CHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

3.4 PRODUCT TEST PROCEDU RES ................................................................................. 3-6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.11 PRODUCT RETAIL PRICE S ....................................................................................... 3-18

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

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

3.14 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMEN T .................................................................................. 3-26

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

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

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

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.7.1 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers Established by

EPACT 2005 ...................................................................................................... 3-11 Table 3.7.2 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers Established by

EISA 2007 .......................................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3.7.3 Canadian Regulations for Residential Dehumidifiers ............................................ 3-12 Table 3.8.1 ENERGY STAR Qualifying Criteria for Dehumidifiers ........................................ 3-13 Table 3.9.1 Industry Shipments of Dehumidifiers (Domestic and Import) , ............................. 3-14 Table 3.9.2 Dehumidifier Capacity- Specific Shipments (Domestic and Import) ...................... 3-15 Table 3.9.3Annual Shipment Value of Small Electric Household Appliances , , , ...................... 3-16

3-iTable 3.9.4 Annual Shipment Value of Small Electromechanical Household Appliances , , ,

, , .......................................................................................................................... 3-16 Table 3.9.5 Annual Shipment Value of Air Conditioning Equipment , , , .................................. 3-17 Table 3.9.6 Disposition of Previous Dehumidifiers .................................................................. 3-17 Table 3.10.1 Percentage of U.S. Households with Dehumidifiers , .......................................... 3-18 Table 3.12.1 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Employment and Earnings ............................................................................................................. 3-21 Table 3.12.2 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment Manufacturing Industry Employment and Earnings .................................................................. 3-22

Table 3.12.3 Sma ll Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Materials and Wages

Cost .................................................................................................................... 3-22 Table 3.12.4 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment Manufacturing Industry Materials and Wages Cost ................................................................... 3-23 Table 3.12.5 Industry Cost Structure Using SEC Data, Average 2006–2012 ........................... 3-23 Table 3.13.1 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Inventory Levels ............... 3-24 Table 3.13.2 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment Manufacturing Industry Inventory Levels .................................................................................. 3-25 Table 3.13.3 Full Production Capacity Utilization Rates , ......................................................... 3-26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.6.1 Estimated U.S. Market Share for Residential Portable Dehumidifiers .................. 3-9 Figure 3.11.1 Portable Residential Dehumidifier Retail Price versus Capacity ........................ 3-19 Figure 3.11.2 Whole-Home and High- Ca pacity Portable Residential Dehumidifier Retail Price versus Capacity ......................................................................................... 3-20 Figure 3.14.1 Dehumidifier Operation Schematic ..................................................................... 3-27 Figure 3.14.2 DOE-Certified Dehumidifiers, DOE Standards, and ENERGY STAR Qualification Criteria ......................................................................................... 3-37

3- iiCHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOG Y ASSESSMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a profile of the residential dehumidifier industry in the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) developed the market and technology assessment presented in this chapter primarily from publicly available information. This assessment is helpful in identifying the major manu facturers 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 impa ct analysis.

3.2 PRODUCT DEFINITION

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) (P.L. 109-58) amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Pub. L. 94-163, 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq

. in relevant part to

establish the definition of a dehumidifier as “ a self

- contained, electrically operated, and mechanically encased assembly consisting of

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

B. a refrigerating system, including an electric motor;

C. an air

- circulating fan; and

D. means for collecting or disposing of the condensate. 42 U.S.C. 6291(34)

DOE proposed amendments to DOE’s dehumidifier test procedure in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that DOE published in the Federal Register on DATE (hereafter,

the XXX Test Procedure N OPR). CITE . The XXX Test Procedure NOPR includes proposed definitions for portable and whole-home dehumidifiers, such that a portable dehumidifier would be defined as a dehumidifier “designed to operate within the conditioned space without the

attachment o f additional ducting, although means may be provided for optional duct attachment. ”

The XXX Test Procedure NOPR also proposes to define whole- home dehumidifiers as dehumidifiers “designed to be installed with ducting to deliver return process air to its inlet and to supply conditioned process air from its outlet to one or more locations in the conditioned

space .” CITE

.

3.3 PRODUCT CLASSES

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE generally divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other

3-3performance- related features that affect efficiency. Different energy conservatio n standards may apply to different product classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

For residential dehumidifiers , the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Pub. L 110-140 amendments to EPCA established product classes based on the capacity

of th e unit as measured in pints of water extracted per day, for dehumidifiers manufactured on or after October 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(2)): a

• Less than 35.00 pints/day

• 35.01 to 45.00 pints/day

• 45.01 to 54.00 pints/day

• 54.01 to 75.00 pints/day

• Greater than 75.00 pints /day

Among residential dehumidifiers there are also two general types, differentiated by the primary installation configuration: portable dehumidifiers and whole -home dehumidifiers. Portable dehumidifiers are the most common type of dehumidi fier sold in the United States, representing more than 95 percent of residential dehumidifier shipments. Consumers typically purchase portable dehumidifiers to reduce the relative humidity in one room or area of a living space less than 2,500 square feet, and may move these units from room to room to selectively reduce humidity where necessary. These units may also be located in an unconditioned space where moisture control is desired, such as a basement. Portable units currently on the market have rated capacities ranging from 22 pints/day to more than 120 pints/day. Portable units are standalone appliances that are designed to operate independent of any other air treatment devices, and do not require attachment to ducting, although certain models may have optional provisions to do so ( i.e. , “convertible portable” units).

Whole-home dehumidifiers are designed to be attached to ducting that supplies conditioned air to multiple or large living spaces in a residence and that returns humid air to the dehumidifier inlet. Whole-home dehumidifiers are often installed in conjunction with an existing heating, ventilation, or central air -conditioning (HVAC) system, and may utilize certain components of the HVAC equipment such as the air-handling blower, but can operat e independently as well. Whole-home dehumidifiers typically use the same dehumidification system as portable units; however, to effectively dehumidify a large area, these units are manufactured with larger components than portable dehumidifiers, and may in clude additional features, such as pre -coolers or desiccant wheels, which may be difficult to incorporate into portable units due to volume and weight constraints. Whole-home product capacities range from approximately 65 pints/day to more than 200 pints/day. However, the current DOE dehumidifier

a For standards effective October 1, 2007, EPACT 2005, in section 135(c), specified five product classes for dehumidifiers: 25.00 pints/day or less, 25.01

– 35.00 pints/day, 35.01

– 54.00 pints/day, 54.01

– 74.99 pints/day, and 75.00 pints/day or more. EISA 2007, in section 311(a)(1), prescribed a new set of standards for dehumidifiers to take effect on October 1, 2012. In providing a new set of standards, EISA 2007 consolidated the two smallest product classes (25.00 pints/day or less and 25.01

– 35.00 pints/day) and subdivided the 35.01

– 54.00 pints/day product class into two product classes: 35.01

– 45.00 pints/day and 45.01

– 54.00 pints/day.

3-4test procedure does not accurately measure representative performance for these products because there are no provisions to test with ducting in place. The lack of ducting allows higher airflow through the dehumidifier than would be experienced in real-world installations, which in turn affects the measured capacity and energy efficiency . DOE has proposed provisions in the

XXX Test Procedure NOPR to test the energy use of whole-home dehumidifiers in dehumidification mode using a representative ducted configuration. CITE

.

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

and whole- home dehumidifiers. DOE used the current product classes established by EISA 2007 as the basis for the analysis for portable dehumidifiers, with the capacities adjusted for a proposed change to the representative ambient conditions under which dehumidifiers would be tested. In particular, the XXX Test Procedure NOPR proposes that testi ng be conducted at an ambient temperature of 65 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) instead of the current 80 °F. CITE . DOE considered how the proposed change in ambient temperatures would affect measured product capacities, and adjusted the capacity ranges in each of the portable product classes accordingly. Chapter 5 of this preliminary technical support document ( TSD ) includes more information about adjusting the capacities in the portable product classes to account for the 65 °F ambient test

condition.

As discuss ed further in chapter 5 of this preliminary TSD , DOE also conducted its analysis on two whole- home dehumidifier product classes. DOE separated these two product classes based on case volume, one for products with volumes less than or equal to 8.0 cubic fee t and another for products with volumes greater than 8.0 cubic feet

, because it determined that capacity did not inherently impact efficiency for these products but that case volume affected consumer utility in terms of potential installation configuration s.

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 .0 1 or more pints /day

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

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

In accordance with available data and specifications, DOE will refer to capacity values in the remainder of this chapter as measured using the current dehumidifier test procedure. In chapters 4 and 5 of this preliminary TSD, DOE will clarify whether stated capacities refer to

either the 80 °F or 65 °F ambient conditions because DOE considered both when conduct ing the engineering analysis, discussed in chapter 5. In later chapters, capacity values will be consistent with those measured by the revised test procedure.

3-53.4 PRODUCT TEST PROCEDU RES

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

STAR b p rogram must serve as the basis for the DOE test procedure for dehumidifiers . ( EPACT 2005, section 135(b); 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(13)). Prior to October 2012, t he ENERGY STAR test criteria require d that ANSI/AHAM Standard DH-1-2003, Dehumidifiers

, be used to measure energy use while the Canad ian Standards Association (CAN/CSA standard CAN/ CSA -C749- 1994 (R2005), Performance of Dehumidifiers

, be used to calculate the energy factor (EF) . D OE adopted these test criteria, along with related definitions and tolerances, as its test procedure for dehumidifiers in 2006 (71 FR 71340, 71347, 71366, 713667-68 (Dec. 8, 2006); 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix X (Appendix X)).

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

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

ENERGY STAR test criteria , and establishes a new energy efficiency metric, integrated energy factor (IEF), which incorporates measures of energy use in active mode, standby mode, and off mode. (77 FR 65995 (October 31, 2012)) . The new DOE test procedure was codified at that time in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix X1 (Appendix X1)

.

On DATE , DOE published a final rule removing the existing test procedure at Appendix X and redesignating the test procedure at Appendix X1 as Appendix X. Manufacturers are currently required to test using only the active mode provisions in the redesign ated Appendix X to determine compliance with existing dehumidifier energy conservation standards. Appendix X

must be used in its entirety if manufacturers make representations of standby mode or off mode energy use and, after the compliance date for any amended energy conservation standards that incorporate such standards, for demonstrating compliance with such standards. CITE

.

As discussed in section 3.3 , DOE subsequently published the XX Test Procedure NOPR

on DATE to propose amendments to Appendix X which would include : (1) dehumidification

mode test conditions requiring a lower ambient temperature to more accurately reflect conditions during consumer use; (2) a measure of fan -only mode energy consumption for dehumidifiers that operate the blower continuously or cyclically when the ambient air relative humidity is below thehumidity setpoint, rather than enter off-cycle mode; (3) new definitions for portable, wholehome, and refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifiers; (4) testing methodology and calculations for

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

.

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

.

3-63.5 MANUFACTURER TRADE G ROUPS

DOE recognizes the importance of trade groups in disseminating information and promoting the interests of the industry that they support. To gain insight into the dehumidifier industry , DOE researched various associations available to manufacturers, suppliers, and users of such equipment. DOE also used the member lists of these groups in the construction of an exhaustive database containing domestic manufacturers.

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers c (AHAM), formed in 1967, aims to enhance the value of the home appliance industry through leadership, public education and advocacy. AHAM provides services to its members including government relations; certification programs for room air conditioners, dehumidifiers and room air clean ers ; an active communications program; and technical service s and research. In addition, AHAM conducts other market and consumer research studies and publishes a biennial Major Appliance Fact

Book

. AHAM also develops and maintains technical standards for various appliances to provide uniform, repeatable procedures for measuring specific product characteristics and performance

features

.

3.6 MANUFACTURER INFORMA TION

The following section details information regarding domestic manufacturers of

dehumidifiers , including estimated market shares (section 3.6.1 ), industry mergers and acquisitions (section 3.6.2 ), potential small business impacts (section 3.6.3 ), and product distribution channels (section 3.6.4 ).

3.6.1 Manufacturers and Market Shares

The majority of residential dehumidifier s are manufactured overseas by three major

manufacturers

. The se products are then imported to the United States and sold under a variety of brands belonging to both appliance manufacturers and importers . Additionally, some foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) sell dehumidifiers directly in to the U. S. market under

their own brands.

For residential dehumidifiers , DOE estimates that there are approximately 25 entiti es selling dehumidifiers in the United States , 17 of which produce portable dehumidifiers. The remaining 8 manufacturers produce whole-home dehumidifiers. Table 3.6.1 lists these

manufacturers.

c For more infor mation, please visit www.aham.org

.

3-7Table 3.6.1 Residential Dehumidifier Original Equipment Manufacturers and Importers

Portable Dehumidifiers Whole

- Home Dehumidifiers **

Desert Aire * Aprilaire * Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of

Zhuhai /SoleusA ir* Lennox

Hisense Kelon Electrical Holdings Limited * Munters *

Haier America Trading LLC * NovelAire *

LG Electronics, Inc. * Therma

- Stor *

Midea USA Inc. * Williams Furnace Company *

Therma

- Stor * The General Filters, Inc.
Crosley Healthy Air & W a t e r Systems LLC
Danby Products Inc.
De'Longhi America
Friedrich Air Conditioning Co.
GE Appliances

Heat Controller

Oscar Air
Osram Sylvania

Perfect Aire LLC
Whynter LLC

* Original equipment manufacturers

** Some of th ese manufacturers and importers also sell high

- capacity portable dehumidifiers with construction

similar to that of their whole

- home products.

Using publicly available data, and adjusting for information gained in interviews with manufacturers, DOE estimated the market shares of entities re sponsible for the sale of resid ential portable dehumidifiers in the United States

. DOE estimates that over 50 percent of residential portable dehumidifier market share is held by Midea USA, Inc. d , De'Longhi America e , Danby Products Inc., and GE Appliances. Figure 3.6.1 illustrates the estimated market shares for the

residential portable dehumidifier market in the United States

.

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

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

3-8Figure 3.6.1 Estimated U.S. Market Share for Residential Portable Dehumidifiers

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

- Stor LLC and Aprilaire (Research Products Corporation). Other producers of whole-home dehumidifiers include Munters, NovelAire, and Williams Furnace Company.

3.6.2 Mergers and Acquisitions

As described in Section 3.6.1 , the major manufacturers and importers of residential dehumidifiers sold into the U.S. market include Midea, Gree, Haier, De’Longhi S.p.A., Danby

Products Limited , and GE Appliances.

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

market includ e the joint venture formed between Chinese manufacturer Gree and U.S.

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

CA

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

s ells directly to wholesalers. Th is collaboration has open ed the way for Gree to have a presence

in the United States

. 1 Also in 2011, LG Electronics acquired LS Mtron ’s Air -Conditioning unit, and in November 2012, Cor inthian Capital Group acquired Friedrich Air Conditioning Co. from

U.S. Natural Resources Inc. 2

3.6.3 Small Business Impacts

DOE considers the possib le impact of energy conservation standards on small businesses

. The products covered by this rulemaking are classified under the North American Industry Danby, 14%

De'Longhi, 16%

Haier, 5%

Midea, 15%

GE,

3% Kenmore,

8% Hisense
Kelon,

9% Soleusair, 8% Other, 23%

3-9Classification System ( NAICS ) codes 333415: Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing and 335210 : Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing. The Small Business Association (SBA) de fines a small business as a company that has fewer than 750 employees for both NAICS codes

. The 750- employee threshold includes all employees in a business’s parent company and any other subsidiaries. Using this classification in conjunction with informati on from industry databases, the SBA member directory , and reports from vendors such as Dun & Bradstreet, DOE has

identified five small business manufacturers which are based in the United States and produce one or more of the covered products. DOE will conduct further analysis to estimate any disproportionate impact that a minimum efficiency standard may have on this manufacturer subgroup.

3.6.4 Distribution Channels

Understanding the distribution channels through which residential dehumidifiers are sold is an important facet of the market assessment, because it helps to define the constraints or

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

distribution channels fo r dehumidifiers fro m publicly available sources, as well as from preliminary interviews with manufacturers

.

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

channel for portable dehumidifiers is often multi

- tiered. In one arrangement, foreign OEM s sell

theirproducts to a sourcing company with a greater U.S. presence, which in turn sells the products to retailers . Alternatively, OEMs sell their products under their own brands either to

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

stores, home improvement stores

, and department stores

, and to a lesser extent independent appliance retailors, i nternet retailers , membership warehouse clubs, electronics stores

, and office supply stores. 3 The AHAM 2003 Fact Book reports that home improvement stores claimed nearly one out of every four dollars spent on appliances in 2003. 4

The distribution channel for whole- home dehumidifiers differs from that of the portable dehumidifiers. The majority of whole-dehumidi fiers are sold directly to home builders or contractors, as they are intended to be integrated into a residence’s HVAC system , and as such require system design and more complex installation

.

3.7 REGULATORY PROGRAMS

The following section details current regulatory programs mandating energy conservation

standards for dehumidifiers. Section 3.7.1 discusses Federal energy conserva tion standards, and

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

American market.

3-103.7.1 Federal Energy Conservation Stan dards

On August 8, 2005 EPACT 2005 established energy conservation standards for several residential and commercial products, including residential dehumidifiers. Section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 amends section 325 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295, to add subsection (cc) for

dehumidifiers. This subsection establishes energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers based on the unit’s EF measured in liters (L) of water removed per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for product classes based on the unit’s capacity to extract moisture from the surrounding air (in pints/day). These Federally -mandated standards for dehumidifiers took effect for dehumidifiers manufactured after October 1, 2007. Table 3.7.1 provides the EPACT 2005 standards for

residential dehumidifiers.

Table 3.7.1 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers Established by

EPACT 2005

Dehumidifier Capacity Standards Effective October 1, 2007

EF ( L /kWh) 25.00 pints/day or less 1.00

25.01

– 35.00 pints/day 1.20

35.01

– 54.00 pints/day 1.30

54.01

– 74.99 pints/day 1.50 75.00 pints/day or more 2.25

In addition, EPACT 2005 required that DOE issue a final rule for dehumidifiers to determine whether these standards should be amended by October 1, 2009. (EPACT 2005, section 135(c)(4)). In the event that DOE did not publish a final rule, EPACT 2005 specified a new set of amended standards with a compliance date of October 1, 2012. ( Id. )

DOE issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) to consider energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers and other products (hereafter referred to as the “2007 ANOPR”) . (72 FR 64432 (Nov. 15, 2007)). EISA 2007 subsequently amended sec tion 325(cc) of

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

after October 1, 2012. DOE codified the EISA 2007 standards at 10 CFR 430.32(v )(2 ). 74 FR 12058 (Mar. 23, 2009). Table 3.7.2 summarizes the October 1, 2012 standards prescribed by

EISA 2007.

3-11Table 3.7.2 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers Established by

EISA 2007

Dehumidifier Capacity Standards Effective October 1, 2012

EF (L/kWh) 35.00 pints/day or less 1.35

35.01

– 45.00 pints/day 1.50

45.01

– 54.00 pints/day 1.60

54.01

– 75.00 pints/day 1.70 75.01 pints/day or more 2.50

EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE publish a NOPR proposing new standards or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).

3.7.2 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards

Canada’s Energy Efficiency Regulations (hereafter “Regulations” ) mandate minimum energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers. Canada’s Regulations refer to CAN/CSA

C749-07 (2007), “Performance of Dehumidifi ers, ” for determining compliance with Regulations. f These Regulations are comparable to DOE standards effective as of October 1, 2012, except capacity is expressed in terms of liters/day instead of pints/ d ay, as seen in Table

3.7.3

.

Table 3.7.3 Canadian Regulations for Residential Dehumidifiers

Dehumidifier Capacity Regulations Effective October 1, 2012

EF ( L /kWh)

16.6 liters/day or less 1 .35

16.6

– 21.3 liters/day 1.50

21.3

– 25.5 liters/day 1.60

25.5

– 35.5 liters/day 1.70

Greater than 35.5 liters/day 2.50

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

.

3-123.8 VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS

DOE reviewed several voluntary programs promoting energy efficient appliances and found that ENERGY STAR is the primary voluntary program that establishes energy efficiency

criteria for dehumidifiers in the United States.

3.8.1 ENERGY STAR

ENERGY STAR, a volun tary labeling program backed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE, identifies energy-efficient products through a qualification process. To qualify, a product must exceed Federal minimum standards by a specified amount, or, if no Feder al standard exists, exhibit selected energy -saving features. The ENERGY STAR program works to recognize the top quartile of products on the market, meaning that approximately 25 percent of products on the market should meet or exceed the ENERGY STAR

levels

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

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

became effect ive. The ENERGY STAR criteria divide products into two classes: less than 75 pints/ day and greater than or equal to 75 pints/day. The efficiency qualification criteria are listed

in Table 3.8.1

.

Table 3.8.1 ENERGY STAR Qualifying Criteria for Dehumidifiers

Dehumidifier Capacity Qualification Criteria Effective October 1,

2012

EF ( L /kWh) Less than 75 pints/day 1.85 75 pints/day or greater 2.80

3.9 HISTORICAL SHIPMENTS

Awareness of annual product shipment trends is an important aspect of the market assessment and in the development of the standards rulemaking. DOE reviewed data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and AHAM to evaluate dehumidifier shipment trends and the value of these shipments. Knowledge of such trends will be used during the shipments analysis (chapter 9

of this preliminary TSD).

3.9.1 Unit Shipments

AHAM’s 2005 Fact Book provides annual unit shipments for dehumidifiers from 1995 to 2005. In response to a data request, AHAM provided additional shipment information for 2006 through 2011. Table 3.9.1 presents the annual shipments of dehumidifiers for the 17-year period

3-13from 1995 to 2011. The complete AHAM data submittal is included in Appendix 3A of this

TSD.

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

, 6

Year Shipments (Thousands)

2011 1

, 368

2010 1

, 552

2009 1

, 700

2008 1

, 558

2007 2

, 004

2006 1

, 456

2005 1

, 957

2004 1,672

2003 1,311

2002 799

2001 806

2000 975

1999 950

1998 1,031

1997 820

1996 977

1995 1,003

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

dehumidifiers. Table 3.9.2 presents a breakdown of the shipments of units greater than 35 pints/day and less than 35 pints/day from 1999 to 2011. DOE notes that Federal energy conservation standards took effect in 2007, and ENERGY STAR qualification criteria took effect

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

year

- to -year variation in shipments observed during that time period. 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010No. Dehumidifiers (Thousands)

3-14Table 3.9.2 Dehumidifier Capacity

- Specific Shipments (Domestic and Import ) 7
Shipments (Thousands)

Year Less than

35 pints/day More than

35 pints/day

2011 384 984

2010 409 1

, 143

2009 472 1

, 227

2008 a 527 1

, 031

2007 603 1

, 401

2006 b 395 1

, 061

2005 406 1

, 551

2004 584 1

, 089

2003 353 958

2002 236 563

2001 260 545

2000 281 695

1999 294 656 a) ENERGY STAR criteria (effective June 1, 2008) b) ENERGY STAR criteria (effective October 1, 2006)

3.9.2 Value of Shipments

Table 3.9.3 provides the value of shipments for the manufacturers in the NAICS category of small electric household appliances excluding fans (product class code 3352114) from 2003 to

2010. The values are based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Industrial Reports g
( CIR ) and Annual Survey of Manufacturers h ( ASM ). This NAICS category includes companies primarily engaged in manufacturing small electric househol d appliances such as coffee makers, toaster ovens, portable room heaters, mixers, air purifiers, food processors, and portable dehumidifiers. The U.S. Census Bureau reports all shipment values in nominal dollars, i.e. , 2010 data are expressed in 2010 dollars and 2009 data are expressed in 2009 dollars. Using the Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator(GDPIPD) published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis i , DOE converted each year’s value of shipments to 2012 dollars.

g Available online at www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/index.html

h Available online at www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/index.html

i Available online at www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012No. Dehumidifiers (Thousands)

>35 pints/day < 35 pints/day

3-15Table 3.9.3 Annual Shipment Value of Small Electric Household Appliance s 8

, 9

, 10

, Annual Shipment Value ($ millions)

Year Nominal

Dollars 201 2

Dollars

2011 1,04 3 1,06 2

2010 1,107 1,14 9

2009 1,33 7 1,393

2008 1,098 1,16 3

2007 1,11 5 1,20 3

2006 1,206 1,34 1

2005 1,338 1,53 6

2004 1,254 1,484

2003 1,080 1,30 7

Table 3.9.4 provides the annual shipment value for the NAICS product class for “Small Electromechanical Household Appliances” (product class code 3352114150), which includes cordless household food prepa ration appliances, portable dehumidifiers, air purifiers, and other small appliances, from 2006 to 2010 based upon data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s CIR and

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

Gross D omestic Product Implicit Price Deflator ( GDPIPD ) to convert each year’s value of shipments to 2012 dollars.

Table 3.9.4 Annual Shipment Value of Small Electromechanical Household Appliance s 11

, 12

, 13

, 14

, 15

, Annual Shipment

Value ($ millions)

Year Nominal

Dollars 2012

Dollars

2010 63 2 65 6

2009 65 3 68 1

2008 558 59 1

2007 595 642

2006 73 1 81 2

Table 3.9.5 provides the annual shipment value for the NAICS product class for “airconditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012$ Millions

Nominal Dollars 2012 Dollars

0 250 500 750 1000

2005 2007 2009 2011$ Millions

Nominal Dollars 2012 Dollars

3-16equipment manufacturer” (product class code 333415), which includes various air-conditioning equipment, refrigerated drinking fountains, whole-home humidifying equipment, and whole home dehumidifiers, and others from 2007 to 2011 based upon data from the U.S. Census

Bureau’s CIR and ASM

. The U.S. Census Bureau shipment values are expressed in nominal

dollars. DOE used the GDPIPD to convert each year’s value of shipments to 20 12 dollars

.

Table 3.9.5 Annual Shipment Value of Air Conditioning Equipment 16

, 17

, 18

, 19

Annual Shipment Value ($ millions)

Year Nominal

Dollars 2012

Dollars

2011 28,40 7 28,947

2010 26,82 3 27,83 2

2009 25,688 26,773

2008 28,77 4 30,463

2007 28,939 31,22 7

According to data presented in the AHAM 2003 Fact Book , many old appliances are still being used after consumers purchase new units of same product. Table 3.9 .6 presents the various methods by which consumers dispose of their older dehumidifiers.

Table 3.9.6 Disposition of Previous Dehumidifiers 20

Product Kept It Left with

Previous

Home Sold /

Gave Away Recycling Facility Left at

Curb for Disposal Retailer

Took Away

D ehumidifiers 18% 14% 23% 13% 24% 4%

3.10 MARKET SATURATION

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

present the market saturation for dehumidifiers. The market saturation of dehumidifiers has gradually increased and doubled since 1982. However, from 1990 through 2001 the market

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

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

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

. 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

2006 2008 2010 2012$ Millions

Nominal Dollars 2012 Dollars

3-17Table 3.10.1 Percentage of U.S. Households with D ehumidifiers 21

, 22

Y ea r % of U.S.

Households

2008 19

2007 19

2006 20

2005 20

2004 20

2003 19

2002 16

2001 1 5

1990 1 7

1982 11

3.11 PRODUCT RETAIL PRICE S

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

with the California Energy Commission ( CEC ) k and ENERGY STAR l product databases, DOE identified a total of 214 portable and whole-home models of residential dehumidifiers, which encompass 56 different brands. DOE collect ed consumer retail price data for these products from

the websites of seven types of retailers: home improvement stores, discount retail stores, discount department stores, national office supply stores, national hardware stores, manufacturer

w ebsites, and online appliance retailers

.

Figure 3.11.1 and Figure 3.11.2 summarize the data collected by DOE. The se fi gures suggest that retail price is pos itively related to capacity for both portable and whole- home

dehumidifiers. The consumer retail prices for portable dehumidifiers m ranged from $128 to $410, with an average of $240 (this is the average across all portable models and does not reflect the shipment- weighted average). Portable dehumidifiers are available with capacities ranging from 30 pints/day to 71 pints/day, n as measured by the current dehumidifier test procedure, with an average capacity of 52 pints/day.

j For more information, please visit www.regulations.doe.gov

k CEC appliance efficiency database available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/database/

. l ENERGY STAR database available online at http://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified

dehumidifiers/results

m High

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

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

summary. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Percent of U.S. Households

3-18The consumer retail prices for whole-home and high- capacity portable (greater than 75 pints/day capacity ) dehumidifiers ranged from $1,000 to $5,499, with a model- based average of $1,979. Whole-home and high- capacity portable units range in capacity from 61 pints/day to 205 pints/day, with an average of 112 pints/day.

Figure 3.11.1 Portable Residential Dehumidifier Retail Price versus Capacity $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450

25 35 45 55 65 75Retail Price per Unit

Capacity

3-19Figure 3.11.2 Whole-Home and High- Capacity Portable Residential Dehumidifier Retail Price versus Capacity

O ther factors besides capacity and product type, such as efficiency, ENERGY STAR rating, and retailer, also may impact residential dehumidifier price.

3.12 IND USTRY COST STRUCTURE

DOE developed the cost structure for two industry classifications associated with the residential dehumidifier industry from publicly available information from the ASM and Economic Census and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10- K reports filed by publicly- owned manufacturers. Table 3.13.1 presents the small electrical appliance manufacturing industry (NAICS code 33521) employment levels and earnings from 2002–2011. The statistics illustrate a steady decline in the number of production and non-production workers in the industry since 2002, except during the period from 2005 to 2007 in which there was a slight increase

.

DOE converted the payroll data to constant 2012 dollars using the GDPIPD published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis o

. Table 3.12.1 shows that as industry employment levels decline, the industry payroll in constant 2012 dollars also decreases from 2002 to 2011, with a

o Available online at http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000

25 75 125 175 225Retail Price per Unit

Capacity

Whole-Home Units High-Capacity Portable Units

3-20slight re bound from 2005 to 2007 . The percent decrease in total industry employees tracks relatively closely with the percent decrease (increase) in payroll for all employees.

Table 3.12.1 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Employment and Earnings 23

Year Production

Workers All Employees Total Payroll (2012 $

Mil)

2011 5,713 7,619 348

2010 6,383 8,536 380

2009 7,609 10,072 428

2008 9,905 12,809 539

2007 10,816 13,502 572

2006 9,870 12,715 529

2005 9,680 13,297 535

2004 11,770 15,533 634

2003 12,682 16,752 683

2002 14,293 18,781 759

Table 3.12.2 presents the employments levels and payroll for NAICS code 333415, corresponding with “a ir -conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment ma nufacturing” p , which includes whole-home d ehumidifiers

. Both employment and earnings statistics show a decline between 2007 and 2009 with levels remaining largely flat thereafter through 2011

.

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

under this NAICS code.

3-21Table 3.12.2 Air -C onditioning and Warm A ir Heating E quipment M anufacturing Industry Employment and Earnings 24

Year Production

Workers All Employees Total Payroll (2012 $

Mil)

2011 62,009 83,969 $3,764

2010 61,380 83,054 $3,923

2009 60,041 86,454 $3,862

2008 70,787 96,610 $4,273

2007 74,728 101,485 $4,382

2006 74,909 102,354 $4,493

2005 76,011 98,097 $4,549

Table 3.12.3 presents the costs of materials and industry payroll as a percentage of value of shipments from 2002–2011 for the small electrical appliance manufacturing industry. The cost

of materials as a percentage of value of shipments has remained fairly constant over the 10- year period, with some notable fluctuations, particularly an increase from 2002 to 2003 and a decrease

between 2008 and 2010 . DOE notes that fluctuations in raw material costs are common from year to year. The payroll for both production and non-production workers as a percentage of value of shipments has remained relatively stable since 2002.

Table 3.12.3 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Materials and Wages

Cost 25

Cost as a Percentage of Value of Shipments (%)

Year Materials Payroll for

Production

Workers Payroll for

All Other Employees

2011 53% 7% 5%

2010 49% 6% 5%

2009 51% 6% 5%

2008 54% 7% 5%

2007 55% 8% 5%

2006 54% 8% 5%

2005 53% 7% 5%

2004 52% 7% 5%

2003 52% 8% 5%

2002 47% 8% 5%

3-22Table 3.12.4 shows the cost of materials and industry payroll as a percentage of value of shipments for the a ir -conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration equi pment manufacturing industry from 2005–20 11 . Material prices as a percentage of value of shipments have remained relatively constant o ver the 5-year period, with fluctuations from year to year . The cost of payroll for production workers as a percentage of value of shipments has decreased slightly since 2005. Finally, the cost of non-production payroll has remained relatively constant over the 7- year period, with fluctuations from year to year

. DOE notes that, overall, wages and cost of materials combined represent approximately the same percentage of the total shipments value for the a ir -conditioning and w arm a ir h eating equipment industry and for the small electrical appliance industry.

Table 3.12.4 Air

- Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment Manufacturing Industry Materials and Wages Cost 26

Cost as a Percentage of Value of Shipments ( % )

Year Materials Payroll for

Production

Workers Payroll for

All Other Employees

2011 55% 8% 5%

2010 53% 8% 6%

2009 55% 8% 6%

2008 55% 8% 5%

2007 56% 8% 5%

2006 53% 9% 5%

2005 54% 9% 5%

Table 3.12.5 presents the industry cost structure derived from SEC 10 -K reports of publicly-owned dehumidifier manufacturers. DOE averaged the financial data from 2006–2012

of U.S.- based appliance manufacturers to obtain an industry average. Each financial statement entry is presented as a percentage of total revenues.

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

Financial Statement Entry Percent of

Revenues

Cost of sales 71.7 %

EBIT 7.5 % Selling, general and administrative 20.9 % Capital expenditure 2. 7 % Research and development 1. 3 % Depreciation and amortization 2. 5 % Net plant, property and equipment 13.4 % Working capital 20.1 %

3-23A detailed financial analysis is presented in the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA

, chapter 12 of this preliminary TSD). This analysis identifies key financial inputs including cost of capital, working capital, depreciation, capital expend itures, etc.

3.13 INVENTORY LEVELS AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION RATES

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

- conditioning and warm air heating industries, according to the

ASM . The trend in the value of end-of-year inventory in dollars for the small electrical appliance industry was relatively variable between 2005 and 2011, notably increasing 34 percent from 2006 to 2007, and decreasing 22 percent between 2008 and 2009. The decrease in inventories of small electrical appliance manufacturers from 2007 to 2009 aligns with the end of the 2007–2009

recession , and was likely a reaction to the decline in new orders during that period. From 2005 to 2011, inventories as a percentage of the value of shipments tracked ending inventories fairly closely until 2009, when it bega n to increase steadily

, indicating that small electrical appliance shipments have decreased in recent years. For the air -conditioning and warm air heating equipment manufacturing industry, the value of the end-of- year inventories was less volatile than

that for the small electrical appliance manufacturing industry, increasing from 2005 to 2007 and decreasing from 2007 to 2011. Inventory as a percentage of the value of shipments followed a similar trend, increasing from 2005 to 2007 and decreasing thereafter.

Table 3.13.1 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Industry Inventory Levels 27

Year End- of

- Year Inventory ( 2012 $ Mil ) EOY inventory as

% of Shipments

Value

2011 424 14%

2010 451 13%

2009 452 12 %

2008 578 13%

2007 582 13%

2006 433 1 1 %

2005 437 10%

3-24Table 3.13.2 Air

- Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment Manufacturing Industry Inventory Levels 28

Year End

- of

Year Inventory

(2012 $

Mil) EOY inventory

as % of Shipments

Value

2011 2,667 9%

2010 2,742 9%

2009 2,861 10%

2008 3,254 10%

2007 3,504 11%

2006 3,442 11%

2005 3,294 10%

DOE obtained full production capacity utilization rates from the U.S. Census Bureau ’s Survey of Plant Capacity from 2004–2006. After 2006, the Census Bureau discontinued this survey, and began a new Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization . However, this survey

does not collect utilization data beyond the 4 digit NAICS codes for the “all household appliances” q and “ventilation, heating, air-conditioning, and commercial refrigeration equipmen t” r industries. Table 3.13.3 presents utilization rates for these umbrella industr ies

.

Full production capacity is defined as the maximum level of production an establishment could attain under normal operating conditions. s In the Survey of Plant Capacity reports, the full production utilization rate is a ratio of the actual level of operations to the full production capacity . The full production utilization rate for all household appliances shows fairly steady

utilization between 7 4 and 77 percent from 2004 through 200 7 , with a significant decrease to less than 60 percent from 2008 through 2009, and then a partial rebound from 2010 to 2012. Plant capacity utilization for ventilation, heating, air -conditioning , and commercial refrigeration

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

q “ All Home Appliances” is the umbrella NAICS category 335 2 that includes NAICS code 3352 1 for “ Small

Electrical Appliances .”

r “ Ventilation, heating, air

- conditioning, and commercial refrigeration equipmen t” is the umbrella NAICS category

33 34 that includes NAICS code 33 3415 for “ a ir

- conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment .”

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

3-25Table 3.13.3 Full Production Capacity Utilization Rates 29

, 30

Plant Capacity Utilization

Rates (%)

Year All

Household Appliances Ventilation, heating, air

conditioning,

and commercia l

refrigeration equipment mfg.

2012 65% 55%

2011 62% 60%

2010 64% 60%

2009 58% 60%

2008 59% 67%

2007 76% 66%

2006 77% 62%

2005 74% 66%

2004 76% 61%

3.14 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMEN T

This section provides a technology assessment for dehumidifiers. Contained in this technology assessment are details about product characteristics and operation (section 3.14.1 ), an examination of possible technological improvements (section 3.14.2 ), and a characterization of the product efficiency levels currently commercially available (section 3.14.3 ).

3.14.1 Dehumidifier Operations and Components

Dehumidifiers are refrigeration

- based appliances that enable homeowners to reduce indoor relative humidity (RH)

. RH is defined as the amount of water vapor present in the air compared to the maximum amount of water vapor the air can hold at that temperature. A desirable indoor RH is typically between 30 and 60 percent.

Dehumidifiers contain refrigeration systems that remove latent heat, and therefore moisture, from ambient air. Components of the refrigeration system include an evaporator, an expansion valve or capillary tube, a condenser, and a compressor.

Refrigeration

- based dehumidifiers operate as foll ows:

3-261. A circulating fan draws air into the dehumidifier via an intake vent, or in the case of whole-home dehumidifiers, via an inlet air duct, typically in the front or on the sides of the unit;

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

3. The evaporator cools the air, and moisture from the air condenses on the surface of the evaporator and drains either into a bin or a floor drain; and

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

the dehumidifier via an outlet grille, or in the case of whole-home dehumidifiers, via an outlet air duct, typically on the top or sides of the unit.

This process is illustrated in Figure 3.14.1.

Figure 3.14.1 Dehumidifier Operation Schematic

When the surface temperature of the evaporator is lower than the dew point of the air passing over it, the removal of latent heat occurs through condensation. All residential portable dehumidifiers are equipped with an automatic shut-off function that halts operation of the device once the condensate collection tank is full. They may also include a direct drain hose connection and occasionally an internal pump, for direct drainage of condensate into a sump pump or floor drain. Whole-home dehumidifiers typically only include a direct drain hose connection and no

internal condensate collection tank. This allows continuous operation without the need for user intervention to periodically empty the condensate collection tank.

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

- speed fans to electronic controllers that use multiple sensors, liquid

solenoid controls, and other devices to maximize unit performance. All dehumidifiers sense the evaporator coil or l iquid line temperature to prevent icing, though some units may include sensors in multiple locations to avoid ice accumulation

. Humid Air Dry Air Evaporator Condenser

Compressor Condensate

Bin Fan Expansion

Humid Air Dry Air Evaporator Condenser

Compressor Condensate

Bin Fan Expansion

3-27The electrically -powered components of the refrigeration-based dehumidifier system include the fan motor, the compressor that powers the refrigeration system

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

3.14.2 Dehumidifier Technology Options

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the technological improvements used to increase the efficiency of dehumidifiers, DOE identified several possible technologies and examined the most common improvements used in today’s market.

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

. From the list in the 20 07 ANOPR, DOE identified technology options that would be considered for this rulemaking, which were presented in the framework document made available in August 2012. u 77 FR 49739 (Aug. 17, 2012). Additional technology options were identified by DOE during teardowns conducted as part of reverse-engineering analyses. For more

details on the reverse

- engineering activities, see chapter 5 of this preliminary TSD.

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

that can be incorporated into the design of a dehumidifier to improve its efficiency. Based on product literature research, stakeholder interviews, and teardown analysis, DOE has identified compressor, heat exchanger, and fan motor improvements as the most common ways by which manufacturers improve the energy efficiency of their dehumidifiers as measured by the DOE test procedure.

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

- 2006

- STD

- 0127

- 0097

.

u The framework document is available online at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D= EERE

- 2012 -BTSTD

- 0027

- 0003

.

3-28Table 3.14.1 Technology Options for Dehumidifiers

1. Built

- in hygrometer/humidistat 2. Improved compressor efficiency 3. Improved condenser and evaporator performance

4. Improved controls 5. Improved defrost methods 6. Improved demand

- defrost controls

7

. Improved fan and fan

- motor efficiency

8

. Improved flow

- control devices

9

. Low

- standby

- loss electronic controls

10 . Washable air filters

1 1 . Pre

- cooling air

- to

- air heat exchanger

1 2 . Heat pipes

1 3 . Improved refrigeration system insulation

1 4 . Refrigerant

- desiccant systems

Built

- in hygrometer/humidistat

All portable dehumidifiers subjected to DOE teardowns featured some type of built- in humidity controller. For all units in the teardown sample, DOE observed electronic controls, but DOE is aware that certain units may still feature e lectromechanical humidistat s. The humidistat cycles the compressor and fan power supply as a function of relative humidity. Both e lectronic and electromechanical controllers measure the expansion of a reference material as a function of relative humidity . DOE notes that whole-home dehumidifiers are often designed to be used in conjunction with a remote humidistat. The humidistat is placed in the portion of the home that requires dehumidification, and cycles the whole-home dehumidifier compressor and fan power supply as needed. Although this control is external to the unit, DOE does not expect significant differences in efficiency or operation when compared to the built-in controls on portable units.

Improved compressor e fficiency

Most dehumidifier manufacturers incorporate rotary R-410A compressors into their units. “Inertia” compressors, scroll compressors, and variable

- speed compressors all have higher efficiencies than the traditional rotary compressors used in dehumidifiers . However, finding a suitable high

- efficiency compresso r at the capacities and price points needed for a dehumidifier is a challenge.

The “inertia” compressor is a technology that allows reciprocating compressors to approach an energy efficiency ratio (EER) of 12.0, where EER represents the cooling capacity i n Btu/hr divided by the input wattage of the compressor . “Inertia” compressors utilize lightweight, responsive valve technology and an innovative refrigerant flow path to reduce losses and improve cylinder volumetric efficiency.

3-29Scroll compressors requi re high precision to produce their internal components and are typically found in higher- efficiency central air -conditioning systems. Scroll compressors compress gas in a fundamentally different manner from traditional compressors — between two spirals, one fixed and one nutating. Scroll compression is inherently more efficient than traditional compression methods.

Both inertia and scroll compressors are, however, substantially larger, heavier, and sometimes noisier than their rotary counterparts, and, as such, are not well -suited for use in

residential dehumidifiers.

Variable -speed compressors are typically implemented through the use of an electroniccontrol that varies the input frequency of the power supply for the compressor motor. Variablespeed compressors enable modulation of the refrigeration-system cooling power beyond simple on/off control, allowing the dehumidifier to better match the compressor power to the load, increasing compression efficiency. Variable -speed compressor technology has not yet been implemented in residential dehumidifiers, and it is therefore difficult to predict the energy efficiency improvements that could be achieved through its use. However, DOE expects that a variable -speed compressor in a dehumidifier could provide more precise control of the evaporator coil temperature to ensure more efficient latent heat removal, especially at low temperatures where ice buildup is prevalent.

Improved condenser and evaporator performance

Improving the overall heat transfer capab ility of the dehumidifier condenser and

evaporator coil s would result in improved efficiency of the refrigeration system. DOE notes that many factors contribute to heat exchanger performance, including size, number of fins, type of fins, number of tube pas ses, etc. DOE notes that a lmost all dehumidifier models in its teardown sample had similarly constructed heat exchangers with “ slit ” aluminum fins for more turbulent

airflow , roughly 20 fins per inch, and internally -rifled copper tubing for optimized refri gerant heat exchange , although the heat exchangers did vary in size from unit to unit.

Improved controls

Manufacturers have increasingly adopted digital controllers for dehumidifiers due to consumer demand and because such controllers allow dehumidifiers to better respond to changing environmental conditions. Unlike the snap -action switches and fixed- RH electromechanical controllers they replace, digital controllers can measure multiple inputs and respond to present conditions as well as trends.

Digital controllers can use varying approaches, from rigid decision trees to fuzzy logic. During the reverse- engineering process, DOE observed that most electronic control boards were purchased parts that had been mass -customized for the specific dehumidifier. One advantage of digital controllers is the ease with which they can be reprogrammed, allowing a manufacturer to use one control board for its entire dehumidifier line, yet optimize its responses per dehumidifier

model.

3-30It is difficult to predict the amount of energy savings that could be achieved through the implementation of improved controllers because the current DOE test procedure evaluates continuous dehumidifier operation at constant ambient conditions.

Improved defrost methods

As the air drawn in to the dehumidifier is cooled, water vapor condenses on the surface of the evaporator coil. In some cases, typically when the ambient air is typically below 65 °F, this water can freeze as it collects and form a growing layer of frost. The frost reduces cooling performance by increasing the thermal resistance to heat transfer from the coil to the air and by obstructing air flow. Both the method by which defrost is performed and con trol of the defrost cycle can lead to substantial energy savings.

Many dehumidifiers incorporate defrost technology. In general, two types of defrost mechanisms are available: passive defrost and active defrost. According to market research and investigative testing, most dehumidifiers that feature defrost technology use active defrost. This is especially true for d ehumidifiers that are designed and marketed for low

- temperature operation ( i.e. , for use in basements)

.

Dehumidifiers using passive defrost or off

- cycle mode monitor the temperature of the evaporator and shut both the compressor and fan off if that temperature drops below the freezing point of water. This is not technically “defrost,” as it actually prevents the formation of frost

rather than el iminating frost afterit forms. It is, however, an effective method of preventing the dehumidifier from operating under low- efficiency frosted conditions. This method is simple to implement and incurs no additional energy expenditure.

Active defrost in d ehumidifiers is conducted in one of three ways: fan -only defrost, electric defrost, or hot- gas defrost.

Fan -only defrost involves shutting off the refrigeration system while keeping the aircirculation system running. The relatively warm ambient air melts the frost layer, and the dehumidifier subsequently resumes operation. F an -only defrost may allow much of the frozen condensate to be reabsorbed into the ambient air as it melts, compromising the effectiveness of

the dehumidifier.

Electric defrost involves melting frost by briefly activating an electric resistance heater, which is in contact with or near the evaporator. The heater melts frost quickly but consumes significant energy. Hot- gas defrost uses the hot compressor discharge gas to warm the eva pora tor from the refrigerant side. Electricity usage is reduced in comparison to the electric defrost method; however, this method necessitate s more complicated piping and control than electric defrost systems. Neither of these defrost technologies were id entified in dehumidifiers through market research, and were not present in any units that were disassembled during DOE’s

teardowns.

3-31Defrost methods are not currently captured as part of the DOE test procedures because

units are tested in dehumidification mode at 80 °F conditions where icing is unlikely to occur. At the 65 °F test conditions which DOE proposed in the XXX Test Procedure NOPR , however, certain dehumidifiers in DOE’s test sample exhibited operational patterns that were indicative of

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

Improved d emand -d efrost c ontrols

In all active -defrost systems, control of the defrost cycle may lead to substantial energy savings. Defrost-cycle control involves management of the initiation and termination of defrost cycles, and thereby management of the frequency and duration of defrost cycles. Two different

defrost- cycle control designs are avai lable: timer

- controlled and temperature

- sensor -controlled.

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

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

fixed amount of time or in response to low ambient temperatures. In these systems, cycle frequency and duration are not responsive to actual frost conditions. Under timer control, the frequency of defrost cycles is determined by the amount of time the manufacturer expe cts it to take for a large frost layer to develop in the worst- case scenario, and the cycle duration is long enough to ensure that the frost layer completely melts . Timer

- based defrost can lead to unnecessarily frequent and unnecessarily long defrost cycles under anything but worst

- case conditions.

Sensor-controlled defrost occurs as

- needed based on evaporator coil temperature s. Defrost cycles are initiated in response to freezing temperatures at the evaporator coil or other area in the dehumidifier, and a re terminated when the coil temperature reaches a value indicating complete defrost. This type of defrost control saves energy relative to timer -controlled defrost by varying cycle duration based upon defrost requirements. As with all defrost design options, actual energy savings will be a function of ambient conditions and usage patterns.

Improved f an and fan-motor e fficiency

The air

- circulation system of a residential dehumidifier usually consists of a permanent split capacity ( PSC ) fan motor that drives either propeller- style blades or a tangential “squirrel cage” fan. These motors run on line voltage and typically feature one or two speeds. Multiple fan speeds are usually found on higher-end units. Some unit controllers can modulate fan speeds (high/lo w) whereas less complex models utilize a user

- set switch.

Dehumidifiers are typically built using product platforms, where one enclosure serves multiple dehumidification capacities. As a result, the designers make tradeoffs to accommodate a wide range of capacities (35 to 65 pints/day, for example) within a single enclosure. W hile efficiency improvements could be achieved by optimizing fan blades for specific dehumidifier models, such a design change would add complexity to the manufacturing process by requiring a wider scope of fan blades to be stocked. Such steps would likely increase inventory, reduce fan

3-32blade purchase volumes and hence manufacturers see this as a relatively costly design option in relation to the efficiency benefit. Therefore, quantifying the efficiency improvements to the

dehumidifier’s air

- circulation system is restricted to analyzing the efficiency improvements to the fan motor only.

In a PSC motor, t he start

- up winding is electrically connected in parallel with the main winding and in series with a capacitor. At start

- up, the interactions between the magnetic field generated by the start -up winding and that generated by the main winding induce rotation. As the capacitor charges, the current flowing through the start -up winding decreases and the start -up winding becomes an auxiliary winding after the motor reaches running speed. Consequently, the

current to the start -up winding is cut off once the capac itor is fully charged and the motor reaches steady

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

their shaded -pole counterparts, with motor efficiencies ranging from 60 to 65 percent. 31 Like

shaded -pole motors, PSC motors are produced in large quantities and are relatively inexpensive. 32

Electric motors with even higher efficiencies can be implemented by switching to permanent-magnet motors, which come in many varieties. The most widely- known variety is the electronically

- co mmutate d motor (ECM) v , though DC- motors can also be used. Permanent

magnet motors are less noisy and substantially more efficient than either shaded

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

motor e ff iciencies approaching 80 percent. 33 However, EC M motors can weigh twice as much as equivalent PSC motors, potentially necessitating a redesign of the dehumidifier fan-motor chassis. In addition, ECM motors are complex, are not currently produced in large volumes, and

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

Improved flow

- control devices

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

- tube expansion valve is a pressure -reducing device that consists of a small

diameter line that connects the outlet of the condenser to the inlet of the evaporator. It is designed to provide optimum energy characteristics at one design point. If sized properly, the capillary -tube expansion valve compensates automatically for load and system variations and gives acceptable performance over a wide range of operating conditions. Because ambient temperature and humidity vary, however, dehumidifiers sometimes operate under conditions outside of the target conditi ons, leading to reduced efficiency.

The thermostatic expansion valve (TXV) — a flow

- control alternative to the capillary tube — is commonly used in higher- efficiency central air -conditioning systems. TXVs regulate the flow of liquid refrigerant entering t he evaporator in response to the superheat of the refrigerant leaving it. TXVs can adapt better to changes in operating conditions such as those due

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

- commutated permanent magnet (EC PM ) motors

.

3-33to variations in ambient temperature, which affect the condensing temperature. As a result, TXVs

can lead t o a somewhat increased seasonal operating efficiency.

Electronic expansion valves (EEVs) are similar to TXVs, but unlike TXVs, they can be actively controlled. While a TXV relies on a single temperature sensor for feedback, digital controllers can use multiple sensors for feedback control and respond using multiple approaches. For example, besides modulating the refrigerant flow, the controller may also vary the fan speed to optimize efficiency under varying conditions. As with TXVs, EEVs can use the super heat control method to regulate refrigerant flow. Other methods, such as controlling compressor discharge temperature, can also be used.

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

TXVs or EEVs. Given the cost of TXVs and EEVs, it is unlikely that manufacturers would implement them in residential dehumidifiers. Additionally, because dehumidifiers are tested during continuous operation under constant ambient conditions, the test procedure may not capture efficiency gains associated with these technologies

.

Low -standby- loss electronic controls

Electronic controls may consume power even when the dehumidifier is not performing its intended function. Depending on the implementation of the controller, standby power is required to enable the electronic controls to detect user input without the user first having to turn on a mechanical power switch or to enable displays, illuminate switches, etc. Reducing the standby power consumption of electronic controls will reduce the annual energy consumption of the dehumidifier, but will not impact the energy consumption of the dehumidifier during operation in

dehumidification mode.

Washable a ir f ilters

The build-up of dust particles on the evaporator coil can lower the heat- tra nsfer capability of the component. To minimize this possibility, most dehumidifiers incorporate an air filter at the

air -intake vent. However, these filters can become clogged, obstructing air flow through the dehumidifier and reducing system performance. To prevent this, most manufacturers design the air filters to be removable and washable, which allows the consumer to clean the air filters on a regular basis. It is difficult to predict the amount of energy savings that could be realized with the

addition of washable air filters , as it is depend ent on the specific dehumidifier model and use characteristics, and on the degree to which the consumer takes advantage of this feature

. Additionally, efficiency testing is often conducted on new dehumidifiers, so there would be likely be no clear efficiency impact due to dust build up in either the evaporator or in the air

filter.

Pre

- cooling Air

- to

- Air Heat Exchanger

The efficiency of a refrigeration -based dehumidification system may be increased by pre

cool ing air prior to the evaporator inlet

. With pre

- cooled inlet air , the refrigeration system may

3-34consume less energy to maintain the proper evaporator temperature while removing additional condensate from the air. DOE found that many high- capacity dehumidifi ers (greater than 75 pints/day) incorporate an air

- to

- air heat exchanger that transfers heat from the intake air to the air immediately exiting the evaporator. The energy savings that can be realized from this technology is dependent on a unit’s specific a irflow and component configuration. Based on DOE’s analysis of existing models with and without air- to

- air heat exchangers, DOE estimates that this technology option may result in a 10 to 25 percent reduction in active dehumidification mode

energy use.

Heat Pipes

Another method for increasing the efficiency of a refrigeration- based dehumidifier is to include a heat pipe system that acts as a pre

- cooler for air entering the evaporator. A heat pipe system consists of a set of additional coils installed on e ach side of the evaporator. The coils are connected via a sealed refrigerant system, which is independent of the primary refrigeration system in the dehumidifier. The goal of the heat pipe is to passively transfer heat from the incoming air stream to the air stream exiting the evaporator.

The air entering the dehumidifier is pre

- cooled by the refrigerant in the coil in front of the evaporator. The refrigerant in this section of the heat pipe evaporates as it gains heat from the inlet airstream and passivel y flows to the coil behind the evaporator. The pre- cooled air then passes through the evaporator, where the temperature of the air is decreased even further to condense moisture. Air exiting the evaporator is at a low temperature, so this air stream gains heat from the warmer refrigerant in the heat pipe coil behind the evaporator. As the refrigerant in this coil loses heat to the airstream, it condenses back to a liquid and passively flows back to the coil in front of the evaporator. As a result of this sy stem, the evaporator is required to remove less heat from the incoming airstream, and less energy is required for the dehumidifier refrigeration system.

DOE was unable to identify any residential dehumidifiers that use heat pipes to boost performance by pre- cooling the inlet evaporator air. DOE is aware that units existed on the market until 2010, at which point the manufacturer chose to discontinue the product line for

reasons unknown to DOE. DOE is, however, aware of packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) available on the market that incorporate heat pipe systems. The manufacturer for these products has provided limited information on their performance, including moisture removal. Based on a comparison of these products to similar PTACs without heat pipes, DOE estimates that heat p ipes could produce as much as a 25

- percent improvement in efficiency. DOE notes, however, that this estimate is based on products optimized for removing sensible hea t from the airstream, and may not apply to dehumidifiers optimized for removing latent heat. DOE also notes that heat pipes may disrupt airflow to the evaporator. This could limit the effective heat transfer in the evaporator, decreasing or eliminating any efficiency gains associated with pre

cooling the inlet air.

Improved Refrigeration System Insulation

3-35While conducting teardowns, DOE found that all products included refrigeration system insulation to a certain extent. The most commonly insulated parts of the system were the evaporator outlet and compressor inlet. Insulation helps contain heat loses throughout the refrigeration system and therefore improves the overall energy efficiency of the dehumidifier,

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

DOE also observed that whole-home dehumidifiers and the high- capacity portable dehumidifiers also typically featured insulated cases. However, DOE expects case insulation to primarily improve a unit ’s noise performance rather than its energy efficiency.

Refrigerant

- Desiccant Systems

DOE is aware of certain products available on the market that meet the proposed definition of whole-home dehumidifier, but also incorporate a desiccant system to aid in

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

s ome of the moisture in the process air ( i.e. , the air that is supplied from and returned to the conditioned space) is condensed on the evaporator, while additional moisture is removed via a porous desiccant material that adsorbs moisture when damp air passes through or over it. The desiccant material is typically configured in a circular or wheel structure. A portion of the wheel adsorbs moisture from the process air entering the unit, which is then delivered to the conditioned space. As the wheel rotates, the moisture in that segment is released into a separate heated reactivation air stream and exhausted out of the home. In addition to removing some

moisture from th e process air directly, the refrigeration system boosts the temperature of the reactivation air to more effectively remove moisture from the desiccant wheel, and cools the incoming air to improve the adsorpti vity of the desiccant material.

The XXX Test Procedure NOPR includes proposed provisions to account for the unique setup and operation of these units compared to the typical refrigerant -based dehumidifiers. In particular, ref rigerant

- desiccant dehumidifiers require a separate inlet and exhaust duct fo r the intake of reactivation air that removes moisture from the desiccant wheel and discharge of the moist air to the outdoors, so not all moisture that is removed from the conditioned space will be accounted for by measurement of the condensate collected . ( CITE ) DOE expects that refrigerant

desiccant systems can offer unique utility in certain conditions, particularly in very lowtemperature installations where typical dehumidifiers may run into frosting issues. While refrigerant

- desiccant dehumidifiers ma y provide additional utility compared to typical

dehumidifiers under these lower temperature operating conditions, under the representative ambient conditions that DOE is proposing for the test procedure, DOE did not observe an efficiency improvement associated with refrigerant

- desiccant systems.

3.14.3 Energy Efficiency

In preparation for the screening and engineering analyses, DOE gathered data on the energy efficiency of dehumidifiers currently available in the marketplace. This data is taken from

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

3-36dehumidifier along with the current energy conservation standards and ENERGY STAR criteria for dehumidifiers, effective as of October 2012. w

Figure 3.14.2 DOE

- Certified Dehumidifiers, DOE Standards, and ENERGY STAR Qualification Criteria 35

w For more information, please visit www.energystar.gov

. 0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

0 50 100 150 200Energy Factor (L/kWh)

Capacity (pints/day)

DOE Compliance Standards ENERGY STAR Qualification Criteria

3-37REFERENCES

1 “SoleusAir, Gree Electronic Appliances Merge,” Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration News Weekly , April 4, 2011.

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

Wire , November 29, 2012.

3 Consumer Reports, “Dehumidifier Buying Guide,” Available online at: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/dehumidifiers/buying-guide.htm . (Accessed November 30, 2013)

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

5 AHAM Fact Book 2005.

6 Data Submittal by AHAM. December 21, 2012.

7 Ibid.

8 U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. “ Table 1

- Value of Shipments of Electric Housewares and Fans by Class of Product: 2003 to 2007, ” 2007 Annual Survey of Manufactures ( ASM ), May 2008. Available online at: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335e/ma335e07.xls (Accessed November 30, 2013).

9 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “ Table 1

- Value of Shipments of Electric Housewares and Fans by Class of Product: 2010 to 2006 ” 2010 ASM , May 2011. Available online at: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335e/ma335e10.xls (Accessed November 30, 2013).

10 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: Value of Products Shipments: Value of Shipments for Product Classes: 2011 and 2010”, 2011 ASM

, November 2012. Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_ 2011_31VS101&prodType=table . (Accessed November 30, 2013)

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

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

online at: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335e/ma335e07.xls (Accessed November 30, 2013).

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

Housewares and Fa ns by Product: 2008 and 2007 ” 2008 ASM , May 20 09 . Available

3-38online at: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335e/ma335e08.xls (Accessed November 30, 2013).

13 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. “T able 2 - Quantity and Value of Shipments of Electric Housewares and Fans by Product: 2009 and 2008 ” 2009 ASM , April 2010. Available

online at: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335e/ma335e09.xls (Accessed November 30, 2013).

14 Ibid.

15 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. 2010 Current Industrial Report – Major Household Appliances ( CIR ), May 20 11. Available online at: www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335f/ma335f10.xls (Accessed November 30, 2013).

16 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: Value of Products Shipments: Value of Shipments for Product Classes: 2011 and 2010”, November 2012.

Available online at: http://factfinde r2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_ 2011_31VS101&prodType=table . (Accessed November 30, 2013).

17 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: Value of Products Shipments: Value of Shipments for Product Classes: 2010 and 2009”, November 2011.

Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/produ ctview.xhtml?pid=ASM_ 2010_31VS101&prodType=table . (Accessed November 30, 2013).

18 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: Value of Products Shipments: Value of Shipments for Product Classes: 2009 and 2008”. Available online

at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_ 2009_31VS101&prodType=table . (Accessed November 30, 2013).

19 U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: Value of Products Shipments: Value of Shipments for Product Classes: 2008 and 2007 ”. Available online

at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_ 2008_31VS101&prodType=table . (Accessed Nov ember 30, 2013).

20 AHAM Fact Book. 2003.

21 Ibid.

3-3922 “U.S. Appliance Industry: Market Share, Life Expectancy & Replacement Market, and

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

23 U.S. Census Bureau. 2002–2011. “Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics: Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries,” ASM

. Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_ 2011_31GS101&prodType=table . (Accessed November 30, 2013).

24 Ibid

.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Plant Capacity , 2004 to 2006. Available online at: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/capacity/historical_data/index.html . (Accessed November 30, 2013).

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

Available online at: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/capacity/ . (Accessed November 30, 2013).

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

2003.

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

33 Simmons. 2003. Op. cit.

34 Ibid.

35 DOE CCMS Database. Available online at

http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification

- data/CCMS

- 41431694081.html (Accessed November 30, 2013).

3-40