3-i

CHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 PRODUCT DEFINITIONS............................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 PRODUCT CLASSES..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.4 PRODUCT TEST PROCEDURES ................................................................................. 3-4

3.5 MANUFACTURER TRADE GROUPS ......................................................................... 3-5

3.6 MANUFACTURER INFORMATION ........................................................................... 3-6

3.6.1 Manufacturers and Market Shares................................................................................... 3-6

3.6.2 Mergers and Acquisitions................................................................................................ 3-8

3.6.3 Small Business Impacts ................................................................................................. 3-10

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

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

3.7.1 Federal Energy Conservation Standards........................................................................ 3-10

3.7.2 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007............................................................ 3-11

3.7.3 Foreign Standby Power Regulatory Programs............................................................... 3-12

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

3.9 HISTORICAL SHIPMENTS......................................................................................... 3-14

3.9.1 New Home Starts........................................................................................................... 3-14

3.9.2 Unit Shipments............................................................................................................... 3-15

3.9.3 Value of Shipments........................................................................................................ 3-16

3.9.4 Imports and Exports....................................................................................................... 3-18

3.10 MARKET SATURATION............................................................................................ 3-19

3.11 PRODUCT RETAIL PRICES ....................................................................................... 3-19

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 Product Operations and Components............................................................................. 3-26

3.14.2 Technology Options....................................................................................................... 3-27

3.14.3 Energy Efficiency .......................................................................................................... 3-31

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.3.1 Microwave Oven Product Classes............................................................................ 3-3

Table 3.6.1 Major and Other Microwave Oven Manufacturers.................................................. 3-7

Table 3.6.2 Core Appliance Manufacturers................................................................................ 3-8

Table 3.7.1 EU Ecodesign Requirements for Standby and Off Mode...................................... 3-13

Table 3.8.1 FEMP Recommendations for Microwave Ovens.................................................. 3-14

Table 3.9.1 Industry Shipments of Microwave Ovens (Domestic and Import in 

Thousands of Units)........................................................................................... 3-16

Table 3.9.2 Household Appliance Manufacturing Statistics by Year....................................... 3-17
3-ii

Table 3.9.3 Disposition of Previous Appliance (Percentage) .................................................. 3-17

Table 3.9.4 Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing Statistics by Year........................ 3-18

Table 3.9.5 2008–2009 Imports of Microwave Ovens............................................................. 3-19

Table 3.9.6 2008–2009 Exports of Microwave Ovens ............................................................ 3-19

Table 3.10.1 Appliance Saturation (Number in Millions) and Percentage of U.S. 

Households with Product ................................................................................... 3-19

Table 3.11.1 Residential Appliance Retail Prices..................................................................... 3-20

Table 3.12.1 Household Appliance Industry Employment and Earnings................................. 3-21

Table 3.12.2 Household Cooking Appliance Industry Employment and Earnings.................. 3-22

Table 3.12.3 Household Appliance Industry Census Data ....................................................... 3-23

Table 3.12.4 Household Cooking Appliance Industry Census Data ........................................ 3-24

Table 3.13.1 Household Appliance Industry Census Data ....................................................... 3-25

Table 3.13.2 Household Cooking Appliance Industry Census Data ........................................ 3-25

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

Table 3.14.1 Technology Options for Microwave Oven – Standby Power.............................. 3-28

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.6.1 2008 Market Shares for the Domestic Microwave Oven Market........................... 3-7

Figure 3.6.2 2008 Core Appliance Market Shares...................................................................... 3-8

Figure 3.9.1 New Privately Owned Single-Family and Multi-Family Housing Unit Starts 

in the United States from 1998–2009 ............................................................... 3-15

Figure 3.14.1 AHAM and CBEEDAC Microwave Oven Standby Power versus Rated 

Output Power,..................................................................................................... 3-31

Figure 3.14.2 Microwave Oven Standby Power Consumption from the FEMP Database....... 3-32
3-1

CHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a profile of the residential microwave ovens 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 DEFINITIONS

DOE defines “microwave oven” under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 

of 1975, Pub. L. 94-163, (42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6291–6309) as “a class of kitchen 

ranges and ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a compartment designed 

to cook or heat food by means of microwave energy.” (10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

430.2)

3.3 PRODUCT CLASSES

DOE intends to separate microwave ovens into product classes. Because DOE will 

formulate a separate energy conservation standard for each product class, the criteria for 

separation into different classes are: (1) type of energy used, and (2) capacity or other 

performance-related features such as those that provide utility to the consumer or others deemed 

appropriate by the Secretary that would justify the establishment of a separate energy 

conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (q))

In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) published on October 17, 2008 (hereafter 

the “October 2008 NOPR”), DOE proposed a single product class for microwave ovens. DOE 

stated this product class encompasses microwave ovens with and without browning elements, but 

does not include microwave ovens that incorporate convection systems. 73 FR 62034, 62048.

DOE reassessed what products would be considered microwave ovens under the 

regulatory definition, and whether multiple product classes would be appropriate. As discussed 

in the microwave oven test procedure final rule which was published in the Federal Register on 

March 9, 2011 (hereafter, the “March 2011 TP Interim Final Rule”), DOE stated that microwave 

ovens with or without thermal elements would be considered covered products under the 

definition provided in 10 CFR 430.2. In addition, DOE stated that combination microwave ovens 
3-2

(i.e., microwave ovens that incorporate convection features and possibly other means of cooking) 

would also be considered covered products under the regulatory definition in 10 CFR 430.2 

because they are capable of cooking or heating food by means of microwave energy. DOE 

stated, based on its preliminary analysis, it believes that the general standby mode and off mode 

operation for combination microwave ovens does not differ from that of microwave-only units 

and microwave ovens with thermal elements only. The standby mode operation for combination 

microwave ovens, as with other types of microwave ovens, consists of an energized display with 

a clock. As a result, DOE amended the microwave oven test procedure to require that the same 

standby mode and off mode testing methods be used for all microwave ovens. 76 FR 12825, 

12828–30 (Mar. 9, 2011).

In order to determine whether specific types of microwave ovens should be separated into 

different product classes, DOE investigated whether there are any performance related features 

that would justify the establishment of a separate energy conservation standard. As discussed in 

the October 2008 NOPR, DOE tested a sample of 32 countertop microwave-only units and 

measured standby power ranging from 1.2 watts (W) to 5.8 W. 73 FR 62034, 62042 (Oct. 17, 

2008). None of these units was capable of operation in off mode, nor is DOE aware of any other 

current microwave ovens capable of such operation. DOE noted that standby power consumption 

for microwave-only units largely depended on the presence of a cooking sensor, the display 

technology, the power supply and control board, and implementation of a power-down feature. 

With regards to display technologies, DOE noted that microwave-only units incorporated Light 

Emitting Diode (LED) displays, Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs), and Vacuum Fluorescent 

Displays (VFDs).

DOE conducted a survey of over-the-range microwave-only units available on the U.S. 

market. DOE determined that the display technologies used are similar to those used in 

countertop microwave-only units (i.e., LED displays, LCDs, and VFDs). DOE’s market survey 

revealed that multiple over-the-range microwave-only units incorporate both LED displays and 

LCDs. DOE research suggests that LED displays and LCDs in both countertop and over-therange microwave-only products offer acceptable consumer utility features, including brightness, 

viewing angle, and ability to display complex characters. DOE also conducted in-store standby 

mode testing on a limited sample of over-the-range microwave-only units which showed similar 

standby power consumption as countertop microwave-only units. For these reasons, DOE 

tentatively concludes that over-the-range microwave-only units would not warrant a separate 

product class according to the criteria put forth by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)). DOE understands 

that over-the-range microwave-only units may have additional components that are energized 

during active mode operation (i.e., exhaust fan motors). However, DOE’s testing showed that the 

presence of such features did not increase the standby power consumption to warrant 

establishing a separate product class.

DOE also conducted standby power testing on a sample of 13 representative combination 

microwave ovens, including 5 countertop combination microwave ovens, 6 over-the-range 

combination microwave ovens, and 2 built-in combination microwave ovens. DOE’s testing 

showed that the countertop combination microwave ovens use similar display technologies as 

countertop microwave-only units (i.e., LED displays, LCDs, and VFDs), and had standby power 
3-3

consumption ranging from 1.2 W to 4.7 W, which is similar to the standby power consumption 

for countertop microwave-only units. As a result, DOE tentatively concludes that countertop 

combination microwave ovens would not warrant a product class separate from microwave-only 

ovens. DOE’s testing of built-in and over-the-range combination microwave ovens showed that 

the standby power consumption for these products ranged from 4.1 W to 8.8 W, which is higher 

than the standby power consumption for other microwave oven product types (i.e., countertop 

microwave-only, over-the-range microwave-only, and countertop combination microwave 

ovens). DOE’s reverse-engineering analysis suggests that the additional features in built-in and 

over-the-range combination microwave ovens required to handle the thermal loads associated 

with their installation and to provide consumer utility, such as additional exhaust fan motors, 

convection fan motors and heaters, and additional lights, require a significant number of 

additional relays on the control board, and thus require a larger power supply for the control of 

such relays. While the relays themselves do not consume power in standby mode, they increase 

the total power supply requirements of the control board and thus increase the standby losses of 

the power supply. As a result, DOE believes that a separate product class should be established 

for built-in and over-the-range combination microwave ovens. DOE recognizes that built-in and 

over-the-range microwave-only units may similarly require some additional relays for exhaust 

fans and lights, and that countertop combination microwave ovens would require some 

additional relays for convection fans and heaters. However, DOE’s product testing and reverseengineering analyses indicated that these product types use similar-sized power supplies as those 

found in countertop microwave-only units, and as a result would not warrant a separate product 

class from countertop microwave-only units. Details of standby power testing for the 

determination of product classes are presented in chapter 5 of this technical support document 

(TSD).

In summary, DOE proposes to establish the following two product classes for microwave 

ovens:

Table 3.3.1 Microwave Oven Product Classes

Product Class

1. Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Combination Microwave Ovens

2. Built-in and Over-the-Range Combination Microwave Ovens

DOE determined that separate product classes for the purposes of setting energy 

conservation standards addressing standby mode and off mode energy use are warranted on the 

basis of different standby power performance. DOE did not evaluate whether the same product 

class distinction would also be appropriate for any active mode energy use standards because 

DOE eliminated the regulatory provisions establishing the cooking efficiency test procedure for 

microwave ovens in a final rule published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2010 (hereafter, 

the “July 2010 TP Final Rule”). 75 FR 42579. If DOE adopts amendments to the microwave 

oven test procedure to include provisions for measuring active mode cooking efficiency, DOE 

may reevaluate these product classes as part of a future microwave oven energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. At that time, DOE may consider dividing countertop combination 
3-4

microwave ovens and over-the-range/built-in microwave-only units into separate product classes 

to account for the energy performance of heating components other than the microwave portion.

3.4 PRODUCT TEST PROCEDURES

DOE originally established test procedures for microwave ovens to determine energy 

efficiency and annual energy use as the basis for representation and determination of compliance 

with energy conservation standards. DOE established test procedures for microwave ovens 

through the rulemaking process.

Historically, DOE’s test procedures for microwave ovens appeared at appendix I to 

subpart B of Title 10 of the CFR. Those test procedures were part of a May 10, 1978, final rule 

that first established test procedures for conventional ranges, cooktops, and ovens (including 

microwave ovens). 43 FR 20108. DOE revised its test procedures for cooking products to 

measure their efficiency and energy use more accurately, publishing a final rule on October 3, 

1997. 62 FR 51976. The revised microwave oven test procedure incorporated portions of the 

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 705-1998 and Amendment 2-1993 

(IEC Standard 705), Methods for Measuring the Performance of Microwave Ovens for 

Households and Similar Purposes. It measured microwave oven cooking efficiency, but did not 

address energy use in the standby mode or off modes. Id.

Section 310 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) (Pub. L. 

No. 110-140) amends Section 325 of the EPCA to require that that the test procedures for 

microwave ovens be amended to include measurement of standby mode and off mode power, 

taking into consideration the most current version of IEC Standard 62301 Household electrical 

appliances – Measurement of standby power (IEC Standard 62301) and IEC Standard 62087 

Methods of measurement for the power consumption of audio, video and related equipment.

a

 

EPCA, as amended by the EISA 2007, also states that the final rule for this test procedure shall 

be published no later than March 31, 2011. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)) 

DOE published a test procedure NOPR on October 17, 2008 (hereafter referred to as the 

“October 2008 TP NOPR”), in which it proposed to incorporate provisions from IEC Standard 

62301 First Edition into the DOE microwave oven test procedure, as well as language to clarify 

application of these provisions for measuring standby mode and off mode power in microwave 

ovens. The October 2008 TP NOPR also proposed correcting a technical error in the calculation 

of microwave test cooking energy output. 73 FR 62134 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE held a public 

meeting on the proposed rulemaking on November 14, 2008. DOE received comments from 

interested parties both in written responses to the October 2008 NOPR and at the November 

2008 Public Meeting.

 

a

 IEC 62087 does not cover any products for this rulemaking, and therefore was not considered.
3-5

After considering stakeholder comments and additional information, DOE issued a

supplemental NOPR (SNOPR) on July 22, 2010 (hereafter referred to as the July 2010 TP 

SNOPR) for the test procedure for measuring microwave oven standby mode and off mode 

power consumption. 75 FR 42612 (Jul. 22, 2010). In that SNOPR, DOE proposed adopting 

definitions of modes based on relevant provisions from IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition, 

Committee Draft for Vote (IEC Standard 62301 CDV), as well as language to clarify application 

of those provisions for measuring microwave oven standby mode and off mode power 

consumption. Id. 

In response to the October 2008 TP NOPR, DOE received comments from interested 

parties regarding the accuracy and repeatability of the existing DOE microwave oven test 

procedure for measuring cooking efficiency. Because of issues DOE identified with using its 

existing microwave oven test procedure, including the large test-to-test variation in cooking 

efficiency measurements, and because DOE is unaware of any test procedures that have been 

developed that address the concerns with the DOE microwave oven cooking efficiency test 

procedure raised by these interested parties, DOE published the July 2010 TP Final Rule 

repealing the provisions in the existing microwave oven test procedure relating to the 

measurement of cooking efficiency and energy factor (EF). 75 FR 42579 (Jul. 22, 2010). 

Therefore, the requirement to integrate energy consumption in standby mode and off mode into 

an overall energy descriptor does not apply. DOE also published a notice in the Federal Register

on July 22, 2010, announcing a public meeting to consider developing a new test procedure for 

active mode energy consumption of microwave ovens, and DOE will consider the statutory 

requirement to integrate the test procedures for standby and off mode as any active mode test 

procedures are developed. 75 FR 42611.

DOE held a public meeting on September 16, 2010, to receive oral comments on the July 

2010 TP SNOPR, and also sought and received written comments. DOE also invited inputs on 

microwave active mode test procedures for a potential new test procedure rulemaking.

After consideration of these comments, DOE published the March 2011 TP Interim Final 

Rule addressing microwave oven standby mode and off mode power. 76 FR 12825 (Mar. 9, 

2011). In that final rule, DOE adopted the provisions for the measurement of standby mode and 

off mode power use for both products that were proposed in the July 2010 TP SNOPR. In 

addition, DOE also adopted provisions to define the test duration for cases in which the 

measured power is not stable (i.e., varies over a cycle), recognizing that the power consumption 

of microwave oven displays can vary based on the displayed clock time. 76 FR 12825, 12837–40

(Mar. 9, 2011).

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 residential 

microwave oven industry, DOE researched various associations available to manufacturers, 
3-6

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.

DOE identified the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) as a trade 

group that supports the microwave oven industry, AHAM,

b

3.6 MANUFACTURER INFORMATION

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 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.

The following section details information regarding domestic manufacturers of 

residential microwave ovens, 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

Using publicly available data (e.g. Appliance Magazine and market assessments done by 

third parties), DOE estimates the market shares for domestic manufacturers of each of the 

products contained in this standards rulemaking. Manufacturers may offer multiple brand names. 

Some of the brand names come from independent appliance manufacturers which have been 

acquired over time, and domestic manufacturers may put their brand on a product manufactured 

overseas. Companies included in this analysis may also be off-shore manufacturers that maintain 

a significant domestic presence via a U.S. entity.

The microwave oven market differs from the rest of the domestic cooking product market 

in that many of the manufacturers are foreign-owned companies with manufacturing facilities 

outside of the United States, and many of the domestic appliance manufacturers rebrand foreignmanufactured products. Table 3.6.1 illustrates the 2008 market shares for the U.S. microwave 

oven market. Microwave oven manufacturers with facilities inside the United States include 

Whirlpool, the Sharp Electronics Corporation (Sharp), Sub-Zero, Summit, and Viking. Figure 

3.6.1 lists microwave manufacturers active in the domestic market.

 

b For more information visit http://www.aham.org.
3-7

Table 3.6.1 Major and Other Microwave Oven Manufacturers

Major Manufacturers Other Manufacturers

LG Electronics, Inc. (LG) Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd. 

(Daewoo)

Sharp Panasonic Corporation of America

(Panasonic)

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 

(Samsung)

Whirlpool

Guangdong Galanz Enterprise Co., Ltd. 

(Galanz)

GD Midea Microwave Oven Mfg. Co., Ltd.

(Midea)

Sanyo

Sub-Zero

Summit 

Viking

Figure 3.6.1 2008 Market Shares for the Domestic Microwave Oven Market1
3-8

3.6.2 Mergers and Acquisitions

Due to mergers and acquisitions, the home appliance industry continues to consolidate. 

While this phenomenon varies from product to product within the industry, the large market 

shares of a few companies provide evidence in support of this characterization.

According to the January 2010 issue of Appliance Magazine, three manufacturers 

comprise 85 percent of the core appliance market share. “Core appliances” include dishwashers,

clothes dryers, freezers, ranges, refrigerators, and clothes washers. Table 3.6.2 lists these core 

appliance manufacturers, and Figure 3.6.2 illustrates the breakdown of 2008 market shares in the 

core appliance category.

Table 3.6.2 Core Appliance Manufacturers

Core Appliance Manufacturers

Whirlpool

GE

Frigidaire

Figure 3.6.2 2008 Core Appliance Market Shares2

On August 22, 2005, Whirlpool, headquartered in Benton Harbor, Michigan, and Maytag, 

based in Newton, Iowa, announced plans to merge in a deal worth $2.7 billion.3

 Maytag 
3-9

shareholders approved the merger on December 22, 2005. Shortly after announcing the merger, 

Whirlpool submitted a pre-merger notification to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ 

Antitrust Division initiated an investigation, scheduled to end February 27, 2006, into the effects 

of the merger, including potential lessening of competition or the creation of a monopoly. 

Following this initial review, the DOJ asked for additional materials from each company and 

extended the review to March 30, 2006. 

Opponents of the merger asserted that the combined companies would control as much as 

70 percent of the residential laundry market and as much as 50 percent of the residential 

dishwasher market.4 Whirlpool claimed that their large potential residential laundry market 

share was skewed because the company produces washing machines for Sears, which sells them 

under their Kenmore in-house brand. Whirlpool went on to say that they must periodically bid 

with other manufacturers to keep the Kenmore contract and that Sears controls the pricing of the 

Kenmore units.5

In early January 2006, U.S. Senator Tom Harkin and U.S. Representative Leonard 

Boswell, both of Iowa, called upon the DOJ to block the merger, claiming it would give 

Whirlpool an unfair advantage in the home appliance industry. The Congressmen wrote, that if 

the DOJ does not block the deal, the agency should at least “require that Whirlpool divest the 

washer and dryer portions of Maytag to a viable purchaser who will have the financial capability 

and desire to continue to operate that business.”6

On March 29, 2006, DOJ closed its investigation and approved the merger. DOJ claims 

“that the proposed transaction is not likely to reduce competition substantially. The combination 

of strong rival suppliers with the ability to expand sales significantly and large cost savings and 

other efficiencies that Whirlpool appears likely to achieve indicates that this transaction is not 

likely to harm consumer welfare.”7

The DOJ Antitrust Division focused its investigation on residential laundry, although it 

considered impacts across all products offered by the two companies. DOJ determined that the 

merger would not give Whirlpool excessive market power in the sale of its products and that any 

attempt to raise prices would likely be unsuccessful. In support of this claim, DOJ noted that (1) 

other U.S. brands, including Kenmore, GE, and Frigidaire, are well established; (2) foreign 

manufacturers, including LG and Samsung, are gaining market share; (3) existing U.S. 

manufacturers are below production capacity; (4) the large home appliance retailers have 

alternatives available to resist price increase attempts; and (5) Whirlpool and Maytag 

substantiated large cost savings and other efficiencies that would benefit consumers.8

Whirlpool and Maytag completed the merger on March 31, 2006. This large merger 

follows several other mergers and acquisitions in the home appliance industry. For example, 

Maytag acquired Jenn-Air Corporation (Jenn-Air) in 1982, Magic Chef, Inc. (Magic Chef) in 

1986, and Amana Appliances (Amana) in 2001. Whirlpool acquired the KitchenAid division of 

Hobart Corporation (KitchenAid) in 1986. White Consolidated Industries (WCI) acquired the 

Frigidaire division of General Motors Corporation in 1979, and AB Electrolux acquired WCI 

(and therefore Frigidaire) in 1986.
3-10

3.6.3 Small Business Impacts

DOE considers the possibility of small businesses being impacted by the promulgation of 

energy conservation standards for residential cooking products. At this time, DOE is not aware 

of any small microwave oven manufacturers, defined by the Small Business Association (SBA)

as having 750 employees or fewer, who produce products that fall under this rulemaking and 

who therefore would be impacted by a minimum efficiency standard. For further information, 

see chapter 12 of the TSD.

3.6.4 Distribution Channels

Understanding the distribution channels of products covered by this rulemaking is an 

important facet of the market assessment. DOE gathered information regarding the distribution 

channels for residential cooking products from publicly available sources. This section contains 

distribution channel information for residential appliances.

The distribution chain for residential appliances, including microwave ovens, differs from 

commercial products, as the majority of consumers purchase their appliances directly from 

retailers. These retailers include: (1) home improvement, appliance, and department stores; (2) 

Internet retailers; (3) membership warehouse clubs; and (4) kitchen remodelers. The AHAM 

Fact Book 2005 reports that home improvement stores claim nearly one out of every four dollars 

spent on appliances.9

Home appliance retailers generally obtain products directly from manufacturers. The 

AHAM Fact Book 2003 shows that over 93 percent of residential appliances are distributed from 

the manufacturer directly to a retailer.10

3.7 REGULATORY PROGRAMS

The following section details current regulatory programs mandating energy conservation 

standards for residential cooking products. Section 3.7.1 discusses Federal energy conservation 

standards and section 3.7.2 reviews upcoming standards under EISA 2007. In addition, section

3.7.3 reviews foreign standby power regulatory programs that may impact the companies 

servicing the North American market. 

3.7.1 Federal Energy Conservation Standards

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA) (42 U.S.C. 6291-

6309), which amended EPCA, established prescriptive standards for kitchen ranges and ovens, 

but no standards were established for microwave ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)) The NAECA 

amendments also required DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to 

revise the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (h)(1)–(2)) DOE undertook the first cycle of these 
3-11

rulemakings and issued a final rule on September 8, 1998 in which DOE found that no amended 

standards were justified for electric cooking products, including microwave ovens. 63 FR 48038.

DOE initiated the second cycle of energy conservation standards rulemakings for cooking 

products by publishing a framework document covering, in part, microwave ovens, and giving 

notice of a public meeting and the availability of the document. 71 FR 15059 (Mar. 27, 2006). In 

its subsequent advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) concerning energy conservation 

standards for commercial clothes washers and residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and 

cooking products, including microwave ovens, DOE determined that energy consumption by 

microwave ovens in the standby mode represents a significant portion of microwave oven energy 

use, and that a standard regulating such energy consumption would likely have significant energy 

savings. 72 FR 64432, 64441–42 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE published a NOPR for the appliance 

standards rulemaking on October 17, 2008, in which it tentatively concluded that a standard for 

microwave oven standby mode and off mode energy consumption would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 73 FR 62034. DOE received responses to the NOPR from 

interested parties regarding the harmonization of standards and test procedures with those of 

other countries and international agencies. As a result of these comments, DOE decided to 

consider the revised version of IEC Standard 62301 (i.e., IEC Standard 62301 Second Edition) in 

the development of energy conservation standards for the standby mode and off mode power 

consumption of microwave ovens. In a final rule published on April 8, 2009 (74 FR 16040), 

DOE established amended standards for gas cooking products, but again found that no active 

mode cooking efficiency standards were justified for electric cooking products, including 

microwave ovens. This rulemaking completed the second cycle of rulemakings required by the 

NAECA amendments to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2))

3.7.2 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

On December 19, 2007, the President signed into law EISA 2007, which contains 

numerous amendments to EPCA. Section 310 of EISA 2007 amends section 325 of EPCA to

require any final rule establishing or revising a standard for a covered product, adopted after July 

10, 2010, shall incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single amended or new 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)) If not feasible, the Secretary shall prescribe within the final 

rule a separate standard for standby mode and off mode energy consumption, if justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(B))

Off mode is defined by EPCA as “the condition in which an energy-using product – (I) is 

connected to a main power source; and (II) is not providing any standby or active mode 

function.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(ii)) Active mode refers to the main (cooking) function, 

while standby is defined by EPCA as “the condition in which an energy-using product (I) is 

connected to a main power source; and (II) offers 1 or more of the following user-oriented or 

protective functions: (aa) To facilitate the activation or deactivation of other functions (including 

active mode) by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer. (bb) 

Continuous functions, including information or status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based 

functions.” (Id.; 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii)) 
3-12

On November 15, 2007 DOE published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANOPR) (hereafter the “November 2007 ANOPR”) in which it stated that it was considering 

including standby power in the energy conservation standards and intended to initiate 

amendment of its test procedure to measure microwave oven standby power because: 1) energy 

conservation in standby mode represents a significant proportion of microwave oven annual 

energy consumption; and 2) the range of standby power among microwave ovens currently on 

the market suggests that the likely impact of a standard would be significant. 72 FR 64432. Such 

a test procedure change is a prerequisite to incorporate a standby power requirement as part of 

the energy conservation standard for microwave ovens.c

 Data obtained by DOE during testing of 

a representative sample of microwave ovens and from AHAM show standby power ranging from 

1.1 to 5.8 W. At the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)-defined limit of 2 W, the 

resulting 17.2 kWh of annual standby energy use represents 13 percent of the estimated annual 

cooking energy consumption for a baseline microwave oven. DOE is unaware of any microwave 

ovens currently on the market in the United States that consume energy in off-mode, 

differentiable from standby mode. Therefore, DOE proposed for the purposes of the October 

2008 NOPR to put forth standards for microwave oven standby power only, but stated it was 

open to consideration of off-mode standards. 

As discussed above in section 3.4, the test procedure rulemaking to incorporate methods 

for measuring standby mode and off mode energy consumption for microwave ovens was 

initiated in parallel with the current rulemaking. Because DOE repealed the provisions in the 

existing microwave oven test procedure relating to the measurement of cooking efficiency and 

EF, the requirement to integrate energy consumption in standby mode and off mode into an 

overall energy descriptor does not apply. The absence of active mode provisions results in a de 

facto separate energy use descriptor for microwave oven standby mode and off mode energy use. 

Accordingly, DOE proposed amended energy conservation standards for microwave ovens based 

on these separate energy use descriptors.

3.7.3 Foreign Standby Power Regulatory Programs

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has raised awareness of standby power through 

publications, international conferences, and policy advice to governments. In 1999, the IEA 

developed the “1-Watt Plan,” which proposed reducing standby power internationally in 

electronic devices and which advocates that all countries harmonize energy policies and adopt 

the same definition and test procedure. The IEA has advocated a 1-W requirement for all 

consumer electrical products (unless specifically excluded) in standby mode. The IEA also stated 

that IEC Standard 62301 provides an internationally sanctioned definition and test procedure for 

standby power, which is now widely specified and used.d

 

A number of countries have implemented regulatory approaches to standby power in 

microwave ovens. Australia has announced plans to implement a mandatory 1-W requirement 

 

d

 For more information visit http://www.iea.org/.
3-13

for all consumer electrical products by 2012, including microwave ovens.

11 The Korea Energy 

Management Corporation developed their “e-standby” program, which currently has a voluntary 

labeling program for microwave ovens with less than 1 W of standby power, and a mandatory 

labeling requirement for microwave ovens with standby power greater than 1 W.

12 In 

accordance with Japan’s Top Runner Program,e Japanese appliance manufacturers made a 

voluntary declaration to reduce standby power consumption of microwave ovens without a timer 

as close to 0 W as possible and that of microwave ovens with a timer to 1 W or lower.13 

The European Union (EU) passed the Ecodesign Directive in 2005 which calls for an 

implementing measure to reduce standby power for a specified list of energy using products, 

which include microwave ovens. On December 17, 2008, the Commission of the European 

Communities published Commission Regulation 1275/2008 implementing Ecodesign 

requirements for standby and off mode electric power consumption. Table 3.7.7 presents the 

criteria for standby and off mode power for microwave ovens, which are well in line with the 

IEA 1-W plan.14 

Table 3.7.1 EU Ecodesign Requirements for Standby and Off Mode

Mode Maximum Power (W)

Tier 1 (December 17, 2009)

Off (no function) 1.0 W

Standby (only reactivation function) 1.0 W

Standby (information or status display plus reactivation function 2.0 W

Tier 2 (December 17, 2012)

Off (no function) 0.5 W

Standby (only reactivation function) 0.5 W

Standby (information or status display plus reactivation function 1.0 W

3.8 VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS

DOE reviewed voluntary programs promoting energy efficient residential cooking 

products in the United States. DOE noted that FEMP establishes voluntary energy conservation 

standards for microwave ovens.

DOE’s FEMPf

 

e Japan’s Energy Conservation Act uses a “top runner” method to set energy efficiency targets for residential, 

commercial, and transportation sector equipment. Target values for future products are set based on the level of the 

most energy efficient products on the market at the time of the value setting process. For more information, visit 

works to reduce the cost and environmental impact of the Federal 

government by advancing energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting the use of 

distributed and renewable energy, and improving utility management decisions at Federal sites. 

http://www.eccj.or.jp/index_e.html

f For more information visit http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp.
3-14

FEMP helps Federal buyers identify and purchase energy efficient equipment, including 

microwave ovens.

Executive Order 13221 Energy Efficient Standby Power Devices, signed July 31, 2001, 

requires that Federal agencies purchase commercially available products with low standby 

power. 66 FR 40571. FEMP, therefore, issues standby power recommendations for microwave 

ovens. Table 3.8.3 presents the microwave oven recommendations.

Table 3.8.1 FEMP Recommendations for Microwave Ovens

Microwave Oven Classification Standby Power (W)*

Standard Microwave Oven ≤ 2 

* Based on test procedures specified in IEC Standard 62301

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 residential appliance product shipment trends 

and the value of these shipments, which were used during the shipments analysis (chapter 9 of 

this TSD.) 

3.9.1 New Home Starts

Trends in new home starts may directly affect shipments of certain home appliances. 

While there is certainly both a replacement and remodeling market for some appliances 

including microwave ovens, these products are also fixtures in virtually all new homes. 

Figure 3.6.1 presents the number of new single-family and multi-family housing units 

started in the United States from 1998–2009. Over the 5-year period from 2000–2005, singlefamily home starts increased 39.4 percent, to 1,716,000 units annually. However, between 2005 

and 2009, single-family home starts decreased 74.1 percent, to 445,100 units annually. Multifamily unit starts have remained relatively flat between 1998 and 2005, hovering around 350,000 

units annually. However, between 2005 and 2009, multi-family unit starts decreased by 69.1 

percent, to around 108,900 units annually.15
3-15

Figure 3.9.1 New Privately Owned Single-Family and Multi-Family Housing Unit Starts in

the United States from 1998–2009 16

3.9.2 Unit Shipments

Appliance Magazine provides annual unit shipments for residential appliances, including 

microwave ovens. Table 3.9.1 presents annual shipments of microwave ovens. The shipments of 

microwave ovens increased 90.2 percent from 1995 to 2004, to about 15.5 million units in 2004. 

However, between 2004 and 2008, shipments of microwave ovens decreased by 27 percent, to 

11.3 million units in 2008.
3-16

Table 3.9.1 Industry Shipments of Microwave Ovens (Domestic and Import in Thousands 

of Units) 17

Year Microwave Ovens

2008 11,340

2007 not available

2006 13,889

2005 13,862

2004 15,526

2003 14,274

2002 13,311

2001 13,446

2000 12,644

1999 11,422

1998 10,365

1997 8,883

1996 8,771

1995 8,162

3.9.3 Value of Shipments

Table 3.9.2 provides the value of shipments for the household appliance industry from 

1994–2009 based upon data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of Manufacturers

(ASM).

g

 The ASM expresses all dollar values in nominal dollars; i.e., 2009 data are expressed 

in 2009 dollars, and 2008 data are expressed in 2008 dollars. Using the Gross Domestic Product 

Implicit Price Deflator, DOE converted each year’s value of shipments to 2009 dollars. In 

constant 2009 dollars, the value of shipments has declined by approximately 40 percent over the 

16-year period.

 

g Available online at http://www.census.gov/mcd/asm-as1.html.
3-17

Table 3.9.2 Household Appliance Manufacturing Statistics by Year18

Year Value of Shipments in 

Nominal Dollars ($1000) 

Value of Shipments in 2009

Dollars ($1000)

2009 18,707,942 18,707,942

2008 21,504,780 21,701,972

2007 23,639,716 24,377,846

2006 24,162,513 25,650,308

2005 24,620,117 26,987,341

2004 23,989,141 27,173,398

2003 23,026,196 26,822,704

2002 22,269,541 26,499,444

2001 22,298,897 26,964,077

2000 23,414,965 28,953,393

1999 22,372,219 28,263,078

1998 22,471,878 28,806,293

1997 21,394,445 27,735,227

1996 22,156,900 29,230,799

1995 22,391,300 30,102,315

1994 22,793,900 31,281,968

The increase in shipment volumes combined with an overall decrease in constant-dollar 

shipment values indicates that the U.S. appliance industry is very competitive. 

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

being used after consumers purchase new units of same product. Table 3.9.3 presents the various 

methods by which consumers dispose of their older appliances. 

Table 3.9.3 Disposition of Previous Appliance (Percentage)

19

Product Kept It

Left with 

Previous 

Home

Sold / 

Gave 

Away

Recycling 

Facility

Left at 

Curb for 

Disposal

Retailer 

Took

Away

Microwave Ovens 17 11 32 12 23 4

The value of shipments of residential cooking products, a subset of the household 

appliance industry as defined in the ASM, has fluctuated over the last 16 years when viewed in 

2009 real dollars. Overall, the real value of shipments in 2009 was roughly 27 percent lower than 

the value in 1994. Table 3.9.4 provides the industry value of shipments for household cooking 

appliance manufacturing.
3-18

Table 3.9.4 Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing Statistics by Year20

Year Value of Shipments in 

Nominal Dollars ($1000) 

Value of Shipments in 2009

Dollars ($1000)

2009 3,835,185 3,835,185

2008 4,261,482 4,300,558

2007 4,786,768 4,936,231

2006 4,864,268 5,163,783

2005 5,114,677 5,606,453

2004 4,798,227 5,435,131

2003 4,691,713 5,465,272

2002 4,327,308 5,149,242

2001 3,773,442 4,562,889

2000 4,178,958 5,167,422

1999 3,915,499 4,946,494

1998 3,849,167 4,934,177

1997 3,520,635 4,564,064

1996 3,564,700 4,702,780

1995 3,788,200 5,092,763

1994 3,813,900 5,234,133

3.9.4 Imports and Exports

There is a large market for the import and export of home appliances. Each month 

AHAM publishes import and export data for certain home appliances. These data are released by 

the U.S. Census Bureau and aggregated by a third party. On the whole, major appliance unit 

imports decreased 9.7 percent in 2009 as compared to 2008. Major appliance unit exports 

decreased 17.5 percent over the same period.

Table 3.9.5 shows selected import data from AHAM’s Import/Export Trade Report –

December 2009.21 For microwave ovens less than or equal to 22.5 inches in width, both the 

number and value of units imported decreased by more than 17 percent from 2008 to 2009.. For 

microwave ovens 22.5 inches to 31.0 inches in width, both the number and value of units 

imported increased by more than 14 percent from 2008 to 2009. For microwave ovens greater 

than 31.0 inches in width, both the number and value of units imported decreased by more than 

10 percent. Overall, the value of major appliance imports decreased 9.2 percent from 2008 to 

2009.
3-19

Table 3.9.5 2008–2009 Imports of Microwave Ovens22

Appliance 

Description

Jan. –

Dec. 2009

Jan. –

Dec. 2008 % 

Change

Jan. –

Dec. 2009

Jan. –

Dec. 2008 % 

Units $ Mil (Nominal) Change

Microwave ovens ≤ 

22.5 inches 3,776,772 4,567,709 -17.3 130.042 165.033 -21.2

Microwave ovens > 

22.5-31.0 inches 3,263,577 2,392,880 36.4 135.885 118.232 14.9

Microwave ovens > 

31.0 inches 7,442,569 8,378,,434 -11.2 610.732 679.688 -10.1

Table 3.9.6 shows selected export data from AHAM’s 2007 Import/Export Trade Report 

– December 2009.

23 For the 1-year period from 2008 to 2009, both the number and value of unit 

exports of microwave oven exports decreased by more than 16 percent. Overall, the total value 

of exports decreased 18.9 percent.

Table 3.9.6 2008–2009 Exports of Microwave Ovens 24

Appliance 

Description

Jan. –

Dec. 2009

Jan. –

Dec. 2008 % 

Change

Jan. –

Dec. 2009

Jan. –

Dec. 2008 % 

Units $ Mil (Nominal) Change

Microwave ovens 235,883 294,660 -19.9 33.479 40.083 -16.5

3.10 MARKET SATURATION

AHAM’s Fact Book 2005 presents the market saturation for microwave ovens. As shown 

in Table 3.10.1, the percentage of households with microwave ovens has decreased slightly since 

2001. The number of U.S. households with microwave ovens is based on U.S. Census Bureau 

projections of occupied units in the relevant year.

Table 3.10.1 Appliance Saturation (Number in Millions) and Percentage of U.S. 

Households with Product 25

Product

1970 1982 1990 2001 2005

# % # % # % # % # %

Microwave 

Ovens Neg. Neg. 21.4 25.6 77.2 82.7 94.6 90.7* 97.2 89.3

* Includes over-the-range and countertop microwave ovens

3.11 PRODUCT RETAIL PRICES

Table 3.11.1 presents the average retail prices (in nominal dollars) of microwave ovens and 

the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of each year (1982–84 = 100). Prices of microwave ovens have 

decreased since 1980. 
3-20

Table 3.11.1 Residential Appliance Retail Prices 26

Product Average Retail Prices (Nominal $) Percent Change

1980 1994 2002 2005 1980–2005

Microwave Ovens 450 239 145 99 -78.0%

Consumer Price Index* 82.4 148.2 179.9 195.3 137.0% * U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average. 1982–84 = 100.

3.12 INDUSTRY COST STRUCTURE

DOE developed the household appliance industry cost structure from publicly available 

information from the ASM, (Table 3.12.1 and Table 3.12.2) and the U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly owned manufacturers (summarized 

in Table 3.12.3). Table 3.12.1 presents the home appliance industry employment levels and

earnings from 1994-2009. The statistics illustrate a steady decline in the number of production 

and non-production workers in the industry. 

Because the ASM expresses all dollar values in constant 2009 dollars, the following table 

shows that as industry employment levels decline, the industry payroll is also decreasing. The 

percent decrease in total industry employees tracks closely with the percent decrease in payroll 

for all employees. 
3-21

Table 3.12.1 Household Appliance Industry Employment and Earnings 27

Year Production Workers 

(‘000)

All Employees 

(‘000)

Payroll for All Employees 

(2009 $ Mil)

2009 41.1 48.6 1,938.7

2008 48.0 56.4 2,269.4

2007 56.2 65.5 2,562.4

2006 60.0 69.7 2,806.8

2005 64.3 76.9 2,958.7

2004 69.4 83.7 3,278.0

2003 71.0 85.3 3,360.8

2002 73.5 88.8 3,562.0

2001 76.6 92.6 3,732.0

2000 82.7 99.5 4,065.4

1999 82.3 97.9 3,932.8

1998 82.4 99.5 3,960.4

1997 79.8 97.2 3,781.3

1996 87.1 108.1 4,052.5

1995 88.9 110.8 4,119.6

1994 90.4 110.4 4,105.5

Table 3.12.2 presents the employments levels and earnings for just the household laundry 

portion of the appliance industry from 1994-2009. Statistics for both employment levels and 

payroll show a steady fluctuation from 1994-2002, but both have declined since that time. 

Payroll and employment levels again show a positive correlation.
3-22

Table 3.12.2 Household Cooking Appliance Industry Employment and Earnings 28

Year Production Workers 

(‘000)

All Employees 

(‘000)

Payroll for All Employees 

(2009 $ Mil)

2009 8.7 10.0 353.0

2008 10.4 11.8 411.2

2007 13.1 15.5 480.4

2006 12.7 14.4 466.7

2005 14.3 16.4 567.8

2004 14.4 17.0 584.1

2003 14.5 17.3 572.3

2002 14.7 18.0 592.6

2001 14.8 17.5 596.9

2000 15.3 18.0 633.3

1999 16.4 19.1 701.5

1998 15.3 18.2 670.5

1997 14.4 17.5 619.1

1996 14.7 18.1 682.6

1995 15.2 19.2 678.0

1994 15.0 18.6 674.1

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

of shipments from 1994–2009. The cost of materials as a percentage of value of shipments has 

fluctuated slightly over the 15-year period. DOE notes that fluctuations in raw material costs are 

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

of shipments has declined since 2000. Similarly, the cost of total payroll as a percentage of value 

of shipments has declined since 2000.
3-23

Table 3.12.3 Household Appliance Industry Census Data 29

Year

Cost of Materials as 

a Percentage of 

Value of Shipments 

(%)

Cost of Payroll for 

Production Workers as 

a Percentage of Value of 

Shipments (%)

Cost of Total Payroll 

(Production + Admin.) 

as a Percentage of Value 

of Shipments (%)

2009 54.0 7.5 10.4

2008 59.3 7.7 10.5

2007 57.8 8.0 10.5

2006 57.9 8.4 10.9

2005 56.9 8.3 11.0

2004 57.2 9.0 12.1

2003 55.9 9.2 12.5

2002 54.9 9.7 13.4

2001 56.8 10.1 13.8

2000 55.8 10.2 14.0

1999 54.7 10.2 13.9

1998 56.0 10.0 13.7

1997 52.8 9.9 13.6

1996 56.8 9.9 13.9

1995 57.7 9.4 13.7

1994 55.5 9.2 13.1

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

shipments for the household cooking appliance industry from 1994-2009. DOE observed a 

decline in the cost of payroll as a percentage of value of shipments from 1999–2009. During that 

same time period, the cost of materials as a percentage of value of shipments has increased.
3-24

Table 3.12.4 Household Cooking Appliance Industry Census Data 30

Year

Cost of Materials as 

a Percentage of 

Value of Shipments 

(%)

Cost of Payroll for 

Production Workers as 

a Percentage of Value of 

Shipments (%)

Cost of Total Payroll 

(Production + Admin.) 

as a Percentage of Value 

of Shipments (%)

2009 60.7 6.8 9.2

2008 70.5 7.4 9.6

2007 64.3 7.4 9.7

2006 66.8 7.0 9.0

2005 67.9 8.0 10.1

2004 67.3 8.1 10.7

2003 63.2 7.5 10.5

2002 64.6 8.0 11.5

2001 63.3 9.3 13.1

2000 57.1 8.5 12.3

1999 58.4 10.1 14.2

1998 57.8 9.3 13.6

1997 51.0 9.4 13.6

1996 61.5 9.3 14.5

1995 53.6 8.4 13.3

1994 52.2 8.5 12.9

A detailed financial analysis of each of the products covered by this rulemaking is 

presented in the manufacturer impact analysis. (See chapter 12 of this TSD.) This analysis 

identifies key financial inputs including cost of capital, working capital, depreciation, and capital 

expenditures.

3.13 INVENTORY LEVELS AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION RATES

Table 3.13.1 and Table 3.13.2 show the year-end inventory for the household appliance 

and household cooking appliance industries, respectively, according to the ASM. Both in dollars 

and as a percentage of value of shipments, the end-of-year inventory for the industry has 

declined since 1995. These data illustrate a general trend of domestic manufacturers retaining 

less of their inventories over time since 1994.
3-25

Table 3.13.1 Household Appliance Industry Census Data 31

Year End-of-Year Inventory 

(2009 $ Mil)

End-of-Year Inventory as a 

Percentage of Value

of Shipments (%)

2009 1,587.6 8.5

2008 1,868.1 8.6

2007 2,059.7 8.4

2006 1,792.5 7.0

2005 1,790.5 6.6

2004 1,979.7 7.3

2003 1,984.5 7.4

2002 2,133.8 8.1

2001 2,372.1 8.8

2000 2,676.6 9.2

1999 2,667.2 9.4

1998 2,875.6 10.0

1997 2,763.9 10.0

1996 3,033.1 10.4

1995 3,350.0 11.1

1994 3,472.3 11.1

Table 3.13.2 Household Cooking Appliance Industry Census Data 32

Year End-of-Year Inventory 

(2009 $ Mil)

End-of-Year Inventory as a 

Percentage of Value

of Shipments (%)

2009 296.1 7.7

2008 391.7 9.1

2007 574.6 11.6

2006 409.2 7.9

2005 474.0 8.5

2004 464.8 8.6

2003 454.6 8.3

2002 513.4 10.0

2001 404.2 8.9

2000 456.4 8.8

1999 513.1 10.4

1998 610.6 12.4

1997 528.1 11.6

1996 606.3 12.9

1995 720.5 14.1

1994 734.9 14.0
3-26

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

Survey of Plant Capacity from 1994–2006. Table 3.13.2 presents utilization rates for various 

sectors of the household appliance industry. Full production capacity is defined as the maximum 

level of production an establishment could attain under normal operating conditions. In the 

Survey of Plant Capacity report, the full production utilization rate is a ratio of the actual level of 

operations to the full production level. The full production capacity utilization rate for household 

appliances in aggregate, along with the rates for cooking appliances and household laundry 

appliances, show a decrease in utilization from 1994–2006, although trends in subsets of that 

time period have fluctuated.

Table 3.13.3 Full Production Capacity Utilization Rates33

Year Rates (%)

Household Appliances Cooking Appliances

2006 77 65

2005 74 57

2004 76 61

2003 78 57

2002 72 56

2001 70 50

2000 70 55

1999 75 59

1998 73 66

1997 73 61

1996 76 66

1995 79 66

1994 82 72

3.14 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

This section provides a technology assessment for residential microwave ovens. 

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 Product Operations and Components

In preparation for the screening and engineering analyses, DOE prepared a brief 

description of the characteristics and operation of microwave ovens. This description provides a 

basis for understanding the technologies used to improve product efficiency.

A microwave oven is an appliance which heats foods and beverages through the 

conversion of electric energy to electromagnetic (microwave) energy. The food load is placed 
3-27

inside the oven where it is subjected to the microwave energy. In the portion of the 

electromagnetic spectrum where microwave ovens operate, typically 2.45 gigahertz, water, fats, 

and sugars have high absorptivity and thus food heats readily. Glass, ceramic, and paper have 

low absorptivity at these wavelengths, while metals reflect the microwaves. Therefore 

microwave ovens efficiently heat foods while the cavity and utensils remain cool.

The microwave energy is generated by an electrically powered magnetron. Line voltage 

is converted to the high voltage required by the magnetron through the use of a high-voltage 

transformer. The microwaves are directed from the magnetron into the cavity via a metal duct, or 

waveguide. To produce a more uniform distribution of energy in the cavity, one or more sets of 

rotating metal blades may be inserted in the waveguide to alter the microwave patterns 

temporally. Additionally, a turntable or translating tray may be provided in the cavity to move 

the load and thus promote even input energy distribution to the food. Some microwave ovens are 

equipped with electrically powered resistive or halogen heating elements for surface browning,

and in the case of combination microwave ovens, an additional fan for forced air distribution to 

enhance cooking performance.

To achieve reduced power levels for cooking processes such as defrosting, the magnetron 

is typically cycled at an appropriate duty cycle which results in a time-averaged power at the 

desired level. Electronic controls may include a clock/timer function as well as a humidity or 

infrared sensor for detecting when the desired level of cooking is achieved. Standby power 

consumption associated with these electronics, as well as the power supply, may be several 

watts. In addition, a light is typically provided that is turned on when the door is opened or when 

the microwave oven is in operation.

Installation configurations include countertop and over-the-range. Over-the-range 

microwave ovens may include a ventilation fan that turns on automatically when the temperature 

from the cooktop below it rises; however, such an option is not required for certification under 

the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard UL 923 - Edition 5, Standard for Microwave 

Cooking Appliances.

3.14.2 Technology Options

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

increase the efficiency of microwave ovens, DOE identified several possible technologies and 

examined the most common improvements used in today’s market. Because DOE only intends to 

address energy conservation standards for standby mode and off mode in this rulemaking, the 

following discusses only technology options associated with reducing standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption.

For microwave oven standby power, DOE investigated technology options for decreasing 

standby power. DOE identified lower-power display technologies, cooking sensors with no 

standby power requirement, improved power supplies, improved control boards, and automatic

power-down from research, literature review, and reverse-engineering conducted as part of the 

microwave oven analysis discussed in chapter 5 of this TSD.
3-28

Table 3.14.1 Technology Options for Microwave Oven – Standby Power

1. Lower-power display technologies

2. Cooking sensors with no standby power requirement

3. Improved power supply and control board options

4. Automatic power-down

Lower-power display technologies 

Microwave ovens are generally constructed using one of the following display types to 

show clock time and other parameters: (1) vacuum fluorescent display (VFD); (2) backlit and 

non-backlit liquid crystal display (LCD); and (3) light-emitting diode (LED) display. Within the 

32-unit sample that DOE examined as part of the supplemental microwave oven analysis,

microwave ovens equipped with VFDs consumed the most power on average, followed by units 

featuring backlit LCDs, LED displays and non-backlit LCDs. Data gathered by DOE show that 

standby power levels between 1.1 W and 1.4 W have been achieved in microwave ovens using 

either LED displays or LCDs, and standby power as low as 1.7 W has been achieved using a 

backlit LCD. The lowest standby power observed for a microwave oven with a VFD was 2.5 W. 

One display manufacturer stated to DOE that backlit LCDs can consume up to 50 percent less 

energy than VFDs in sizes applicable to microwave ovens, depending on the number of LED 

backlights used to light the display. The manufacturer also stated that power requirements for 

LED displays are generally lower than for VFDs, but the difference depends considerably on the 

number of diode segments being lit. 

The display format on each microwave oven can be characterized as either numeric,

alphanumeric, or dot matrix. Whereas numeric displays can only show time, alphanumeric 

displays can also display letters, though usually in simplified format. Dot matrix displays can 

show various fonts, letters, and symbols via matrices of pixels, making them the most flexible 

display technology. In the reverse-engineering analysis DOE conducted as part of chapter 5 of 

this TSD, DOE observed that LED displays found in microwave ovens generally contain four

numeric characters and a row of small words. LCDs and VFDs allow for more flexibility in the 

numbers and words being displayed by using alphanumeric characters without increasing the 

power requirements. LED displays could conceivably achieve this, but would require more diode 

segments, increasing the cost of the display. However, this would not affect standby power,

assuming that in standby mode only the clock time is being displayed. 

Cooking sensors with no standby power requirement

Cooking sensors detect that a desired cooking state of the food load has been reached and 

then signal the controller to shut off the microwave oven, thereby preventing excess energy 

consumption in addition to optimizing food quality. During product teardowns (see chapter 5 of 

this TSD), DOE found that the most common identifiable cooking sensors are absolute humidity 

sensors, which infer the cooking state of the food load from the amount of water vapor being 

released into the cavity. This sensor technology requires standby power in the range of 1–2 W to 
3-29

maintain a resistive heating element, whose conductivity changes in response to the presence of 

water vapor or other gases, at operating temperature. If the power to the sensor is switched off

and back on, warm-up times in excess of two minutes may be required. Standby testing by DOE 

and AHAM revealed no microwave ovens with cooking sensors that consume less than 2 W in 

standby mode. One Japanese microwave oven manufacturer stated during discussions with DOE

that they are unaware of any humidity sensors that do not require standby power to stay warm.

DOE has conducted research of cooking sensor technologies and has identified cooking 

sensors with zero standby power requirements and little to no warm-up time. During the reverseengineering analysis for microwave ovens (discussed in more detail in chapter 5 of this TSD),

DOE observed that microwave ovens from one manufacturer use a piezoelectric steam sensor 

which requires zero power in standby mode. This sensor technology functions by detecting a 

burst of steam created from moisture in the food as it cooks. Low frequency (approximately 10 

hertz) components of the output signal of the device correlate with the amount of hot steam 

emitted from the load. In addition to steam sensors, DOE has identified infrared and weight 

sensors with little to no warm-up time that do not consume standby power and that have been 

applied in microwave ovens currently on the Japanese market. Infrared cooking sensors detect 

the temperature of the load in the field of view of the sensing element. These sensors may require 

multiple elements or a motor to rotate the sensor in order to expand the field of view to 

accurately measure the temperature of the food load depending on where it is placed in the oven 

cavity. Weight sensors determine the cooking state based upon the reduction in weight of the 

food load, which results from moisture evaporating from the load. DOE has also identified 

relative humidity sensors as a type of zero-standby power sensor that can be applied in a 

microwave oven, but is unaware of any microwave ovens on the market that use this type of 

sensor. Lastly, DOE was made aware of an absolute humidity sensor that requires no standby 

power, has zero incremental cost above that of a conventional absolute humidity sensor, and is in 

the process of being phased into production for a major microwave oven supplier to the US 

market. 

Improved power supply and control board options

A potential area for standby power improvements is the power supplies on the control 

board. Multiple improvement paths with varying risk to manufacturers are available, including 

the selective upgrading of power supply components to boost efficiency, the reduction of peak 

power demand through the use of lower-power components, and the transition to switching 

power supplies.

Typically, microwave ovens incorporate unregulated plus regulated control board power 

supplies (also referred to as a linear power supply). The unregulated portion consists of a small 

transformer, a bridge rectifier, and an electrolytic capacitor. Voltage regulators then step down 

the voltage(s) to the level(s) required by the control logic, display, and cooking sensor. This 

approach results in a rugged power supply which is reliable, but typically has an efficiency of 

about 55 percent.
3-30

According to power supply topology experts that DOE consulted, the quality of the 

transformer core material, diode type, capacitor quality, and voltage regulator selection could cut 

no-load standby power for the power supply in half and boost conversion efficiency from 55 to 

70 percent. For a typical 5 W-output microwave-only unit power supply, that no-load power 

consumption improvement is approximately 0.4 W.

DOE also notes that switching from electromechanical relays (used to drive components 

such as heaters, motors, lights, etc.) to solid state relays capable of driving the same loads as the 

electromechanical relays would decrease the total power requirements of the control board and 

thus decrease the standby losses of the power supply. As a result the overall standby power 

consumption of the microwave oven would also decrease.

Switching power supplies offer the highest conversion efficiencies of up to 75 percent for 

switch mode power supply designs for appliance applications for power supply sizes similar to 

those of microwave ovensh and lowest no-load standby losses (0.2 W or less), though at a higher 

cost, higher part count, and greater complexity. DOE is unaware of any switching power supply 

designs for application in microwave ovens that can achieve efficiencies above 75 percent. 

Switching power supplies greater complexity may also result in lower overall reliability and take 

greater care to implement. For example, among other issues, a switching power supply can be 

prone to causing electromagnetic interference. DOE notes that there already are some premium 

microwave ovens on the U.S. market that incorporate switching power supplies. However, due to 

the incremental cost of such a power supply over a conventional linear power supply and the 

price competition in the microwave oven market, it is unlikely that switching power supplies will 

find wider application unless low standby power budgets force manufacturers to consider them.

Automatic power-down

Manufacturers could also meet very low (i.e., less than 1 W) standby power levels 

according to the definition of “standby mode” in the DOE test procedure by incorporating an 

automatic function that turns off most power-consuming components once a period of inactivity 

has elapsed. Such a low-consumption state could be user-selectable on demand, or could be the 

default condition in which the microwave oven is shipped such that the consumer would be 

required to opt in to maintaining the display, cooking sensor, or other utility feature during 

standby. DOE has determined that some microwave oven suppliers to the U.S. market have 

already taken such approaches to meet prescriptive standby power standards in other markets 

such as Japan. DOE understands that such a technology option may be implemented using a 

transformerless power supply for the microprocessor logic, along with a linear conventional 

power supply that is activated when the unit goes into active mode. Such a power supply design, 

incorporated with a “soft” power pushbutton or door limit switch and Triac to control power 

through the transformer, would provide just enough power through the transformerless power 

supply to maintain the microcontroller chip while the microwave oven is not powered on. When 

 

h Information on design and efficiencies of switch mode power supplies is available from Power Integrations: 

http://www.powerint.com/en/applications/major-appliances.
3-31

the power button is pressed or the oven door is opened, current would then be allowed to pass 

through the transformer of the conventional linear power supply to power the remainder of the 

control board.

3.14.3 Energy Efficiency

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

energy efficiency of microwave ovens currently available in the marketplace. These data were 

taken from databases maintained by a variety of regulatory agencies. While this section is not 

intended to provide a complete characterization of the energy efficiency of all appliances 

currently available and in use, it does provide an overview of the energy efficiency of microwave 

ovens covered by this rulemaking.

Microwave ovens consume energy in standby mode while powering the clock and 

electronic controls. AHAM recently provided data on microwave oven standby power for a 

sample of microwave ovens available in the U.S. market.

34 Figure 3.14.1 displays AHAMmeasured microwave oven standby power data as a function of rated cooking output power. 

Figure 3.14.1 also contains standby power measurements made by the Canadian Building Energy 

End-Use Data and Analysis Center (CBEEDAC) at the University of Alberta. The data show a 

wide range of standby power, but there is no correlation between standby power and rated

cooking output power. The data did not indicate the product type (i.e., microwave only, 

combination) or the installation configuration (i.e., countertop, over-the-range, built-in). 

Figure 3.14.1 AHAM and CBEEDAC Microwave Oven Standby Power versus Rated 

Output Power35,36

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Rated Output Power (W)

Standby Power Consumption (W)

AHAM Data CBEEDAC Data
3-32

FEMP publishes a database of microwave ovens, sorted by standby power, although this 

database is also not completely representative of microwave ovens available in the U.S. market. 

Figure 3.14.2 displays the number of microwave oven models available with different standby 

power levels as listed in the FEMP standby power database.

Figure 3.14.2 Microwave Oven Standby Power Consumption from the FEMP Database37

FEMP does not specify microwave oven rated cooking output power. Therefore, it is not 

possible to make a direct comparison between the FEMP microwave oven standby power data 

and the AHAM microwave oven test data. However, the distributions of standby power in the 

FEMP database and the AHAM data are similar. No residential microwave ovens consume less 

than 1 W of standby power, some microwave ovens consume less than 2 W of standby power, 

but the large majority of microwave ovens consume between 2.1 and 3 W of standby power.

0

26

56

33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 to 1 W 1.1 to 2 W 2.1 to 3 W 3.1 W or greater

Number of Models

Standby Power
3-33

REFERENCES

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

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

2 Ibid.

3 Maytag. 2005. “Whirlpool Corporation and Maytag Corporation Sign Definitive Merger 

Agreement.” Maytag Press Release, August 22, 2005.

4 P. Hussmann. 2006. “Justice to Extend Maytag-Whirlpool Merger Review.” Newton Daily 

News Online, February 14, 2006.

5 W. Ryberg. 2006. “Harkin, Boswell want Maytag sale blocked.” Des Moines Register, 

January 13, 2006.

6 Ibid.

7 U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ). 2006. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 

Statement on the Closing of its Investigation of Whirlpool’s Acquisition of Maytag, March 29, 

2006.

8 Ibid.

9 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Fact Book 2005.

10 AHAM Fact Book 2003.

11 Tiele, Simone. 2008. Australia’s Approach to Standby Power. Department of the 

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australia, April 2, 2008. Available online at: 

http://www.iea.org/work/2008/indiastandby/Tiele_DOEWHA.pdf. (Accessed May 2011)

12 Korea’s Energy Standards & Labeling–Market Transformation. Ministry of Knowledge 

Economy and Korea Energy Management Corporation. Available online at:

http://www.kemco.or.kr/new_eng/pg02/pg02100101.asp. (Accessed May 2011.)

13 Japan’s Top Runner Program. 2005. Final Report by Microwave Oven Evaluation Standard 

Subcommittee. Prepared by Japan’s Energy Efficiency Standards Subcommittee of the 

Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy. November 2005. Available online at 

http://www.eccj.or.jp/top_runner/pdf/tr_microwaveoven.pdf. (Accessed May 2011.)

14 Commission of the European Communities. 2008. Commission Regulation (EC) No 

1275/2008 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

with regard to ecodesign requirements for standby and off mode electric power consumption of 

electrical and electronic household and office equipment. December 17, 2008. Available 
3-34

 

online at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:339:0045:0052:en:PDF. (Accessed 

May 2011)

15 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. “Table Q1. New Privately Owned Housing Units Started in the 

United States by Purpose and Design.” New Residential Construction, February 2009.

16 Ibid.

17 Appliance Magazine, January 2010, and AHAM Fact Book 2005. Op. cit.

18 U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Survey of Manufacturers (ASM): Value of Product Shipments: 

Value of Shipments in Product Classes. 1994-2009, issued annually.

19 AHAM Fact Book 2003.

20 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Statistics.

21 AHAM. Import/Export Trade Report – December 2009. 2010.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 AHAM Fact Book 2005.

26 Ibid.

27 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. “Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries: 2009 and Earlier 

Years.” 2008 Annual Survey of Manufacturers (ASM), December 2009.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

33 U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Plant Capacity: 2006 to 1996.
3-35

 

34 AHAM. 2006. AHAM Test Data on Microwave Ovens. October 23, 2006. Docket Number 

EE-2006-STD-0127, Comment Number 17, November 30, 2006.

35 Ibid.

36 N. Fish, D. White, and D. Ryan. 2006. Standby Power Energy Use of Common Household 

Appliances. Canadian Building Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Center, University of 

Alberta, Canada, July 2006.

37 FEMP Microwave Standby Power Database. Available online at

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/standby_power.aspx. (Accessed May 2011.)