# ENGINEERING ANALYSIS DATA REQUEST SHEETS FOR RESIDENTIAL

CLOTHES DRYERS

# Table A1-1 Residential Clothes Dryer Shipment and Shipment-Weighted Average

Efficiency Data

Year Shipments, Domestic + Imports

(Thousands of Units) Shipment-Weighted Average Efficiency

(EF)

Vented Vent-less Vented

Electric

Gas Electric Electric

Gas All

Electric Standard All

Compact Compact

240v Combo Standard Compact

120v Compact

240v

1993 3,674 1,156

1994 3,838 1,239

1995 3,823 1,169

1996 3,947 1,193

1997 4,115 1,195

1998 4,482 1,307

1999 4,865 1,444

2000 5,095 1,480

2001 5,117 1,384

2002 5,402 1,490

2003 5,718 5,622 96 1,616

2004 6,262 6,159 103 1,660

2005 6,408 6,330 78 1,707 3.10 2.70

2006 6,360 6,246 114 1,614 3.10 2.70



# Comments to Table A1-1

1. Shipments are from AHAM Fact Book. AHAM only collects shipment data on Standard

Electric and Standard Gas vented residential clothes dryers. These are shown as All

Electric and Gas.

2. Members provided information on compact shipments, but this is a small market and

aggregated data for both compact classes is not available. Therefore, compact shipments

include shipments of both 120V and 240V vented residential dryers after 2003. These

values are slightly different than those provided in August 2008, as I had not incorporated

both classes into the total.

3. The Standard column shows the difference between the aggregated member-supplied

compact shipments (120 and 240V) and the All Electric published in the AHAM Fact

Book. The source of and breakdown of the shipment information is slightly different, but

we believe it is consistent.

4. Aggregated shipment weighted average efficiencies are only available for 2005 and 2006

for Standard Electric and Gas dryers. We did not receive enough input to provide data

for years earlier than 2005 or for compact vented units.

# Table A1-2 Residential Clothes Dryer Market Share Efficiency Data: Vented Electric

Standard and Compact 120v

Vented Electric Standard Vented Electric Standard

Efficiency Bins Market Share for 2005* Efficiency Bins Market Share for 2006*

(EF) (Percent) (EF) (Percent)

3.01-3.09 26 3.01-3.09 33

3.10-3.29 74 3.10-3.29 67

3.20-3.29 3.20-3.29

> 3.29 > 3.29

* Total market share percentages should equal 100%.



# Comments for Table A1-2

1. To maintain confidentiality, market share between EF of 3.20 and 3.29 have been

incorporated into the EF range between 3.10 and 3.19.

2. We were not able to obtain sufficient data for Vented compact 120V.

3. We have provided data for both 2005 and 2006.

4. Values have not changed from original submission.

Table A1-3 Residential Clothes Dryer Market Share Efficiency Data: Vented Electric

Compact 240v and Gas

Vented Gas Vented Gas

Efficiency Bins Market Share for 2005* Efficiency Bins Market Share for 2006*

(EF) (Percent) (EF) (Percent)

2.67-2.74 25 2.67-2.74 28

2.75-2.84 42 2.75-2.84 44

> 2.85 32 2.85-2.94 27

> 2.94 > 2.94

* Total market share percentages should equal 100%.



# Comments for Table A1-3

1. To maintain confidentiality, market share for EF > 2.94 have been incorporated into EF >

2.85.

2. We were not able to obtain sufficient data for vented compact 240V.

3. We have provided data for both 2005 and 2006.

4. Values have not changed from original submission.Table A1-4 Residential Clothes Dryer Manufacturer Cost Data: Vented Electric Standard and Electric Compact 120VProduct ClassVented Electric StandardVented Electric Compact 120VEfficiency Level1 2 3 1 2 3EF (lb/KWh)3.103.163.39++++3.79Design Options+Average Incremental Costs ($ Per Unit)*Material 9 42 140Labor 2 11 45Overhead# 2 4 12Minimum Incremental Costs ($ Per Unit)*MaterialLaborOverhead#Maximum Incremental Costs($ Per Unit)*MaterialLaborOverhead#Conversion Capital Expenditures ($, Millions)Building CAPX0.259.0250.18Tooling/ EquipmentCAPX5.25 37.68 118.93One-Time Product Conversion Expenses ($, Millions)R&D 3.62 15.87 58.97Marketing+Manufacturer respondents should suggest the design option or design option combinations that they believe should be associatedwith each efficiency level.++ DOE was unable to obtain data for any clothes dryers with efficiencies between the standard level of EF = 3.13 and the max available level of EF = 3.79. Therefore, manufacturer respondents shouldsuggest representative intermediate efficiency levels.# Depreciation on the conversion capital expenditure should NOTbe included in the incremental overhead.*Incremental costs per unit should be reported relative to the baselineunit’s cost. The baseline unit complies with the current Federal standard for residential clothes dryers.Comments on Table A1-41. Shaded cells indicate that AHAM did not receive enough input to aggregate incremental cost data. No data are available forvented electric compact 120 V, minimum/maximum incremental costs or marketing expenses.2. Values are shipment weighted.3. AHAM members provided the incremental cost to obtain the requested EF. To determine these costs, design options wouldhave been considered, but these were not shared with AHAM. AHAM recommends that DOE talk to manufacturersindividually to further understand the design options available for reaching these efficiency targets.1. Table A1-5 Residential Clothes Dryer Manufacturer Cost Data: Vented Electric Compact 240V and GasProduct ClassVented Electric Compact 240 VVented GasEfficiency Level1 2 3 1 2 3EF (lb/KWh)2.983.073.232.752.773.02Design Options+Average Incremental Costs ($ Per Unit)*Material20 60 81Labor2 632Overhead#2 412Minimum Incremental Costs ($ Per Unit)*MaterialLaborOverhead#Maximum Incremental Costs($ Per Unit)*MaterialLaborOverhead#Conversion Capital Expenditures ($, Millions)Building CAPX0.4629.83Tooling/ EquipmentCAPX2.6237.2416.15One-Time Product Conversion Expenses ($, Millions)R&D2.9915.4612.91Marketing+Manufacturer respondents should suggest the design option or design option combinations that they believe should be associatedwith each efficiency level.# Depreciation on the conversion capital expenditure should NOTbe included in the incremental overhead.*Incremental costs per unit should be reported relative to the baselineunit’s cost. The baseline unit complies with the current federal standard for residential clothes dryers.Other Information:1. What depreciation method would your company use to depreciate the conversion capital expenditures? _______________________________________________.Direct material– Costs of raw materials including scrap that can be traced tofinal or end products. Directmaterial costs do not include indirect material costs which are attributed to supplies that maybe used in the production process but are not assigned to final products (e.g., lubricating oil for production machinery).Direct labor– The earnings of workers who assemble parts into afinished good for operate machines inthe production process. Direct labor includes the fringe benefits of direct laborers such as grouphealth care, as well as overtime pay. Direct labor doesnot include indirect labor which is defined as the earnings of employees who do not work directly in assembling a product, such as supervisors,janitors, stockroom personnel, inspectors, and forklift operators.Overhead– Factory overhead excluding depreciation.Factory overhead includes indirect labor, downtime, set-up costs, indirect material, expendable tools, maintenance,property taxes, insurance onassets, and utility costs. Factory overhead does not include selling, general, and administrative costs (SG&A); research and development (R&D); interest; or profit (accounted for by DOE separately).Full Production Cost= Direct Material + Direct Labor + Overhead (factory) + DepreciationFull Cost of Product= Full Production Cost + Non-production Costs (SG&A, R&D, interest, and profit)Comments on Table A1-51. Shaded cells indicate that AHAM did not receive enough input to aggregate incremental cost data. No data are available forvented electric compact 240 V, minimum/maximum incremental costs, marketing expenses or Building CAPX for EF 30.2vented gas.2. Values are shipment weighted.3. AHAM members provided the incremental cost to obtain the requested EF. To determine these costs, design options wouldhave been considered, but these were not shared with AHAM. AHAM recommends that DOE talk manufacturers individuallyto further understand the design options available for reaching these efficiency targets.4. One respondent stated that design options were not available to reach an EF of 3.02 on vented gas dryers; therefore, noincremental cost data were provided. Values shown are calculated without this respondent – but weighted basis is different.5. While all members use straight-line depreciation, AHAM was not able to obtain a consistent response on the years used in thecalculation.

# ENGINEERING ANALYSIS DATA REQUEST SHEETS FOR

ROOM AIR CONDITIONERSTable A2-1 Room Air Conditioner Market Share Product Class Data (percent)*YearWithout Reverse Cycle (RC) andWith Louvered Sides (LS)Without Reverse Cycle (RC) andWithout Louvered Sides (LS)With RC andWith LSWith RC andWithout LSCasement<6k6-8k8-14k14-20k>20k<6k6-8k8-14k14-20k>20k<20k>20k<14k>14kOnlySlider20012002200320042005 37 19 30 3 270.7 0.1 0.4 0.42006 23 19 34 5.5 3.9121.0 0.6 0.62007 32 16 36 6 2.67**   **  0.4* Total market share percentages for each year should equal 100%.Table A2-2 Room Air Conditioner Shipment-Weighted Efficiency Data (EER)YearWithout Reverse Cycle (RC) andWith Louvered Sides (LS)Without Reverse Cycle (RC) andWithout Louvered Sides (LS)With RC andWith LSWith RC andWithout LSCasement<6k6-8k8-14k14-20k>20k<6k6-8k8-14k14-20k>20k<20k>20k<14k>14kOnlySlider20012002200320042005 9.5 10.2 10.3 10.3 9.0 ** 9.5 ** 10.6 ** 9.6   9.92006 9.8 10.4 10.4 10.5 9.2 **  9.5 ** 10.5 ** 9.6   ** 2007 9.8 9.9 10.1 10.3 9.1 ** 9.4 9.0   **  ** ** 9.5Table A2-3 Room Air Conditioner Market Share Efficiency Data: Without Reverse Cycle and With Louvered SidesLess than 6,000 Btu/h6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h20,000 Btu/h and moreEfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)9.7-10.0949.7-10.5799.8-10.5769.7-10.0428.5-8.93710.1-10.5010.1-10.529.0-9.45210.6-11.06>10.621> 10.62410.6-11.0569.5-9.911> 11.00> 11.00> 9.90* Total market share percentage should equal 100%.Table A2-4 Room Air Conditioner Market Share Efficiency Data: Without Reverse Cycle and Without Louvered SidesLess than 6,000 Btu/h6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h20,000 Btu/h and moreEfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)9.0-9.4**9.0-9.4**8.5-9.4398.5-9.41008.5-8.9**9.5-9.9**9.5-9.9**9.0-9.4**10.0-10.4**10.0-10.4**> 9.5619.5-9.909.5-9.9**> 10.4**> 10.4**> 9.9010.0-10.4**>10.4*** Total market share percentage should equal 100%.Table A2-5 Room Air Conditioner Market Share Efficiency Data: With Reverse CycleWith Louvered Sides,Less than 20,000 Btu/hWith Louvered Sides,20,000 Btu/h and moreWithout Louvered Sides,Less than 14,000 Btu/hWithout Louvered Sides,14,000 Btu/h and moreEfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)9.0-9.4**8.5-8.9**8.5-8.9**8.0-8.4**9.5-9.9**9.0-9.4**9.0-9.4**8.5-8.9**10.0-10.4**9.5-9.9**9.5-9.9**9.0-9.4**10.5-10.9**> 9.9**> 9.9**9.5-9.9**> 10.9**>9.9*** Total market share percentage should equal 100%.Table A2-6 Room Air Conditioner Market Share Efficiency Data: Casement UnitsCasement-OnlyCasement-SliderEfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*EfficiencyBinsMarket Share for2007*(EER)(percent)(EER)(percent)8.7-9.0**9.5-9.91009.1-9.5**10.0-10.409.6-10.0**10.5-10.90> 10.0**> 10.90* Total market share percentage should equal 100%.Comments on Table A2-11. Shipment data by product class is not available prior to 2005. Only overall shipments of room air conditioners are available.2. Shipments for units without reverse cycle and without louvered sides were combined, as there were not sufficient data for eachcapacity range to maintain confidentiality.3. Shipments for units with RC and without LS are combined, as are shipments for units with RC and with LS in 2006, as therewere not sufficient data for each capacity range to report and value and maintain confidentiality.4. No data can be provided for with RC and with/without LS in 2007.Comments on Table A2-21. As noted above, shipment data by product class is not available prior to 2005; therefore, no shipment-weighted EERinformation can be provided for these years.2. A double asterisk (**) indicates that AHAM cannot provide data for these capacity ranges and or product classes since thereare not enough data.Comments on Tables A2-3 through A2-51. In several cases, efficiency bins were combined to provide as much information as possible, while maintaining confidentiality.2. When efficiency bins could not be combined, no data are provided. This is indicated by a double asterisk (**).Comments on Tables A2-7 and A2-8:AHAM was not able to obtain sufficient incremental cost data from members for aggregation. In addition, many of our memberspurchase and sell their brands through OEMs, and do not have access to this type of cost information.Table A2-7 Room Air Conditioner Manufacturer Cost DataProduct ClassWithout Reverse Cycle and withLouvered Sides, less than 6,000 Btu/hWithout Reverse Cycle and With Louvered Sides,8000 - 13,999 Btu/hEfficiency Level1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4EER10.210.711.211.610.310.811.311.8Average Incremental Costs ($ Per Unit)*MaterialLaborOverhead#Minimum Incremental Costs ($ Per Unit)*MaterialLaborOverhead#Maximum Incremental Costs($ Per Unit)*MaterialLaborOverhead#Conversion Capital Expenditures ($, Millions)Building CAPXTooling/ EquipmentCAPXOne-Time Product Conversion Expenses ($, Millions)R&DMarketing# Depreciation on the conversion capital expenditure should NOT be included in the incremental overhead.*Incremental costs per unit should be reported relative to the baseline unit’s cost. The baseline unit complies with the federal standard for room air conditioners and is equal to anEER of 9.7 Btu/h/W for a unit without reverse cycle and with louvered sides and with a capacity of less than 6,000 Btu/h, an EER of 9.8 Btu/h/W for a unit without reverse cycleand with louvered sides and with a capacity of 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h, and an EER of 8.5 Btu/h/W for a unit without reverse cycle and with louvered sides and with a capacity of20,000 Btu/h an more.Table A2-8 Room Air Conditioner Manufacturer Cost Data, continuedProduct ClassWithout Reverse Cycle and withLouvered Sides, 20,000 Btu/h and moreWithout Reverse Cycle and Without LouveredSides, 8000 - 13,999 Btu/hEfficiency Level1 2 3 1 2 3 4EER9.09.510.09.09.510.010.5Average Incremental Costs ($ Per Unit)*MaterialLaborOverhead#Minimum Incremental Costs ($ Per Unit)*MaterialLaborOverhead#Maximum Incremental Costs($ Per Unit)*MaterialLaborOverhead#Conversion Capital Expenditures ($, Millions)Building CAPXTooling/ EquipmentCAPXOne-Time Product Conversion Expenses ($, Millions)R&DMarketingOther Information:1. What depreciation method would your company use to depreciate the conversion capital expenditures? _______________________________________________.Direct material– Costs of raw materials including scrap that can be traced tofinal or end products. Directmaterial costs do not include indirect material costs which are attributed to supplies that maybe used in the production process but are not assigned to final products (e.g., lubricating oil for production machinery).Direct labor– The earnings of workers who assemble parts into afinished good for operate machines inthe production process. Direct labor includes the fringe benefits of direct laborers such as grouphealth care, as well as overtime pay. Direct labor doesnot include indirect labor which is defined as the earnings of employees who do not work directly in assembling a product, such as supervisors,janitors, stockroom personnel, inspectors, and forklift operators.Overhead– Factory overhead excluding depreciation.Factory overhead includes indirect labor, downtime, set-up costs, indirect material, expendable tools, maintenance,property taxes, insurance onassets, and utility costs. Factory overhead does not include selling, general, and administrative costs (SG&A); research and development (R&D); interest; or profit (accounted for by DOE separately).Full Production Cost= Direct Material + Direct Labor + Overhead (factory) + DepreciationFull Cost of Product= Full Production Cost + Non-production Costs (SG&A, R&D, interest, and profit)Table A2-9: Portable Air-Conditioner Shipment DataYearTotal SalesPercent of Sales by Different CondenserAir Duct ConfigurationsPercent of Sales withCondensate Reevaporation CapabilitySingle DuctTwo-DuctOther20002001200220032004200520062007Table A2-10: Portable Air-Conditioner Capacity DataCapacity Range (Btu/hr)Percent of Sales for a RecentYear (2006 or 2007)Less than 6,0006,000 to 7,9998,000 to 13,99914,000 to 19,99920,000 or moreComments on Table A2-91. While AHAM collected data on Portable Air Conditioner shipments, wedo not feel our information is representative of actualshipments. We are currently assuming that PAC shipments are roughly 10% of RAC shipments. Shipment values receivedwere substantially lower than this estimate. We will begin collecting PAC shipment data in 2009.Comments on Table A2-101. AHAM does not feel it is appropriate to provide capacity values for Portable Air Conditioners at this time. There is notcurrently a standard that measures “true” PAC capacity – as the procedures currently being used for testing are not designedfor small, residential units. AHAM has developed a Portable Air Conditioner standard (AHAM PAC-1), which is in its finalstages of approval. In January 2009, AHAM will commence a PAC certification program, in which capacities will be reportedand verified for both single and dual ducted units. These data will be available on a public website.