2011 Major Appliance Trends & Facts Report by Swati Patel

An Insiderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Look at the Canadian Appliance Market

2011

Major Appliance Industry Trends and Facts

inside: Members Economic Overview Industry Overview

2 4 6

The Canadian Appliance Industry and Sustainability

Trends and Overview: Canadian Appliance Service Industry Refrigerators

12 14

Freezers Ranges Microwave Ovens Dishwashers Laundry Products Air Conditioners Import Summary U.S. Data

18 20 24 27 30 36 37 38

CAMA Members 2011 Applica Canada Corp. 131 Saramia Crescent Vaughan, ON L4K 4P7 www.applicainc.com Craig Emmerson, Senior Director craig.emmerson@applicamail.com Brands: Black & Decker, George Foreman, Toastmaster, Russell Hobbs, Juiceman, Breadman, Windmere

BSH Home Appliances Corp. 5800 Explorer Drive, Suite 310 Mississauga, ON L4W 5K9 www.bosch-home.ca www.thermador.ca www.gaggenau.ca Steve Preiner, Director, Marketing Steve.preiner@bshg.com Brands: Bosch, Gaggenau, Thermador

Conair Consumer Products Inc. 100 Conair Parkway Woodbridge, ON L4H 0L2 www.conair.com Paul Sullivan, General Manager paul_sullivan@conair.com Brands: Cuisinart

Danby Products Ltd. 5070 Whitelaw Road Guelph, ON N1H 6Z9 www.danby.com Steve Atkinson, Marketing Manager satkinson@danby.com Brands: Danby, Danby Designer, Danby Premiere, Danby Silhouette, Simplicity, Kenmore, Whirlpool

Delonghi Canada Inc. 6150 McLaughlin Road Mississauga, ON L5R 4E1 www.delonghi.com Michael Selby, Senior Product Manager selby@delonghicanada.com Brands: DeLonghi, Kenwood

Electrolux Canada Corp. 5855 Terry Fox Way Mississauga, ON L5V 3E4 www.frigidairecanada.ca Electrolux Major Appliances Sue Stevenson, Vice President & General Manager sue.stevenson@electrolux.com Electrolux Home Care Appliances Scott Ride, President & General Manager scott.ride@electrolux.com Brands: Electrolux ICON, Electrolux, Frigidaire, Frigidaire Gallery, Frigidaire Professional, Kenmore, Beaumark, White Westinghouse

Fisher & Paykel Appliances Canada, Inc. 4180 Sladeview Crescent, Unit 4 Mississauga, ON L5L 0A1 www.fisherpaykel.com www.dcappliances.com Peter L. Tierney, General Manager peter.tierney@fisherpaykel.com Brands: Fisher & Paykel, DCS

Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc. 7300 Warden Avenue, Suite 201 Markham, ON L3R 9Z6 www.hamiltonbeach.ca www.proctorsilex.ca Louise Sauve-Nicholls, Director, Marketing louise.sauve-nicholls@hamiltonbeach.com Brands: Proctor-Silex, Hamilton Beach, eclectrics, True Air

Jarden Consumer Solutions 20B Hereford Street Brampton, ON L6Y 0M1 www.jardencs.com Adam Ball, Director, Marketing aball@jardencs.com Brands: Sunbeam, Oster, Crock Pot, FoodSaver, Seal A Meal, VillaWare, Mr. Coffee, Rival, Margaritaville

LG Electronics Canada Inc. 550 Matheson Blvd. East Mississauga, ON L4Z 4G3 www.lge.ca Kevin Smith, Vice President, Sales, LG Digital Appliances kevinsmith@lge.com Brands: LG, Goldstar, Kenmore

Mabe Canada Inc. 5420 North Service Road, Suite 300 Burlington, ON L7R 5B6 www.geappliances.ca Jane Lo, Product Manager jane.lo@mabe.ca Brands: GE, GE Profile, GE Café, GE Monogram, Hotpoint, Moffat, Beaumark

© 2011 by Electro-Federation Canada. All rights reserved. The information in this publication may be quoted and/or reproduced in part, provided that credit is given to the Canadian Appliance Manufacturers Association, a council of Electro-Federation Canada. Non-member Price: $500 (plus hst) ISBN 0-9733044-1-3

Miele Ltd. 161 Four Valley Drive Vaughan, ON L4K 4V8 www.miele.ca Stephen Caldow, Senior Product Manager steve.caldow@miele.ca Brands: Miele

Panasonic Canada Inc. 5770 Ambler Drive Mississauga, ON L4W 2T3 www.panasonic.ca Jimmy Chang Director, Marketing, Appliances Group jchang@ca.panasonic.com Brands: Panasonic

Samsung Electronics Canada Inc. 55 Standish Court Floor 9-10 Mississauga, ON L5R 4B2 www.samsung.ca Qian Yi, Marketing Manager qian.yi@samsung.com Brands: Samsung, Kenmore, Brada

Sanyo Canada Inc. 201 Creditview Road Woodbridge, ON L4L 9T1 www.sanyocanada.com Barry Richler, Vice President, Marketing & Sales, Consumer Products brichler@sci.sanyo.com Brands: Sanyo

Sub-Zero Wolf, Inc. 4717 Hammersley Road Madison, WI 53711 www.subzero.com Paul Sikir, Sub-Zero Vice President, Design Engineering paul.sikir@subzero.com Brands: Sub-Zero, Wolf

Whirlpool Canada LP 6750 Century Avenue, Suite 200 Mississauga, ON L5N 0B7 www.whirlpoolcanada.com Warrington Ellacott, Senior Manager, Government Relations warrington_ellacott@whirlpool.com Brands: Whirlpool, Maytag, Inglis, Amana, KitchenAid, Jenn-Air, Admiral, Kenmore, Magic Chef, Roper, Estate

CAMA Overview The Canadian Appliance Manufacturers Association (CAMA), a council of Electro-Federation Canada, is a not-for-profit industry association representing leading manufacturers of major, portable and floor care appliances in Canada. CAMA provides services to facilitate members’ competitiveness in the Canadian market and ensures members’ interests are met on key issues, through the following: • Government Relations: Intelligence, analysis, advocacy and dialogue forums on a wide range of public policy issues, at all levels of government, including topics of energy efficiency standards, environmental stewardship, chemicals management program, consumer product safety, technical codes and standards harmonization and barriers to trade. • Coordination of Industry Representation and Participation on codes and performance standards development through access to local, national and international regulatory and standards organizations. • Market Research, including trends, forecasting and monthly statistical reporting with quarterly and annual updates. • Communications, including weekly industry-wide electronic newsletter, monthly CAMA-specific electronic member newsletter, semi-annual industry magazine, and regular information updates and member consultation. • Networking and Education Programs, including quarterly Council Executive and Market Research Committee meetings, Annual General Meeting and Leadership Forum, Economic Forecast Day, industry golf tournament, Christmas receptions, information seminars and Webinars. For more information, we invite you to visit the CAMA Website at www.cama-online.ca.

Economic Overview 201 1 C

anada, although still remaining an oasis of relative prosperity among the G7 nations, has experienced a moderation in the pace of growth starting in the summer of 2010. Real GDP growth, having recorded a strong 5.6% quarter-over-quarter (QoQ) advance in Q1, moderated to register only gains of 2.3% and 1% in each of the next two quarters. However, recent monthly data is encouraging showing some evidence of a pickup in activity as the year ended. The economy appears to have expanded by 2.9% in 2010, having registered a decline of 2.5% in 2009. Economic prospects for 2011 call for growth of 2.7% as the fiscal and monetary stimulus that supported the economic recovery begins to wind down. This pace of growth still leaves Canada as one of the best performers among the G7 nations. All regions of the country have put the recession behind them, but at the same time the growth momentum has shifted to the resource rich provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Newfoundland. The soft spots in the country remain the manufacturing centres of Ontario and Quebec. The energy sector now is significantly more important in terms of job creation, capital investment and exports than the manufacturing sector. Even with the recovery getting established in the United States, which will translate into a pick up in demand for Canadian manufactured goods, the resource rich west will continue to outperform central Canada over the forecast period. The Canadian dollar is expected to trade around parity in 2011 and 2012, supported by a relatively well-behaved economy and firm global demand for commodities. The Canadian dollar will also likely receive support from a healthy demand for loonies as foreign interest in our resource base leads to a strong run of mergers and acquisitions. This is not to say that the currency will not face any headwinds like from provincial and federal elections and likely a further General Economic Indicators

deterioration in the current account if the United States demand for our exports fails to materialize. On balance therefore, we expect that the loonie will trade close to parity with the US dollar over the coming year, but in a wide band as these are volatile times. The housing sector in 2010 was a major contributor to the overall growth of the economy. Housing was supported by low interest rates, a strong rebound in job growth and rising incomes. The housing market, having hit new highs in the spring of 2010, then slowed over the summer months before stabilizing in recent months. For the year 2010, housing starts totalled 193,000 units, up 29.5% from the 149,000 units registered in 2009. In January 2011, housing starts rose by 0.8% MoM to stand at 170,400 units annualized which was up from Decemberâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s level of 169,000 units. From the highs in early 2010, residential construction activity continues to moderate to a level which is closer in line with the underlying demographic demand. In 2011 we anticipate that housing starts will average around 180,000 units as mortgage rates climb, and starting in March, shorter amortization periods on insured mortgages (35 years to 30 years) are introduced. Housing will continue to make a contribution to economic growth but its role will be more subdued going forward. In 2011, both housing starts and completions will trend lower. Although demand for appliances will continue at a post recession healthy level by the second half of the year, sales will slow. Until recently, global price pressures have been contained as the â&#x20AC;&#x153;great recessionâ&#x20AC;? created excess capacity and in fact the concern was that deflationary forces were forming. However, as 2010 ended it became clear that the spike in energy and food prices was starting to create price pressures in some areas of the world, particularly Asia. Going forward, we anticipate that these price pressures will remain so the focus will shift to worrying over the inflation risk. Canada to Actual

Forecast

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

U.S. GDP (% growth)

2.5

3.6

3.1

2.7

1.9

0.0

-2.6

2.9

3.5

Canada GDP (% growth)

1.9

3.1

3.0

2.8

2.2

0.5

-2.5

2.9

2.7

British Columbia

2.3

3.6

4.4

2.9

0.2

-1.8

3.8

3.3

Alberta

3.2

5.3

4.8

6.1

2.5

1.4

-4.5

3.6

3.4

Saskatchewan

4.6

5.1

3.3

-0.3

3.6

4.6

-3.9

2.0

3.8

Manitoba

1.4

2.2

2.4

4.0

3.6

1.9

0.0

2.4

2.8

Ontario

1.4

2.6

2.8

2.6

2.3

-0.9

-3.6

2.7

2.5

Quebec

1.2

2.7

1.5

1.7

2.8

1.1

-0.3

2.8

2.4

New Brunswick

2.8

1.6

2.4

0.4

-0.2

-0.3

2.5

2.1

Nova Scotia

1.4

0.9

1.3

0.9

1.2

1.3

-0.1

2.4

2.0

Prince Edward Island

2.1

2.6

2.0

2.4

2.5

0.4

-0.1

2.6

1.9

Newfoundland

5.8

-1.2

1.9

3.0

9.1

2.0

-10.2

4.5

4.0

CPI - All Items (2002 = 100)

102.8

104.7

107.0

109.1

111.5

114.1

114.4

116.5

CPI - Household Appliances (2002 = 100)

99.1

97.2

94.6

92.2

90.2

87.4

85.7

Consumer Price Index - Canada

2.8

1.9

2.2

2.0

2.1

2.4

0.3

1.8

Consumer Price Index - US

2.3

2.7

3.4

3.2

2.8

3.8

-0.4

1.6

Housing Starts (000s)

218

232

223

229

228

211

149

193

2.4 180

Housing Completions (000s)

199

215

211

216

209

214

176

187

Employment Growth (% growth)

2.3

1.8

1.4

1.9

2.3

1.5

-1.6

1.4

1.1

Unemployment Rate

7.6

7.2

6.8

6.3

6.0

6.1

8.3

8.0

7.5

Real Personal Disposable Income

2.1

3.2

2.6

5.5

3.6

3.7

1.2

2.8

2.5

Canadian Dollar (US Cents)

76.0

81.9

85.2

87.8

101.9

82.5

94.7

98.7

101.0

Source: Statistics Canada, Bank of Canada, Forecasts by ECONOMAP INC., CEA

5 date has not experienced any significant break out on the inflation front. The year ended with the headline rate steady while the core rate fell, which left the two levels at +2.4% and +1.5% respectively. Going forward we anticipate that the CPI in both Canada and the United States will rise in 2011 in the 2% to 2.5% range. This level of inflation will allow the central banks to pursue accommodative monetary policy if required. The Bank of Canada, having commenced monetary tightening in mid 2010, has been on pause since the fall and is expected not to tighten further until there is compelling evidence that the United States economic recovery is on a strong sustainable growth path which will translate into healthy Canadian exports. Meanwhile, the Bank will act carefully as they do not want the currency to strengthen further. Once the Federal Reserve is tightening, the Bank of Canada will fall into line. We anticipate rates to be higher at the end of 2011 and to rise through 2012.

Consumer Price Index

All Items vs. Household Appliances: 1998 to 2010 (2002=100) 120

 Household Appliances  All Items

115 110 105 100

 

 

       





90 85







 

 



1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Statistics Canada

Housing Starts and Completions 240,000

 

200,000



180,000



160,000 140,000 120,000





 





 

  







2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: CMHC

Canadian Dollar (US Cents) 110.0



100.0



90.0



80.0

50.0



70.0 60.0



Retail Sales include those by Canadian manufacturers and importers and/or their branches and distributors (if any) to Canadian retailers, government agencies, utilities and other consumers, but does not include sales to branches or to other CAMA member companies.

Expansion Factors It is recognized that not all companies contribute their shipment data directly into the Association’s statistical program. As a result of this, a consensus is reached based on a detailed review of both actual and import data, and a percentage of the overall market represented by the CAMA members is assigned in the program. This factor is then applied to extrapolate a total industry number. For example, in 2010 a 93% expansion factor was used for Dishwashers. In other words, CAMA members represent 93% of the total Dishwasher market in Canada, and an additional 7% is added to their aggregate input to produce the total industry number used in this publication. Industry Audit In 2010 CAMA launched a “review and audit” project for the CAMA Statistical Reporting Program. The key objective of the review was to confirm the accuracy and integrity of the reports being produced within the program. A multi-layered review took place consisting of • Internal audit of CAMA Reporting Processes • Detailed, external onsite audits with the manufacturers The results of the official audit have shown that the membership has confidence in the numbers and the statistical information produced by CAMA was deemed to be an accurate reflection of the industry.

 2002

he Major Appliance Industry Trends publication has been issued on an annual basis for almost 40 years. Developed by the member companies of CAMA, this publication pulls together relevant statistical information on the appliance industry from a variety of sources. Import data and saturation levels are compiled and released by Statistics Canada. Natural Resources Canada and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) in the US have also been kind enough to allow us to excerpt information from their own publications. The unit sales historical data, provincial sales, feature trends, and seasonality charts are extracted directly out of the CAMA monthly program. In short, CAMA members submit their unit shipments, on a confidential basis, using a specified format of feature categories and regions, agreed upon at an annual Market Research Committee meeting. From here, the members’ information is amalgamated in our confidential database and the industry results compiled for the month. The unit shipment data includes sales by Canadian Manufacturers and Importers and/or their branches and distributors to retailers, builders, government agencies, and other consumers, but excluding sales to other CAMA companies. Members report Canadian Sales only. Exports from Canada are excluded. Members report both retail and builder unit sales on a monthly basis.

Builder Sales include those to Home Builders, Motels, Governments, Row House Builders, Trailer Manufacturers, Property Management, and Apartment House Builders.

 Starts  Completions

220,000

Reporting Methodology

2003 2004 2005

2006

2007

2008 2009 2010 2011F

Industry 201 1 Overview

Major Appliance Industry Trends and Facts

2010

2011 presents similar growth opportunity with advancements in SMART appliances, next-generation Energy and Water efficiency standards, environmental sustainability and innovations to enhance the quality of life for our customers. CAMA members are proud to be Canadian and help support Canadians at home and in their communities.

represented a return to growth for the Canadian Appliance Industry. Over five million major appliance units were shipped in 2010 ( T7 ) for the first time since 2007. Canadian appliance history was also made with over three million major appliance units shipped in Kitchen. In 2010, members delivered more efficient and productive appliance solutions to Canadians than at any time in CAMAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history.

Major Appliance History - Unit Shipments (000s) 2005

2006

%Ch

2007

%Ch

2008

%Ch

2009

%Ch

2010

%Ch

5,944

6,613

11.3%

6,929

4.8%

6,890

-0.6%

6,552

-4.9%

6,899

5.3%

Major Appliance Industry Historical Shipments 1990-2010 Units (000s) 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 90

Year Includes: Full Size Refrigerators, Freezers, Electric & Gas Ranges, Cooktops, Laundry Products, Dishwashers, Microwave Ovens

Industry Summary Units (000s) Refrigerators

2004

2005

%Ch

2006

%Ch

2007

%Ch

2008

%Ch

2009

%Ch

2010

%Ch

Full Size - Retail

846

923

9.1%

960

4.0%

1,049

9.3%

1,062

1.2%

1,018

-4.1%

1,036

1.8%

Full Size - Builder

182

176

-3.3%

199

13.1%

190

-4.5%

180

-5.3%

154

-14.4%

146

-5.2%

6.9%

1,159

5.5%

1,239

6.9%

1,242

0.2%

1,172

-5.6%

1,182

0.9%

Total Refrigerators Electric Ranges

Gas Ranges

Electric - Retail

610

625

2.5%

662

5.9%

693

4.7%

707

2.0%

660

-6.6%

742

12.4%

Electric - Builder

163

161

-1.2%

177

9.9%

168

-5.1%

154

-8.3%

141

-8.4%

145

2.8%

Total Electric

773

786

1.7%

839

6.7%

861

2.6%

861

0.0%

801

-7.0%

887

10.7%

Gas - Retail

5.0%

6.3%

26.9%

-4.7%

-2.5%

15.2%

Gas - Builder

20.0%

-8.3%

18.2%

-7.7%

-16.7%

-24.0%

Total Gas

7.1%

4.0%

25.6%

-5.1%

-4.3%

10.8%

843

861

2.1%

917

6.5%

959

4.6%

954

-0.5%

890

-6.7%

986

10.7%

Total Ranges Top Load Washers

1,028 1,099

Retail

328

366

11.6%

Builder

-35.1%

385

403

4.7%

531

545

2.6%

4.2%

555

570

2.7%

Total Top Load Front Load Washers

Reported as total washers only, prior to 2009

Retail Builder Total Front Load

Total Washers

Electric Dryers

Gas Dryers

Dishwashers

SUB TOTAL

Retail

726

765

5.4%

835

9,2%

859

2,9%

867

0.9%

859

0.9%

911

6.1%

Builder

6.0%

-3.4%

7.0%

0.0%

-12.0%

-23.5%

Total Washers

810

854

5.4%

921

7.8%

951

3.3%

959

0.8%

940

-2.0%

973

3.5%

Retail

614

661

7.7%

713

7.9%

749

5.0%

758

1.2%

749

-1.2%

793

5.9%

Builder

6.7%

-2.5%

6.4%

1.2%

-14.3%

-20.8%

Total Electric

689

741

7.5%

791

6.7%

832

5.2%

842

1.2%

821

-2.5%

850

3.5%

Retail

-4.5%

0.0%

14.3%

0.0%

-20.8%

10.5%

Builder

0.0%

33.3%

-25.0%

-33.3%

-0.0%

0.0%

Total Gas

-4.0%

4.2%

8.0%

-3.7%

-19.2%

9.5%

Total Dryers

714

765

7.1%

816

6.7%

859

5.3%

868

1.0%

842

-3.0%

873

3.7%

Retail

546

581

6.4%

612

5.3%

689

12.6%

660

-4.2%

616

-6.7%

687

11.5%

Builder

5.6%

4.3%

103

5.1%

100

-2.9%

-10.0%

-7.8%

Total Dishwashers

635

675

6.3%

710

5.2%

792

11.5%

760

-4.0%

706

-7.1%

770

9.1%

Retail

3,424

3,639

6.3%

3,870

6.3%

4,148

7.2%

4,159

0.3%

4,000

-3.8%

4,281

7.0%

Builder

606

615

1.5%

653

6.2%

652

-0.2%

624

-4.3%

550

-11.9%

503

-8.6%

4,254

5.6%

4,523

6.3%

4,800

6.1%

4,783

-0.4%

4,550

-4.9%

4,784

5.1%

322

325

0.9%

325

0.0%

325

0.0%

315

-3.1%

310

-1.6%

365

17.7%

1,092

1,300

19.0%

1,690

30.0%

1,750

3.6%

1,737

-0.7%

1,642

-5.5%

1,696

3.3%

66.7%

15.4%

-28.0%

1.9%

-9.1%

8.0%

5,329

9.3%

5,960

11.8%

6,277

5.3%

6,266

-0.2%

6,002

-4.2%

6,396

6.6%

615

1.5%

653

6.2%

652

-0.2%

624

-4.3%

550

-11.9%

503

-8.6%

5,944

8.4%

6,613

11.3%

6,929

4.8%

6,890

-0.6%

6,552

-4.9%

6,899

5.3%

Total 4,030 Freezers Microwave Ovens Electric/Gas Cooktops

Retail 4,877 GRAND TOTAL

Builder

606

Total 5,483

Update on Freezer numbers: Freezer data is based strictly on estimated volumes prior to 2010. 2010 data is based on actual CAMA input.

The Canadian Appliance Industry and Sustainability By: Chris Ainger, Director of Research, Electro-Federation Canada; Jeff Newton, Partner, Corporate Policy Group LLP; and Richard Martel, Vice President, Technical Services, Consumer, Electro-Federation Canada

AMA and its member companies have always recognized the importance of improving the efficiency of the appliances they produce and also minimizing their impact on Canada’s environment. The major appliance industry is moving beyond efficiency and taking a broader view of sustainability and the role of the appliance in the environment. The overall goal is to provide meaningful environmental information about appliances and drive the development of new models with improved environmental performance.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY For more than two decades, the industry and government regulatory bodies have co-operated in defining minimum standards for the energy efficiency of major household appliances. Improvement in Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) These standards are constantly under review and have been raised over the years to increase energy efficiency further. In addition, the industry has invested greatly in research and development programs to improve the energy consumption of appliances over and above that mandated by the Canadian regulations. This research and the rising energy efficiency standards have resulted in a considerable reduction in the average household energy consumption of appliances.

AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF APPLIANCES SHIPPED IN 1990 AND 2009 IN kWh/YEAR

REDUCTION IN WATER CONSUMPTION IN DISHWASHERS SHIPPED BETWEEN 1990 AND 2009 Year

1990

1995

2000

2005

2009

% Change 1990 - 2009

Hot Water Used Per Cycle (Litres)

29.51

31.22

26.76

22.16

18.50

(37.3%)

For washers, we have data on water consumption since 2005 from the EnerGuide Appliance Directory1, issued annually by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). This shows water consumption as the number of litres used for each litre of tub capacity. The following chart shows the average consumption of every model listed in that year’s directory.

REDUCTION IN WATER CONSUMPTION IN CLOTHES WASHER MODELS LISTED IN THE NRCAN ENERGUIDE APPLIANCE DIRECTORY FROM 2005 TO 2010 Year Average Water Used in Litres per Cycle for each Litre of Tub Size

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

% Change 2005 2010

1990

2009

% Change

Refrigerators

956

430

55.0%

Freezers

714

357

50.0%

1,026

325

68.4%

772

518

33.0%

ENERGY STAR®

Clothes Washers

1,218

234

80.8%

Clothes Dryers

1,103

921

16.5%

Total

5,788

2,785

51.9%

The Energy Star® program has played a vital role in moving consumers to buying more efficient appliances. In 2001, the Government of Canada signed an administrative agreement with the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the US Department of Energy (US DOE) to administer the Energy Star® program in Canada. Energy Star® is a voluntary labelling program (not regulatory) designed to identify and promote the most energy-efficient products in the marketplace. NRCan is the administrator for the program and manages all aspects of the program in Canada.

Dishwashers Ranges

The above chart illustrates the improvement in energy efficiency since 1990. The average household would use about a half the amount of electricity if it were using the most up-to-date appliances compared to one using appliances bought in 1990. 1

Water Conservation The industry has also improved the overall water consumption of dishwashers and clothes washers over the years, which has both an impact on the energy consumption and the environment as a whole.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/appliances/2010/

1.45

1.29

1.16

1.14

1.09

0.82

(43.4%)

ENERGY STAR® PENETRATION IN CANADIAN HOUSEHOLDS (PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SHIPMENTS) 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Refrigerators

36.9%

40.0%

35.4%

34.8% 42.5% 53.2% 57.6%

Dishwashers

48.9%

76.0%

89.0%

92.2% 85.8% 94.4% 95.5%

Clothes Washers

24.0%

34.5%

42.2%

45.1% 56.4% 64.3% 69.1%

The above chart shows how well the Energy Star® program has been accepted by the Canadian industry and consumers. In 2010, the percentage of Energy Star® appliances is higher than ever, even though there have been increases in both the regulated MEPS and the Energy Star® specifications over the period.

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY The industry has accepted the challenge to improve efficiency in energy and water requirements in its products. It is also addressing the aspect of sustainability in the life cycles of appliances beginning with refrigerators and freezers as well as portable/floor care appliances. This will examine the overall impact on the environment of the total life cycle of the appliance from raw materials, through manufacturing and production, energy consumption, performance and eventual end-of-life disposal. This effort is intended to provide an objective and practical measurement tool to assist the public in evaluating the sustainability of home appliances. The North American marketplace for appliances is essentially an integrated one. CAMA has been working closely with AHAM (the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers) in the US and other stakeholders to develop and promote these initiatives in support of sustainability. Manufacturers, governments and standards development organizations have historically co-operated in many ways to ensure that standards are decently harmonized across the entire market. CAMA will be working with the federal and provincial authorities as well as with development standards organizations to promote the proposed changes within this country. 2

1 quad is approximately 293 billion Kilowatt-hours (kWh)

AHAM / ACEEE - Energy Efficient and Smart Appliance Agreement of 2010 In July 2010, AHAM reached a joint Agreement with the ACEEE (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy) and other energy efficiency advocates in the US. This multi-product agreement will deliver substantial energy and water savings to the US consumer through the improvement of traditional energy and water standards and through the addition of incentives for super-efficient appliances as well as for the recognition of the benefits derived from the deployment of Smart Appliances. The stakeholders have jointly submitted this Agreement and the specific recommendations to the Department of Energy (DOE), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Congress for their consideration and adoption as future energy and water efficiency standards. These new proposed energy efficiency and water consumption limits would bring significant energy and water savings in the US. If adopted in Canada, these new standards will also bring considerable benefits to the Canadian consumer. • In the US, it is estimated that about 9 quads2 of energy will be saved over a period of 30 years. Proportionally, similar energy savings can be expected in Canada if the same proposals are implemented. The US consumes approximately 100 quads per year while Canada is estimated to consume about 13 quads per year. Canada can save up to 1 quad of energy over the same period of time under such agreement. • About 5 trillion fewer gallons (US) of water for dishwashers and clothes washers over 30 years. That is the equivalent of the current water usage of every customer in the City of Los Angeles for 25 years. In 2009, the dishwashers and clothes washers shipped in Canada were approximately 12% of the total US shipments. In 2010 extrapolating for Canada, this would represent 600 billion gallons (US) of water savings. 66.0% • In the US, this agreement will contribute to reduce greenhouse 97.3% gas emissions (CO2) by approximately 550 million metric tons over 30 years. That is the same as taking 100 million of today’s 71.7% typical cars off the road for one year. Although the power generation mix is different in Canada, we should still expect a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emission.

The proposals for specific appliances are: Refrigerator/Freezers: Refrigerators will contribute approximately 47% of the total energy reduction over the 30-year period. Effective in 2014, the current performance standards for major product categories will be 20% to 30% more stringent. In addition, a new test procedure for the measurement of ice-maker energy will be developed by AHAM and DOE for implementation a few years later, and a new category will be recognized for the built-in style refrigerators. Clothes Washers: It is expected clothes washers will bring more than 75% of the total water savings and will contribute 14% of the total energy reduction over the 30-year period. There will be different standards for top-loaders and frontloaders. In average, clothes washers will reduce their energy and their water consumption by 40%. • The standard size top-loading washer will see its minimum energy factor (MEF) (cu.ft./kWh per cycle) and its maximum water factor (WF) (gal./cycle per cubic foot) changed in 2015 from 1.26 (MEF) and 9.5 (WF) to 1.72 and 8.0, respectively. The MEF and WF will then be further improved in 2018. • The standard size front-loading washer will see its MEF and WF changed to 2.2 and 4.5, respectively by 2015. No change is planned for 2018. In addition, there will be changes in MEF and WF for compact top-loading and front-loading washers.

10 Clothes Dryers: Effective January 1st, 2015, the efficiency standards for clothes dryers will be improved by 5%. In addition, it is proposed to modify the testing procedure to address effectiveness of the auto termination control of the cycle. A more stringent energy efficiency standard combined with the change to the testing procedure will contribute more than 13% of the total energy reduction over the 30-year period. Dishwashers: Dishwasher energy efficiency will be improved by 14% and water usage will be reduced by 23% in 2013. Dishwashers will contribute approximately 9% of the total water savings over 30 years. Room Air Conditioners: The new standards introduced in 2014 will result in a 10-15% improvement in energy efficiency. Room air conditioners will bring a 9% total energy reduction over 30 years. Substantial efforts were undertaken by AHAM, ACEEE and other major energy and water efficiency organizations to develop and recommend new energy and water efficiency standards for major appliances in the US. In Canada, the legislative and regulatory authorities could largely benefit from this development work by adopting the new standards proposed in this Agreement. Such adoption will also support the philosophy of having harmonized standards in North America. CAMA is promoting the AHAM/ACEEE Agreement in Canada and is working toward its endorsement by federal and provincial governments. CAMA and AHAM have jointly conducted review of the Agreement with NRCan, the Ontario Ministry of Energy and the British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Further discussion will take place in Canada as the proposed specific product standards are being endorsed and adopted by the US Department of Energy (DOE). The goal is to have fully harmonized energy efficiency standards in North America.

Smart Appliances and Smart Grid In establishing policy on the development of a Smart Grid in the US, the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 requires integration of Smart Appliances and consumer devices that can interact with the Smart Grid. The term “Smart Grid” refers to a distribution system that allows for flow of information from a customer’s meter in two directions: both inside the house to thermostats, appliances, and other devices, and from the house back to the utility. This law also requires that US consumers be provided with timely information and options for controlling energy use. Many countries are now actively supporting the development of Smart Grid and Smart Appliances. According to a report issued by Zpryme Research & Consulting in 2010, China leads in total Smart Grid stimulus funding with $7.3 billion followed by the United States at $7.1 billion, Japan, South Korea, Spain and Germany. However, the US comes first in terms of total stimulus per capita. Canada does not rank in the top ten countries for stimulus funding. The report also stipulates that the global household Smart Appliance market will grow from $3 billion to $15 billion from 2011 to 2015. In 2015, the majority of global Smart Appliances should be comprised of smart clothes washers, smart refrigerators, and smart clothes dryers. These three products should account for nearly 60% of the global household Smart Appliance sales in 2015. Per the AHAM Smart Grid White Paper issued in December 2009, the term “Smart Appliance” with respect to the Smart Grid refers to a modernization of the electricity usage system of a home appliance so that it monitors, protects and automatically adjusts its operation to the needs of its owner.

When connected through a Home Area Network (HAN) and/or controlled via a Home Energy Management System (HEMS), Smart Appliances allow for a “total home energy usage” approach. This enables the consumer to develop their own energy usage profile and use the data according to how it best benefits them. Smart Appliances will have the ability to receive dynamic electricity pricing information from utilities and adjust the demand of electrical energy use consequently. They also can respond to utility signals and contribute to managing the peak electricity demand and save energy in providing reminders to the consumer to move usage to a time of the day when electricity prices are lower, or automatically “shed” or reduce usage based on the consumer’s previously established guidelines. They also can leverage features to use renewable energy by shifting power usage to an optimal time for renewable energy generation or deal with the intermittent nature of renewables such as wind and solar. In all cases the Smart Appliance will always allow the consumer the option to override a power reduction command, if the consumer desires. The Smart Appliances are expected to play a major role in helping utilities to efficiently manage energy distribution while providing the consumer with opportunities to save on energy bills. The industry believes that the incorporation of incentives for Smart Grid-enabled appliances will increase the deployment of these products on the market. Early this year, AHAM and other efficiency organizations together submitted a petition to the Energy Star® program to recognize the benefits of Smart Appliances interacting with the Smart Grid. The petition urges the Energy Star® program to incorporate a five percent credit to the energy performance level required to meet Energy Star® eligibility criteria for Smart Grid-enabled appliances. AHAM and CAMA are very interested in the development of the Smart Grid and related policies. This is an extremely complex system where seamless integration is the key to turning the Smart Grid vision into a reality. Standards and protocols for communications with Smart Appliances must be open and limited in number across all utility districts. This will allow appliance manufacturers to produce for a North American marketplace. In the US, AHAM is currently engaged in a number of Smart Grid-related groups and works closely with other stakeholder groups on the development of the Smart Grid to ensure standards and technologies are in place to make sure the use of Smart Appliances are universal. AHAM also serves as a member of the US Technical Advisory Group to IEC Strategic Group 3 on Smart Grid. Several political and technical challenges will need to be overcome in Canada and in the US to make Smart Appliances a reality for the consumer. CAMA will support AHAM’s unique perspective to the Smart Grid Vision and, jointly with EFC, will engage in the development of the Smart Grid in Canada to promote and ensure compatibility of future deployment of Smart Appliances.

Sustainability Standards for Home Appliances AHAM is working with two major North American standards organizations to develop voluntary sustainability standards for home appliances. Its partners are CSA (Canadian Standards Association) and UL (Underwriters Laboratories) Environment. The project is managed by Five Winds International, an internationally-recognized sustainability consulting firm. CAMA is working closely with the participants as this project evolves. As part of the standards development process, the group will engage a cross‐section of stakeholders to ensure that the standard is both credible and compatible with existing government, industry and retailer initiatives. The group is currently developing sustainability standards for refrigeration and portable/floor care products. The development of these standards is taking a multi-attribute, total life-cycle approach in order to provide the marketplace with a meaningful

11 metric that will (1) avoid unintended trade-offs of environmental burdens; (2) harmonize existing sustainability standards; (3) give appliance manufacturers an incentive and guidance to design environmentally preferable products. These standards will consist of attributes, criteria and metric. Together these will establish consistent requirements for environmental preferable appliances. These standards are intended to assist governments, retailers and other interested parties as well as the general public to identify environmentally-responsible products. CAMA is committed to playing an active role in building standards for the appliance industry to support an environmentally sound and sustainable future in Canada.

Extended Producer Responsibility While issues related to a product’s design, manufacture and operation/ application during its useful life are important components in the sustainability equation, so too is the question of how a product is managed at the end of its useful life. The end-of-life management of products – recycling as it is commonly called – has received significant regulatory attention by governments across Canada and around the globe in the last decade. Motivated by shrinking landfill capacity, rising municipal waste management costs and concerns about the disposal of potentially useful and valuable resources, governments have moved to enact laws that obligate product producers to collect and recycle their products at end-of-life. This practice of making product producers financially and operationally responsible for collecting and recycling of their end-of-life products has been termed “Extended Producer Responsibility” or EPR. Simply put, recycling programs established by product producers in response to these EPR laws are intended to ensure sustainable end-of-life management. In Canada, although EPR laws have been passed in virtually all provinces, the implementation of those laws is at varying stages of implementation. In the product category of Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE), the category in which both major and portable appliances are typically grouped, EPR laws have been passed in 7 of 10 provinces. To date, these EPR laws for WEEE have focused primarily on consumer electronics (e.g. TVs, A/V and cell phones) and computers. The Province of British Columbia however has recently expanded its EPR law and will be the first province to include products in the home appliances industry. BC’s Recycling Regulation requires, as of April 1, 2011 that each producer or first importer of portable and floor care appliances either establish and operate their own end-of-life recycling program for the products they sell into the BC market, or join a collectively managed recycling program called a Stewardship Agency.

Portables & Floor Care – EPR To assist its members in complying with the BC EPR law, CAMA has played a lead role in the creation of a Stewardship Agency to manage the recycling of portable and floor care appliances on behalf of product producers and first importers. This Stewardship Agency, known as the Canadian Electrical Stewardship Agency (CESA), has received approval for its recycling plan from the BC government and has been working aggressively over the past year to create a comprehensive collection and recycling network, to recruit members, and to prepare for its April 1, 2011 program launch. As a federallyincorporated body, CESA is positioned to expand to other Canadian provinces should governments in those provinces expand the scope of their EPR laws to include portable and floor care appliances. In this way, CESA is positioning itself to play an important role in assisting portable and floor care appliance manufacturers in addressing the last component in the sustainable product equation – end-of-life management.

White Goods – EPR through a Market-Driven System While a CESA-like solution may be an appropriate approach to ensure the sustainable management of end-of-life portable and floor care appliances, it is unlikely to be the optimum approach for major household appliances (“White Goods”). End-of-life White Goods, like end-of-life automobiles, don’t typically find their way into North American landfills. The reason end-of-life White Goods aren’t land-filled is because the value of their component materials (i.e. primarily the ferrous and non-ferrous metals) is substantial enough that the products can actually be recycled for a profit. It is this characteristic of end-of-life White Goods that has given rise to a market-driven recycling industry. Recyclers know they can profitably collect and recycle White Goods and so they seek them out in the market, collect them and process them for their metal value. In mid-2007, the Canadian Appliance Manufacturers Association (CAMA) contracted with SBR International Inc. to undertake a detailed study of the market-driven White Goods recycling system in Ontario. The SBR study found that 95 to 99 percent of end-of-life White Goods are collected for recycling and 83 to 89 percent of component materials are diverted from landfills. These collection and diversion rates were found to be among the highest in the world and were achieved through a complex, yet flexible, system of collectors, including retailers and municipalities, consolidators and pre-processors, processors (metal shredders and balers), and end markets (principally, Ontario-based steel mills). The positive value of end-of-life White Goods makes them rather unique when compared to the other products for which governments have been mandating regulated end-of-life EPR programs to date. For the vast majority of these other products (e.g. consumer packaging, televisions, household chemicals and cleaners, etc.) the cost to collect the product and process it so its component materials can be extracted for future use, significantly exceeds the value of those component materials. As a result, these products can’t be profitably recycled and therefore no businesses in the free market are motivated to collect and recycle them and a market-driven recycling system does not exist. For these types of “negative value” products a traditional EPR model, wherein product producers pay to have their products collected and recycled through a Stewardship Agency, may be appropriate. However, this traditional EPR approach seems highly ill-suited for products that have a positive recycling value (e.g. White Goods), and where market-driven recycling activity is already occurring. In these circumstances a more prudent approach for government regulators and industry would be to carefully research and evaluate the market-driven recycling system that exists to determine if it already meets the underlying EPR policy objectives. If the system is found to be meeting those objectives, it should be left to operate subject to periodic review to ensure its continued effectiveness. Where such market-driven systems are found to not meet relevant EPR objectives, then targeted interventions to address short-comings or market failures should be considered. In conclusion, the power and effectiveness of market-driven economies are clearly evident in the performance numbers of the White Goods recycling system. Likewise, the positive value end-of-life characteristic of these products makes them highly sustainable when it comes of end-of-life management. As governments begin to extend the application of EPR policies to products with positive recycling value like White Goods, CAMA’s position is that we need to consider adopting new EPR approaches, in particular ones that build on and supplement the power, flexibility and efficiency of existing markets, rather than duplicating or replacing them.

Trends and Overview:

Canadian Appliance Service Industry

By: Jeff Miller, Executive Director, IMR, Electro-Federation Canada

Who is IMR?

he Installation, Maintenance and Repair (IMR) Sector Council, a council of Electro-Federation Canada, is led by dedicated champions from industry, education and the workforce, who collectively address the human resources challenges in the consumer electronics and appliance installation, maintenance and repair service industry. IMR is a self-funded, not-for-profit organization. As an Industry Sector Council, IMR addresses key strategic workforce issues and workforce planning initiatives, such as human resources challenges facing this sector, including: • an aging workforce • issues related to recruiting and retaining human resources • a lack of awareness of career opportunities • a limited number of entry-level and upgrade training programs • outdated training and occupational standards • the pace of change in technology and products • the changing skills profiles required by new entrants IMR has relationships with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), many industry provincial advisory councils, and is a partner with the Alliance of Sector Councils of Canada. IMR also has strong relationships with those schools offering technical training, and strategic partnership with Marcone/AP Wagner Parts. IMR is one of four councils operating under the Electro-Federation Canada (EFC) banner. This inclusion allows IMR to learn from, and leverage, the capabilities of EFC in support of our membership, particularly as it relates to the servicing and repair of residential household appliances and consumer electronics. IMR member companies include: • Manufacturers • Product Distributors and/or Retailers • Extended Warranty Companies • Parts Distributors • Product Installers, Maintenance and/or Repair Service Companies

IMR members include companies such as: Electrolux, Mabe, Sears Canada Inc, Transglobal Service, Quick Contractors.com, Marcone/AP Wagner Parts, Reliable Parts, NEW Corp., Westpeak Electronics, VRS Systems, and many more Members of IMR see value in many ways: • Discounts on Service Order Forms • Discounts on training events/Webinars • Free subscription to the Canadian edition of Marcone World Magazine • Discounts on parts • Active participation on government relations committees and councils that provide direction on key industry issues • Connections and interactions with other key players within the industry • Access to important industry statistics and trends

Average Age of Technicians 40% 30%

31%

33% 27%

20% 10%

0% Over 60

50 - 59

40 - 49

Under 39

Industry Trends Labour Force Trends IMR has conducted multiple labour market studies over the past few years. The data collected in these studies is consistent, and from an industry perspective, quite alarming. The studies suggest that over 50% of the technician workforce is over the age of 50, with over 30% being over the age of 60. Over 35% of

13 Red Seal Course Content

Mechanical Systems 17%

Electrical and Electronic 25% 6%

Water Systems 14% 9%

Air Systems

Removal and Installation

9% Refrigeration 16%

Occupational Skills Gas Systems

IMR has been working with multiple provinces and HRSDC to ensure programs are brought up to date to meet ever-changing standards.

business owners have stated they intend on retiring within the next five years, with another 20% suggesting they will retire within 10 years. This trend has accelerated in the rural markets of Canada. Large urban markets – such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal – are starting to see stress; mid-sized urban markets are further stressed, and rural markets are becoming a major issue for the industry. This trend has the potential of significantly impacting not just the service industry, but the retail industry and the manufacturers as well. It has the potential to significantly drive up service costs, increase returns and product replacement rates, and escalate the amount of materials being scrapped – creating further environmental challenges, and most importantly, increases in the level of frustration and dissatisfaction of the customer.

Market Distribution Percentage of Technician over the Age of 50

Large Urban 30%

Urban 33%

Rural 37%

Product Trends The industry has seen significant changes in the last few years. Two major shifts are taking place: one is that much of the “Mid-level Quality” product is shifting to either “High-end”, high-quality product, or to “Low-budget” product. The high-end product has become more expensive and more complex to repair. The budget appliances are often now the subject of replacement versus repair, due to the cost of parts and service. Also, with the introduction on electronics into products, the nature of repair has further changed; a shift from being a significantly “mechanicallydriven” repair process to one that is more centred on diagnostic skills and electronic and electrical repair. This is changing the skill level requirements of the technicians.

Technician Education Attracting and developing entry-level technicians has been an industry issue for over a decade. IT has started to reach a critical level of importance to the industry. Kwantlen Polytechnic University in British Columbia and the Southern Alberta Institute of Training (SAIT) have been developing close to 30 technicians per year for many years now. Other provinces have not had a formal entry-level training program in place. IMR was successful in 2009 in partnering with the Pre-Apprenticeship Training Institute in Ontario and have been successful in introducing over 30 new technicians into the market. This has provided muchneeded support for the Ontario market. IMR is currently working with the Winnipeg Technical College to launch a new program in Manitoba beginning in September 2011. This will greatly support yet another province in Canada! IMR has also been successful in providing upgrade training sessions with manufacturers such as Electrolux, Bosch, Mabe and Samsung. These have been excellent opportunities for existing technicians to learn new products and repair techniques. These hands-on training sessions allow technicians to learn from the manufacturer. This is one of the few chances for technicians in Canada to actually connect with the manufacturer and learn from their expert guidance and support. The Appliance Service industry is vital in the Canadian marketplace. It supports consumers and businesses alike. This is one of the few industries in Canada that is likely to be needed at one time or another in every home in Canada. The manufacturer and retailers are dependent on a strong service network to support their products and their brand. The industry is in great need of companies and individuals that have an interest in ensuring the appliance industry remains a fabric of the Canadian economy. IMR wishes to reach out to all service companies and other companies that are part of the industry for support and participation, ensuring the long-term health of the service industry in Canada. For more information, please visit www.imrsectorcouncil.ca or call 1-866-602-8877.

Refrigerators 201 1

Major Appliance Industry Trends and Facts

010 marked something new in CAMA history for this major category, as the expansion factor has been transitioned to 97% from 86%. This has come out of agreement from all stakeholders that the refrigeration market in Canada was overstated, and that the expansion factor change should even apply back to 2009.

The bottom freezer configuration models once again shined at 38.8% of the Canadian full-size refrigeration market, and of that 3-plus-door versions (also known as French Door models) exploded by a whopping 94.6% over 2009 levels. We expect the 3-plus-door market to continue to gain momentum at the expense of sideby-side models and some larger 2-door bottom freezer models, and look for 4-door French Door models to gather further steam in the market.

The industry finished the year at around 1.18M units, virtually flat from the 2009 level of 1.17M shipments. Obviously, the 2009 numbers are still based on 86% expansion factor, so if applied, a more reasonable expansion factor to 2009 unexpanded numbers, growth rate for 2010 against 2009 might be more robust than 0.9%.

Energy efficiency, more stylish design, functional features, more technological elements built in to the products, and prices that are becoming more affordable to end users, will continue to dominate calendar year 2011 in this category.

Continuing the trend of 2009, top freezers and sideby-side models continued to stay flat or decline. Top freezers up until the mid 2000s, made up well over 60-70% of the total full-size market, but beginning in 2008, its portion of the Canadian market plummeted to the mid-to-low 50s. Side-by-sides sustained the low teens percentage points, but in 2010, has dropped to a low of 7.5% of the total Canadian market, and we expect the decline to continue.

Stainless steel will continue to reign in the high-end segments and lead the way in overall kitchen package sales, where either a refrigerator or range invariably play a central role. Finally, more product innovation and greater design at increasingly better value will drive 2011, with consumers ultimately becoming winners.

Refrigerator Historical Unit Shipments (000s) 2005

2006

%Ch

2007

%Ch

2008

%Ch

2009

%Ch

2010

%Ch

Full Size - Retail

923

960

4.0%

1,049

9.3%

1,062

1.2%

1,018

-4.1%

1,036

1.8%

Full Size - Builder

176

199

13.1%

190

-4.5%

180

-5.3%

154

-14.4%

146

-5.2%

1,099

1,159

5.5%

1,239

6.9%

1,242

0.2%

1,172

-5.6%

1,182

0.9%

Total

Refrigerator Historical Shipments 1985-2010 Units (000s) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Year

09 10

15 Refrigerator - Distribution of Sales by Province 2010 Atlantic

4.5%

Quebec

27.6%

Ontario

38.2%

Manitoba

2.9%

Saskatchewan

1.9%

Alberta

16.8%

British Columbia

8.2%

Total Canada

Refrigerator Features Trends 100%

17.5% 12.0%

75%

18.6%

23.2%

12.9%

11.9%

25% 0

100.0%

2005

68.5%

2006

34.4%

34.0%

10.7%

9.2%

■ Side by Side ■ Bottom Freezer

21.5%

50% 70.5%

■ Top Freezer

17.3%

64.9%

56.8%

54.9%

2007

2008

2009

■ Two Door Bottom Mount

7.5%

■ Three+ Door Bottom Mount

53.7%

2010

Refrigerator Feature Trends As of a Percentage of Market 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Top Freezer (including One Door)

70.5%

68.5%

64.9%

54.9%

56.8%

53.7%

Side by Side

12.0%

12.9%

11.9%

10.7%

9.2%

7.5% 21.5% 17.3%

Two Door Bottom Mount

17.5%

18.6%

23.2%

34.4%

34.0%

100.0%

Three+ Door Bottom Mount Total

100.0%

Features as a Percentage of Total

Refrigerator Seasonality 2005-09

2010

January

5.8%

5.7%

February

5.8%

6.0%

March

7.2%

7.8%

18.8%

19.5%

7.3%

6.9%

Q1 April

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

May

8.7%

8.2%

10.2%

Through-the-door ice

8.4%

9.1%

9.7%

8.7%

7.7%

10.3%

June

Built-In

1.5%

0.3%

26.2%

25.3%

Counter Depth

3.1%

3.0%

4.7%

7.4%

7.0%

6.6%

July

10.4%

10.3%

Internal Water Filtration

11.5%

13.6%

15.2%

11.7%

13.8%

16.6%

August

10.3%

9.6%

10.0%

30.3%

30.6%

October

8.9%

8.0%

November

8.2%

8.4%

French Doors

n/a

11.2%

10.1%

17.3%

September

Energy Star®

35.4%

34.8%

42.5%

52.5%

57.6%

66.0%

Refrigerator Seasonality (2005-2009 vs. 2010)  2005-09  2010

10% 8% 6% 4%

   

 

       

December



  

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

34.5%

35% 28.4%

30%

31.4% 27.4% 27.5% 26.7%

24.8%

25%

CANADA

17.5%

15% 10% 5% 0%

ATL

Source: Statistics Canada 62F0041

TOTAL

8.2%

24.7%

24.6%

Total Year

100.0%



   

Refrigerator Saturation 2009 - Two or More

20%



7.6%

Refrigeration Saturation 2005 - 2009 – Two or More Percentage of total households with two or more refrigerators 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Atlantic

16.8%

18.2%

18.0%

16.6%

17.5%

Quebec

23.0%

23.3%

25.7%

25.0%

24.8%

Ontario

27.7%

29.3%

29.4%

27.1%

28.4%

Manitoba

29.5%

27.8%

30.6%

31.4%

Saskatchewan

36.6%

36.1%

33.0%

35.6%

34.5%

Alberta

27.4%

27.5%

26.9%

28.5%

27.4%

British Columbia

23.7%

24.5%

24.8%

24.6%

27.5%

Total Canada

25.4% 26.3% 26.8% 26.1% 26.7%

Total Households (000s)

12,587 12,756 12,985 13,164 13,417

Refrigerators 201 1 Refrigerator Imports Units (000s)  Refrigerators Regular  Refrigerators Compact 1,800

Refrigerator - Sales by Type - 2010

1,600

Side by Side 7.5%

1,400

1,492

1,557

1,571

1,562 1,409

1,371

1,200 1,000

Top Freezer (One Door) 53.7%

800

Two Door Bottom Mount 21.5%

600 400

Three+ Door Bottom Mount 17.3%

200 0

2005

2006

2007

Source: Statistics Canada 65007

Full Size Refrigeration Capacity Trends - 2010 Percentage of Sales by Size and Type Size (cu.ft.) 6.512.4 12.516.4 16.5 18.4 18.5 19.4 19.5 22.4 22.5 24.9 25.0 26.9 27.0 & Over Total

Top Freezer

Side By Side

Two Door Bottom Freezer

Three+ Door Bottom Freezer

66.8%

45.5%

13.3% 13.1% 62.1%

34.2%

32.9% 11.4%

36.2% 54.5% 25.0%

0.2%

4.7% 100.0%

100.0%

2008

2009

2010

17 Refrigerator Imports Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Refrigerators Regular

Refrigerators Compact

Total Household Refrigerators

Other Absorbent Types

Units

1,125,925

245,699

1,371,624

19,508

$(000)

$561,404

$28,240

$589,644

$9,738

Units

1,201,065

291,212

1,492,277

19,379

$(000)

$594,097

$32,176

$626,273

$9,510

Units

1,235,970

321,949

1,557,919

55,210

$(000)

$612,052

$35,260

$647,312

$14,997

Units

1,202,585

368,730

1,571,315

22,111

$(000)

$628,631

$41,066

$669,697

$10,647

Units

1,078,788

330,802

1,409,590

36,478

$(000)

$582,654

$36,731

$619,385

$7,402

Units

1,175,154

386,993

1,562,147

33,579

$(000)

$634,449

$42,848

$677,297

$8,880

REFRIGERATOR ENERGY CONSUMPTION STORY

Refrigerator - Energy Star® Percentage of Total Shipments 70%

66.0% 

60%



57.6%

55%

Estimated Annual Household Energy and Dollar Savings if Vintage Refrigerator Replaced with Current Model

 53.2% 50%

Based on an estimated annual national average of 10 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh)

42.5%

40.0%



35.4%



35%



34.8%

30%

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Refrigerator - Energy Star ® Percentage of Total Shipments Atlantic

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

32.0%

26.5%

20.2%

22.7%

39.4%

39.9%

46.3%

Quebec

41.0%

34.9%

39.5%

44.1%

52.7%

57.9%

66.1%

Ontario

43.5%

38.2%

34.4%

45.1%

55.3%

61.2%

68.6%

Manitoba

31.8%

27.8%

24.8%

33.7%

47.9%

49.7%

52.0%

Saskatchewan

41.8%

37.7%

31.9%

32.2%

40.0%

47.5%

52.2%

Alberta

37.5%

35.1%

37.6%

46.1%

54.6%

56.3%

70.6%

British Columbia

33.6%

32.1%

28.6%

34.0%

54.5%

58.3%

62.6%

Total Canada

40.0% 35.4% 34.8% 42.5% 53.2% 57.6% 66.0%

Vintage of Refrigerator being replaced

1970s

1980s

1990s

2009

Estimated annual electricity consumption kWh in kWh of all refrigerators in use

1,726

1,300

956

430

Annual operating cost at 10 cents per kWh

$172.60

Annual kWh reduction if vintage refrigerator replaced with current model

kWh

1,296

870

526

$129.60

$87.00

$52.60

Annual savings for household if vintage refrigerator replaced with current model

$130.00 $95.60 $43.00

Home Refrigerator Energy Reduction

estimated average annual kWh consumption of all in use by decade

2,000 kWh / year

45% 40%

Since the mid-1970s appliance manufacturers have successfully reduced the energy consumption of the refrigerators they produce for Canadian homes by 75.1%. This reduction has been accomplished incrementally as new material and design ideas have been incorporated into the product. These improvements have a beneficial effect on the environment and on household energy costs.

1,500 1,000 500 CURRENT MODEL

0 1970s

1980s

1990s

2009

Refrigerator Vintage Reference: Natural Resources Canada:Consumption of Major Appliances Shipped in Canada, Trends for 1990-2008, December 2010

Freezers 201 1 F

Major Appliance Industry Trends and Facts

reezer styles have not changed much over the years; the two main style choices are chest freezers or upright. The trend has been moving from chest to upright; however there is still a need for both. The split between freezer designs is very similar to the U.S. market at 60% chest to 40% upright freezers. Uprights continue to provide convenient, easy access, and also take up far less floor space than a comparable sized chest freezer. In Canada, energy-conscious consumers can select from a wide range of Energy StarÂŽ-rated models that will offer significant cost savings over older models. In the past, freezers have been purchased based on capacity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the largest size for the available space. However with the introduction of innovative organizational features, consumers are making the purchase decisions based on how the freezer can make their life easier. From movable shelves, to enhanced lighting and door open/temperature alarms, the features make sure that any family member is able to find exactly what they are looking for, while keeping all the food frozen safely! Due to confidentiality restraints, CAMA was not able to collect actual units sold within the freezer category prior to 2010. 2009 and prior data is based on industry estimates and market insight. Even though 2010 saw an increase of over 55,000 units from 2009 achieving a 17.7% increase in sales, previous estimates may have an impact on this figure. Going forward, the freezer sales analysis will be much more reliable.

Freezer Historical Unit Shipments (000s) 2005

2006

%Ch

2007

%Ch

2008

%Ch

2009

%Ch

2010

%Ch

325

0.0%

325

0.0%

315

-3.1%

310

-1.6%

365

17.7%

Freezer Historical Shipments 1985-2010 Units (000s) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Year

19 Freezer Saturation 2009 80%

70.0%

60%

67.2%

Freezer Feature Trends - 2010

74.7%

 Chest  Upright

64.4%

48.9% 50.4%

49.5%

CANADA

40% 20% 0%

54.1%

ATL

TOTAL

100% 75%

Freezer Feature Trends - 2010 60.0%

58.0%

50%

Source: Statistics Canada 62F0041

60.0%

58.0%

Chest Upright Total Canada

25%

Canada

40.0%

42.0%

40.0%

42.0%

100.0%

31.3%

n/a

Energy Star®

Freezer Saturation 2005 - 2009

Canada

U.S.

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Atlantic

69.5%

68.8%

69.1%

69.3%

70.0%

Quebec

49.9%

46.7%

47.5%

48.8%

48.9%

Ontario

53.5%

50.1%

48.2%

50.0%

50.4%

Manitoba

72.3%

68.2%

69.7%

71.1%

67.2%

Saskatchewan

78.7%

76.5%

75.3%

75.8%

74.7%

Alberta

65.6%

66.1%

63.3%

65.0%

64.4%

British Columbia

52.7%

52.0%

50.6%

49.1%

49.5%

Total Canada

56.3%

53.9%

53.0%

54.0%

54.1%

Total Households (000s)

Estimated Annual Household Energy and Dollar Savings if Vintage Freezer Replaced with Current Model

12,587

12,756

12,985

13,164

13,417

Based on an estimated annual national average of 10 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh)

Freezer - Distribution of Sales by Province 2010 Atlantic

8.2%

Saskatchewan

2.8%

Quebec

27.0%

Alberta

19.1%

Ontario

32.7%

British Columbia

6.4%

Manitoba

3.8%

Total Canada

100.0%

Since the mid-1970s appliance manufacturers have successfully reduced the energy consumption of the freezers they produce for Canadian homes by 70.3%. This reduction has been accomplished incrementally as new material and design ideas have been incorporated into the product. These improvements have a beneficial effect on the environment and on household energy costs.

Vintage of Freezer being replaced

1970s

1980s

1990s

2009

Estimated annual electricity consumption kWh in kWh of all Freezers in use

1,200

960

714

357

Annual operating cost at 10 cents per kWh

$120.00

$96.00

Annual kWh reduction if vintage Freezer replaced with current model

kWh

843

603

357

Annual savings for household if vintage Freezer replaced with current model

84.30

$60.30

$35.70

$71.40 $35.70

Home Freezer Energy Reduction

estimated average annual kWh consumption of all in use by decade

1,500 kWh / year

Source: Statistics Canada 62F0041

Freezer Energy Consumption Story

1,000 500 CURRENT MODEL

0 1970s

1980s

1990s

2009

Freezer Vintage Reference: Natural Resources Canada:Consumption of Major Appliances Shipped in Canada, Trends for 1990-2008, December 2010

Ranges 201 1

Major Appliance Industry Trends and Facts

hipment of electric and gas ranges increased rather robustly in 2010 over 2009 (10.7% for electric and 10.8% for gas), and again growth in retail overwhelmed the slower builder market (12.4% retail vs. 2.8% builder in electric, and 15.2% retail vs. -20% builder in gas).

The cooking innovation brought by induction ranges (combining energy efficiency, fast cooking via usage of special pots/pans and ease of cleaning/safety) will continue to gain traction in the market, as more and more consumers become knowledgeable and comfortable with induction technology.

Also, despite the resumption of growth in gas ranges (as predicted last year), electric ranges continue to dominate the Canadian range market at 90% of share. One critical issue raised during a CAMA Market Research meeting was the elimination of built-in from electric ranges, and creating an independent category for built-in wall ovens in the near future. The inclusion of built-ins inflated the overall electric range market size by almost 55,000 units in 2010, so hopefully some reshuffling of data management in the range category will provide better clarity of the picture of the market.

Slide-in ranges, with controls and knobs on the façade of the range, continue to gain popularity among Canadian consumers. In terms of features, self-clean versus manual clean, extra layers of windows, extra racks, warming drawers, the user-friendliness of controls, convection versus regular heating and ease of cleaning, are typical features sought by consumers.

Dual-fuel ranges, slide-in electric ranges and induction cooktop ranges continued to be the face of cooking innovations in this category in 2010.

Range Historical Unit Shipments (000s) Retail Electric Range Builder

Gas Range

2005

2006

%Ch

2007

%Ch

2008

%Ch

2009

%Ch

2010

%Ch

625

662

5.9%

693

4.7%

707

2.0%

660

-6.6%

742

12.4%

161

177

9.9%

168

-5.1%

154

-8.3%

141

-8.4%

145

2.8%

Total

786

839

6.7%

861

2.6%

861

0.0%

801

-7.0%

887

10.7%

Retail

6.3%

26.9%

-4.7%

-2.5%

15.2%

Builder

-8.3%

18.2%

-7.7%

-16.7%

-20.0%

Total

4.0%

25.6%

-5.1%

-4.3%

11.2%

Total Ranges

861

917

6.5%

959

4.6%

954

-0.5%

890

-6.7%

986

10.8%

Range Historical Shipments 1985-2010 Units (000s) 1,000

 Gas  Electric

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Year

21 Ranges - Distribution of Sales by Province 2010 Gas Range

5.5%

2.2%

Atlantic Quebec

28.3%

9.1%

Ontario

36.3%

57.0%

Manitoba

3.1%

0.7%

Saskatchewan

1.7%

0.8%

Alberta

17.3%

18.1%

British Columbia

7.9%

12.1%

100.0%

Total Canada

15%

13.5%

12.0% 10.1%

10% 5% 0%

n/a

ATL

3.3%

3.7%

8.2%

CANADA

Electric Range

Gas Range Saturation 2009

TOTAL

Source: Statistics Canada 62F0041

Range Saturation 2005 - 2009 2005

Region

Electric

2006

2007

2008

2009

Gas

Electric

Gas

Electric

Gas

Electric

Gas

Electric

Gas

Atlantic

97.2%

n/a

97.3%

n/a

97.1%

n/a

97.9%

n/a

96.0%

n/a

Quebec

97.8%

1.9%

98.1%

n/a

98.4%

n/a

97.7%

n/a

97.3%

n/a

Ontario

88.9%

10.6%

86.9%

12.3%

85.0%

14.6%

84.8%

14.6%

85.8%

13.5%

Manitoba

96.6%

3.3%

97.3%

2.7%

96.6%

3.2%

96.7%

3.2%

96.5%

3.3%

Saskatchewan

95.5%

4.2%

91.7%

8.1%

84.8%

4.9%

95.7%

3.6%

95.8%

3.7%

Alberta

89.7%

10.1%

88.2%

11.7%

90.5%

9.1%

89.1%

10.6%

89.7%

10.1%

British Columbia

87.3%

10.5%

86.6%

12.5%

88.8%

10.3%

87.1%

12.1%

87.5%

12.0%

Total Canada

92.1%

7.1%

91.1%

8.0%

91.1%

8.2%

90.4%

8.7%

90.8%

8.2%

Total Households (000s)

12,587

12,756

12,985

13,164

13,417

Source: Statistics Canada 62F0041

Electric Range Feature Trends - Percentage of Total Canadian Sales Electric Range Size and Oven Cleaning Method

Electric Range Size and Oven Cleaning Method 2010

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

24"

8.0%

7.5%

7.1%

8.7%

9.6%

30" Manual Clean

30.5%

28.6%

25.0%

21.6%

18.2%

15.1%

30" Self Clean

61.5%

63.4%

67.5%

71.3%

73.1%

75.3%

100.0%

Total

Electric Range Type

24”

9.6% 15.1%

30” Manual Clean

Electric Range Type 2010

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Free-Standing

88.8%

89.2%

86.3%

85.7%

85.6%

Built-in

5.0%

6.1%

Slide-in

6.2%

5.8%

7.6%

8.2%

8.3%

100.0%

Total

75.3% 30” Self Clean

6.1% 85.6% Free-Standing

8.3%

Built-in Slide-in

Ranges 201 1 Feature Trends - Percentage of Total Canadian Sales Gas Range Feature Trends - Percentage of Total Canadian Sales

Gas Range Feature Trends 2010

Feature Trends

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

30" Manual Clean

9.5%

12.1%

10.6%

9.6%

10.7%

11.6%

30" Self Clean

90.5%

87.9%

68.6%

69.6%

69.8%

70.5%

n/a

20.8%

19.5%

17.9%

100.0%

Dual-Fuel Total

17.9% 70.5% 30” Self Clean

11.6%

Dual-Fuel 30” Manual Clean

Cooktops Feature Trends - Percentage of Total Canadian Sales Feature Trends

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Conventional

20.8%

15.4%

13.6%

10.8%

8.2%

Smooth Top

56.9%

56.8%

59.3%

61.4%

62.8%

66.0%

Gas

22.3%

27.8%

27.1%

27.8%

26.4%

25.8%

Total

100.0%

Cooktop Feature Trends 2010

25.8% 66.0% Smooth Top

8.2%

Electric Range Seasonality (2005-2009 vs. 2010)  2005-09  2010

10.0%

 

9.0%

7.0%





8.0%



 

 







 



   

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Electric Range Imports Units (000s)  Built-in-Ovens  Ranges 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

855 711

718

642 535

2010

January

6.8%

6.9%

February

6.8%

6.7%

March

7.6%

8.6%

21.2%

22.2%

April

8.0%

May

8.8%

9.3%

June

9.6%

9.8%

26.4%

27.1%

July

8.6%

August

8.9%

8.0%

September

9.2%

8.3%

26.7%

24.9%

October

8.8%

7.4%

November

8.5%

9.1%

December

8.4%

9.3%

454

2005

2005-09

6.0% 5.0%

Electric Range Seasonality

Total Year

2006

2007

Source: Statistics Canada 65007

2008

2009

2010

25.7%

25.8%

100.0%

Gas Conventional (Steel Top / Glass)

23 Electric Range Imports Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Built-in Ovens

Total

Units

415,979

38,145

454,124

$(000)

$217,897

$33,670

$251,567

Units

490,985

44,585

535,570

$(000)

$231,278

$43,244

$274,522

Units

586,175

55,924

642,099

$(000)

$239,016

$51,115

$290,131

Units

665,859

45,410

711,269

$(000)

$274,979

$48,597

$323,576

Units

675,807

42,338

718,145

$(000)

$284,034

$39,608

$323,642

Units

805,519

49,602

855,121

$(000)

$319,148

$48,097

$367,245

% Canadian Sales

Cooktops 25,088

57.8%

$10,402 29,978

63.9%

$13,070 17,864

74.6%

$11,199 30,746

82.6%

$18,329 29,089

89.8%

$16,282 31,223

96.5%

$16,067

Electric Range Energy Consumption Story Since the mid-1970s appliance manufacturers have successfully reduced the energy consumption of the electric ranges they produce for Canadian homes 35.3%. This reduction has been accomplished incrementally as new material and design ideas have been incorporated into the product. These improvements have a beneficial effect on the environment and on household energy costs. Estimated Annual Household Energy and Dollar Savings if Vintage Electric Range Replaced with Current Model Based on an estimated annual national average of 10 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh)

Vintage of Electric Range being replaced Estimated annual electricity consumption kWh in kWh of all Electric Ranges in use

1970s

1980s

1990s

2009

800

785

772

518

Annual operating cost at 10 cents per kWh

$80.00

$78.50

Annual kWh reduction if vintage Electric Range replaced with current model

kWh

282

267

254

Annual savings for household if vintage Electric Range replaced with current model

$28.20

$26.70

$25.40

$77.20 $51.80

Home Electric Range Energy Reduction

estimated average annual kWh consumption of all in use by decade

1,000 kWh / year

2005

Ranges

800 600 CURRENT MODEL

400 200 0

1970s

1980s

1990s

2009

Electric Range Vintage Reference: Natural Resources Canada:Consumption of Major Appliances Shipped in Canada, Trends for 1990-2008, December 2010

Microwave Ovens 201 1 T

Major Appliance Industry Trends and Facts

he final month of 2010 saw the microwave oven market end on a down note (off 16% in December 2010 versus December 2009), though the overall market was up 3.3% for the full year. However, the over-the-range market was up more than the overall microwave market (4.7% over 2010, which was 270.4K versus 258.3K in 2009), and was actually up drastically in December 2010 versus December 2009 (16.3%, 25.8K versus 22.2K). The countertop microwave oven market inched up 3% in 2010 versus 2009 (1,425,336 units versus 1,383,814). Our prognosis for 2011 is that this category will continue to ride the upward swing.

Perhaps because of the growing trend in over-the-range models, microwave ovens now play a more prominent role in the kitchen. Newer models are setting higher standards in design and cooking performance, most notably, the new over-the-range models that feature control buttons on the bottom instead of the usual right-hand side. Stylish stainless steel interiors and handles, various colour finishes, steaming, grilling and food warming options, and many other features have helped change the opinion of consumers from what was once perceived as an afterthought appliance.

Microwave Oven Distribution of Sales by Province - 2010 Atlantic

5.6%

Saskatchewan

2.5%

Quebec

12.0%

Alberta

12.8%

Ontario

56.6%

British Columbia

8.0%

Manitoba

2.5%

Total Canada

Microwave Oven Historical Unit Shipments (000s) 2005

2006

%Ch

2007

%Ch

2008

%Ch

2009

%Ch

2010

%Ch

1,300

1,690

30.0%

1,750

3.6%

1,737

-0.7%

1,642

-5.5%

1,696

3.3%

Microwave Oven Historical Shipments 1985-2010 Units (000s) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Year

100.0%

25 Microwave Oven Saturation 2009

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Atlantic

96.3%

95.7%

96.4%

95.9%

95.8%

Quebec

93.6%

92.9%

93.3%

93.6%

92.9%

Ontario

93.8%

93.7%

92.8%

94.1%

94.7%

Manitoba

95.1%

94.1%

96.3%

94.5%

95.5%

Saskatchewan

95.9%

95.8%

95.6%

96.5%

95.5%

Alberta

96.6%

95.8%

97.3%

96.1%

British Columbia

92.6%

93.4%

91.6%

92.4%

92.5%

Total Canada

94.1%

93.9%

93.5%

94.4%

94.2%

12,587

12,756

12,985

13,164

13,417

Total Households (000s)

98% 96%

96.1%

95.8%

95.5%

94.7%

94.2%

94% 92.9%

92.5%

92% 90%

ATL

CANADA

Microwave Oven Saturation 2005 to 2009

Total

Source: Statistics Canada 62F0041

Microwave Oven Feature Trends - Percentage of Total Canadian Sales Microwave Oven Feature Trends (estimate) 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

≤ 0.79 cu.ft.

20.7%

20.5%

20.3%

20.5%

21.0%

0.80 to 0.99 cu. ft.

6.8%

7.2%

7.0%

1.0 to 1.2 cu. ft.

39.7%

39.2%

39.0%

38.5%

1.3 to 1.4 cu. ft.

12.3%

11.6%

11.5%

11.0%

10.5%

10.0%

1.5 to 1.6 cu. ft.

12.5%

13.1%

13.6%

14.0%

Over 1.6 cu. ft.

8.0%

8.4%

8.5%

9.5%

100.0%

Over-the-Range

16.5%

17.0%

16.0%

15.5%

16.0%

18.5%

Convection

1.9%

2.5%

2.0%

Total

Microwave Oven Seasonality 2005-09

2010

January

6.1%

4.1%

February

5.9%

5.4%

March

7.3%

6.9%

19.3%

16.4%

April

7.1%

7.0%

May

8.7%

7.7%

June

8.1%

9.8%

23.9%

24.5%

July

9.3%

10.4%

August

8.9%

9.2%

September

9.4%

10.9%

27.6%

30.5%

October

9.0%

10.4%

November

11.2%

10.5%

December

9.0%

7.7%

29.2%

28.6%

Total Year

100.0%

Microwave Ovens Feature Trends - 2010 38.5% 1.0 to 1.2 cu. ft

10.0%

1.3 to 1.4 cu. ft. 1.5 to 1.6 cu. ft.

14.0%

7.0% ≤ 0.79

cu.ft.

9.5%

Over 1.6 cu. ft.

21.0%

0.80 to 0.99 cu. ft.

Microwave Oven Seasonality (2005-2009 vs. 2010)  2005-09  2010

12% 11% 10%





   

7% 6%



  

    

 





5% 4%



 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Microwave Ovens 201 1 Microwave Oven Imports China

All Other

Total

Year

Quantity

Value (000s)

Quantity

Value (000s)

Quantity

Value (000s)

2005

1,188,141

$67,743

274,186

$37,798

1,462,327

$105,541

2006

1,409,858

$78,172

308,792

$37,071

1,718,650

$115,243

2007

1,496,480

$84,644

292,627

$36,617

1,789,107

$121,261

2008

1,508,677

$88,211

203,004

$29,759

1,711,681

$117,970

2009

1,254,453

$84,048

185,667

$25,926

1,440,120

$109,974

2010

1,566,125

$92,378

181,443

$29,700

1,747,568

$122,078

Microwave Oven Imports Percentage of Total Units by Country of Origin - 2010

89.6% China

Malaysia 6.1% South Korea 1.1% Thailand 1.1% All other 2.2% Microwave Oven Imports 2005 - 2010 Units (000s) ď Ž China ď Ž All Other 2,000 1,800 309

1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000

274

1,410

293

203

1,496

1,509

181 186

1,566

1,254

1,188

800 700 600 400 200 0 2005

2006

2007

Source: Statistics Canada 65007

2008

2009

2010

Dishwashers Major Appliance Industry Trends and Facts

n 2010, the retail dishwasher market grew by 11.5%. That growth was outpaced by the increasing popularity of stainless steel tubs, which increased by 33% over the previous year, and Energy Star速-rated models at 13%. Those gains were not matched in the project market, which contracted by almost 8% from previous year levels in terms of total shipments. As can be seen in the Energy Star速 numbers on the next page, the reduction of both energy and water consumption continues to be an important trend in the dishwasher market. As the cost of electricity increases, and time of use rates become more widespread, consumer interest in models with a delay start capability will grow. New models also feature more flexible basket configurations that allow easier loading of dishes of all shapes and sizes. There are also a larger number of dishwashers featuring three levels of washing, for example, with a tray dedicated to cutlery or other cooking utensils. While dials remain standard at the entry level, touch displays are becoming more common at the high end. As in many other categories, connectivity is becoming more important, and questions are being raised about the implications of the Smart Grid.

Dishwasher Historical Unit Shipments (000s) Retail

Dishwasher Distribution of Sales by Province - 2010

2005

2006

%Ch

2007

%Ch

2008

%Ch

2009

%Ch

2010

%Ch

581

612

5.3%

689

12.6%

660

-4.2%

616

-6.7%

687

11.5%

Atlantic

3.5%

Builder

4.3%

103

5.1%

100

-2.9%

-10.0%

-7.8%

Quebec

23.3%

Total

675

710

5.2%

792

11.5%

760

-4.0%

706

-7.1%

770

9.1%

Ontario

41.1%

Manitoba

2.4%

Saskatchewan

1.7%

Alberta

19.6%

Dishwasher Historical Shipments 1985-2010 Units (000s) 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Year

British Columbia

8.6%

Total Canada

100.0%

Dishwashers 201 1

Dishwasher Saturation 2005 - 2009

Dishwasher Saturation 2009

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

80%

Atlantic

47.6%

48.2%

49.7%

54.9%

52.8%

Quebec

54.1%

57.5%

55.9%

55.5%

57.4%

75%

Ontario

53.8%

53.4%

58.7%

56.7%

57.4%

Manitoba

53.8%

52.4%

54.6%

56.0%

57.3%

65%

Saskatchewan

60.8%

59.4%

57.1%

63.3%

64.0%

60%

Alberta

72.4%

71.4%

72.2%

75.1%

76.9%

55%

British Columbia

67.1%

66.2%

65.7%

69.5%

66.0%

Total Canada

57.2%

57.7%

59.4%

59.8%

60.4%

50%

Total Households 12,587 12,756 12,985 13,164 (000s)

13,417

70%

30%

CANADA ATL

45.1%

31.9%

2009

January

6.9%

7.0%

11%

February

7.0%

6.9%

10%

8.4%

7.7%

22.3%

21.6%

April

8.1%

7.9%

May

8.7%

8.4%

June

9.2%

10.4%

26.0%

26.7%

July

8.4%

9.0%

August

8.4%

8.0%

September

9.1%

8.4%

25.9%

25.4%

October

8.5%

7.2%

November

8.4%

9.0%

December

8.9%

10.1%

Q4 Total Year

25.8%

26.3%

100.0%

Total

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Portable

4.9%

4.5%

4.0%

4.6%

5.3%

6.0%

Built-in

95.1%

95.5%

96.0%

95.4%

94.7%

94.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Stainless Steel Interior Tub

30.3%

31.9%

37.4%

45.1%

Tall Tub

52.5%

 2005-09  2010

2010

2005-09

March

Dishwasher Seasonality (2005-2009 vs. 2010)

Dishwasher Seasonality

2005

Total

2008

Dishwasher Feature Trends

37.4%

2007

Source: Statistics Canada 62F0041

20.0% 10.0%

52.8%

35%

50.0%

30.0%

60.4% 57.4% 57.4% 57.3%

40%

Percentage Stainless Steel Interior Tub

30.3%

66.0%

64.0%

45%

Dishwasher Feature Trends

40.0%

76.9%



         

    





   





6% 5%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

29 Dishwasher Imports

Dishwasher Imports Units (000s) 800

Year

774

700

678

600

550

698

2005

659

582

2006

500 400

2007

300 200

2008

100

2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Statistics Canada 65007

2010

Portable

Other

Total

Units

26,331

523,702

550,033

% Canadian Sales

$(000)

$6,468

$165,508

$171,976

Units

21,799

560,400

582,199

$(000)

$4,273

$182,824

$187,097

Units

18,584

659,015

677,599

$(000)

$3,990

$215,578

$219,568

Units

19,631

678,227

697,858

$(000)

$5,066

$227,568

$232,634

Units

14,279

644,425

658,704

$(000)

$4,253

$218,617

$222,870

Units

18,226

755,634

773,860

$(000)

$5,078

$231,290

$236,368

81.5% 81.9% 85.6% 91.9% 93.3% 100.0%

Dishwasher Energy Consumption Story Dishwasher - Energy Star - Percentage of Total Shipments ®

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Atlantic

90.7%

89.5%

77.5%

92.9%

91.9%

92.3%

Quebec

91.9%

93.9%

84.9%

92.5%

96.0%

98.0%

Ontario

88.8%

91.9%

86.3%

96.0%

96.3%

98.1%

Manitoba

84.1%

89.3%

89.1%

94.8%

93.1%

97.7%

Saskatchewan

86.4%

89.1%

81.8%

94.7%

96.4%

96.1%

Alberta

87.6%

92.9%

87.2%

93.7%

94.9%

96.9%

British Columbia

87.5%

90.6%

85.6%

94.5%

94.0%

95.1%

Total Canada

89.0%

92.2%

85.8%

94.4%

95.5%

97.3%

Dishwasher - Energy Star® Percentage of Total Shipments 100% 95.5%

90%

89.0%



94.4%



 85.8% 2005

2006

2007

Based on an estimated annual national average of 10 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh)

Vintage of Dishwasher being replaced

1970s

1980s

1990s

2009

Estimated annual electricity consumption kWh in kWh of all Dishwashers in use

1,380

1,400

1,026

325

Annual operating cost at 10 cents per kWh

Annual kWh reduction if vintage Dishwasher replaced with current model

kWh

Annual savings for household if vintage Dishwasher replaced with current model



85% 80%



92.2%



Estimated Annual Household Energy and Dollar Savings if Vintage Dishwasher Replaced with Current Model

2008

2009

2010

$138.00 $140.00 $102.60 $32.50 1,055

1,075

$105.50 $107.50

701

$70.10

Home Dishwasher Energy Reduction

estimated average annual kWh consumption of all in use by decade

1,500 kWh / year

95%

97.3%

Since the mid-1970s appliance manufacturers have successfully reduced the energy consumption of the dishwashers they produce for Canadian homes by 76.5%. This reduction has been accomplished incrementally as new material and design ideas have been incorporated into the product. These improvements have a beneficial effect on the environment and on household energy costs.

1,000 500 0

CURRENT MODEL

1970s

1980s

1990s

2009

Dishwasher Vintage Reference: Natural Resources Canada:Consumption of Major Appliances Shipped in Canada, Trends for 1990-2008, December 2010

Laundry 201 1

Major Appliance Industry Trends and Facts

hipment of washers and dryers grew 3.6% in 2010 versus 2009 (1,846k versus 1,782k), a decent outcome when taking into account that the average selling price in this category diminished quite a bit in 2010.Â

Front-load washers ended up at 58.6% of the total washer market (973k), ending a streak of years during which front-load was gaining share in the total Canadian laundry pie. Electric dryers continue to overwhelmingly dominate over gas dryers (97.4% versus 2.6%), In terms of washer/dryer matching ratio, the overall industry stands at 89.7%, with top-loaders standing at 86.7% and front-loaders at 91.8%. While front-loaders continue to lead the way in product innovation with technologies such as steam wash/dry, more energy efficient dryers (still an area for further improvement), vibration reduction, smarter ways of washing/ drying, tub rinsing features, and cutting-edge styling, 2010 also witnessed parity becoming more prevalent in terms of features and looks.Â It appears nearly every major participant of the front-load laundry segment has equallyvenerable features to entice consumers, and energy efficiency is now mostly a market-mandated must for every manufacturer. High efficiency (HE) top-loaders are beginning to gain more traction in the marketplace. Unlike past, dull-looking white boxes that were anything but water-saving, the new HE top-loaders feature many of the bells and whistles of some of the finest front-loaders in the market, and for 2011, prices will continue to be brought down to a level to achieve critical mass.

Also look for LCD screens with smart interface functions to pop up more at your nearest stores, as a growing number of manufacturers will continue to explore ways to entice high-end consumers to offset cut-throat price competition. With more companies now offering vibration reduction features and more stylish looking front-loaders (and now HE top-loaders), an increasing number of consumers will continue to re-do their laundry room, making the laundry room more of a showpiece space.

Automatic Washer and Dryer Historical Unit Shipments (000s) 2005 Top Load Washer Front Load Washer

Total Washer

Electric Dryers Gas

2006

%Ch

2007

%Ch

2008

%Ch

2009

%Ch

2010

%Ch

Retail

328

366

11.6%

Builder

-35.1%

385

403

4.7%

531

545

2.6%

Total Top Load

Report as total Washers prior to 2009

Retail Builder

4.2%

Total Front Load

555

570

2.7%

Retail

765

835

9.2%

859

2.9%

867

0.9%

859

-0.9%

911

6.1%

Builder

-3.4%

7.0%

0.0%

-12.0%

-23.5%

Total Washers

854

921

7.8%

951

3.3%

959

0.8%

940

-2.0%

973

3.5%

Front Load Washers

300

378

26.0%

472

24.9%

533

12.9%

555

4.1%

570

2.7%

Retail

661

713

7.9%

749

5.0%

758

1.2%

749

-1.2%

793

5.9%

Builder

-2.5%

6.4%

1.2%

-14.3%

-20.8%

Total

741

791

6.7%

832

5.2%

842

1.2%

821

-2.5%

850

3.5%

Retail

0.0%

14.3%

0.0%

-20.8%

10.5%

Builder

33.3%

-25.0%

-33.3%

0.0%

Total

4.2%

8.0%

-3.7%

-19.2%

9.5%

765

816

6.7%

859

5.3%

868

1.0%

842

-3.0%

873

3.7%

Total Dryers

31 Automatic Washer Historical Shipments 1985-2010 Units (000s) 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Electric and Gas Dryer Historical Shipments 1985-2010 Units (000s)  Electric  Gas

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Year Washer and Dryer Saturation 2009  Automatic Washers  Total Dryers

90%

88.0 86.9

85%

88.3 87.3 87.9

87.4

89.4

84.5 81.3 81.3

80% 75.9

75% 70%

ATL

76.5

Source: Statistics Canada 62F0041

76.3

76.9

76.8 75.7

CANADA

Laundry 201 1 Automatic Washer Seasonality Electric Dryer Seasonality

Distribution of Sales By Province - 2010 Auto Washers

Electric Dryers

Gas Dryers

Atlantic

4.5%

0.8%

Quebec

27.1%

27.9%

3.4%

Ontario

37.9%

36.6%

72.0%

Manitoba

3.0%

1.5%

Saskatchewan

2.0%

1.5%

Alberta

16.8%

17.0%

16.7%

British Columbia

8.7%

9.0%

4.1%

100.0%

Total Canada

Laundry Saturation 2005 - 2009 - Percentage of Total Households

2005-09

2010

January

6.4%

6.7%

February

6.7%

7.0%

8.2%

8.5%

March

8.1%

2005-09

2010

January

6.5%

6.6%

February

6.8%

March

21.5%

21.8%

21.2%

21.8%

April

7.6%

April

7.7%

May

8.8%

8.1%

May

8.8%

8.0%

June

9.6%

9.4%

June

9.6%

9.9%

26.0%

25.1%

26.1%

25.6%

8.1%

8.2%

July

8.5%

8.2%

July

August

8.8%

8.6%

August

8.6%

8.5%

September

9.6%

9.7%

September

9.5%

9.2%

26.9%

26.5%

26.2%

25.9%

October

8.7%

7.7%

October

8.8%

7.5%

November

8.3%

9.0%

November

8.7%

9.1%

December

8.6%

9.9%

December

8.9%

10.1%

25.6%

26.6%

26.4%

26.7%

Total Year

100.0%

Total Year

100.0%

Automatic Washers

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Atlantic

87.1%

87.0%

87.7%

88.8%

88.0%

Quebec

87.0%

87.2%

85.1%

87.4%

Ontario

77.1%

75.4%

76.9%

76.4%

75.9%

Manitoba

79.3%

78.3%

80.3%

78.0%

76.3%

Saskatchewan

85.4%

86.4%

87.4%

85.3%

87.3%

Alberta

87.2%

85.2%

86.9%

87.1%

88.3%

British Columbia

80.7%

80.3%

80.0%

81.3%

75.7%

Total Canada

82.8%

81.3%

82.2%

81.5%

81.3%

All Dryers

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Automatic Washers

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Atlantic

84.3%

85.8%

86.1%

88.1%

86.9%

Full Size

93.4%

94.4%

93.9%

94.4%

96.3%

97.5%

Quebec

84.4%

85.3%

85.4%

82.9%

84.5%

Ontario

75.2%

75.4%

77.1%

75.8%

76.5%

Compact Size

---

1.3%

1.0%

---

Manitoba

78.3%

79.3%

81.3%

79.2%

76.9%

Stacked

6.6%

5.6%

4.8%

4.6%

3.7%

2.5%

Saskatchewan

85.7%

88.2%

89.7%

86.6%

87.9%

Alberta

86.7%

86.2%

87.5%

86.8%

89.4%

British Columbia

79.6%

79.4%

79.5%

79.9%

76.8%

Total Canada

80.4%

80.8%

81.8%

80.5%

Total Households (000s)

12,587

12,756

12,985

13,164

Source: Statistics Canada 62F0041

Auto Washers - Front Load versus Top Load Percentage split  Front Load  Top Load 100% 80% 60%

64%

59%

50%

43%

41%

50%

57%

59%

2007

2008

40% 20% 0%

36%

2005

41%

2006

2009 2010

Laundry Products Feature Trends Percentage of Market

Total

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

Energy Star® (% of total)

42.2%

45.1%

56.4%

64.3%

69.1%

71.7%

81.3%

Electric Dryers

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

13,417

Full Size

91.0%

90.7%

92.4%

92.1%

93.8%

95.2%

Compact Size

1.5%

2.9%

2.2%

2.7%

1.9%

2.0%

7.5%

6.4%

5.4%

5.2%

4.3%

2.8%

Stacked Total

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

33 Dryers - Imports Units (000s)

Auto Washers - Imports Units (000s) 1,000 Gas Dryer Seasonality January

2005-09

2010

8.2%

8.6%

 Electric Dryers  Gas Dryers

800

900

700

800

February

7.3%

7.0%

March

8.4%

8.8%

700

23.9%

24.4%

April

7.2%

600

May

7.6%

7.0%

June

8.1%

7.9%

22.9%

22.1%

July

7.8%

August

9.2%

9.0%

Automatic Washer Seasonality (2005-2009 vs. 2010)

September

9.6%

9.3%

 2005-09  2010

26.6%

26.1%

10%

October

9.4%

9.3%

November

8.9%

9.1%

600 500 400

500 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Statistics Canada 65007

8.3%

9.0%

26.6%

27.4%

Total Year

100.0%

December

300

Source: Statistics Canada 65007

6% 5%



   

 



 

   





 



    Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Electric Dryer Seasonality (2005-2009 vs. 2010)  2005-09  2010

10%



 

8% 7% 6% 5%



 

  

   



 



   





Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Gas Dryer Seasonality (2005-2009 vs. 2010)  2005-09  2010

10% 9% 8% 7%

 





  



  

 

 

    

  

6% 5%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Laundry 201 1

Laundry Products Imports Automatic Washers Electric Dryers Gas Dryers

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Units

928,378

973,031

974,122

1,009,078

975,877

1,050,147

$(000)

$360,345

$380,360

$417,216

$432,695

$422,371

$395,976

Units

655,700

682,278

728,380

776,952

731,912

807,917

$(000)

$176,540

$208,044

$244,316

$265,780

$246,074

$245,804

Units

13,013

7,997

2,428

1,168

2,067

2,268

$(000)

$4,273

$2,793

$913

$472

$792

$929

Automatic Washer - Energy Star® - Percentage of Total Shipments

Automatic Washer - Energy Star® Percentage of Total Shipments

Automatic Washers

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

70%

Atlantic

26.7%

30.4%

50.9%

48.2%

53.9%

52.5%

60%

Quebec

43.9%

44.9%

54.2%

61.6%

63.1%

64.3%

Ontario

42.5%

44.6%

58.1%

66.7%

74.3%

76.7%

Manitoba

34.3%

46.8%

52.3%

63.0%

69.3%

65.3%

Saskatchewan

38.7%

46.8%

56.4%

63.4%

71.2%

70.6%

Alberta

50.0%

50.7%

58.1%

67.0%

70.3%

75.0%

British Columbia

37.3%

43.0%

56.1%

65.7%

70.2%

78.6%

Total Canada

42.2%

45.1%

56.4%

64.3%

69.1%

71.7%



30%

71.7%

2009

2010

69.1%

64.3%

56.4%

50% 40%



45.1%

2005

2006

42.2%

2007

2008

Clothes Washer Energy Consumption Story

Clothes Dryer Energy Consumption Story

Since the mid-1970s appliance manufacturers have successfully reduced the energy consumption of the clothes washers they produce for Canadian homes by an average of 83.2%. This reduction has been accomplished incrementally as new material and design ideas have been incorporated into the product. These improvements have a beneficial effect on the envirornment and on household energy costs.

Since the mid-1970s appliance manufacturers have successfully reduced the energy consumption of the clothes dryers they produce for Canadian homes by 23.3%. This reduction has been accomplished incrementally as new material and design ideas have been incorporated into the product. These improvements have a beneficial effect on the envirornment and on household energy costs.

Estimated Annual Household Energy and Dollar Savings if Vintage Clothes Washer Replaced with Current Model

Estimated Annual Household Energy and Dollar Savings if Vintage Clothes Dryer Replaced with Current Model

Based on an estimated annual national average of 10 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh)

Vintage of Clothes Washer being replaced

1970s

Estimated annual electricity consumption in kWh of all Clothes Washers in use

kWh

Annual operating cost at 10 cents per kWh

Annual kWh reduction if vintage Clothes Washer replaced with current top-load model

kWh

Annual kWh reduction if vintage Clothes Washer replaced with current front load model

kWh

Annual savings for household if vintage Clothes Washer replaced with current top load model

1,360

1990s

1,218

2009 Top Load 332

2009 Front Load 172

$150.00 $136.00 $121.80 $33.20 $17.20

1,168

1,328

1,075

1,188

886

1980s

1990s

2009

Estimated annual electricity consumption in kWh of all Clothes Dryers in use

kWh

1,200

1,150

1,103

921

Annual operating cost at 10 cents per kWh

$120.00

$115.00

$110.30

$92.10

Annual kWh reduction if vintage Clothes Dryer replaced with current model

kWh

279

229

182

Annual savings for household if vintage Clothes Dryer replaced with current model

$27.90

$22.90

$18.20

estimated average annual kWh consumption of all in use by decade

1,200

$116.80 $102.80

$88.60

$132.80 $118.80 $104.60

600

CURRENT MODEL

0 1970s

CURRENT MODEL

1980s

1990s

CURRENT MODEL

2009 2009 Top Load Front Load Clothes Washer Vintage

Reference: Natural Resources Canada:Consumption of Major Appliances Shipped in Canada, Trends for 1990-2008, December 2010

1990s

2009

Reference: Natural Resources Canada:Consumption of Major Appliances Shipped in Canada, Trends for 1990-2008, December 2010

1,000 500

1980s

Clothes Dryer Vintage

1,500

1970s

900

300

estimated average annual kWh consumption of all in use by decade

kWh / year

1970s

Home Clothes Dryer Energy Reduction

1,046

Home Clothes Washer Energy Reduction

Vintage of Clothes Dryer being replaced

kWh / year

Annual savings for household if vintage Clothes Washer replaced with current front load model

1,500

1980s

Room 201 1 Air Conditioners C Major Appliance Industry Trends and Facts

AMA does not currently collect shipment data on Room Air Conditioners due to the limited coverage factor represented by CAMA members. There are currently a large number of Room Air Conditioner companies who are not members of the association and do not contribute statistics. As a result, a decision was made by CAMA members that an overall industry estimate would not be included in this year’s publication. However, Statistics Canada Import data and saturation data have still been included in this year’s publication for your reference.

Generally speaking, both suppliers and retailers of Room Air Conditioners continue to assume the risk of bloated inventory or shortage of inventory, as this is one of the most volatile and unpredictable categories directly related to environmental reasons and a number of other influences across the country. Geography plays a large role in this seasonality-driven industry, and a spike in the temperature anywhere in the country could cause inventory imbalances at any time. Moving forward, Mother Nature will continue to drive the health of this category.

Room Air Conditioner Saturation 2005 - 2009 - Percentage of Total Households 2005

Region

2006

2007

2008 Window Central

2009

Window

Central

Total

Window

Central

Total

Window

Central

Total

Window

Central

Total

Atlantic

n/a

12.9

10.6

3.6

14.9

12.9

3.4

17.3

22.8

6.5

29.3

16.3

5.4

21.7

Quebec

23.1

13.2

36.4

24.4

16.2

40.6

28.3

14.1

42.4

25.6

16.3

41.8

26.1

14.7

40.8

Ontario

17.7

53.7

71.4

20.8

55.2

76.0

20.1

55.1

75.1

19.4

57.8

77.1

17.8

58.3

76.1

Manitoba

23.1

46.0

69.1

23.2

47.1

70.4

25.7

49.1

74.8

24.9

49.2

74.0

22.2

53.1

75.3

Saskatchewan

14.0

34.6

48.6

16.1

34.5

50.6

16.7

37.2

53.8

19.5

37.7

57.2

18.6

42.7

61.3

Alberta

4.2

8.2

12.4

6.7

12.7

19.5

5.6

12.9

18.5

7.5

13.9

21.4

7.1

14.2

21.2

British Columbia

6.9

10.6

17.4

8.8

9.8

18.7

9.4

8.8

18.2

9.7

10.8

20.5

11.1

9.7

20.8

Total Canada

15.8

28.4

44.2

18.0

30.2

48.1

18.8

29.6

48.4

18.2

31.6

49.8

17.7

31.5

49.2

12,587

Total Households (000s)

12,756

12,985

13,164

13,417

Source: Statistics Canada 62F0041

Room Air Conditioner Imports ≤ 8,400 kJ 8,401 to 9,477 kJ 9,478 to 12,700 kJ 12,701 to 16,112 kJ > 16,112 kJ Total

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Units

260,349

384,034

408,838

350,253

231,383

155,264

$(000)

$32,927

$44,608

$45,986

$34,628

$29,563

$14,657

Units

35,739

76,459

98,679

76,980

28,360

19,018

$(000)

$6,490

$14,406

$19,115

$11,354

$5,447

$3,290

Units

78,950

147,147

138,531

109,493

59,178

75,472

$(000)

$17,901

$27,494

$34,641

$25,424

$18,328

$21,303

Units

36,547

68,650

82,240

89,487

79,062

50,422

$(000)

$10,835

$16,260

$22,487

$22,552

$24,801

$12,643

Units

20,886

20,674

19,301

13,674

8,193

21,931

$(000)

$8,393

$9,077

$9,488

$6,873

$5,168

$8,052

Units

432,471

696,964

747,589

639,887

406,176

322,107

$(000)

$76,546

$111,845

$131,717

$100,831

$83,307

$59,945

Source: Statistics Canada 65007

Room Air Conditioner Imports Units (000s) 697

600 400

30%

748 640

432

406 322

200 0

26.1%

25%

22.2%

20% 15%

18.6%

17.8%

16.3%

11.1%

10% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Statistics Canada 65007

17.7%

7.1%

0% ATL

Source: Statistics Canada 62F0041

CANADA

800

Room Air Conditioner Saturation 2009

Total

Major Appliance Imports - Canada Code

Description

8418

Refrigerators Compressor Type

8418

8516

7321

8516

8422

8509

8450

8451

8415

Refrigerators Absorption Type Electric Ranges (incl. Surface Units) Gas Ranges (incl. Surface Units) Microwave Ovens

2004

2005

%Ch

2006

%Ch

2007

%Ch

2008

%Ch

2009

%Ch

2010

%Ch

Units

1,217,062

1,371,624

12.7%

1,492,277

8.8%

1,557,919

4.4%

1,571,315

0.9%

1,409,590

-10.3%

1,562,147

10.8%

$(000)

$550,166

$589,644

7.2%

$626,273

6.2%

$647,312

3.4%

$669,697

3.5%

$619,385

-7.5%

$677,297

9.3%

Units

24,239

19,508

-19.5%

19,379

-0.7%

55,210

184.9%

22,111

-60.0%

36,478

65.0%

33,579

-7.9%

$(000)

$13,091

$9,738

-25.6%

$9,510

-2.3%

$14,997

57.7%

$10,647

-29.0%

$7,402

-30.5%

$8,880

20.0%

Units

309,948

479,212

54.6%

565,548

18.0%

683,403

20.8%

742,015

8.6%

747,234

0.7%

886,344

18.6%

$(000)

$169,698

$261,969

54.4%

$287,592

9.8%

$311,054

8.2%

$341,905

9.9%

$339,924

-0.6%

$383,312

12.8%

Units

112,830

101,838

-9.7%

100,465

-1.3%

109,498

9.0%

93,890

-14.3%

82,058

-12.6%

95,449

16.3%

$(000)

$66,717

$73,778

10.6%

$68,421

-7.3%

$71,396

4.3%

$68,083

-4.6%

$59,091

-13.2%

$62,434

5.7%

Units

1,490,557

1,462,327

-1.9%

1,718,650

17.5%

1,789,107

4.1%

1,711,681

-4.3%

1,440,120

-15.9%

1,747,568

21.3%

$(000)

$116,075

$105,541

-9.1%

$115,243

9.2%

$121,261

5.2%

$117,970

-2.7%

$109,974

-6.8%

$122,078

11.0%

Units

524,237

550,033

4.9%

582,199

5.8%

677,599

16.4%

697,858

3.0%

658,704

-5.6%

773,860

17.5%

$(000)

$165,257

$171,976

4.1%

$187,097

8.8%

$219,568

17.4%

$232,634

6.0%

$222,870

-4.2%

$236,368

6.1%

Units

97,240

103,482

6.4%

101,115

-2.3%

n/a

$(000)

$7,719

$8,097

4.9%

$8,518

5.2%

n/a

Units

875,554

928,378

6.0%

973,031

4.8%

974,122

0.1%

1,009,078

3.6%

975,877

-3.3%

1,050,147

7.6%

$(000)

$337,756

$360,345

6.7%

$380,360

5.6%

$417,216

9.7%

$432,695

3.7%

$422,371

-2.4%

$395,976

-6.2%

Units

1,322

6,272

374.4%

1,345

-78.6%

442

-67.1%

234

-47.1%

567

142.3%

-87.7%

$(000)

$589

$2,572

336.7%

$747

-71.0%

$240

-67.9%

$80

-66.7%

$316

295.0%

$43

-86.4%

Units

576,621

655,700

13.7%

682,278

4.1%

728,380

6.8%

776,952

6.7%

731,912

-5.8%

807,917

10.4%

$(000)

$156,133

$176,540

13.1%

$208,044

17.8%

$244,316

17.4%

$265,780

8.8%

$246,074

-7.4%

$245,804

-0.1%

Units

13,031

13,013

-0.1%

7,997

-38.5%

2,428

-69.6%

1,168

-51.9%

2,067

77.0%

2,268

9.7%

$(000)

$4,125

$4,273

3.6%

$2,793

-34.6%

$913

-67.3%

$472

-48.3%

$792

67.8%

$929

17.3%

Units

442,872

432,471

-2.3%

696,964

61.2%

747,589

7.3%

639,887

-14.4%

406,176

-36.5%

322,107

-20.7%

$(000)

$97,068

$76,546

-21.1%

$111,845

46.1%

$131,717

17.8%

$100,831

-23.4%

$83,307

-17.4%

$59,945

-28.0%

Units

5,685,513

6,123,858

7.7%

6,941,248

13.3%

7,325,697

5.5%

7,266,189

-0.8%

6,490,783

-10.7%

7,281,456

12.2%

$(000) $1,684,394 $1,841,019

9.3%

$2,006,443

9.0%

$2,179,990

8.6%

$2,240,794

2.8%

$2,111,506

-5.8%

$2,193,066

3.9%

Dishwashers

Garbage Disposers

Automatic Washers

Washers, other

n/a

Electric Dryers

Gas Dryers

Room Air Conditioners

Total Imports

Source: Statistics Canada 65007

US Industry Shipments Units (000s) 2004

2005

% Ch

2006

% Ch

2007

% Ch

2008

% Ch

2009

% Ch

2010

% Ch

10,913

11,135

2.0%

11,077

-0.5%

10,402

-6.1%

9,310

-10.5%

8,397

-9.8%

9,369

11.6%

Upright

987

893

-9.5%

872

-2.4%

802

-8.0%

856

6.7%

825

-3.6%

821

-0.5%

Chest

1,529

1,321

-13.6%

1,276

-3.4%

1,190

-6.7%

1,242

4.4%

1,218

-1.9%

1,137

-6.7%

Total

2,516

2,214

-12.0%

2,148

-3.0%

1,992

-7.3%

2,098

5.3%

2,043

-2.6%

1,958

-4.2%

Electric Ranges

4,612

4,677

1.4%

4,674

-0.1%

4,612

-1.3%

3,973

-13.9%

3,448

-13.2%

3,509

1.8%

Electric Ovens

963

975

1.2%

1,010

3.6%

867

-14.2%

700

-19.3%

549

-21.6%

604

10.0%

Surface Units

570

542

-4.9%

544

0.4%

512

-5.9%

433

-15.4%

336

-22.4%

335

-0.3%

Total

6,145

6,194

0.8%

6,228

0.5%

5,991

-3.8%

5,106

-14.8%

4,333

-15.1%

4,448

2.7%

Gas Ranges

3,124

3,131

0.2%

2,963

-5.4%

2,781

-6.1%

2,408

-13.4%

2,264

-6.0%

2,431

7.4%

Gas Ovens

-4.5%

-6.3%

-6.7%

-16.1%

-6.4%

0.0%

Surface Units

528

560

6.1%

563

0.5%

497

-11.7%

387

-22.1%

291

-24.8%

314

7.9%

Total

3,719

3,755

1.0%

3,586

-4.5%

3,334

-7.0%

2,842

-14.8%

2,599

-8.6%

2,789

7.3%

Microwave Ovens

15,526

13,860

-10.7%

13,687

-1.2%

11,851

-13.4%

11,340

-4.3%

9,626

-15.1%

9,333

-3.0%

Automatic Washers

8,832

9,225

4.4%

9,500

3.0%

8,825

-7.1%

8,292

-6.0%

7,865

-5.1%

7,999

1.7%

Electric

6,262

6,451

3.0%

6,360

-1.4%

6,036

-5.1%

5,620

-6.9%

5,201

-7.5%

5,261

1.2%

Gas

1,660

1,707

2.8%

1,614

-5.4%

1,518

-5.9%

1,353

-10.9%

1,283

-5.2%

1,286

0.2%

Total

7,922

8,158

3.0%

7,974

-2.3%

7,554

-5.3%

6,973

-7.7%

6,484

-7.0%

6,547

1.0%

Built-in

6,953

7,291

4.9%

7,122

-2.3%

6,867

-3.6%

5,903

-14.0%

5,333

-9.7%

5,642

5.8%

Portable

153

133

-13.1%

130

-2.3%

110

-15.4%

-16.4%

-23.9%

-5.7%

Total

7,106

7,424

4.5%

7,252

-2.3%

6,977

-3.8%

5,995

-14.1%

5,403

-9.9%

5,708

5.6%

Disposers

6,649

7,040

5.9%

6,878

-2.3%

6,385

-7.2%

5,510

-13.7%

5,220

-5.3%

5,320

1.9%

Compactors

129

122

-5.4%

116

-4.9%

102

-12.1%

-27.5%

-36.5%

-6.4%

Room Air Conditioners

8,082

8,032

-0.6%

10,055

25.2%

9,460

-5.9%

9,086

-4.0%

5,786

-36.3%

6,418

10.9%

Dehumidifiers

1,672

1,957

17.0%

1,456

-25.6%

2,004

37.6%

1,558

-22.3%

1,700

9.1%

1,552

-8.7%

Total Shipments

79,211

79,116

-0.1%

79,957

1.1%

74,877

-6.4%

68,184

-8.9%

59,503

-12.7%

61,485

3.3%

Refrigerators

Freezers

Electric Ranges

Gas Ranges

Dryers

Dishwashers

Source: Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)

US Industry Shipments (000s) 80,000

79,211

79,116

79,957 74,877

75,000 70,000

68,184

65,000

61,485 59,503

60,000 55,000 50,000 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)

Unit Shipments - Canada versus US (000s of units)

Canada versus US - Percentage Change  US  Canada

Year

Canada

% Change Year over Year

2010

6,899

5.3%

48,151

3.0%

10.0%

2009

6,552

-4.9%

46,750

-10.0%

5.0%

2008

6,890

0.6%

51,956

-8.7%

2007

6,929

4.8%

56,926

-7.4%

-5.0%

2006

6,613

11.3%

61,452

-0.8%

-10.0%

2005

5,944

8.4%

61,965

-1.1%

-15.0%

2004

5,483

9.0%

62,679

8.5%

-20.0%

2003

5,032

5.0%

57,767

5.0%

2002

4,791

9.8%

55,040

4.7%

2001

4,362

1.1%

52,558

1.2%

2000

4,314

51,923

Includes: Refrigerators, Freezers, Electric & Gas Ranges, Cooktops, Automatic Washers, Electric & Gas Dryers, Dishwashers and Microwave Ovens Source: Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)

20.0% 15.0%



 

2001

  

2002

2003

   

 

2004

2005

2006



 2007

 





  2008

2009

2010

CAMA is a council of Electro-Federation Canada (EFC), a national, not-for-profit industry association. EFC’s councils represent over 330 member companies that manufacture, distribute, and service electrical and electronics products in Canada; contributing over $50B to the Canadian economy and employing more than 130,000 workers in more than 1,400 facilities across the country. EFC provides a powerful nucleus around which the Canadian electrical and electronics markets gain competitiveness in the global market through representation on issues and opportunities impacting electro-technical businesses.

For more information on EFC or CAMA, please contact: Electro-Federation Canada 180 Attwell Drive, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M9W 6A9 Tel. 905-602-8877 • Fax. 416-679-9234 • www.electrofed.com / www.cama-online.ca Managing Editor: Swati Patel, Director, Communications 647-260-3091 • spatel@electrofed.com Staff: Larry Moore - VP, CAMA 647-260-3088 • lmoore@electrofed.com

Anne Harrigan - VP, Marketing Resource, EFC 647-260-3084 • aharrigan@electrofed.com

Richard Martel - VP, Technical Services, Consumer 647-260-3095 • rmartel@electrofed.com

Jeff Miller – Executive Director, IMR Sector Council 647-258-7478 • jmiller@electrofed.com

Sharon Borda - Manager, CAMA 647-258-7479 • sborda@electrofed.com

Design and Production: The Communications Bridge Inc.

Acknowledgements This publication is based on perspectives provided by a cross-section of leading industry executives. CAMA acknowledges the contributions of the following organizations throughout the year: • Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) • Bank of Canada • Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation • Conference Board of Canada

• Economap Inc. • Natural Resources Canada • Office of Energy Efficiency, Natural Resources Canada • Statistics Canada