'd let them vote who gets to run the country.
But of course, when the municipality spends in watering the flowers in the highway, it's a bit more dubious who is benefiting.
As far as I know, they've never done this, but it's a tool they have and test: https://www.ieso.ca/en/Sector-Participants/IESO-News/2021/12...
We have this where I live for water: under 10 m3 per person monthly is very cheap. The 11th m3 could cost more than bottle water. Technically you can consume as much as you can afford, but almost nobody is watering the grass with potable water.
Or in the French condition: existing sources will be brought back online
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-restart-all-its-...
I don't like prices going up, but I don't remember seeing any other way of pushing consumer restrictions as effective as prices. When something is scarce, its price must go up, and people start to ration or look for substitutes. Even government prohibitions/rationing tend to cause grey or black markets instead of consumption reduction.
Simply deciding for other people that they shouldn’t have access to energy because of your misplaced fears around climate change is a recipe for envy, bitterness, and significant societal unrest.
"Don't be ridiculous that 'smart everything' is about spying and putting even more power into the hands of unelected government officials!!"
This is fairly common with other utilities as well, my local utility did the same thing a few years ago.
EDIT: I just read that the temp was capped at 78, Colorado has low humidity so 78 here is much more comfortable than 78 in say Florida. Sure the message is culture war outrage fuel, but the underlying policy seems quite reasonable.
- source actually affected by this.
EDIT: So I did some digging, and it's confusing to say the least. In the app, it points you to the Google store page when you tap more info about the program. A search points to a page that tells you to contact your hydro company. On my hydro company's page, there is ZERO information about this, then a second search that landed me on Google Support page, which finally mentions the program is administered by some company in the US that is "partnered" with my hydro company, hidden deep inside the terms and conditions. And on that page, it says I actually have to call Google to unsubscribe.
I've had zero luck with this ever. They're quite friendly at the Googleplex though and capable of redirecting your request wherever it needs to go.
Typical dark pattern, very easy to accidently opt in, impossible to opt out. You have to call, and as you might imagine, could not get through.
It also doesn't help that the opt-in was not done by me, but by the builder, who set the ecobees up in that manner (new build). It's part of the "energy efficiency" that they offered.
Hah, I'm right! In Tallahassee right now it's 82°F and 81% humidity, with a dew point of 76°F. At 5am tomorrow morning the temp will be down to 78°F. If you're out that early there will likely be fog in the low spots.
[0] https://weatherspark.com/y/3561/Average-Weather-in-Boulder-C...
https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?textField1=40.02&t...
Currently 14% humidity in Boulder, CO.
The air conditioner acts as a dehumidifier, so 26°C is nice, but you must change the water deposit of the AC quite frequently.
Imagine a program where we ramp up the price of college by making college debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, then create fluff degrees which won't help the person earn enough to pay off the debt over the next couple decades.
Optionality and choices.
Building a new house targeted at today seems really shortsighted. I'm in a 50 year old house, I can see why you'd build a new house looking to the future where gas isn't a thing.
But, the electric future is much, much closer than 50 years, probably even closer than a hot water heater replacement.
Until we have viable energy sources that are carbon free and sustainable without major risks like past nuclear implementations we need to get used to this or the problem will get far far worse.
But, I am also probably biased: I signed up for it without knowing that they were paying me to do it; I was happy to cooperate in the case of grid stress, without knowing that I was going to get paid for it.
This feels a bit like this guy is saying "Where is my freedom to make brownout or blackout?" :-)
You save 15% on power during the summer months for participating.
In 20 years I’ve only noticed it a couple times.
It has been a good deal for me.
Maybe the utilities should be crediting the value of the electricity the customer is ‘saving’ during these peak hour ‘crises’.
The way this is written, there is nothing to disincentivize the utilities from creating artificial shortages because the people wholesale price for electricity is ‘too high’. The only way I can see for this to be balanced is to credit the retail value of the electricity being withheld from the customer.
Too cold inside? Fashion a bubble wrapper and an ice pack around your thermostat.
Learned this at an employer that kept its thermostat under lock and key.
We need to state the principle that ONLY public bodies can act on public, private parties can ASK, can eventually propose different tariffs to incentivize or disincentivize certain behaviors but MUST NOT have any control at all. The danger of founding a car who initially start to display ads, than make seeing them mandatory just to open the door, than get briked from remote is so high that any potential step in this direction must be nuked with an extraordinary excessive and fierce force.
Beside that: a general regulation even from public bodies is an issue sometimes because you need mechanisms to avoid it, for instance for medical reasons case-by-case (in this thermostat settings case), but if such mechanism do exists surely get abused. So in the end my idea is that if something is needed but scarce than can't be private at all. So for instance TLCs, energy grid, water etc can't be given to private company at all if they can't guarantee full services all the time with the sole exception of extraordinary events that can't last more then a very little time (like a flood, a storm etc vs "eh, there is a global crisis who might last years").