EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 1

ES.2 SUMMARY OF RULEMAKIN G PROCESS

................................ ................................ ..... 1

ES.3 PRELIMINARY ACTIVITI ES

................................ ................................ ........................... 1

ES.4 KEY ANALYSES AND RES ULTS

................................ ................................ ................... 2

ES.4.1 Market and Technology Assessment

................................ ................................ ................... 2

ES.4.2 Screening Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3

ES.4.3 Engineering Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3

ES.4.3.1 Product Classes Analyzed

................................ ................................ ................. 4

ES.4.3.2 Efficiency Levels Defined

................................ ................................ ................ 4

ES.4.3.3 Manufacturer Costs and Selling Prices

................................ ............................. 5

ES.4.4 Markups to Determine Product Price

................................ ................................ ................... 6

ES.4.5 Energy and Water Use Characterization

................................ ................................ .............. 7

ES.4.6 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

................................ ................................ .. 11

ES.4.7 Shipments Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 16

ES.4.8 National Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17

ES.4.8.1 Efficiency Trend

................................ ................................ ............................. 17

ES.4.8.2 National Energy Savings

................................ ................................ ................. 21

ES.4.8.3 Net Present Value

................................ ................................ ........................... 22

ES.4.9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ ....... 23

ES.5 ISSUES ON WHICH THE DEPARTMENT SEEKS PUB LIC COMMENT

.................. 24

ES.5.1 Portable Dehumidifier Product Classes

................................ ................................ ............. 24

ES.5.2 Design Options Not Measurable by the Current Dehumidifier Test Procedure

................ 24

ES.5.3 Energy Use Determination for Portable Dehumidifiers

................................ ..................... 24

ES.5.4 Commercial Use of Residential Portable Dehumidifiers

................................ ................... 25

ES

- iLIST OF TABLES
Table ES.4.1 Portable Dehumidifier Efficiency Levels at 80 ° F

................................ .................... 5
Table ES.4.2 Portable Dehumidifier Efficiency Levels at 65 ° F

................................ .................... 5

Table ES.4.3 Whole

- Home Dehumidif ier Efficiency Levels at 80 ° F and 65 ° F

............................ 5 Table ES.4.4 Incremental Dehumidifier Manufacturing Costs

................................ ....................... 6 Table ES.4.1 Markups for Determining Dehumidifier Product Price

................................ ............. 7

Table ES.4.2 Portable Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9

Table ES.4.3 Portable Dehumidifiers 20.01

– 30.00 Pints/Day: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9

Table ES.4.4 Portable Dehumidifiers 30.01

– 35.00 Pints/Day: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 10

Table ES.4.5 Portable Dehumidifiers 35.01

– 45.00 Pints/Day: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 10

Table ES.4.6 Portable Dehumidifiers >45 Pints/Day: Annual E nergy Use by Efficiency

Level

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 10

Table ES.4.7 Whole

- Home Dehumidifiers ≤ 8.0 ft3 Case Volume: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

................................ ................................ ................................ 11

Table ES.4.8 Whole

- Home Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

................................ ................................ ................................ 11

Table ES.4.9 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

................................ ...... 13

Table ES.4.10 Dehumidifiers 20.01

– 30.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

............................. 13

Table ES.4.11 Dehumidif iers 30.01

– 35.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

............................. 14

Table ES.4.12 Dehumidifiers 35.01

– 45.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

............................. 14

Table ES.4.13 Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

................................ ...... 15

Table ES.4.14 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole

- Home): LCC and PBP

Results

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 15

Table ES.4.15 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole

- Home): LCC and PBP

Results

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 16 Table ES.4.16 Portable Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Base

- and Standards

- Case Efficiency Distribution in 2019

................................ ................................ ............. 18

Table ES.4.17 Portable Dehumidifiers 20.01

– 30.00 Pints/Day: Base

- and Standards

Case Efficiency Distribution in 2019

................................ ................................ ..... 19

Table ES.4.18 Portable Dehumidifiers 30.01

– 35.00 Pints/Day: Base

- and Standards

- Case Efficiency Distribution in 2019

................................ ................................ ............. 19

Table ES.4.19 Portable Dehumidifiers 35.01

– 45.00 Pints/Da y: Base

- and Standards

- Case Efficiency Distributions in 2019

................................ ................................ ............ 19

Table ES.4.20 Portable Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Base

- and Standards

- Case Efficiency Distrib utions in 2019

................................ ................................ ............ 20

Table ES.4.21 Whole

- Home Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume: Base

- and Standards

Case Efficiency Distributions in 2019

................................ ................................ ... 20

Table ES.4.22 Whole

- Home Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume: Base

- and Standards

Case Efficiency Distributions in 2019

................................ ................................ ... 20

Table ES.4.23 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings (Quads)

................................ ....... 21

ES

- iiTable ES.4.24 Cumulative NPV Results Based on 3

- Percent Discount Rate (Billion 2012$)

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 22

Table ES.4.25 Cumulative NPV Results Based on 7

- Percent Discount Rate (Billion 2012$)

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 23

LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.4.1 Dehumidifiers: Historical and Base

- Case Shipments Forecast

............................. 17

ES

- iiiEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

T his preliminary technical support document (TSD) describes in detail the approaches to and results of preliminary activities that DOE performed in investigating amended energy

conservation standards for residential dehumidifiers . This executive summary summari zes DOE’s preliminary activities and results. Additionally, this executive summary delineates issues identified during the analyses about which DOE seeks comments from interested parties. Those

issues are highlighted in the public meeting presentation and are discussed further in chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD.

ES.2 SUMMARY OF RULEMAKIN G PROCESS

Section 6295(o)(2)(A) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Pub. L. 94

- 163, 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq

. requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to establi sh energy conservation standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified . DOE establishes those standards via rulemakings for energy

- consuming residential and commercial products . For each rulemaking,

DOE typically first develops a framework document that describes the approaches and methods DOE will use in evaluating the need for new or amended standards. DOE then presents the initial analytical results in a preliminary technical support document ( TSD ) such as this one. DOE publishes in the Federal Register a notice that announces the date and place of a public meeting, as well as the availability of the preliminary TSD and presentation materials that interested parties may review before the meeting. The notice also highlights the major analyses DOE performed in the preliminary stage of the rulemaking.

ES.3 PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES

When evaluating or establishing energy conservation standards, DOE generally divides covered products int o classes based on the type of energy used, by product capacity, or by another performance

- related feature that affects efficiency. Different energy conservation standards may apply to different product classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q )) For residential

dehumidi fiers , EPCA to establish ed the following product classes based on the capacity of the unit as measured in pints of water extracted per day, for dehumidifiers manufactured on or after October 1, 2012 (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(2)):

• Up to 35.00 pints/day ;

• 35.01 to 45.00 pints/day ;

ES

- 1• 45.01 to 54.00 pints/day ;

• 54.01 to 75.00 pints/day ; and

• Greater than 75.00 pints /day

.

In the framework document for this rulemaking, published on August 17, 2012, DOE identified two general types of residential dehumidifiers differentiated by primary installation configuration: portable and whole

- home dehumidifiers. 77 FR 49739

. Portable dehumidifiers are

the most common ly sold in the United States and are typically used to reduce the relative humidity in one room or area of living space. Whole

- home dehumidifiers are designed to be attached to ducting that supplie s condition ed air to multiple or large living spaces. As a part of this standards analysis, DOE analyzed the current dehumidifier market to determine the proper product classes for both portable and whole

- home dehumidifiers.

The CFR codifies the current procedures for testing the energy consumption of residential

dehumidifiers. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendi x X (hereafter, appendix X) ) DOE has initiated a separate rulemaking to amend those test procedures , and recently published a test procedure n otice of p roposed r ulemaking (NOPR) ( XXX Test Procedure NOPR), addressing a number of issues that emerged s ince the last test procedure final rule , published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2012. CITE

.

Chapter 1 of this preliminary TSD summarizes DOE’s appliance standards program and how it applies to this rulemaking, and then outlines the structure of this document. Chapter 2 summarizes the analytical framework for this rulemaking, the comments received in response to the framework document, and DOE’s responses to those comments. Subsequent chapters describe in detail the preliminary analyses performed for this stage of the rulemaking. Descriptions include inputs, sources, methods, and results.

ES.4 KEY ANALYSES AND RESULTS

The following sections summarize the key analyses DOE performed and the results obtained in developing this preliminary TSD.

ES.4.1 Market and Technology Assessment

When initiating an analysis of potential energy conservation standar ds for appliances, DOE obtains information on the present and past industry structure and market characteristics for the products concerned. DOE assesses industries and products both quantitatively and qualitatively, based on publicly available information

.

For this rulemaking, DOE addressed (1) manufacturer market share and characteristics, (2) existing regulatory and non

- regulatory initiatives for improving product efficiency, and (3)

ES

- 2trends in product characteristics and retail markets. This data and resource material were used throughout the analysis.

DOE reviewed literature and interviewed manufacturers to develop an overall understanding of the residential dehumidifier industr y in the United States. Industry publications, including trade journals, literature from manufacturers, government agencies, and trade organizations provided the bulk of the information, including (1) manufacturers and their market share; (2) shipments by product type; (3) product information; and (4) industry trends. Chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD describes the market analysis and resulting information.

DOE typically uses information about existing and past technology options and working prototype designs to determine which technologies and combinations of technologies

man ufacturers use to attain higher performance levels. In consultation with interested parties, DOE develops a list of technologies to be considered.

DOE developed a list of technologies for residential dehumidifiers from trade publications, technical pape rs, manufacturer literature

, and through consultation with manufacturers of components and systems. Because existing products contain many technologies for improving product efficiency, product literature and direct examination provided additional

informat ion.

ES.4.2 Screening Analysis

The screening analysis (chapter 4) examines whether technologies identified in the technology assessment (1) are technologically feasible; (2) are practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) have an adverse impact on pro duct utility or availability; and/or (4) have adverse impacts on health and safety. DOE conducted this screening analysis in consultation with interested parties. In the subsequent engineering analysis, DOE further examined the technology options that it d id not remove from consideration in the screening analysis.

ES.4.3 Engineering Analysis

The engineering analysis (chapter 5) establishes the relationship between the costs of manufacturing residential dehumidifiers and their efficiencies. These relationships se rve as the basis for calculating costs and benefits of modified product designs for consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. Chapter 5 describes the product classes DOE analyzed, the representative baseline units (which are typically models which just mee t existing Federal energy conservation standards), the efficiency levels DOE considered, the methodology DOE used to develop the manufacturing production cost model, and the cost

- efficiency results.

ES

- 3ES.4.3.1 Product Classes Analyzed

For this rulemaking analysis , D OE used the current product classes established by EISA

2007 as the basis for the portable dehumidifier analysis, with the capacities adjusted for performance at representative ambient conditions under which dehumidifiers are typically operated as proposed in the XXX Test Procedure NOPR

. CITE . During interviews conducted for this preliminary analysis, manufacturers informed DOE that certain installation locations may impose size constraints on whole

- home dehumidifiers. To address this issue, DOE conducted i ts analysis on two whole

- home dehumidifier product classes, separated based on case volume measured in cubic feet (ft 3 ) . In summary, DOE considered the following dehumidifier product classes in this preliminary analysis:

• Portable, less than 20.00 pints/day ;

• Portable, 20.01 to 30.00 pints/day ;

• Portable, 30.01 to 35.00 pints/day ;

• Portable, 35.01 to 45.00 pints/day ;

• Portable, 45.01 or more pints /day ;

• Whole

- home, case volume less than 8.0 cubic feet ; and

• Whole

- home, case volume equal to or greater tha n 8.0 cubic feet

.

ES.4.3.2 Efficiency Levels Defined

DOE based its preliminary analysis for residential dehumidifiers on the integrated energy factor (IEF) metric established in appendix X to incorporate standby and off mode energy consumption. DOE also considered the impacts to IEF associated with the amendments to appendix X proposed in the XXX Test Procedure NOPR.

DOE analyzed the baseline units for each product class in the engineering analysis

. DOE

also analyzed several higher efficiency levels , including a maximum technologically feasible level, for each portable and whole

- home product class, and obtained incremental cost data at

each of these levels. Capacity and IEF we re considered at both the 80 degrees Fahrenheit ( ° F )

ambient temperature currently speci fied in appendix X and the 65 ° F ambient temperature proposed in the XXX Test Procedure NOPR

.

Table ES .4

. 1 and Table ES.4.2 provide the efficiency levels at 80 ° F and 65 ° F for the portable

pro duct classes under consideration. Table ES.4.3 provides the efficiency levels for the whole

home product classes under consideration. Chapter 5 includ es additional details on these product classes and efficiency levels.

ES

- 4Table ES.4

. 1 Portable Dehumidifier Efficiency Levels at 80 ° F

Efficiency

Level Integrated Energy Factor Efficiency Levels ( L/kWh )

35.00 pints/day or less 35.01

– 45.00 pints/day 45.01

– 54.00 pints/day 54.01

– 75.00 pints/day 75.01 pints/day or

more
Baseline 1.05 1.16 1.29 1.35 2.44

1 1.50 1.50 1.60 1.70 2.80

2 1.70 1.70 1.85 1.85 3.50

3 1.85 1.85 1.95 1.95 4.2

4 1.93 1.93 2.06 2.06 N/A

Table ES.4

. 2 Portable Dehumidifier Efficiency Levels at 65 ° F

Efficiency

Level Integrated Energy Factor Efficiency Levels ( L/kWh )

20 .00 pints/day or

less 20 .01

– 30 .00 pints/day 30. 01

– 35 .00 pints/day 35 .01

– 4 5.00 pints/day 4 5.01 pints/day or

more
Baseline 0.77 0.80 0.94 1.00 2.07

1 1.10 1.10 1.20 1.30 2.40

2 1.20 1.20 1.40 1.40 2.80

3 1.30 1.30 1.60 1.60 3.52

4 1.42 1.52 1.75 1.75 N/A

Table ES.4

. 3 Whole

- Home Dehumidifier Efficiency Levels at 80 ° F and 65 ° F

Efficiency

Level IEF Efficiency Levels at 80 ° F ( L/kWh ) IEF Efficiency Levels at 65 ° F ( L/kWh )

Less than or equal to 8 .0 ft 3

(Case Volume) Greater than

8 .0 ft 3

(Case Volume) Less than or equal to 8 .0 ft 3

(Case Volume) Greater than

8 .0 ft 3

(Case Volume)

Baseline 1.90 2.50 1.10 1.68

1 2.20 2.80 1.40 1.90

2 2.50 3.50 1.59 2.80

3 N/A 4.20 N/A 3.41

ES.4.3.3 Manufacturer Costs and Selling Prices

DOE typically use s data submitted by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ( AHAM ) as the primary source of cost information for the engineering analysis. In the absence

of aggregated incremental manufacturing cost data for dehumidifiers , however

, DOE reli ed primarily on its detailed rev erse

- engineering analysis , consisting of disassembling representative units, analyzing the materials and manufacturing processes, analyzing the design approaches manufacturers use, and developing a spreadsheet model to ascribe costs to the various designs

.

ES

- 5DOE also obtained input from interested parties on the manufacturing cost model inputs and results. Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD includes information on the inputs used to determine the manufacturing cost, including material, labor, and overhead pric es. Chapter 5 also includes information on the various components and features incorporated into designs for residential

dehumidifiers , as well as certain design options that were retained in the screening analysis but were not considered in the engineeri ng analysis due to negligible energy savings potential or inability to be measured according to the current DOE dehumidifier test procedure.

DOE’s engineering analysis produced cost

- efficiency curves for both portable and whole

home product classes. The co st

- efficiency curves are described by the efficiency levels DOE analyzed and the increase in manufacturer production cost (MPC) required to improve a

baseline

- efficiency product to each of the considered efficiency levels. Table ES.4

. 4 present s the results of the engineering analysis for portable and whole

- home residential dehumidifiers

.

Table ES.4

. 4 Incremental Dehumidifier Manufacturing Costs

ES.4.4 Markups to Determine Product Price

In chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD, DOE calculates the markups to manufacturer selling prices that occur throughout the distribution chains for portable and whole

- home dehumidifiers, converting the estimates of manufacturer costs derived in the engineerin g analysis to consumer prices. In calculating markups, DOE identified the distribution channels for portable and whole

home dehumidifiers and the markup associated with each distribution channel. For portable dehumidifiers, DOE estimated markups taken by r etailers and also included sales taxes. DOE developed separate retailer markups for baseline products (baseline markups) and for the incremental cost change due to more expensive, more efficient products (incremental markups).

Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the markups DOE developed for both portable

and whole

- home dehumidifiers. Portable Product Class Capacities (pints/day at 80 °F and 65° F) Whole

- Home Product

Class Case Volume (ft 3 )

Efficiency Level ≤ 35 35.01

- 45 45.01

- 54 54.01

- 75 > 75 ≤ 8.0 > 8.0 ≤ 20 20.01

- 30 30.01

- 35 35.01

- 45 > 45

EL1 $

- $

- $

- $

- $38.40 $15.22 $6.14

EL2 $1.56 $1.85 $2.94 $1.98 $49.16 $76.18 $37.05

EL3 $4.64 $3.78 $8.72 $7.56 $100.13 $112.01

EL4 $7.77 $10.82 $13.40 $11.24

ES

- 6Table ES.4

. 5 Markups for Det ermining Dehumidifier Product Price

Distribution Step Portable Whole

- Home

Replacement First Time Owner

Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental

Manufacturer 1.43 1.43 1.43

Wholesaler

-- -- 1.36 1.10 1.36 1.10

Mechanical

contractor -- -- 1.53 1.22 1.45 1.15

General

contractor -- -- -- -- 1.47 1.34

Retailer 1.36 1.11

-- -- -- --
Sales Tax 1.071 1.071

-- --

Overall 2.08 1.70 3.19 2.06 4.15 2.42

ES.4.5 Energy and Water Use Characterization

The energy use analysis estimates the energy savings from higher

- efficiency appliances

which are used in the life

- cycle cost and subsequent analyses. The DOE test procedure provides standardized results that can serve as the basis for comparing the performance of various appliances operate d under the same conditions. But because the range of energy consumption in the field may differ from energy use estimated by the test procedure, DOE also reviewed studies

that m easured the field usage of portable and whole

- home dehumidifi ers, confirming that field

usage can differ from the rated usage determined by the DOE test procedure.

DOE calculated the annual energy use for the seven product classes of dehumidifiers

based on the mode of dehumidifier operation (e.g. dehumidification mode, fan

- only m ode, or standby mode), method of condensate removal, and space conditioning parameters. To calculate annual energy use , DOE used data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS)

. DOE assumed an average of 5.2 months of annual usage for portable dehumidifiers and 5.6 months of annual usage for whole

- home dehumidifiers. Efficiencies are given in terms of IEF , which divides the amount of condensate removed by the sum of energy use in dehumidification, fan

- only, and combined low

- power (standby/off) modes.

To determine the variability of energy use by products that would meet possible energy efficiency standards, DOE used data from RECS , which is a nationwide survey of a sample of housing units that collects statistical information related to each household’s consumption of and expenditures for energy, including dehumidifier presence and the frequency with which it is

used. RECS also col lects data on the climate

- related characteristics of the housing units , enabling

DOE to estimate a household’s energy consumption attributable to the dehumidifier. RECS does

ES

- 7not, however, collect data regarding whether the dehumidifier is a portable or who le

- home model. DOE separated the two dehumidifier types , portable and whole home, based on the presence of an air conditioner and an air handling duct system. More specifically, DOE assumed

that households use whole

- home dehumidifiers if they:

• are located in the Northeast, Midwest, or South Census regions;

• are located in the Building America Climate region categorized as “mixed humid”;

• are single

- family homes, either attached or detached;

• have a central air conditioner; and

• have duct work.

Table ES.4.1 through Table ES.4.7 present the energy use estim ated for each product

class of dehumidifi er at each efficiency level that DOE is considering. The portable product class capacities and IEF’s are based on the 65 °F ambient temperature proposed in the XXX Te st
Procedure NOPR. The tables show the energy consumption calculated based on the equation

shown below.



## ( ) 

# ( )      

× + × +        

× × ×
×      

= Stby Stby Fan Fan Dehum

ENERGY 

### kW X kW X Eff X CAP

Year ofUse TotalHours DEH 24 473

. 0

Eq. 1

Where:

DEH ENERGY = annual energy consumption of dehumidifier (kWh/year),



### Year ofUse TotalHours

= number of hours t he dehumidifier is used per year (at > 0 W),

CAP = dehumidifier capacity (pints of condensate removed/day),

0.473 = conversion factor for liters in a pint,

24 = number of hours in a day Eff = dehumidifier efficiency (liters of condensate removed/kWh dehum ),

X

D ehum = fraction of time in dehumidification mode,

X

F

an = fraction of time in fan

- only mode,

X

Stby = fraction of time in standby/off mode,

kW D ehum = kW of dehumidification mode,

kW F

an = kW of fan

- only mode, and

kW Stby = kW of standby/off mode.

Note:

ES

- 8

### 24 473

. 0

× × × Eff X Cap Dehum

= X D ehum × kW D ehum Eq

. 2

Table ES.4

. 6 Portable Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency

Level

Level Integrated Energy Factor (L/kWh) Annual Energy Use* (kWh/year)

Baseline 0.77 632.9

1 1.10 448.5

2 1.20 412.6

3 1.30 382.3

4 1.42 351.5

* Capacity = 17.9 pints/day; annual usage = 3,799 hours; X D ehum = 35.3%; X F an = 6.5%; X Stby = 58.2%, W F an = 65 W; W Stby = 1 W.

Table ES.4

. 7 Portable Dehumidifiers 20.01

– 30.00 Pints/Day: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

Level Integrated Energy Factor (L/kWh) Annual Energy Use* (kWh/year)

Baseline 0.80 844.5

1 1.10 619.2

2 1.20 569.1

3 1.30 526.7

4 1.52 453.1

* Capacity = 25 pints/day; annual usage = 3,799 hours; X D ehum = 35.3%; X F an =

6.5%; X Stby = 58.2%, W F an = 65 W; W Stby = 1 W.

ES

- 9Table ES.4

. 8 Portable Dehumidifiers 30.01

– 35.00 Pints/Day: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

Level Integrated Energy Factor (L/kWh) Annual Energy Use* (kWh/year)

Baseline 0.94 932.5

1 1.20 734.4

2 1.40 632.1

3 1.60 555.3

4 1.75 509.3

* Capacity = 3 2.5 pints/day; annual usage = 3,799 hours; X D ehum = 35.3%; X F an = 6.5%; X Stby = 58.2%, W F an = 65 W; W Stby = 1 W.

Table ES.4

. 9 Portable Dehumidifiers 35.01

– 45.00 Pints/Day: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

Level Integrated Energy Factor (L/kWh) Annual Energy Use* (kWh/year)

Baseline 1.00 1075.9

1 1.30 831.8

2 1.40 773.7

3 1.60 679.3

4 1.75 622.6

* Capacity = 40 pints/day; annual usage = 3,799 hours; X D ehum = 35.3%; X F an = 6.5%; X Stby = 58.2%, W F an = 65 W; W Stby = 1 W.

Table ES.4

. 10 Portable Dehumidifiers > 45 Pints/Day: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency

Level

Level Integrated Energy Factor (L/kWh) Annual Energy Use* (kWh/year)

Baseline 2.07 944.3

1 2.40 817.0

2 2.80 702.9

3 3.52 562.8

* Capacity = 72.5 pints/day; annual usage = 3,799 hours; X D ehum = 35.3%; X F an = 6.5%; X Stby = 58.2%, W F an = 65 W; W stby = 1 W.

ES

- 10Table ES.4

. 11 Whole

- Home Dehumidifiers ≤ 8.0 ft3 Case Volume: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

Level Integrated Energy Factor (L/kWh) Annual Energy Use* (kWh/year)

Baseline 1.10 1250.3

1 1.40 994.3

2 1.59 882.1

* Capacity = 56.2 pints/day; annual usage = 4,091 hours ; X D ehum = 29%; X F an =8%; X Stby = 63%; W F an = 146 W; W Stby = 3.08 W.

Table ES.4

. 12 Whole

- Home Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

Level Integrated Energy Factor (L/kWh) Annual Energy Use* (kWh/year)

Baseline 1.68 1331.9

1 1.90 1184.1

2 2.80 821.4

3 3.41 684.5

* Capacity = 91.7 pints/day; annual usage = 4,091 hours ; X D ehum = 29%; X F an =8%; X Stby = 63%; W F an = 146 W; W Stby = 3.08 W.

ES.4.6 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Energy conservation standards produce a change in consumer operating costs

— usually a

decrease

— and a change in product purchase price

— usually an increase. DOE analyzed the net
financial effect on consumers of amended standards for dehumidifiers by evaluatin g the LCC of

the products (chapter 8). In performing this analysis, DOE used the cost

- efficiency relationship

derived from the engineering analysis, along with the energy costs derived from the energy use characterization

. Because the operating costs of a more expensive, higher

- efficiency product decrease in response to new standards, at some time in the life of that product the net savings in operating costs since the time of purchase equal the increase in the purchase price of the product. The time requir ed for a product to reach that cost

- equivalency point is known as the payback period (PBP).

DOE identified several inputs for estimating the LCC and PBP, including retail prices

and installed co sts, energy prices, discount rates, and product lifetimes. F or dehumidifier s, there

was no information that indicate d that more efficient dehumidifi ers would have greater repair or

maintenance costs

, so DOE did not assume additional costs would occur. The LCC and PBP analysis utilized values that reflect unit energ y consumption in the field. DOE used EIA’s energy price data to determine the range and variability of prices for electricity in 20 12, then used

ES

- 11projections of th e prices from EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 20 13 to estimate future e lectricit y prices. DOE developed discount rates by estimating the finance cost for consumers to purchase major appliances.

For portable dehumidifiers, DOE considered multiple sources to estimate product lifetime: Appliance Magazine, American Council for an Energy

- Efficient Ec onomy , and the

Northeast Energy Star Lighting and Appliance. Because of the similarity in operation and based

on available data

, DOE assumed whole

- home dehumidifiers have the same life span as residential room air conditioner and applied the lifetime param eters derived for room air

conditioners to whole

- home dehumidifiers.

To estimate accurately the percentage of consumers who would be affected by a standard at each candidate standard level (CSL) of efficiency, the LCC analysis considered the projected

d istribution of efficiencies for the product classes of dehumidifi ers purchased under the base case (the case without new energy efficiency standards). Lacking industry

- supplied data, t he distributions were developed from models and efficiencies listed in p ublically available

databases

. DOE projected the base

- case distributions to the year that compliance with any amended standards would be required (2019 ). Using the projected distribution of efficiencies for each product class, DOE assigned a specific produ ct efficiency to each sample household. If a household was assigned a product efficiency that equaled or exceeded the efficiency of the CSL under consideration, the LCC calculation shows that the household would be unaffected by that

standard level.

Error! Reference source not found. through Error! Reference source not found. show the LCC and PBP results by efficiency level for each dehumidifier product class. The portable product class capacities and IEF’s are based on the 65 °F ambient temperature proposed

in the XXX Test Procedure NOPR. DOE determined the median values for the PBPs by excluding th ose users not affe cted by the standard . Figures presented in chapter 8 show the range of LCC savings and PBPs for all of the efficiency levels considered for each product class.

ES

- 12Table ES.4

. 13 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* (L/ kWh ) Life

- Cycle Cost (2012$) Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Median Payback

Period (Years) Average

Installed

Cost Average

Lifetime Operating

Cost † Average

LCC Average Savings (2012$) % Users Having

Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 0.77 $219 $698 $917

1 1.10 $219 $490 $709 $1 2 9 0% 3 8 % 6 2 % 0.0

2 1.20 $221 $450 $671 $16 7 0% 32% 68% 0.1

3 1.30 $227 $415 $642 $186 0% 32% 68% 0.3

4 1.42 $232 $381 $612 $294 0% 3% 97% 0.4

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted

.

Table ES.4

. 14 Dehumidifiers 20.01

– 30.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* (L/ kWh ) Life

- Cycle Cost (2012$) Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Median Payback

Period (Years) Average

Installed

Cost Average

Lifetime Operating

Cost † Average

LCC Average Savings (2012$) % Users Having

Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 0.80 $231 $937 $1,168

1 1.10 $231 $683 $914 $0.00 0% 100% 0% NA

2 1.20 $234 $626 $860 $ 145 0% 5 3% 4 7% 0.1

3 1.30 $237 $578 $816 $235 0% 33% 67% 0.2

4 1.52 $249 $495 $744 $398 0% 6% 94% 0.4

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted

.

ES

- 13Table ES.4

. 15 Dehumidifiers 30.01

– 35.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* (L/ kWh ) Life

- Cycle Cost (2012$) Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Median Payback

Period (Years) Average

Installed

Cost Average

Lifetime Operating

Cost † Average

LCC Average Savings (2012$) % Users Having

Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 0.94 $260 $1,037 $1,297

1 1.20 $260 $813 $1,073 $0.00 0% 100% 0% NA

2 1.40 $265 $697 $96 3 $ 164 0% 51 % 49 % 0. 2

3 1.60 $275 $611 $886 $39 9 0% 3% 97% 0.4

4 1.75 $283 $559 $841 $441 0% 3% 97% 0.5

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted

.

Table ES.4

. 16 Dehumidifiers 35.01

– 45.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* (L/ kWh ) Life

- Cycle Cost (2012$) Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Median Payback

Period (Years) Average

Installed

Cost Average

Lifetime Operating

Cost † Average

LCC Average Savings (2012$) % Users Having

Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 1.00 $281 $1,199 $1,480

1 1.30 $281 $923 $1,204 $0.00 0% 100% 0% NA

2 1.40 $284 $857 $1,142 $1 1 9 0% 66 % 34 % 0.1

3 1.60 $294 $751 $1,044 $412 0% 5% 95% 0.3

4 1.75 $300 $687 $987 $472 0% 4% 96% 0.4

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted

.

ES

- 14Table ES.4

. 17 Dehumidifiers > 45.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* (L/ kWh ) Life

- Cycle Cost (2012$) Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Median Payback

Period (Years) Average

Installed

Cost Average

Lifetime Operating

Cost † Average

LCC Average Savings (2012$) % Users Having

Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 2.07 $874 $1,050 $1,924

1 2.40 $939 $906 $1,845 $ 3 1 1 2 % 61 % 27 % 4.6

2 2.80 $957 $777 $1,734 $128 12% 32% 5 6 % 3. 2

3 3.52 $1,043 $619 $1,662 $218 22% 16% 62% 4. 1

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted

.

Table ES.4

. 18 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole

- Home): LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* (L/ kWh ) Life

- Cycle Cost (2012$) Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Median Payback

Period (Years) Average

Installed

Cost Average

Lifetime Operating

Cost † Average

LCC Average Savings (2012$) % Users Having

Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 1.00 $1,614 $1,988 $3,602

1 1.40 $1,640 $1,586 $3,226 $1 92 2 % 75 % 23 % 1.2

2 1.59 $1,747 $1,409 $3,156 $192 10% 56% 34% 4.2

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted

.

ES

- 15Table ES.4

. 19 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole

- Home): LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* (L/ kWh ) Life

- Cycle Cost (2012$) Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Median Payback

Period (Years) Average

Installed

Cost Average

Lifetime Operating

Cost † Average

LCC Average Savings (2012$) % Users Having

Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 1.68 $1,988 $2,117 $4,105

1 1.90 $1,999 $1,884 $3,883 $ 56 1 % 74 % 24 % 0.8

2 2.80 $2,052 $1,314 $3,366 $ 602 7 % 19 % 73 % 1.4

3 3.41 $2,183 $1,099 $3,282 $ 823 20 % 0 % 80 % 3. 4

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted

.

ES.4.7 Shipments Analysis

DOE requires shipment forecasts to calculate the national impacts of potential standards

on energy use, net present value (NPV) of costs and savings, as well as to the manufacturer impact analysis. DOE’s shipments model for dehumidifiers considers shipment s to replace existing units and to first time owners (FTO). DOE used an accounting method that tracks the total stock of units by vintage to determine shipments to the replacement market. DOE estimated a stock of dehumidifiers by vintage by integrating his toric al shipments starting from 1972. To calibrate the estimated shipments with the historical data, DOE introduced into the model a market segment identified as existing households without dehumidifiers, also referred to as

FTOs. DOE estimated that 0.34 p ercent of existing households without a dehumidifier would annually purchase this product over the period 2019─2048. Chapter 9 of this preliminary TSD provides additional details on the shipments analysis.

Error! Reference source not found. shows the forecasted shipments in the base case ( i.e. , the case without new energy efficiency standards) and the historical shipments DOE used to

calibrate the forecast.

ES

- 16Fig ure ES.4

. 1 Dehumidifiers: Historical and Base

- Case Shipments Forecast

ES.4.8 National Impact Analysis

The national impact analysis (NIA) estimates impacts on the nation of potential new energy efficiency standards for dehumidifi ers. Those impacts encompass:

1. national energy savings (NES) attributable to standards for the considered product

classes ; 2. the monetary value of energy savings attributable to standards for the considered product classes ; 3. the increased total installed costs attributable to standards for the considered product

classes ; and

4. the NPV of the energy savings attributable to standards for the considered product

classes (the difference between the value of the energy savings and the total installed

c osts).

ES.4.8.1 Efficiency Trend

A key component of DOE’s NIA is the equipment energy efficiencies forecasted over

time for the base case and for each of the standards cases. For the base case, DOE assumed an annual growth rate of 0.25 percent between 2019 and 204 8. 0.0000 0.5000 1.0000 1.5000 2.0000 2.5000 3.0000 3.5000Shipments (million)

Year Shipment

- Historical and Projected

Historical

Projected

ES

- 17For its projected efficiencies of CSLs, in addition to a “roll

- up” scenario, DOE developed a shift scenario. In the shift scenario DOE applies an annual growth rate in average energy efficiency to the shipment

- weighted integrated energy factors (SWIEF), as it is done in the base

case. To develop standards case forecasted SWIEFs, DOE developed growth trends for each candidate standard level that maintained the same per

- unit average total installed cost difference for the year 2019 between the base case and e ach standards case over the entire forecast period (2019

– 2048). DOE’s approach for developing standards case SWIEFs in this manner assumes that the rate of adoption of more efficient products under the standards case can occur only at a rate which

ensures that the average total installed cost difference between the standards case and base case over the entire forecast period is held constant. Because the total installed cost versus efficiency relationship for each product class demonstrates an increasing co st rate for more efficient products, the SWIEF growth rate for each standards case is lower than the SWIEF growth rate for the base

case.

Error! Reference source not found. through Error! Reference source not found.

show the base

- case and CSL product efficiency distributions in 2019, based on the IEF for each of the seven p roduct classes that DOE is considering

. The portable product class capacities and IEF’s are based on the 65 °F ambient temperature proposed in the XXX Test Procedure NOPR. The CSLs are composed of efficiency levels analyzed in the life

- cycle cost and payba ck period analysis (chapter 8). Also included in the tables are the weighted integrated energy factors (SWIEFs) and weighted annual energy use (SWAEU ) associated with the base case and each

CSL.

Table ES.4

. 20 Portable Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Base

- and Standards

- Case Efficiency Distribution in 2019

EL C SL IEF Market Shares (%)

Base

Case Candidate Standard Level

(L/kWh ) 1 2 3 4

Baseline

- 0.77 62% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 1.10 6% 68% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 1.20 0% 0% 68% 0% 0%

3 3 1.30 29% 29% 29% 97% 0%

4 4 1.42 3% 3% 3% 3% 100%

SWIEF ( L /kWh ) 0.96 1.17 1.24 1.30 1.42

SWAEU (kWh/yr) 517 405 381 360 331

ES

- 1 8Table ES.4

. 21 Portable Dehumidifiers 20.01

– 30.00 Pints/Day: Base

- and Standards

- Case Efficiency Distribution in 2019

EL CSL IEF ( L /kWh ) Market Share (%)

Base

Case Candidate Standard Level

1 2 3 4

Baseline

- 0.80 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 1.10 47% 47% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 1.20 21% 21% 68% 0% 0%

3 3 1.30 27% 27% 27% 94% 0%

4 4 1.52 6% 6% 6% 6% 100%

SWIEF ( L /kWh ) 1.20 1.20 1.24 1.31 1.52

SWAEU ( kWh/yr ) 550 550 527 499 431

Table ES.4

. 22 Portable Dehumidifiers 30.01

– 35.00 Pints/Day: Base

- and Standards

- Case Efficiency Distribution in 2019

EL CSL IEF ( L /kWh) Market Share (%)

Base

Case Candidate Standard Level

1 2 3 4

Baseline

- 0.94 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 1.20 49% 49% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 1.40 48% 48% 97% 0% 0%

3 3 1.60 0% 0% 0% 97% 0%

4 4 1.75 3% 3% 3% 3% 100%

SWIEF ( L /kWh) 1.31 1.31 1.41 1.60 1.75

SWAEU (kWh/yr) 653 653 603 530 486

Table ES.4

. 23 Portable Dehumidifiers 35.01

– 45.00 Pints/Day: Base

- and Standards

- Case Efficiency Distributions in 2019

EL CSL IEF ( L /kWh) Market Share (%)

Base

Case Candidate l Standard Level

1 2 3 4

Baseline

- 1.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 1.30 34% 34% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 1.40 61% 61% 95% 0% 0%

3 3 1.60 1% 1% 1% 96% 0%

4 4 1.75 4% 4% 4% 4% 100%

SWIEF ( L /kWh) 1.38 1.38 1.42 1.61 1.75

SWAEU (kWh/yr) 758 758 739 651 597

ES

- 19Table ES.4

. 24 Portable Dehumidifiers > 45.00 Pints/Day: Base

- and Standards

- Case Efficiency Distributions in 2019

EL CSL IEF ( L /kWh) Market Share (%)

Base

Case Candidate Standard Level

1 2 3 4

Baseline

- 2.07 39% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 2.40 29% 68% 0% 0% 0%

2 2, 3 2.80 16% 16% 84% 84% 0%

3 4 3.52 16% 16% 16% 16% 100%

SWIEF ( L /kWh) 2.52 2.64 2.92 2.92 3.52

SWAEU (kWh/yr) 933 958 971 971 1,043

Table ES.4

. 25 Whole

- Home Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume: Base

- and Standards

Case Efficiency Distributions in 2019

EL CSL IEF ( L /kWh) Market Share (%)

Base Case Candidate Standard Level

1 2 3 4

Baseline

- 1.10 25% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1, 2,

3 1.40 19% 44% 44% 44% 0%

2 4 1.59 56% 56% 56% 56% 100%

SWIEF ( L /kWh) 1.43 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.59

SWAEU (kWh/yr) 1,131 1,137 1,137 1,137 1,185

Table ES.4

. 26 Whole

- Home Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume: Base

- and Standards

Case Efficiency Distributions in 2019

EL CSL IEF ( L /kWh) Market Share (%)

Base

Case Candidate Standard Level

1 2 3 4

Baseline

- 1.68 22% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 1.90 46% 68% 0% 0% 0%

2 2, 3 2.80 16% 16% 84% 84% 0%

3 4 3.41 16% 16% 16% 16% 100%

SWIEF ( L /kWh) 2.24 2.29 2.90 2.90 3.41

SWAEU (kWh/yr) 1,472 1,475 1,511 1,511 1,621

ES

- 20Based on the assumption of a zero

- percent growth rate in the efficiencies for the base case and all potential standards cases, DOE maintained the SWIEFs shown in Error! Reference

source not found. through Error! Reference source not found. throughout the projection period, from 2019 to 2048.

ES.4.8.2 National Energy Savings

DOE calc ulated annual national energy savings as the difference between national energy consumption in the base case (without new efficiency standards) and under each CSL . DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy, which is the energy consu med by a household. DOE then converted site energy consumption and savings to the primary energy consumed at power station s to provide the site electricity

. Cumulative energy savings are the

sum of the annual NES

.

The NES results

, shown in Error! Reference source not found.

, are cumulative over the period in which units shipped in 2019

- 2 04 8 are operating

. The energy savings are given in quadrillion Br itish thermal units (quads) and are shown as primary energy savings. The portable product class capacities are based on the 65 °F ambient temperature proposed in the XXX Test

Procedure NOPR.

Table ES.4

. 27 Cu mulative Primary National Energy Savings (Quads)

C SL ≤20.00 Pints/Day 20.01

- 30.00 Pints/Day 30.01

- 35.00 Pints/Day 35.01

- 45.00 Pints/Day > 45.00 Pints/Day ≤ 8.0 ft 3

Case

Volume (Whole

Home) > 8.0 ft 3

Case

Volume (Whole

home) All

1 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.23

2 0.22 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.34

3 0.26 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.63

4 0.32 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.89

On August 18, 2011, DOE published a statement of policy in the Federal Register announcing its intention to use full

- fuel

- cycle (FFC) measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future

energy conse rvation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 ; amended by 77 FR 49701 (August 17,

201 2 )

. Table ES.4.24 summarizes the full

- fuel cycle national energy savings.

.

ES

- 21Tale ES.4.24 Full

- Fuel

- Cycle National Energy Savings (Unit: Quads)

CSL ≤20.00 Pints/Day 20.01

- 30.00 Pints/Day 30.01

- 35.00 Pints/Day 35.01

- 45.00 Pints/Day >45.00 Pints/Day ≤8.0 ft 3

Case

Volume (Whole

Home) >8.0 ft 3

Case

Volume (Whole

home) All

1 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.23

2 0.22 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.35

3 0.26 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.64

4 0.32 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.91

ES.4.8.3 Net Present Value

DOE calculated net monetary savings for consumers in each year after amended

standards would take effect for the base case and each standards case as the difference between total savings in operating costs and increases in total installed cost. DOE calculated savings throughout the lifetime of products shipped in 2019

- 2048. DOE used discount rates of 7 percent

and 3 percent , respectively, to discount future costs and savings to the present. DOE calculated

the NPV as the difference between the presen t value of operating cost savings and the present

value of total installed costs. The NPV results for the seven product classes of dehumidifi ers are shown in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found.

. As with the NES results, NPV results are presented as a fu nction of the CSL combination. The portable product class capacities are based on the 65 °F ambient temperature proposed in the

XXX Test Procedure NOPR.

Table ES.4

. 28 Cumulative NPV Results Based on 3

- Percent Discount Rate (Billion 2012$)

C SL ≤20.00 Pints/Day 20.01

- 30.00 Pints/Day 30.01

- 35.00 Pints/Day 35.01

- 45.00 Pints/Day > 45.00 Pints/Day ≤ 8.0 ft 3

Case

Volume (Whole

Home) > 8.0 ft 3

Case

Volume (Whole

Home) All

1 1.42 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.01 1.64

2 1.59 0.22 0.32 0.12 0.14 0.01 0.02 2.43

3 1.84 0.40 0.96 0.94 0.14 0.01 0.02 4.31

4 2.20 0.98 1.29 1.27 0.23 0.01 0.03 6.01

ES

- 22Table ES.4

. 29 Cumulative NPV Results Based on 7

- Percent Discount Rate (Billion 2012$)

C SL ≤20.00 Pints/Day 20.01

- 30.00 Pints/Day 30.01

- 35.00 Pints/Day 35.01

- 45.00 Pints/Day > 45.00 Pints/Day ≤ 8.0 ft 3

Case

Volume (Whole

Home) > 8.0 ft 3

Case

Volume (Whole

Home) All

1 0.61 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.70

2 0.68 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.01 1.04

3 0.78 0.17 0.40 0.38 0.06 0.00 0.01 1.80

4 0.92 0.41 0.54 0.54 0.09 0.00 0.01 2.51

ES.4.9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

The preliminary manufacturer impact analysis ( MIA ) focuses on manufacturers of

residential dehumidifiers . Potential impacts include financial effects, both quantitative and qualitative, that might result from new energy conservation standards and consequently lead to changes in manufacturing practices for residential dehumidifiers . DOE identified potential

i mpacts through interviews with manufacturers and other interested parties. Chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD includes details on the key issues DOE identified during the preliminary MIA.

DOE identified the following key issues for residential dehumidifie rs :

• Impact on profitability, product mix, and shipments

• Market share and industry consolidation

• Conversion costs, manufacturing capacity, and employment levels

• Impact on innovation and product utility

• Cumulative regulatory burden

• Impact on small manufacturers

• Impact on product mix

During the preliminary analysis st age, DOE conducted the preliminary MIA by first identifying products, methods, and practices used in the residential dehumidifier ind ustr y . Next, DOE determined how energy efficiency i mprovements affect cost, production, and various other manufacturing metrics. Finally, DOE interviewed manufacturers for feedback. At the beginning of the interview process, DOE interviewed manufacturers and adjusted the analysis as appropriate, based on t he feedback. In the interviews, DOE also examined any additional effects on competition, manufacturing capacity, direct employment, and the cumulative burden of other regulations affecting manufacturers, as well as several issues raised by individual manuf acturers.

ES

- 23ES.5 ISSUES ON WHICH THE DEPARTMENT SEEKS PUB LIC COMMENT

DOE is interested in receiving comments from interested parties on all aspects of this preliminary TSD, especially comments or data that might improve DOE’s analys e s. DOE

welcomes data or info rmation that will help resolve the following specific issues , which were raised in response to the framework document and during preparation of this preliminary TSD.

ES.5.1 Portable Dehumidifier Product Classes

Several interested parties recommended that DOE co nsolidate portable dehumidifiers into fewer product classes, potentially as few as a single product class

. Interested parties also recommended that DOE consider an equation

- based energy conservation standard for

dehumidifiers. In this preliminary analysis, DOE maintained the existing portable dehumidifier product classes and adjusted the capacities to reflect the proposed lower ambient temperature for testing because it did not find an inherent single relationship between product capacity and energy efficie ncy

. DOE observed that chassis size availability, among other features, impacts the ability of different manufacturers to achieve certain energy efficiencies for their products at different capacities. DOE welcomes comment on this decision, and seeks furth er information on portable dehumidifier product class es

.

ES.5.2 Design Options Not Measurable by the Current Dehumidifier Test Procedure

As discussed further in chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD, t he current DOE dehumidifier test procedure measures active mode energy use under continuous unit operation at constant ambient conditions. Therefore, it does not capture energy savings that may be achieved using design options that improve efficien cy in varying conditions ( i.e. , electronic humidistats, improved control s, improved flow

- control devices , and variable speed compressors ). DOE also concluded that the ambient conditions in the test procedure preclude heat exchanger coil frosting that would be necessary to realize the benefits of improved defrost methods and im proved

demand

- defrost controls. DOE requests comment on whether these design options should be considered further, and if so, how the test procedure should account for them.

ES.5.3 Energy Use Determination for Portable Dehumidifiers

DOE reviewed existing and new literature, including the two studies mentioned by the Joint Commenters, to establish a range of energy use for dehumidifiers. A newly published field metering study for portable dehumidifiers linked outdoor absolute humidity to indoor air

conditions and d ehumidifier compressor use. a The study found that dehumidifier use was influenced by whether the basement was finished and the type of dehumidifier condensate removal. DOE based its energy use analysis on the equations used to model the relationship

a Willem, Henry, et al. 2013. Using Field

- Metered Data to Quantify Annual Energy Use of Residential Portable Unit

Dehumidifier . Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL

- 6975E.

ES

- 24betwee n vapor density and compressor use developed from the field metering study. It found that the energy use values were within the range of the values used in the 2007 rulemaking. DOE requests input on its proposed method for energy use determination.

ES.5.4 Commerc ial Use of Residential Portable Dehumidifiers

DOE reviewed existing data and literature and found no information on shipments to or energy use of residential portable dehumidifiers in commercial enterprises. DOE requests

stakeholder data and literature to characterize saturation of and energy use by residential portable dehumidifiers in commercial settings.

ES

- 25