Back then, the annual savings were $1500 if gas heating, cooking and hot water were replaced with electric equivalents, a petrol car was swapped out for an electric one, and solar panels were installed.<\/p>\n
The organisation has now updated its model – and said those savings had doubled.<\/p>\n
Even taking into account the upfront costs, households could now save up to $3000 a year over 15 years – a total net saving of $45,000.<\/p>\n
Removing those upfront costs, the savings on bills were $7600 a year.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is not just a climate argument anymore, this is actually an economic prosperity argument and it\u2019s a cost-of-living argument,\u201d Rewiring chief executive Mike Casey said.<\/p>\n
The savings would vary by household, which often had a combination of fossil fuel and electric \u201cmachines\u201d – including vehicles, heating, cooking, and hot water systems.<\/p>\n
Therefore, to accurately estimate what the country could save as a whole, the report used nationwide stocks of appliances and vehicles.<\/p>\n
The net savings over 15 years, as homes electrified over time, would be $64 billion, reaching $9.1 billion a year by 2040, it calculated.<\/p>\n
There were huge emissions savings to be made, as well.<\/p>\n
By 2040, the country would produce 8.7 million fewer tonnes of carbon-equivalent emissions a year.<\/p>\n
Rewiring Aotearoa was not advocating for people to replace perfectly good appliances, or electrify all at once, Casey said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat we\u2019re really arguing for is for every New Zealander to be able to make six good decisions in the next 10 years.\u201d<\/p>\n
That meant the next time an appliance or machine broke or needed replacing, \u201cthat is the point that we need you to make a decision\u201d, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe need to make sure that New Zealander is saying, I know that this is going to cost me $10,000 less over its lifetime if I go the electric one, not the fossil fuel one.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2018It feels good to have finally done it\u2019<\/p>\n
Auckland man Greg Roughan had solar panels installed on his house last November, after he and his family got \u201creally sick of very, very high electricity prices\u201d.<\/p>\n
It was something they had considered for a long time, but they were spurred into action when the roof needed replacing.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a really big cost …. your electricity, so it feels good to have finally done it.\u201d<\/p>\n
The $13,000 system did not include a battery, but Roughan said he earned a \u201cvery good\u201d rate of 21 cents per kilowatt for selling back to the grid.<\/p>\n
That meant it was less important for the family to use all of the electricity they generated, although they tried to make the most of the system, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cOver the summer months, we basically don\u2019t pay for electricity, which is a really nice feeling, and all through the summer and shoulder season we earn a net credit that carries on to the next month … and then you\u2019re burning through [the credit] in the winter months.\u201d<\/p>\n
He had estimated the system would take six or seven years to break even, but now, with real numbers to work with, expected it to be closer to five years.<\/p>\n
Now the solar panels were in place, an EV was the next potential purchase, Roughan said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was interested in whether we could defer not just household bills but also our petrol bill.\u201d<\/p>\n
Upfront costs remain a barrier \u2013 but solutions in sight<\/p>\n
While Greg Roughan put the cost of his family\u2019s system on the mortgage, not everyone had access to finance, Mike Casey said.<\/p>\n
One of the major barriers to uptake at the moment was the upfront capital cost of electric technology, which was often more expensive than the fossil-fuel alternative, Casey said.<\/p>\n