On 2025-08-27, Crash <
nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/571159/they-suggested-we-wear-more-clothes-households-hit-with-huge-power-bills?cid=newsletter
Entirely missing from the article:
1. What was the KW/H consumption (and rate)?
2. What was their bill (KW/H and amount) for the same month in
previous years?
My electricity costs are rising, but that is in part because of
increasing consumption and in part because of increased unit pricing.
So my bill may be greater this year event if prices per KW/H were
reduced.
Consumption rates as well as unit pricing are critical to
understanding the problem, but only unit pricing is indirectly covered
in this article. How is this considered an acceptable level of
accuracy in reporting this issue?
Originally posted by mistake in nz.politics.
This is indeed a half the story effort. There is an saying Compare apple to oranges. One needs to compare like with like.
When asked what is my last power bill, I point out that I have done many activities in the last months which have resulted in a very large power
bill. Even charging a EV at home will blow out the bill.
All too often people grab a figure and run with it.
While an in depth investigation with figures would take some effort, both on part of the journalist part and the readers it is probable that the
majority of the readers will just accept the amount without some critical thought being applied.
Another factor in my experience is that most people just use the power with seldom a thought that their use is putting the power bill through the roof.
The household with 2 children and working from home is vastly different to a single person household who goes to work.
The article could have at least given the rate and the amount used for
various situations. Doing so would have educated the readers, if only by a little bit.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)