3-i

CHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 PRODUCT DEFINITION ............................................................................................... 3-3

3.3 PRODUCT CLASSES..................................................................................................... 3-3

3.4 PRODUCT TEST PROCEDURES ................................................................................. 3-6

3.5 MANUFACTURER TRADE GROUPS ......................................................................... 3-7

3.6 MANUFACTURER INFORMATION ........................................................................... 3-7

3.6.1 Manufacturers and Market Shares................................................................................... 3-7

3.6.2 Mergers and Acquisitions................................................................................................ 3-9

3.6.3 Small Business Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-9

3.6.4 Distribution Channels.................................................................................................... 3-10

3.7 REGULATORY PROGRAMS ..................................................................................... 3-10

3.7.1 Federal Energy Conservation Standards........................................................................ 3-11

3.7.2 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards..................................................................... 3-12

3.8 VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS........................................................................................ 3-13

3.8.1 ENERGY STAR............................................................................................................ 3-13

3.9 HISTORICAL SHIPMENTS......................................................................................... 3-13

3.9.1 Unit Shipments............................................................................................................... 3-13

3.9.2 Value of Shipments........................................................................................................ 3-15

3.10 MARKET SATURATION............................................................................................ 3-17

3.11 PRODUCT RETAIL PRICES ....................................................................................... 3-18

3.12 INDUSTRY COST STRUCTURE................................................................................ 3-20

3.13 INVENTORY LEVELS AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION RATES.......................... 3-24

3.14 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.................................................................................. 3-26

3.14.1 Dehumidifier Operations and Components ................................................................... 3-26

3.14.2 Dehumidifier Technology Options................................................................................ 3-28

3.14.3 Energy Efficiency .......................................................................................................... 3-36

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.7.1 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers Established by 

EPACT 2005...................................................................................................... 3-11

Table 3.7.2 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers Established by 

EISA 2007.......................................................................................................... 3-12

Table 3.7.3 Canadian Regulations for Residential Dehumidifiers ............................................ 3-12

Table 3.8.1 ENERGY STAR Qualifying Criteria for Dehumidifiers........................................ 3-13

Table 3.9.1 Industry Shipments of Dehumidifiers (Domestic and Import), ............................. 3-14

Table 3.9.2 Dehumidifier Capacity-Specific Shipments (Domestic and Import)...................... 3-15

Table 3.9.3Annual Shipment Value of Small Electric Household Appliances, , , ...................... 3-16
3-ii

Table 3.9.4 Annual Shipment Value of Small Electromechanical Household Appliances, , , 

, ,.......................................................................................................................... 3-16

Table 3.9.5 Annual Shipment Value of Air Conditioning Equipment, , , .................................. 3-17

Table 3.9.6 Disposition of Previous Dehumidifiers.................................................................. 3-17

Table 3.10.1 Percentage of U.S. Households with Dehumidifiers, .......................................... 3-18

Table 3.12.1 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Employment and 

Earnings ............................................................................................................. 3-21

Table 3.12.2 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment Manufacturing 

Industry Employment and Earnings .................................................................. 3-22

Table 3.12.3 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Materials and Wages 

Cost .................................................................................................................... 3-22

Table 3.12.4 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment Manufacturing 

Industry Materials and Wages Cost ................................................................... 3-23

Table 3.12.5 Industry Cost Structure Using SEC Data, Average 2006–2012 ........................... 3-23

Table 3.13.1 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Inventory Levels............... 3-24

Table 3.13.2 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment Manufacturing 

Industry Inventory Levels.................................................................................. 3-25

Table 3.13.3 Full Production Capacity Utilization Rates, ......................................................... 3-26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.6.1 Estimated U.S. Market Share for Residential Portable Dehumidifiers.................. 3-9

Figure 3.11.1 Portable Residential Dehumidifier Retail Price versus Capacity........................ 3-19

Figure 3.11.2 Whole-Home and High-Capacity Portable Residential Dehumidifier Retail 

Price versus Capacity......................................................................................... 3-20

Figure 3.14.1 Dehumidifier Operation Schematic..................................................................... 3-27

Figure 3.14.2 DOE-Certified Dehumidifiers, DOE Standards, and ENERGY STAR 

Qualification Criteria ......................................................................................... 3-37
3-3

CHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a profile of the residential dehumidifier industry in the United 

States. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) developed the market and technology assessment 

presented in this chapter primarily from publicly available information. This assessment is 

helpful in identifying the major manufacturers and their product characteristics, which form the 

basis for the engineering and the life-cycle cost (LCC) analyses. Present and past industry 

structure and industry financial information help DOE in the process of conducting the 

manufacturer impact analysis.

3.2 PRODUCT DEFINITION

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) (P.L. 109-58) amended the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act (EPCA), Pub. L. 94-163, 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. in relevant part to

establish the definition of a dehumidifier as “a self-contained, electrically operated, and 

mechanically encased assembly consisting of -

A. a refrigerated surface (evaporator) that condenses moisture from the atmosphere;

B. a refrigerating system, including an electric motor;

C. an air-circulating fan; and

D. means for collecting or disposing of the condensate.

42 U.S.C. 6291(34)

DOE proposed amendments to DOE’s dehumidifier test procedure in a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that DOE published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2014 

(hereafter, the May 2014 Test Procedure NOPR). 79 FR 29272. The May 2014 Test Procedure 

NOPR includes proposed definitions for portable and whole-home dehumidifiers, such that a 

portable dehumidifier would be defined as a dehumidifier “designed to operate within the 

conditioned space without the attachment of additional ducting, although means may be provided 

for optional duct attachment.” The May 2014 Test Procedure NOPR also proposes to define 

whole-home dehumidifiers as dehumidifiers “designed to be installed with ducting to deliver 

return process air to its inlet and to supply conditioned process air from its outlet to one or more 

locations in the conditioned space.” 79 FR 29272, 29275 (May 21, 2014).

3.3 PRODUCT CLASSES

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE generally divides 

covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other 
3-4

performance-related features that affect efficiency. Different energy conservation standards may 

apply to different product classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

For residential dehumidifiers, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 

2007), Pub. L 110-140 amendments to EPCA established product classes based on the capacity 

of the unit as measured in pints of water extracted per day, for dehumidifiers manufactured on or 

after October 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(2)):a

• Less than 35.00 pints/day

• 35.01 to 45.00 pints/day

• 45.01 to 54.00 pints/day

• 54.01 to 75.00 pints/day

• Greater than 75.00 pints /day

Among residential dehumidifiers there are also two general types, differentiated by the 

primary installation configuration: portable dehumidifiers and whole-home dehumidifiers. 

Portable dehumidifiers are the most common type of dehumidifier sold in the United States, 

representing more than 95 percent of residential dehumidifier shipments. Consumers typically 

purchase portable dehumidifiers to reduce the relative humidity in one room or area of a living 

space less than 2,500 square feet, and may move these units from room to room to selectively 

reduce humidity where necessary. These units may also be located in an unconditioned space 

where moisture control is desired, such as a basement. Portable units currently on the market 

have rated capacities ranging from 22 pints/day to more than 120 pints/day. Portable units are 

standalone appliances that are designed to operate independent of any other air treatment 

devices, and do not require attachment to ducting, although certain models may have optional 

provisions to do so (i.e., “convertible portable” units).

Whole-home dehumidifiers are designed to be attached to ducting that supplies 

conditioned air to multiple or large living spaces in a residence and that returns humid air to the 

dehumidifier inlet. Whole-home dehumidifiers are often installed in conjunction with an existing 

heating, ventilation, or central air-conditioning (HVAC) system, and may utilize certain 

components of the HVAC equipment such as the air-handling blower, but can operate 

independently as well. Whole-home dehumidifiers typically use the same dehumidification 

system as portable units; however, to effectively dehumidify a large area, these units are 

manufactured with larger components than portable dehumidifiers, and may include additional 

features, such as pre-coolers or desiccant wheels, which may be difficult to incorporate into 

portable units due to volume and weight constraints. Whole-home product capacities range from 

approximately 65 pints/day to more than 200 pints/day. However, the current DOE dehumidifier 

 

a For standards effective October 1, 2007, EPACT 2005, in section 135(c), specified five product classes for 

dehumidifiers: 25.00 pints/day or less, 25.01–35.00 pints/day, 35.01–54.00 pints/day, 54.01–74.99 pints/day, and 

75.00 pints/day or more. EISA 2007, in section 311(a)(1), prescribed a new set of standards for dehumidifiers to 

take effect on October 1, 2012. In providing a new set of standards, EISA 2007 consolidated the two smallest 

product classes (25.00 pints/day or less and 25.01 – 35.00 pints/day) and subdivided the 35.01–54.00 pints/day 

product class into two product classes: 35.01–45.00 pints/day and 45.01–54.00 pints/day.
3-5

test procedure does not accurately measure representative performance for these products 

because there are no provisions to test with ducting in place. The lack of ducting allows higher 

airflow through the dehumidifier than would be experienced in real-world installations, which in 

turn affects the measured capacity and energy efficiency. DOE has proposed provisions in the 

May 2104 Test Procedure NOPR to test the energy use of whole-home dehumidifiers in 

dehumidification mode using a representative ducted configuration. 79 FR 29272, 29283–89 

(May 21, 2014).

For this rulemaking, DOE considered additional product classes to address both portable 

and whole-home dehumidifiers. DOE used the current product classes established by EISA 2007

as the basis for the analysis for portable dehumidifiers, with the capacities adjusted for a 

proposed change to the representative ambient conditions under which dehumidifiers would be 

tested. In particular, the May 2014 Test Procedure NOPR proposes that testing be conducted at 

an ambient temperature of 65 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) instead of the current 80 °F. 79 FR 29272, 

29276-82 (May 21, 2014). DOE considered how the proposed change in ambient temperatures 

would affect measured product capacities, and adjusted the capacity ranges in each of the 

portable product classes accordingly. Chapter 5 of this preliminary technical support document 

(TSD) includes more information about adjusting the capacities in the portable product classes to 

account for the 65 °F ambient test condition.

As discussed further in chapter 5 of this preliminary TSD, DOE also conducted its 

analysis on two whole-home dehumidifier product classes. DOE separated these two product 

classes based on case volume, one for products with volumes less than or equal to 8.0 cubic feet 

and another for products with volumes greater than 8.0 cubic feet, because it determined that 

capacity did not inherently impact efficiency for these products but that case volume affected

consumer utility in terms of potential installation configurations.

In summary, DOE considered the following dehumidifier product classes in this 

preliminary analysis:

• Portable, less than 20.00 pints/day

• Portable, 20.01 to 30.00 pints/day

• Portable, 30.01 to 35.00 pints/day

• Portable, 35.01 to 45.00 pints/day

• Portable, 45.01 or more pints /day

• Whole-home, case volume less than or equal to 8.0 cubic feet

• Whole-home, case volume greater than 8.0 cubic feet

In accordance with available data and specifications, DOE will refer to capacity values in 

the remainder of this chapter as measured using the current dehumidifier test procedure. In

chapters 4 and 5 of this preliminary TSD, DOE will clarify whether stated capacities refer to 

either the 80 °F or 65 °F ambient conditions because DOE considered both when conducting the 

engineering analysis, discussed in chapter 5. In later chapters, capacity values will be consistent 

with those measured by the revised test procedure. 
3-6

3.4 PRODUCT TEST PROCEDURES

EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to specify that the test criteria used under the ENERGY 

STARb program must serve as the basis for the DOE test procedure for dehumidifiers. (EPACT 

2005, section 135(b); 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(13)). Prior to October 2012, the ENERGY STAR test 

criteria required that ANSI/AHAM Standard DH-1-2003, Dehumidifiers, be used to measure 

energy use while the Canadian Standards Association (CAN/CSA standard CAN/ CSA-C749-

1994 (R2005), Performance of Dehumidifiers, be used to calculate the energy factor (EF). DOE 

adopted these test criteria, along with related definitions and tolerances, as its test procedure for 

dehumidifiers in 2006 (71 FR 71340, 71347, 71366, 713667-68 (Dec. 8, 2006); 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix X (Appendix X)).

On October 31, 2012, DOE published a final rule to establish a new test procedure for 

dehumidifiers that references ANSI/AHAM Standard DH-1-2008, Dehumidifiers rather than the 

ENERGY STAR test criteria, and establishes a new energy efficiency metric, integrated energy 

factor (IEF), which incorporates measures of energy use in active mode, standby mode, and off 

mode. (77 FR 65995 (October 31, 2012)). The new DOE test procedure was codified at that time 

in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix X1

(Appendix X1).

On February 7, 2014, DOE published a final rule removing the existing test procedure at 

Appendix X and redesignating the test procedure at Appendix X1 as Appendix X. Manufacturers

are currently required to test using only the active mode provisions in the redesignated Appendix 

X to determine compliance with existing dehumidifier energy conservation standards. Appendix 

X must be used in its entirety if manufacturers make representations of standby mode or off 

mode energy use and, after the compliance date for any amended energy conservation standards 

that incorporate such standards, for demonstrating compliance with such standards. 79 FR 7366 

(Feb. 7, 2014).

As discussed in section 3.3, DOE subsequently published the May 2014 Test Procedure 

NOPR on May 21, 2014, to propose amendments to Appendix X which would include: (1) 

dehumidification mode test conditions requiring a lower ambient temperature to more accurately 

reflect conditions during consumer use; (2) a measure of fan-only mode energy consumption for 

dehumidifiers that operate the blower continuously or cyclically when the ambient air relative 

humidity is below the humidity setpoint, rather than enter off-cycle mode; (3) new definitions for 

portable, whole-home, and refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifiers; (4) testing methodology and 

calculations for whole-home dehumidifiers; (5) additional clarifications and editorial corrections. 

79 FR 29272.

 

b For more information, please visit http://www.energystar.gov/. 
3-7

3.5 MANUFACTURER TRADE GROUPS

DOE recognizes the importance of trade groups in disseminating information and 

promoting the interests of the industry that they support. To gain insight into the dehumidifier 

industry, DOE researched various associations available to manufacturers, suppliers, and users of 

such equipment. DOE also used the member lists of these groups in the construction of an 

exhaustive database containing domestic manufacturers.

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturersc (AHAM), formed in 1967, aims to 

enhance the value of the home appliance industry through leadership, public education and 

advocacy. AHAM provides services to its members including government relations; certification 

programs for room air conditioners, dehumidifiers and room air cleaners; an active 

communications program; and technical services and research. In addition, AHAM conducts 

other market and consumer research studies and publishes a biennial Major Appliance Fact 

Book. AHAM also develops and maintains technical standards for various appliances to provide 

uniform, repeatable procedures for measuring specific product characteristics and performance 

features.

3.6 MANUFACTURER INFORMATION

The following section details information regarding domestic manufacturers of 

dehumidifiers, including estimated market shares (section 3.6.1), industry mergers and 

acquisitions (section 3.6.2), potential small business impacts (section 3.6.3), and product 

distribution channels (section 3.6.4). 

3.6.1 Manufacturers and Market Shares

The majority of residential dehumidifiers are manufactured overseas by three major 

manufacturers. These products are then imported to the United States and sold under a variety of 

brands belonging to both appliance manufacturers and importers. Additionally, some foreign 

original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) sell dehumidifiers directly into the U.S. market under 

their own brands.

For residential dehumidifiers, DOE estimates that there are approximately 25 entities 

selling dehumidifiers in the United States, 17 of which produce portable dehumidifiers. The 

remaining 8 manufacturers produce whole-home dehumidifiers. Table 3.6.1 lists these 

manufacturers. 

 

c For more information, please visit http://www.aham.org.
3-8

Table 3.6.1 Residential Dehumidifier Original Equipment Manufacturers and Importers

Portable Dehumidifiers Whole-Home Dehumidifiers**

Desert Aire* Aprilaire*

Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of 

Zhuhai/SoleusAir* Lennox

Hisense Kelon Electrical Holdings Limited* Munters*

Haier America Trading LLC* NovelAire*

LG Electronics, Inc.* Therma-Stor*

Midea USA Inc.* Williams Furnace Company*

Therma-Stor* The General Filters, Inc.

Crosley Healthy Air & Water Systems LLC

Danby Products Inc.

De'Longhi America

Friedrich Air Conditioning Co.

GE Appliances

Heat Controller

Oscar Air

Osram Sylvania

Perfect Aire LLC

Whynter LLC

* Original equipment manufacturers

**Some of these manufacturers and importers also sell high-capacity portable dehumidifiers with construction

similar to that of their whole-home products.

Using publicly available data, and adjusting for information gained in interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE estimated the market shares of entities responsible for the sale of residential 

portable dehumidifiers in the United States. DOE estimates that over 50 percent of residential 

portable dehumidifier market share is held by Midea USA, Inc.d

, De'Longhi Americae, Danby 

Products Inc., and GE Appliances. Figure 3.6.1 illustrates the estimated market shares for the 

residential portable dehumidifier market in the United States.

 

d The U.S. division of Guangdong Midea Electric Appliances Co. Ltd., based in China.

e The U.S. division of De’Longhi S.p.A., based in Italy.
3-9

Figure 3.6.1 Estimated U.S. Market Share for Residential Portable Dehumidifiers

The majority of the whole-home dehumidifier segment is held by Therma-Stor LLC and 

Aprilaire (Research Products Corporation). Other producers of whole-home dehumidifiers 

include Munters, NovelAire, and Williams Furnace Company. 

3.6.2 Mergers and Acquisitions

As described in Section 3.6.1, the major manufacturers and importers of residential 

dehumidifiers sold into the U.S. market include Midea, Gree, Haier, De’Longhi S.p.A., Danby 

Products Limited, and GE Appliances.

Recent merger and acquisition activities relating to the U.S. residential dehumidifier

market include the joint venture formed between Chinese manufacturer Gree and U.S.-based 

SoleusAir in 2011, which led to the creation of Gree USA, headquartered in City of Industry, 

CA. Gree USA manufactures its own brands of HVAC products and OEM private labels, and 

sells directly to wholesalers. This collaboration has opened the way for Gree to have a presence 

in the United States.

1 Also in 2011, LG Electronics acquired LS Mtron’s Air-Conditioning unit, 

and in November 2012, Corinthian Capital Group acquired Friedrich Air Conditioning Co. from 

U.S. Natural Resources Inc.2

3.6.3 Small Business Impacts

DOE considers the possible impact of energy conservation standards on small businesses.

The products covered by this rulemaking are classified under the North American Industry 

Danby, 14%

De'Longhi, 16%

Haier, 5%

Midea, 15%

GE, 

3%

Kenmore, 

8%

Hisense 

Kelon, 

9%

Soleusair, 8%

Other, 23%
3-10

Classification System (NAICS) codes 333415: Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing and 335210: 

Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing. The Small Business Association (SBA) defines a 

small business as a company that has fewer than 750 employees for both NAICS codes. The 750-

employee threshold includes all employees in a business’s parent company and any other 

subsidiaries. Using this classification in conjunction with information from industry databases,

the SBA member directory, and reports from vendors such as Dun & Bradstreet, DOE has 

identified five small business manufacturers which are based in the United States and produce 

one or more of the covered products. DOE will conduct further analysis to estimate any 

disproportionate impact that a minimum efficiency standard may have on this manufacturer 

subgroup. 

3.6.4 Distribution Channels

Understanding the distribution channels through which residential dehumidifiers are sold 

is an important facet of the market assessment, because it helps to define the constraints or 

motivators manufacturers face from its customer base. DOE gathered information regarding the 

distribution channels for dehumidifiers from publicly available sources, as well as from 

preliminary interviews with manufacturers.

Because major OEMs of residential dehumidifiers are based overseas, the distribution 

channel for portable dehumidifiers is often multi-tiered. In one arrangement, foreign OEMs sell 

their products to a sourcing company with a greater U.S. presence, which in turn sells the 

products to retailers. Alternatively, OEMs sell their products under their own brands either to 

distributors or directly to retailers. In either arrangement, these retailers include large discount 

stores, home improvement stores, and department stores, and to a lesser extent independent 

appliance retailors, internet retailers, membership warehouse clubs, electronics stores, and office 

supply stores.

3 The AHAM 2003 Fact Book reports that home improvement stores claimed 

nearly one out of every four dollars spent on appliances in 2003.

4

The distribution channel for whole-home dehumidifiers differs from that of the portable 

dehumidifiers. The majority of whole-dehumidifiers are sold directly to home builders or 

contractors, as they are intended to be integrated into a residence’s HVAC system, and as such 

require system design and more complex installation.

3.7 REGULATORY PROGRAMS

The following section details current regulatory programs mandating energy conservation 

standards for dehumidifiers. Section 3.7.1 discusses Federal energy conservation standards, and 

section 3.7.2 reviews standards in Canada that may impact the companies servicing the North 

American market. 
3-11

3.7.1 Federal Energy Conservation Standards

On August 8, 2005 EPACT 2005 established energy conservation standards for several 

residential and commercial products, including residential dehumidifiers. Section 135(c)(4) of 

EPACT 2005 amends section 325 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295, to add subsection (cc) for 

dehumidifiers. This subsection establishes energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers based 

on the unit’s EF measured in liters (L) of water removed per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for product 

classes based on the unit’s capacity to extract moisture from the surrounding air (in pints/day). 

These Federally-mandated standards for dehumidifiers took effect for dehumidifiers 

manufactured after October 1, 2007. Table 3.7.1 provides the EPACT 2005 standards for 

residential dehumidifiers.

 

Table 3.7.1 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers Established by 

EPACT 2005

Dehumidifier Capacity Standards Effective October 1, 2007

EF (L/kWh)

25.00 pints/day or less 1.00

25.01–35.00 pints/day 1.20

35.01–54.00 pints/day 1.30

54.01–74.99 pints/day 1.50

75.00 pints/day or more 2.25

In addition, EPACT 2005 required that DOE issue a final rule for dehumidifiers to 

determine whether these standards should be amended by October 1, 2009. (EPACT 2005, 

section 135(c)(4)). In the event that DOE did not publish a final rule, EPACT 2005 specified a 

new set of amended standards with a compliance date of October 1, 2012. (Id.)

DOE issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) to consider energy 

conservation standards for dehumidifiers and other products (hereafter referred to as the “2007 

ANOPR”). (72 FR 64432 (Nov. 15, 2007)). EISA 2007 subsequently amended section 325(cc) of 

EPCA to prescribe new energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers manufactured on or 

after October 1, 2012. DOE codified the EISA 2007 standards at 10 CFR 430.32(v)(2). 74 FR 

12058 (Mar. 23, 2009). Table 3.7.2 summarizes the October 1, 2012 standards prescribed by 

EISA 2007.
3-12

Table 3.7.2 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers Established by 

EISA 2007

Dehumidifier Capacity Standards Effective October 1, 2012

EF (L/kWh)

35.00 pints/day or less 1.35

35.01–45.00 pints/day 1.50

45.01–54.00 pints/day 1.60

54.01–75.00 pints/day 1.70

75.01 pints/day or more 2.50

EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of a final rule 

establishing or amending a standard, DOE publish a NOPR proposing new standards or a notice 

of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).

3.7.2 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards

Canada’s Energy Efficiency Regulations (hereafter “Regulations”) mandate minimum 

energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers. Canada’s Regulations refer to CAN/CSAC749-07 (2007), “Performance of Dehumidifiers,” for determining compliance with 

Regulations.

f These Regulations are comparable to DOE standards effective as of October 1, 

2012, except capacity is expressed in terms of liters/day instead of pints/day, as seen in Table 

3.7.3.

Table 3.7.3 Canadian Regulations for Residential Dehumidifiers

Dehumidifier Capacity Regulations Effective October 1, 2012

EF (L/kWh)

16.6 liters/day or less 1.35

16.6 – 21.3 liters/day 1.50

21.3 – 25.5 liters/day 1.60

25.5 – 35.5 liters/day 1.70

Greater than 35.5 liters/day 2.50

 

f For more information, please visit: http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/regulations/products/14452.
3-13

3.8 VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS

DOE reviewed several voluntary programs promoting energy efficient appliances and 

found that ENERGY STAR is the primary voluntary program that establishes energy efficiency 

criteria for dehumidifiers in the United States. 

3.8.1 ENERGY STAR

ENERGY STAR, a voluntary labeling program backed by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE, identifies energy-efficient products through a qualification 

process. To qualify, a product must exceed Federal minimum standards by a specified amount, 

or, if no Federal standard exists, exhibit selected energy-saving features. The ENERGY STAR

program works to recognize the top quartile of products on the market, meaning that 

approximately 25 percent of products on the market should meet or exceed the ENERGY STAR

levels. ENERGY STAR specifications exist for several products, including dehumidifiers.

On October 1, 2012, the current ENERGY STAR dehumidifier qualifying criteria 

became effective. The ENERGY STAR criteria divide products into two classes: less than 75 

pints/day and greater than or equal to 75 pints/day. The efficiency qualification criteria are listed 

in Table 3.8.1.

Table 3.8.1 ENERGY STAR Qualifying Criteria for Dehumidifiers

Dehumidifier Capacity

Qualification Criteria Effective October 1, 

2012

EF (L/kWh)

Less than 75 pints/day 1.85

75 pints/day or greater 2.80

3.9 HISTORICAL SHIPMENTS

Awareness of annual product shipment trends is an important aspect of the market 

assessment and in the development of the standards rulemaking. DOE reviewed data collected by 

the U.S. Census Bureau and AHAM to evaluate dehumidifier shipment trends and the value of 

these shipments. Knowledge of such trends will be used during the shipments analysis (chapter 9 

of this preliminary TSD). 

3.9.1 Unit Shipments

AHAM’s 2005 Fact Book provides annual unit shipments for dehumidifiers from 1995 to 

2005. In response to a data request, AHAM provided additional shipment information for 2006 

through 2011. Table 3.9.1 presents the annual shipments of dehumidifiers for the 17-year period 
3-14

from 1995 to 2011. The complete AHAM data submittal is included in Appendix 3A of this 

TSD.

Table 3.9.1 Industry Shipments of Dehumidifiers (Domestic and Import)5, 6

Year

Shipments 

(Thousands)

2011 1,368

2010 1,552

2009 1,700

2008 1,558

2007 2,004

2006 1,456

2005 1,957

2004 1,672

2003 1,311

2002 799

2001 806

2000 975

1999 950

1998 1,031

1997 820

1996 977

1995 1,003

In its data submittal, AHAM also provided capacity-specific shipment data for 

dehumidifiers. Table 3.9.2 presents a breakdown of the shipments of units greater than 35 

pints/day and less than 35 pints/day from 1999 to 2011. DOE notes that Federal energy 

conservation standards took effect in 2007, and ENERGY STAR qualification criteria took effect 

in both 2006 and 2008. The implementation of these programs could have caused some of the 

year-to-year variation in shipments observed during that time period.

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

No. Dehumidifiers (Thousands)
3-15

Table 3.9.2 Dehumidifier Capacity-Specific Shipments (Domestic and Import) 7

Shipments 

(Thousands)

Year

Less than 

35 

pints/day

More than 

35 

pints/day

2011 384 984

2010 409 1,143

2009 472 1,227

2008a 527 1,031

2007 603 1,401

2006b 395 1,061

2005 406 1,551

2004 584 1,089

2003 353 958

2002 236 563

2001 260 545

2000 281 695

1999 294 656

a) ENERGY STAR criteria (effective June 1, 2008)

b) ENERGY STAR criteria (effective October 1, 2006)

3.9.2 Value of Shipments

Table 3.9.3 provides the value of shipments for the manufacturers in the NAICS category 

of small electric household appliances excluding fans (product class code 3352114) from 2003 to 

2010. The values are based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Industrial Reportsg

(CIR) and Annual Survey of Manufacturersh (ASM). This NAICS category includes companies 

primarily engaged in manufacturing small electric household appliances such as coffee makers, 

toaster ovens, portable room heaters, mixers, air purifiers, food processors, and portable 

dehumidifiers. The U.S. Census Bureau reports all shipment values in nominal dollars, i.e., 2010 

data are expressed in 2010 dollars and 2009 data are expressed in 2009 dollars. Using the Gross 

Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator (GDPIPD) published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysisi

, DOE converted each year’s value of shipments to 2012 dollars.

 

g Available online at http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/index.html h Available online at http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/index.html i

Available online at http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp 

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

No. Dehumidifiers (Thousands)

>35 pints/day < 35 pints/day
3-16

Table 3.9.3Annual Shipment Value of Small Electric Household Appliances

8, 9, 10

Annual Shipment Value

($ millions)

Year Nominal 

Dollars

2012

Dollars

2011 1,043 1,062

2010 1,107 1,149

2009 1,337 1,393

2008 1,098 1,163

2007 1,115 1,203

2006 1,206 1,341

2005 1,338 1,536

2004 1,254 1,484

2003 1,080 1,307

Table 3.9.4 provides the annual shipment value for the NAICS product class for “Small 

Electromechanical Household Appliances” (product class code 3352114150), which includes 

cordless household food preparation appliances, portable dehumidifiers, air purifiers, and other 

small appliances, from 2006 to 2010 based upon data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s CIR and 

ASM. The U.S. Census Bureau shipment values are expressed in nominal dollars. DOE used the 

Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator (GDPIPD) to convert each year’s value of 

shipments to 2012 dollars.

Table 3.9.4 Annual Shipment Value of Small Electromechanical Household 

Appliances

11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Annual Shipment 

Value ($ millions)

Year Nominal 

Dollars

2012

Dollars

2010 632 656

2009 653 681

2008 558 591

2007 595 642

2006 731 812

Table 3.9.5 provides the annual shipment value for the NAICS product class for “airconditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration 

0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

$ Millions

Nominal Dollars 2012 Dollars
3-17

equipment manufacturer” (product class code 333415), which includes various air-conditioning 

equipment, refrigerated drinking fountains, whole-home humidifying equipment, and whole 

home dehumidifiers, and others from 2007 to 2011 based upon data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s CIR and ASM. The U.S. Census Bureau shipment values are expressed in nominal 

dollars. DOE used the GDPIPD to convert each year’s value of shipments to 2012 dollars.

Table 3.9.5 Annual Shipment Value of Air Conditioning Equipment16, 17, 18, 19

Annual 

Shipment Value 

($ millions)

Year Nominal 

Dollars

2012

Dollars

2011 28,407 28,947

2010 26,823 27,832

2009 25,688 26,773

2008 28,774 30,463

2007 28,939 31,227

According to data presented in the AHAM 2003 Fact Book, many old appliances are still 

being used after consumers purchase new units of same product. Table 3.9.6 presents the various 

methods by which consumers dispose of their older dehumidifiers. 

Table 3.9.6 Disposition of Previous Dehumidifiers20

Product Kept It

Left with 

Previous 

Home

Sold / 

Gave 

Away

Recycling 

Facility

Left at 

Curb for 

Disposal

Retailer 

Took 

Away

Dehumidifiers 18% 14% 23% 13% 24% 4%

3.10 MARKET SATURATION

AHAM’s 2005 Fact Book and the January 2010 Appliance Market Research Report

present the market saturation for dehumidifiers. The market saturation of dehumidifiers has 

gradually increased and doubled since 1982. However, from 1990 through 2001 the market 

saturation decreased by 2 percent. A significant increase of 4 percent was seen from 2001 to 

2002. For the 7 years from 2002 through 2008, the market saturation remained constant at 

around 20 percent. Table 3.10.1 presents the percentage of U.S. households with dehumidifiers.

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

2006 2008 2010 2012

$ Millions

Nominal Dollars 2012 Dollars
3-18

Table 3.10.1 Percentage of U.S. Households with Dehumidifiers21, 22

Year

% of U.S. 

Households

2008 19

2007 19

2006 20

2005 20

2004 20

2003 19

2002 16

2001 15

1990 17

1982 11

3.11 PRODUCT RETAIL PRICES

Using the DOE Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS)jdatabase, along 

with the California Energy Commission (CEC)

k and ENERGY STARl

product databases, DOE 

identified a total of 214 portable and whole-home models of residential dehumidifiers, which 

encompass 56 different brands. DOE collected consumer retail price data for these products from 

the websites of seven types of retailers: home improvement stores, discount retail stores, 

discount department stores, national office supply stores, national hardware stores, manufacturer 

websites, and online appliance retailers. 

Figure 3.11.1 and Figure 3.11.2 summarize the data collected by DOE. These figures 

suggest that retail price is positively related to capacity for both portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers. The consumer retail prices for portable dehumidifiersm ranged from $128 to $410, 

with an average of $240 (this is the average across all portable models and does not reflect the 

shipment-weighted average). Portable dehumidifiers are available with capacities ranging from 

30 pints/day to 71 pints/day,

n as measured by the current dehumidifier test procedure, with an 

average capacity of 52 pints/day. 

 

j

For more information, please visit http://www.regulations.doe.gov k CEC appliance efficiency database available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/database/. l

ENERGY STAR database available online at http://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certifieddehumidifiers/results

m High-capacity portable dehumidifiers (> 75 pints/day) are excluded from these statistics. 

n A 74 pint/day portable unit is also commercially available, but was excluded as an outlier from this retail price 

summary.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Percent of U.S. Households
3-19

The consumer retail prices for whole-home and high-capacity portable (greater than 75

pints/day capacity) dehumidifiers ranged from $1,000 to $5,499, with a model-based average of 

$1,979. Whole-home and high-capacity portable units range in capacity from 61 pints/day to 205 

pints/day, with an average of 112 pints/day. 

Figure 3.11.1 Portable Residential Dehumidifier Retail Price versus Capacity

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

25 35 45 55 65 75

Retail Price per Unit

Capacity
3-20

Figure 3.11.2 Whole-Home and High-Capacity Portable Residential Dehumidifier Retail 

Price versus Capacity

Other factors besides capacity and product type, such as efficiency, ENERGY STAR 

rating, and retailer, also may impact residential dehumidifier price. 

3.12 INDUSTRY COST STRUCTURE

DOE developed the cost structure for two industry classifications associated with the 

residential dehumidifier industry from publicly available information from the ASM and 

Economic Census and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed 

by publicly-owned manufacturers. Table 3.13.1 presents the small electrical appliance 

manufacturing industry (NAICS code 33521) employment levels and earnings from 2002–2011. 

The statistics illustrate a steady decline in the number of production and non-production workers 

in the industry since 2002, except during the period from 2005 to 2007 in which there was a 

slight increase. 

DOE converted the payroll data to constant 2012 dollars using the GDPIPD published by 

the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysiso

. Table 3.12.1 shows that as industry employment levels 

decline, the industry payroll in constant 2012 dollars also decreases from 2002 to 2011, with a 

 o Available online at http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

25 75 125 175 225

Retail Price per Unit

Capacity

Whole-Home Units High-Capacity Portable Units
3-21

slight rebound from 2005 to 2007. The percent decrease in total industry employees tracks 

relatively closely with the percent decrease (increase) in payroll for all employees. 

Table 3.12.1 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Employment and 

Earnings23

Year Production 

Workers

All 

Employees

Total 

Payroll 

(2012 $ 

Mil)

2011 5,713 7,619 348

2010 6,383 8,536 380

2009 7,609 10,072 428

2008 9,905 12,809 539

2007 10,816 13,502 572

2006 9,870 12,715 529

2005 9,680 13,297 535

2004 11,770 15,533 634

2003 12,682 16,752 683

2002 14,293 18,781 759

Table 3.12.2 presents the employments levels and payroll for NAICS code 333415, 

corresponding with “air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and 

industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing”p, which includes whole-home dehumidifiers.

Both employment and earnings statistics show a decline between 2007 and 2009 with levels 

remaining largely flat thereafter through 2011.

 

p Four out of five small business manufacturers identified and discussed in section 3.6.3 of this chapter are classified 

under this NAICS code.
3-22

Table 3.12.2 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment Manufacturing Industry 

Employment and Earnings 24

Year Production 

Workers

All 

Employees

Total 

Payroll 

(2012 $ 

Mil)

2011 62,009 83,969 $3,764

2010 61,380 83,054 $3,923

2009 60,041 86,454 $3,862

2008 70,787 96,610 $4,273

2007 74,728 101,485 $4,382

2006 74,909 102,354 $4,493

2005 76,011 98,097 $4,549

Table 3.12.3 presents the costs of materials and industry payroll as a percentage of value

of shipments from 2002–2011 for the small electrical appliance manufacturing industry. The cost 

of materials as a percentage of value of shipments has remained fairly constant over the 10-year 

period, with some notable fluctuations, particularly an increase from 2002 to 2003 and a decrease 

between 2008 and 2010. DOE notes that fluctuations in raw material costs are common from 

year to year. The payroll for both production and non-production workers as a percentage of 

value of shipments has remained relatively stable since 2002.

Table 3.12.3 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Materials and Wages 

Cost25

Cost as a Percentage of Value of 

Shipments (%)

Year Materials

Payroll for 

Production 

Workers

Payroll for 

All Other 

Employees 

2011 53% 7% 5%

2010 49% 6% 5%

2009 51% 6% 5%

2008 54% 7% 5%

2007 55% 8% 5%

2006 54% 8% 5%

2005 53% 7% 5%

2004 52% 7% 5%

2003 52% 8% 5%

2002 47% 8% 5%
3-23

Table 3.12.4 shows the cost of materials and industry payroll as a percentage of value of 

shipments for the air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and 

industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing industry from 2005–2011. Material prices as a 

percentage of value of shipments have remained relatively constant over the 5-year period, with 

fluctuations from year to year. The cost of payroll for production workers as a percentage of 

value of shipments has decreased slightly since 2005. Finally, the cost of non-production payroll 

has remained relatively constant over the 7-year period, with fluctuations from year to year. DOE 

notes that, overall, wages and cost of materials combined represent approximately the same

percentage of the total shipments value for the air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment 

industry and for the small electrical appliance industry.

Table 3.12.4 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment Manufacturing Industry 

Materials and Wages Cost26

Cost as a Percentage of Value of 

Shipments (%)

Year Materials

Payroll for 

Production 

Workers

Payroll for 

All Other 

Employees 

2011 55% 8% 5%

2010 53% 8% 6%

2009 55% 8% 6%

2008 55% 8% 5%

2007 56% 8% 5%

2006 53% 9% 5%

2005 54% 9% 5%

Table 3.12.5 presents the industry cost structure derived from SEC 10-K reports of 

publicly-owned dehumidifier manufacturers. DOE averaged the financial data from 2006–2012

of U.S.-based appliance manufacturers to obtain an industry average. Each financial statement 

entry is presented as a percentage of total revenues.

Table 3.12.5 Industry Cost Structure Using SEC Data, Average 2006–2012

Financial Statement Entry Percent of 

Revenues

Cost of sales 71.7%

EBIT 7.5%

Selling, general and administrative 20.9%

Capital expenditure 2.7%

Research and development 1.3%

Depreciation and amortization 2.5%

Net plant, property and equipment 13.4%

Working capital 20.1%
3-24

A detailed financial analysis is presented in the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA, 

chapter 12 of this preliminary TSD). This analysis identifies key financial inputs including cost 

of capital, working capital, depreciation, capital expenditures, etc.

3.13 INVENTORY LEVELS AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION RATES

Table 3.13.1 and Table 3.13.2 show the year-end inventory for the small electrical 

appliance manufacturing and air-conditioning and warm air heating industries, according to the 

ASM. The trend in the value of end-of-year inventory in dollars for the small electrical appliance 

industry was relatively variable between 2005 and 2011, notably increasing 34 percent from 

2006 to 2007, and decreasing 22 percent between 2008 and 2009. The decrease in inventories of 

small electrical appliance manufacturers from 2007 to 2009 aligns with the end of the 2007–2009 

recession, and was likely a reaction to the decline in new orders during that period. From 2005 to 

2011, inventories as a percentage of the value of shipments tracked ending inventories fairly 

closely until 2009, when it began to increase steadily, indicating that small electrical appliance 

shipments have decreased in recent years. For the air-conditioning and warm air heating 

equipment manufacturing industry, the value of the end-of-year inventories was less volatile than 

that for the small electrical appliance manufacturing industry, increasing from 2005 to 2007 and 

decreasing from 2007 to 2011. Inventory as a percentage of the value of shipments followed a 

similar trend, increasing from 2005 to 2007 and decreasing thereafter. 

Table 3.13.1 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Inventory Levels27

Year

End-of-Year 

Inventory 

(2012 $ Mil)

EOY 

inventory as 

% of 

Shipments 

Value

2011 424 14%

2010 451 13%

2009 452 12%

2008 578 13%

2007 582 13%

2006 433 11%

2005 437 10%
3-25

Table 3.13.2 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment Manufacturing Industry 

Inventory Levels28

Year

End-ofYear 

Inventory 

(2012 $ 

Mil)

EOY 

inventory 

as % of 

Shipments 

Value

2011 2,667 9%

2010 2,742 9%

2009 2,861 10%

2008 3,254 10%

2007 3,504 11%

2006 3,442 11%

2005 3,294 10%

DOE obtained full production capacity utilization rates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Survey of Plant Capacity from 2004–2006. After 2006, the Census Bureau discontinued this 

survey, and began a new Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization. However, this survey 

does not collect utilization data beyond the 4 digit NAICS codes for the “all household 

appliances”q and “ventilation, heating, air-conditioning, and commercial refrigeration 

equipment”r industries. Table 3.13.3 presents utilization rates for these umbrella industries. 

Full production capacity is defined as the maximum level of production an establishment 

could attain under normal operating conditions.s In the Survey of Plant Capacity reports, the full 

production utilization rate is a ratio of the actual level of operations to the full production 

capacity. The full production utilization rate for all household appliances shows fairly steady 

utilization between 74 and 77 percent from 2004 through 2007, with a significant decrease to less 

than 60 percent from 2008 through 2009, and then a partial rebound from 2010 to 2012. Plant 

capacity utilization for ventilation, heating, air-conditioning, and commercial refrigeration

manufacturers reached a peak in 2008, at 67 percent, and hit a low of 55 percent in 2012. 

 

q “All Home Appliances” is the umbrella NAICS category 3352 that includes NAICS code 33521 for “Small 

Electrical Appliances.”

r “Ventilation, heating, air-conditioning, and commercial refrigeration equipment” is the umbrella NAICS category 

3334 that includes NAICS code 333415 for “air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and 

industrial refrigeration equipment.”

s For more information, please visit: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/capacity/definitions/index.html
3-26

Table 3.13.3 Full Production Capacity Utilization Rates29, 30

Plant Capacity Utilization 

Rates (%)

Year

All 

Household 

Appliances

Ventilation, 

heating, airconditioning, 

and commercial 

refrigeration 

equipment mfg.

2012 65% 55%

2011 62% 60%

2010 64% 60%

2009 58% 60%

2008 59% 67%

2007 76% 66%

2006 77% 62%

2005 74% 66%

2004 76% 61%

3.14 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

This section provides a technology assessment for dehumidifiers. Contained in this 

technology assessment are details about product characteristics and operation (section 3.14.1), an 

examination of possible technological improvements (section 3.14.2), and a characterization of 

the product efficiency levels currently commercially available (section 3.14.3).

3.14.1 Dehumidifier Operations and Components

Dehumidifiers are refrigeration-based appliances that enable homeowners to reduce 

indoor relative humidity (RH). RH is defined as the amount of water vapor present in the air 

compared to the maximum amount of water vapor the air can hold at that temperature. A 

desirable indoor RH is typically between 30 and 60 percent. 

Dehumidifiers contain refrigeration systems that remove latent heat, and therefore 

moisture, from ambient air. Components of the refrigeration system include an evaporator, an 

expansion valve or capillary tube, a condenser, and a compressor. 

Refrigeration-based dehumidifiers operate as follows:
3-27

1. A circulating fan draws air into the dehumidifier via an intake vent, or in the case of 

whole-home dehumidifiers, via an inlet air duct, typically in the front or on the sides 

of the unit;

2. The air is pulled across an evaporator heat exchanger that is cooled by an electricallypowered vapor compression refrigeration system;

3. The evaporator cools the air, and moisture from the air condenses on the surface of 

the evaporator and drains either into a bin or a floor drain; and

4. The drier air is then typically pulled over a warm condenser heat exchanger and exits 

the dehumidifier via an outlet grille, or in the case of whole-home dehumidifiers, via 

an outlet air duct, typically on the top or sides of the unit.

This process is illustrated in Figure 3.14.1.

Figure 3.14.1 Dehumidifier Operation Schematic

When the surface temperature of the evaporator is lower than the dew point of the air 

passing over it, the removal of latent heat occurs through condensation. All residential portable 

dehumidifiers are equipped with an automatic shut-off function that halts operation of the device 

once the condensate collection tank is full. They may also include a direct drain hose connection 

and occasionally an internal pump, for direct drainage of condensate into a sump pump or floor 

drain. Whole-home dehumidifiers typically only include a direct drain hose connection and no 

internal condensate collection tank. This allows continuous operation without the need for user 

intervention to periodically empty the condensate collection tank.

There is a wide scope of control strategies, ranging from simple on/off mechanical 

humidistats and single-speed fans to electronic controllers that use multiple sensors, liquidsolenoid controls, and other devices to maximize unit performance. All dehumidifiers sense the 

evaporator coil or liquid line temperature to prevent icing, though some units may include 

sensors in multiple locations to avoid ice accumulation. 

Humid Air Dry Air

Evaporator Condenser

Compressor

Condensate 

Bin

Fan

Expansion

Humid Air Dry Air

Evaporator Condenser

Compressor

Condensate 

Bin

Fan

Expansion
3-28

The electrically-powered components of the refrigeration-based dehumidifier system 

include the fan motor, the compressor that powers the refrigeration system, any electronic 

sensors or controls, and a (optional) built-in sump pump or similar accessory.

3.14.2 Dehumidifier Technology Options

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the technological improvements used to 

increase the efficiency of dehumidifiers, DOE identified several possible technologies and 

examined the most common improvements used in today’s market.

The TSD associated with the 2007 ANOPR included a list of preliminary technology 

optionst. From the list in the 2007 ANOPR, DOE identified technology options that would be 

considered for this rulemaking, which were presented in the framework document made 

available in August 2012.u 77 FR 49739 (Aug. 17, 2012). Additional technology options were 

identified by DOE during teardowns conducted as part of reverse-engineering analyses. For more 

details on the reverse-engineering activities, see chapter 5 of this preliminary TSD.

The technology options for dehumidifiers are listed in Table 3.14.1. They are features 

that can be incorporated into the design of a dehumidifier to improve its efficiency. Based on 

product literature research, stakeholder interviews, and teardown analysis, DOE has identified 

compressor, heat exchanger, and fan motor improvements as the most common ways by which 

manufacturers improve the energy efficiency of their dehumidifiers as measured by the DOE test 

procedure. 

 

t

The ANOPR TSD is available online at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0127-

0061.

u The framework document is available online at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BTSTD-0027.
3-29

Table 3.14.1 Technology Options for Dehumidifiers

1. Built-in hygrometer/humidistat

2. Improved compressor efficiency

3. Improved condenser and evaporator 

performance

4. Improved controls

5. Improved defrost methods

6. Improved demand-defrost controls

7. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency

8. Improved flow-control devices

9. Low-standby-loss electronic controls

10. Washable air filters

11. Pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchanger

12. Heat pipes

13. Improved refrigeration system insulation

14. Refrigerant-desiccant systems

Built-in hygrometer/humidistat

All portable dehumidifiers subjected to DOE teardowns featured some type of built-in 

humidity controller. For all units in the teardown sample, DOE observed electronic controls, but 

DOE is aware that certain units may still feature electromechanical humidistats. The humidistat 

cycles the compressor and fan power supply as a function of relative humidity. Both electronic 

and electromechanical controllers measure the expansion of a reference material as a function of 

relative humidity. DOE notes that whole-home dehumidifiers are often designed to be used in 

conjunction with a remote humidistat. The humidistat is placed in the portion of the home that 

requires dehumidification, and cycles the whole-home dehumidifier compressor and fan power 

supply as needed. Although this control is external to the unit, DOE does not expect significant 

differences in efficiency or operation when compared to the built-in controls on portable units. 

Improved compressor efficiency

Most dehumidifier manufacturers incorporate rotary R-410A compressors into their units.

“Inertia” compressors, scroll compressors, and variable-speed compressors all have higher 

efficiencies than the traditional rotary compressors used in dehumidifiers. However, finding a 

suitable high-efficiency compressor at the capacities and price points needed for a dehumidifier 

is a challenge.

The “inertia” compressor is a technology that allows reciprocating compressors to 

approach an energy efficiency ratio (EER) of 12.0, where EER represents the cooling capacity in 

Btu/hr divided by the input wattage of the compressor. “Inertia” compressors utilize lightweight, 

responsive valve technology and an innovative refrigerant flow path to reduce losses and 

improve cylinder volumetric efficiency. 
3-30

Scroll compressors require high precision to produce their internal components and are 

typically found in higher-efficiency central air-conditioning systems. Scroll compressors 

compress gas in a fundamentally different manner from traditional compressors — between two 

spirals, one fixed and one nutating. Scroll compression is inherently more efficient than 

traditional compression methods. 

Both inertia and scroll compressors are, however, substantially larger, heavier, and 

sometimes noisier than their rotary counterparts, and, as such, are not well-suited for use in 

residential dehumidifiers.

Variable-speed compressors are typically implemented through the use of an electronic 

control that varies the input frequency of the power supply for the compressor motor. Variablespeed compressors enable modulation of the refrigeration-system cooling power beyond simple 

on/off control, allowing the dehumidifier to better match the compressor power to the load, 

increasing compression efficiency. Variable-speed compressor technology has not yet been

implemented in residential dehumidifiers, and it is therefore difficult to predict the energy 

efficiency improvements that could be achieved through its use. However, DOE expects that a 

variable-speed compressor in a dehumidifier could provide more precise control of the 

evaporator coil temperature to ensure more efficient latent heat removal, especially at low 

temperatures where ice buildup is prevalent. 

Improved condenser and evaporator performance

Improving the overall heat transfer capability of the dehumidifier condenser and 

evaporator coils would result in improved efficiency of the refrigeration system. DOE notes that 

many factors contribute to heat exchanger performance, including size, number of fins, type of 

fins, number of tube passes, etc. DOE notes that almost all dehumidifier models in its teardown 

sample had similarly constructed heat exchangers with “slit” aluminum fins for more turbulent 

airflow, roughly 20 fins per inch, and internally-rifled copper tubing for optimized refrigerant 

heat exchange, although the heat exchangers did vary in size from unit to unit.

Improved controls

Manufacturers have increasingly adopted digital controllers for dehumidifiers due to 

consumer demand and because such controllers allow dehumidifiers to better respond to 

changing environmental conditions. Unlike the snap-action switches and fixed-RH 

electromechanical controllers they replace, digital controllers can measure multiple inputs and 

respond to present conditions as well as trends.

Digital controllers can use varying approaches, from rigid decision trees to fuzzy logic. 

During the reverse-engineering process, DOE observed that most electronic control boards were 

purchased parts that had been mass-customized for the specific dehumidifier. One advantage of 

digital controllers is the ease with which they can be reprogrammed, allowing a manufacturer to 

use one control board for its entire dehumidifier line, yet optimize its responses per dehumidifier 

model.
3-31

It is difficult to predict the amount of energy savings that could be achieved through the 

implementation of improved controllers because the current DOE test procedure evaluates 

continuous dehumidifier operation at constant ambient conditions. 

Improved defrost methods 

As the air drawn into the dehumidifier is cooled, water vapor condenses on the surface of 

the evaporator coil. In some cases, typically when the ambient air is typically below 65 °F, this 

water can freeze as it collects and form a growing layer of frost. The frost reduces cooling 

performance by increasing the thermal resistance to heat transfer from the coil to the air and by 

obstructing air flow. Both the method by which defrost is performed and control of the defrost 

cycle can lead to substantial energy savings.

Many dehumidifiers incorporate defrost technology. In general, two types of defrost 

mechanisms are available: passive defrost and active defrost. According to market research and 

investigative testing, most dehumidifiers that feature defrost technology use active defrost. This 

is especially true for dehumidifiers that are designed and marketed for low-temperature operation

(i.e., for use in basements).

Dehumidifiers using passive defrost or off-cycle mode monitor the temperature of the 

evaporator and shut both the compressor and fan off if that temperature drops below the freezing 

point of water. This is not technically “defrost,” as it actually prevents the formation of frost 

rather than eliminating frost after it forms. It is, however, an effective method of preventing the 

dehumidifier from operating under low-efficiency frosted conditions. This method is simple to 

implement and incurs no additional energy expenditure.

Active defrost in dehumidifiers is conducted in one of three ways: fan-only defrost, 

electric defrost, or hot-gas defrost.

Fan-only defrost involves shutting off the refrigeration system while keeping the aircirculation system running. The relatively warm ambient air melts the frost layer, and the 

dehumidifier subsequently resumes operation. Fan-only defrost may allow much of the frozen 

condensate to be reabsorbed into the ambient air as it melts, compromising the effectiveness of 

the dehumidifier.

Electric defrost involves melting frost by briefly activating an electric resistance heater, 

which is in contact with or near the evaporator. The heater melts frost quickly but consumes 

significant energy. Hot-gas defrost uses the hot compressor discharge gas to warm the evaporator 

from the refrigerant side. Electricity usage is reduced in comparison to the electric defrost 

method; however, this method necessitates more complicated piping and control than electric 

defrost systems. Neither of these defrost technologies were identified in dehumidifiers through 

market research, and were not present in any units that were disassembled during DOE’s 

teardowns.
3-32

Defrost methods are not currently captured as part of the DOE test procedures because 

units are tested in dehumidification mode at 80 °F conditions where icing is unlikely to occur. At 

the 65 °F test conditions which DOE proposed in the May 2014 Test Procedure NOPR, however, 

certain dehumidifiers in DOE’s test sample exhibited operational patterns that were indicative of 

fan-only defrost. For those units, actual energy savings will be a function of ambient conditions 

and usage patterns.

Improved demand-defrost controls

In all active-defrost systems, control of the defrost cycle may lead to substantial energy 

savings. Defrost-cycle control involves management of the initiation and termination of defrost 

cycles, and thereby management of the frequency and duration of defrost cycles. Two different 

defrost-cycle control designs are available: timer-controlled and temperature-sensor-controlled.

In a time-based defrost system, cycles are completely scheduled, and initiation and 

termination are timer-controlled. Cycles are initiated at regular intervals and terminated after a 

fixed amount of time or in response to low ambient temperatures. In these systems, cycle 

frequency and duration are not responsive to actual frost conditions. Under timer control, the 

frequency of defrost cycles is determined by the amount of time the manufacturer expects it to 

take for a large frost layer to develop in the worst-case scenario, and the cycle duration is long 

enough to ensure that the frost layer completely melts. Timer-based defrost can lead to 

unnecessarily frequent and unnecessarily long defrost cycles under anything but worst-case 

conditions.

Sensor-controlled defrost occurs as-needed based on evaporator coil temperatures. 

Defrost cycles are initiated in response to freezing temperatures at the evaporator coil or other 

area in the dehumidifier, and are terminated when the coil temperature reaches a value indicating 

complete defrost. This type of defrost control saves energy relative to timer-controlled defrost by 

varying cycle duration based upon defrost requirements. As with all defrost design options, 

actual energy savings will be a function of ambient conditions and usage patterns.

Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency

The air-circulation system of a residential dehumidifier usually consists of a permanent 

split capacity (PSC) fan motor that drives either propeller-style blades or a tangential “squirrel 

cage” fan. These motors run on line voltage and typically feature one or two speeds. Multiple fan 

speeds are usually found on higher-end units. Some unit controllers can modulate fan speeds 

(high/low) whereas less complex models utilize a user-set switch.

Dehumidifiers are typically built using product platforms, where one enclosure serves 

multiple dehumidification capacities. As a result, the designers make tradeoffs to accommodate a 

wide range of capacities (35 to 65 pints/day, for example) within a single enclosure. While 

efficiency improvements could be achieved by optimizing fan blades for specific dehumidifier 

models, such a design change would add complexity to the manufacturing process by requiring a 

wider scope of fan blades to be stocked. Such steps would likely increase inventory, reduce fan 
3-33

blade purchase volumes and hence manufacturers see this as a relatively costly design option in 

relation to the efficiency benefit. Therefore, quantifying the efficiency improvements to the 

dehumidifier’s air-circulation system is restricted to analyzing the efficiency improvements to 

the fan motor only.

In a PSC motor, the start-up winding is electrically connected in parallel with the main 

winding and in series with a capacitor. At start-up, the interactions between the magnetic field 

generated by the start-up winding and that generated by the main winding induce rotation. As the 

capacitor charges, the current flowing through the start-up winding decreases and the start-up 

winding becomes an auxiliary winding after the motor reaches running speed. Consequently, the 

current to the start-up winding is cut off once the capacitor is fully charged and the motor 

reaches steady-state speed. Because of this, PSC motors are substantially more efficient than 

their shaded-pole counterparts, with motor efficiencies ranging from 60 to 65 percent.

31 Like 

shaded-pole motors, PSC motors are produced in large quantities and are relatively 

inexpensive.32

Electric motors with even higher efficiencies can be implemented by switching to 

permanent-magnet motors, which come in many varieties. The most widely-known variety is the 

electronically-commutated motor (ECM)v, though DC-motors can also be used. Permanent 

magnet motors are less noisy and substantially more efficient than either shaded-pole or PSC 

motors. ECM motors convert single-phase AC input power into three-phase power, and have 

motor efficiencies approaching 80 percent.33 However, ECM motors can weigh twice as much as 

equivalent PSC motors, potentially necessitating a redesign of the dehumidifier fan-motor 

chassis. In addition, ECM motors are complex, are not currently produced in large volumes, and 

can cost from 2.5 to 5 times as much as a PSC motor.34

Improved flow-control devices

Nearly all portable dehumidifiers use capillary-tube expansion valves for flow control. 

The capillary-tube expansion valve is a pressure-reducing device that consists of a smalldiameter line that connects the outlet of the condenser to the inlet of the evaporator. It is 

designed to provide optimum energy characteristics at one design point. If sized properly, the 

capillary-tube expansion valve compensates automatically for load and system variations and 

gives acceptable performance over a wide range of operating conditions. Because ambient 

temperature and humidity vary, however, dehumidifiers sometimes operate under conditions 

outside of the target conditions, leading to reduced efficiency.

The thermostatic expansion valve (TXV) — a flow-control alternative to the capillary 

tube — is commonly used in higher-efficiency central air-conditioning systems. TXVs regulate 

the flow of liquid refrigerant entering the evaporator in response to the superheat of the 

refrigerant leaving it. TXVs can adapt better to changes in operating conditions such as those due 

 

v Also known as brushless permanent magnet (BPM) motors or electronically-commutated permanent magnet 

(ECPM) motors.
3-34

to variations in ambient temperature, which affect the condensing temperature. As a result, TXVs 

can lead to a somewhat increased seasonal operating efficiency.

Electronic expansion valves (EEVs) are similar to TXVs, but unlike TXVs, they can be 

actively controlled. While a TXV relies on a single temperature sensor for feedback, digital 

controllers can use multiple sensors for feedback control and respond using multiple approaches. 

For example, besides modulating the refrigerant flow, the controller may also vary the fan speed 

to optimize efficiency under varying conditions. As with TXVs, EEVs can use the superheat 

control method to regulate refrigerant flow. Other methods, such as controlling compressor 

discharge temperature, can also be used. 

During the reverse-engineering analysis, DOE did not observe any units with either 

TXVs or EEVs. Given the cost of TXVs and EEVs, it is unlikely that manufacturers would 

implement them in residential dehumidifiers. Additionally, because dehumidifiers are tested 

during continuous operation under constant ambient conditions, the test procedure may not 

capture efficiency gains associated with these technologies.

Low-standby-loss electronic controls

Electronic controls may consume power even when the dehumidifier is not performing its 

intended function. Depending on the implementation of the controller, standby power is required 

to enable the electronic controls to detect user input without the user first having to turn on a 

mechanical power switch or to enable displays, illuminate switches, etc. Reducing the standby 

power consumption of electronic controls will reduce the annual energy consumption of the 

dehumidifier, but will not impact the energy consumption of the dehumidifier during operation in 

dehumidification mode. 

Washable air filters

The build-up of dust particles on the evaporator coil can lower the heat-transfer capability 

of the component. To minimize this possibility, most dehumidifiers incorporate an air filter at the 

air-intake vent. However, these filters can become clogged, obstructing air flow through the 

dehumidifier and reducing system performance. To prevent this, most manufacturers design the 

air filters to be removable and washable, which allows the consumer to clean the air filters on a 

regular basis. It is difficult to predict the amount of energy savings that could be realized with the 

addition of washable air filters, as it is dependent on the specific dehumidifier model and use 

characteristics, and on the degree to which the consumer takes advantage of this feature. 

Additionally, efficiency testing is often conducted on new dehumidifiers, so there would be 

likely be no clear efficiency impact due to dust build up in either the evaporator or in the air 

filter. 

Pre-cooling Air-to-Air Heat Exchanger

The efficiency of a refrigeration-based dehumidification system may be increased by precooling air prior to the evaporator inlet. With pre-cooled inlet air, the refrigeration system may 
3-35

consume less energy to maintain the proper evaporator temperature while removing additional 

condensate from the air. DOE found that many high-capacity dehumidifiers (greater than 75 

pints/day) incorporate an air-to-air heat exchanger that transfers heat from the intake air to the air 

immediately exiting the evaporator. The energy savings that can be realized from this technology 

is dependent on a unit’s specific airflow and component configuration. Based on DOE’s analysis 

of existing models with and without air-to-air heat exchangers, DOE estimates that this 

technology option may result in a 10 to 25 percent reduction in active dehumidification mode 

energy use.

Heat Pipes

Another method for increasing the efficiency of a refrigeration-based dehumidifier is to 

include a heat pipe system that acts as a pre-cooler for air entering the evaporator. A heat pipe 

system consists of a set of additional coils installed on each side of the evaporator. The coils are 

connected via a sealed refrigerant system, which is independent of the primary refrigeration 

system in the dehumidifier. The goal of the heat pipe is to passively transfer heat from the 

incoming air stream to the air stream exiting the evaporator.

The air entering the dehumidifier is pre-cooled by the refrigerant in the coil in front of the 

evaporator. The refrigerant in this section of the heat pipe evaporates as it gains heat from the 

inlet airstream and passively flows to the coil behind the evaporator. The pre-cooled air then 

passes through the evaporator, where the temperature of the air is decreased even further to 

condense moisture. Air exiting the evaporator is at a low temperature, so this air stream gains

heat from the warmer refrigerant in the heat pipe coil behind the evaporator. As the refrigerant in 

this coil loses heat to the airstream, it condenses back to a liquid and passively flows back to the 

coil in front of the evaporator. As a result of this system, the evaporator is required to remove 

less heat from the incoming airstream, and less energy is required for the dehumidifier 

refrigeration system.

DOE was unable to identify any residential dehumidifiers that use heat pipes to boost 

performance by pre-cooling the inlet evaporator air. DOE is aware that units existed on the 

market until 2010, at which point the manufacturer chose to discontinue the product line for 

reasons unknown to DOE. DOE is, however, aware of packaged terminal air conditioners 

(PTACs) available on the market that incorporate heat pipe systems. The manufacturer for these 

products has provided limited information on their performance, including moisture removal. 

Based on a comparison of these products to similar PTACs without heat pipes, DOE estimates 

that heat pipes could produce as much as a 25-percent improvement in efficiency. DOE notes, 

however, that this estimate is based on products optimized for removing sensible heat from the 

airstream, and may not apply to dehumidifiers optimized for removing latent heat. DOE also 

notes that heat pipes may disrupt airflow to the evaporator. This could limit the effective heat 

transfer in the evaporator, decreasing or eliminating any efficiency gains associated with precooling the inlet air.

Improved Refrigeration System Insulation
3-36

While conducting teardowns, DOE found that all products included refrigeration system 

insulation to a certain extent. The most commonly insulated parts of the system were the 

evaporator outlet and compressor inlet. Insulation helps contain heat loses throughout the 

refrigeration system and therefore improves the overall energy efficiency of the dehumidifier, 

but it is difficult to estimate the extent of the energy savings associated with improved insulation.

DOE also observed that whole-home dehumidifiers and the high-capacity portable 

dehumidifiers also typically featured insulated cases. However, DOE expects case insulation to 

primarily improve a unit’s noise performance rather than its energy efficiency.

Refrigerant-Desiccant Systems

DOE is aware of certain products available on the market that meet the proposed 

definition of whole-home dehumidifier, but also incorporate a desiccant system to aid in 

moisture removal. These dehumidifiers employ a combined moisture removal approach, where 

some of the moisture in the process air (i.e., the air that is supplied from and returned to the 

conditioned space) is condensed on the evaporator, while additional moisture is removed via a 

porous desiccant material that adsorbs moisture when damp air passes through or over it. The 

desiccant material is typically configured in a circular or wheel structure. A portion of the wheel 

adsorbs moisture from the process air entering the unit, which is then delivered to the 

conditioned space. As the wheel rotates, the moisture in that segment is released into a separate 

heated reactivation air stream and exhausted out of the home. In addition to removing some 

moisture from the process air directly, the refrigeration system boosts the temperature of the 

reactivation air to more effectively remove moisture from the desiccant wheel, and cools the 

incoming air to improve the adsorptivity of the desiccant material.

The May 2014 Test Procedure NOPR includes proposed provisions to account for the 

unique setup and operation of these units compared to the typical refrigerant-based 

dehumidifiers. In particular, refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifiers require a separate inlet and 

exhaust duct for the intake of reactivation air that removes moisture from the desiccant wheel 

and discharge of the moist air to the outdoors, so not all moisture that is removed from the 

conditioned space will be accounted for by measurement of the condensate collected. 79 FR 

29272, 29284–86 (May 21, 2014). DOE expects that refrigerant-desiccant systems can offer 

unique utility in certain conditions, particularly in very low-temperature installations where 

typical dehumidifiers may run into frosting issues. While refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifiers 

may provide additional utility compared to typical dehumidifiers under these lower temperature 

operating conditions, under the representative ambient conditions that DOE is proposing for the 

test procedure, DOE did not observe an efficiency improvement associated with refrigerantdesiccant systems.

3.14.3 Energy Efficiency

In preparation for the screening and engineering analyses, DOE gathered data on the 

energy efficiency of dehumidifiers currently available in the marketplace. This data is taken from 

DOE’s CCMS database. Figure 3.14.2 plots the EF versus the capacity of each certified 
3-37

dehumidifier along with the current energy conservation standards and ENERGY STAR criteria 

for dehumidifiers, effective as of October 2012.w

Figure 3.14.2 DOE-Certified Dehumidifiers, DOE Standards, and ENERGY STAR 

Qualification Criteria35

 

w For more information, please visit http://www.energystar.gov.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 50 100 150 200

Energy Factor (L/kWh)

Capacity (pints/day)

DOE Compliance Standards ENERGY STAR Qualification Criteria
3-38

REFERENCES

 1 “SoleusAir, Gree Electronic Appliances Merge,” Air Conditioning, Heating & 

Refrigeration News Weekly, April 4, 2011.

2 “Corinthian Chills Out With Acquisition of Friedrich Air Conditioning,” Dow Jones LBO 

Wire, November 29, 2012.

3 Consumer Reports, “Dehumidifier Buying Guide,” Available online at:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/dehumidifiers/buying-guide.htm. (Accessed 

November 30, 2013)

4 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Fact Book 2003.

5 AHAM Fact Book 2005.

6 Data Submittal by AHAM. December 21, 2012.

7 Ibid.

8 U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. “Table 1 - Value of Shipments of Electric Housewares and 

Fans by Class of Product: 2003 to 2007,” 2007 Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM), 

May 2008. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335e/ma335e07.xls

(Accessed November 30, 2013).

9 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Table 1 - Value of Shipments of Electric Housewares and 

Fans by Class of Product: 2010 to 2006” 2010 ASM, May 2011. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335e/ma335e10.xls

(Accessed November 30, 2013).

10 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: Value of Products 

Shipments: Value of Shipments for Product Classes: 2011 and 2010”, 2011 ASM, 

November 2012. Available online at: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_

2011_31VS101&prodType=table. (Accessed November 30, 2013) 

11 U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. “Table 2 - Quantity and Value of Shipments of Electric 

Housewares and Fans by Product: 2007 and 2006” 2007 ASM, May 2008. Available 

online at: 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335e/ma335e07.xls

(Accessed November 30, 2013).

12 U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. “Table 2 - Quantity and Value of Shipments of Electric 

Housewares and Fans by Product: 2008 and 2007” 2008 ASM, May 2009. Available 
3-39

 

online at: 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335e/ma335e08.xls

(Accessed November 30, 2013).

13 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. “Table 2 - Quantity and Value of Shipments of Electric 

Housewares and Fans by Product: 2009 and 2008” 2009 ASM, April 2010. Available 

online at: 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335e/ma335e09.xls

(Accessed November 30, 2013).

14 Ibid.

15 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. 2010 Current Industrial Report – Major Household 

Appliances (CIR), May 2011. Available online at: 

www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335f/ma335f10.xls (Accessed 

November 30, 2013).

16 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: Value of Products 

Shipments: Value of Shipments for Product Classes: 2011 and 2010”, November 2012.

Available online at: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_

2011_31VS101&prodType=table. (Accessed November 30, 2013).

17 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: Value of Products 

Shipments: Value of Shipments for Product Classes: 2010 and 2009”, November 2011.

Available online at: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_

2010_31VS101&prodType=table. (Accessed November 30, 2013).

18 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: Value of Products 

Shipments: Value of Shipments for Product Classes: 2009 and 2008”. Available online

at: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_

2009_31VS101&prodType=table. (Accessed November 30, 2013).

19 U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: Value of Products 

Shipments: Value of Shipments for Product Classes: 2008 and 2007”. Available online 

at: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_

2008_31VS101&prodType=table. (Accessed November 30, 2013).

20 AHAM Fact Book. 2003.

21 Ibid.
3-40

 

22 “U.S. Appliance Industry: Market Share, Life Expectancy & Replacement Market, and 

Saturation Levels”. Appliance Magazine Market Research Report, January 2010.

23 U.S. Census Bureau. 2002–2011. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics: 

Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries,” ASM. Available online at: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_

2011_31GS101&prodType=table. (Accessed November 30, 2013).

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Plant Capacity, 2004 to 2006. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/capacity/historical_data/index.html. (Accessed 

November 30, 2013).

30 U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization, 2007 to 2012. 

Available online at: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/capacity/. (Accessed 

November 30, 2013).

31 P. Simmons. 2003. “The Art of Providing Savings.” Appliance Magazine, October 

2003.

32 U.S. DOE. 1997. Op. cit.

33 Simmons. 2003. Op. cit.

34 Ibid.

35 DOE CCMS Database. Available online at

http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-41431694081.html (Accessed 

November 30, 2013).