The ‘Nanny State’

 

California is taking another step toward becoming the poster child for the so-called “Nanny State.”  A far-reaching provision has been included in a 236-page revision to the state’s building standards, which is being considered by the California Energy Commission and is scheduled to go into effect in 2009.

The provision will enable the utilities to control the temperature settings in new commercial buildings and homes with a radio-controlled thermostat.  How would you like to have a utility Czar turn your thermostat up, down or off during periods of high demand?  Say, for example, the heat is unbearable, you have your air-conditioning running, and the electric company turns it down or off because of a potential brownout?

 

The document reads, in part, “Upon receiving an emergency signal, the Programming Communicating Thermostats shall respond to commands contained in the emergency signal, including changing the set-point by any number of degrees or to a specific temperature set-point.  The PCT shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during emergency events.”

So, the state government will decide when it’s necessary to dial our thermostats down or off without regard to where we live and presumably regardless of conditions in our locale.  The Central Valley could be sweltering in unbearable heat while Santa Barbara or Santa Monica is being cooled by gentle coastal breezes.  But, the determination will be made on the basis of state-wide power usage and the need to conserve energy.  And, the new thermostats will be designed to prevent customers from overriding the setting selected by an Energy Czar.

 

It’s not a big leap to visualize the California Energy Commission requiring remotely controlled circuit breakers, so they can regulate our electricity use more efficiently.  They might decide to turn off your power just as you are preparing dinner for company. Or, how about turning your lights off after a certain hour to conserve power, forcing you to go to bed early or sit in the dark?  (“Tyranny update,” Walter Williams, Jewish World Review, Jan. 16, 2008)

 

However:

• “A low-powered FM transmitter might easily be devised to override the broadcast commands.”

• “…a metal wire shield around your PCT could block its FM reception.”

• “Adding a window air conditioner or an electric space heater are other work-arounds as neither have requirements for PCTs – yet.” (“American Thinker,” January 4, 2008)

 

The Nanny State mindset is further exemplified by the Federal government’s decision to phase out all incandescent light bulbs by 2014.

Incandescent bulbs are being replaced with compact fluorescent light bulbs.  But, this presents a new problem: CFLs are potentially dangerous – because they contain mercury, which is described by Environmental Defense as a “highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children” and as “one of the most poisonous forms of pollution.”

 

The experience of Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, is instructive.  Ms. Bridges broke a CFL when she was installing it in her daughter’s bedroom.  It shattered on the floor and, since she was aware that it was potentially hazardous, she called Home Depot for advice.  The store told her to call the Poison Control Hotline, which referred her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

Keep in mind that we’re talking about a single light bulb here.

The DEP sent a specialist to her house to test for mercury contamination, which was determined to be six times greater than the state’s “safe” level.  The room was sealed off while Ms. Bridges shopped for a firm to clean it up.  The lowest estimate to do the job was $2,000.

CFL light bulbs are touted as saving as much as $180 in annual energy costs, so it will take Ms. Bridges over 11 years to recover the cleanup costs for the broken bulb. (Source: Steven Milloy, “Junk Science: Light Bulb Lunacy,” April 29, 2007)

 

Steven Milloy also notes, “We’ll eventually be disposing of billions and billions of CFL mercury bombs...As each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine ‘safety’ standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to ‘safely’ contain all the mercury in a single CFL…Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures.” 

Does anyone think the public will be willing to follow the proper procedures to dispose of them?  Somehow, I doubt it.  Over time, I can visualize millions of these bulbs being casually tossed into the garbage by an unaware or indifferent public.

But, that’s just my opinion.