kurtster wrote: 
That is ironic.  I was not aware of that taking place in California - so I stand (or sit, actually) corrected.  I believe the main reason for the Charlotte increases was based on drought conditions - which did reduce consumption, but the (often mandatory) conservation was spurred by reduced supply - which will increase prices.  Anyhow, thanks for pointing out those examples.

 Proclivities wrote: 
How ironic you made that statement in this thread.  In California, gas prices did in fact rise several years ago directly because overall consumption went down because of economizing.  The state had to raise the taxes on gas because of falling tax revenue due to falling consumption.  Therefore, the base price of gas went up.  We still have fluctuations, but the minimum price did go up.

Another example lies in Charlotte, North Carolina, where the municipal water district had to raise prices because of conservation, again because usuge went down so much, they could no longer cover fixed expenses without a price increase.

 miamizsun wrote: 
I agree with some of your points (especially the "data-collecting" question), but the argument that "if we use less they'll charge more" is unsubstantiated and frequently used as an alarmist ploy.  That was a major talking point of supply-side types who, over 30 years ago, opposed regulations for higher automobile fuel-efficiency.  Gasoline prices did not rise when (or because) more people started driving fuel-efficient, compact cars.  For one thing, that theory contradicts the sacred Capitalist principle of supply-and-demand.
Though assuming energy providers are "principled" may be a stretch.

 dmax wrote: 
One of the "unintended consequences" will be fluctuating (variable) rates, which will allow them to increase the price during peak usage.

I think as we use less, or become more efficient, they may charge us more, which would cancel out any savings to the end user, but potentially boost profits for providers.

These meters will allow very specific two way monitoring, which would allow them to charge for specific appliances/activities if they choose.

I understand the angle of well connected corporations using their government "buddies" to gouge us, nothing new there.

What bothers me is where do they think they get the right to do any of this?

Politicians and bureaucrats collecting data (spying) to what end?

Government intervention in markets always causes problems.

Regards

 kurtster wrote: 
Heh. Never heard that!

 dmax wrote: 
Glad to hear participation is voluntary, I wasn't sure.  My concerns would be more relevant if it was mandatory.

OBTW, does anyone still call PG&E, pigs, goats and elephants anymore ?  I remember that from days gone by.

 kurtster wrote: 
I was offered the choice a year or so ago, but my wife vetoed the idea that, on power hungry days when it's likely that we'll need the AC, it would be possible for PG&E to throttle our use.

California welfare cards can be used in many casino ATMs

Times review finds that in more than half of the state's casinos and gaming rooms, welfare recipients can get cash from state-issued EBT cards.

 dmax wrote: 
I may be wrong, but there is no choice involved with participation as I understand it.  And the smart grid will overide your thermostat settings, if someone decides that your settings are inapropriate.

Here in Ohio, we are allowed to pick our power suppliers from a list, the electric company now just provides the connection.  With a smart grid taking over one's thermostat, it negates the opportunity for choosing wisely as if there is an unusual demand within an area, then all users regardless of suppliers could face thermostat restrictions, because the transmission grid itself cannot handle the load. 

If one chooses a company that has excess capacity and your neighbor has chosen one that cannot meet its demands, I do not see a distinction being made between the two residences, both get cut back.  The common carrier will not make the distinction between the two residences.  Your thermostat air conditioning settings can remotely be raised from say 75 degrees to say 80 degrees and there is nothing that can be done about it.  I find nothing good in that.

The smart grid can only be truly smart if it contains excess capacity accross the board.  I'm not talking about generation capabilities, I'm talking about transmission capabilities.  With excess transmission capabilities, then the grid can become smart.  If my power generator can meet its needs, and my neighbor's cannot, then I will have power and they will not.  Right now with woefully lacking transmission capabilities all this smart grid can do is shut everyone off all at once or restrict everyone at once.  There is no individualized approach, just the appearance of one.

And then there is the Big Brother thing.

Last night I saw on WGN News that Commonwealth Edison (an Exelon company) is starting a pilot program in the Chicago area that allows users to monitor their own electrical usage in real time.

If we look at the Amish, Mennonites and other "technology freeze" communities, we can see with 20/20 hindsight that putting a freeze on (or rolling back) technology does nothing to fix the underlying problem.

 kurtster wrote: 
OTOH, it's a normal extension of our interconnectedness on the internets that things like this will be monitored. It's ludicrous to imagine an electrical grid that could measure usage demands and not take advantage of that information. The public would insist that PG&E use all its resources to maintain the electrical supply to the customers. So, reasonably, PG&E would want/need to know where areas of demand are, where rising demand is, where it's possible to use tech to decrease the likelihood of brownout/failure - which we get infrequently during the summer, but right when we need the power the most, the hottest days.

It's easy to reframe this as Big Brother because it legitimately is a method of knowing more about consumer habits. But what nefarious purpose? There is certainly some inconvenience for those who choose (!) to allow their electrical use to be throttled in high-demand periods. But imagine being able to take a multi-storied building that's unoccupied and being able to remotely take its internal temperature down 5-10 degrees for the weekend? That's efficiency, not evil. 

 kurtster wrote: 
I use Mozilla Firefox.  Problem solved.

  Microsoft is in Washington, not California.

More intrusion by the Federal Government and BHO into our personal lives.

California quietly passes first statewide Smart Grid law

...
As is, California appears to be ahead of the Smart Grid game. Three of the nation's top five utilities most active in Smart Grid deployment are located in California: San Diego Gas & Electric, Pacific Gas & Electric and Edison International. PG&E alone has installed 3.7 million smart meters throughout its coverage area in Northern California alone. There has been some pushback from utility customers, concerned that the meters will up their electricity bills, but this response will probably not be unique to California as more states roll out advanced meters to the masses.
...
Public Hearing on California's 'Smart Grid' on Friday

Worried about plans for California's "smart grid"? We are too. Energy usage data, with new hyper-close monitoring provided by the "smart grid", allows intimate reconstruction of your household activities — like when you wake up, when you come home, and when you go on vacation.

 Southern_Boy wrote: 
  Also, nut surprisingly for those of us who follow history, Gray Davis turns out to not be all that was wrong with California, and putting a Republican in the Governor's office is not a panacea for anything.

Keep on playing, boys and girls.  One day, for better or for worse, you'll realize that hollow talking points and perennially broken promises do not help the other 98%.  Not then, not now, not ever.

 

California Prisons Must Cut Inmate Population

By SOLOMON MOORE

New York Times

Published: August 4, 2009

LOS ANGELES - A panel of federal judges ordered the California prison system on Tuesday to reduce its inmate population of 150,000 by 40,000 - roughly 27 percent - within two years.

The judges said that reducing prison crowding in California was the only way to change what they called an unconstitutional prison health care system that causes one unnecessary death a week.

In a scathing 184-page order, the judges said state officials had failed to comply with previous orders to fix the prison health care system and reduce crowding.

The judges left it to state officials to come up with a specific plan within 45 days, saying there was "no need for the state to release presently incarcerated inmates indiscriminately in order to comply with our order." They recommended remedies including imprisoning fewer nonviolent criminals and reducing the number of technical parole violators.

The order is the largest state prison reduction ever imposed by a federal court over the objection of state officials, legal experts said.

It comes as the state has emerged from a long battle to close a $26 billion budget gap. The latest budget includes severe cuts to social welfare programs, schools and health care. The governor planned to slash spending by reducing the prison population by 27,000 inmates, but law enforcement and victims' rights groups stopped that.

Attorney General Jerry Brown said in a telephone interview Tuesday that he intended to appeal the ruling. "Eventually, we're going to have to go to the Supreme Court because I think the California prisons are spending about $14,000 per year per inmate," Mr. Brown said, adding that the changes the judges ordered would cost more money, which the state does not have.

MORE

 manbirdexperiment wrote:  Total Recall?

 kurtster wrote: 
I'm not a huge fan of Pelosi...  But then I'm not a huge fan of most politicians.

How about we get Pelosi out of Washington and put her in Sacto and make her Governor. 

I'm sure she would fix things up real good. 

 manbirdexperiment wrote: 
  Once more into the breach!