Technological change, the development of a wide range of new appliances, and modifications to the designs of familiar appliances to improve their ease of use, are leading to appliances that consume electricity at all times while they are plugged in, even when they are not in use.  In many such cases, the appliance is on “standby” and available to immediately obey a command, often from a remote control, to perform an action.

This study investigated an Australian scheme, undertook analyses of a wide variety of appliances, and consulted with a range of parties to provide advice as New Zealand considered introducing a Standby Power Strategy, compatible with Australia’s Standby Power Strategy 2002-2012.  This initiative was a component of the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, which included a specific target of a 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2012.

The study came to eight conclusions:

1. (1)The appliances covered by this study consume

   

   around 600 GWh per year of electricity while in standby.  This is about the output of a medium sized hydro station such as Whakamaru.  Substantial reductions in this consumption are technically feasible, and achievable with practicable means.
   

2. (2)For some appliances standby power consumption per appliance is reducing for exogenous reasons and this can be expected to continue without policy intervention.
   

3. (3)The numbers of appliances that consume standby power has been rising rapidly, and significant further growth can be expected with no saturation level in sight.
   

4. (4)The big opportunities for reducing standby power are in the entertainment groups.  These consume substantially greater quantities of electricity than any other group, but issues are diverse, and consumers are motivated by brand prestige, appearance, functional impressiveness and performance, ahead of energy consumption.
   

5. (5)The easy opportunities for reducing standby power are in the information technology groups.  Progress in that area has been obstructed by some inadequate protocols, which can readily be improved. 
   

6. (6)A high proportion of the avoidable power consumption is in power supply systems, both external and internal. 
   

7. (7)Most of the measures proposed by Australia will have only a modest impact on standby power levels in their early stages.  The proposals for 2012 will have much more substantial effects.
   

8. (8)The effectiveness of the Australian system of targets remains to be seen.  The threatened use of backup coercive measures may well be required, or the targets modified.
   

The report recommended that:

1. (1)New Zealand develop and implement a consistent market transformation strategy to remove standby consumption as a significant factor in New Zealand electricity use.
   

2. (2)New Zealand follow the same routes as Australia for all appliances in respect of standby consumption with the exceptions that:
   

3. the programme for ovens, ranges and cooktops encompass electrically powered appliances as well as gas ones;
   

4. for the appliances for which the preferred strategy is monitoring, no explicit targets should be set without first undertaking a survey of models now on the market, and analysing the results;
   

5. for the appliances for which the preferred strategy is MEPS, the MEPS timing and levels should be set only after further study of each appliance and consultation with affected parties.  Nevertheless the difficulties that would result under the TTMRA, should New Zealand implement a MEPS or labelling requirement that differed substantially in either timing or level from that being imposed in Australia, need to be accepted.  Hence efforts should be directed at developing an effective Australasian programme, not at developing a dissonant New Zealand programme;
   

6. labelling requirements defined by regulation should be complemented by public education on the significance and meaning of the information on the labels;
   

3. (3)A few of the appliances in the Australian strategy use so little standby power that pursuing them is not effective and they should be dropped until changes in their markets or characteristics changes this situation.  In particular:
   

4. laptops and rechargeable power tools, for which the generic MEPS on external power supplies can do all that is necessary;
   

5. smoke detectors, for which domestic models are nearly all battery powered, while commercial systems are part of integrated fire and security systems;
   

6. individual components for audio systems, which are going out of fashion;
   

7. electric water heaters, which are covered by an existing MEPS;
   

8. breadmakers, of which there are too few in use to be worthwhile; and
   

9. cooktops and rangehoods, which already have very low standby power.
   

4. (4)Standby power levels cannot be reduced to fully satisfactory levels for all appliances in the first round of intervention.  Consequently a second round of evaluation and MEPS or labelling requirements should be initiated in a few years time.  This activity should be coordinated with Australia.
   

5. (5)Future developments toward information transfers between appliances and home automation are likely to lead to both further increases in standby power and increased complexity in reducing it.  Many devices will then need to remain in active standby, at least, at all times to provide function.  Avoiding serious waste will require the development of power management systems and protocols.  An active watching brief is needed over this area.