According to American Thinker, there is a move afoot to nationalise the ability of people to control the temperatures of their own homes (yes, really!) in, where else, the People’s Republic of California:
What should be controversial in the proposed revisions to Title 24 is the requirement for what is called a “programmable communicating thermostat” or PCT. Every new home and every change to existing homes’ central heating and air conditioning systems will required to be fitted with a PCT beginning next year following the issuance of the revision. Each PCT will be fitted with a “non-removable ” FM receiver that will allow the power authorities to increase your air conditioning temperature setpoint or decrease your heater temperature setpoint to any value they chose. During “price events” those changes are limited to +/- four degrees F and you would be able to manually override the changes. During “emergency events” the new setpoints can be whatever the power authority desires and you would not be able to alter them.
In other words, the temperature of your home will no longer be yours to control. Your desires and needs can and will be overridden by the state of California through its public and private utility organizations. All this is for the common good, of course.
Good grief. Presumably the same logic will be extended into all your household functions. As for the “and you would not be able to alter them”, has the political class’ dislike of so-called ‘assault weapons’ been extended to ban hammers and screwdrivers?
However I must say that American Thinker demonstrates what a big part of the problem is:
Building codes and engineering standards are generally good things.
By which I assume they mean politically derived and state imposed building codes and engineering standards (and if they do not, ignore all that follows). Well guys, all your are doing is reporting on the logical progression of these ‘good things’ that you like so much. Building codes and engineering standards demanded by insurance companies on the other hand are far less likely to have ‘mission creep’ built into the process. American Thinker makes the classic statist mistake of assuming that order can only be imposed by the state regardless of all the evidence to the contrary (or as Bastiat put it, “Paris gets fed” without any central planner). People want and need order. Order is at the core of what civilisation is about. But it makes little sense allowing a monopoly provider of order to decide how best to achieve that. When you do, you end up with shit like this.
(hat tip to Dropsafe)
“To conserve we should all strive,
“Thermostats at fifty-five.”
-Niven/Pournelle/Flynn, Fallen Angels
Hopefully they will go with the devices supplied by Itron, Inc, – one of my most profitable stock selections.
Indeed they do. But there was some solid free-market thinking in that article as well. For example, this bit:
As for the law itself …. wow. Just … wow. Every time I think the statists can’t surprise me, they manage to do it. California is turning into Mongolia . They say truth is stranger than fiction. Even Orwell didn’t think to put this one in his book…
A stunt like this will result in people installing unlicensed wood-burning stoves. And the idea was to reduce emissions and smog formation, again?
I agree and I hope I did not give the impression I think American Thinker are Bad Guys because they’re not.
Staggering… There just isn’t a reasonable response to such a policy.
The remarkable thing is the mentality of these people: they think it is possible, practically possible, to decree and enforce anything. That apart from the (non) question if it is morally desirable.
As Sunfish said: you can’t enforce this. People will find a thousand ways to bypass this foolishness. Even in the most horrendous totalitarian regimes people managed to cope, by ignoring the laws, or bribing their way out or some such schemes. The infatuation with micromanaging people’s lives is not only repugnant, it is idiotic. It shows an “idealistic” detachment from reality, from the facts of everyday life, of the do-gooders.
Same goes for the carbon “cap-and-trade” scheme – sheer impractical madness. Like the infamous five year plans. Complete with “setting goals”…
(End of rant).
I linked to this in the thread that led to my first SQOTD… it’s why the brief discussion of building regulations and so forth occurred 🙂
Despite all the grumblling, the question is ultimately ‘Who decides’ (ie. who has the Say-so!) … so that if technology allows for easier enforcement of what the state deems ‘right’ or ‘best’ for the majority, then that’s what’ll happen unless there’s a political movement to impede and quash that otherwise inevitable process. I just read this last week about a new idea of putting chips into cars that have loans on them – allowing the financial institution to turn off cars, rendering them inoperable until any given delinquent car payments are made current. So the problem of freedom as a function of technological advances is what’s at the heart of the issue, I think anyway, and it takes active democratic action to curtail any abuses of power that naturally facilitate with those hi-tech capabilities.
A question- how soon before the rest of America copies California?
It’s amazing how real life keeps trumping Hollywood! I used to think that most soaps were outrageous fiction, and then we had Paris Hilton, and Britney.
I used to think that 1984 was fiction, but Cal-State is trying to make it real. Perhaps the answer is to stop writing fiction, as that seems to encourage people to turn it into reality.
Among our many great freedoms is the freedom to pass astonishingly stupid rules “for the public good”, which will probably mean that we eventually lose those freedoms.
Pol Pot never had these problems! Now there was a hero on energy reduction!
Not to worry. The State of California has already de-industrialized. It has been driving out high-tech business. It has dumbed down the once fine educational system to the point that technologists from India are being attracted home to India by the superior quality of education for their children. And California is going bankrupt.
Don’t shed a tear for Californians. They stood by and let a minority take over & trash their state. Maybe the unfortunate consequences for Californians will help others wake up.
It’s called Revolut… oh wait … Californians have been disarmed.
I work for a major California utility company. So . . . when these things are installed, I’ll get the employee training to know how to control them. Then quit the utility, and start my black market thermostat modding business. Heh – I smell MONEY.
After a couple of years, I’ll take my sack of money, and move to Texas so I don’t have to live among the dipshits Alisa correctly identified.
There’s always a bright side if you’re cynical (and mercenary).
There’s just a receiver in these, no transmitter, right?
A scofflaw *could* disconnect the radio-controlled thermostat and install a 49-states thermostat, but that would be bad for the environment and, therefore, *wroooong*.
————–
The tinfoil-hat crowd could instead wrap their thermostat in aluminum foil, too.
————–
As long as there isn’t
A:) any feedback about actual interior temperature measurements, or
B:) gas/elec usage polling/auditing,
the utility wouldn’t have a clue a t-stat is doing its job.
Every thing has changed:
WB-7 First Plasma
“We’re not out trying to make a big splash on any of this stuff at this point,” Nebel said. But he said he’s hoping to find out by this spring whether or not Bussard’s concept is worth pursuing with a larger demonstration project.
The initial analysis showed that Bussard’s data on energy yields were consistent with expectations, Nebel said.
“We don’t know for sure whether all that’s right,” he said, “but it’d be horrible for Mother Nature to give you what you expect to see, and have it all be bogus.”
“Paris gets fed”, indeed – I wonder how the families of the thousands of elderly French who died in un-air-conditioned hospitals during the heat wave a few summers ago feel about a central government’s ability to choose room temperatures.
As a southern CA resident in an area with six months of 95-degree days . . . sigh.
Joshua –
Price signals have no impact on generation capacity in the NIMBY state. Look at past history in CA.
The American Thinker also purveys the concept (in this piece) that “Rights” are set in the Bill of Rights (or the Constitution generally). No, (except for VI & VII) they both provide specific constraints (now diminshed) on the powers of the Federal government.
I do worry, as a US citizen, about the ability of California to set trends in other states. I’d like to think that they may have jumped the shark with this idea.
I know for a fact that many productive people have already moved out of California to states with lower taxes or regulations. This leaves them with a disproportionate number of tax-and-regulate voters. I have to think that at some point, some of the nonsense they come up with will not be viable in other states.
I work for a major California utility company. So . . . when these things are installed, I’ll get the employee training to know how to control them. Then quit the utility, and start my black market thermostat modding business. Heh – I smell MONEY.
I smell murder.
I know a few people who would not survive the night if the temperature in their home changed dramatically… just a short range FM transmitter… no entry into the house even required… no evidence left behind.
Every thing has changed:
WB-7 First Plasma
Wrong! Even if – ESPECIALLY IF – Bussard Fusion proves successful, it will be banned and hounded by the environmentalists, because their real aim is nothing like reduction of CO2. Their argument will be something like, “Unlimited cheap energy is too much of a temptation and will cause us to despoil our environment even faster. Growth must be curtailed and rolled back so the earth can survive.”
Building codes and engineering standards demanded by insurance companies on the other hand are far less likely to have ‘mission creep’ built into the process.
Perhaps slightly less likely, but not far less likely. Insurance companies are far more implacable than officials, because they have a direct interest in your bearing the cost of mitigating the risk you are notionally paying them to bear.
The combination of conditions set by state officials giving rise to mitigation strategies by insurance companies is terrible. That’s usually what gives rise to “health and safety gone mad” – organisations get absurd internal rules, so that they can maintain their insurance against the possibility of anyone suing them or any form of prosecution. Insurance is also prone to regulatory capture.
I recommend attempting to manage small listed premises in central London stuck between insurance companies, alarm companies, planners and the Metropolitan police – all of whom will of course demand you provide them with unnecessary and risk-enhancing security information as well as incompatible and global rules to apply to your local situation that don’t fit – as an exercise in frustration.
—
I’d quite like to see a maximum temperature enforced in public sector buildings in the UK. I’m quite prepared to take the risk that civil servants will be more awake and more productive of regulation in exchange for the reduction in heating costs to the tax payer, more responsive enquiry desks, and the gain in public health by reducing the disease-incubation capacity of the NHS.
When a state imposes an intrusive gadget in a house that it does not own, then I can bet that someone will succeed in cracking that gadget to render it useless. It just becomes a technology race for those who value their freedom. The information about how to bypass that gadget will be available sooner than later in some public medium. Even the “technology challenged” (being PC) will soon know how to do that. using it is cheaper than paying to move away.
On one of trips to California, it coincided with the various “brown-outs” that happened during the period when Gray Davis was then governor of the state. The Terminator took over, brandishing his copy of Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, but the truth is that Arnold S. has been just a fan of big government intereference as any Democrat (in some ways even worse). I like California but the nannyish culture there is awful and no wonder businesses are moving across the state border to Nevada, etc, to find a better place to earn a living.
Perry is quite right to point to how insurance companies and other bodies in a private sector create order, building codes and the like. It is one of the problems of the statist mindset to not grasp how order can emerge without government legislation. I remember trying to ram that point into a commenter’s head on these threads about 2 years ago with zero success. It is a mental block.
Anyway, surely if energy is scarce, the rising price of said will ration how much of it gets consumed in heating/cooling homes and the like. The market will deal with it.
Of course, this proposal creates a raft of new jobs for inspectors, equipment providers and the like; we see the same process with things like the congestion charge, ID cards, Home Information Packs, etc. It is about empire building and the creation of a cadre of commercially motivated bureaucrats and their hangers-on.
Of course the logical consequence in the UK would that, having installed the FM receiver in every household, it would be necessary to install a webcam in every home to ensure that nobody fiddled with the FM receiver. Then, of course, it would be necessary to set up a government department for monitoring and employ Power Wardens who would have the authority to enter your house in order to check that the FM receiver was working ok. Said Power Wardens would of course have no power of arrest but would be kitted out in a nice police-like uniform.
That seems to me a good, free market idea. If such a device facilitates the recieving of car loans, and if the car owner agreed to it (when he recieved the loan), than that’s a legitimate arrangement between him and his bank.
New technology reduces the sphere of privacy, but we should distinguish between correct uses of it, and abuses.
I really do think we’re missing out on the potential for abuse here. Somebody did mention screwing with somebody elses temperature, but even less malicious than that, pranking people would not be difficult at all. I’m sure you could get the parts at any Radio Shack.
Which of course, will then require regulation of electronics stores.
No, provided there is a genuine market in insurance, the difference between state mandates and insurance requirements will be night and day.
It’s not that new. The capability is built into OnStar, and therefore into basically everything made by GM.
Supposedly, current GM vehicles can be remotely disabled via OnStar, “in case of theft” we’re told.
Imagine the possibilities. Especially if you’re a violent ex-spouse stalker.
All that will happen is that smart people will work out ways to fool the sensor, and thick ones won’t. All the monitoring systems sees is the input from one sensor; it will be very easy indeed to feed this thing false info (such as surrounding it with an insulated enclosure and installing a heat pump on this).
However, that’s ignoring the basic point: let the market decide what to do. Price energy according to how much it costs to supply, and let people decide how much to spend.
“A question- how soon before the rest of America copies California?”
Indeed. Perry, there is presently no movement afoot to nationalize (meaning all 50 states) the use of programmable communicating thermostats. Rather, this endeavor is presently limited to a single state, California, where the idea is still under discussion.
Don’t scare us like that. ;^)
Granted, the successful implementation of this program in CA will make the road to nationalization that much smoother. Time will tell, and we are quite content to wait.
The fact it is just being attempted in one area does not really change the definition of what is being attempted. Nationalisation at state-level, one state at a time, does not make it in anyway less nationalisation. Which tier of government is sticking to you is not all that important.
Insurance companies don’t get to charge their customers’ neighbors for violations of their standards.
The alternative to building codes, at least in densely-populated places, would be tort — and again the government would be getting involved in construction standards. Is the transition in this area worth it?
In stopping the mission creep(s), be careful not to throw the bums in.
“New technology reduces the sphere of privacy, but we should distinguish between correct uses of it, and abuses.”
Jacob, I totally agree with you – citizens and their politicians need to stay up on these hi-tech capabilities and ensure that improper uses don’t become the norm and, worse yet, irreversible. But in this given car chip scenario, right now financial institutions charge late fees for delinquent payment of loans – and if they were also able to stop one’s car from operating, at will, wouldn’t this be a sort of double-penalty?
All the screwballs in the US (and quite a few from Europe) head West and end up in the Peoples Republic of California. The sooner it drops off into the Pacific, the better for all of us.
I mentioned murder in part because I’ve found that government agencies in California are particularly sensitive to the F word, Fatality.
I’ve stopped more than one bad idea by using it.
I think that is not quite right… the problem is never technology, it is the scope of the state’s power. To rely on democratic politics to control this or that technology is to be on the wrong side of a war of attrition where the other side gets to chose which battles they want to fight and when. The only way to avoid things like this is to make sure the size and power of the state is kept to a minimum overall, not just with regard to a given technology. Anything else is debating what tune the orchestra should be playing whilst the ship is sinking.
Other than being alarmed that anyone should find requiring a PCT to be reasonable I don’t find any reason to be alarmed. Just, take out the PCT, replace with a 49 stater and be done with it. Not much different than what we did with the low flush toilets. Those of us with access to Canada just went up there to buy a proper flushing toilet and ignored the building codes, etc.
“Nationalisation at state-level, one state at a time, does not make it in anyway less nationalisation.”
What? Perry, that sort of thinking may work in Britishland (where one would substitute county for state), but not in the U.S. Federalism still means something over here, you know.
What’s under discussion here is just the potential for one state to impose a particularly noxious sort of regulatory bureaucracy (one that I don’t think will come to pass.) This present condition hardly meets even the most elastic defintion of “nationalization”. Rather, the themostaf affair may be correctly thought of as a state initiative. Period.
“Which tier of government is sticking to you is not all that important.”
No, of course not. Whatever gave you the idea that it did?
How is the state taking control of the temperature of your house not nationalisation??? ‘State initiative’ is a term which means exactly nothing. Which is what it gets used by politicians all the time of course. When the state takes control of something they did not control before, then no matter how it is dressed up, that something has been nationalised.
The fact that one state is doing this and others are not changes the definition of what California is trying to do in no way. If the Scotland nationalises something and England does not, then something has been nationalised in Scotland. But it has still been nationalised.
Your remarks, obviously. Glad to see you do not in fact think that.
On the point of Californians moving to other states to escape the high taxes, crap utilities and general inefficiency the policies of the CA state government have brought about, I’ve ready quite a few complaints from their new hosts that the incomers then proceed to push for the same sort of statist nonsense that brought about the very things they are osensibly fleeing.
“How is the state taking control of the temperature of your house not nationalisation???”
Because in the U.S., STATE government is not NATIONAL government, you daft git. You simply cannot use “The State” as a proxy for “the state (of CA, etc)” when discussing matters such as the proposed Sacramento rule.
It’s very easy, Perry: Local/State/Federal. A very handy trifecta to memorize. In fact, in all matters Federal (but only Federal), use of “The State” is allowed and preferred, old boy.
State initiatives do mean something when one has…well, states around them. What occurs in one may occur in another; on this point you’ll get no argument from me. But it is NOT nationalisation when residents of North Dakota are required under law to forgo halibut on Thursdays and residents of Arkansas are not.
Explain to me, again, how the California thermostat law would compel me, a resident of Pennsylvania, to surrender control of the temperature in my house? This is the “nationalisation” that you speak of.
I’m sorry to see you so resolute.
“I think that is not quite right… the problem is never technology, it is the scope of the state’s power. To rely on democratic politics to control this or that technology is to be on the wrong side of a war of attrition where the other side gets to chose which battles they want to fight and when. The only way to avoid things like this is to make sure the size and power of the state is kept to a minimum overall, not just with regard to a given technology. Anything else is debating what tune the orchestra should be playing whilst the ship is sinking.”
Perry, I wholly agree with your above statement. My point about technology is only that its progress is constant and inevitable … and it itself is ethically/legally neutral always. Rather its up to the citizenry, working through their political system, to keep technology’s know-how from reaching the point of violating the freedoms/rights that are said to be guaranteed. I, for one, still affirm the spirit of “the best government is that which governs least” – but as society gets more and more complex, and the technological tools for monitoring and controlling are virtually ubiquitous and full-proof, there will likely be even more regualtions/laws needed to safeguard those freedoms/rights that were once so easy to enjoy. Can you see this being the unavoidable direction?
James, to nationalize something is not the same thing as to take it nationwide. The term originates with countries converting companies or industries into a part of the national government, or “nationalized”. It means that the government has taken control of something which had previously been under private control.
Of course the State of California does not allow insurance compaines to discriminate in their prices on grounds of risk – which happens to be the basic principle of insurance.
As for the use of electricity – here is one way to reduce its use, repeal the Federal “toilet law”.
The regulation that forbids new houses to be built with toilets with old style big flushes.
So people either have to buy toilets in Canada and take them into the United States – or buy a toilet with an electic motor which speeds up the limited water in the small flush toilets.
Of course California (like other States) used to be dominated by “mass transit” (trains and trolly cars) but this was virutally killed off by price controls (and other regulations) and “free” (taxpayer financed) roads.
Sadly the powers-that-be do not accept that this weas the cause of the problem.
It was a wicked plot by big business – for example General Motors buying the L.A. trolly car network in 1938 and closing it down.
“But why did the mass transit networks get into financial trouble in the first place?”
“Do not ask things like that – shut up, shut up, shut up”.
Such is the world of academia.
I don’t know if it’s relevant, but I think the proposal is that the electricity utilities will control the thermostat, the state is only mandating that they will be able to. I don’t know who owns the utilities in California, so if they’re nationalised I guess that turns out to be the same thing, but I’d gotten the impression they were private. I don’t know if you have the same objections to non-State actors having this sort of control – as you know, I do; making no distinctions between different threats to liberty – but I’m not sure that “the state taking control of the temperature of your house” is quite what is happening.
The bigger issue of course is the reason why this is necessary – that they’re refusing permission to build sufficient new power plants. And while it is the state that is actually doing that, I lay the actual blame and responsibility for it elsewhere, with those whose campaigning has made any other course untenable for a politician considering re-election, and with all those who have paid any attention to them.
If the state requires you to hand over control of systems in your house to a regulated utility, that is still nationalising your thermostat.
Bingo, Pa! Every government problem requires another government solution which unintentionally creates another government problem …
I loved the time when largely-unlamented Enron tied the State of California in knots by understanding California’s regulations better than California’s own regulators who had written those oh-so-smart rules.
Enron sold a bunch of power to California over a power transmission line designated by California which could not carry that much power — and then Enron insisted on their contractual right to be paid for the power that California (because of its own too-smart rules) could not accept. I miss Enron!
And I have no sympathy for Californians who elected the conceited bastards who put them into such a mess.
Heh! They have this system already installed in Russia: it’s called district heating. In October, come snow or sunshine, they turn your heating on, which cannot be regulated, so your apartment is like a furnace. And then in May they turn it off again. We all cheat by opening and closing windows for three minutes at a time.
But it’s more than slightly worrying to see the US adopting bits of the Soviet system of centralised service provision.
Tim: I remember when they installed it in my old neighborhood (1965?). Before that we had to sneak at night to the nearby construction site to steal wooden window frames, to fire the stove.
And just to think, if California keeps on keepin’ on you may have the opportunity to indulge in a bit of nostalgia tourism one of these days.
People will find a thousand ways to bypass this foolishness.
Easily done. Thermostats are dead easy to swap out. As soon as the door closes behind the contractors, take off the state-mandated gizmo and install a real one.
For the truly paranoid, power up the state gizmo somewhere else (the garage or toolshed, perhaps), so that it continues to send signals to the state, confirming that it is operational and that your garage is not exceeding approved temperatures.
Joshua: yes. Although I might just as well visit my old neighborhood, to save myself all the PC atmosphere that is part of CA vacation package:-) (I hope to be able to do so before they build this abomination).
Joshua: yes. Although I might just as well visit my old neighborhood, to save myself all the PC atmosphere that is part of CA vacation package:-) (I hope to be able to do so before they build this abomination).
If this is actually carried out, it will inevitably lead to the cheating described by many here, which will inevitably lead to energy use monitoring, which will inevitably lead to energy rationing according to what the state determines you are entitled to use.
This gesture is both symbolic and a steel-toed boot in the door. Best to keep this door tightly closed and not rely on how easy it is to cheat the thermostat.
Best to keep this door tightly closed and not rely on how easy it is to cheat the thermostat.
I don’t think anyone would argue with that. I think we were just mocking the pie-in-the-sky naivete of these do-gooding nannies.
I can see the hand of unintended consequences here. Can you say “portable electric heaters and window air conditioners”, both of which are far less efficient and use more energy than the regulated central systems?
Probably increase total energy usage by 5 – 10% on a particularly hot or cold day.
Charlie,
The parts of the southwest that I am familiar with heat almost entirely with electricity. When the remote control thermostats are defeated, the government (via the utilities) will begin auditing electric bills and matching them up against whatever standard they choose in order to catch ‘the cheaters’.
It is a small step from there to having your power allocated and the service shut down each month once you hit your approved amount.
In areas where natural gas is also used, I imagine they will correlate the two meters to determine if your usage exceeds your ration.
This law is a lot more dangerous than it looks on the surface. Since energy is abundant, totalitarians in Green disguise have created a shortage of carbon capacity to justify centralized control.
This process will end in centrally controlled allocations if it is not stopped.
TomG said:
I will have to disagree on that. The technological trends in this century doesn’t favor “easier enforcement” by the central state. In fact it favors super-empowered individuals armed with home-made WMD to inflict devastating retaliation on any law-enforcement agency that initiates force against such an individual. My guess is that such a situation will become commonplace in the mid to late Twenty-First Century.
Of course Californian “deregulation” of power involved PRICE CONTROLS.
It is difficult to know where to start with people who think that price controls are deregulation.
There is a decent man in Californian politics, I think his name is McClintock. A “Jeffersonian Republican” who really does oppose the crazy web of regulations and the out of control government spending.
In spite of outspent ten or twenty to one by “dot.com” people (and other such) he has been almost elected to various high positions.
Of course the key word in the above is “almost”.
It is pity that super rich people who get involved in politics (whether they are dot.com people or banking industry people) tend to be nearly always leftists.
Normally in politics one “just” has to fight such things as the media and the “education system”. However, when a super rich leftist gets into the race one has to fight being vastly outspent as well.
Although Colonel Ballard in Indianapolis showed it is possible to fight the media, the education system, and the political business doners (outspent more than twenty to one) and still win.
As the author of the American Thinker article I thank everyone who read it and offered reasoned comments.
First, I glossed over the chain of command in the article deliberately. First, the actual chain is as-of-yet not formally defined. However, the distributing utility would likely be the authority that pushed the physical button. They might do so only within their service territory for local hardware reasons or for their commercial reasons. The critical issue is that the California Independent System Operator, a state agency, makes the call for power shortages, the mother problem here.
The state has willfully restricted development of adequate electric generation. In 2007, only 177 MW came on line or 0.35% of peak demand. granted that was a bad year.
The state is creating a problem of shortages and then demanding the power to amelorate the pain by controlling your demand.
As to codes, I’m an engineer and I appreciate good codes. I used the example of swimming pool piping in the article. The pipe sizes are typically done by a swimming pool salesman who uses a table based on some engineer’s calcuation. He is incentized to make it as cheap (ie small) as possible but the homeowner will pay for the life of the pool in higher operating costs. The pipes are literally “cast in concrete” in most cases. The real cases of a homeowner chosing a smaller size to save a few bucks are trivial since it takes a bit of technical skill to calculate the system sizes.
Since I did the article, I have heard a number of horror stories of petty tyrannies contained with the Title 24 code that would have had the PCT requirement.
So codes, like guns, can be good and they are bad – it all depends on the intend of the code mandators.
And yes, PCTs are a national issue. New Jersey and Tennessee are right behind California – or were! Congress passed HR6 recently which handed out loads of money for planning and design of “demand response” and “smart grid” measures intended to be implemented nationwide.