Our View: Big Brother's hand on the thermostat

Considering that the state already legislates what people think (hate crimes), regulates what students eat (no trans fats), restricts where motorists drive (car-pool lanes), forces many people to pay for what they don't want (public schools) and restricts where anyone may inhale cigarette smoke (not in restaurants), it's probably no surprise that Sacramento bureaucrats' next scheme was to remotely control thermostats inside Californians' homes.

Apparently, Sacramento finally went too far. As the Los Angeles Daily News reported: "Amid widespread criticism and fear of increasing control over Californians' lives by 'Big Brother,' a state panel has dropped a plan that would have let utility companies use radio signals to dictate the temperature in residents' homes."

Whew. We're thankful for small blessings.

The California Energy Commission sought to reduce peak demand for electricity by forcing residents to install "programmable communicating thermostats" that utilities could remotely control. The commission bureaucrats' diktat (notice it was not voted on by voters or even by their legislators) would have required new buildings to include remote-controlled thermostats to allow utilities to regulate buildings' air-conditioning or heating during power "emergencies."

As word spread, and opposition mounted, the commission at first backpedaled, indicating consumers would be permitted to override the outside control. Last week, the agency junked the plan entirely from its 2008 edition of building efficiency standards.

"(I)t's not the job of the (state) to go into peoples' homes and control their thermostats," Democrat Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said, reiterating the obvious.

The remote-control regulation provided no exceptions for health or safety concerns and did not even define what constituted emergencies, reported the North (San Diego) County Times. The proposal for requiring nonremovable devices drew opposition from the building industry and consumer advocates.

"(I)t is repugnant and entirely unacceptable to mandate that the customer loses control over the device that will be mandatorily placed in their homes," wrote Michael Shames, executive director of the advocacy group Utility Consumers Action Network. "The implications of this language are far-reaching and Orwellian," Shames told World Net Daily.

At least for now, Californians may turn the temperature up or down on their own — but we wonder how much more of this thinking is in store. As the Riverside Building Industry Association's Borre Winckel told the North County Times: "This is not too different from certain voices we've heard from the water world … where if somebody were to use too much water, the water agency can (by) remote control turn your water off. What's there to keep people from deciding you've had your lights on too long? This really does go very deep into government control into how we lead our lives."