## APPENDIX 5A. AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 5A.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5A-1 5A.2 AHAM DISHWASHER DATA SUBMITTAL ..................................................... 5A-1 5A.2.1 AHAM Dishwasher Shipments and Incremental Cost Data................................... 5A-1 5A.2.2 AHAM Narrative on Dishwasher Standby Energy Consumption .......................... 5A-3 5A.3 AHAM DEHUMIDIFIER DATA SUBMITTAL .................................................. 5A-5 5A.4 AHAM COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WA SHER DATA SUBMITTAL ............... 5A-9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5A.2.1 AHAM Dishwasher Shipments, Market Share, and Incremental Cost Data Submittal ............................................................................................ 5A-2 Figure 5A.2.2 AHAM Dishwasher St andby Power Narrative ........................................... 5A-4 Figure 5A.3.1 AHAM Dehumidifier Shipments, Market Share, and Incremental Cost Data Submittal ............................................................................................ 5A-6 Figure 5A.4.1 AHAM CCW Ship ments, Av erage Energy and Water Use, and Incremental Cost Data Submittal ................................................................ 5A-9

5A-i

## APPENDIX 5A. AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL

5A.1 INTRODUCTION This appendix presents the shipments and incremental cost data submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by the Associatio n of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) in support of the engineering analysis for this rulemaking. Information was provided for residential dishwashers and dehumidifiers, and commercial cl othes washers (CCWs) in response to data request sheets generated by DOE and provi ded to AHAM. In addition, AHAM provided a narrative description of standby power consumption in dishwashers. See Chapter 5 of the technical support document (TSD) for details of the engineering analysis for which this data was used.

5A.2 AHAM DISHWASHER DATA SUBMITTAL AHAM supplied shipments and incremental cost data for standard-size dishwashers up to an efficiency level of 0.72 energy factor (EF). D ata were not provided at higher efficiency levels for standard dishwashers, nor at any efficiency level for compact dishwashers, due to disclosure concerns, since there are fewer than 3 manufacturers who produce such products.
5A.2.1 AHAM Dishwa sher Shipments and Incremental Cost Data Figure 5A.2.1 reproduces the tables of dish washer data submitted to DOE by AHAM. The first table, designated Table 1 in AHAM' s s ubmittal, specifies the efficiency levels and corresponding energy factors for which data was sought from AHAM's memb er manufacturers. These are the same efficiency levels that were used for the engineering analysis. AHAM Table 2 contains the annual shipments data for standard dishwashers along with the shipme nt-weighted average efficiency from 1995 to 2005. AHAM Table 3 lists the market share efficiency data for 2002 to 2005. AHAM Table 4 was reserved for further comment on dishwasher standby power. AHAM Tables 5, 6A, and 6B provide incremental manufacturing, one-time production, and conversion capital cost datafor efficiency levels up to and including an EF of 0.72.

5A-1

## Figure 5A.2.1 AHAM Dishwasher Shipments, Mark et Share, and Incremental Cost Data Submittal DOE DW Rulemaking Data Submittal Spreadsheet (Version 9/7/06) Table 1 Revised Exploratory Efficiency Levels for Standard Dishwasher Analysis Level Efficiency Level Source Efficiency Level (EF) S t andard baseline DOE Standard 0.46 1 ENERGY STAR (scaled for c o mpact) 0.58 2 2007 ENERGY STAR 0.65 3 Added based on s t akeholder suggestions 0.72 4 Gap Fill from E Star List 0.92 5 Max Available 1.11** ** Source: ENERGY STAR qualified dishwashers as of February 8, 2006. Note: E xploratory levels for compacts have been removed as AHAM will not be providing DOE with data on this category. 

### Table 2 Standard Dishwasher Shipment and Shipment-Weighted Average Efficiency Data Shipments, Domestic + Shipment-Weighted Year Imports Average Efficiency (# of Units) (EF) 1995 4,253,745 0.485 1996 4,316,828 0.476 1997 4,655,200 0.495 1998 5,073,023 0.508 1999 5,424,973 0.504 2000 5,833,686 0.503 2001 5,752,217 0.533 2002 5,906,348 0.553 2003 6,467,303 0.581 2004 6,867,551 0.598 2005 7,280,046 0.599
Table 3 Standard Dishwasher Market Share Efficiency Data Standard Market Share (pe rcent) 2002 2003 Eff i ciency Bins (EF) 2004 2005 0.46-0.49: Ba s eline = 0.46 40% 22% 9% 3% 0.50-0.53 9% 5% 2% 2% 0.54-0.57 0% 0% 0% 2% 0.58-0.59: E ST AR = 0.58 15% 19% 18% 43% 0.60 - 0.61 13% 16% 28% 17% 0.62 - 0.63 4% 23% 31% 22% 0.64 - 0.65 2007E. Star = 0.65 9% 6% 9% 8% 0.66 - 0.67 5% 5% 1% 0% 0.68 and above 5% 5% 2% 3% TOTAL: 100% 100% 100% 100% Note: market max = 1.11



### Table 4 - Standby Power & Water Usage AHAM will be providing this information request in narrative form.



### 5A-2Table 5 Shipment-Weighted Standard Dishwasher Manufacturer Cost Data Exploratory EF Levels - Standard Dishwashers 0.58 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.72 Minimum Incremen tal Costs ($ Per Unit)* - S hipment-Weighted Minimum $3.22 $4.52 $5.39 $17.11 $34.05 Average Incremen t ipment-Weighted Average $4.01 $7.38 $14.00 al Co sts ($ Per Unit)* - Sh $30.35 $71.38 Maximum Increme ntal Costs ($ Per Unit)* - S hipment-Weighted Maximum $4.92 $8.43 $14.50 $37.64 $91.74
Table 6A Total Industry Average One-Time Production Conversion Expenses for R&D and Marketing ($, millions)

EF 0.58 0.72

l $5.73 $29.23
l $3.29 $13.99 Product Class 0.62 0.65 0.68
Industry tota : R&D $1.43 $4.43 $18.53 Industry tota : Marketing $0.99 $1.99 $7.49 Exploratory EF Levels - Standard Dishwashers Average One-Time Product Conversion Ex penses ($, Millions) - Industry Total

Table 6B Total Industry Average Conversion Capital Expenditure ($, Millions)

EF 0.58 0.72

l $16.85 $19.95 $98.45

7,302 i Product Class 0.62 0.65 0.68
Industry total: Building Industry tota : Tooling/Equipment $23.25 $44.85

Total Shipments 3,452 7,302 7,302 7,302 Exploratory EF Levels - Standard Dishwashers Average One-Time Product Conversion Ex penses ($, Millions) - Industry Total Insuff cient Data Submitted

Total Shipments - in thousands

Note: Shipment-weighted tooling equipment depreciation lifetime: 5 years



## 5A.2.2 AHAM Narrative on Dishwasher Standby Energy Consumption AHAM separately provided a narrative on di shwasher standby power, which represented the consensus opinion of manufacturers that produce approximately 90% of standard dishwashers sold in the U.S. Figure 5A.2.2 is a reproduction of the standby power submittal document.

5A-3

## Figure 5A.2.2 AHAM Dishwasher Standby Power Narrative

October 3, 2006
Mr. Michael Rivest Managing Director Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1801 K Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20006- 1301
RE: Supplemental Information for Efficiency Standards Rulemakings: Position Statement on Dishwasher Stan db y Power 

## The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturer s (AHAM), as the trade association representing manufacturers of dishwashers, offers the following position statement regarding standby power use in dishwashers to assist Navigant Consulting, Inc.’s co ntract work for the DOE on the standard rulemaking for dishwashers. This information supplements the dishwasher data AHAM submitted to the DOE on September 9, 2006. The position stated represents the consensus of producers of approximately 90% of the standard dishwashers sold in the U.S. Standby Power - Dishwashers AHAM’ s position is that if standby power is incorporatedin the standard, it should be included as part of a maximum total annual energy usagerather than by establishing a prescriptive standby power level. Standby power is important in improving overall efficiencyof dishwashers. Typically, standard dishwashers with an EF of less than 0.50 are non-electronic models that use no standby power, but also have no energy-saving features or capabilities. Higher efficiency models with electronic controls, such as those that meet Energy Star requirements, have energy-saving capabilities such as soil sensor technology that can shorten the cycle if the dishes are clean, or delay start to reduce peak energy. While these units may use more standby power, the overall benefits for these units are better since they can reduce annual energy usage or shave peak load. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information. Please feel free to co ntact me with any questions that you might have. Sincerely,

Lawrence R. Wethje, P.E. Vice Pre s ident, Technical Services AHAM 5A-4

## 5A.3 AHAM DEHUMIDIFIER DATA SUBMITTAL AHAM submitted to DOE shipments, market share and incremental cost data repres enting the aggregate input from the producers of over 95% of the dehumidifiers sold in the U.S. with capacities less than 75 pints/day. AHAM did not provide any data on units with capacities greater than 75 pints/day. In addition, AHAM did not provi de any market share information for capacities other than 35.01 pint s/day - 45.00 pints/day or 54.01 pints/day - 74.99 pints/day, nor did it provide manufacturer cost data for 35.01 - 45.00 pints/day at the highest efficiency level (EF = 1.74), due to confidentiality concerns. Figure 5A.3.1 reproduces the tables of dehu midifier data submitted to DOE by AHAM. The first table, designated Table 1 in AHAM' s s ubmittal, specifies the efficiency levels and corresponding energy factors for each capacityfor which data was sought from AHAM's member manufacturers. These are the same efficiency levels that were used for the engineering analysis. AHAM Table 2 contains the annual shipment s data for dehumidifiers along with the shipme nt-weighted average efficiency from 2003 to 2005. AHAM Tables 3A, 3B, and 3C list market share efficiency data from 2003 to2005 for 35.01 pints/day - 45.00 pints/day and 54.01 pints/day - 74.99 pints/day. As mentioned previously, no data for other capacities was provided due to the limited number of manufacturers producing these product classes. AHAM Table 4 provides incremental manuf acturing and one-time production conversion costs. In this table, AHAM combined datafor 0 - 25.00 pints/day and 25.01 - 35.00 pints/day into a single product class of 0 - 35.00 pints/day for confidentiality purposes. AHAM Table 5 lists the depreciation assumptions used for the data in AHAM Table 4. AHAM noted that the cost information in their Tables 4 and 5 did not take into consideration that the regulation of the R-22 refrigerant currently used in dehumidifi ers may be revised by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, possibly beginning in the ye ar 2010. A ban at or about 2010 would require AHAM to submit adjusted cost information to account for the costs to use alternative refrigerants.

5A-5

## Figure 5A.3.1 AHAM Dehumidifier Shipments, Mark et Share, and Incremental Cost Data Submittal Table 1 Revised Explorator y

Efficiency Levels for Dehumidifier Anal ysis Efficiency Levels (liters/kWh) Efficiency Level Level Source 25.01-35.00 35.01–45.00 54.01-74.99 pints/day pints/day pints/day baseline DOE Standard (effective 2007) 1.20 1.30 1.50 Between DOE and 1 Default 2012 1.25 1.35 1.55 Standard Default 2012 Standard (EPACT 2 1.30 1.40 1.60 2005) Revised based on stakeholder 3 1.35 1.45 1.65 suggestions Added based on stakeholder 4 1.40 1.50 1.70 suggestions 5 Max Available* 1.45 1.74 1.80 * Source: ENERGY STAR qualified dehumidifiers as of April 27, 2006. 

### Table 2 Dehumidifier Shipment and Shipment-Wei g hted Avera g e Efficiency Data

≤25.00 25.01- 35.00 35.01- 45.00 45.01- 54.00 54.01- 74.99 ≥ 75.00 ≤25.00 25.01- 35.00 35.01- 45.00 45.01- 54.00 54.01- 74.99 ≥ 75.00 Year Shipments, Domestic + Imports Shipment-Weighted Average Efficiency (Thousands of Units) ( liters/kWh)

2003 178 282 307 289 255 1.25 1.26 1.35 1.48 1.56 2004 169 389 395 343 376 1.27 1.27 1.38 1.56 1.56 2005 127 509 455 406 460 1.28 1.26 1.42 1.57 1.57 

### Table 3A Dehumidifier Market Share Efficiency Data, ≤ 25.00 and 25.01–35.00 pints/day Product Classes

2003 2004 2005

≤25.00 pints/da y Efficiency Bins Market Share ( percent ) 2003 2004 2005 25.01–35.00 pints/da y Efficiency Bins Market Share ( percent )

< 1.00 < 1.20 1.00-1.09: Ba se line = 1.00 1.20-1.24: Ba seline = 1.20 1.10-1.19: Mi d P oint = 1.10 1.25-1.29: Mid Point= 1.25 1.20-1.24: EP AC T 2005=1.20 1.30-1.34: EPAC T 2005=1.30 1.25-1.29: Sugg est ed =1.25 1.35-1.39: Sugges ted =1.35 1.30-1.37: Sugg est ed = 1.30 1.40-1.44: Sugges ted = 1.40 > 1.37: Max Availabl e = 1.38 > 1.44: Max Available = 1. 45 

## Insufficient Data

5A-6

### Table 3B Dehumidifier Market Share Efficiency Da ta, 35.01–45.00 and 45.01–54.00 pints/day Product Classes

2003 2004 2005 Efficiency Bins Market Share ( percent ) 35.01-45.00 pints/day
2003 2004 2005 Efficiency Bins Market Share ( percent ) 45.01-54.00 pints/day

< 1.30 < 1.40 1.30-1.34: Ba se line = 1.30 70 54 27 1.40-1.44: Baseline = 1.40 1.35-1.39: Mi d P oint = 1.35 35 1.45-1.49: Mid Point = 1.45 1.40-1.44: EP AC T 2005=1.40 4 1.50-1.54: EPACT 2005=1.50 1.45-1.49: Sugg est ed =1.45 26 38 1.55-1.59: Suggested = 1.55 1.50-1.59: Sugg est ed = 1.50 83 8 1.60-1.69: Suggested = 1.60 > 1.59: Max Availab l e = 1.74 > 1.69: Max Available = 2. 02 

## Insufficient Data Table 3C Dehumidifier Market Share Efficiency Data, 54.01–74.99 and ≥75.00 pints/day Product Classes

2003 2004 2005 Efficiency Bins Market Share ( percent ) 54.01-74.99 pints/day
2003 2004 2005 Efficiency Bins ≥ 75.00 pints/day Market Share ( percent )

< 1.50 3 < 2.25 1.50-1.54: Ba se line = 1.50 93 1 2.25-2.34: Baseline = 2.25 1.55-1.59: Mi d P oint = 1.55 75 2.35-2.44: Mid Point = 2.38 1.60-1.64: EP AC T 2005=1.60 76 57 2.45-2.50: EPACT 2005=2.50 1.65-1.69: Sugg est ed =1.65 22 15 12 2.51-2.55: Suggested =2.55 1.70-1.79: Sugg est ed = 1.70 2.56-2.65: Sugges ted = 2.60 > 1.79: Max Availab l e = 1.80 > 2.65: Max Available = 2. 75



### 5A-7

## Table 4 Dehumidifier Manufacturer Cost Data

ici 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 EF 1.50 1.55 1.65
l N/A 8

l 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 9

l 7 N/A

N/A 6 N/A 0.2 

## ( $ Per Unit ) * (

( $ Per Unit ) * (

) / /



## ( $ Per Unit ) ( ) Product Class Eff ency Level 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.74 1.60 1.70 1.80 Tota Incremental Costs 3.12 4.92 10.41 18.8 25.61 6.11 14.47 22.68 32.84 4.18 12.36 23.18 33.94

Tota Incremental Costs 8.03 15.2 21.9 22.5 29

Tota Incremental Costs 10 20 29.54 34.79 10 35.38 46.36 65.34 13 16 19 63 87

R&D 0.05 0.15 2.25 4.75 7.15 1.7 3.43 3.6 4.6 0.1 0.23 0.4 6.9 11.8 Marketing 0.1 0.15 1.7 4.75 0.6 2.65 2.7 3.75 0.1 0.15 6.35 11 

## MINIMUM Incremental Costs LOWEST INDIVIDUAL MFR.

MAXIMUM Incremental Costs HIGHEST INDIVIDUAL MFR.

One-Time Product Conversion Expenses ($, Millions) (TOTAL FOR ALL MFRS. 0 - 35.00 pints day 35.01–45.00 pints/day 54.01-74.99 pints day



## AVERAGE Incremental Costs SHIPMENT WEIGHTED

* Incremental costs per unit should be reported relative to the baseline unit’s cost. The baseline unit complies with the federal standard for residential dehumidifiers (effective 2007) and is equal to 1.20 liters/kWh for 25.01- 35.00pints/day, 1.30 liters/kWh for 35.01-45.00 pints/day, and 1.50 liters/kWh for 54.01-74.99 pints/day. NOTE: The first category, 0 - 35 pints/day, is sh ipment weighted based on all shipments below 35 pin ts/day because some mfrs. did not have shipments between 25 - 35 pints/day. 

## Table 5 Dehumidifier Depreciation Assumption s Used to Calculate Per Unit Incremental Depreciation in Table 4 Product Class 25.01-35.00 pints/day 35.01–45.00 pints/day 54.01-74.99 pints/day Efficiency Level 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 EF 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 N/A 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.80 Conversion Capital Expenditure Assumption ($, Millions) (TOTAL FOR ALL MFRS.) Building 0.03 5.05 5.1 5.15 5.2 0.03 0.05 0.1 5.15 N/A 0.03 0.05 0.1 6.15 6.2 Tooling/ Equ i pment 0.3 1.85 3.9 6.95 9 2.45 4.5 4.55 8.65 N/A 0.65 0.7 0.75 8.1 12 Units Shipped (TOTAL FOR ALL MFRS IN THOUSANDS.) 525 625 745 745 745 548 548 548 648 N/A 450 450 450 612 612 Depreciation Lifetimes (years) Building 10 10 10 Tooling/ Equ i pment 3 3 3



### 5A-8

## 5A.4 AHAM COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER DATA SUBMITTAL AHAM supplied shipments, average energy and water use, and incremental cost data to DOE, representing the aggregated inputs from manufacturers which produce the significant ma jority of CCWs. Figure 5A.4.1 reproduces the tables of CCW data submitted to DOE by AHAM. The first table, designated Part I in AHAM's submittal, contains the annual shipments data along with the shipment-weighted average modified energy factor (MEF) and water factor (WF) from 2002 to 2005. Part II provides average energy and water us e for a baseline CCW w ith an MEF of 1.26. Part III contains shipment-w eighted incremental costs for two efficiency levels: MEF=1.42/WF=9.5 and MEF=2.0/WF=5.5. Data was not provided at other effi ciency levels due to confidentiality concerns. Figure 5A.4.1 AHAM CCW Shipments, AverageEnergy and Water Use, and Incremental Cost Data Submittal 

## Commercial Clothes Washers (CCW) Part I: Annual Shipments & Shipment-Weighted MEF and WF - Vertical and Horizontal Axis Combined

YEAR TOTAL SHIPM E NTS MEF WF 2002 175,187 1.30 11.77 2003 190,720 1.33 11.42 2004 178,382 1.33 11.33 2005 177,394 1.41 10.91
Part II: Average Energy and Water Use for Vertical Axis CCW with MEF of 1.26

MEF TYPE Average W F A verage cu.f t Average Hot W ater kWh/cycle Average Ma chine kWh/cycle Average Dr

y er kWh/cycle Average Standb y W Average Water use gallons/cycle 1.26 V 11.1 3.1 0.87 0.18 1.38 * 34.3

* insufficient data reported Part III: Aggregated Shipment-Weighted Incremental Cost to go from current 1 .26 MEF standard to levels indicated below

MEF: 1.42 1.6 1.72 1.8 2 2.2 Water Factor: 9.5 8.5 8 7.5 5.5 5.1 Shipment-Weighted

Incre m ental Cost: $74.63 * * * $316.35 *

* insufficient data reported 

### 5A-9