Shortage of required new eco-friendly refrigerates causing AC price increase
DES MOINES, Iowa — With temperatures expected to rise to the 80s later this week, many people will be turning on their air conditioning, maybe for the first time this year. HVAC companies are gearing up for a busy season, with an additional challenge: a shortage of the new refrigerant.
At the start of 2025, the U.S. government rolled out a new mandate requiring technicians to switch to a more eco-friendly refrigerant. It was supposed to be better for the environment, and it is, but it's causing headaches for contractors and homeowners.
In the midst of this new requirement, there is a trade war with tariffs affecting the supply and price of the new R-454B refrigerant.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set these new requirements starting Jan. 1st. This new refrigerant has a lower global warming potential and lower flammability than the old ones. This comes from a law signed by President Trump back in 2020.
The problem is, there's now a shortage for both the refrigerant itself and the container for it. A two-headed monster.
If you can find them, one cylinder now costs hundreds of dollars more than normal. Some HVAC companies planned ahead, like Bell Brothers in Des Moines, but others haven't.
'The supply chain is going to be an issue if you didn't prepare for it because you won't be able to fix problems with new systems that people have paid for,' Bell Brothers Heating & AC owner Jason Gassmann said. 'That will be a huge issue as far as the pricing and stuff. Yes, the tariffs have affected the price of a cylinder of this refrigerant, because we are low on supply. It has gone up exponentially, which obviously impacts the financials of a business, which is which is hard on us.'
'I'm not going to lie. Being prepared is the best,' he added. 'Digging in and trying to find the supply you can is really what we're trying to do right now. We continue to keep looking for it to make sure we have it just in case something else happens.'
Bell Brothers takes hundreds of calls a day in peak season, and they say a new AC unit on average costs $10,000. Again, that number would be higher if the shortage continues beyond the current stock.
If your AC unit is still working well, you are not required to get a new unit with the mandated refrigerant. You can ride out the old unit until it stops working.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
21 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Howmet Aerospace Inc.'s (NYSE:HWM) Recent Stock Performance Tethered To Its Strong Fundamentals?
Howmet Aerospace's (NYSE:HWM) stock is up by a considerable 35% over the past three months. Given the company's impressive performance, we decided to study its financial indicators more closely as a company's financial health over the long-term usually dictates market outcomes. In this article, we decided to focus on Howmet Aerospace's ROE. Return on Equity or ROE is a test of how effectively a company is growing its value and managing investors' money. In short, ROE shows the profit each dollar generates with respect to its shareholder investments. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Return on equity can be calculated by using the formula: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Howmet Aerospace is: 26% = US$1.3b ÷ US$4.8b (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). The 'return' is the income the business earned over the last year. Another way to think of that is that for every $1 worth of equity, the company was able to earn $0.26 in profit. See our latest analysis for Howmet Aerospace Thus far, we have learned that ROE measures how efficiently a company is generating its profits. We now need to evaluate how much profit the company reinvests or "retains" for future growth which then gives us an idea about the growth potential of the company. Assuming everything else remains unchanged, the higher the ROE and profit retention, the higher the growth rate of a company compared to companies that don't necessarily bear these characteristics. Firstly, we acknowledge that Howmet Aerospace has a significantly high ROE. Secondly, even when compared to the industry average of 12% the company's ROE is quite impressive. As a result, Howmet Aerospace's exceptional 39% net income growth seen over the past five years, doesn't come as a surprise. As a next step, we compared Howmet Aerospace's net income growth with the industry, and pleasingly, we found that the growth seen by the company is higher than the average industry growth of 14%. The basis for attaching value to a company is, to a great extent, tied to its earnings growth. The investor should try to establish if the expected growth or decline in earnings, whichever the case may be, is priced in. This then helps them determine if the stock is placed for a bright or bleak future. One good indicator of expected earnings growth is the P/E ratio which determines the price the market is willing to pay for a stock based on its earnings prospects. So, you may want to check if Howmet Aerospace is trading on a high P/E or a low P/E, relative to its industry. Howmet Aerospace has a really low three-year median payout ratio of 8.9%, meaning that it has the remaining 91% left over to reinvest into its business. So it seems like the management is reinvesting profits heavily to grow its business and this reflects in its earnings growth number. Additionally, Howmet Aerospace has paid dividends over a period of eight years which means that the company is pretty serious about sharing its profits with shareholders. Upon studying the latest analysts' consensus data, we found that the company's future payout ratio is expected to rise to 11% over the next three years. Despite the higher expected payout ratio, the company's ROE is not expected to change by much. In total, we are pretty happy with Howmet Aerospace's performance. Specifically, we like that the company is reinvesting a huge chunk of its profits at a high rate of return. This of course has caused the company to see substantial growth in its earnings. With that said, the latest industry analyst forecasts reveal that the company's earnings growth is expected to slow down. To know more about the company's future earnings growth forecasts take a look at this free report on analyst forecasts for the company to find out more. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Grim Reality of the Conflict in Iran
A damaged residential building in Tehran, Iran, on June 13, 2025. Credit - Middle East Images—AFP/Getty In the early hours of Friday morning, Israel launched a sweeping military campaign against Iran. The ongoing operation, which was reportedly planned to unfold over several days, is targeting a list of nuclear and military facilities, as well as senior regime officials, that grows longer by the hour. Iran has thus far retaliated with drones and a substantial missile barrage that could see Israel expand its targeting further still. In a region that has seen endless bloodshed since Hamas's October 2023 attacks, the grim reality is that things may get much worse before they get even worse. Under the Islamic Republic that took power in 1979, enmity toward Israel has been a core ideological tenet of Iranian foreign policy and a key driver in its regional policy. Over decades, their rivalry played out mainly through indirect actions by Iran and by covert operations from Israel. That dynamic changed last year. In April and again in October, the two sides engaged in direct hostilities, with Iran twice launching massive missile salvoes largely repelled by Israeli and allied air defenses. After the second strike, which came shortly after Israel severely degraded the upper ranks of Hizbollah in Lebanon—the most powerful of Iran's proxies—Israel targeted Iranian air defences and missile production facilities, facing little resistance or response. But while Iran's regional power projection was diminishing and its arsenal of missiles and drones twice proved largely ineffective, a third concern—a nuclear threat which Israel considered existential—was still growing. Tehran had been steadily expanding the scale and scope of its nuclear activity ever since President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal during his first term; President Joe Biden's Administration sought and failed to revive it. In March, Trump announced that he had reached out to Iran's leadership to negotiate a new deal, and his administration conducted five rounds of talks in Muscat and Rome in attempts to reach one. For Iran, which sought sanctions relief for its embattled economy, the success of negotiations with the U.S. hinged on concessions it has long opposed: Dismantling its nuclear program altogether or even ceasing the domestic enrichment of uranium. For Israel, eliminating, rather than merely restricting, the production of fissile material that could be used to fuel a weapon has been paramount. For President Trump, the prospect of a military strike by Israel seems a means of strengthening Washington's hand in a diplomatic agreement in which he still remains interested. But at the moment, the question may be less a matter of whether diplomacy can succeed than how grievously the situation could escalate. The worst-case scenarios are dire: A cycle of Israeli and Iranian counterstrikes that draw in the U.S., Iran's non-state allies, and regional states, cause grievous harm to civilians on all sides, and inject profound uncertainty into global markets. Over time, Iran's regime could attempt to reconstitute its nuclear activity from the rubble, only with an explicit aim of fashioning a weapon in the shortest possible time as a means of deterrence in the future. Another disastrous scenario is that the regime in Tehran falls and there is a protracted war for power and chaos or an even harder line regime armed with nuclear weapons. Is there a path out of this deepening crisis? Perhaps, though not a particularly promising one. Trump's stated objective—even as the fire is exchanged in two directions—remains a deal with Iran, and Tehran could offer concessions on the stipulation that it also involve an immediate cessation of hostilities with Israel. Were Iran to concede on its red lines in an effort to stave off greater destruction, perhaps Trump would be keen enough to avert a widening conflagration to also press Israel into ending the escalation cycle as well. Iran's government has previously demonstrated that when facing particularly inauspicious circumstances, especially those that might threaten the very foundations of the regime itself, it can make concessions necessary for its survival. But facing perhaps the gravest crisis it has faced since the eight-year-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, it may end up doubling down to the detriment of its people and the region. Contact us at letters@
