Latest news with #electricityBills
Bloomberg
09-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Will Trump's Bill Trigger a ‘Big, Beautiful' Energy Crunch?
On Trumponomics, we explore how the legislation's attack on renewable energy may push up electricity bills and damage US competitiveness in AI. By and Stephanie Flanders Save Subscribe to Trumponomics on Apple Podcasts Subscribe to Trumponomics on Spotify On this episode of Trumponomics, we ask whether the Republican megabill passed last week—known best for cutting Medicaid and taxes while adding to the national debt—will also do damage to the broader economy, US competitiveness in the race for artificial intelligence and your electricity bill.
Daily Mail
25-06-2025
- Lifestyle
- Daily Mail
My urgent warning to everyone shopping at Kmart this winter: 'I know it's $15 but do not use it'
A $15 winter 'essential' from Kmart is causing major regret for some Aussie shoppers, who are learning the hard way that budget buys can come with sky-high consequences - namely, exorbitant electricity bills. A number of Aussies who are feeling the winter chill have taken to social media in recent days, urging followers to not make the same mistake as they did. They are warning shoppers not to be fooled by the low price tag of Kmart's popular portable fan heater, cautioning that it may be guzzling power at an alarming rate. One of the warnings comes from Sydney-based mum Jaz, who posted a now-viral PSA video that's been viewed more than 545,000 times. 'Quick PSA for some of you girlies that are spending your first winter out of home,' Jaz said. 'Do not use the Kmart heater. I know they're $15 - don't use it.' She goes on to explain that despite only using the compact fan heater briefly to warm her bedroom at night, the results were financially devastating. 'Winter living in Sydney I used a Kmart heater just to heat up my room every night, it wasn't even on for that long and my power bill was $1000 for a month,' she said in disbelief. 'Just get some fluffy socks, a dressing gown, an Oodie and you'll be alright. Hot chocolates are way cheaper than a Kmart heater.' Jaz's video sparked a wave of similar confessions in the comments, with young renters and students echoing the same horror stories of bill shock after plugging in the seemingly innocent white plastic fan heater, which is available in-store and online. Another Sydney woman, Harriet Burns, posted her own TikTok shortly after, confirming to FEMAIL that her friends were also left out of pocket due to the energy-sapping device. '$15 to buy, $500 to run,' Harriet captioned the video of her snuggled in a large, fluffy pink dressing gown instead of relying on her heater for warmth. While Kmart's budget heater boasts portability and instant warmth, what it lacks is energy efficiency. The appliance, like most small fan heaters, uses resistive heating, meaning it draws a lot of power in a short amount of time - often between 1800 to 2400 watts per hour. That's significantly more than other home appliances like fridges or LED lights. When left on for even a couple of hours each night, especially in poorly insulated homes or bedrooms with single-pane windows, the cost adds up rapidly. If you're charged on a time-of-use electricity plan, running it during peak hours (typically early evening) only worsens the damage to your bank account. In Australia, electricity bills are typically issued on a quarterly basis, which can make it even easier for costs to accumulate unnoticed, especially for first-time renters or those adjusting to life out of home. However, many providers now offer monthly billing options, particularly for customers with smart meters that allow regular tracking of electricity usage. For renters or families concerned about their winter costs blowing out unexpectedly, monthly bills can be a safer way to monitor and adjust usage in real-time. If you're worried about mounting bills during such a cost-of-living crunch, it might be time to look at other alternatives to surviving the winter chill at home. Layered clothing like thermals, socks, and robes, switching to an electric blanket (which cost significantly less per hour to run), reverse-cycle air conditioners that are more efficient in heating mode if used correctly, and draft stoppers and door seals to retain heat in smaller spaces. And as Jaz wisely pointed out, sometimes a hot chocolate and a pair of fuzzy socks really is the cheaper way to go. With Sydney's chillier months still lingering, it might be time to think twice before hitting add to cart before you've done your research.
RNZ News
23-06-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
How to get the best payoff from solar panels
Plunging panel prices and rising electricity bills have tipped the scales in favour of rooftop solar for many. File photo. Photo: Fabian Rieger / 123RF Solar panels now stack up financially for many households in all three of the country's biggest cities, as well as Queenstown. A new in-depth study by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) says plunging panel prices and rising electricity bills have tipped the scales in favour of rooftop solar for many homeowners. EECA says it is the first New Zealand study to use detailed and high-quality data for both solar supply and residential demand to work out whether - and when - rooftop solar pays off. "We've now got to that point with those (standard) 5kW systems with a house that's got electric appliances, where you can pretty much say this is going to be a good investment," says EEC spokesperson Gareth Gretton. "If all the pieces of the puzzle are right for your house, then you don't need to sweat this decision for a year. It's actually a good decision," he says. "So if you have a north facing roof, it's not flat, it's not shaded. You've got electric appliances in your home, you're able to use some of the electricity during the day and you've got a good price for your solar, it's going to be a good investment." The study found there were exceptions, such as houses with shaded or flat roofs. Although many households with rooftop solar do use batteries to store electricity during the day so it can be used later, the study found batteries needed to come down in price before they make sense economically. Of the four cities studied, EECA found Queenstown homeowners stood to gain the most from installing solar panels, followed by Auckland, then Christchurch, then Wellington. "As a very proud Wellington I do like the emphasize that Wellington came out bottom, not because of our lack of sunshine, but because we tend to have quite low electricity prices relative to some other places," said Gretton. Proud Aucklanders can be reassured that Auckland came out second for sunshine hours, after Queenstown. But Gretton said power prices had more impact on the returns than sunshine hours. Queenstown was top for sunshine hours, then Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington - in that order - but the differences between the three main centres were not huge, he said. EECA calculated the rate of return on investment households could expect over a year - meaning that if they could borrow money to install rooftop solar at less than that rate of return, they would be making money. Gretton said a lot of households were seeing about 9 or 10 percent per year from installing rooftop solar panels. Those calculations were for a 5kW, north-facing solar panel system on a roof that had at least a 30 degree tilt, with no battery included. "There's a pretty wide range of return but it's pretty much never below 6 percent," he said. "At the very extreme end, and I should stress these number are unusual, but nevertheless they're real, there were returns of up to 14 percent." Gretton said those returns stacked up well, considering some banks were offering green loans - which can be used to buy solar panels - at zero or one percent interest rates. With batteries still relatively expensive compared with the panels themselves, Gretton said the study found households could get a better return on investment by using a home's hot water cylinder to store heat when the sun was out, by setting a simple timer. The water could be used when the sun had gone down - a more affordable form of energy storage than a battery. Kate Gunthorp has been tracking her family's electricity consumption closely for three years. A self-described energy nerd and a sustainability professional, she's been eagerly waiting for a solar panel system, which was finally switched on at her Auckland home last week. She and her husband are hoping to have close to zero power bills most of the time. Gunthorp says her main goal is giving she and her husband flexibility, for example in case there's a time in the future when they no longer do "big corporate jobs". "For us, my husband and I both work full time we've got young kids, so to have that flexibility - that's $660 savings a month - to have that flexibility means it's $660 that we don't have to earn." The family uses a lot of electricity and recently switched their gas hot water for a hot water heat pump. "We use way less energy now that we are all-electricity than we did when we were electricity plus gas, because the hot water heat pump is so much more efficient," she says. She had also been on an efficiency drive, but they were still high electricity users. She calls her new system solar "on steroids" - an extra-big array of panels, a battery and the latest smart circuit technology at a total cost of $45,000. Households that have big electricity bills, like Gunthorp's, stand to gain the most from solar, according to EECA's study. But in ballpark figures a standard array of panels - with no battery - could cost more like $11,000, Gretton says. The study found the best returns actually come from a modest sized system. As for the roof, Gretton says a roof tilt of more than 30 degrees was ideal, but not a major factor - as long as the roof was not flat. But heavily shaded roofs or roofs that are multi-level or tricky to install might not be worth it, said Gretton. He said batteries for household use were still relatively expensive compared with similar-sized EV batteries, though EECA expected the prices to fall in the next few years. When that happened, the economics of adding a battery should change, he said. Gretton said if electricity retailers moved towards pricing structures that charged more for electricity used at peak times, the financial payback from batteries could also improve. That was because homes with rooftop solar and batteries could store electricity during the day and either use it themselves - saving money at peak times- or sell it to the grid at a higher rate. Gretton said recent changes by the government to expand the permitted voltage range for electricity networks would ease restrictions on how much electricity rooftop solar owners can sell back to the grid - and improve the payback of panels. Mike Casey of non-profit Rewiring Aotearoa said with panels now affordable, the next step should be finding ways to offer the financial benefits of solar panels to groups such as renters and the elderly, who could not borrow against their mortgages and/or did not own their homes. He said the government should find ways to make owning batteries more lucrative, as the Australian government was doing, because having batteries benefited the whole country. "Every battery you install in a home removes that home from those peak periods and reduces the need to build more poles and wires. That's not really recognised at the moment," said Casey. Here's how to get the best payoff from solar panels, according to EECA's research. Of the four cities studied, Queenstown had the best returns, with the most sunlight hours per year and moderate electricity prices. EECA calculated the financial returns from installing solar panels in Queenstown at about 7-14 percent per year for a north-facing, 5 kW solar array at a 30 degree tilt with no battery storage. Auckland had the second best returns, with the second-best sunlight hours after Queenstown and higher electricity prices, making solar PV attractive. The rate of return on investment was about 6-12 percent per year. Christchurch had slightly less sunlight than Auckland and lower electricity prices than in Auckland and Queenstown. The rate of return on investment was about 6-11 per cent per year. Wellington had the lowest sunshine hours due to a higher number of cloudy days per year and moderate electricity prices The rate of return on investment was lower than other centres but can still reach 10 per cent for some households. The study looked at solar panel costs today, but estimated batteries costs as it expected them to be in a few years time, because EECA expects batteries to get cheaper and it did not want the study to get outdated too quickly. "Right now today adding a battery to your solar install will not increase your rate of return, it will actually decrease it," said Gretton. "But we think that's going to change because batteries are coming down in price. "If you look at the cost of an EV today and how big the battery is in that EV, and you look at the cost of a battery in a box outside your house, the two are a bit out of step. You're getting fantastic value buying an EV today and a battery in a box is not such good value for money." The other thing that could make batteries more economic is more targeted rates for electricity - charging more at peak times such as cold winter evenings. Right now electricity bills are rising largely because the fixed monthly lines charges are going up - which is not something that rooftop solar with a battery can help with, so long as the home remains connected to the grid. "More complex, more cost reflective prices are really good for batteries because batteries are performing a big service to households and the grid when they are feeding electricity in at peak times. So we need more targeted, time of use charges to make the case for batteries," said Gretton. "It not only saves homeowners with these batteries money because they're not having to buy/import electricity from the grid at these peak times at a higher rate, but they will also be rewarded for putting electricity into the grid at this time." In the meantime, the study found a straightforward hack in the form of the humble electric hot water cylinder. "Your straightforward hot water cylinder is actually the lowest cost form of storage you can have right now," said Gretton. "[Solar panels] coupled with your hot water cylinder, either with a device called a diverter or a simple timer will actually give you better returns than a battery right now." These devices timed the hot water cylinder to heat when the sun is out, storing the hot water for later. In the future, Gretton said using EV car batteries as storage would solve a lot of problems with reducing strain on the grid. "Cars have big batteries for relatively low cost compared with stationary batteries," he said. "The vehicle-to-grid-technology needs to come down in price, and the manufacturers of EVs need to come to party because they need to warrant that is it is okay. "At the moment the problem is the manufacture is probably going to say, we won't warrant your EV if you do this with it, but the potential of this is absolutely huge. It provides so much short term battery capacity as such comparatively low cost that at a stroke it would really solve our peak demand problems." "I think most people know that north facing is best and it certainly is," said Gretton. The study also looked at solar generation from panels facing northwest, and half east and half west. "Some people are talking about that being a good idea because it purportedly maximises the generation you get in the mornings and evenings, but what we found is over the course of a year you do lose out quite a lot on generation capacity and you really lose out in the winter months... you're never getting the sunlight directly on your panels, whereas with north and northwest you're at least getting it some of the day," he said. "Basically if you go to northwest, you're dropping down by about ten per cent, if you go east/west you're dropping off about 20 percent (compared with north facing). It is just best to go north, so if you're not going to go north you need to go into any investment knowing what you're losing out on." "We'd be pushing to north or near-north-oriented and not really advising east/west." This one is more minor. EECA took the standard roof as being on a tilt of 30 degrees. "You get a few percentage uplift for 45 degrees and lose a little bit for 15 degrees. But the conclusion there is that your roof is obviously what you've got, so you maybe don't worry about that one so much," said Gretton. He said installing brackets to mount the panels on a different angle was probably not worth it. "It obviously costs money to put those brackets in, so you've got to look at the return on investment. Unless your roof is flat or nearly flat, just put them parallel with the roof plane." This bit is technical, but solar panels produce DC (direct current) electricity and it needs to be converted into AC (alternating current) in order to connect the panels to the grid. The device that does that is called an inverter. The study found having slightly more capacity in your panels than in your inverter - called "overpanelling" - generated the best returns. "What we found is the way to optimise the package is to put in something like 6KW panel capacity and a 5KW inverter. It's basically because those solar panels will only produce 6KW on a sunny day in the middle of the day, so a lot of the time a 6KW DC system will only produce 5 kw or 4KW or on a really cloudy day less again. "And so because an inverter is a relatively large line item on your system cost, you're actually maximizing the value of the inverter and the whole system by making the inverter run at fill capacity more of the time," said Gretton. They found it improved the returns by 10 percent to overbuild the panels a little. Gretton said when people were shopping around, they needed to understand whether what they were being quoted was the capacity of the panels, or the inverter, and what the difference was. "It's something you should be asking anyone giving you a quote about, because we found it a pretty unambiguously good idea to do this overpanelling thing." As for the 6kW panels/ 5kW inverter system that features throughout much of the study, Gretton said that was a decent size to be starting with for most households. "That would be a really good system size to start your thinking with right now, it's a really common size and will probably give good returns for most households." Selling surplus electricity to the grid on a bright sunny day when you are not home - but other people in your area need electricity - can improve the returns. But different local electricity networks have different limits on how much households can export. Government changes to the maximum permitted voltage should help companies ease up on these restrictions, said Gretton. "This basically gives the networks more headroom to receive this electricity from inverters," he said. The study found there was a difference in returns between people living in an area with a 5kW limit on exporting electricity from rooftop panels and people living somewhere with a 10kW limit. Basically, Gretton said, a higher limit meant you can build a slightly bigger system on your roof and generate better returns. "We've been talking about 5kW as being the standard... but if you have a 5kw export limit in place you get your maximises return with a system that is more like 3-4KW. "There is an economy of scale with a solar instal. If you look at cost per kilowatt, in ballpark figures it's $2000 per installed KW (so $10,000 in round numbers for 5kW) but as you go to larger systems that per kilowatt cost comes down a bit," he said. A small note of caution - Gretton said if everyone in your neighbourhood got solar, there was a chance that even with voltage limit increase, particular streets may have limits on how much they can export, making it harder to sell to the grid. "It's really about looking at what you're using in your home," said Gretton. Finally, Gretton said the biggest thing people can do is shop around. "If you're able to get a really competitive installation price, you're guaranteed to have higher returns. in some ways easiest and best thing you can do is making sure you get a good price, while obviously making sure you get a good install as well." And: "Look at warranties on performance, ie output and how long it is guaranteed to not break for - you want long warranties on both," he said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Verge
21-05-2025
- Business
- The Verge
Energy efficiency rollbacks could cost Americans $43 billion in higher utility bills
The Trump administration's attempts to gut 12 energy efficiency standards could cost Americans billions of dollars in higher electricity bills. The Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it plans to rollback dozens of policies in what it called its 'largest deregulatory effort in history.' While the DOE claims that getting rid of 'burdensome and costly' rules would save $11 billion, that doesn't take into account the costs Americans would bear if they have to use more energy-hungry appliances. Adding up those costs, the deregulation spree would ultimately lead to about $43 billion in higher electricity bills for households and businesses, according to an analysis by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) that was first shared with The Verge. 'The department is looking at the savings these rollbacks would provide while completely ignoring the costs.' 'The department is looking at the savings these rollbacks would provide while completely ignoring the costs. It turns out that the costs would be nearly five times greater than the savings,' says Joanna Mauer, deputy director of ASAP. ASAP compiled data on 12 of the efficiency standards DOE targeted, for which the department had previously published its own estimates for costs and savings it expected the rules to generate for consumers. A common criticism of energy efficient appliances is that they often cost more to purchase than a less efficient alternative. Upon finalizing the efficiency standard for portable air conditioners in 2020, for example, the DOE expected the cost of buying more efficient technologies to add up to $1 billion for consumers who purchase those products during the 30 years following the rule going into effect. Taking those costs into account adds up to the roughly $11 billion in savings the DOE says it's achieving by getting rid of those 12 standards. But that's an incomplete picture, ASAP argues. When the DOE finalizes a standard, it typically also calculates the cumulative savings consumers would benefit from with a more efficient appliance. Those savings primarily come from lower energy bills (although the metric also considers other potential costs like repairs). The portable air conditioner standard, for instance, was expected to save consumers $4.1 billion over the lifetime of products purchased during the same 30 year time period. That leads to a net savings of $3.1 billion for consumers as a result of the efficiency standard for portable air conditioners. The net savings the DOE has previously estimated for the 12 rules on the chopping block now add up to $43.2 billion — which is what ASAP says is the more important number to consider. Those standards apply to an array of common products including microwave ovens, conventional cooking tops and ovens, air purifiers, dehumidifiers, external power supplies, battery chargers for phones and other devices, and more. The DOE didn't immediately respond to The Verge's press inquiry. 'We are bringing back common sense — slashing regulations meant to appease Green New Deal fantasies, restrict consumer choice and increase costs for the American people,' Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in the agency's announcement last week. Its proposals are likely to face legal challenges because energy efficiency standards are subject to an anti-backsliding provision within the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing the Secretary of Energy to stop enforcing a slate of efficiency rules the administration plans to rescind or revise. News also broke this month that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to shutter the Energy Star program that can save a typical household $450 a year on energy bills.
