(no title)
hmcdona1 | 1 year ago
So basically the "rush hour" program has likely been costing me more money than if I just ignored them to begin with up to this point. I do realize these programs are primarily about limiting peak gross load and not saving individuals money but maybe I won't go out of my way to abide by them now...
sunshinesnacks|1 year ago
hmcdona1|1 year ago
En masse though, it seems not ideal from a cost perspective the way things have been scheduled up until now. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it might be adjusted better in the future.
bdcravens|1 year ago
nsriv|1 year ago
miguelazo|1 year ago
rch|1 year ago
gre|1 year ago
Harder to turn off than anything else in recent memory. If anyone has a pro tip on an easy way to cancel let me know.
bdcravens|1 year ago
Presumably they similarly have some sort of cloud permission into your thermostat, which can be disabled by changing the password, resetting the device, or worst case scenario, get a new thermostat.
486sx33|1 year ago
danans|1 year ago
Either you are not reading it right, or there is a problem with your thermostat's demand response schedule, because the only way demand response makes money (hence rewards for users) is by reducing demand during net load peaks, because that completes with the high marginal cost of fossil spinning reserves.
ZeroGravitas|1 year ago
Sizing transmission for the absolute yearly peak is not cost effective, so various schemes are used to reduce that peak, including efficiency improvements and demand response.
This is entirely separate from questions of renewable cost and carbon and pollution and makes economic sense even on 100% fossil grids.
fnordfnordfnord|1 year ago
jhayward|1 year ago
bradknowles|1 year ago
infecto|1 year ago
I briefly tried out the thermostat program and it was honestly trash. It was near impossible to unsubscribe too.
nothercastle|1 year ago