CHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION

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

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

..................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 PRODUCT TEST PROCEDURES

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

......................................................................... 3-6 3.5.1 Association of Home App liance Manufacturers

.............................................................. 3-6 3.5.2 Coin Laundry Association

............................................................................................... 3-6 3.5.3 Multi-housing Laundry Association

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

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

................................................................................... 3-7 3.6.2 Mergers and Acquisitions

.............................................................................................. 3-14 3.6.3 Small Business Impacts

................................................................................................. 3- 16 3.6.4 Distribution Channels

.................................................................................................... 3-17 3.7 REGULATORY PROGRAMS

..................................................................................... 3-18 3.7.1 Current Federal Energy Conservation Standards Prior to EPACT 2005

....................... 3-18 3.7.2 Energy Policy Act of 2005

............................................................................................. 3-19 3.7.3 State Energy Conservation Standards

............................................................................ 3-21 3.7.4 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards

..................................................................... 3-22 3.8 VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS

........................................................................................ 3-24 3.8.1 Consortium for Energy Efficiency

................................................................................. 3-24 3.8.2 Energy Star

.............................................................................................................. ....... 3-25 3.8.3 Federal Energy Management Program

.......................................................................... 3-26 3.9 HISTORICAL SHIPMENTS

......................................................................................... 3-27 3.9.1 New Home Starts

.......................................................................................................... . 3-27 3.9.2 Unit Shipments

........................................................................................................... .... 3-28 3.9.3 Value of Shipments

....................................................................................................... . 3-30 3.9.4 Imports and Exports

...................................................................................................... . 3-31 3.10 MARKET SATURATION

............................................................................................ 3-33 3.11 PRODUCT RETAIL PRICES

....................................................................................... 3-34 3.12 I NDUST RY COST STRUCTURE

................................................................................ 3-37 3.13 INVENTORY LEVELS AND CAPACITY UTIL IZATION RATES

.......................... 3-39 3.14 TECHNOL OGY ASSE SSMENT

.................................................................................. 3-40 3.14.1 Product Operations and Com ponents

............................................................................. 3-40 3.14.1.1 Dishwashers

................................................................................................. 3-40 3.14.1.2 Dehumidifiers

.............................................................................................. 3-42 3.14.1.3 Cooking Products

......................................................................................... 3-43 3.14.1.4 Commercial Clothes Washers

...................................................................... 3-46 3.14.2 Technology Options

...................................................................................................... . 3-47 3.14.2.1 Dishwashers

................................................................................................. 3-47 3.14.2.2 Dehumidifiers

.............................................................................................. 3-54

3-i3.14.2.3 Cooking Products......................................................................................... 3-63 3.14.2.4 Commercial Clothes Washers...................................................................... 3-83 3.14.3 Energy Efficiency .......................................................................................................

... 3-94 3.14.3.1 Dishwashers ................................................................................................. 3-95 3.14.3.2 Dehumidifiers .............................................................................................. 3-95 3.14.3.3 Cooking Products......................................................................................... 3-97 3.14.3.4 Commercial Clothes Washers.................................................................... 3-105

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.6.1 Major and Other Commercial Clothes W asher Manufacturers ........................... 3-7 Table 3.6.2 Major and Other Dishwasher Manufacturers....................................................... 3-8 Table 3.6.3 Major and Other Dehumidifier Manufacturers .................................................. 3-10 Table 3.6.4 Major and Other Range, Ov en and Cooktop Manufacturers ............................. 3-13 Table 3.6.5 Major and Other Microwave Oven Manufacturers............................................ 3-13 Table 3.6.6 Core Appliance Manufacturers .......................................................................... 3-15 Table 3.7.1 Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dishwashers.............. 3-19 Table 3.7.2 EPACT 2005 Standards fo r Residential Dehumidifiers .................................... 3-20 Table 3.7.3 EPACT 2005 Default 2012 Standard s for Residential Dehumidifiers .............. 3-20 Table 3.7.4 EPACT 2005 Standards for Commercial Clothe s Washers............................... 3-21 Table 3.7.5 State Commercial Clothes Washer Regulations Similar to EPACT 2005......... 3-21 Table 3.7.6 California State Efficiency Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers ......... 3-22 Table 3.7.7 California Water Conservation Standa rds for Residential Clothes Washers..... 3-22 Table 3.7.8 Canadian Energy Conservation St andards for Electric Cooking Products ........ 3-23 Table 3.7.9 Canadian Energy Conservation Standa rds for Residential Clothes Washers .... 3-23 Table 3.8.1 CEE Criteria for Re sidential Dishwashers......................................................... 3-24 Table 3.8.2 CEE Criteria for Comme rcial Clothes Washers ................................................ 3-25 Table 3.8.3 Energy Star Criteria fo r Residential Dishwashers ............................................. 3-25 Table 3.8.4 Energy Star Criteria for Sta ndard Capacity Dehumidifiers ............................... 3-25 Table 3.8.5 Energy Star Criteria for High Capacity Dehumidifiers ..................................... 3-25 Table 3.8.6 Energy Star Criteria for Commercial Clothes Washers..................................... 3-26 Table 3.8.7 FEMP Recommendations fo r Residential Dishwashers .................................... 3-26 Table 3.8.8 FEMP Recommendations for Microwave Ovens .............................................. 3-26 Table 3.8.9 FEMP Recommendations for Commercial Clothes Washers ............................ 3-27 Table 3.9.1 Industry Shipments of Dishwa shers and Dehumidifiers (Domestic and Import in Thousands of Units)........................................................................... 3-29 Table 3.9.2 Industry Shipments of Cooking Products (Domestic and Import in Thousands of Units)........................................................................................... 3-29 Table 3.9.3 2005 Energy Star Shipments by Product (Domestic and Import)...................... 3-30 Table 3.9.4 Household Appliance Manuf acturing Statistics by Year................................... 3-30 Table 3.9.5 Disposition of Previ ous Appliance (Percentage) ............................................... 3-31 Table 3.9.6 Household Cooking Appliance Ma nufacturing Statistics by Year .................... 3-31 Table 3.9.7 2004-2005 Imports of Appliances Covered by this Rulemaking ...................... 3-32

3-iiTable 3.9.8 2004-2005 Exports of Appliances Covered by this Rulemaking

..................... 3-33 Table 3.10.1 Appliance S aturation (Number in Millions) and Percentage of U.S. Households with Product

................................................................................... 3-33 Table 3.11.1 Residential Appliance R etail Prices

................................................................... 3-34

........................................................ 3-35

............................... 3-37

..................................................... 3-38

........................................................... 3-38

..................................................... 3-39

....................................................... 3-40

................................................................ 3-48

............................................................. 3-55

.............................................................. 3-63

..................... 3-67

............................ 3-69

.............................................. 3-71

....................................................... 3-80

.................................... 3-84 Table 3.11.2 Comm ercial Clothe s Washer Retail Prices Table 3.12.1 Household Appliance Indus try Employm ent and Earnings Table 3.12.2 Household Applian ce Industry Census Data Table 3.12.3 Industry Cost Stru cture Using SEC Data Table 3.13.1 Household Applian ce Industry Census Data Table 3.13.2 Full Production Capacity Utilization Rates Table 3.14.1 Technology Options for Dishwashers Table 3.14.2 Technology Options for Dehum idifiers Table 3.14.3 Technology Options for Gas Cooktops Table 3.14.4 Technology Options for Open (C oil) Elem ent Electric Cooktops Table 3.14.5 Technology Options for Sm ooth Elem ent Electric Cooktops Table 3.14.6 Technology Options for Gas and Electric Ovens Table 3.14.7 Technology Options for Microwave Ovens Table 3.14.8 Technology Options for Co mm ercial Clothes Washers

Figure 3.6.1 2005 Market Shares for the Dom es tic Residential Dishwasher Market

.............. 3-9 Figure 3.6.2 2005 Market Shares for the Dom es tic Residential Dehumidifier Market

......... 3-10 Figure 3.6.3 2005 Market Shares for the Dom estic Electric Range Market

.......................... 3-11 Figure 3.6.4 2005 Market Shares for the Dom estic Gas Range Market

................................ 3-12 Figure 3.6.5 2005 Market Shares for the Do m estic Microwave Oven Market

...................... 3-14 Figure 3.6.6 2005 Core Appliance Market Shares

................................................................. 3-15 Figure 3.6.7 Comm ercial Clothes Wa sher Distribution Channels

......................................... 3-18 Figure 3.9.1 New Privately Owned Single-Fa m ily and Multi-Family Housing Unit Starts in the U.S. from 1998-2005

.................................................................... 3-28 LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 3.11.1 Commercial Clothes Washer Reta il P rices as a Function of Loading-Type and Presence of Coin Box

.................................................................................. 3-36 Figure 3.14.1 Dehumidifier Operation Schem atic

................................................................... 3-42 Figure 3.14.2 Dishwashers in the CEC Directory

.................................................................... 3-95 Figure 3.14.3 Energy Star-Qualified Dehumidif iers and the EP ACT 2005 Dehumidifier Standards

............................................................................................................ 3-96 Figure 3.14.4 AHAM-Qualified Dehumidifier s and the EPACT 2005 Dehu midifier Standards

............................................................................................................ 3-97 Figure 3.14.5 Standard Electric Range s in the NRCan Database

............................................ 3-98 Figure 3.14.6 Self-Cleaning Electric Ra nges in the NRCan Dat abase

.................................... 3-99 Figure 3.14.7 Cooktops in the NRCan Database

...................................................................... 3-99 Figure 3.14.8 Self-Cleaning Electric Ov ens in the NRCan Dat abase

.................................... 3-100 Figure 3.14.9 Non-Self-Cleaning Electric Ovens in the NRCan Database

............................ 3-101

3-iiiFigure 3.14.10 AHAM Microwave Oven Efficien cy versus Rated Output Power ................. 3-102 Figure 3.14.11 AHAM Microwave Oven Efficiency versus Oven Volume ............................ 3-103 Figure 3.14.12 AHAM Microwave Oven Standby Power Consumption,................................ 3-104 Figure 3.14.13 Microwave Oven Standby Power C onsumption from the FEMP Database .... 3-105 Figure 3.14.14 MEF of Commercial Clothes Washers in the CEC Directory ......................... 3-106 Figure 3.14.15 WF of Commercial Clothes Washers in the CEC Directory ........................... 3-107

3-ivCHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a profile of the resi dential dishwasher, dehumidifier, and cooking product and commercial clothes wash er industries in the United States. The U.S. Departm ent of Energy (DOE) developed the preliminary market and technology assessment presented in this chapter primarily from publicly available inform ation. This assessment is helpful in identifying the major manufacturers and their product characteristics, which form the basis for the engineering and the life-cycle co st (LCC) analyses. Present a nd past industry structure and industry financial information help DOE in the process of conducting the manufacturer impact analysis.

3.2 PRODUCT DEFINITIONS DOE defines “ dishwasher ” under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) as “a ca binet-like appliance which with the aid of water and detergent, w ashes, rinses, and dries (when a dr ying process is included ) dishware, glassware, eating utensils, and most cooking utensils by chem ical, mechanical and/or electrical means and discharges to the plumbing drai nage system.” (10 CFR 430.2) The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) (P.L . 109-58) established the definition of
a dehumidif ier as follows:
The term ‘dehumidifier’ means a self-containe d, electrically operated, an d mechanically encased assembly consisting of: A) a refrigerated surface (evaporato r) that c ondenses moisture from the atmosphere; B) a refrigerating system , including an electric motor; C) an air-circulating fan; and D) m eans for collecting or disposing of the condensate.
DOE defines “ cooking products ” under EPCA as “consumer products that are used as the m ajor household cooking appliances. They ar e designed to cook or he at different types of food by one or more of the following sources of heat: gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cookin g top containing one or more surface units and/or one or more heating compartments. They must be one of the following classes: conventional ranges, conventional cooking t ops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/conventional ranges and othe r cooking products.” (10 CFR 430.2)
EPACT 2005 established the definition of a commercial clothes w asher as follows:
The term ‘commercial clothes washer’ means a soft-m ount, front-loadi ng or soft-mount, top-loading clothes washer that: A) has a clothes compartment that:

3-1i) for horizontal-axis clothes washers, is not more than 3.5 cubic feet; and ii) for vertical-axis clothes washers, is not more than 4.0 cubic feet; and B) is defined for use in: i) applications in which the occupants of more than 1 household will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family housi ng common areas and coin laundries; or ii) other commercial applications.
EPACT 2005 also defines commercial clot hes washers as products designed for application s in which the occupants of more than one household will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family housing common areas, coin laundries, or other commercial applications. (EPACT 2005, section 136(a)(4))

3.3 PRODUCT CLASSES DOE intends to separate each product (resi den tial dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products and commercial clothes washers) into product classes. Because DOE will formulate a separate energy conservation sta ndard for each product class, the criteria for separation into different classe s are: (1) type of energy use d, and (2) capacity or other performance-related features such as those that pr ovide utility to the consumer or others deemed appropriate by the Secretary th at would justify the establis hment of a separate energy conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (q) and 6316(a))

For dishw ashers , the size of the unit significantly im pacts the energy consumed. In other words, standard-sized dishwashers with relative ly greater water consump tion have significantly greater energy use than compact units. Because standard dishwashers offer enhanced consumer utility over compact units ( i.e ., the ability to wash more di shes), DOE has established the following product classes, which are based on th e size of the dishwash er (as specified in American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard DW-1-2005, Dishwashers ):

• Compact, (capacity less than eight place se ttings plus six serving pieces); and

• Standard, (capacity equal to or g reater than eight place settings plus six serving pieces).

For dehumidifiers , EPACT 2005 sets energy conservation standards based on the capacity of the unit as measured in pints of water extracted per day. (EPACT 2005, section 135(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) DOE believes that there are unique design co nstraints associated with a unit’s capacity that warrant the creation of th ese separate classes. As part of the standards rulemaking analysis, DOE will seek comment as to whether all the product classes established by

3-2EPACT 2005 are warranted. Until then, DOE is proposing the following pr oduct classes as they are established by EPACT 2005: a

• 25.00 pints/day or less;
• 25.01–35.00 pints/day;
• 35.01–45.00 pints/day;
• 45.01–54.00 pints/day;
• 54.01–74.99 pints/day; and
• 75.00 pints/day or more.

For cooking products , the proposed product classes are based on energy source ( i.e ., gas or electric) and the cooking method ( i.e., cooktops, ovens, and microwave ovens). There are five cooking product classes: gas cooktops, elec tric cooktops, gas ovens, electric ovens, and microwave ovens. DOE’s proposed product classes are based on the list of classes defined by DOE in its 1996 Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products (1996 TSD), which was released as part of the previous standards rulemaking. b Gas and electric ranges c are not listed below as product classes. Because ranges consist of both a cooktop and oven, any potential cooktop and oven standards would apply to the individual components of the range. As a result, product classes fo r ranges are not necessary.
For gas cooktops , DOE’s proposed product class is:

• Conventional burners. Commercial-style gas burners, which are ch aracterized by firing ra tes greater than 14,000 British the rmal units (Btu)/h will not be considered for analysis due to a lack of available data for determining efficiency characteristics. In addi tion, the test procedure fo r gas cooktops is based on measuring temperature rise in an aluminum bl ock with a diameter dictated by the firing rate of the burner. The maximum diameter of the test block is sufficient to measure higher output residential-scale burners. For commercial-type burners that must have larger diameter burner rings to accomplish complete combustion, however, this maximum test block diameter may be too small to achieve proper heat transfer and may not be representative of the dimensions of suitable cookware.

For electric cooktops , D OE’s 1996 TSD determined that the ease of cleaning smooth elements provides enhanced consumer utility over coil elements. Because smooth elements

a For standards effective October 1, 2007, EPACT 2005 , in section 135(c), names 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. EPACT 2005 also prescribes a new set of amended standards for dehumidifiers in the event that DOE fails to publish a final rule requiring new standards to take effect by October 1, 2012. In providing a new set of standards, EPACT 2005, in section 135(c), subdivides 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.

b Available online at http://www.eere.energy.g ov/buildings/appliance_standards/ residential/cooking_products.html

c DOE defines a “conventional range” under EPCA as “a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a conventional cooking top and one or more conventional ovens.” (10 CFR 430.2)

3-3typically use more energy than coil elements , DOE is proposing the following product classes for electric cooktops:

• Low or high wattage open (coil) elements; and
• Smooth elements. Gas and electric grills and griddles will not be an alyzed because DOE is not aware of any data upon which it can base a determination of eith er adequacy of the test procedure to measure energy efficiency or energy efficiency characteri stics of products in th ese niche classes.

For electric ovens , the 1996 TSD determ ined that the type of oven-cleaning system is a utility feature that affects performance. DOE found that standard ovens and ovens using a catalytic continuous-cleaning process use roughly the same amount of energy. On the other hand, self-cleaning ovens use a pyrolytic process that provides enhanced consumer utility with lower overall energy consumption as compared to either standard or catalytically lined ovens. Thus, DOE is proposing the following product classes for electric ovens:

• Standard oven with or w ithout a catalytic line; and
• Self-clean oven.

For gas ovens , for the sam e reasons as for electric ovens, DOE is proposing the following product classes:

• Standard oven with or w ithout a catalytic line; and
• Self-clean oven. Commercial-style gas ovens, with larger cavity volumes ( i.e. , those that correspond to cabinet widths of 36 inches) a nd higher firing rate burners ( i. e ., greater than 22,500 Btu/h), will not be analyzed as a separate product class. DOE recognizes that the test procedure may not adequately measure performance of commercial- style ovens because the single test block may not adequately measure the temperature distribution that is inherent with these products. Further, DOE is unaware of efficiency data or data eval uating the adequacy of the test procedure, so therefore will not conduct an analysis on this product class at this time.

For microw ave ovens , DOE proposes no further class breakdown. This product class can encompass microwave ovens with and with out browning elements, but does not include microwave ovens that incorporate convection systems (combination ovens). DOE will not conduct an analysis at this time of combination microwave ovens due to a lack of data evaluating the applicability of the test pr ocedure to microwave ovens inc oporating convection systems.

For commercial clothes w ashers , DOE is proposing one product class, in accordance with EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA a nd the determination by Congress, which encompasses both top- and front-loading units.

3-43.4 PRODUCT TEST PROCEDURES Test procedures exist for al l four products covered by th is rulem aking to determine energy efficiency and annual energy use as the basis for representation and determination of compliance with energy conservation standards. DOE established test procedures for residential dishwashers, cooking products, and clothes wash ers through the rulema king process. EPACT 2005 established test procedures for residential de humidifiers and commercial clothes washers. In 2003, DOE revised its test procedure for dishwashers to more accu rately measure their efficiency, energy use, and water use. The 2003 dishwasher test procedure amendments included the following revisions: (1 ) addition of a method to rate the efficiency of soil-sensing products; (2) addition of a met hod to measure standby power; and (3) a reduction in the averageuse cycles per year. (68 FR 51887, (August 29, 2003); 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix C) EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to specify that th e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s test criteria used under the Energy Star program must serve as the basis for the test procedure for dehumidifiers . (EPACT 2005, section 135(b); 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(13)) The Energy Star test criteria require that ANSI/AHAM Sta ndard DH-1-2003, Dehumidifiers , be used to measure energy use while the Canadian Stan dards Association (CAN/CSA standard CAN/ CSA-C749-1994 (R2005), Performance of Dehumidifiers , be used to calculate the energy factor. DOE has adopted these test criter ia, along with related definitions and tolerances, as its test procedure for dehumidifiers (71 FR 71340, 71347, 71366, 713667-68 (Dec. 8, 2006); 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix X). DOE also revised its test procedure for cooking products to more accurately measure their efficiency and energy use. For DOE’s c ooking products test procedure, DOE published the revisions as a final rule in 1997; these included: (1) a reductio n in the annual useful cooking energy; (2) a reduction in the number of self-clean ing oven cycles per year ; and (3) incorporation of portions of the International Electrotechnical Commissi on (IEC) Standard 705-1998 and Amendment 2-1993 for the testing of microw ave ovens. (62 FR 51976, (October 3, 1997); 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix I) Note that as of 1997, IEC has established a new numbering convention for standard s. This test procedure has accordingly been assigned the publication number IEC 60705, and the curr ent test procedure is IEC 60705-2006 d

. EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to require that co mmercial clothes washers be rated with the same test procedure established for resi dential clothes washers. (EPACT 2005, section 136(f); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) DOE adopted test pr ocedures for commercial clothes washers in a final rule published on October 18, 2005. (70 FR 60407, 60416) EPACT 2005 instructs DOE, in its rulemaking, to consider revising test procedures for all products that are m ajor sources of standby mode energy consumption compared to overall product energy consumption. (EPACT 2005, secti on 135(c)) Standby power measurement is already incorporated into DOE test procedures for dishwashers, gas and electric ovens, and gas

d For more information, please visit www.iec.ch.

3-5cooktops. In the event that DOE proposes a test procedure change to incorporate standby power measurement for other products covered under th is rulemaking, a standby power test procedure exists that could be incorporated by referen ce. IEC 62301-2005. Household electrical appliances

–

Measurement of standby power. e

3.5 MANUFACTURER TRADE GROUPS DOE recognizes the importance of trade groups in disseminating information and prom oting the interests of the industry that they support. To gain insight into the residential dishwasher, dehumidifier, and cooking product a nd commercial clothes washer industries, DOE researched various associations available to manufacturers, suppliers , and users of such equipment. DOE also used the member lists of these groups in the constr uction of an exhaustive database containing do mestic manufacturers. DOE identified several trade gr oups that support, or have an interest in, the residential dishwasher, dehum idifier, and/or cooking product and/or commercia l clothes washer industries, including AHAM, the Coin Laundry Associatio n (CLA), and the Multi-housing Laundry Association (MLA).

3.5.1 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers f (AHAM), formed in 1967, aims to enhance the value of the home appliance industry through lead ership, public education and advocacy. AHAM provides services to its memb ers including government relations; certification programs for room air conditioners, dehumidifiers and room air cleaners; an active communications program; and tec hnical services and researc h. In addition, AHAM conducts other market and consumer research studies a nd publishes a biennial Major Appliance Fact Book . AHAM also develops and maintains technical standards for various appliances to provide uniform , repeatable procedures for measuring sp ecific product characteri stics and performance features.

3.5.2 Coin Laundry Association The Coin Laundry Association g (CLA), based in Downers Grove, Illinois, is a trade association representing the 30,000 coin laundry owners in the United States and around the world. Since 1960, the CLA has provided education a nd service to the entrepreneurs of the coin laundry industry; promoted their business interest s; and promoted the industry to the general public.

e For more information, please visit www.iec.ch.

f For more information, please visit www.aham.org.

g For more information, please visit www.coinlaundry.org.

3-63.5.3 Multi-housing Laundry Association The Multi-housing Laundry Association h (MLA), founded in 1959, is a trade association of operator and supplier companies providing prof essional laundry services for the multi-housing industry. The MLA works for a favorable legisl ative and regulatory climate for the industry, facilitates the exchange of t echnical and business information among members, and demonstrates the value of the industr y to target markets.

3.6 MANUFACTURER INFORMATION The following section details informati on regarding dom estic manufacturers of residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cook ing products and commerci al clothes washers, including estimated market shares (section 3.6.1 ), industry mergers a nd acquisitions (section 3.6.2), potential small business impacts (section 3.6.3), and product distribution channels (section 3.6.4).

3.6.1 Manufacturers and Market Shares Using publicly available data (e.g. Appliance Magazine and m arket assessments done by third parties), DOE estimates the market shares for domestic manufacturer s of each of the four products contained in this standards rulema king. Manufacturers may offer multiple brand names. Some of the brand names come from independent appliance ma nufacturers which have been acquired over time, and domestic manu facturers may put their brand on a product manufactured overseas. Compan ies included in this analys is may also be off-shore manufacturers that maintain a significant domestic presence via a U.S. entity.

For commercial clothes w ashers , DOE estimates that there are eight domestic manufacturers. The majority of market share is held by four major manufacturers, including Alliance Laundry Systems LLC (Alliance), Maytag Corporation (Maytag), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), and GE Consumer & Industrial (GE). 1 As will be discussed in section 3.6.2, Maytag and Whirlpool merged in 2006 but have continued to maintain both product lines to this date. Other manufacturer s include AB Electrolux (Electrolux) i . Table 3.6.1 lists these manufacturers.
Table 3.6.1 Major and Other Commercial Clo thes Washer Manufacturers

Major Manufacturers Other Manufacturers Alliance Electrolux Maytag Whirlpool GE

h For more information, please visit www.mla-online.com.

i Commercial clothes washers are marketed under the Elect rolux Professional brand, as opposed to residential clothes washers which are primarily ma rketed under the Frigidaire brand.

3-7For residential dishwashers , DOE estimates that there are approximately 13 domestic manufacturers. Nearly the entire domestic mark et, or 94 percent, is controlled by four domestic manufacturers: Whirlpool, GE , AB Electrolux (Frigidaire) j , and Maytag. The merger between Whirlpool and Maytag resulted in the combin ed company accounting for 51 percent of the domestic dishwasher market. The remaining thre e percent of domestic market share is made up of companies including AM Appliance Group (f ormerly ASKO, Inc.), BSH Home Appliances Corporation (Bosch-Siemens), Dacor Inc. (D acor), Equator Corporat ion (Equator), Fagor America Inc. (Fagor), Fisher & Paykel Applia nces Limited (Fisher & Paykel), Haier America Trading, LLC (Haier), Miele, Inc. (Miele), Vi king Range Corporation (Viking) and others. Table 3.6.2 lists these manufacturers. Figure 3.6.1 illustrates the 2005 market shares for the domestic residential dishwasher market.
Table 3.6.2 Major and Other Dish washer Manufacturers

Major Manufacturers Other Manufacturers Whirlpool AM Appliance Group GE Bosch-Siemens Frigida ire Dacor Maytag Equator Fagor Fischer & Paykel Haier Miele Viking

j AB Electrolux also markets residential dishwashers in much smaller volumes under the Electrolux brand.

3-8Others 3% Bosch-Siemens

Haus geräte 3% Maytag

17 % Whirlpool 34%

Electrolux (Frigidaire) 18%

GE 25%

Figure 3.6.1 2005 Market Shares for the Domestic Residential Dishwasher Market 2

For residential dehumidifiers , two thirds of the United States market is comprised of two manufacturers: Whirlpool and LG Electronics, Inc. (LG). The remaining one third of the market is represented by Fedders Corporation (Fe dders), W.C. Wood Co mpany (W.C. Wood), Frigidaire, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (S amsung), Oasis Corporati on (Ebco), and others, including Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd. (D aewoo), De’Longhi America, Inc. (De’Longhi), Dri-Eaz Products, Inc. (Dri-Eaz ), Friedrich Air Conditioning Company (Friedrich), GD Midea Air-conditioning Equipment Compa ny, Ltd. (Midea), GE, Haier, He at Controller, Inc. (Heat Controller), Research Products Corporation (Aprilaire), Jarden Corporation (Bionaire), and Therma-Stor LLC (Therma-Stor). Table 3.6.3 lists these manufacturers and Figure 3.6.2 illustrates the 2005 market shares for the domestic residential dehumidifier market.

3-9Table 3.6.3 Major and Other Dehumidifier Manufacturers Whirlpool Fedders LG W.C. Wood

Ebco Daewoo De’Longhi Dri-Eaz Friedrich GE Haier Heat Controller
Bionaire

Others 4% Major Manufacturers Other Manufacturers

Frigidaire Samsung

Aprilaire
Therma-Stor

7% W.C. Wood 6%

Fedders

10% 35% Electrolux (Frigidaire) 4% 3%

Whirlpool Samsung Ebco

LG 31%

Figure 3.6.2 2005 Market Shares for the Domestic Residential Dehumidifier Market 3

3-10For cooking products (including ovens, cooktops, and ranges) DOE estimates that there are approximately 14 domestic manufacturers. GE and Whirlpool represen t nearly three quarters of the electric range products market. GE re presents over a third of the gas range products market, while the combined Whirlpool and Ma ytag comprise over a quarter. Frigidaire, Peerless-Premier Appliance Co. (Peerless-Premier), and other sm all manufacturers make up the difference in both markets. Figure 3.6.3 and Fi gure 3.6.4 illustrate the 2005 market shares for the domestic residential electric and gas range markets, respectively.

Others

GE 49%

23% 10% (Frigidaire) 10% 4% 4%

Whirlpool Maytag Electrolux

Peerless Premier

Figure 3.6.3 2005 Market Shares for the Domestic Electric Range Market 4

3-11Others

GE 37%

17%

11% 6% 4%

Maytag Whirlpool Peerless Premier

Electrolux (Frigidaire) 25%

Figure 3.6.4 2005 Market Shares for the Domestic Gas Range Market 5

In addition to the manufacturers of ra nges presented above, manufacturers of ovens and cooktops also include Bosch-Siemens (which ac quired Thermador Corporation), Dacor, De’Longhi, Fisher & Paykel (which acquired D ynamic Cooking Systems Inc.), Miele, Kenyon International, Inc. (Kenyon), Sub-Zero Freezer Company, Inc. (Sub-Zero) (which acquired the residential division of the Wolf Appliance Comp any (Wolf)), Felix Storch, Inc. (Summit), and Viking. Table 3.6.4 lists these manufacturers.

3-12Table 3.6.4 Major and Other Range, Oven and Cooktop Manufacturers Major Manufacturers GE Whirlpool Maytag Frigidaire Other Manufacturers Peerless-Premier Bosch-Siemens Dacor De’Longhi Fisher & Paykel Miele Kenyon Sub-Zero Summ it Viking
The

Figure 3.6.5 lists microwave

Table 3.6.5

LG Daewoo Sharp (Panasonic) Whirlpool Guangdong Galanz Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Galanz) Midea Sanyo Sub-Zero Viking microwave oven market differs from the rest of the domestic cooking product market in that many of the manufacturers ar e foreign-owned companies with manufacturing facilities outside of the United States, and many of the domestic applianc e manufacturers rebrand foreign-manufactured products. Table 3.6.5 illust rates the 2005 market shares for the United States microwave oven market. Microwave oven manufacturers with facilities inside the U.S. include Maytag, SANYO North America Cor poration (Sanyo), the Sharp Electronics Corporation (Sharp), Sub-Zero, Summit, and Viking. manufacturers active in the domestic market. Major and Other Microwave Oven Manufacturers Major Manufacturers Other Manufacturers Panasonic Corporation of America Samsung

Summit

3-13Midea Others 2% 7%

i 35%

Sharp 12% 9% 8% 4% 3%

LG Electron cs

Samsung Daewoo Matsushita Whirlpool Galanz

20%

Figure 3.6.5 2005 Market Shares for the Domestic Microwave Oven Market 6

3.6.2 Mergers and Acquisitions Due to mergers and acquisitions , the home appliance industry continues to consolidate. While this phenom enon varies from product to product within the indus try, the large market shares of a few companies provide evidence in support of this characterization. According to the September 2006 issue of Appliance Magazine, four manufacturers
com prise 92 percent of the core appliance market share. “Core appliances” include dishwashers, freezers, ranges, refrigerators, and clothes wash ers. Table 3.6.6 lists these core appliance manufacturers, and Figure 3.6.6 illustrates the br eakdown of 2005 market shares in the core appliance category.

3-14Table 3.6.6 Core Appliance Manufacturers Core Appliance Manufacturers Whirlpool GE Frigidaire Maytag

Others 8%

34% 15% Whirlpool

Electrolux (Frigidaire) 18%

Maytag

GE 25%

Figure 3.6.6 2005 Core Appliance Market Shares 7 On August 22, 2005, Whirlpool, headquartered in Benton Harbor, Mi chigan, and Maytag, based in Newton, Iowa, announced plans to merge in a deal worth $2.7 billion. 8 Maytag shareholders approved the merger on December 22, 2005. Shortly after announcing the merger, Whirlpool submitted a pre-merger notification to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ Antitrust Division initiated an investigation, scheduled to end February 27, 2006, into the effects of the merger, including po tential lessening of competiti on or the creation of a monopoly. Following this initial review, the DOJ asked fo r additional materials from each company and extended the review to March 30, 2006. Opponents of the merger asserted that the co m bined companies would control as much as 70 percent of the residential laundry market a nd as much as 50 percen t of the residential dishwasher market. 9 Whirlpool claimed that their large potential residential laundry market share was skewed because the company produces wa shing machines for Sears, which sells them

3-15under their Kenmore in-house brand. Whirlpool went on to say that they must periodically bid with other manufacturers to keep the Kenmore contract and that S ears controls the pricing of the Kenmore units. 10 In early January 2006, U.S. Senator Tom Ha rkin and U.S. Representative Leonard Boswell, both of Iowa, called upon the DOJ to block the merger, claiming it would give Whirlpool an unfair advantage in the home appliance industry. The Congressmen wrote, that if the DOJ does not block the deal, the agency should at least “require that Whirlpool divest the washer and dryer portions of Maytag to a viable purchaser who will have the financial capability and desire to continue to operate that business.” 11
On March 29, 2006, DOJ closed its investigation and approved the merger. DOJ claims “that the proposed transaction is not likely to reduce competition substantially. The combination of strong rival suppliers with th e ability to expand sales signifi cantly and large cost savings and other efficiencies that Whirlpool appears likely to achieve indicates that this transaction is not likely to harm consumer welfare.” 12

The DOJ Antitrust Division focused its inve stigation on residen tial laundry, although it considered impacts across all products offered by th e two companies. DOJ determined that the merger would not give Whirlpool excessive market power in the sa le of its products and that any attempt to raise prices would likely be unsuccessf ul. In support of this claim, DOJ noted: (1) other U.S. brands, including Kenmore, GE, and Frigidaire, are well established; (2) foreign manufacturers, including LG and Samsung, are gaining market share; (3) existing U.S. manufacturers are below producti on capacity; (4) the large home appliance retailers have alternatives available to resist price incr ease attempts; and (5) Whirlpool and Maytag substantiated large cost savings and other efficiencies that would benefit consumers. 13 Whirlpool and Maytag completed the merg er on March 31, 2006. This large merger follows several other mergers and acquisitions in the home appliance industry. For example, Maytag acquired Jenn-Air Corporation (Jenn- Air) in 1982, Magic Chef, In c. (Magic Chef) in 1986, and Amana Appliances (Amana) in 2001. Whir lpool acquired the KitchenAid division of Hobart Corporation (KitchenAi d) in 1986. White Consolidated Industries (WC I) acquired the Frigidaire division of General Motors Cor poration in 1979, and AB Electrolux acquired WCI (and therefore Frigidaire) in 1986.

3.6.3 Small Business Impacts DOE considers the possibility of small busin esses being im pacted by the promulgation of energy conservation standards for residential di shwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products and commercial clothes washers. At this time , DOE is not aware of any small manufacturers, defined by the Small Business Association as having 750 employees or fewer, who produce products that fall under this rulemaking and w ho therefore would be impacted by a minimum efficiency standard. Should any small business manufacturers of the four appliance products be identified, DOE will study the potential impacts on these small businesses in greater detail during the manufacturer impact anal ysis (MIA), which it will conduc t as a part of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) analysis.

3-163.6.4 Distribution Channels Understanding the distribution channels of products covered by this rulem aking is an important facet of the market assessment. DOE gathered information regarding the distribution channels for residential dishwashers, dehum idifiers, and cooking products and commercial clothes washers from publicly available sources. This section contai ns distribution channel information for residential applianc es and commercial clothes washers.
The distribution chain for resi dential appliances, including dis hwashers , dehumidifiers , and cooking products , differs from commercial products, as the majority of consumers purchase their appliances directly from retailers. These retailers include: (1)home improvement, appliance, and department stores ; (2) Internet retaile rs; (3) membership warehouse clubs; and (4) kitchen remodelers. The AHAM 2005 Fact Book reports that home improvement stores claim nearly one out of every four dollars spent on appliances. 14 Home appliance retailers generally obtain products directly from manufacturers. The AHAM 2003 Fact Book shows that over 93 percent of residen tial appliances are distributed from the manufacturer directly to a retailer. 15

For commercial clothes washers , DOE used a 1998 Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) report describing their Commercial, Family-S ized Clothes Washer Initiative (see section 3.8.1). 16 This report includes an assessment of the commercial clothes washer market. Figure 3.6.7 illustrates the commercial clothes washer dist ribution channels identified in this report, which DOE believ es are representative of the current market as well. CEE reports that the commercial clothes washer m arket can be divided into three areas, including laundromats, private multi-family housing, and large institutions (e.g., military barracks, universities, and housing authorities). Mo st large institutions and a majority of private multi-family housing (between 50 and 90 percent) do not purchase clothes washers directly. Rather, these organizations lease their laundry space to a third party known as a route operator. Route operators supply laundry equipment and main tain facilities in exch ange for a percentage of the laundry revenue. Laundromats and some private building managers, conversely, will purchase clothes washers direc tly from distributors. The main difference between route operators and distributors is the length of service provided to th eir clients. Route operators provide on-going support while distributor support ends at the point of sale. 17 According to CEE’s report, there are between 2 and 3 million commercial clothes washers installed in the United States. In gene ral, these washers are re placed at a rate of 10 percent per year, resulting in a repla cement of approximately 200,000 to 300,000 washers annually. In its 2007 commercial clothes wash er data submittal, AHAM reported somewhat lower shipment volumes of 175,000 to 190,000 units per year from 2002-2005. CEE also reports that, of this annual replacement total, appr oximately 15 percent go to laundromats while 85 percent goes to the multi-family sector. 18

3-17Manufacturer

Route Operator Distributor (some overlap with route operators)

Private & Institutional Building Manager (~85%) Laundromat (~15%) Manufacturer

Route Operator Distributor (some overlap with route operators)

Private & Institutional Building Manager (~85%) Laundromat (~15%)

Source: CEE, Commercial, Family-Sized Washers: An Initiative Description of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, 1998. Description of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, 1998.
Figure 3.6.7 Commercial Clothes Washer Distribution Channels

3.7 REGULATORY PROGRAMS The following section details current regu latory program s mandating energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers, dehumid ifiers, cooking products and/or commercial clothes washers. Section 3.7.1 discusses Federa l energy conservation sta ndards prior to EPACT 2005, section 3.7.2 reviews new standards issued by EPACT 2005, and section 3.7.3 provides an overview of existing State standards. In additi on, section 3.7.4 reviews sta ndards in Canada that may impact the companies servicing the North American market.

3.7.1 Current Federal Energy Conservation Standards Prior to EPACT 2005 Current Federal standards exist for residential dishw ashers . The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA) (42 U. S.C. 6291-6309) amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for dishwa shers, requiring that they be equipped with an option to dry without heat and further requiri ng that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards are ju stified. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (g)(1 ), (4) and (5)) On May 14, 1991, DOE issued a final rule establishing the first se t of performance standards for dishwashers (56 FR 22250); the new standards became effective on May 14, 1994. (10 CFR 430.32(f)) Table 3.7.1 presents these standards for residential di sh washers. DOE initiated a second standards

3-18(59 FR 56423) 61 FR 36974 (July 15, 1996); 10 CFR Part 430,

Table 3.7.1 Minimum Energy Factor (EF) (cycles/kWh) 0.62 Standard dishwasher 0.46 cooking products , requiring gas

are justified.

ovens. (59 FR 10464) analysis of cooking products. Partially due to the difficulty of

(63 FR 48038) justified for electric cooking products. cooking products.
3.7.2 Energy Policy Act of 2005 This legislation
Table 3.7.2 and Table 3.7.4 respectively.

subsection (cc) for
These effect on October 1, 2007. rulemaking for dishwashers by issuing an adva nce notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) on November 14, 1994. However, as a re sult of the priority-setting process outlined in its (Procedures for Consid eration of New or Revised En ergy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products (the “Process Rule”) ( Subpart C, Appendix A), DOE suspended the standards rulemaking for dishwashers. Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dishwashers Dishwasher Classification Compact dishwasher

NAECA established prescriptive standards for gas ranges and ovens with an electrical supply cord not to be equipped with constant burning pilots and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulema kings to determine if more stringent standards (42 U.S.C. 6295 (h )(1)-(2)) DOE initially analyzed standards for cooking products as part of an eight-product standards rulemaking. It issued a NOPR on March 4, 1994, proposing performance standards for gas and electric residential cooking produc ts, including microwave In accordance with its 1996 Process Rule, DOE refined its standards With regard to gas cooking products, DOE focused on the economic justification for eliminating standing pilots. conclusively demonstrating that elimination of standing pilots was ec onomically justified, DOE issued a final rule on September 8, 1998, that co vered only electric cook ing products, including microwave ovens. The final rule found that standards we re not economically DOE ne ver completed its standards rulemaking for gas

On August 8th, 2005 the President signed in to law EPACT 2005. establishes energy conservation standards for several residential a nd commercial products, including residential dehumidifiers and commercial clothes washers. provide EPACT 2005 standards for residential dehum idifiers and commercial clothes washers,

Section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 amends section 325 of EPCS, 42 U.S.C. 6295, to add dehumidifiers , which establishes energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers based on the unit’s capacity to extract moisture from the surrounding air (in pints/day) with EF measured in liters (L) of water removed per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Federally-mandated standards for dehumidifiers w ill be the national standards when they take Table 3.7.2 provi des EPACT 2005 standards for residential dehumidifiers.

3-19Table 3.7.2 EPACT 2005 Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers Dehumidifier Capacity Standards Effective October 1, 2007 EF (liters/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 requires that DOE i ssue a final rule for dehum idifiers to determine whether these standard s should be amended. The final rule is due by October 1, 2009. (EPACT 2005, section 135(c)(4)) Further, in the event that DOE fails to publish a final rule requiring new standards to take effect by October 1, 2012, EPAC T 2005 also prescribes a new set of amended standards for dehumidifiers. ( Id

. ) This default 2012 standard subdivides 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. ( Id

. ) Table 3.7.3 provides the default 2012 standards for residential dehum idifiers.
Table 3.7.3 EPACT 2005 Default 2012 Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers Dehumidifier Capacity Standards Effective January 1, 2012 k EF (liters/kWh) 25.00 pints/day or less 1.20 25.01–35.00 pints/day 1.30 35.01–45.00 pints/day 1.40 45.01–54.00 pints/day 1.50 54.01–74.99 pints/day 1.60 75.00 pints/day or more 2.50 Without consideration for product classes, section 135(e) of EPACT 2005 am ends section 342 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313, to add subsection (e) for commercial clothes washers, which establishes energy and water conservation standards. These Federally-mandated standards for commercial clothes washers became the national st andards when they took effect on January 1, 2007. (EPACT 2005, section 136(e)) Tabl e 3.7.4 provides EPACT 2005 standards for commercial clothes washers.

k These residential dehumidifier standards take effect on January 1, 2012 only if DOE fails to publish a final rule requiring new standards to take effect by October 1, 2012. (EPACT 2005, section 135(c)(4))

3-20Table 3.7.4 EPACT 2005 Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers
Clothes Washer Classification Standards Effective January 1, 2007 MEF* (ft 3 /kWh/cycle) WF* (gallons/ ft 3 /cycle) Top- and front-loading 1.26 9.5 *The Modified Energy Factor (MEF), is a measure of how many kWh are required to wash each cubic foot of washer capacity. It measures the total energy consumption of the washer and also accounts for the amount of energy required to dry clothes based on the remaining moisture cont ent of the clothes. Water Factor (WF) is measured in gallons of water required per cycle per cubic foot of washer capacity. New subsection 342(e), 42 U.S.C. 6313(e) also requires that DOE issue a final rule by January 1, 2010 to determine whether these stan dards for commercial clothes washers should be amended. (EPACT 2005, section 136(e)

3.7.3 State Energy Conservation Standards Prior to the passage of EPACT 2005, severa l States proposed and adopted State-level efficiency regulations for commercial clothes washers that are identical, or very similar, to EPACT 2005 regulations. The EPACT 2005 energy and water use standards for commercial clothes washers preempt any State efficiency standards since they became effective January 1, 2007. Table 3.7.5 presents information regarding States adopting commer cial clothes washer standards comparable to EPACT 2005.
Table 3.7.5 State Commercial Clothes Washer Re gulations Similar to EPACT 2005 State Effective Date Difference from EPACT 2005 Arizona MEF and WF: 1/1/08 Standards e ffective one y ear later than EPACT 2005 California MEF: 1/1/05 WF: 1/1/0 7 MEF standard effective two years earlier than EPACT 2005 Connecticut MEF and WF: 7/1/06 Standards effective six months earlier than EPACT 2005 Maryland MEF and WF: 3/1/07 Standards e ffective two months later than EPACT 2005 New Jersey MEF: 1/1/07 WF: 1/1/1 0 Water factor standard effective three years later than EPACT 2005 Oregon MEF and WF: 1/1/08 Standards e ffective one y ear later than EPACT 2005 Rhode Island MEF and WF: 1/1/07 Identical to EPACT 2005 Washington MEF - For Sale: 1/1/07 MEF - Installation: 1/1/ 08 Does not address water factor
As presented in the table above, the State of California mandates energy and water conservation standards for commercial front-l oading and commercial top-loading automatic clothes washers. Table 3.7.6 provides the St ate’s commercial clothes washer energy conservation standards, which are dependent on clothes container capacity, and the water conservation standards, which became effec tive two years after the MEF standards.

3-21Table 3.7.6 California State Efficiency Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers Clothes Washer Cl assification Clothes Container Compartment Capacity (ft 3 ) Minimum MEF Effective January 1, 2005 Maximum WF Effective January 1, 2007 Front-loading < 3.5 ft 3 1.26 9.5 Top-loading < 1.6 ft 3 ≥ 1.6 ft 3 and < 4.0 ft 3 0.65 1.26 9.5 9.5 In addition to the efficiency standards di scussed above, the S tate of California requires that commercial top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers and commercial suds-saving clothes washers manufactured on or after Janua ry 1, 2005 have an unheated rinse water option. Additionally, California issu ed m inimum water conservation standards for residential clothes washers. While this does not directly affect products covered by the rulemakings, DOE is aware that this standard may have impact s on manufacturers of co mmercial clothes washers and other household appliances. Although Federal standards exist for the energy consumption of residential clothes washers, no su ch standard exists for the wate r efficiency. On September 16, 2005, the California Energy Commission (CEC) issued a petition for an exemption from Federal preemption to seek to apply its own State regul ation for residential clothes washer WF. DOE accepted written comments regarding this Cali fornia petition until April 7, 2006. Table 3.7.7 provides the State’s proposed re sidential clothes washer water conservation standards and their respective effective dates.
Table 3.7.7 California Water Conservation Standard s for Residential Clothes Washers Clothes Washer Maximum WF Classification Effective January 1, 2007 Effective January 1, 2010 Top-loading 8.5 6.0 Front-loading 8.5 6.0 On December 28, 2006, DOE issued a decisi on d enying the California petition. (71 FR 78157) The denial of the petition was based on three factors. First, DOE determined that it does not have the statutory authority to prescribe a rule for Californi a that would become effective by January 1, 2007, the first of two compliance date s contained in Title 20, section 1605.2(p)(1) of the California Code of Regulations. Second, DOE ruled that CEC ha d not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the State of California has unusual and compelling water interests, a condition required by EPCA for DOE to grant California a waiver from Federal preemption. (42 USC 6297(d)(1)(B)) Finally, a preponderance of evidence showed that the California regulation would likely result in the unavailability of a class of residential clothes washers, specifically top-loader machines, in California. The State has submitted to DOE a request for reconsideration. 19

3.7.4 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards Canada’s Energy Efficiency Regulations (hereafter Regulations) m andate minimum energy conservation standards for dishwashers, dehumidifiers, cooking products, and residential clothes washers.

3-22Canadian Regulations stipulate minimum efficiency levels and definitions for residential dishwashers which are identical to U.S. Federal standard s, mandating an EF of at least 0.46 for standard dishwashers and an EF of at least 0.62 for compact dishwashers.

For dehumidifiers , Canada’s Regulations refe r to CAN/CSA-C749-1994 (R2005), Performance of Dehumidifiers, which applies to units with capacities 30 L/day (63.4 pints/day) or lower, and mandates that the EF for all covered dehumidifiers must be greater than or equal to 1.00 L/kWh, effective December 31, 1998. Canadian Regulations also exist for certain residential cooking products , including electric and gas ranges, cooktops , and ovens. The Regulations do not cover microwave ovens. Like U.S. DOE standards, Canadian Regulatio ns require that gas cooking products, including ranges, ovens, and cooktops, with an electrical supply cord not be equipped with constant burning pilots. Table 3.7.8 presents the Re gulations for electric cooking products.
Table 3.7.8 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Cooking Prod ucts Cooking Product Classification Maximum Allowable Energy Consumption (kWh/year)* Free-standing or built-in range s with one or m ore surface elements and one or more ovens 2.0V + 458 Built-in or wall-mounted ranges without surface elements and with one or more ovens 2.0V + 200 Counter-mounted ranges without ovens and with one or m ore surface elements on a conventional ( i.e. , not modular) cooktop 258
* Where V = volume of oven in liters The Canadian government regulate s the efficiency of residential clothes washers . While this standard does not directly apply to produc ts covered by this rulemaking, DOE understands that this standard may still impact some Nort h American manufacturers in the home appliance industry. This Regulation applies to standard or compact electrically operated household clothes washers that are top- or front-loa ded, and that have an internal c ontrol system that regulates the water temperature without the need for user in tervention subsequent to initiation of machine operation. Table 3.7.9 lists the cu rrent standards that went in to effect January 1, 2007, along with the previous standards that we nt into effect January, 1 2004.
Table 3.7.9 Canadian Energy Conservation Standard s for Residential Clothes W ashers Clothes Washer Classification Minimum MEF (L/kWh/cycle) January 1, 2004 January 1, 2007 Vertical-axis compact (< 45 liter capacity) 18.40 18.40 Vertical-axis standard ( ≥ 45 liter capacity) 29.45 35.68 Horizontal-axis* 29.45 35.68 Suds-saving* NA NA * These product classes shall be equipped with an unheated rinse water option.

3-233.8 VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS DOE reviewed several voluntary programs promoting energy-efficient residential dishwashers, dehum idifiers and cooking products and commercial clothes washers in the U.S. Many programs, including the CEE, Energy Star, and the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), establish voluntary energy cons ervation standards for these products.

3.8.1 Consortium for Energy Efficiency The CEE l develops initiatives for its Nort h American members to promote the manufacture and purchase of en ergy efficient products and services. The goal of the organization is to induce lasting structural and behavioral change s in the marketplace, resulting in the increased adoption of energy-efficient technologies. CEE issues voluntary specifications for residen tial standard-sized dishwashers . Table 3.8.1 presents the dishwasher efficiency speci fications, effective Ja nuary 2006, under its SuperEf ficient Home Applia nce Initiative (SEHA).
Table 3.8.1 CEE Criter ia for Residential Dishwashers Standard-sized Dishwashers Level EF Maximum kWh/yr Tier 1 0.65 339 Tier 2 0.68 325 Compact-sized Dishwashers Level EF Maximum kWh/yr Tier 1 0.88 252 In 1998, CEE launched the Commercial, Family-S ized Washer Initiative as an offshoot of its Residential Clothes Washer Initiative. Th e initiative encourages the purchase and use of energy- and water-efficient commercial clothes washers for laundromats, multi-family buildings and institutions. Table 3.8.2 presents the current voluntary efficiency specifications for the program. In order to qualify, a commercial clothes washer must exceed the minimum MEF and remain below a specified WF.

l For more information, please visit www.cee1.org.

3-24Table 3.8.2 CEE Criteria for Commercial Clothes Washers Level MEF WF Tier 1 1.80 7.5 Tier 2 2.00 6.0 Tier 3 2.20 4.5

3.8.2 Energy Star Energy Star, a voluntary labe ling program backed by the EPA and DOE, identifies energy-efficient products th rough a qualification process m . To qualify, a product must exceed Federal minimum standards by a specified amount , or if no Federal standard exists, exhibit selected energy-saving features. The Energy Star program works to reco gnize the top quartile of products on the market, meaning that approximat ely 25% of products on the market meet or exceed the Energy Star levels. Energy Star sp ecifications exist for several products, including dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers. Prior to January 1, 2007, Energy Star residential dishwasher criteria existed for only standard -sized dishwashers . New criteria which became effective January 1, 2007 cover standard-sized and compact-sized dishwashers. Th e current and previous En ergy Star criteria for residential dishwashers are listed in Table 3.8.3.
Table 3.8.3 Energy Star Criteria for Residential Dishw ashers Dishwasher Classification Previous Criteria Level Current Criteria Levels Standard dishwasher EF ≥ 0.58 EF ≥ 0.65 Compact dishwasher NA EF ≥ 0.88 Energy Star criteria also cu rren tly exist for residential dehumidifiers . The criteria, divided based on product capacity, are cont ained in Table 3.8.4 and Table 3.8.5. Table 3.8.4 Energy Star Criteria for Standard Capacity Dehumidifiers Dehumidifier Capacity (L/day) Current Criteria Levels (L/kWh) L/day < 10 EF ≥ 1.20 10 ≤ L/day < 25 EF ≥ 1.30 25 ≤ L/day ≤ 35 EF ≥ 1.50
Table 3.8.5 Current Criteria Level (L/kWh) 36 ≤ L/day ≤ 57 EF ≥ 2.25 Energy Star Criteria for High Capacity Dehumidifiers Dehumidifier Capacity (L/day)

Energy Star criteria exist for top- and front-loading commercial clothes washers with capacities greater than 1.6 cubic feet. New Energy Star criteria for comme rcial clothes washers, which include energy and water consumption ratings, became effective January 1, 2007. The current criteria and previous crit eria are contained in Table 3.8.6.

m

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

3-25Table 3.8.6 Energy Star Criteria for Commercial Clothes Washers Clothes Washer Current Criteria Levels Top- and front-loading clothes washers MEF ≥ 1.42 MEF ≥ 1.72 WF ≤ 8.0

3.8.3

n (FEMP) works to reduce the cost and

commercial clothes washers.

. Table 3.8.7 Classification Previous Criteria Level

Federal Energy Management Program DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program environmental impact of the Federal governme nt by advancing energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting the use of distribu ted and renewable energy, and improving utility management decisions at Federal sites. FE MP helps Federal buyers identify and purchase energy-efficient equipment, including resi dential dishwashers, microwave ovens, and

FEMP issues energy-efficiency recomme ndations for residential standard-sized dishwashers Table 3.8.7 presents the dishwasher recommendations.
FEMP Recommendations for Residential Dishwashers Dishwasher Classification Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr)* EF Standard Dishwasher 380 or less 0.58
* Based on 215 wash cycles per year FEMP estimates that a typical household usi ng electric water heati ng and upgrading from a dishwasher with an EF of 0.46 (DOE minimum standard) to a dishwasher with an EF of 0.58 will save $70 over the lifetime of the unit (assumi ng Federal average energy prices). Under the same assumptions, a typical household using gas water heating will save $45 over the lifetime of the dishwasher. Executive Order 13221 Energy Efficient Sta ndby Power Devices, signed July 31, 2001, requires that Federal agencies purchase comm ercially-available products w ith low standby power. (66 FR 40571) FEMP therefore i ssues standby power recommendations for microwave ovens . Table 3.8.8 presents the microwave oven recommendations.
Table 3.8.8 FEMP Recommendations for Microw ave Ovens Microwave Oven Classification Standby Power (W)* Standard Microwave Oven ≤ 2
* Based on test procedures specified in IEC 62301
For commercial clothes washers , FEMP issues energy-e fficiency recommendations based on washer volume. Table 3.8.9 presents the commercial clothes washer recommendations.

n For more information, please visit www.eere.energy.gov/femp.

3-26Table 3.8.9 FEMP Recommendations for Commercial Clothes Washers Clothes Washer Tub Volume Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr)* MEF 1.9 - 2.5 cu. ft. 410 or less 2.5 or higher 2.6 – 3.3 cu. ft. 520 or less 2.5 or higher
* Based on 392 wash cycles per year (10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix J1) FEMP estimates that, with electric water heating, replacing a 2.48 ft 3 . commercial clothes washer exhibiting an MEF of 1.80 with a clothe s washer exhibiting an MEF of 2.50 will save $1,400 over the lifetime of the unit (assuming Fede ral average energy prices). The same replacement with gas water heating will save $800 over the lifetime of the clothes washer.

3.9 HISTORICAL SHIPMENTS Awareness of annual product shipment trends is an im portant aspect of the market assessment and in the development of the standa rds rulemaking. DOE reviewed data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, EPA, and AHAM to ev aluate residential appliance product shipment trends and the value of these shipments. Know ledge of such trends will be used during the shipments analysis (Chapter 9 of this TSD).

3.9.1 New Home Starts Trends in new home starts may directly a ffect shipm ents of certain home appliances. While there is certainly both a replacement and remodeling market for some appliances including dishwashers and cooking products, these products are also fixtures in virtually all new homes. Dehumidifier shipments are not as greatly impacted by new home starts, as they are often purchased for use in existing constructi on. Multi-family unit star ts can also affect shipments of commercial clothes washers. Figure 3.9.1 presents the number of new si ngle-fam ily and multi-family housing units started in the U.S. from 1998 to 2005. Over th e five-year period from 2000-2005, single-family home starts increased 39.4 percent, to 1,716,000 un its annually. Multi-family unit starts have remained relatively flat over the past seven years, hovering around 350,000 units annually. 20

3-270 200 400 600 800()

1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000Housing Units Started thousands of units

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Si il i

ngle-Fam y Units Mult -Family Units Figure 3.9.1 New Privately Owned Single -Family and Multi-Family Housing Unit Starts in the U.S. from 1998-2005 21

3.9.2 Unit Shipments AHAM’s 2005 Fact Book provides annual unit shipm ents for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products. Tabl e 3.9.1 presents the annual shipments of dishwashers and dehumidifiers for the 10-year period from 1995 to 2005. The shipments of built-in dishwashers increased over 76 percent from 1995 to 2005, while the shipments of portable dishwashers have declined 35 percent from 1995 to 2005. After a period of decline from 1995 to 2002, shipments of dehumidifiers increased sharpl y in 2003 and have continued to rise through 2005. Shipments of dehumidifiers nearly doubled between 1995 and 2005.

3-28Table 3.9.1 Industry Shipments of Dishwashers and Dehumidifiers (Domestic and Import in Thousands of Units) 22
Year Dishwashers Dehumidifiers Built-In Portable Total 2005 7,294 133 7,428 1,957 2004 6,953 153 7,106 1,672 2003 6,280 148 6,428 1,311 2002 6,049 158 6,207 799 2001 5,478 149 5,627 806 2000 5,663 164 5,827 975 1999 5,542 170 5,712 950 1998 4,969 175 5,144 1,031 1997 4,653 173 4,826 820 1996 4,417 189 4,606 977 1995 4,141 205 4,346 1,003 Table 3.9.2 presents annual shipments of cookin g products . In the 10-year period from 1995 to 2005, shipments of electric and gas free- standing ranges and surface cooking units, electric built-in ranges, and microwave ovens increased, while shipments of built-in gas ranges decreased.
Table 3.9.2 Industry Shipments of Cooking Pro ducts (Domestic and Import in Thousands of Units) 23

Year Cooking Products Electric Ranges Gas Ranges Microwave Oven sFreeStandin g Built-In Surface Co oking

Units Total FreeStandin g BuiltIn Surface Co oking

Units Total
2005 4,685 973 542 6,201 3,139 64 560 3,762 13,862 2004 4,612 963 570 6,145 3,124 67 528 3,719 15,526 2003 4,238 841 543 5,622 2,897 67 455 3,419 14,274 2002 4,030 780 528 5,338 2,781 71 416 3,268 13,311 2001 3,842 726 498 5,066 2,580 72 384 3,036 13,446 2000 3,826 706 494 5,026 2,729 70 377 3,176 12,644 1999 3,785 705 493 4,983 2,698 72 367 3,137 11,422 1998 3,481 652 506 4,639 2,543 71 336 2,950 10,365 1997 3,177 617 446 4,240 2,391 73 280 2,744 8,883 1996 3,123 614 418 4,155 2,366 72 272 2,710 8,771 1995 2,931 598 389 3,917 2,391 84 240 2,715 8,162 Energy Star shipment data for residential dishwashers and clothes washers may also prove useful during this sta ndards rulemaking. Table 3.9.3 pres ents the 2005 breakdown of Energy Star versus non-Energy Star shipments for residential dishwashers and clothes washers.

3-29Table 3.9.3 2005 Energy Star Shipments by Product (Domestic and Import)

Product Shipments % Energy Star of Total 24Energy StarQualified Other Total 25 Dishwashers (Built-In and Portable) 6,092,000 1,336,000 7,428,000 82.0%
Residential Clothes W ashers 3,424,000 5,970,000 9,394,000 36.5

3.9.3 Value of Shipments Table 3.9.4 provides the value of shipm ents for the household appliance industry from 1994 to 2005 based upon data from the U.S. Cens us Bureau Annual Survey of Manufacturers (ASM) o , to develop this data set. The ASM expres ses all dollar values in nominal dollars, i.e., 2005 data are expressed in 2005 dollars, and 2004 dollars are expressed in 2004 dollars. Using the Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price De flator, DOE converted each year’s value of shipments to 2005 dollars. In constant 2005 dollars, the value of shipments has declined by nearly 14 percent over the 12-year period.
Table 3.9.4 Household Appliance Manufacturing Statistics by Year 26
Year Value of Shipments in Nominal Dollars ($1000) Value of Shipments in 2005 Dollars ($1000) 2005 24,620,117 24,620,117 2004 23,501,067 24,393,186 2003 23,026,196 24,489,495 2002 22,269,541 24,117,884 2001 22,298,897 24,548,244 2000 23,414,965 26,396,138 1999 22,372,219 25,770,856 1998 22,471,878 26,259,645 1997 21,394,445 25,277,836 1996 22,156,900 26,614,687 1995 21,776,200 26,652,765 1994 22,793,900 28,469,992 The increase in shipment volumes combined with an overall decrease in constant-dollar shipment values indicates that the U.S. appliance industry is very competitive. According to data presented in the AHAM 2003 Fact Book , m any old appliances are still being used after consumers purchase new units of same product. Table 3.9.5 presents the various methods by which consumers dispose of their older appliances.

o Available online at http://www.census.gov/mcd/asm-as1.html.

3-30Table 3.9.5 Disposition of Previous Appliance (Percentage) 27

Product Kept It Left with Previous

Home Sold / Gave Aw ay Recycling Facility Left at Curb for Disposal Retailer Took Aw ay Dishwashers 4 37 15 14 11 20 Dehumidifiers 18 14 23 13 24 4 Ranges 6 37 21 13 8 15 Built-In Ranges 4 46 11 15 12 13 Microwave Ovens 17 11 32 12 23 4 Shipments of residential cooking products , a subset of the household appliance industry as defined in the ASM, have fluctuated over the last 12 years when viewed in 2005 real dollars. Overall, the real value of shipments increased over 7 percent over th e 12 year period from 1994­ 2005, however this is not representative of a stea dy upwards trend in shipment values. Table 3.9.6 provides the industry value of shipments for household cooking appliance m anufacturing for the 12-year period from 1994-2005.
Table 3.9.6 Household Cooking Appliance Manuf acturin g Statistics by Year 28
Year Value of Shipments in Nominal Dollars ($1000) Value of Shipments in 2005 Dollars ($1000) 2005 5,114,677 5,114,677 2004 4,699,530 4,877,928 2003 4,691,713 4,989,868 2002 4,327,908 4,687,119 2001 3,773,442 4,154,079 2000 4,178,958 4,711,019 1999 3,915,499 4,510,315 1998 3,849,167 4,497,967 1997 3,520,635 4,159,680 1996 3,564,700 4,281,889 1995 3,917,600 4,794,908 1994 3,813,900 4,763,630

3.9.4 Imports and Exports There is a large market for the import a nd export of hom e appliances. Each month AHAM publishes import and export data for certain home appliances. This data is released by the U.S. Census Bureau and aggregated by a third party. On the whole, major appliance unit imports increased 1.8 percent in 2005 as compared to 2004. Major appliance unit exports increased 13.5 percent over the same period. Table 3.9.7 shows selected import data from AHAM’s 2005 Year End Import Export Report

. 29 For microwave ovens less than or equal to 22.5 inches in width, the number of units decreased, while the value of units increased. For dishwashers and microwave ovens greater than 22.5 inches in width, both the number and value of units imported increased from 2004 to 2005. For non-portable cooking products, dehumidifiers, coin-operated washing machines, and

3-31electric stoves, ranges, and ovens, both the numbe r and value of units imported decreased over the one-year period.
Table 3.9.7 2004-2005 Imports of A ppliances Covered by this Rulemaking 30 Appliance Description Jan. – Dec. 2005 Jan. – Dec. 2004 % Change Jan. – Dec. 2005 Jan. – Dec. 2004 % Change Units $ Mil (Nominal) Non-portable cooking products 1,394,743 1,564,979 -10.9 328.194 355.584 -7.7 Refrigeration-based dehum idifiers <35 pints/day 47,930 66,820 -28.3 5.436 6.549 -17.0 Refrigeration-based dehum idifiers ≥ 35 pints/day 17,544 33,339 -47.4 22.343 23.498 -4.9
Household dishwashers 345,125 278,599 23.9 131.383 95.721 37.3 Coin-operated washing machines 3,499 3,793 -7.8 4.900 4.968 -1.4 Microwave ovens ≤ 22.5 inches 5,613,888 6,292,741 -10.8 175.928 170.289 3.3 Microwave ovens > 22.5-3 1.0 inches 3,810,091 3,769,801 1.1 159.326 156.767 1.6 Microwave ovens > 31.0 i nches 7,471,712 6,288,165 18.8 660.397 561.663 17.6 Electric stoves, ranges, and ovens 2,803,897 3,436,301 -18.4 391.214 420.899 -4.8
Table 3.9.8 shows selected export data from AHAM’s 2005 Year End Import Export Report

. 31 For the one-year period from 2004 to 2005, unit exports of non-portable cooking products decreased, and the value of exports decr eased. For the same time period, the number of microwave oven exports increased, but the value of microwave ovens e xported decreased. For dehumidifiers, dishwashers, and electric stoves, ranges, and ovens, both the number and value of exports increased from 2004 to 2005. Overall, th e total value of expor ts increased over 21 percent.

3-32Table 3.9.8 2004-2005 Exports of Appliances Covered by this Rulemaking 32 Appliance Description Jan. – Dec. 2005 Jan. – Dec. 2004 % Change Jan. – Dec. 2005 Jan. – Dec. 2004 % Change Units $ Mil (Nominal) Non-portable cooking products 105,894 117,226 -9.7 55.302 57.566 -3.9 Refrigeration-based dehum idifiers 14,125 8,554 65.1 10.914 7.961 37.1 Household dishwashers 527,983 517,223 2.1 134.299 127.123 5.6 Coin-operated washing machines 120,958 109,737 10.2 43.259 36.859 17.4 Microwave ovens 276,523 258,515 7.0 36.841 39.020 -5.6 Electric stoves, ranges, and ovens 444,685 290,901 52.9 242.602 162.346 49.4

3.10 MARKET SATURATION AHAM’s 2005 Fact Book presents the m arket saturation for dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products. While the percentage of U.S. households with electric ranges and/or cooktops and microwave ovens has decreased sl ightly since 2001, the market saturation of dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and gas cooking pro ducts has increased. Table 3.10.1 presents the appliance saturation and percentage of U.S. households with each product as reported in the AHAM 2005 Fact Book . The number of U.S. households with each product is based on U.S. Census Bureau projections of occ upied units in the relevant year.
Table 3.10.1 Appliance Saturation (Number in Millions) a nd Percentage of U.S. Households with Product 33

Product 1970 1982 1990 2001 2005 # % # % # % # % # %
Dishwashers 12 18.9 37.2 44.5 50.3 53.9 61.8 59.3 80.2 73.7
Dehumidifiers NA NA 9.2 11 15.6 16.7 14.7 14.1 20.6 18.9 Electric Ranges / Cooktops* 25.8 40.6 48.4 58 58.4 62.6 69.2 66.3 71 65.3 Gas Ranges / Cooktops* 36.6 57.7 35.7 42.7 36.1 38.7 39.4 37.8 42.2 39 Microwave Ovens Neg. Neg. 21.4 25.6 77.2 82.7 94.6 90.7** 97.2 89.3 * Cooktops not included in 1970 or 1982 data ** Includes over-the-range and countertop microwave ovens

3-333.11 PRODUCT RETAIL PRICES Table 3.11.1 presents the average retail prices (in nom inal dollars) of several residential appliances and the consumer price index (CPI) of each year (1982-84 = 100). Although prices for electric and gas ranges have increased since 1 980, the increase has been at a much slower rate than the annual rate of infla tion. Prices of residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, microwave ovens, and automatic clothes washers have decreased in the same time period.
Table 3.11.1 Residential Appliance Retail Pr ices 34

Product Average Retail Prices (Nominal $) Percent Change 1980 1994 2002 2005 1980-2005 Dishwashers 353 395 400 284 -19.5% Dehumidifiers 154 177 112 102 -33.8% Electric Ranges 412 503 508 444 7.8% Gas Ranges 380 499 497 462 21.6% Microwave Ovens 450 239 145 99 -78.0% Automatic Clothes Washers 386 394 426 359 -7.0% Consumer Price Index * 82.4 148.2 179.9 195.3 137.0% * U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average. 1982-84 = 100. In the above table, automatic clothes washer s pertain to residential clothes washers, not commercial clothes washers. As a result, DOE conducted a limited search of consumer retail prices for commercial clothes washers by teleph oning five commercial laundry distributors and gathering data from four intern et retailers. Table 3.11.2 summari zes the data collected by DOE. Most of the distributors and intern et retailers provided a range of prices for each washer model. Only the average price for each model is provided in the table below.

3-34Table 3.11.2Commercial Clothes Washer Retail PricesSourceSource TypeManufacturerBrandModel NumberCoin BoxLoadingAxisAverage PriceAbsoluteHome.com35InternetWhirlpoolWhirlpoolCAM2752RQYesTop-LoadVertical$749AbtElectronics.com36InternetGeneralElectricRoperRAK2751WWHYesTop-LoadVertical$597AbtElectronics.comInternetWhirlpoolWhirlpoolCAM2752WHYesTop-LoadVertical$688AbtElectronics.comInternetWhirlpoolMaytagMAT12CSWHYesTop-LoadVertical$898AJMadison.com37InternetWhirlpoolWhirlpoolCAM2752RQYesTop-LoadVertical$689Commercial & Coin Laundry Equip.38DistributorWhirlpoolWhirlpoolN/AYesTop-LoadVertical$700Commercial & Coin Laundry Equip.DistributorAllianceSpeed QueenN/AYesTop-LoadVertical$775Commercial Laundry Equipment39DistributorAllianceSpeed QueenSWTBA1WNYesTop-LoadVertical$965Gold Coin Laundry Equipment40DistributorGeneral ElectricGeneral ElectricWCCB1030FYesTop-LoadVertical$900Gold Coin Laundry EquipmentDistributorGeneral ElectricGeneral ElectricWCCB2050YesTop-LoadVertical$920Mac-Gray Services41DistributorWhirlpoolMaytagMAT12PDSWWYesTop-LoadVertical$895Texas Laundry Service42DistributorAllianceSpeed QueenJWT110, SWTB20YesTop-LoadVertical$1,113AbtElectronics.comInternetFrigidaireFrigidaireFCCW3000WHYesFront-LoadHorizontal$949Commercial Laundry EquipmentDistributorAllianceSpeed QueenSWFB61WNYesFront-LoadHorizontal$1,462Gold Coin Laundry EquipmentDistributorGeneral ElectricGeneral ElectricWCCH404VWWYesFront-LoadHorizontal$1,500Laundry Systems43InternetElectroluxWascomatWE16YesFront-LoadHorizontal$1,074Mac-Gray ServicesDistributorWhirlpoolMaytagMAH21PDAWWYesFront-LoadHorizontal$1,450Texas Laundry ServiceDistributorAllianceSpeedQueenSWRF961, SWFB63YesFront-LoadHorizontal$1,695AbsoluteHome.comInternetGeneral ElectricGeneral ElectricWNRD2050DWCNoTop-LoadVertical$649AbtElectronics.comInternetWhirlpoolMaytagMAT13MNWHNoTop-LoadVertical$769AJMadison.comInternetGeneral ElectricGeneral ElectricWNRD2050DNoTop-LoadVertical$529Commercial & Coin Laundry Equip.DistributorN/AN/AN/ANoTop-LoadVertical$850Commercial Laundry EquipmentDistributorAllianceSpeed QueenLWF02NNoTop-LoadVertical$531Gold Coin Laundry EquipmentDistributorGeneral ElectricGeneral ElectricWNRD2050DNoTop-LoadVertical$710Mac-Gray ServicesDistributorWhirlpoolMaytagMAT12PNNoTop-LoadVertical$795Texas Laundry ServiceDistributorAllianceSpeedQueenLWS01, LWS49NoTop-LoadVertical$740Commercial & Coin Laundry Equip.DistributorAllianceSpeed QueenN/ANoFront-LoadHorizontal$1,400Commercial Laundry EquipmentDistributorAllianceSpeed QueenLTF90AWMNoFront-LoadHorizontal$1,229Laundry SystemsInternetFrigidaireWascomatWE16NoFront-LoadHorizontal$923Laundry SystemsInternetAllianceHuebschFTZ91AWN11NoFront-LoadHorizontal$1,300Laundry SystemsInternetAllianceHuebschHWFT61NoFront-LoadHorizontal$1,475Mac-Gray ServicesDistributorWhirlpoolMaytagMAH21PNAWWNoFront-LoadHorizontal$1,350Texas Laundry ServiceDistributorAllianceSpeedQueenLTS90, FTS90NoFront-LoadHorizontal$1,6463-35DOE was unable to establish either the energy or water efficiency of all the washers for which it collected retail prices. Th erefore, a retail price and effi ciency relationship could not be established. But based on the price data collected, it was evident that price was a function of the type of loading (i.e., top-loadi ng or front-loading). Thus, DOE was able to determine a gross estimate of the retail price difference between a re latively inefficient t op-loading washer and a high-efficiency front-loadi ng washer. DOE also determined that price was a function of whether the washer was equipped with a coin box. As a result, DOE grouped the retail price data into four categories based on loading type and the pr esence of a coin box. To demonstrate the impact of the loading type and coin box on retail pri ce, Figure 3.11.1 depicts the price data listed in Table 3.11.2. Noted in Figure 3.11.1 is the average retail price of each of the four groups into which DOE segregated the data.Consumer Price $1,750

$1,500

$1,250

$1,000

$750

$500 Coin Box No Coin Box

A vg Price = $824

A verage Price = $697 A verage Price = $1355 A vg Price = $1332

Top-Loading Front-Loading Figure 3.11.1 Commercial Clothes Washer Retail Pr ices as a Function of LoadingType and Presence of Coin Box Figure 3.11.1 demonstrates that the averag e price difference between top-loading and front-loading washers varies between $531 for washers with coin boxes and $625 for washers without coin boxes. The above difference prov ides a rough estimate of the impact on current retail pricing from moving to a conventional top-lo ading washer (i.e., a washer with a verticalaxis agitator that submerges the clothes into a tub filled with water) to a conventional frontloading washer (i.e., a washer with a horizontal axis that tumbles the clothes through a pool of water). As will be shown in Chapter 8 of the TSD, DOE used m anufacturing costs developed for specific standard levels in combination with ma nufacturer and distributor markups, sales taxes, and installation costs to establish the total inst alled cost differences between baseline and more

3-36efficient commercial clothes washers. DOE us ed the above range in current retail price differences between top-loading an d front-loading washers as an indication of the reasonableness of the total installed cost estimates that it developed for commercial clothes washers.

3.12 INDUSTRY COST STRUCTURE
DOE developed the household appliance industr y cost structure from publicly available information from the ASM, (Table 3.12.1 and Table 3.12.2) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly owned manufacturers (s ummarized in Table 3.12.3). Table 3.12.1 presents the home appliance industry employment le vels and earnings from 1994-2005. The statistics illu strate a steady decline in the number of production and nonproduction workers in the industry. Because the ASM expresses all dollar values in co nstant 2005 dollars, the following table shows that as industry employment levels decline, the industry payroll is also decreasing. The percent decrease in total industry employees tracks closely with the percent decrease in payroll for all employees.
Table 3.12.1 Household Appliance Industry Employment and Earning s 44
Year Production Workers (‘000) All Employees (‘000) Payroll for All Employees (2005 $ Mil) 2005 64.3 76.9 2,699.2 2004 69.4 83.7 3,003.8 2003 71.0 85.3 3,068.4 2002 73.5 89.7 3,242.0 2001 76.6 92.6 3,397.6 2000 82.7 99.5 3,706.4 1999 82.3 97.9 3,586.0 1998 82.4 99.5 3,610.3 1997 79.8 97.2 3,446.2 1996 87.1 108.1 3,689.8 1995 87.7 110.1 3,744.3 1994 90.4 110.4 3,736.4 Table 3.12.2 presents the costs of materials a nd industry payroll as a percentage of value of shipm ents from 1994-2005. The cost of material s as a percentage of value of shipments has fluctuated slightly over the 12-ye ar period. DOE notes that fluctuat ions in raw material costs are common from year to year. The cost of payroll for production workers as a percentage of value of shipments has declined since 2000. Similarly, the cost of total payroll as a percentage of value of shipments has declined since 2000.

3-37Table 3.12.2 Household Appliance Industry Census Data 45

Year Cost of Materials as a Percentag e of Value of Shipments (%) Cost of Payroll for Production Workers as a Percentag e of Value of Shipments (%) Cost of Total Payroll (Production + Admin.) as a Percentage of Value of Shipments (%) 2005 56.9 8.3 11.0 2004 57.3 9.1 12.2 2003 56.5 9.2 12.5 2002 55.3 9.7 13.4 2001 56.8 10.1 13.8 2000 55.8 10.2 14.0 1999 54.7 10.2 13.9 1998 56.0 10.0 13.7 1997 52.8 9.9 13.6 1996 56.8 9.9 13.9 1995 55.1 9.7 14.0 1994 55.5 9.2 13.1 Table 3.12.3 presents the industry cost st ructure derived from SEC 10-K reports of publicly-owned home appliance ma nufacturers. DOE averaged the financial data from 2002­ 2005 of several companies to obtain an industry av erage. Each financial statement entry is presented as a percentage of total revenues.
Table 3.12.3 Industry Cost Structure Using SEC Data Financial Statement Entry Percent of Revenues Cost of sales 79.5% Net income 1.2% Selling, general and administrative 13.2% Capital expenditure 3.2% Research and development 2.1% Depreciation and amortization 3.1% Net plant, property and equipment 17.8% Working capital 1.0% A detailed financial analysis of each of the four products cov ered by this rulemaking is presented in the MIA (Chapter 12 of this TSD). This analysis identifi es key financial inputs including cost of capital, working capita l, depreciation, capital expenditures, etc.

3-383.13 INVENTORY LEVELS AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION RATES Table 3.13.1 shows the year-end inventory for the household appliance industry, accord ing to the ASM. Both in dollars and as a percentage of value of shipments, the end-ofyear inventory for the industry has steadily dec lined since 1995. This data illustrates that domestic manufacturers are retaining less of their inventories each consecutive year.
Table 3.13.1 Household Appliance Industry Census Data 46 Year End-of-Year Inventory (2005 $ Mil) End-of-Year Inventory as a Percentage of Value

of Shipmen ts (%) 2005 1,633.0 6.6 2004 1,746.9 7.2 2003 1,811.9 7.4 2002 1,942.0 8.1 2001 2,159.6 8.8 2000 2,440.2 9.2 1999 2,431.9 9.4 1998 2,621.4 10.0 1997 2,519.0 10.0 1996 2,761.7 10.4 1995 3,049.9 11.4 1994 3,035.2 10.7 DOE obtained full production capacity utiliza tion rates from the U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Plant Capacity from 1994 to 2004. Table 3.13.2 presents utilization rates for various sectors of the household applian ce industry. Full production capacity is defined as the maximum level of production an establishment could at tain under normal operating conditions. In the Survey of Plant Capacity report, the full production utilization ra te is a ratio of the actual level of operations to the full production level. The full production capacity utilization rate for household appliances in aggregate, along with the rates for cooking appl iances and household laundry appliances, show a decrease in utiliz ation from 1994 to 2004, alth ough trends in subsets of that time period have fluctuated.

3-39Table 3.13.2 Full Production Capacity Utilization Rates 47
Year Rates (%) Household Appliances Cooking Appliances Household Laundry 2004 76 61 77 2003 78 57 85 2002 72 56 87 2001 70 50 90 2000 70 55 88 1999 75 59 87 1998 73 66 75 1997 73 61 80 1996 76 66 81 1995 79 66 83 1994 82 72 89

3.14 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT This section provides a tec hnology assessm ent for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products and commercial clothes washer s. Contained in this technology assessment are details about product characteristics a nd operation (section 3.14.1), an examination of possible technological improvements for each pr oduct (section 3.14.2) and a characterization of the product efficiency levels currentl y commercially-available (section 3.14.3).

3.14.1 Product Operations and Components In preparation for the screening and engi neering analyses, D OE prepared a brief description of the characteristics and operati on of each product covere d by this rulemaking. These descriptions provide a ba sis for understanding the technologies used to improve product efficiency.

3.14.1.1 Dishwashers Residential dishwashers are a product designed to clean dish es, utensils, and cookware by using a solution of detergent and heated water. D ishwashers spray this solution from rotating spray arms onto the dishes in order to clean and sterilize them. Dishwash ers use electricity to power an electric motor for the pump system that circulates the wash so lution, a heating element which heats the wash solution and assists in dryi ng the dishes, and an optional drain pump. In addition, dishwasher controls c onsume some electricity and some dishwashers contain a drying fan which circulates hot air through the dish washer to aid dish drying. Although most dishwashers are capable of heating water with thei r internal heating element, dishwashers in the U.S. are connected to the hot water line to suppl y hot water. Water is autom atically fed to the dishwasher through an electrically -operated water valve connected to the hot water pipe. The

3-40dishes, utensils, and cookware ar e washed, rinsed and dried with in a tub that is inside the dishwasher cabinet. Dishwashers are traditionally front-loading a ppliances. The door on the front of the cabinet cantilevers down, and the washer racks s lide out on railings for loading and unloading. When the dishwasher is loaded and the washer racks are slid into the dishwasher cabinet, the cabinet door is closed, sealing the tub, and a door switch indicates that th e door latch has sealed the cabinet door. The dishwasher controls, whic h may be electromechanical or electronic, can then begin the wash cycle. The wash cycle begins when the water fill valve fills the dishwasher tub until the control tim er indicates a complete fill, or the dishwasher float switch indicates that the tub is full, or a water meter indicates a sufficient amount of wate r has entered the tub.. The main pump, which provides pressurized fluid to the dishwasher spray arms, is attached to the sump of the tub, where water accumulates. The pump, wh ich uses a rotating impeller to pressurize the fluid and deliver it to the spray arms, is connected directly to the electric motor, or connected by a belt or other form of transmission. The heating element can be part of the sump or installed above it. The heating element ensures the water is heated to an adequate temperat ure for cleaning. The detergent is released from an electrically-controlled detergent container which is filled with detergent prior to initiating the dishwashing cycle. Dishwashers can be further segregated, depending on whether they feature one or two pum ps. On a one-pump model, the main pump not only pressurizes the wash and rinse system, but it can also be used to drai n the wash fluid, either by revers ing the pump direction (forcing the fluid out the drain), or by usi ng a diverting valve lo cated on the pump output line. Dishwashers with two pumps use one pump optimized for cl eaning and rinsing procedures and a second pump optimized for draining. After each drain cycle (un til the cleaning cycle ends ), the tub is refilled with water for rinse or wash operations. Dishwashers may drain and refill the tub multiple times during the dishwashing cycle as the washing and rinsing water becomes soiled. In some dishwashers this process is controlled by a timer, while other dishwashers use sensors and electronic controls to de termine when to change the water, the amount of water for each fill, water temperatures in each cycle, and other variables. The heating element is activated to heat th e dishwasher cabinet and speed up drying once the dishwas her completes the rinse and drain cycl es. Dishwashers with an additional drying fan and air heater utilize these devices duri ng the drying phase of the wash cycle. Some dishwashers use separate drawers for each washing rack, instead of one large tub with two or more racks runni ng on extensible rails. These m ulti-drawer dishwashers are essentially two small dishwashers stacked on top of each other. This two-drawer system allows users to run the dishwasher with smaller load s without wasting the wa ter or energy a full-size dishwasher would use on a half-empty load.

3-413.14.1.2 Dehumidifiers

Residential dehumidifiers are portable, refrigeration-ba sed 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 50 percent. Dehumidifiers are classified according to the amount of water that can be extracted fr om the air in a 24-hour period. Dehumidifiers contain refrigeration systems that remove latent heat, and therefore moisture, from ambient air. Components of the refrigeration system include an evaporator, a condenser, and a compressor. Refrigeration-based dehumidifiers operate as follows: 1. A circulating fan draws air into the dehumidifie r via an intake vent, and pulls it across an evaporator heat exch anger that is cooled by an electrically-powered vapor compression refrigeration system; 2. The evaporator cools the air, and moisture from the air condenses on the surface of the evapo rator and drains either into a bin or a floor drain; and 3. The drier air is then typica lly pulled over a warm condens er heat exchanger and the compressor. It subsequently exits the dehumidifier via an outlet. This process is illustrated in Figure 3.14.1. Expansion

Humid Air Dry Air Evaporator Condenser

Compressor Condensate Bin Fan Humid Air Dry Air Evaporator Condenser

Compressor Condensate Bin Fan

Figure 3.14.1 Dehumidifier Operation Schematic When the surface temperature of the evaporat or is lower than the dew point of the air passing over it, the removal of latent heat occurs through condensation. All residential

3-42dehumidifiers are equipped with an automatic sh ut-off function that halts operation of the device once the condensate collection tank is full. They may also include a direct drain hose connection, allowing for direct drainage of condensate into a sump pump or floor drain. There is a wide scope of c ontrol strategies, ranging from si mple on/off mechanical humidistats and single-speed fans to electronic controllers thatuse multiple sensors, liquidsolenoid controls, and other devices to maximize unit performance. All dehumidifiers sense the evaporator coil or liquid line te mperature to prevent icing, tho ugh the sensors can vary from simple on/off devices to thermi stors potted in sensor wells. The electrically-powered components of the refrigeration-based dehum idifier system include: the fan motor; the compressor that pow ers the refrigeration system; any electronic sensors or controls; and a (optional) built-in sump pump or similar accessory.

3.14.1.3 Cooking Products Residential cooking products ar e appliances that enable th e hom eowner to heat and cook foods by means of transfer of input energy to the food load. Input energy may be electricity, gas, or a combination of the two. Cooktops consist of a horizontal surface comprising one or more heating elements. A cooking vesse l is placed on the top surface of the cooktop over the element to facilitate heat tran sfer to the food load. In conven tional and microwave ovens, the cooking vessel is placed inside a cavity within which the energy transfer takes place. Ranges incorporate both an oven and a cooktop in a single unit.

In a gas cooktop , pressu rized natural gas or propane is supplied to each burner by means of an orifice and venturi on the underside of the cooktop surface. A sheet metal box encloses the array of burner supply lines as well as the contro ls for gas delivery and ignition, if provided. Primary air drawn from within the enclosure mixes with the gas at the vent uris and is delivered to the ports typically arrayed radially on the burners above the cooktop surface. Gas flow and thus burner turndown is controlled by individual, typica lly rotary, valves c onnected to the burner supply lines. Upon ignition of the gas-air mixtur e, secondary air is en trained near the burner ports to produce a substantially radial distributi on of flames. For sealed burners in which the cooktop surface interfaces directly with the base of each burner, all secondary air is introduced above the cooktop surface. Open burners can de rive some secondary air from the box as well. Grates positioned above the burners allow a cooki ng vessel to be placed at the proper spacing to ensure adequate secondary air for complete combustion, minimization of carbon monoxide emissions, and adequate convective heat transfer for cooking efficiency. The simplest ignition scheme for a gas cookt op utilizes a standing pilot, through which a
sm all amount of gas is conti nuously supplied and burned as the ignition source for the burners. Gas cooktops equipped with electr ical cords cannot have a consta nt burning pilot (42 U.S.C. 6295 (h)(1)) and instead utilize some form of electrically-powered ignition, typically an intermittently-activated spark ignitor. An elect ronic control module may automatically energize the spark electrode whenever flame extinction is detected; otherwise the spark ignitor must be manually reactivated by means of switches on the burner valve controls in the event of flame

3-43loss. Controls for the burners typically consis t of manual burner adjustment as dictated by the rotary valve position. In order to achieve very low firing rates associ ated with such cooking processes as simmering, melting chocolate or hea ting delicate sauces, some cooktops incorporate electronic controls that cycle burners on and off.

An electric cooktop consists of a horizontal surface with one or m ore electricallypowered heating elements located either above or below the cooktop surface. When the elements are located above the cooktop surface, the cooking vessel is pl aced directly on an element to heat the vessel and contents through conduc tive heat transfer. The elements are resistively heated by means of th e current supplied to them. An open coil-type cooktop utilizes a spiral-wound sheathed heating element. Removabl e drip bowls beneath each element serve as catch basins for spills. Solid disk elements c ontain a similar resistive element embedded in a flat, circular cast iron housing to provide a more even heating surface a nd greater cleanability than for a coil element. Due to this difference in cleanability, solid disk elements are classified as a separate product class from open coil elements. Heating elements may also be located unde r a glass-ceram ic cooktop surface. Such elements may be of a radiant, halogen, or inducti ve type, which will be described in more detail under the technology options in sect ion 3.14.2.3. Each of these technolo gies is categorized in the smooth cooktop product class along with solid disk elements. Electronic control systems are provided to energize the desired heating elements. These controls may incorporate algorithms for modulation of the element according to cooktop and cooking process parameters.
Gas ovens are appliances designed to bake, roast, or broil foods within an insulated cavity by m eans of the combustion of natural gas or propane. The major components of the oven include the cavity, the gas burne rs, an ignition system, and a control system. If the oven incorporates a convection cooking mode, one or more fans are s ituated within the cavity to provide a means for forced-air distribution. The oven cavity is a formed sheet metal enclosure with provision for holding cooking racks at vary ing positions. The interior surface of the cavity may be bare metal (stainless steel), or it may have a porcelainized coating for durabil ity and cleanability. Additives in the porcelain coating can provide catalytic conversion of food spilled on the surface under normal cooking temperatures, thus enabling a continuous cleanin g process. Alternatively, the oven may have features that allow it to be ope rated under a special self-clean mode, which heats the cavity to higher temperatures than those used for cooking. In the process, food spills are pyrolized, leaving an ash residue that is easil y wiped off when the cavity cools down. Accessories such as lights and sensors for c ontrol of cooking processes are located within the cavity, while an insulated glass window in the oven door al lows observation of the cooking processes without requiring the door to be opened (which would incu r substantial heat loss). The outside of the cavity is wrapped with insulation to minimize heat loss to ambient surroundings. The space between the cavity and the outer sheet metal enclosure which is filled by the insulation typically is made as small as practically pos sible in order to maxi mize the cavity volume.

3-44Gas burners are situated at th e bottom of the cavity for the bake function and the top for broiling. They are typically shield ed by baffles or covers to protect the burners from spills and to help distribute heat evenly. Broil elements may also be of a radiant type in which the combustion of the fuel-air mixture heats a perfor ated ceramic matrix or a metal mesh. As the ceramic or metal heats, it emits infrared radiat ion that can produce heating and surface browning of the cooking load. Combustion products from each burner and gases released during the cooking process are vented fr om the top of the cavity. Ignition may be achieved through the use of a pilo t or a ho t surface ignitor. In the case of a pilot, it may be a continuously burning standing pilot type, or an interm ittently actuated spark ignitor may be used to light the pilot when the oven controls are tu rned on. In either case, the pilot serves to heat a thermally-actuated switch that keeps the main gas valve open. With hot surface ignition, a ceramic heating element is pl aced in a location wher e the incoming gas-air mixture will impinge on it. As the element is heated electrically, its resistance goes down and current draw goes up. A bi-metallic gas valve in el ectrical series with the ignitor deforms as its corresponding current increases, allowing gas flow as long as the hot surface ignitor is energized by the burner controller. Like gas ovens, electric ovens are designed to bake, roast, or broil food. The cavity is sim ilar to those of gas ovens as well, in that the surface finishes may be bare or porcelainized, with or without the catalytic properties. In a ddition, electric ovens may incorporate a self-clean mode for pyrolysis of food matter on in the inte rior surfaces. Accessories and insulation tend to be similar between gas and electric ovens, a nd electric ovens also in corporate venting although the demands of such venting are lower than t hose for gas ovens since there are no combustion products. The heat source for the cooking process is t ypically provided by radiant elem ents. Bake elements are located at the bottom of the cavity, a nd may be either exposed or covered to provide spill protection and improve cleanability. Broil elemen ts are situated at the top of the cavity. Far less common than radiant elements, halogen elem ents are also used to promote faster cooking. An additional cooking feature on many electric ovens and certain gas ovens is convection mode, in which hot a ir within the cavity is circul ated by means of one or more fans to speed the cooking process, promote surface crisping, and increase cooking uniformity. Supplemental heating of this recirculated air is accomplished by means of a radiant heating element located near the fan. Additional electrically-powered components in electric ovens m ay include cavity lights, electronic controls in corporating various types of displays, and cooking sensors.

A microw ave oven is an appliance which heats foods and beverages through the conversion of electric energy to electromagnetic (microwave) energy. The food load is placed inside the oven where it is subjected to the microwave energy. In the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum where mi crowave ovens operate, typically 2.45 gigahertz, water, fats, and sugars have high absorptivity and thus food h eats readily. Glass, ceramic, and paper have

3-45low absorptivity at these wavelengths, while metals reflect the microwaves. Therefore microwave ovens efficiently heat foods wh ile the cavity and utensils remain cool. The microwave energy is generated by an elec trically-powered m agnetron. Line voltage is converted to the high voltage required by the magnetron through the use of a high-voltage transformer. The microwaves are directed from the magnetron into the cavity via a metal duct, or waveguide. To produce a more uniform distribu tion of energy in the cavity, one or more sets of rotating metal blades may be inserted in the waveguide to alter the microwave patterns temporally. Additionally, a turnta ble or translating tray may be provided in the cavity to move the load and thus promote even input energy di stribution to the food. Some microwave ovens are equipped with electrically- powered resistive or halogen heating elements for surface browning, and in the case of combination microw ave ovens, an additional fan for forced air distribution to enhance cooking performance. To achieve reduced power levels for cooking processes such as de frosting, the m agnetron is typically cycled at an appropriate duty cycl e which results in a time-averaged power at the desired level. Electronic contro ls may include a clock/timer function as well as a humidity or infrared sensor for detecting when the desire d level of cooking is achieved. Standby power consumption associated with these electronics may be several watts. In addition, a light is typically provided that is turned on when the door is opened or when the microwave oven is in operation. Installation configurations include countertop and over-t he-range. Over-the-range
m icrowave ovens may include a ventilation fan th at turns on automatically when the temperature from the cooktop below it rises; however, such an option is not required for certification under the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standard UL 923 - Editi on 5, Standard for Microwave Cooking Appliances

.
3.14.1.4 Commercial Clothes Washers Commercial clothes washers are appliances de signed to clean clothes by using a solution of soap and/or detergent and water w ith mechani cal agitation. Clothes washers use electricity to operate one or more pumps and to power an electr ic motor that agitates and spins the clothes. Clothes are washed, rinsed, and spun within a tu b that is inside a cabinet. Because clothes washers require heated water for hot and warm wa ter wash cycles, a separate water heater is usually needed to supply hot water. Most of the energy used by clothes washers is for water heating. Water is fed into the clothes washer through electrically-operated water valves, one connected to a hot water s upply line and the second to a cold water supply line. Traditional top-loading clothe s washers have an opening, co vered by a door, which gives access to the inner bask et where the load to be wa shed is placed. The inner basket is typically perforated and is surrounded by a larger outer tub which holds the water when the machine is running. The inner basket contains an agitator along a vertical-axis, wh ich undergoes a reversing circular motion. The motion of the agitator, whic h is powered by an electric motor, circulates the clothes vertically from the bottom to the top of the basket. The spi nning action of the inner

3-46basket and the drain pump are also powered by the motor. Tr aditional top-loading clothes washers use more water than other types of wash ers, and therefore, consume more energy during heated wash cycles. They also typically extr act less water from laundry during the spin cycle, which results in longer drying time and greater energy consumption. Non-agitator top-loading clot hes washers m ay have a “wash plate”, rather than an agitator, to move the clothes w ithin the basket. These top-lo ading clothes washers function by partially filling the tub with water for wash and rinse cycles and using very high spin speeds to extract rinse water from the clothes during the sp in cycle. These top-loading clothes washers are more efficient with water and energy than tr aditional top-loaders, but the high spin speeds that reduce drying time (and dr yer energy consumption) may wrinkle clothing more than traditional top-loaders. These machines work be st with low-foaming, high-efficiency detergent. Front-loading clothes washers ut ilize a cylind rical tub or dr um rotating on a horizontal or nearly-horizontal axis to wash clothes. The clothes are cleaned by tumbling them in the water ( i.e ., clothes are lifted to the top of the drum by the rotation of the cylinder and then dropped into the water below). The cylindrical drum is only partially filled with water for wash and rinse cycles. High spin speeds are used to extract th e water from the clothes during the spin cycles. These clothes washers are typically more efficien t with water and energy than traditional toploaders, but the high spin speed s that reduce drying time (and dryer energy consumption) may wrinkle clothing. Clothes are usually loaded along the axis of the cylindrical drum, which has led to this type of clothes washer to be called a front -loader. Although most horizontal-axis clothes washers are front-loading, they can be designed to be top-loadi ng as well. In a top-loading horizontal-axis design, the cabinet has a door at the top that opens above the washer drum. Another door that slides or pivots open then provides ac cess to the inner drum.

3.14.2 Technology Options In order to gain a deeper understanding of the technol ogical improvem ents used to increase the efficiency of re sidential dishwashers, dehumidif iers, and cooking products and commercial clothes washers, DOE identified seve ral possible technologies and examined the most common improvements used in today’s market.

3.14.2.1 Dishwashers
For dishw ashers , DOE will consider technologies identified in the following three sources: (1) DOE’s ANOPR initiating a standards rulemaking for dishwashers, published on November 14, 1994 (59 FR 56423); (2) recent info rmation provided by trade publications; and (3) design data identified in ma nufa cturer product offerings. Ex cept where otherwise noted, the following technologies are taken from the 1994 ANOPR. DOE derived the variable washing pressure and variable-speed drive technologi es from the February 2006 edition of Appliance Magazine . DOE grouped these technologies together because they collectively address the

3-47manufacturers’ design tradeoffs between the mech anical soil removal function of the water and the cycle time and energy associated with the di shwasher pump. Condenser and fan/jet drying are technologies listed in one manufacturer’s product offeri ngs. DOE also identified supercritical carbon dioxide washing from the November 2005 issue of Appliance Magazine

. Low-standby-loss electronic controls were added based on DOE’s analysis of controller standby power in dishwashers currently on the market. The technology options for dishwashers are list ed in Table 3.14.1. They are changes that can be incorporated into the design of a dishwasher to im prov e its efficiency.
Table 3.14.1 Technology Options for Dishw ashers 1. Condenser drying 2. Fan/jet drying 3. Flow-through heating 4. Improved fill control 5. Improved food filter 6. Improved motor efficiency 7. Improved spray-arm geometry 8. Increased insulation 9. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 10. Microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, including adaptive or soilsensing controls 11. Modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps 12. Reduced inlet-water temperature 13. Supercritical carbon dioxide washing 14. Ultrasonic washing 15. Variable washing pressures and flow rates Condenser drying This technology reduces the amount of energy re quired to dry the dishes at the end of the wash cycle. Instead of using an exposed electr ic heating element to dry the dishes, hot rinse water is used to heat the dishes to a high temper ature. Subsequently, room air is admitted into the dishwasher. Simple convection then pulls cool er, less moist air into the dishwasher from the bottom of the cabinet and discharg es warm, moist air out of the top of the cabinet. Some designs do not allow outside air into the dishwasher and pull cool air ove r the exterior cabinet surface instead. As the warm, moist air inside the dish washer encounters the cavity walls (via natural convection), the water condenses on the wall surf ace and runs into the sump. Most European installations connect the dishwasher to the cold wa ter line. A reservoir of cold water can thus be maintained on the outside of the stainless tub, providing a chilled surface on which the moisture can condense. U.S. condensing systems are less effective because the condensing surface is not as cool.

3-48Fan/jet drying To reduce drying times, some dishwasher de signs use a fan to circulate air and to accelerate th e drying process outlined in the condenser drying section above. Fans may be installed in the dishwasher door or in the cabinet itself, with th e condensing water being diverted back into the sump. Convection fan systems are found on the highest-efficiency dishwashers currently available on the U.S. market. Flow-through heating As discussed in section 3.14.1.1, dishwashers us e either an exposed tubular or a flowthrough supplem ental water heating element to br ing water inside the di shwasher up to operating temperature. Water is heated before being pumpe d and distributed to the spray arms. Typically, dishwashers with exposed tubular heating el ements require more standing water than dishwashers with flow-through heaters. Flow-through heaters consist of a metallic flow tube around which an electrical tubular resistance heat er is wrapped. The flow-through heater usually connects the sump to the main pump and hence forms an integral part of the water circuit. The volume of water required to fill a flow-through elem ent is typically much lower than the volume required to at least partially submerge a tubular supplemental heating element. The potential water and energy savings depend upon the configurat ion of the sump and type of supplemental water heating element. Improved fill control Modifying the fill control to admit a lower volume of water can reduce hot water
consum ption and energy use. In models that use electro-mechanical controls, this could be accomplished by reducing the safety factor empl oyed by manufacturers to ensure proper fill volumes. Safety factors, which result in overfill for some consumers, are applied to the volume of the sump region and also to the timer-activat ed water fill to ensure enough water for proper pump action and cleaning. The use of more accurate electronic timers would maintain a tighter tolerance on the fill time period. Dishwashers with electro-mechanical controls also employ an overfill factor to account for varying water pressures. Water flow rates through valves vary with water pressure, so the use of mechanical timer controls could cause a va riation in the quantity of hot water delivered. Therefore, an additional overfill factor of 10 or 15 percent is traditionally used to compensate for the range of water pressures existing in the U.S. The use of pressure-a ctivated water volume sensors could be used to control water fill rath er than a mechanical timer to reduce overfills. Dishwashers may alternatively use a float sw itch mounted in the sum p to terminate the filling process. The float switch is an electro-mechanical switch activated by the rising water level in the sump. Once the sump has been filled to the appropriate level, the float triggers the switch, terminating the fill. Since the float switch di rectly measures the wate r level, it can enable a high degree of fill control. However, simple float switches can only measure one fill level, which may be inadequate for washers with very high efficiency targets.

3-49The most sophisticated water fill control op tion is to incorporate a water meter into the dishwasher. Such a device allows the controlle r to measure exactly how much water has been added and allows the washer to tailor its water input precisely to the n eeds of each individual wash or rinse cycle. By metering the water precisely, this approach gives the dishwasher controller greater flexibility than a timed fill or float switch. However, unlike a timed fill or a float switch, a water meter approach requires an electronic dishwasher controller that can make use of the pulses generated by the water meter. Improved food filter Improved food filters help prevent the re-depos ition of food particles, pos sibly leading to one less fill for rinsing. Dishwashers utilizing fi ne filters have less food re-deposited on dishes, since the food is filtered out before being re -circulated by the pump through the spray arms. Another benefit is that the water supply lines, nozzles, etc. can ha ve small cross-sections without the risk of clogging due to entrained food partic les. Thus, a fine f ood filter can enable a manufacturer to reduce the volume of the water n eeded to fill all parts of the wash system. Typical filter designs have a self-clean ing featu re that backwashes the filter automatically and therefore minimizes manual f ilter cleaning. Although less water is required overall for dishware rinsing, the washing of the filter requires water use. The task can be changed to an intermittent event via the inclusion of a pressure transducer, which can sense how clogged the filter is and thus signa l a rinse requirement to an elect ronic controller. The filter is cleaned whenever the need arises, allowing the designer to implement lower-volume sump designs. Another implementation approach could monitor the pump motor directly to detect excessive slip, resistance, or other parameter to infer a clogged filter condition. Improved motor efficiency An electric motor runs the main water pump an d, if separate, the drain pump as well. Dishwashers have typically used split-phase or shaded-pole motors becaus e of their low torque requirement and constant starting current c ondition. A capacitor-type motor, such as a permanent split capacitor (PSC) motor, is more effici ent than a split phase or shaded-pole motor. It uses a capacitor in bo th the starting and running modes. The capacitor-type motor increases the power factor, and, therefore, reduces heating losses in th e stator. An electric motor efficiency of 65 percent should be possible using a capacitor-type motor. A 30 percent improvement in motor effici ency produces approxim ately a 2.5 percent overall reduction in dishwasher energy cons umption. Dishwashers with permanent magnet motors could reduce the electrical consumpti on of the pump motor by a further 10-20 percent from the levels attainable with PSC motors.

3-50Improved spray-arm geometry Spray arms, which are typically located at th e center and the bottom of a dishwasher cavity, are designed to rotate a nd spray pressurized water on the dishwasher contents. If the spray arms could be designed to more effectivel y remove food particles, dishwashers would use less hot water and energy.
Increased insulation Dishwashers generally feature some insulati on to reduce noise levels, which also reduces heat losses. Additional insulation around the tub or at the bottom of the dishwasher can decrease heat losses further. However, the marginal benefit for additional insulation is very small. Past testing by manufacturers has shown that increasin g insulation does not allo w the use of a lower water temperature. This has been confirmed by other researchers thr ough both experimental testing and simulation modeling. The same rese archers found that an increase in thermal capacitance had little effect on dishware temperature. They simulated a steel and porcelain tub, a plastic tub, and an aluminum tub. There was littl e difference in the temperature of the dishware among all three cases. Low-standby-loss electronic controls Electronic controls may consume power even when the dishwasher is not perform ing its intended function. Depending on the implementation of the controller, sta ndby 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 dishwasher, but will not impact the energy cons umption of the dishwasher during operation. Low-standby-loss electronic controls can be implemented in a wide variety of ways. Microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, in cluding adaptive or soil-sensing controls Microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, incl uding adaptive or soil-sensing controls, are able to redu ce the energy and water consumpti on of a dishwasher by allowing the machine to adapt to variable conditions inside the unit. Sensors located inside the dishwasher provide a stream of information, including turbidity, conductivity, temperatur e, and spray arm rotation, to the fuzzy logic controller which, in turn, contro ls the operation of the dishwasher by adjusting the amount of water used and/or the water temperat ure, based on inferred load and/or soil level. This is somewhat analogous to manually selectin g light-, normal- or heavy-duty wash selection. For example, some dishwasher designs have sensors that measure the amount of food soil in the water and algorith ms that adjust water te mperature, fill levels, and cycle time accordingly. This design feature may also track the amount of time between loads so the contro ller can adjust for dried-on food, as well as taking into account th e number of times the door has been opened to determine load size. According to Honeywell, a key developer and supplier of soil-sensing

3-51packages, such a system can reduce energy c onsumption by 35 percent and water consumption by 45 percent. 48 Most manufacturers offer dishwa shers using soil-sensing controls. In 2003, the DOE test procedure was update d to more accurately measure energy efficiency for m achines equipped with soil-sens ing controls. For these machines, water and electrical energy consumption are measured unde r varying soil load conditions, and the results are averaged via a weighted formula th at represents typi cal usage patterns. Modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps The amount of water used for each cycle can be reduced by a change in th e geometry of the sump and its integration with the main pump and a drain pump (if any) . During the wash part of the cycle, approximately half of the water at any given time in the dish washer is in the sump to ensure an air-free water supply to the pump. Current sump designs attempt to minimize water use while maintaining an adequate water s upply to the pump. This technology option would optimize the sump to minimize the total amount of wa ter needed per fill. Another factor in sump design is how quickly water can flow back to the sump after being sprayed on the dishes. Many dishwashers use one pump to deliver pres surized water, with detergent in solution, to the spray arm s, and to drain the wash solution when the wash cycle is complete. This pump is powered by a single electric motor. By using tw o pumps and two electric motors, with one set optimized for washing and one set optimized for draining, the overall ener gy consumption due to water pumping may be decreased. Reduced inlet-water temperature This option uses cold or temperate water for som e of the rinse cycles. Dishwashers with adequate heating elements could tap only to the cold water suppl y line, allowing the dishwasher’s heating element to heat the wate r as required. For reduced-temperature rinse cycles, the water would be heated to a lower temp erature than the temperature of water typically available from the hot water supply line (120 °F), reducing energy consumption. The dishwasher’s internal water heater may also be more efficient than the household water heater. For an example of a dishwasher incorporat ing this design option, the AM Appliance Group, under the ASKO brand, manufactures a dishwasher cap able of attaching directly to a cold water line. 49 However, ASKO notes that a dishwasher connected to the cold water line requires more time to complete the washing cycle, since the dishwasher requires additional time to internally heat the water to operating temperatures. Alternatively, a dishwasher could tap both the hot and cold water lines, and m ix hot and cold water in order to reduce inlet water temp eratures. Again, because U.S. dishwashers are conventionally connected to a hot water line onl y, this option would necessitate plumbing in a cold water line to the dishwasher in a ddition to the currently-used hot water line. Another means to lower rinse water temperat ure is to lowe r the hot water temperature setting on the household water heater and use the dishwasher’s heating element to raise the water

3-52to the needed temperature. But lowering the household water heater temperature below 120 °F may not satisfy other house hold hot water requirements. Supercritical carbon dioxide washing At an Electrolux-sponsored design competiti on, students fro m the University of New South Wales designed a dishwasher with a cleaning process based upon supercritical carbon dioxide instead of the conventi onal detergent an d water solution. 50 The supercritical carbon dioxide within the dishwasher behaves simultaneous ly as a liquid and a gas, completely filling the washing tub and covering th e dishes, like a gas, but disso lving grease like a liquid. The supercritical carbon dioxide is used in a clos ed-loop process. Af ter the wash cycle, contamination is removed from the carbon dioxide, which is stored for the next wash cycle. Ultrasonic washing Ultrasonic washing uses high frequency s ound generators to crea te cavitation bubbles within the wash water, in which the dishware is completely submerged. These bubbles implode upon contact with a surface, effecting a mechanical scrubbing action that removes soil from the dishware. This cleaning action is not dependent on water temperature, water flow rate, or detergents, making the process highly energy efficient, since a st anding pool of room temperature water may be used. However, stan ding ultrasonic waves within the washing cavity and the force of cavitation implosion can damage fragile dishware. Also, consumers may not perceive ultrasonic dishwashers as properly sterilizing dishes at low temperatures, resulting in a perceived decrease in consumer utility, even though not all current dishwashers operate at high enough temperatures to effectiv ely sterilize their contents. Sharp introduced an ultrasonic and ionic dishwasher for the Japanese m arket in September 2002, which utilizes a different ultrasonic technique for soil removal. 51 The dishwasher tank is partially filled with water, and a superfine mist is created using an ultrasonic generating element to remove food stains from dishes. Hard water ion washing is then performed using table salt. A prepared salt-water mixture is put through an exchange system to make hard water containing an abundance of calc ium ions (Ca2+) and magnesium ions (Mg2+). This water washes the dishes using a salting-in effect to remove prot ein-based stains, which would otherwise become hardened and difficult to remove when using co nventional heated tap water. The ion exchange system then remove s calcium and magnesium ions from the tap water to create soft water for rinsing. The combina tion of the ultrasonic wa ves and the salt-water mixture is designed to wash without the need for dishwasher detergent. Unlike the technology described above, Sharp’s ultrasoni c dishwasher does not rely on immersing the dishes in an ultrasonically-excited fluid. Variable washing pressure and flow rates Variable washing pressure and flow rates ar e being em ployed in some dishwasher models to reduce dishwashing cycle times or to accommodate the various levels of soiling. For example, the user can choose an option to provide a 30 pe rcent increase in washing pressure and, thus,

3-53more rapidly (and powerfully) clean dishes. The us er interface usually presents this option as, for example, a “pots and pans” wash setti ng versus a “normal” setting. Higher energy consumption from the dishwasher pump is require d to achieve the increase in washing pressure. Conversely, reduced washing pressure requi res less energy from the dishwasher pump to run the cleaning cycles, reducing the energy consumption of the di shwasher as long as the cycle time is not increased. Such a strategy may be employed for rinse cycles, during which clean water is used to remove detergent from the dish es. Since the rinse cy cle does not need high washing pressure to remove f ood material from soiled dishes, a reduced water pressure is feasible without degrading the overall cl eaning performance of the dishwasher. Some dishwashers alternate the delivery of water to the top-rack spray arm and the bottom -rack spray arm. This diversion is acco mplished by using a valve or other fluid control mechanism to route the water to one spray ar m at a time. Once the active spray arm has completed its cycle, the water may be circulat ed through the other spra y arm to complete a similar cycle. This reduces the amount of water required by the dishwasher, since the dishwasher only heats and circulates enough wate r for one spray arm. By reducing the amount of water required, and therefore the amount of water heating requi red, alternating water delivery to the top and bottom spray arms reduces th e energy consumption of the dishwasher. In order to implement this feature, the dish washer m ust be capable of adequately filtering the wash water. Since a smaller quantity of water is used to remove the same quantity of dish soiling, the water will contain a hi gher concentration of soiling. If the dishwasher filtering system does not adequately filte r the water, re-deposition of f ood soiling could increase as the soiled water is circulated. In addition to reducing the energy consumpti on of dishwashers washing full loads, this technology option also lets m anuf acturers offer dishwashers with efficient “half-load” wash cycles in which water is only routed to one spray arm, which allow consumers to run the dishwasher when it is half-full without wasti ng the water and energy necessary to wash a full load.

3.14.2.2 Dehumidifiers DOE has not previously conducted a compre hensive analysis of energy conservation standard s for dehumidifiers , because there are currently no Fede ral standards for these products. The first such standards become effective October 2007. To identif y technology options for dehumidifiers, DOE occasionally made comparisons to room air-conditione rs and cited sources referring to room air-conditioner technology, due to the inherent similari ties between room airconditioners and refrigeration-based dehumidifiers . Like dehumidifiers, room air-conditioners are portable residential applia nces containing refrigeration systems. However, while dehumidifiers are designed to remove latent heat from the ambient air, the main function of a room air-conditioner is to remove sensible heat. The components of the refrigeration systems in both room air-conditioners and refrigeration-based dehumidifiers are usually similarly sized, and the refrigeration systems themselves usually have similar refrigeration capacities. However, the

3-54heat exchangers in dehumidifiers will be optimi zed for latent heat removal, whereas the room air-conditioner heat exchangers will be optimized fo r sensible heat removal. Furthermore, room air-conditioners will feature an indoor and an outdoor section, whereas most dehumidifiers are designed for wholly indoor use.Because of these similarities, many of the technologies used for improving room airconditioner efficiency are relevant to refrigeration-based dehumi difiers, and will have similar energy efficiency impacts when used in refrig eration-based dehumidifi ers. On September 24, 1997, DOE issued a final rule establishing en ergy conservation standards for room airconditioners. (62 FR 50122) In support of the 1997 rulemaking, DOE published a TSD containing descriptions of room air-conditioner technology options. DOE used applicable descriptions from this 1997 TSD when establishi ng descriptions of de humidifier technology options. Additional technology options were identifi ed by DOE during teardowns conducted as part of reverse-engineering analyses. For more details on the reverse-engineering activities, see Chapter 5 of this current TSD. The technology options for dehu m idifiers are listed in Ta ble 3.14.2. They are features that can be incorporated into the design of a dehumidifier to improve its efficiency. Based on product literature research, stakeh older interviews, and teardown analysis, DOE has identified compressor, heat exchanger, and fan motor im provements as the most common ways by which manufacturers improve the energy efficiency of th eir dehumidifiers as measured by the DOE test procedure.
Table 3.14.2 Technology Options for Dehumidifiers 1. Built-in hygrometer/humidistat 2. Improved compressor efficiency 3. Improved condenser performance 4. Improved controls 5. Improved defrost methods 6. Improved demand-defrost controls 7. Improved evaporator performance 8. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency 9. Improved flow-control devices 10. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 11. Washable air filters Built-in hygrometer/humidistat All dehumidifiers subjected to teardown by DOE featured som e type of humidity controller. Electromechanically-c ontrolled dehumidifiers featured a humidistat, which cycles the compressor and fan power supply as a function of relative humidity. The switch material consists of either hair or a nylon-film band, whos e tension is set via a us er-positionable dial.

3-55Increases in humidity relax the ha ir or band, allowing the switch to close. Electronic controllers use hygrometers, which also measure the expansion of a reference material. Improved compressor efficiency Most dehumidifier manufacturers incorporate ro tary com pressors into their units, though some still use reciprocating compressors. “Inertia” compressors, scroll compressors, and variable-speed compressors all have higher effici encies than the traditional rotary compressors used in dehumidifiers. However, finding a suit able high-efficiency compressor at the capacities and price points needed for a dehumidifier is a challenge. The “inertia” compressor is a technology that allows r eciprocating com pressors to approach an energy efficiency ra tio (EER) of 12.0, where EER repr esents the cooling capacity in Btu/hr divided by the input wattage of the compressor. “Inerti a” compressors utilize lightweight, responsive valve technology and an innovative re frigerant flow path to reduce losses and improve cylinder volumetric efficiency. Scroll compressors require high precision to pr od uce their internal components and are typically found in higher-efficiency central air-conditioning systems. Scroll compressors compress gas in a fundamentally different mann er from traditional compressors — between two spirals, one fixed and one nutat ing. Scroll compression is inhe rently more efficient than traditional compression methods. Both inertia and scroll compressors are, however, substantially larger, heavier, and
som etimes noisier than their rota ry counterparts, and, as such, are not well-suited for use in residential dehumidifiers. Variable-speed compressors are typically impl e mented through the us e of an electronic control that varies the input fr equency of the power supply for the compressor motor. Variablespeed compressors enable modulation of the re frigeration-system cooling power beyond simple on-off control, allowing the dehumidifier to be tter match the compressor power to the load, increasing compression efficiency.
The control of variable -speed com pressors is accomplished through the use of electronic adjustable-speed drives (ASDs) at the motor. Because electronic ASDs are compact and require no drive-train in order to be coupled to the motor, they can be eas ily retrofitted to fractional size horsepower motors that are typical of many home appliances, including room air-conditioners and dehumidifiers. Inverter-based ASDs are the most common systems for induction motors while converter-based ASDs are used for perman ent-magnet brushless motors. In a pulse-widthmodulated (PWM) inverter, the inpu t alternating current (AC) power supply is first converted to direct current (DC) by using a so lid-state rectifier. This DC signal is then converted to a variable-frequency AC waveform by the inverter and supplied to the motor. The waveform is released in short steps or pulses of power. The speed of the motor will then change in proportion to the frequency. 52

3-56Variable-speed compressor technology has not yet been implemented in residential dehumidifiers, and it is therefore difficult to predict the energy effici ency improvements that could be achieved through its use. Howeve r, in the 1997 room air-conditioner TSD, DOE conservatively estimated that the implementation of variable-speed compressors in room airconditioners could achieve an energy savings of approximately 10 percent. 53 Because of the inherent similarity between room air-conditione rs and refrigeration-based dehumidifiers, DOE expects that a variable-speed compressor in a dehumidifier c ould achieve comparable energy savings as long as the fan speed or effective ev aporator surface area is modulated as well to ensure proper coil temperature for latent heat removal. Improved condenser performance Enhancements to the condenser fin design ma y also im prove the overall heat transfer capability of the dehumidifier coil. This improve ment is due in part to the increase in air turbulence over the coil caused by the enhanced fin design. According to the 1997 room airconditioner TSD, many manufactur ers are using some form of fin enhancement in their coil designs. 54 Almost all dehumidifier models subjec ted by DOE to teardown analysis had heat exchangers with “wavy” aluminum fins for more turbulent airflow and internally-rifled copper tubing for optimized refrigerant heat exchange. It is difficult to predict th e am ount of energy savings that could be achieved through the implementation of an improved condenser design, as it is dependant on th e specific dehumidifier model and usage characteristics. Improved controls Manufacturers have increasingl y adopted digital c ontrollers for dehum idifiers due to consumer demand and because such controller s allow dehumidifiers to better respond to changing environmental conditions. Unlike the snap-action switches and fixed-RH electromechanical controllers they replace, dig ital controllers can measure multiple inputs and respond to present conditions as well as trends. Digital controllers can use va rying approaches, from rigid de cision trees to fuzzy logic. During the reverse-engineering process, DOE observed that most electroni c control boards were purchased parts which had been mass-customized for the specific dehumidifier. One advantage of digital controllers is the ease with which th ey can be reprogrammed, allowing a manufacturer to use one control board for its entire dehum idifier line, yet optimize its responses per dehumidifier model. It is difficult to predict th e am ount of energy savings that could be achieved through the implementation of improved controllers because there is no industry consensus on patterns in ambient conditions and usage.

3-57Improved defrost methods
As the air drawn into the dehumidifier is cool ed, water vapor condenses on the surface of the evapo rator coil. In some cases, typically when the air is 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 perfor med and control of the defrost cycle can lead to substantial energy savings. Many dehumidifiers incorporate defrost tec hnology. In general, two types of defrost
m echanisms are available: passive defrost and acti ve defrost. Most dehum idifiers that feature defrost technology use passive defrost. Dehumidifiers that are designed and marketed for lowtemperature operation ( i.e. , for use in basements) genera lly use active defrost systems. Dehumidifiers using passive defrost monitor th e tem perature of the evaporator, and shut down if it drops below the freezing point of water. Th is is not technically “d efrost,” as it actually prevents the formation of frost ra ther than eliminating frost after it forms. It is, however, an effective method of preventing the dehumidifie r from operating under low-efficiency frosted conditions. This method is simple to implemen t and incurs no additional energy expenditure.
Active defrost in dehumidifiers is conducted in one of three ways: off-cycle defrost, electric defrost, or hot-gas defrost. Off-cycle defrost, commonly implemented in refrigerators, involves shutting off the refrigeration system while keeping the air-circ ulation system running. The relatively warm air

— case air in refrigerators and ambient air in dehum idifiers — melts th e frost layer, and the refrigerator or dehumidifier subsequently resumes operation. When implemented in dehumidifiers, off-cycle 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, which is not generally implemented in dehumidifiers, involves melting frost by briefly turning on an electric resistance heater, which is in contact with or near the evaporator. The heater melts the frost qui ckly, but consumes significant energy. Hot-gas defrost uses the hot compressor discha rge gas to warm the evaporator from the refrigerant side. This method can be used for a la rge range of air temperatures. Electricity usage is reduced in comparison to the electric defr ost method because available heat, which would otherwise be rejected in the condenser, is used. Hot-gas defrost systems, however, necessitate more complicated piping and control than electric defrost systems. A reversing valve is required to change the direction of gas flow through the system so hot compressor discharge gas can be routed through the evaporator. In addition, hot-gas defrost system s lead to an increase in the thermal stress on the refrigerant piping due to the al ternating flow of hot ga s and cold refrigerant. It is difficult to predict th e am ount of energy savings that could be achieved through the implementation of more-efficient defrost tec hnology since there is no industry consensus on

3-58patterns in ambient conditions and usage, and therefore no way determine how often an evaporator coil may be subject to frosting. However, it is exp ected that this technology could achieve significant energy savings under real-world conditions. Improved demand-defrost controls In all active-defrost systems, control of the defrost cycle m ay 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 available: timer-controlled a nd temperature-sensor-controlled. In a time-based defrost system, cycles are completely scheduled, and initiation and term ination are timer-controlled. Cycles are initia ted at regular intervals and terminated after a fixed amount of time. In these systems, cycl e frequency and duration are not responsive to actual frost conditions. Under timer control, the frequency of defr ost cycles is determined by the amount of time the manufacturer ex pects it to take for a large fros t layer to develop in the worstcase scenario, and the cycle durati on is long enough to ensure comple te defrost in the worst-case scenario. Timer-based defrost can lead to unnece ssarily frequent and unnecessarily long defrost cycles under anything bu t worst case conditions.
Sensor-controlled defrost involves scheduled cycle initiation, determined by a timer, and dem and-based cycle termination, determined by temp erature sensors. Defr ost cycles are still initiated at regular intervals, but are termin ated when the coil temperature reaches a value indicating complete defrost. Te mperature-sensor-controlled de frost 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 evaporator performance Specific attention to evaporator design rega rding condensate runoff and fi n patterns may increase dehumidifier energy e fficiency. Although manufacturers typically design dehumidifier evaporators primarily for effective heat transfer w ith the humid air stream, it is also useful for the evaporator to be designed such that condensate runs off effectively and does not adhere to the surface. In addition to allowing less re-absorpt ion of condensate back into the air stream, effective condensate runoff results in higher heat transfer between the evaporator and the air, increasing evaporator and t hus system efficiency. Additionally, enhancements to the evaporator fin design m a y improve the overall heattransfer capability of the coil. This improvement is due in part to the increase in air turbulence over the coil caused by the enhanced fin desi gn. According to the 1997 room air-conditioner TSD, many manufacturers are using some form of fin enhancement in their coil designs. 55 Almost all models DOE subjected to teardown anal ysis for this rulemaking had heat exchangers with “wavy fins” and rifled copper tubing.

3-59Energy savings associated with this tec hnology will depend on the sp ecific dehumidifier model and refrigerant-ci rcuit characteristics. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency The air-circulation system of a residential dehum idifier usua lly consists of a shaded-pole or PSC fan motor which drives e ither propeller-style blades or a tangential “squirrel cage” fan. These motors run on line voltage and typically fe ature one or two speeds. Multiple fan speeds are usually found on higher-end units. Some unit controllers can modulate fan speeds (high/low) whereas less complex models utilize a user-set switch. In the 1997 TSD for room air-conditioners, DOE stated that m anufacturers primarily obtain fans from one fan manu facturer, leading to standard ization of these air-system components. 56 Because of this, it is extremely difficult for room air-conditioner manufacturers to implement any individual design improvements to raise the efficiency of their fans. Dehumidifiers are typically built using product platform s, where one enclosure serves multiple dehumidification capacities. As a result, the designers make tradeoffs to accommodate a wide range of capacities (35-65 pints/day, for example) within a single enclosure. While efficiency improvements could be achieved by op timizing fan blades for specific dehumidifier models, such a design change would add complex ity to the manufacturi ng process by requiring a wider scope of fan blades to be stocked. Such steps would likely incr ease inventory, reduce fan blade purchase volumes and hence manufacturers see this as a relatively costly design option in relation to the efficiency benef it. Therefore, quantifying the efficiency improvements to the dehumidifier’s air-circulation system is restrict ed to analyzing the efficiency improvements to the fan motor only. Electric motors operate based on the inter action between a field m agnet and a magnetic rotor. However, single-phase motors only pr oduce a rotating magnetic field when the rotor is rotating, and simply powering the electromagnet is th erefore not sufficient to start such a motor. One of the most significant differences between di fferent types of single-phase motors is the way in which they handle this start-up problem. All dehumidifiers that DOE reverse-engine ered had eith er shad ed-pole or PSC fan motors. Both motor types use an electromagnet, which consists of windings of electrical wire through which current is driven. In a shaded-pole motor, a portion of these windings is “shaded” by a copper loop. The interactions between the magnetic field generated by the shaded portion and that generated by the un-shaded portion i nduce rotation when the motor is powered. However, because the imbalance between the shaded and un-shaded portions of the magnet remains throughout operation, shaded-pole motors are very inefficient, with typical motor efficiencies less than 20 percent. Shaded-pole motors are, however, electrically simple and inexpensive. 57 In a PSC motor, a smaller, start-up winding is present in addition to the main winding. The start-up winding is electricall y connected in parallel with the main winding and in series

3-60with a capacitor. At start-up, the interactions between the magnetic field generated by the startup winding and that generated by the main windi ng induce rotation. As the capacitor charges, the current flowing through the start-up winding d ecreases and the start-up winding becomes an auxiliary winding after the motor reaches running speed. Consequently, the current to the startup winding is cut off once the capacitor is fully charged and the motor reaches steady-state speed. Because of this, PSC mo tors are substantially more efficient than their shaded-pole counterparts, with motor efficien cies ranging from 60 to 65 percent. 58 Like shaded-pole motors, PSC motors are produced in large quantities and are relatively inexpensive. 59 Dehumidifier fan energy efficiency can be substantially improve d by replacing shaded-pole motors with PSC motors. Electric motors with even higher efficien cies can be im plemented by switching to permanent-magnet motors, which come in many vari eties. The most wide ly-known variety is the electronically-commutated motor (ECM) p though DC-motors can also be used. Permanent magnet motors are less noisy and substantially more efficient th an either shaded-pole or PSC motors. ECM motors convert single-phase AC input power into three- phase power, and have motor efficiencies approaching 80 percent. 60 However, ECM motors can weigh twice as much as equivalent PSC motors, potentially necessita ting 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. 61 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 sm alldiameter line that connects the out let of the condenser to the inle t of the evaporator. It is designed to provide optimum ener gy characteristics at one design point. If sized properly, the capillary-tube expansion valve compensates automa tically for load and system variations and gives acceptable performance over a wide range of operating conditions. Because ambient temperature and humidity vary, however, dehum idifiers sometimes operate under conditions outside of the target conditions, leading to reduced efficiency. The thermostatic expansion valve (TXV) — a f low-control alternativ e to the capillary tube — is commonly used in higher-efficiency central air-conditioning systems. TXVs regulate the flow of liquid refrigerant entering the evap orator in response to the superheat of the refrigerant leaving it. TXVs can adapt better to changes in operating conditions such as those due to variations in ambient temperature, which affect the condensing temperature. As a result, TXVs can lead to a somewhat increased seasonal operating efficiency. Electronic expansion valves ( EEVs) are sim ilar to TXVs, but unlike TXVs, they can be controlled actively. While a TXV relies on a sing le temperature sensor for feedback, digital

p Also known as brushless permanent magnet (BPM) motors or electronically-commutated permanent magnet (ECPM) motors.

3-61controllers can use multiple sensors for feedback control and respond using multiple approaches. For example, besides modulating the refrigerant fl ow, the controller may also vary the fan speed to optimize efficiency under varying conditions . As with TXVs, EEVs can use the superheat control method to regulate refrigerant flow. Other methods, such as controlling compressor discharge temperature, can also be used. As reported in the 1997 TSD for room air-conditioners,research has demonstrated that, when incorporated into air-conditioning systems using inverterdriven variable-speed compressors, EEVs improve seasonal energy efficiency beyond that of systems using conventional TXVs. During the reverse-engineering analysis, one unit was found to contain a quasi-EEV which consisted of a regular capillary tube coupl ed with a liquid line solenoid to bypass part of the evaporator. Such a solenoid valve allows th e controller to adjust th e heat exchanger surface area, subject to refrigerant flow, and hence its surface temperature. With active feedback loops, the controller can thus adjust the evaporator co il performance to maximize latent heat removal across a variety of environmental conditions while minimizing the possibility of freezing the evaporator coil. However, given the cost of TXVs and EEVs, it is unlikely that TXVs or EEVs will find wide use in the dehum idifiers. Since dehumidif iers are only used indoors, the variation in ambient conditions to which dehumidifiers are expos ed is generally smaller than that to which room air-conditioners are exposed. Thus, T XVs and EEVs are likely to remain uncommon, except for dehumidifiers that are marketed to work in both warm and cold conditions. Many control boards and user interfaces feature placeholde rs for relays and pins to connect EEVs, if needed. Low-standby-loss electronic controls Electronic controls may consume power even when the dehum idifier is not performing its intended function. Depending on the implementation of the controller, sta ndby 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 co nsumption of the dehumidifier during operation. Low-standby-loss electronic controls can be implemented in a wide variety of ways. An estimate of energy savings is not possible wit hout industry consensus on usage patterns. Washable air filters The build-up of dust particles on the evaporator c oil can lower the heat-transfer 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, obstruc ting air flow through the dehumidifier and reducing system performance. To prevent this, most manufacturers design the air filters to be removable and washable, which a llows 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

3-62the addition of washable air filters, as it is de pendant on the specific dehu midifier model and use characteristics, and on the degree to which the co nsumer takes advantage of this feature.

3.14.2.3 Cooking Products DOE most recently analyzed energy conservation standards for cooking products in 1996 and 1997. In the 1997 analysis, DOE analyzed only gas cooking products to determine the technical and economic feasibility of eliminati ng standing pilots. DOE’s prior analysis in 1996, contained within the 1996 TSD for cooking products , identified technologi es that have the potential for improving gas and elec tric cooking efficiency. DOE ha s considered all of these in this rulemaking. In addition, DOE identified low-standby-loss electr onic controls as a technology option for several cooking products, based on review of standby power data for microwave ovens and the assumed applicability to conventional cooking products as well.

For gas cooktops , DOE considered the technologies listed below.

Table 3.14.3 Technology Options for Gas Cooktops 1. Catalytic burners 2. Electronic ignition 3. Insulation 4. Radiant gas burners 5. Reduced excess air at burner 6. Reflective surfaces 7. Sealed burners 8. Thermostatically-controlled burners Catalytic burners Catalytic burners consist of a porous ceramic or refractory m aterial such as glass or ceramic wool, impregnated with a catalyst. Th e gas-air mixture or ga s alone is fed to the catalytic matrix, whereupon additi onal ambient air diffuses into it. The catalyst, typically palladium or platinum, lowers the activation ener gy required for combustion such that the gas-air mixture subsequently oxidizes at temperatures below those normally required for combustion. This produces a uniform, low-intensity infrared radiation with no visibl e flame. The burners include an electric heating elemen t to preheat the catalyst prior to initiating operation. Catalytic burners in residential applia nces are investigated primar ily as a m eans of reducing NO x emissions, since NO x formation is highly temperature depe ndent. DOE is not aware of any commercialized catalytic burners fo r gas cooktops or efficiency data for applications of catalytic burners in cooking appliances. Electronic ignition

3-63Gas cooktops equipped without electrical power cords use a standing pilot ignition system. The energy factor of the cooktop can be increased by replacing the standing pilot system with an electronic ignition system . Actual burner efficiency is not affected by eliminating the standing pilot. The resulting increase in the ener gy factor is due only to the decrease in the cooktop’s annual gas energy consumption attr ibuted to the pilot gas consumption. The most common type of electronic igniti on use d by gas cooktops is an intermittent ignition system, where spark ignito rs replace the standing pilots. These ignitors are controlled by switches on each burner valve. The switches are typically rotary-actuated so that when the burner valve is turned to the li ght position, a “starter” signal is sent to the control module. Alternatively, the signal can be generated by electronic controls on the user interface of the cooktop. Once the signal is received, the cont rol module activates the spark ignitors. The control module can either be a supervised or an unsupervised type. Supervised modules require re-activation of the burner switc hes for cases where burner flames are accidentally extinguished. Unsupervised modules use a sensor located at the burner (often the ignitor itself) to sense when the flame has been accidentally extinguished. The burner switches do not need to be reactivated, as the sensor sends a signal back to th e control module to reactivate the ignitors. Though they cost more, unsupervised ignition sy stems are preferred ove r systems that use supervised control modules sin ce they prevent the need to check accidentally-extinguished flames. Most of the currently manufactured ga s cooktops that are equipped with intermittent ignition systems use unsupervised control modul es. Because of this , unsupervised control systems are the type of electronic igniti on devices being analyzed for gas cooktops. It is important to note that intermittent ignition s ystems consume negligible amounts of electricity. Since the control m odule is powered directly off of line voltage, there are no 24-volt transformer losses associated with it. The spark ignitor is activa ted for an extremely short time period so that its cumulative on -time during the course of a y ear, and thus its electricity consumption, is negligible. A recently-introduced ignitor technology utili zes a ceram ic hot surface ignitor in place of the spark ignitor. With this type of ignition, the ignitor may either be constantly energized whenever the burner valves are open, such as on a simmer setting where the burner is cycled on and off to achieve very low average input rates, or turned on in response to either initial burner gas-flow activation or detection of flame ex tinction. Therefore it ma y be considered an unsupervised system. Improved cooktop utility incl udes elimination of the noise associated with spark ignition. Energy consumption during usage is higher than for spark ignition.
Insulation Added insulation is only used in a gas c ooktop when it is installe d as a counter-top unit (not above an oven). Here, the surrounding structures encompassing the cooktop might experience surface temperature problems that can be alleviated by adding insulation. Insulation underneath the cooktop reduces the surface temperature of all exposed non-cooktop surfaces to levels which meet UL requirements.

3-64Of the information reviewed on effici ency improvements to gas cooktops, adding insulation was never analyzed as a method to improve cooktop performance. Manufacturers’ data from the previous rulema king provided no estimate of energy efficiency improvements from insulating gas cooktops.. Radiant gas burners Radiant gas burners transfer heat through in frared radiation o f the burner surface. The burner consists of a porous matrix through whic h a premixed gas-air mixture is fed. Upon ignition, the flames sit on the surface of the ma trix, heating the surface and causing it to emit radiation at infrared wavelengths. The burner is located under a glass- ceramic cooktop surface. One form of radiant gas burners is termed power ed Infrared Jet-Impingement (IR-Jet) burners. In the IR-Jet gas burner, both radiant and convective energy are transmitted for cooking. A forced-draft combustion fan is used to deliver the fully-premixed gas-air mixture to available cooktop burners. At each burner, com bustion occurs at the surface of a perforated ceramic tile. As the tile heats, it emits radian t energy, principally in th e far infrared regime. Combustion products are jetted through perforat ions in the glass-ceramic cooktop, delivering convective energy to the cooking vessel as well. As reported in the 1996 TSD, the Gas Re search Institute (GRI) sponsored the developm ent of the IR-Jet gas burner. With GRI’s sponsorship, the American Gas Association Laboratories (AGAL) has worked with a range manuf acturer to produce a working IR-Jet burner. However, the IR-Jet burner is not currently bein g marketed. Data collected from a boiling water test indicated that the AGAL-devel oped IR-Jet radiant burner is mo re efficient than a comparable conventional open burner. The boiling water test indicated a 16 percent increase in efficiency Another type of radiant ga s burner utilizes a silicon carbi de-fiber burner which emits radiation in the near-infrared spectrum. A pr ototype developed jointly by Tokyo Gas and Rinnai Corporation utilized su ch material in a glass-ceramic c ooktop that did not incorporate jet impingement. Instead, combustion products were vented from underneath a solid, nonperforated cooktop. Such a radiant burner reli ed entirely on radiati on heat transfer and conduction from the glass-ceramic after it heat ed up. In tests conducted according to the Japanese Industrial Standard method, which is a water heating procedure, the efficiency was reported as 43.5 percent compared with an es timated 30 percent for traditional gas burners. 62

Reduced excess air at burner
The excess-air ratio is defined as the amount of a ir used in the co mbustion process of the gas burner divided by the amount of air necessary for stoichiometr ic combustion. Excess air is provided to ensure high-quality flame characteristics and to creat e a safety margin to ensure complete combustion is reached under all conditions . Reducing the excess-a ir ratio at the burner through redesign and shrouding can improve its effi ciency. This information was provided by the 1980 engineering anal ysis performed by DOE 63 in support of developing energy efficiency

3-65standards for a variety of consumer products, in cluding cooktops and ovens. This document does not specify how the burner should be redesigned and shrouded. Reflective surfaces Reflective surfaces for gas cooktops utilize highly-polished or chromed drip pans underneath the burner. By reflecting some of the radiant heat of the burner back up to the cooking vessel, the efficiency of the burner is increased. The consumer must maintain the reflective finish by cleaning th e drip pans regularly. Efficiency gains resulting from using refl ective p ans are extremely small because gas flames and burners have minimal infrared emissi ons. The primary mechanism for heat transfer to the cooking vessel is conv ection. The efficiency incr ease was obtained from using manufacturers’ data provided by AHAM and report ed in the 1996 TSD. The data indicates that an efficiency increase of only 0.1 percent is re alized due to the inco rporation of reflective surfaces.
Sealed burners Unlike conventional (open) burners, the cooktop surface surrounding sealed burners interfaces directly with th e base of th e burner. This results in a reduced amount of secondary air to the burner for combustion. According to the 1996 TSD, AHAM stated that sealed burners often have a lower gas input rating than convent ional burners due to th e reduction in secondary air. The sealed burner must obtain all of its se condary air from above the cooktop. In order to obtain sufficient air for proper combustion, it become s necessary to either raise the grate height or derate the burner. Contra ry to these statements, a repor t from the 1983 International Gas Research Conference 64 states that the reduction in secondary air results in more primary aeration to the sealed burner. The increased primar y aeration allows for a reduced pan-to-burner separation and increased burner efficiency. Accord ing to the boiling water tests conducted in the report, the efficiency of conventional burners ra nged from 42 - 48 percent, while the sealed burner was rated at an efficiency of 53 percent. Manufacturers’ data provided by AHAM were us ed to estim ate the incr ease in efficiency due to sealed burners in the 1996 TSD. An effi ciency increase of approximately 2.0 percent was estimated. Thermostatically-controlled burners Thermostatically-controlled gas burners contro l the gas flow to the burner through the use of a sensing elem ent that extends through an openi ng in the center of the burner. This sensing element makes contact with the bottom of the cooking vessel, detecting the temperature and controlling the input rate to the burner accordi ngly. If the cooking vessel has an uneven bottom in the area where the sensor is supposed to make contact, however, any type of useful temperature control is lost.

3-66Thermostatically-controlled burners were wi dely sold in the late 1950s and 1960s. But due to customer complaints on the operating ch aracteristics of the bur ner, manufacturers dropped them as a feature. As reported in the 1996 TSD, manufacturers stated that the sensor’s electric element retains heat due to its mass. This resu lts in the sensor being “fooled” and causing delays in reaction time. These delays a llow wide swings in the thermostat ically-controlled temperature. Manufacturers stated that even if improvements in sensor manufacturing resulted in no heat retention, the many existing variables a ssociated with the cooking vessel ( e.g ., vessel material, food mass, type of food) make the thermostatically-control led burners’ utility and energy efficiency suspect.

For open (coil) element electric coo ktops , DOE considered the technologies listed below.
Table 3.14.4 Technology Options for Open (Coil) Element Electric Cooktops 1. Electronic controls 2. Improved contact conductance 3. Insulation 4. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 5. Reflective surfaces
Electronic controls Electronic controls using sophisticated c ontrol algorithm s can use the dynamic thermal properties of the element to turn off the energy input to the element just in time to “coast” to the desired final temperature without overshooting it.
Research has been conducted to determine the effect that electronic controls have on cooktop efficiency. Danish researchers, te sting breadboard versions of microprocessor controlled electric hotplates, found a 20 to 46 pe rcent energy savings in cooking a variety of foods with European recipes. 65 Improved contact conductance
The thermal contact resistance that arises fr om an imperfect contact between the cooking vessel and the open (coil) element can be reduced by improving the flatness of the element. An improved contact conductance allows for more heat to be transferred to the cooking vessel and, thus, an improvement in the efficiency of the element. As stated in the 1996 TSD, manufacturers a sserted that they have worked on im proving the flatness of the element and that the types th at are available currently are doing an excellent job. They also stated that the results obtaine d from DOE test measurem ents do not reflect the actual performance of the open element. The alumin um test block used in the test procedure is much flatter than actual cooking vessels. B ecause of the block’s very flat surface, test

3-67efficiencies will be higher th an those obtained from field m easurements using “real” cooking vessels. Therefore, according to the manufacturers, ncreases in efficiency that can be obtained by improving the contact conductance under DOE test conditions will not be realized under field conditions. Sources used in assessing the efficiency ga ins that could be expected from i mproving the contact conductance in the 1996 analysis incl uded: (1) manufacturers’ data provided by AHAM, (2) a costing analysis of technology options for residential applia nces prepared by ADM Associates for Lawrence Berkel ey N ational Laboratory (LBNL) 66 , and (3) an energy-efficient electrical product knowledge base prepared by ORTECH International for the Canadian Electrical Association 67 . An additional comment 68 was received from Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL) following the NOPR for the previous rulemaking, which reported the major mechanism for heat transfer was physical contact between the vessel and coil and not contact pressure. Averaging the data from these sources results in a relative efficiency in crease for this technology option of just over 3 percent.
Insulation Added insulation is only used in an open (coil) elem ent electric cooktop when it is installed as a counter-top unit (not above an oven). Here, the surrounding structures encompassing the cooktop might experience surface te mperature problems that can be alleviated by adding insulation. Insulation underneath the c ooktop reduces the surfa ce temperature of all exposed non-cooktop surfaces to levels which meet UL requirements. Of the published information reviewed on efficiency improvements to open (coil) elem ent electric cooktops, adding insulation was never mentioned as a method to improve cooktop performance. Manufacturers’ data provided no estimate of efficiency improvements from insulating cooktops. Low-standby-loss electronic controls Electronic controls may consume power even when the electric cooktop is not performing its intended function. Depending on the implem entation of the controller, standby power is required to enable the electronic controls to detect user input without the us er first having to turn on a mechanical power switch or to enable disp lays, illuminate switches, etc. Reducing the standby power consumption of electronic controls will reduce the annual energy consumption of the electric cooktop, but w ill not impact the energy consumption of the electric cooktop during operation. Reflective surfaces As described in the similar technology op tion for gas cooktops, this technology option utilizes highly-polished or chrom ed drip pans underneath the heating element. By reflecting some of the radiant heat of the element back up to the cooking vessel, the efficiency of the

3-68element is increased. The consumer must maintain the reflective finish by cleaning the drip pans regularly. Efficiency gains resulting from using reflectiv e p ans are extremely small. The efficiency increase assumed in the 1996 TS D was obtained from data from the following sources: (1) manufacturers’ data provided by AHAM, (2) the energy-efficient electr ical product knowledge base prepared by ORTECH International for the Canadian Electrical Association 69 , and (3) the 1980 DOE Engineering Analysis for residential appliances 70 . Averaging the data from these sources results in an efficien cy increase of 1 percent.

For smooth element electric coo ktops , DOE considered the tec hnologies listed below. Radiant elements, which were included in the 1 996 TSD, were not consid ered as a design option for this rulemaking because manufacturer data provided to DOE for the 1996 TSD indicated that this technology does not offer an efficiency improvement over the baseline according to the DOE test procedure.
Table 3.14.5 Technology Options for Smooth Element E lectric Cooktops 1. Electronic controls 2. Halogen elements 3. Induction elements 4. Low-standby-loss electronic controls
Electronic controls Sophisticated electronic contro ls can be applied to solid disk elem ents, radiant elements, and halogen elements to allow the element to “coast” to its final temperature. Electronic controls are not applicable to induction elements as the nature of its operation has no need for “coasting” controls. DOE is unaware of any efficiency data characterizing energy savings for electronic controls on smooth element cooktops. However, research previously cited suggests potential energy savings of this technology for open (coil) el ement cooktops and it is possible that similar energy savings could be achieve d for smooth element cooktops. Halogen elements Halogen elements transfer energy to the c ooking vessel by direct infr ared radiation from high-powered tungsten-halogen lam ps. The ha logen element lies under neath a glass-ceramic panel and consists of one or more lamps installe d horizontally within a corrosion-protected metal dish. The bottom of the metal dish is insulated with microtherm insulation. Frequently, radiant heating coils are fitted around the halogen element to provide heat around the elem ent’s edge. This results in a high ly responsive element that provides an even temperature distribution. Halogen elements can be configured to operate across a wide range of capacities. Parallel or series lamp arra ngements can yield power outputs from 1200 to 2500

3-69watts. Halogen lamp technology reported in the 1996 TSD consisted of a ci rcular lamp that can provide a more optimum temperature distribution than traditional straight la mps. This circular lamp has the trademark name of Haloring. The 1996 TSD reported that with the con tinued developm ent of halogen elements, efficiencies had increased. The circular halogen- lamp elements that had recently been developed at the time of the previous analysis could exceed the efficiency of solid disk elements as measured according to the DOE test procedure. Data provided for the 1996 rulemaking by a cooktop manufacturer were used to establish the efficiency gain of a circular halogen lamp element over that of a solid disk element. An efficiency increase of approximately 1.5 percent was measured. It is important to reiterate that this efficiency increase was only for the circular halogen lamp element. Other halogen lamp elemen ts might not yield this efficiency increase. The same cooktop manufacturer mentioned above also provided efficiency data based on boiling water tests. These tests indicated that circul ar halogen lamp elements can yield even higher efficiency increases over that of solid disk elements. European manufacturers had also conducted boiling water tests indi cating that halogen lamp elem ents (the configuration of halogen lamp tested was not specified) ar e more efficient than solid disk elements 71

. Induction elements Induction elements use a solid-state power supply to convert 60 Hz alternating line current into a high-frequency (approxim ately 25 kHz) alternating current. This high-frequency current is supplied to an inductor. The inductor is a flat spiral winding located just underneath a glass-ceramic panel. The high-frequency current, which is supplied to the inductor, causes it to generate a magnetic field which passes through th e glass-ceramic panel unaffected and produces eddy currents in the bottom of the cooking vessel. The vessel must be made of some type of ferromagnetic material, and the eddy currents that are generated within the vessel cause it to heat up. Thus, the vessel essentially b ecomes the heating element. A sensor is placed between the inductor and the glass-ceram ic panel, providing a continuous temperature measurement of the vessel bottom. Sensor s also enable the inductor to only heat objects of at least four inches in diameter. This prevents any small metal objects, such as forks or spoons, from accidentally being heated. In addition, since the glass-ceramic panel is unaffected by the magnetic field, it remains relatively cool, reducing the potential for accidental burns. The primary advantages of induction elements are their fast response and control of the heat source, their ease of cleani ng, and their ability to heat vess els that are not flat. Because these features have usually been associated with gas burners, induction elements are being marketed in competition to them. As just noted, the cooking vessel used with an induction elem ent must be made from a ferromagnetic material. Since aluminum is not a ferromagnetic material, the current DOE test procedure, which specifies an aluminum test bloc k, cannot be used to rate this equipment. In 1978, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now called National Institute of Standards and

3-70Technology (NIST), developed a proposed method of measuring the energy consumption of induction cooktops. 72 The method is a modification of the current DOE test procedure. Energy use is determined by attaching a ferromagnetic ma terial to the bottom of the aluminum test block. This modification was never formally adopted by DOE, but a source was found that provided data on how a typi cal induction element performed under the proposed method developed by NBS. 73 An absolute efficiency of 84 percent was presented. Low-standby-loss electronic controls Electronic controls may consume power even when the electric cooktop is not performing its intended function. Depending on the implem entation of the controller, standby power is required to enable the electronic controls to detect user input without the us er first having to turn on a mechanical power switch or to enable disp lays, illuminate switches, etc. Reducing the standby power consumption of electronic controls will reduce the annual energy consumption of the electric cooktop, but w ill not impact the energy consumption of the electric cooktop during operation.

For gas and electric ovens , DOE considered the t echnologies listed below

.

Table 3.14.6 Technology Options for Gas and Electric Ovens 1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only) 2. Forced convection 3. Halogen lamp oven (electric only) 4. Improved and added insulation 5. Improved door seals 6. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 7. No oven-door window 8. Oven separator 9. Pilotless ignition (gas only) 10. Radiant burner (gas only) 11. Reduced conduction losses 12. Reduced thermal mass 13. Reduced vent rate 14. Reflective surfaces 15. Steam cooking Bi-radiant oven (electric only) A bi-radiant electric oven system was deve loped by Purdue University for Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the late 1970s 74 . The objective of the project was to develop an electric oven that offered significant energy savings w ithout compromising food qua lity. The bi-radiant oven has three important features which provide improved performance: (1) the cavity walls are highly reflective rather than absorptive, there by allowing these surfaces to operate at cooler temperatures; (2) the heating elements, similar in construction to those in conventional ovens but

3-71operating at much lower temperatur es, provide a prescribed, balan ced radiant flux to the top and bottom surfaces of the food product; and (3) the baking and roasting utensils have a highly absorptive finish.
The bi-radiant oven that was constructed wa s tested under a variety of cooking conditions (including the DOE test proce dure) and also m odeled (using computer thermal analysis programs) to determine its performance. It dem onstrated a greater than 50 percent increase in efficiency over that of a conventional oven. In addition, the separate upper and lower heating elements required by the oven provided mo re flexibility in baking and roasting. Several important practical c oncerns have to be addressed by m anufacturers in order to realize the demonstrated energy savings: (1) the oven lining materi al must be durable enough to maintain the low-emissivity (less than 0.1) cavit y surface; (2) microproces sor controls must be used; and (3) as mentioned earlier, the baking and roasting utensils must have a highly absorptive exterior. However, given the assumption that al l of these criteria ar e met, the 1996 analysis assumed a 50 percent efficiency increase.
Forced convection
A forced convection oven uses a fan to di stribute warm air even ly throughout the oven cavity. The use of forced circulation can reduce fuel consumption by cooking food more quickly, at lower temperatures, and in larger qua ntities than a natural convection oven of the same size and rating. The fan is placed within the rear cabinet wall and a protective screen is placed around it. The screen prevents any items being placed in the oven from “knocking” into the fan and causing damage. The screen may also assist in distributing the heated air evenly throughout the cavity.
Product literature from manufacturers indi cates that cooking tim es can be reduced by using forced convection cooking. 75 As a result, forced convection is widely used in electric
ovens. For gas ovens, GRI sponsored the development of two new types of ovens that incorporate forced convection cooking. Both ove n types, one an advanced counter-top oven and the other an advanced full-size oven with pyr olytic self-cleaning, also have steam-cooking options. The actual research and development of the ovens was being conducted at ADL at the time of the 1996 TSD. Of the two oven types, development of the counter-top oven was farther along. Test results indicated th at counter-top oven cooking times are as fast as those found in microwave ovens. 76 More recently, Viking has introduced a gas oven with a convection fan. In product literature, Viking recommends reducing cooking te mperatures by 25 °F and cooking time by 10 - 15 percent. 77 Wolf has also introduced gas ove ns with convection cooking ability. 78
Estimates from manufacturers, researcher s, and published reports (e.g., the energyefficient electrical product know ledge base prepared by ORTECH In ternational for the Canadian

3-72Electrical Association 79 ) were included in the 1996 TSD analysis to establish the efficiency increase due to forced convection. Averaging th ese estimates results in a relative efficiency increase of 23 percent for gas self-cleaning ovens using for ced convection cooking. For gas standard ovens a value of 4.8 percent was used based on more recent GRI data. 80 Additional data submitted during the NOPR comment period of the 1996 analysis by ADL 81 showed an increase in efficiency for electric co nvection ovens of only 2.4 percent.

. It is also important to cons ider the added electrical ener gy consum ption of the convection fan when determining the EF for ovens incorp orating convection cooking. The wattage of a typical convection fan motor is approximately 30 watts. Since the duration of the DOE test procedure is approximately 30 minutes, the en ergy consumption of the convection fan is approximately 15 watt-hours. Additionally, ovens can use convection elements in addition to resist ance and other types of elem ents to speed up the cooking process. By utilizing different cooking elements where they are most effective, such combination ovens can reduce the time and energy consumption required to cook food. For example, a convectio n heater and resistance element can provide rapid internal heating while a halogen element provides surface heating and browning. GE has introduced a line of combination ovens utiliz ing conventional resistance heating elements, convection heaters, and halogen elem ents, along with a microwave system. 82 GE claims that this technology can reduce food preparation times by 50 percent to over 75 percent, depending on the item being cooked. 83 However, it is unclear how much of th e benefit is attributable to the forced convection system alone. Halogen lamp oven (electric only) Halogen elements, similar to what are used in electric cooktops, can also be used in electric ovens. This oven type was first introduced in Europe, but according to U.S. manufacturers, its acceptance has been slow in the United States. Manufacturers stated in 1996 that the cooking performance of th e halogen lamp oven is relatively poor compared to that of a conventional oven, though it might be advantageous for certain broiling applications. Alternatively, a conventional oven can use ha logen elem ents in addition to resistance and/or convection elements to speed up the c ooking process. By utilizing different cooking elements when they are most effective, combination ovens such as the GE product described previously for the forced convection design opt ion can reduce the time and energy consumption required to cook food. However, no data we re found or submitted to demonstrate how efficiently halogen elements alone perfor m relative to conventional ovens. Improved and added insulation The efficiency of an oven can be increased by either im proving the insulation or adding more insulation to the cabinet walls and oven door . Most models can accommodate 4 inches of insulation in the cabinet walls and door without requiring extensive design changes to the oven. Most standard models have 2 in ches of low-density (1.09 lb/ft 3 ) fiberglass insulation in the

3-73cabinet walls and door, while most self-cleaning ovens use 2 inches of high-density (1.90 lb/ft 3 ) insulation. Insulation is added primarily to pa ss UL surface temperature tests, which explains why self-cleaning ovens, which require high temp eratures for pyrolysis, tend to have a more effective insulation package. Data found in published papers and reports i ndicate that fiberglass insulation density levels do not exceed tho se found in self-cleaning ovens (1.90 lb/ft 3 ). Thus, while both the thickness and density of the insu lation can be increased in most standard ovens, only the thickness can be increased in most self-cleaning ovens. Since the DOE test procedure does not requ ire m aintaining heat in the oven over an extended period of time, manuf acturers stated in the 1996 ru lemaking that increasing the thickness or density of the oven’s insulation will demonstrate no energy savings. But data provided by several sources indicate that sma ll energy savings can be realized under the conditions of the DOE test procedure. The following sources were used in the 1996 T SD to establish the efficiency increase from using a denser insulation (1.09 to 1.90 lb/ft 3 ): (1) manufacturers’ data provided by AHAM, (2) the costing analysis of desi gn options for residential appliances prepared by ADM Associates for LBNL 84 , (3) the energy-efficient electrical pr oduct knowledge base prepared by ORTECH International for the Canadian Electrical Association 85 , and (4) the 1980 DOE Engineering Analysis for residential appliances 86 . Averaging the data from these sources results in an efficiency increase of 4.9 percent for standard ga s ovens and a 5.2 percent increase for standard electric ovens.
Two sources of data were available which show ed an increase in efficiency due to adding more insulation (2 to 4 inches): (1) m anuf acturers’ data provided by AHAM for the 1996 TSD and (2) the 1980 DOE Engineering An alysis for residential appliances 87 . Averaging these data points results in an absolute efficiency increase of approximately 1.4 percentage points. However, GRI 88 reported no change in energy c onsumption by adding insulation. Improved door seals Door seals for standard ovens generally consis t of a strip of silic one rubber, while selfcleaning ovens usually incorporate fiberglas s seals. These seals are attached to the oven front frame and act as a seal for the door, which serv es to reduce the loss of hot oven air through the door. Because some venting is required for pr oper cooking performance, a complete seal on the oven is undesirable. But the oven door seals can be improved further without sealing the oven completely. Data from the energy-effici ent electrical product knowledge base prepared by ORTECH Intern ational for the Canadian Electrical Association 89 estimates the efficiency increase from improving the door seals. The data indicated that an approximately 7 percent increase in efficiency was possible for standard electric ovens and both standard and self-cleaning gas ovens. However, more recent data by GRI 90 show efficiency increases much less than the 7

3-74percent value previous ly reported. A value of 1 percent, ther efore, was used for the standard and self-cleaning gas oven analysis. The GRI report also pointed out th e need for sufficient air flow though the oven cavity for proper heating and moisture conditions while cooking. Low-standby-loss electronic controls Electronic controls may consume power ev en when the oven is not perform ing its intended function. Depending on the implementation of the controller, sta ndby 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. Since clock power is incorporated into the EF metric for both ga s and electric ovens, re ducing the standby power consumption of electronic controls will reduce the EF. Low-standby-loss electronic controls can be implemented in a wide variety of ways.
No oven-door window Most ovens and ranges come equipped with windows in the door. Using the window, the contents of the oven can be viewed without opening the oven door. But oven-door windows allow m ore energy to be lost through the door an d thus, reduce the efficiency of the oven. It could be argued, however, that having no wi ndow in the door necessitates frequent door openings to check the contents of the oven. Th e lost energy caused by these door openings could offset any energy savings that would result from eliminating the door window. GRI issued a topical report 91 which discussed this tec hnology option. The report was submitted as a written comment to the 1996 NOPR. GRI’s experimental tests showed a small savings in annual energy usage for both standard and self-clean ovens. However, they reported there could actually be a net energy loss due to c onsumer practices, which would be a function of the number of times a consumer would open the door to inspect the f ood while cooking. With four door openings per test according to the DOE te st procedure, a standard oven would realize a net energy savings of 34 kBtu/yr. For a self-c lean oven, however, GRI calculated a net energy loss of 3 kBtu/yr. Oven separator For loads that do not require the entire ove n volume, an oven separator can be used to reduce the cavity volume that is used for c ooking. W ith less oven volume to heat, the energy used to cook an item would be reduced. The oven separator considered here is the type that can be easily and quickly installed by the user. The side walls of the oven cavity would be fitted with “slots” that guide and hold the separator into position. Different pairs of “slots” would be spaced throughout the oven cavity so that the user could select different positions to place the separator. Manufacturers’ data provided by AHAM indica ted that an absolute percentage point increase of approxim ately 0.82 is expected from using an oven separator in standard and selfcleaning electric ovens. For sta ndard and self-cleaning gas ovens, percentage point increases of

3-750.1 and 0.53 are expected, respectively. No other da ta were provided to dem onstrate whether the efficiency increase should be any higher or lower. As of January, 2007 oven separators have been researched but never been put into production. Pilotless ignition (gas only) Gas ovens equipped without an electrical power cord use a standing pilot ignition system

. The EF of the oven can be increased by replacing th e standing pilot system with an electric or electronic ignition system. Actu al oven cooking efficiency is only slightly affected by eliminating the standing pilot. The resulting incr ease in the EF is primarily due to the decrease in the oven’s gas energy consumption during standby. For gas ovens equipped with a power cord, th ere are two types of pilotless ignition systems: a spark ignition system and a “glo” ignition system. The spark ignition system uses a spark ignitor to light a pilot. The pilot in turn ignites the oven burner. Th e ignitor is controlled by a control module, which is activat ed when the thermostat knob is set to a specific temperature. The ignitor will spark until the pi lot is ignited, and the pilot w ill burn until the thermostat is turned off. If the pilot shoul d accidentally be extinguished, a se nsing circuit with in the ignitor will reactivate the control module and cause the ignitor to spark. The spark ignition system consumes a negligible amount of electricity. Since the control module is powered directly off of line voltage, there are no 24-volt transformer losses associated with it. The spark ignitor is activated for an extremely short time so that its cumulative on-time during the course of a year, and thus its annual electricity consumption, is negligible. The “glo” ignition system uses a ceramic “glo”- type ignitor. When the therm ostat is set to a specific temperature, voltage (120 volts) is applied to the ignitor. Once energized, the ignitor draws typically slightly ov er three amps and heats to a high temperature. In series with the ignitor is a safety valve that is electrically activated. Once the ignito r current drops to a predetermined amperage, the safety valve opens, allo wing gas to flow to the oven burner. The hot “glo” ignitor then ignites the oven burner. Because the safety valve remains open only when the “glo” ignitor is drawing the correct current, the ignitor must continually draw power (typically around 400 watts) to keep the burner ignited. 92 Thus the electrical energy consumption of a “glo” ignition system is significant. There are other types of ignitors which draw less wattage which are called “mini” hot surface ignitors (HSI). Typical mini -HSIs draw about 50 watts and one is reported to operate at 24 watts. Howeve r, these low-wattage ignitors draw less current than standard “glo” ignitors, and therefore are below the threshold curren t needed to open the safety valve. A change in design of the contro l systems is required to incorporate these miniHSIs into cooking oven products. Radiant burner (gas only) Viking manufactures a gas oven with a ra diant burner for broiling functions. The infrared elem ent is a metal screen heated by a burner until it emits infr ared radiation, rapidly

3-76heating food and searing the outside, while the conventional heat from the flame provides additional food heating. Viking cl aims that the infrared broiler cooks food up to 50 percent faster than conventional methods. 93

Reduced conduction losses
Conduction losses from the oven can be re duced by upgrading the oven door. This upgrade includes an additional thermal break and a m odified inner panel. In the 1996 rulemaking, manufacturers stated that with ex isting instrumentation, th e DOE test procedure cannot measure the small energy gains that can be obtained by attempting to reduce conduction losses. However, manufacturers’ da ta provided by AHAM for the 1996 TSD indicated that a very sm all efficiency increase is possible. The data indicate that only an absolute percentage point increase of 0.05 is expected from reducing conduction losses. No ot her data were obtained to demonstrate whether the efficiency in crease should be any higher or lower.
Reduced thermal mass Energy is absorbed by the oven compone nts as the oven warms to its operating tem perature. By reducing the amount of material used in co nstructing the oven, the amount of energy that is absorbed is reduced and hence th e efficiency increases. One method of achieving this thermal mass reduction is to reduce the gauge of sheet metal used in constructing the oven. Manufacturers asserted that th is type of thermal mass reduc tion was not possible without compromising structural integrity (during both use and transportati on) and increasing heat losses for electric and gas ovens manuf actured at the time of the 1996 TS D. Manufacturers stated that the oven walls must provide strong enough support to hold racks when baking heavy items (i.e., turkeys or large roasts) and that oven cavity me tal thickness could not be reduced any further without risking cracking a nd greater heat losses.
Several sources of data for the 1996 TSD i ndicated that a 10 - 20 percent reduction in therm al mass is possible. The sources, which stat e that an efficiency increase from reducing the thermal mass was possible, included the followi ng: (1) manufacturers’ data provided by AHAM, (2) the costing analysis of desi gn options for residential appliances prepared by ADM Associates for LBNL 94 , and (3) the energy-efficient electrical product knowledge ba se prepared by ORTECH International for the Canadian Electrical Association 95 . GRI 96 tests showed only a 0.58 percent efficiency improvement for a self-c leaning oven with an e quivalent of 5.52 pounds of wall material removed.
Reduced vent rate Oven vents function primarily to remove the moisture present during the baking process. Self-cleaning ovens have reduced vent diam eter s to limit the air flow in accordance with combustion safety regulations during the high-tempe rature cleaning cycle. For safety reasons for the combustion process, the vent rate found in self -cleaning ovens cannot be reduced any further.

3-77But the vent rate of standard ovens can be reduced to the vent rate of se lf-cleaning ovens. This can be accomplished by either reducing the vent-tube size or adding a baffle. A reduction in vent rate causes a corresponding increase in efficiency.
Manufacturers stated in the 1996 TSD that re duced vent rates shoul d only be considered for standard electric ovens. The vent diameters of standard and self-cleaning gas ovens are not significantly different, since both oven types n eed to maintain a satisfactory combustion environment. With regard to standard electric ovens, manufacturers assert ed that vent sizes are unique to the design of the oven. The vent size is critical in maintaining the oven’s proper cooking and safety performance. According to th e manufacturers, mandating a specific vent rate would require most oven models to be redesigned in order to maintain thei r proper performance. But manufacturers’ data provided by AHAM for the 1996 TSD indicated that the vent size of both standard electric a nd standard gas ovens could be re duced. Since all self-cleaning ovens are already designed w ith this technology, no new improvements are required by the industry to incorporate this technology option. Averaging the manufactur ers’ data with data obtained from the costing analysis of design options for residential appliances prepared by ADM Associates for LBNL 97 results in an increase of approxima tely 0.62 absolute percentage points for standard electric ovens and 0.5 absolute percentage points for standard gas ovens. Reflective surfaces Oven efficiency can be improved by incor poratin g reflective surf aces onto the walls of the oven cavity. Reflective surfaces improve the oven’s performance by reflecting and retaining infrared radiation within the ove n cavity, thus increasing the percen tage of heat available to be transferred to the food load.
GRI 98 performed tests on this technology option wh ich resulted in a decrease in energy efficiency. The reflective surface interfered with the convective currents and the thermostat, thus fooling the thermostat into cycl ing. GRI reported that increased reflectance from the chromeplated inner surface of the oven cau sed repeated thermostat cycling that “might have contributed to the higher energy consumption”, which re sulted in a 12.61 percen t decrease in energy efficiency. ADL 99 also commented that the reflected ra diation is different from the normal radiation emitted by the current oven cavities in use today. Based on these studies, it is uncertain whethe r, or how m uch, energy savings is realizable with this technology option. A smar ter controller for the oven seems to be a reasonable fix for the thermostat cycling problem. However, ther e is a general lack of sophistication in the technology to maintain clean, reflective surfaces over the lifetime of the product. Manufacturers stated in the previous rulemaking that reflectiv e surfaces degrade through out the life of the oven, particularly for self-cleaning ovens.

3-78Steam cooking With steam cooking, energy is transferred to the food load by m eans of the condensation of the steam on the food surface. This may take place at essentially atmospheric pressure, or the cavity may be pressurized in order to allow higher steam temperatures and thus higher energy transfer to the food. In order to maintain the proper envir onment regardless of pressure, a “steam-tight” oven cavity must be maintaine d. In addition, the use of steam involves considerably higher demands on the oven’s design and materials. Not only are different cavity materials required (e.g., temperatur e-resistant silicone seals and chrome-nickel steel), but all incorporated elements and accessories have to be redesigned and intensively tested. Though incorporating steam cooking into oven designs is a difficult tas k, various manufacturers claim that there are advantages to using steam over conventional methods of cooking. Those advantages include saved energy and being able to retain more of the food’ s nutritional value. Energy is saved because food items that normally would need to be cooked separately (e.g., a meat roast in an oven and vegetables on a c ooktop) can be cooked together using the steam cooking process.
There are several electric ove ns with steam functions currently on the market. BSH Home Appliances has recently introduced the Gaggenau Combination Steam and Convection Oven. The oven utilizes a steam injection valve to control steam delivery to the cavity. The temperature and humidity level in the oven are us er-selectable to tailor the cooking process as needed. Speed cooking is not advertised as the primary feature of this oven. Rather, food quality and nutrition is the focus. The steam capab ility is described as allowing vegetables to be cooked while retaining texture and nutritional content, meat to be roasted without drying out, and leftovers to be reheated without the loss of flavor and texture often associated with microwave reheating 100 . Since this is a built-in oven, water deli very and condensate drainage are provided via plumbing lines much like a dishwasher.
Miele has also introduced a steam convection oven which does not re quire any external plum bing. It utilizes a refillable container for water supply and collection. While speed cooking is not the primary focus of steam ovens, there is evidence that there is time savings, particularly with larger food loads. Sharp’s counter-top Superheated Steam Oven, introduced in August 2004 101 and which incorporates steam generators with conventional resistive heating elements, is described as re ducing cook times for items such as chicken by 50 percent 102

. DOE is unaware of any efficiency data for steam ovens.

For microw ave ovens , in the 1996 TSD, DOE considered all of the following technologies, with the excepti on of cooking sensors, dual ma gnetrons, and low-standby-loss electronic controls. DOE identified cooking se nsors from product literature, while dual magnetrons were identified in the Febr uary 2006 edition of Appliance Design as a means to decrease cooking times. Low-standby-loss electroni c controls were identified by a review of AHAM data for standby power.

3-79Table 3.14.7 Technology Options for Microwave Ovens 1. Added insulation 2. Cooking sensors 3. Dual magnetrons 4. Eliminate or improve ceramic stirrer cover 5. Improved fan efficiency 6. Improved magnetron efficiency 7. Improved power supply efficiency 8. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 9. Modified wave guide 10. Reflective surfaces
Added insulation Adding insulation to the outside of the reflective cavity wall of the oven would dim inish heat flow through the walls. However, because the walls absorb a negligible fraction of the microwave energy, there is very little differen ce in temperature between the inside and the outside of the microwave oven. Also, during the short duration of the DOE test procedure, the microwave oven cavity walls do not heat up. Thus , the energy savings of this design option would be so small as to be not measurable. 103 Cooking sensors Moisture or humidity sensor s can be incorporated into th e microwave oven to detect the cooking state of the food load dur ing operation, inferred by the wate r vapor being released into the cavity. When the sensor detects that a desi red cooking state has been reached, the controller shuts off the microwave oven, thereby preventi ng excess energy consum ption in addition to optimizing food quality. However, DOE is unabl e to obtain any data to verify any energy efficiency impacts. Dual magnetrons Dual-magnetron microwave ovens use two ma gne trons to distribute microwave energy within the cavity in order to more evenly heat food. Conventional microwave ovens use a single magnetron to generate microwaves, and a stirrer to distribute these microwaves within the microwave cabinet. In addition, some microwave ove ns use a turntable to rotate the item being heated in order to increase food heating unifo rmity. In order to vary the power of the microwave, the duty cycle of the magnetron is varied. When food is heated unevenly in a microw ave, consum ers must microwave items longer than necessary to ensure the en tire item reaches the desired te mperature. When a microwave oven uses dual magnetrons to more evenly distribute microwaves, this additional heating to

3-80ensure high temperature throughout the food may be reduced, reducing microwave energy consumption. In addition to increasing warming uniform ity, dual m agnetrons may reduce the need to cycle the single magnetron in most residential microwave ovens in orde r to modulate power. Cycling the single magnetron in most resident ial microwave ovens may increase wear on the magnetron, reducing its efficiency over its lifetime. Using two small magnetrons which together match the power of a single larger magnetron allo ws only one of these magnetrons to be engaged when then microwave oven is operated at reduced power levels. However, if both magnetrons share a single high voltage transformer, the decrea sed transformer efficiency at partial loading may offset any magnetron efficiency gains from replacing a single cycled magnetron with dual magnetrons. DOE is unaware of any energy efficiency data on dual magnetrons. Eliminate or improve ceramic stirrer cover Microwave ovens with fan-type mode sti rrers use a cover over the fan to prevent inadvertent dam age to the fan when inserting or removing food and to prev ent degradation of the wave guide due to food splatter. Such mode ls (with browning elements) sometimes use a ceramic mode stirrer cover because plastic type s may not withstand the heat generated by the heating element during the browning operation 104 . These stirrers absorb some microwave energy but are needed to prev ent food splatter inside the wave gui de. Eliminating the ceramic cover would adversely affect consumer utility by requi ring cleaning of the st irrer or by reducing the life of the stirrer. Improved fan efficiency
Microwave ovens use either one or two fans. One fan is used to rem ove heat generated by the magnetron from the cavity. The second fa n would be used where mode stirring is accomplished by using slow-moving metal blades. This allows for better distribution of the microwave energy. Since power demand is very low (2-3 watts), there is no opportunity for energy savings in models equipped with a second fa n. The blower fan that is used to cool the magnetron and other electrical comp onents uses about 25 watts. Increasing the efficiency of this fan can reduce microwave oven energy consumption. Additional data submitted during the NOPR comment period of the previous rulemaking were incorporated into the 1996 analysis. According to these data, the expected energy savi ngs would be less than originally reported and would have increased cost. These data were averaged with the original data and included in the previous analysis. The increase in efficiency is estimated to be 0.23 abso lute percentage points. Improved magnetron efficiency Magnetrons convert electrical energy input into electro m agnetic energy at microwave frequency. The conversion efficien cy of a magnetron, also known as the oscillation efficiency, is expressed as output power divided by the power delivered to the anode. In the range of output powers typical of residentia l-scale microwave ovens (700 – 1300 watts), nominal magnetron efficiency is approximately 73 percent 105 . Technologies are being i nvestigated by manufacturers

3-81to increase efficiencies by several percentage points. Strategies to boost efficiency include improving the permanent magnet to reduce its demagnetization over time and reducing the magnetron dark current. Oscillation efficienci es of up to 78 percent have been reported. 106 Improved power supply efficiency In order to operate a magnetron, a transforme r must be used to increase the input line voltage from 120V to about 4,000V. A controller, which may dissipate as much as 30 watts, controls the power supply. There are two types of high voltage power supplies that are used in microwave ovens. The predominant type is the inductive-capacitance transformer, known as the LC power supply, which has an efficiency of about82 percent. The other type is the invertertype, which is more expensive but ha s an efficiency of about 84 percent 107

. An improved power supply can be obtained through reduced losses in the controller and in the iron core of the transformer. An efficiency as high as 96 percent is theoretically possible 108 , but does not seem practicable at reasonable cost. Higher efficiency general purpose transfor mers do not have stable enough output power for microwave oven application. Earlier estimates of efficiency increase were 7 percent. However, data supplied by Sharp 109 showed this estimate is much too high. The value used for the current analysis is a 2.9 percent increase in pow er supply efficiency. Low-standby-loss electronic controls Electronic controls may consume power even when the microwave oven is not perform ing its intended function. Depending on th e implementation of the controller, standby power is required to enable the electronic contro ls 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 elec tronic controls will reduce the annual energy consumption of the microwave oven, but will not impact the energy consumption of the microwave oven during cooking operation. DOE is unaware of any standby power data to quantify the impact on energy savings. Modified wave guide Wave guides provide the interface betw een the m icrowave oven cavity and the magnetron. They have very high efficiencies in current models of microwave ovens. A small improvement (about 1 percent) is possible through the use of sp ecial coatings on the interior surface 110 . According to AHAM, the losses associated with the wave guide are typically less than 0.5 percent of the overall energy consumption 111

. Reflective surfaces Microwave ovens are designed to have surfaces that are highly refl ective of microwave energy. A high-grade stainless steel cavity would be more re flective than a painted or porcelainized cavity interior. Te sting by manufacturers has shown that high-grade stainless steel (or reflective material steel coa ting) would be more efficient th an painted cold-rolled steel by approximately 0.5 percent 112

.
3-82Although combination microwave ovens will not be analyzed due to difficulties in testing multiple cooking modes, a brief discussi on will be included due to the potential energy efficiency improvement and increase in consumer utility under real -world conditions. One of the primary limitations of microwave cook ing is that the food lo ad heats internally faster than the exterior, which is in contact with the relatively co ld air in the oven cavity. This leads to an undesirable moisture distribution, where the exterior remains soggy when the interior is cooked. Therefore, methods ha ve been developed to combine microwave with other modes of heating to mitigate surface moisture accumula tion, provide a browning function that more closely replicates traditiona l cooking processes, and re duces overall cooking times.
Microwave and thermal or convection heati ng combines the featur es of a m icrowave oven and a conventional or convec tion oven. The GE Profile Oven with Trivection® utilizes electric radiant heating elements augmented by convection and microwave systems to speed cooking. While it is possible to cook in conven tional thermal mode with or without convection, the microwave function cannot be utilized alon e. According to GE, cooking times can be reduced by 50 – 75 percent compared to a conven tional oven for foods ranging from turkey and beef tenderloin to lasagna, c ookies, bread, and baked potatoes 113 . This oven is also advertised as compatible with all types of cookware including metal, glass, and stoneware. Microwave and jet air-impingement is the com bination of microwave energy delivery plus high velocity hot air impacting the food load. This technology is wide ly used in commercial combination ovens for preparing such food products as pizzas. A residential version of this type of oven began shipping in the fourth quarter of 2006 q . According to Appliance Design magazine, the TurboChef® 30” Double Wall Speed Cook Oven cooks up to 15 times faster than a conventional oven 114 . The air jets are arrayed at the top and bottom of the cavity, and those at the top pass through the magnetron mode stirrer fan to enhance uniformity. The oven also employs dual magnetrons and top and bottom elect ric heating elements for faster heatup and broil functions.

3.14.2.4 Commercial Clothes Washers
For commercial clothes w ashers , DOE will consider technologies taken from its most recent analysis of amended energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers as well as from information provided in recent trade publications. Other than the exceptions noted hereafter, the following technol ogies are taken from a 1996 repor t prepared for DOE, entitled Design Options for Clothes Washers 115 . Steam washing and improved horizontal-axis-washer drum design were identified in the Sept ember 2005 edition of Appliance Magazine 116 . DOE identified the low-standby-power design option during its engineer ing analysis review of all AHAM product classes. Spray rinse and advanc ed agitator technology op tions were added in response to comments received by DOE fo llowing the Framework public meeting.

qFor more information, please visit www.turbochef.com.

3-83Technology options that allow co mmercial clothes washer plat forms to potentially reach higher efficiency levels ar e listed in Table 3.14.8.
Table 3.14.8 Technology Options for Co mmercial Clothes Washers 1. Adaptive control systems 2. Added insulation 3. Advanced agitation concepts f or vertical-axis machines 4. Automatic fill control 5. Bubble action 6. Direct-drive motor 7. Electrolytic disasso ciation of water 8. Horizontal-axis design 9. Horizontal-axis design with recirculation 10. Improved fill control 11. Improved horizontal-axis-washer drum design 12. Improved water extraction to lowe r rem aining moisture content 13. Increased motor efficiency 14. Low-standby-power design 15. Ozonated laundering 16. Reduced thermal mass 17. Spray rinse or similar wate r-reducing rinse technology 18. Steam washing 19. Suds saving 20. Thermostatically-controlled mixing valves 21. Tighter tub tolerance 22. Ultrasonic washing

Adaptive control system According to the DOE test procedure (10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix J1), “an adaptiv e control system refers to a clothes washer control system which is capable of automatically adjusting washer operation or wash ing conditions based on characteristics of the clothes load placed in the clothe s container, without allowing or requiring consumer intervention or actions.” This technology op tion uses sensors to measure the soil load to adjust the wash temperature, agitation and/or tumble cycle time, number of rinse cycles, spin speed, and other parameters. Water and energy use can then be ta ilored to the load, ther eby avoiding washing the clothes more than necessary. Although the DOE test procedure does not provide a means for determining the energy consumption of a clothes wash er with an adaptive c ontrol system, the test procedure does allow for specific field test procedures to measure energy consumption.
Residential clothes washers have used fu zzy logic to weigh laundry loads and regulate the leng th of the cycle, water leve l, number of rinses, and drying time 117 . Specific clothes

3-84washer designs have incorporated fuzzy logic to optimize the washing process while conserving water usage. The fuzzy-logic control determines th e absorbency of the items being washed at the earliest stage possible after the st art of the washing cycle. The system determines the correct water quantity for clear-water wa shing and subsequent rinsing 118

. Added insulation This technology option adds insulation around the outer wash tub. Because som e heat energy is lost through the shell of the clothe s washer, adding insulation around the outer tub slightly reduces the water temperature needed for a hot wash. However, since the wash cycle is relatively short and the thermal mass of the water is very high, there is very little change in water temperature from adding insula tion. Computer simulations pe rformed on a traditional toploading vertical-axis clothes washer for a 20-mi nute wash cycle at 140 °F showed that adding one inch of fiberglass insulation relative to no insu lation resulted in only a 1-2 °F increase in water temperature during parts of the wash 119

. Advanced agitation concepts for vertical-axis machines Advanced agitation concepts replace the standa rd agitator found in tr aditional top-loading vertical-axis machines with an alternative manipulator to agitat e clothes and thus mechanically remove soil. In the residential clothes washer market, these alternatives to agitators have taken different forms, including nutating plates, rotatin g disks, and side-mounted agitators. In some instances, such agitation concepts allow a vertic al-axis washer to avoid the need to cover all clothes completely with water, rotating them in and out of the water-filled portion of the basket, much like horizontal-axis washers. Advanced ag itation systems add considerable complexity to a vertical-axis clothes washer, a nd residential clothes washers that feature these technologies are sold for prices comparable to ho rizontal-axis clothes washers. Since the DOE test procedure captures th e am ount of water that a clothes washer consumes, the benefits of an advanced agitation concept washer can be directly measured and quantified via the WF. Potential energy savings are captured by the MEF as long as a portion of the washing cycle consumes heated water. Automatic fill control This technology option incorporates advanced control technologies to sense the clothes load and ad just the water level accordingly. For a traditional top-loading vertical-axis machine, this may mean setting the water level to just su bmerge the clothes load. This technology option can overcome the tendency of consumers to manua lly select a water leve l greater than required for a given load. The implementation of this feature varies. While this feature is inexpensive to implement in all horizo ntal-axis washers, vertical-axis washers do not benefit from the same advantages

3-85regarding drum geomet ry and rotation axis r . As a result, automatic fill control is typically only found in higher-end vertical-axis models that have electronic controls and proprietary designs, limiting adoption to a small percentage of the vert ical-axis market. Energy is saved in either vertical- or horizontal-axis design s by reducing the amount of hot wate r used in the wash cycle.
Bubble action Daewoo has developed an air-bubble washing ma chine. This m achine uses a low-profile, bottom-hugging impeller typical in Asian-style vert ical-axis washers and combines it with a sixwinged, rotating pulsator shaped to di rect water in four directions. This pulsator also distributes air bubbles in different directions. The bubbles are generated by a vibrating bellows, which is driven by an electromagnet. Bubbles are reporte d to increase the cleaning power of the washer in several ways: (1) by inducing a high-frequency pressure fluctuation near the clothes, (2) by increasing the dissolution of dete rgent, (3) by increasing the am ount of dissolved oxygen which increases the activity of the detergent, and (4 ) by lowering the viscos ity of the wash water 120, 121

. Daewoo washers that utilize air- bubble washing action are availabl e in the European market, but are not available to U.S. consumers. 122 Sharp also developed a bubble washer in which the bubble-generati ng device uses neurofuzzy-logic controls. From a nozzle located at the bottom of the washer, air bubbles are generated by a computer-controlled pulsator and circulated upward in vertical and horizontal swirling motions. The controls ad just the amount of water used, so that a single-tub design that washes the same load size as a conventional dual- tub (inner and outer) co nfiguration uses only. 70 percent as much water and detergent. 123 Although it is mentioned on the manufacturer’s website, this washer is not available in the U.S. 124 Standardized and independent tests have yet to be conducted on the performance of the bubble- action system; therefore, the energy savings potential and wash performance of a bubble-action techno logy option is unknown. Although bubble washing has been incorporated into comm ercial products in Europe and Asia, production is still extremely limited and fu rther commercialization in the U.S. would require manufacturers to devel op entirely new platforms.
Direct-drive motor This technology option is primarily intended for use in traditional top-loading verticalaxis m achines. A traditional top-loading vertical -axis clothes washer uses an induction motor, a mechanical transmission, and sometimes a pulley belt. A direct-drive motor can replace this conventional motor/transmission system. Rather than using a belt and/or transmission, a motor could be directly connected to the agitator, thereby avoiding transmission (gearbox) losses. In

r Horizontal-axis washers can incorporate a fill switch in the sump to monitor water levels as the wash basket and its contents are rotated slowly at the beginning of the wash cycl e. As dry clothes drop into the wash water, they absorb some of it and the water level in the sump drops. The fill switch then opens the fill valve( s) to raise the water level until the sump is full again. This approach does not work with vertical-axis washers because the clothes are always immersed in the water. Proprietary solutions have been implemented on some vertical-axis washers, however.

3-86the past, Eaton, a motor manufacturer, claimed th at this will result in less mechanical energy required, i.e., less energy needed to run the agit ator motor. This is accomplished by using a brushless direct-current (BLDC) motor with electronic controls. Potential differences in cleaning performance due to the direct-drive substitution were not
m easured by Eaton. In addition, other parameters such as cycle time or spin speed were not held constant in a comparison test with a conventiona l washer. For the machines tested, Eaton found savings of about 140 watt-hours per cycle, or 64 percent of motor en ergy use. When adjusted for the direct-drive standby power, this difference drops to about 35 watt-hours per cycle or 16 percent of motor energy use. The direct-drive standby power is the energy consumption when the machine is “off”. In the “off” mode, the di rect-drive motor system has a power drain of 4.78 watts. While the current DOE test procedure does not account for standby power use, real-world energy savings could be improved if the standby power consumption was decreased 125

. In the past, some manufacturers have stated that a lim iting performance factor for this technology option was physical size. However, GE uses direct -drive motors on their stationary consumer vertical-axis washers. 126 Fisher & Paykel manufactures two top-loading, vertical-axis direct-drive washing machines available in the U.S. market. 127 Some front-loading, horizontalaxis machines also use a direct-drive mo tor, including models manufactured by LG. 128 Electrolytic disassociation of water The goal of electrolytic disassociation of water is to reduce hot water usage by substituting the electroly tic production of bleachi ng agents for activation of bleaching chemical reactions in detergents by hot wa ter. A prototype clothes washer with electrolytic disassociation of water has been successfully tested 129 . Although commercial deterg ents perform better at high temperatures, the same hypochlorite concentrati ons obtained by adding bleaching agents to water can be achieved at low temperatures if the ag ents are produced by elec trolytic disassociation within the machine. The bleaching action is due to the chemical reaction of the oxygen (derived from the chemical decomposition of the hypochlorit e) with the insoluble organic compounds that constitute the soil in the clothe s. Together they make solubl e compounds that are dissolved in the water. Electrolytic disassociation was tested in a laboratory electrochem ical cell. Mediumsoiled clothes and white materials were used in the test. The washing cycle test compared the energy consumption of electrolytic cleaning versus conventional detergents. The first test cycle, utilizing electrolytic action, was performed by ad ding four grams per liter of salt to the roomtemperature wash water in the machine. The second test cycle was run with a commercial detergent at a wash water temp erature of 95 °F to 113 °F. For both wash methods, a normal cycle was run. Initial tests showed that energy use dropped from about 2.65 kWh/cycle for a typical washing machine to 1.35 kWh/cycle fo r the new electrochemical method. This technology is still at the research stage. In the past, manufacturers have stated that electrolytic di sassociation is not a workable approach. Primary concerns are negative eff ects on garments resulting from the bleaching

3-87process and poor consumer acceptance due to th eir inability to cont rol the chemistry and temperature in the wash portion of the cycle 130

. Horizontal-axis design Front-loading horizontal-axis machines rotate the drum (wash basket ) and clothes about a horizontal axis. With this design, the drum does not have to be filled with water to cover the topof the clothes. Therefore, horizontal-axis machines use much less water than traditional toploading vertical-axis machines. At the beginning of each wash or rinse cycle, the washer is filled to a specified level and the drum then rotates a few times. As dry clothes absorb the water, a water level sensor and the washer controller a dd water and keep rotating the drum slowly until the water level no longer changes, which signals that all clothes are saturated with water. Thus, the water level is matched to the laundr y load. W ashing performance appears to be equal to that of vertical-axis machines. In la boratory testing, horizontal-axis machines used on average 40 percent less energy and 25 percent le ss water than traditional vertical-axis washers when normalized to clothes container volume. The horizontal-axis machines also had greater soil removal effectiveness 131 . Although water savings are realized with horizontal-axis machines, DOE assumes that detergent use remains unchanged 132 133

. In the previous residential clothes washer rulemaking, AHAM submitted comments in which som e manufacturers stated that factors limiting performan ce include: (1) soil removal, (2) consumer interface (ergonomics), (3) tangling, (4) cycle time, (5) rinsing and (6) suds sensitivity 134 . Although these performance-limiting factor s may exist, every major manufacturer of clothes washers offers horizontal-axis m achines for sale in the United States. Horizontal-axis design with recirculation This technology option is a variation on the horizontal-axis te chnology option, using a
sm all pump to recirculate water ou t of the sump and spray it into the drum. The small amount of standing water in a standard horizontal-axis washer is thus further minimized. Less hot water is needed per wash cycle, thereby saving energy. In the previous residential clothes wash er rulem aking, manufacturers commented that they have not been able to verify th at a savings exists with recirculation 135 . Limiting factors mentioned by these manufacturers include: (1) so il removal, (2) tangling, (3) cycle time, (4) rinsing, and (5) suds sensitivity. In the past, Electrolux has produced models that sprayed eight liters per m inute of water/detergent solution into the drum by means of a supply valve above the door. 136 Improved fill control This technology option is defined as impr oving the tolerance on ex isting wash-water fill sensing, which can be accom plished by reducing tole rances of presently-used pressure sensors or

3-88improving switch design. This technology option relates primarily to top-loading vertical-axis design washers, although it is sometimes applic able to front-loading horizontal-axis washers, depending on the fill control used on the washer design. In a traditional top-load ing vertical-axis washer, one end of an air hose is connected to an air cham ber near the bottom of the washer tub and the other end is connected to a pressure switch. As water fills the tub, air in the hose and chamber is forced into a smaller volume, thereby increasing the air pressure. The air pressure increases until it activates a pressure switch, which in turn shuts off the water inlet valve. A more accurate water-level-setting system would avoid overfilling the wash tub, thereby reducing the amount of water and energy used. In the past, manufacturers have stated that they were not aware of any opportunity to reduce tolerances of presently-used pressure sensors 137

. Improved horizontal-axis-washer drum design
Manufacturers of horizontal-axis washers contin ue to research and m odify existing drum designs to improve wash perfor mance, reduce mass, and increase spin speeds. With each drum revision, manufacturers frequently make claims that their drum designs increase consumer utility by being gentler on clothes or by reducing the cy cle time through better agitation of the clothes in the washer. A reduction in cycle time woul d have a measurable impact on washer power consumption, just as drums that can sustain hi gher spin speeds can reduce the remaining moisture content (RMC) (see the Improved water extraction technology option below for the definition of RMC) and thus raise the MEF of a washer. Implementation of this technology option varies, with drums featuring special paddles, drum-wall textures, or similar enhancements. Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content Remaining moisture content (RMC) is defined as: ( WC

− WI ) RMC = WI where WC is the weight of the test cloth immedi ately after co mpletion of the washer spin cycle, and WI is the “bone dry” weight of the test cloth. There are several ways to reduce the RMC, including: (1) increasing the spin speed of the wa sh basket for the final spin cycle, (2) changing the direction of rotation to more evenly distribute clot hes, (3) having a longer spin cycle, and (4) increasing the size or number of drainage holes in the washer drum. Since mechanical water removal is more energy efficient than using heat to dry, energy consumption for the combined wash and dry process is reduced. The DOE test procedure assumes that the im proved-water-ex traction feature will not be used for 25 percent of all wash cycles. Since th is feature can be consumer selectable, clothes subject to wrinkling can be washed with a conve ntional spin-cycle option to avoid a wrinkling

3-89problem. Some manufacturers in the past were doubtful that RMCs of 35 percent and 30 percent could be practically obtained

. At the time of the 2001 TSD, laboratory testing was conducted to ascertain RMCs on commercially-available front-loadi ng horizontal-axis washers. Measured RMCs ranged from 49 percent to 36 percent with a 50/ 50 cotton/polyester cloth load. Fo r the same kind of test load, a vertical-axis machine had a 52 percent RMC. The washers for the above testing were loaded at 3 pounds per cubic foot of basket capacity 138 . The DOE test procedure, however, specifies the test load as being closer to four pounds per cubic foot of basket cap acity. Since the amount of cloth test load has an effect on the RMC achieved, it is unknown whether the above laboratory-tested machines can achieve their stated RMC values under DOE test conditions. As of the 2001 TSD, clothes washers with a certified RMC of up to 40 percent were available. 139 RMC data is no longer required to be published, as the current test procedure requires the publication of only the MEF and WF for clothes washers. RMC data can be found in the CEC commercial clothes washer database but this database does not cover all commercial clothes washers on the market, nor is it completely current. Thus, DOE is unable to determine the water extraction capabilities of all commercial clothes washers that are currently on the market. Supporting the 2001 TSD manufacturer comments indicating skepticism towards achieving practical lower RMC values, none of the clothes washers listed in the CEC commercial clothes washer database has an RMC below 39 percent. Vertical-axis commercial clothes washers typically feature an RMC of about 50 percent, while horizontal-axis cl othes washers typically feature an RMC of about 40 percent, according to the DOE test procedure. Increased motor efficiency About 10 percent of the total electrical energy consumed by a typical clothes washer is used by the electric motor. The typical washing machine has a 1⁄2 to 2⁄3 horsepower motor. In the past, a residential clothes washer manufacturer st ated that replacing a split-phase motor with a capacitor-start motor may increase the efficiency of the motor by 10 percent 140 . Permanent magnet motors offer even higher efficiencies, th ough the benefit of a hi gher-efficiency motor has to be balanced with the higher cost and the re latively small contribution to the overall energy consumption per wash cycle from the motor itself. Low-standby-power design Electronic controls may consume power even when the clothes washer is not performing its intended function. Depending on the implem entation of the controller, standby power is required to enable the electronic controls to detect user input without the us er first having to turn on a mechanical power switch or to enable disp lays, illuminate switches, etc. Reducing the standby power consumption of electronic controls will reduce the annual energy consumption of the clothes washer, but will not impact the ener gy consumption of the clothes washer during operation. Low-standby-loss electr onic controls can be implemented in a wide variety of ways. DOE is unaware of any data demonstrating energy savings associated with low-standby-power designs for CCWs.

3-90Ozonated laundering Ozonated laundering systems are available fo r large-scale commercial or institutional use. The ozone, manufactured from ambient air, is injected into the water. There is some debate as to how the process of the ozonated cleaning exac tly works. Some claim the ozone reacts with soluble soils, making them insoluble, after which the mechanical action of the washing separates the soils from the fabric. One manufacturer prop osed that the energy inherent in ozone reduces water tension, making the water a better solvent. Energy is saved with this system because the water is not heated for lightly- to moderately-s oiled laundry. In fact, colder water retains a higher concentration of ozone for a longer time th an warmer water. For heavily-soiled laundry, temperatures of 100-110 °F are used, which are lower than the temperatures required in a conventional washer. Also, since fewer chemicals are used, the rinse time is minimized, thereby reducing the total cycle time and water consumpti on. Economical ozone production is critical to the potential energy savings. One manufacturer estimates savings of 25 percent on “utility expenses” with installation of its system 141 . However, in addition to the ozone generator, a new or reprogrammed controller would be required, adding to the co st of this technology option.
Reduced thermal mass This technology option uses a plastic tub specially designed to minimize the thermal mass that is heated by the water. Tests by manuf acturers indicate that very little energy can be saved this way because the bulk of the thermal mass is contained in the hot water itself. One manufacturer compared the impact of both por celain-enameled steel and polypropylene outer tubs on water temperature. Both machines were filled with 16 gallons of 140 °F water and agitated for ten minutes. After ten minutes, there was no significant difference in water temperature between the two mach ines. Calculations show that if there were no heat losses through the outer tub, the equilibr ium temperature for the tested steel tub described above would be 138.9 °F. Therefore, there is little to be gained by decrea sing the thermal mass of the outer tub 142

. Plastic outer tubs are commonl y used by m anufacturers and can be considered as part of the baseline model. There is no practicable wa y to manufacture washing machines with plastic tubs with a lower thermal mass beyond the current practice. Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology
Traditional vertical-axis clot hes washers immerse the clothing completely in water during the wash and rinse phases of the cleaning cycle. Spray-rinse systems eliminate the immersion requirement by spraying rinse water into the dr um while the wash basket is rotating. The centrifugal force of the rotating ba sket pins the clothes against th e outer walls and subsequently forces the rinse liquid through the cl othes. In the process, the ri nsing liquid picks up remaining suds and transports them into the sump, from whic h they are drained. Since immersion or partial immersion is no longer necessary, le ss rinse water is required. When using hot rinse water, this reduces energy consumption by redu cing the amount of hot water required for the rinse cycle.

3-91DOE is unaware of any commercial vertical-axis clothes washers currently available that utilize spray rinse. Manufacturers caution that spray-rinse or sim ilar rinse-water-reduction technology options are not embraced by all customers. For example, spray-rinse technologies allegedly do not function well if a washer is overloaded, requ iring a consumer-behavior change which is more easily achieved in a residential than a commerci al setting. Previously-available vertical-axis commercial clothes washers with spray-rinse technologies have al ready been withdrawn from the market. AHAM may develop a rinse performance standard for clothes washers that could preclude the use of rinse-water -reduction technologies. The current DOE test procedure, though, captures the benefit of this te chnology option, as any reduction in water consum ption improves WF and any reduction in heated water consumption improves MEF. Steam washing With steam washing, steam is sprayed on th e laundry to help cl ean and sanitize the clothes without requiring the tub to be filled with water that is heated to sanitizing temperatures. Since less water must be heated to complete a steam washing cycle compared to a traditional washer, which immerses clothes in hot water, steam washing can reduce the energy and water consumption of clothes washers. 143 LG began offering two residential clothes wa shers in the U.S. market that use steam washing in 2005 144 . Both models are Energy Star-rated. Suds saving A suds-saving feature allows water from one wash cycle to be reused in the next wash cycle. After agitation, sudsy wash water is pumped into a separate storage tub, remaining there until the next wash cycle. While the water is stored, soil settles to the bottom of the tub. During the next wash cycle, all but an inch of the wa ter is pumped back into the washer tub for use again 145 . Manufacturers believe that there is low consumer demand for this option and it would therefore not be used often. In addition, th is option cannot be used for all loads or soil conditions. This option is useful only when there is more than one wash cycle per load of laundry, e.g., a pre-wash (which is not typically the case), or if the consumer washes more than one load in sequence. Subsequent washes coul d receive diminishing benefits if they are not completed immediately after the previous load, si nce the water in the hol ding tub would cool if left standing too long. Another limiting perf ormance factor mentioned by more than one manufacturer for this technology option was soil removal. In addition, because this option requires an adjacent external wash tub to store su ds in between wash cycles, consumer utility is affected. In a commercial setting, this could limit the number of clothes washers that may be installed.

3-92This technology option is no longer commercially available. Electrolux formerly had a residential model that saved water from the final ri nse of one load to use again as the prewash of the next cycle 146 . Maytag had also featured this technol ogy as a water saving option on one of its washers. However, neither model is still in production. Thermostatically-controlled mixing valves Thermostatically-controlled water valv es (TCWVs) are defined by the DOE test procedure as “clothes washer controls that have the ability to sense and adjust the hot and cold supply water.” This technology option achieves energy savings by more accurately controlling inlet water temperature for hot and warm fills. In a typical non-thermostatically-controlled water inlet system, two solenoid valves are used; one valve opens for hot water fills while the other opens for cold water fills. Both solenoid valves are opened if a warm water setting is selected. In the warm wash mode, fixed fractions of hot and cold water are controlled by flow-control devices. For example, a manufacturer may decide to specify warm water as 50 percent hot water and 50 percent cold water. To reduce hot wate r energy use, some manufacturers have reduced the warm water temperature by using other ratios such as 40 percent hot and 60 percent cold. Energy can be saved with a TCWV by either red ucing the hot water temperature and/or reducing the warm water temperature. For exampl e, the TCWV could be used to lower the hot wash temperature from 135 °F to 130 °F by mixi ng hot water (at 135 °F test inlet conditions) with cold water. Warm water temperature coul d be similarly reduced. The energy savings can vary widely depending on the test standard’s specified inlet hot water temperature and the selected temperature of the warm water. The TCWV technology option ha s the potential to oversta te the real-world energy savings, depending on the proximity of the water h eater to the installed clothes washer. When tested under laboratory conditions, the clothes washer is typically close to the hot water source, whereas this is generally not the case in either a residence or commercia l laundry setting. As a result of the distance between the hot water source and the clothes washer, there is a temperature drop due to line losses. Because of these line losses, a clothes washer with a TCWV may use more hot water than predicted on the basis of laboratory testing. Similarly, in a real-world application, savings will also vary with the temperature of in coming cold water. The unheated water temperature will vary with both geographi c location and time of ye ar. More energy would likely be saved in cases of warmer “cold” suppl y water, as a TCWV w ould then reduce the amount of time a hot water valve is open. The amount of savings is also dependent on the set point of the TCWV, the water heater set point, th e temperature selection of the wash (hot or warm cycle), and the location of the sensing th ermostat controlling the inlet water valves. A limiting performance factor mentioned by more th an one manufacturer is soil removal with lower wash temperatures. Tighter tub tolerance This technology option reduces the annular volume between the i nner wash basket and the outer tub. This annulus fills with water, but does not add to the clothes washer capacity.

3-93Having less space between the inner wash basket and the outer tub reduces the amount of water required for a fill, thereby saving the energy required to heat that water. This option applies primarily to traditional top-loadi ng vertical-axis washers. In a high-efficiency top-loading or horizontal-axis washer, water only occupies the lower portion of th e annulus. Since most of the annulus in a high-efficiency top- loading or horizontal-axis washer is filled with air, a smaller annulus does not yield significant energy savings. Other considerations are also important in determ ining an appropriate clearance between basket and tub. In the past rulemaking, resident ial clothes washer manufacturers stated that if the annulus is too small there may be problems with “suds lock”, where suds from the wash water remain between the inner wash ba sket and outer tub. Clearance is also needed to drain water during the spin-dry cycle and to allow for deflection of baskets with out-of-balance loads. Increasing the spin speed of the washer basket du ring the spin dry cycle may also require a larger space between tub and basket to allow for greater de flection at higher spin sp eeds. For this latter reason, tighter tub tolerance was not combined with the improved-wa ter-extraction technology option. Other limiting performance factors mentioned by residential clothes washer manufacturers in the past include: (1) noise, (2) vibrat ion, and (3) sand removal. Ultrasonic washing The addition of mechanical energy to the wash cycle can reduce the need for hot water (or chemical energy) in the cleaning action of clothes washers. One potential method of delivering the mechanical energy is through ultrasonic vibrations that loosen and remove some of the dirt on the soiled clothes. Such washi ng machines have been produced by a Japanese firm and were to be marketed in the U.S. One U.S. clothes washer manufacturer investigated the Japanese product and found that it di d not successfully clean clothes. The U.S. firm stated that the Japanese company is an excellent manufacturer of ultrasonic transducers, but does not have experience with clothes washing. One of the problems with ultrasonic washing is that clothes are not uniform ly exposed to the vibrations generated by the transducers, whic h means that some areas may remain soiled. Additionally, the wash solution and the submerge d clothes appear to dissipate much of the energy without the clothes being cleaned. A design producing adequate cleaning action does not appear to have been developed 147

.
3.14.3 Energy Efficiency In preparation for the screening and engine ering analyses, DOE gathered data on the energy efficiency of residential dishwasher s, dehumidifiers, a nd cooking products and commercial clothes washers curren tly available in the marketplace. This data is taken from databases maintained by a variety of regulatory ag encies. While this section is not intended to provide a complete characterization of the energy efficiency of all applia nces currently available and in use, it does provide an overview of the energy efficiency of each product covered by this rulemaking.

3-943.14.3.1 Dishwashers The CEC publishes a list of “certified” reside ntial dishwashers. Figure 3.14.2 displays the distribution of dishwashers in th e CEC database as a function of EF.Number of Models 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

0 23

0 35 86

16

0 2 0 19

3

Energy Factor Figure 3.14.2 Dishwashers in the CEC Directory 148

3.14.3.2 Dehumidifiers Although not completely repres entative of the entire curre nt dehumidifier market, Energy Star and AHAM publish lists of “certified” dehumidi fiers. To qualify for an Energy Star rating, dehumidifiers must meet certain criteria depending on their capacity. s The AHAM Dehumidifier Certification Program verifies the water remova l capacity and EF of each listed dehumidifier as tested by an independent laboratory. t These lists differ in the number of units, manufacturers, and capacity range. The following graphs plot the EF versus the cap acity of each certified dehumidifier. The first graph presents Energy Star-certified de humidifiers, while the second presents AHAMcertified units. Also, each graph illustrates the EPACT 2005 st andards for dehumidifiers, both the 2007 standards and the default 2012 standards. >0

.4

6 to

0.

5 0 >0 . 50

to

0.

5 4 >0

.54

to

0.5

8 >0 . 58

to

0.

6 2 >0 . 62

to

0 .6

6 >0

.6

6 t

o 0.

7 0 >0 . 70

to

0.

7 4 >0

.7

4 to

0.

7 8 >0 . 78

to

0.

8 2 >0 . 82

to

0 .8

6

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

t For more information, please visit www.aham.org.

3-95n=61 There are no Energy Star-certified dehumidifi ers with EF ratings lower than the EPACT 2005 standards that will become effective October 2007. In fact, many Energy Star dehumidifiers already have EFs that exceed the default 2012 standards. Figure 3.14.3 displays Energy Star-certified dehumidifier data.

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3Efficiency (litres/kWh)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Capacity (pints/day) EPACT 2005-2007 Standards EPACT 2005-2012 Default Standards
Figure 3.14.3 Energy Star-Qualified Dehumid ifiers and the EPACT 2005 Dehumidifier Standards 149

Likewise, many AHAM-certified dehumidifiers have EFs that exceed the default 2012 standards. Only one AHAM-certified dehumid ifier does not meet the EPACT 2005 standards that will become effective October 2007. Figur e 3.14.4 displays AHAM-cer tified dehumidifier data.

3-96n=14

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3Efficiency (litres/kWh)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Capacity (pints/day) EPACT 2005 - 2007 Standards EPACT 2005 - 2012 Default Standards
Figure 3.14.4 AHAM-Qualified Dehumidif iers and the EPACT 2005 Dehumidifier Standards 150

3.14.3.3 Cooking Products Conventional Cooking Products The DOE test procedure for cooktops is based on measuring the amount of energy required to raise an aluminum test block from ro om temperature to a specified temperature above room temperature. Of the efficiency data available, many are based on tests measuring the amount of energy that is required to boil a specifi ed amount of water. The amount of water and length of time to boiling varies, depending on the re searcher or manufacturer conducting the test. In addition, boil times vary with altitude, as increasing altitude decreases the length of time required to boil water. Only efficiency data based on the DOE test are used in the analysis because “boiling water” tests being conducted curre ntly do not use a standardized water load or boiling time. Although not completely representative of the current U.S. cooking products m arket, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) publishes a database of electric cooking appliance performance as measured by the applicable CAN/ CSA test procedures. This database covers products available in the Canadian market, which overlaps with the U.S. market. Data from the NRCan database are presented as the distribution of listed models as a function of EF.

3-97Figure 3.14.5 displays the EFs of standard open (coil)- and smooth element electric ranges listed in the NRCan database.

0 7 15 41 41

17

9

1 1 0 0 0 5 22

7 3 20

3 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Number of Models Coil Top Smooth Top

3 4 .3 8 .5 0 3 6 4 0 4 2 4 6 4 8 5 0 <0. . . . . 4 4

. . >0. 0 -0 -0 -0 4 4 -0 0 - - - 0 - 0 34 36 46 48 38 40 4 2

. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 . 0. 0. Energy Factor Figure 3.14.5 Standard Electric Ranges in the NRCan Database 151 Figure 3.14.6 displays the EFs of self-cleaning open (coil) - and smooth-element electric ranges listed in the NRCan database.

3-980 0 0 31 41

17

9

1 1 0 0 0 3 38 38

19

0 2 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Number of Models Coil Top Smooth Top

3 4 .4 0 .4 6 3 6 3 8 4 2 4 8 5 0 5 0 <0. . . . . 4 4

. . . -0 -0 -0 -0 0 -0 >0 - - 0 -0 38 46 36 42 44 3 4 4 0 4 8

. . 0. 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. Energy Factor Figure 3.14.6 Self-Cleaning Electric Ranges in the NRCan Database 152 Figure 3.14.7 displays the EFs of open (c oil)- and smooth-element electric cooktops listed in the NRCan database.

0 0 2 4 5

0 8 7

0 1 3

6

2 9

5 13 12 14 17

0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Number of Models Coil Smooth

0.70 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 Energy Factor Figure 3.14.7 Cooktops in the NRCan Database 153

3-99Figure 3.14.8 displays the EF s of self-cleaning electric ovens listed in the NRCan database, while Figure 3.14.9 displays the EFs of non-self-cleaning electri c ovens listed in the NRCan database.

39 51 76

14

4 8 2 0 0 16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Number of Models

0 8 0 9 1 0 1 2 .1 3 .1 4 .1 5 .1 6 1 6 >0. . . . . 1 1

. <0 -0 -0 0 0 - - -0 -0 -0 -0 10 11 08 09 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5

. . . . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 Energy Factor Figure 3.14.8 Self-Cleaning Electric Ov ens in the NRCan Database 154

3-100Number of Models 6

5

4

3

2

1

0 5

4

3

1 1

0 0 0 0 0 <0.

0 8 0. 08

- 0

. 0 9 0. 09

-0

. 1 0 0. 10

-0

.1

1 0. 11

-0

.1

2 0. 1 2 -0

.1

3
0 . 1 3 -0

.1

4
0 . 1 4 -0

.1

5 0. 15

- 0

. 1 6 >0. 1 6

Energy Factor Figure 3.14.9 Non-Self-Cleaning Electric Ovens in the NRCan Database 155 While self-cleaning ovens tend to be more efficient than non-self-cleaning ovens, due to the thicker insulation required to maintain sa fe exterior temperatures during oven cleaning cycles, some non-self-cleaning ove ns exhibit EFs comparable to self-cleaning electric ovens. However, no non-self-cleaning electric ovens ha ve EFs above 0.15, while 16 self-cleaning electric ovens have EFs exceeding 0.16.
Microwave Ovens For microwave ovens, the DOE test procedure u tilizes the test procedures specified in IEC 705-1998 and Amendment 2-1993. It should be noted that IEC 705-1998 and Amendment 2-1993 has been superseded by IEC 60705 Edition 3. 2-2006. DOE does not pl an to revise the test procedure to incorporate IEC 60705 Edition 3.2-2006, to measure the cooking efficiency, because DOE is unaware of any efficiency compar ison data that would justify such a change. Microwave ovens consume energy in cooking m ode, when heating food, and in standby mode, while powering th e clock and electronic controls. AHAM recently provided data on microwave oven efficiency and standby power for a sample of microwave ovens available in the U.S. market. 156 Microwave oven efficiency was tested according to DOE’s test procedure. Standby power was tested according to IEC 62301-2005. Although AHAM only tested 21 units from 9 manufacturers, the units we re selected to represent a broad spectrum of units available in the market place, and had varying capacities and features. Figure 3.14.10 through Figure 3.14.11 display the AHAM microwave oven efficiency data.

3-10150% 55% 60% 65%Efficiency

600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 Rated Output Power (W) Figure 3.14.10 AHAM Microwave Oven Efficiency versus Rated Output Pow er 157 Figure 3.14.10 illustrates the lack of a correlation between microwave oven rated output power and microwave oven efficiency. Efficiency remains nearly linear across the tested output power range. Figure 3.14.11 illustrates the relationship between microwave oven volume and microwave oven efficiency. Again, microwave oven efficiency remains constant and nearly linear regardless of microwave oven volume.

3-10250% 55% 60% 65%Efficiency

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Microwave Oven Volume (ft^3) Figure 3.14.11 AHAM Microwave Oven Efficiency versus Oven Volume 158 Figure 3.14.12 displays AHAM-measured mi crowave oven standby power consumption data as a function of rated output power. Figure 3.14.12 al so contains standby energy consumption measurements made by the Canadian Building Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Center (CBEEDAC) at the University of Alberta. The data show a wide range of standby power usage, but there is no correlation between standby power consumption and output power.

3-1030.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0Standby Power Consumption (W)

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Rated Output Power (W)
AHAM Data CBEEDAC Data Figure 3.14.12 AHAM Microwave Oven Standby Power 160 Consumption 159 , FEMP publishes a database of microwave oven standby power consumption, although this database is also not completely representative of microwave ovens available in the U.S. market. Figure 3.14.13 displays the number of microwave oven m odels available with different standby power consumption rates as listed in the FEMP sta ndby power consumption database.

3-104100
90Number of Models 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

0 0 to 1 W 1.1 to 2 W >2 W 1 28 90

Standby Power Consumption Figure 3.14.13 Microwave Oven Standby Power Consumption from the FEMP Database 161 FEMP does not categorize microwave ovens by rated power. Therefore, it is not possible to make a direct comparison between the FE MP microwave oven standby data and the AHAM microwave oven test data. However, the distri bution of standby power consumption in both the FEMP database and the AHAM data is similar. Very few microwave ovens consume less than one watt of standby power, some microwave ovens consume less than two watts of standby power, but the large majority of microwave ove ns consume more than two watts of standby power.

3.14.3.4 Commercial Clothes Washers Although not completely represen tative of the current commer cial clothes washer market, the CEC publishes a list of “certified” products. Even though the Federal standard only recently was raised to an MEF of 1.26, California had pr eviously enacted a minimum standard at that level, so the database only c ontains products with MEFs of 1.26 and higher. Figure 3.14.14 displays the distribution of comm ercial clothes washers in the CEC database as a function of MEF.

3-10580
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

0 74

0 19

0 31

1 0 19

0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 59

0 50

0 0Number of Models

1 . 2 6 t

o

1.

3 >1 .

3

to

1 .

4 >1 .

4

to

1 .

5 >1 .

5

to

1 .

6 >1

.6

to

1 .

7 >1

.7

to

1 .

8 >1

.8

to 1 .

9 >1

.9

to

2

. 0 >2

.0

to

2 .1

>2

.1

to

2 .2

>2 . 2 to

2

. 3

MEF
Vertical Axis Horizontal Axis Figure 3.14.14 MEF of Commercial Clothes Washers in the CEC Directory 162 Figure 3.14.14 illustrates the difference in MEF between vertical-axis commercial clothes washers and horizontal-axis commer cial clothes washers. All of the commercial clothes washers with an MEF above 1.5 are horizontal-axis units, whereas all but one of the washers with an MEF below 1.5 are vertical-axis washers. No commercial vertical-axis washer has an MEF above 1.5, while 67 horizontal-a xis commercial washer models have an MEF above 2.0. The majority of qualified commercial clothes washers ar e horizontal-axis units, further indicating the higher average MEF of horizontal-axis commercial clothes washers. The CEC list of certified products also cont ains data on W F. The database contains products with WF of 13 or lower. Figure 3.14.15 displays the di stribution of comm ercial clothes washers in the CEC database as a function of WF.

3-1060 0 1 20 42

2 4 34

10 50 60

8 13

2 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Number of Models

5 t o 6 >6 t o

7 >7 t o

8 >8 t o 9 >9 t o

10 >1 0 t

o 11 >1 1

to

1 2 >1 2

to

1 3 >1 3 t

o 14

WF
Vertical Axis Horizontal Axis Figure 3.14.15 WF of Commercial Clothes Washers in the CEC Directory 163 Figure 3.14.15 illustrates the difference in WF between vertical-axis commercial clothes washers and horizontal-axis commer cial clothes washers. All of the commercial clothes washers with a WF above 9 are commercial vertical-axis units, whereas all of the washers with WF below 7 are horizontal-axis commercial units. No vert ical-axis washer has a WF below 7, while 68 horizontal-axis commercial wash er models have a WF below 7. The majority of qualified commercial clothes washers are hor izontal-axis units, further indicat ing the lower average WF of horizontal-axis commercial clothes washers.

3-107REFERENCES

1 Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). 1998. Commercial, Family-Sized Washers: An Initiative Description of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency

.
2 “The Share-of-Market Picture for 2005”. Appliance Magazine , September 2006.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Maytag. 2005. “Whirlpool Corporation a nd Maytag Corporation Si gn Definitive Merger Agreement”. Maytag Press Release , August 22, 2005.

9 P. Hussmann. 2006. “Justice to Extend Maytag-Whirlpool Merger Review”. Newton Daily News Online , February 14, 2006.

10 W. Ryberg. 2006. “Harkin, Boswell want Maytag sale blocked”. Des Moines Register , January 13, 2006.

11 Ibid.

12 U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ). 2006. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Statement on the Closing of its Investiga tion of Whirlpool’s Acquisition of Maytag

. March 29, 2006.

13 Ibid.

14 Association of Home Applianc e Manufacturers (AHAM) Fact Book 2005.

15 AHAM Fact Book 2003

.
16 CEE. 1998. Op. Cit.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

3-10819 DOE Docket No. EE-RM-PET-100, submitte d by the California Energy Commission January 29, 2007.

20 U.S.

21

22

23

24

25

26 Census Bureau. 2006. “Table Q1. New Privately Owned Housing Units Started in the United States by Purpose and Desi gn.” New Residential Construction , February 2006.
Ibid.
AHAM Fact Book 2005.
Ibid. Northwest Energy Star Partners 2005 Ma rket Share Report. Available online at http://www.northwestenergystar.com/index.php?cID=226
AHAM Fact Book 2005.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. “Table 2 - Stat istics for Industry Groups and Industries: 2004 and Earlier Years.” 2004 A nnual Survey of Manufacturers (ASM), December 2005.

27 AHAM Fact Book 2003.

28 AHAM Fact Book 2005.

29 J. Notini. 2006. Personal communications. AHAM. Washington, DC, December 2006.

30 Ibid

.
31 Ibid

.
32 Ibid

.
33 AHAM Fact Book 2005

34 Ibid.

35 AbsoluteHome.com-Home Décor Products, Inc. Appliances—Laundry—Commercial Washers

. < http://www.absolutehome.com/web/catalog/ethumbs .aspx?N=102+2204250+4294954347&Ns=P_Priced From|1&Nu=P_UniqueID > (Accessed October 16, 2006.)

36 Abt Electronics, Inc. Appliances—Laundry Products—Commercial Washers . Glenview, IL. < http://www.abtelectroni cs.com/category/528.html > (Accessed October 16, 2006.)

3-10937 AJMadison. Laundry—Washers . Glenview, IL. < http://www.ajmadison.com/cgi-bin/ajmadison/category/cat00174/Laundry.html > (Accessed O ctober 16, 2006.)

38 J. Cole. 2006. Personal Communications . Comm ercial & Coin Laundry Equipment Company, Gulf Breeze, FL. Telephone call with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, September 18, 2006.

39 E. Grimshaw. 2006. Personal Communi cations. Commercial Laundry Equipment, Arroyo Grande, CA. Telephone call with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, September 15, 19, 2006.

40 D. Hoffman. 2006. Personal Communications. Gold Coin Laundary Equipment, Inc., Jam acia, NY. Telephone call with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, September 15, 25, 2006.

41 D. Smith. 2006. Personal Communications . Mac-Gray Services, Inc., Albany, GA. Telephone call with Lawrence Berkeley Na tional Laboratory, Septem ber 25, 2006.

42 L. Mears. 2006. Personal Communications. Texax Laundry Service Company, Pasadena, T X. Telephone call with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, September 13, 2006.

43 Laundry Systems. Products . Medina, OH. < http://www.laundrysystems.com/index.html > (Accessed September 25, 2006.)

44 U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. “Table 2 - Stat istics f or Industry Groups and Industries: 2005 and Earlier Years.” 2005 A nnual Survey of Manufacturers (ASM), December 2006.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Plant Capacity: 2004 to 1994

.
48 “An Intelligent Wash Process Sensor.” Scientific Honeyweller , Sensors Issue, 1996.

49 ASKO Product literature . Available online at http://www.askousa.com/pub/manuals/ dishwashers/current/EnglishD3mmm_Installation.pdf

50 Appliance Magazine , November 2005.

3-11051 Appliance Magazine , October 2002.

52 U.S. DOE. 1997. Technical Support Docu m ent for Energy Conservation Standards for Room Air Conditioners , Washington, DC, September 1997.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid.

57 K. Heinecke. “Single Phase Electric Motors – Ch aracteristics & Applications.” Available online at <http://www.iprocessmart.com/l eeson/leeson_singlepha se_article.htm>.

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

59 U.S. DOE. 1997. Op. cit.

60 Simmons. 2003. Op. cit.

61 Ibid.

62 Y. Yamada, T. Sobue, M. Oyaizu, 2003. “Glass-Ceram ic Top Plate Gas Cooking Hob with High Efficiency”, Proceedings of the 22 nd World Gas Conference , Tokyo, Japan, June 2003.

63 U.S. DOE. 1980. Engineering Analysis

. Washington, DC, DOE/CS-0166, June 1980, pp D7-1 to D7-28.

64 J. Flood and T. Enga. 1983. “Energy C onservation Aspects of Cooking Appliances.” 1983 International Gas Research Conference , W atson House, British Gas Corporation, pp 741-754.

65 M. Shepard, A. Lovins, J. Neymark, D. Houghton, and H. Heede, 1990. The State of the Art: Appliances

. Rocky Mountain Institute, CO MPETITEK Infor mation Service, Snowmass, CO. August 1990, pp 132-151.

66 ADM Associates Inc. (ADM). 1987. Costi ng Analysis of Design Options for Residential Appliances and Space-Conditioning Equipment . Prepared by ADM Associates Inc., Sacram ento, CA, for Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Purchase No. 4541710, December 1987, pp 9-1 to 9-20.

3-11167 ORTECH International (ORTECH). 1989. Energy-Efficient Electrical Product Knowledge Base . Prepared by ORTECH International, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, for the Canadian Electrical Association, C.E.A., No. 821 U 678, October 1989, pp 25-39.

68 Arthur D. Little Inc. (ADL). 1994. Electric Oven and Cooktop Data Analysis . Prepared by ADL, Cambridge, MA, for AHAM, Reference 47066, submitted as comments No. 001 to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, July 15, 1994.

69 ORTECH. 1989. Op. cit.

70 U.S. DOE. 1980. Op. cit.

71 Shepard et al .. 1990. Op. cit.

72 L. Andrews. 1978. Proposed Test Procedure for Induction Cooking Tops

. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, October 1978.

73 K.C. Datwyler and J.R. McFadden. 1992. “A Com parative Analysis of Performance Characteristics of Gas and Electric Cooktops.” Proceedings of the 43 rd Annual International Applian ce Technical Conference , West Lafayette, IN, May, 1992, pp 485­ 496.

74 D. DeWitt and M. Peart. Bi-Radiant Oven: A Low-Energy Oven System

. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Prepared for Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, ORNL/Sub-80/0082/1, ORNL /Sub-80/0082/2, ORNL/Sub-80/0082/3.

75 GE Appliances product litera ture. Available online at http://www.geappliances.com/products/intr oductions/trivection/overview/compare_cook_ times.htm Viking product literature . Available online at http://www.vikingrange.com/consum er/products/product.jsp?id=prod150050

76 D. McFadden, R. Topping, D. Frizche, and R. Hemphill. 1991. “Advanced Residential Gas Oven Developm ent”. Proceedings of the 42 nd International Appliance Technical Conference , Madison, WI, May 1991, pp 83-94.

77 Viking product literatu re. Available online at http://www.vikingrange.com/consum er/products/product.jsp?id=prod150050

78 Wolf Product literature. Available online at http://www.subzero.com/wolf/descrip tion.asp?category=gas%20ranges&id=18

79 ORTECH. 1989. Op. cit.

3-11280 Gas Research Institute (GRI). 1994. Topical Report: Techni cal Input to NAECA Rulemaking for Gas-Fired Ranges. Prepared by Battelle, Columbus, OH, American Gas Association Laboratories, Cleveland, OH, a nd Arthur D. Little, Cambridge, MA for Gas Appliance Technology Center, Chicago, IL . Comment No. 001 to NOPR, GRI-94/0195, July 1994.

81 ADL. 1994. Op. cit.

82 GE Advantium product literature. Available online at http://www.geappliances.com/products/introductions/advantium/

83 GE Advantium product literature. Available online at http://www.geappliances.com/products/int roductions/advantium/saving_you_time.htm

84 ADM. 1987. Op. cit.

85 ORTECH. 1989. Op. cit.

86 U.S. DOE. 1980. Op. cit.

87 Ibid.

88 GRI. 1994. Op. cit.

89 ORTECH. 1989. Op. cit.

90 GRI. 1994. Op. cit.

91 GRI. 1994. Op. cit.

92 P. Seibold. 1995. Person al comm unication. Norton Comp any. Worcester, MA, March 1995.

93 Viking product literatu re. Available online at http://www.vikingrange.com/consum er/products/product.jsp?id=prod150050

94 ADM. 1987. Op. cit.

95 ORTECH. 1989. Op. cit.

96 GRI. 1994. Op. cit.

97 ADM. 1987. Op. cit.

3-11398 GRI. 1994. Op. cit.

99 ADL. 1994. Op. cit.

100 M. Lowe. 2006. “Cooking Technologies: Overachieving Ovens”. Appliance Design , February 1, 2006.

101 Appliance Magazine , August 2004.

102 Lowe. Op. cit.

.
103 AHAM. 1990. Comments on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Energy Conservation Standards for Room Air Condition ers and Kitchen Ranges and Ovens . FR 55(189), September 28, 1990, Dock et Num ber CE-RM-90-201, Comment Number 61, December 12, 1990, p 30.

104 AHAM. 1990. Op. cit . p 35.

105 AHAM. 2006. AHAM Test Data on Microwave Ovens . October 23, 2006, Docket Number EE-2006-STD-0127, Comment Number 17, November 30, 2006.

106 T. Ishii, T. Handa, M. Aiga, N. Kuwaha ra. 2006. “Magnetron”, U.S. Patent Num ber 7,023,137, Assigned to Matsushita Electrical Industria l Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan, April 4, 2006.

107 AHAM. 2006. Op. cit.

108 C.R. Buffler, Efficiency Improve m ent Techniques for Microwave Ovens

. Litton Microwave Cooking Products, Minneapolis, MN.

109 Sharp Electronics Corp. 1994. Commen ts on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Microwave Ovens . FR 59(43), March 4, 1994, Docket Number EE-RM-90-201, Comm ent Number 521, July 18, 1994.

110 Ibid

.
111 Ibid

.
112 Ibid

.
113 GE Appliances product litera ture. Available online at http://www.geappliances.com/products/intr oductions/trivection/overview/compare_cook_ times.htm

3-114114 Lowe. 2006. Op. cit.

115 P. Biermayer et a l .. 1996. Design Options for Clothes Washers. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkel ey, CA, LBL-47888, October 1996.

116 Appliance Magazine , September 2005.

117 Appliance Manufacturer , April 1995, p 27.

118 Appliance Manufacturer , February 1995, p E-58.

119 Science Applications Inc. 1977. Energy Efficiency Program for Clothes Washers, Clothes Dryers and Dishwashers , SAI-77-839, La Jolla, CA. pp 4-45.

120 “Big Plans for Tiny Bubbl es”. Appliance Manufacturer , December 1994, p 32.

121 “Sorting Through Laundry”. Appliance, September 1994, p 35.

122 Daewoo product literature . Available online at: http://www.daewoo-electronics.de/eu/products/living_washing_prod.asp?idprod=235

123 I. Turiel, et al . 1995. Evaluation of Advanced Tec hnologies for Residential Appliances and Residential and Commercial Lighting . Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, C A, LBL-35982, January 1995.

124 Sharp product timeline. Available online at: http://sharp-world.com/corpor ate/info/his/chronology/p10.html

125 S. Kristic et al

. 1993. “Direct Comparison: Assessing the Energy Efficiency Impact of a Transmissionless Motor/Drive System for C onventional Clothes Washers”. Proceedings of the 44th Annual International Appliance Technical Conference , p.101, May 1993.

126 GE product literature. Available online at http://products.g eappliances.com/ApplProducts/Dis patcher?REQUEST=RESULTSPAG E&CATEGORY=CA0096&CATEG ORY=CA0095&SITEID=GEA

127 Fisher & Paykel product liter ature. Available online at http://usa.fisherpaykel.com/ global/laundry-products/clothes- washers/clothes-washer.cfm

128 LG Electronics product litera ture. Available online at http://us.lge.com/products/model/detail/ home%20appliances_laundry_washers_WM2688 H.jhtml

3-115129 U.S. DOE. 1990. Technical Support Do cument: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Dishwashers, Clothes Washers, and Clothes Dryers , p.3-14, DOE/CE-0299P, Dece mber 1990.

130 Ibid.

131 ADL. 1995. Laboratory Tes ting of Clothes W ashers , pp 3-8, December, 1995, EPRI Report No. TR-105098.

132 A. Cahn. 1994. The Laundering Process , handout presented at the W orkshop on Home Laundry Energy Standards Regulatory Issues , W ashington, D.C., November 11, 1994.

133 Procter & Gamble. 1995. Comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #9, January 20, 1995.

134 AHAM. 1995. Comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

. No. EE RM-94-403, comment #27, May 8, 1995.

135 Ibid

.
136 “New for ‘93”, Electrolux product literature, Domotechnica

.
137 Biermayer et al . 1996. Op. cit

.
138 ADL. 1995. Op. cit.

139 Biermayer et al . 1996. Op. cit

.
140 AHAM. 1995. Op. cit. DOE Docket

141 Electric Power Research Institute (E PRI). 1996. Ozone Laundering: A Better Wash Process for Commercial Laundries , Technical Brief RP2890, March 1996.

142 U.S. DOE. 1990. Op. cit.

143 Appliance Magazine , June 2005.

144 Ibid.

145 “New Ways of Washing”. Appliance , September 1992, p.75.

146 Appliance , September 1995, p.51.

147 Turiel et al. Op. cit.

3-116148 California Energy Commission (CEC) Applianc e efficiency database. Available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/applian ces/appliance/exce l_based_files/

149 Energy Star Dehumidifier da tabase. Available online at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=dehumid.pr_dehumidifiers

150 AHAM Dehumidifier databa se. Available online at http://207.140.180.12/dirsvc/aham.nsf/fr aDehum?OpenFrameset&pgm=Dehumidifiers

151 Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) Database of Major Appliances. Available online at http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residenti al/personal/appliances.cfm?attr=4

152 Ibid.

153 Ibid.

154 Ibid.

155 Ibid.

156 AHAM. 2006. Op. cit.

157 Ibid.

158 Ibid.

159 Ibid.

160 N. Fish, D. White, and D. Ryan. St andby Power Energy Use of Common Household Appliances . Canadian Building Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Center. University of Alberta, Canada. July, 2006.

161 FEMP Microwave standby power database. Available online at http://oahu.lbl.gov/cg i-bin/search_data.pl

162 CEC Appliance efficiency database. Op. cit.

163 Ibid.

3-117