I'm the author of the American Thinker article. I also commented on
the EnergyPulse article - it got me digging on the issue.
There are definitely differences in viewpoints. I based my article on
the direct words of the California Energy Commission's proposed
revisions and linked those documents in my article. I even quoted
them. The authors of the EnergyPulse article hope to sell
programmable communicating thermostats and supporting equipment. I
want to build new nuclear power plants and set my own damn thermostat.
The state is trying to take control of your thermostat according to
the plain words of the proposed Title 24. See page 63 in particular.
The rules on who and when the override features are activated have yet
to be decided. The supposition is that the local utility will
actually push the button but in most cases, the California Independent
System Operator (CAISO), the state agency that runs the grid, will
give the order. They already are in charge of rolling blackouts,
etc. What exactly is an "emergency" in this context?
My political basis is that the state of California has made it very
difficult to build new, effective generation in the state. They "fix"
this government-made problem by taking control of your personal
property when they want to. The proper solution, in my opinion, is
to build several new nuclear power plants. The billions we've spent
on wind and solar hasn't and won't help.
The choice is not loss of control of your thermostat versus
blackouts. The choice is nuclear power plants versus continued loss
of freedom and further invasion of one's life by the state.
Ultimately, PCTs will be used to implement real time pricing. There
are lots of arguments pro and con on this. Anyone want to bet that an
average home's electric bill will DECREASE under real time pricing
without radical reorganization of one's family life and habits?