The 2019-2024 Outlook for Single Package Air Source Heat Pumps with 27,000 to 41,999 BTU Per Hour Excluding Room Air Conditioners in the United States
This study covers the latent demand outlook for single package air source heat pumps with 27,000 to 41,999 BTU per hour excluding room air conditioners across the states and cities of the United States. Latent demand (in millions of U.S. dollars), or potential industry earnings (P.I.E.) estimates are given across some 12,600 cities in the United States. For each city in question, the percent share the city is of its state and of the United States as a whole is reported. These comparative benchmarks allow the reader to quickly gauge a city vis-à-vis others. This statistical approach can prove very useful to distribution and/or sales force strategies. Using econometric models which project fundamental economic dynamics within each state and city, latent demand estimates are created for single package air source heat pumps with 27,000 to 41,999 BTU per hour excluding room air conditioners. This report does not discuss the specific players in the market serving the latent demand, nor specific details at the product level. The study also does not consider short-term cyclicalities that might affect realized sales. The study, therefore, is strategic in nature, taking an aggregate and long-run view, irrespective of the players or products involved.
This study does not report actual sales data (which are simply unavailable, in a comparable or consistent manner in virtually all cities in the United States). This study gives, however, my estimates for the latent demand, or potential industry earnings (P.I.E.), for single package air source heat pumps with 27,000 to 41,999 BTU per hour excluding room air conditioners in the United States. It also shows how the P.I.E. is divided and concentrated across the cities and regional markets of the United States. For each state, I also show my estimates of how the P.I.E. grows over time. In order to make these estimates, a multi-stage methodology was employed that is often taught in courses on strategic planning at graduate schools of business.
Another reason why sales do not equate to latent demand is exchange rates. In this report, all figures assume the long-run efficiency of currency markets. Figures, therefore, equate values based on purchasing power parities across geographies. Short-run distortions in the value of the dollar, therefore, do not figure into the estimates. Purchasing power parity estimates were collected from official sources, and extrapolated using standard econometric models. The report uses the dollar as the currency of comparison, but not as a measure of transaction volume. The units used in this report are: US $ mln.
- 1 INTRODUCTION
- 1.1 OVERVIEW
- 1.2 WHAT IS LATENT DEMAND AND THE P.I.E.?
- 1.3 THE METHODOLOGY
- 1.4 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
- 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
- 2.1 LATENT DEMAND IN THE UNITED STATES
- 2.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES
- 2.3 TOP 100 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
- 3 FAR WEST
- 3.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- 3.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ALASKA
- 3.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ALASKA
- 3.4 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - ALASKA
- 3.5 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - CALIFORNIA
- 3.6 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - CALIFORNIA
- 3.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - CALIFORNIA
- 3.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - HAWAII
- 3.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - HAWAII
- 3.10 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - HAWAII
- 3.11 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEVADA
- 3.12 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEVADA
- 3.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEVADA
- 3.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OREGON
- 3.15 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OREGON
- 3.16 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - OREGON
- 3.17 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WASHINGTON
- 3.18 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WASHINGTON
- 3.19 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - WASHINGTON
- 4 GREAT LAKES
- 4.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- 4.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ILLINOIS
- 4.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ILLINOIS
- 4.4 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - ILLINOIS
- 4.5 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - INDIANA
- 4.6 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - INDIANA
- 4.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - INDIANA
- 4.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MICHIGAN
- 4.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MICHIGAN
- 4.10 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MICHIGAN
- 4.11 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OHIO
- 4.12 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OHIO
- 4.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - OHIO
- 4.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WISCONSIN
- 4.15 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WISCONSIN
- 4.16 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - WISCONSIN
- 5 MID-ATLANTIC
- 5.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- 5.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - DELAWARE
- 5.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - DELAWARE
- 5.4 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - DELAWARE
- 5.5 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
- 5.6 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
- 5.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
- 5.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MARYLAND
- 5.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MARYLAND
- 5.10 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MARYLAND
- 5.11 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW JERSEY
- 5.12 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW JERSEY
- 5.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEW JERSEY
- 5.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW YORK
- 5.15 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW YORK
- 5.16 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEW YORK
- 5.17 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - PENNSYLVANIA
- 5.18 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - PENNSYLVANIA
- 5.19 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - PENNSYLVANIA
- 6 NEW ENGLAND
- 6.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- 6.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - CONNECTICUT
- 6.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - CONNECTICUT
- 6.4 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - CONNECTICUT
- 6.5 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MAINE
- 6.6 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MAINE
- 6.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MAINE
- 6.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MASSACHUSETTS
- 6.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MASSACHUSETTS
- 6.10 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MASSACHUSETTS
- 6.11 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW HAMPSHIRE
- 6.12 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW HAMPSHIRE
- 6.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEW HAMPSHIRE
- 6.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - RHODE ISLAND
- 6.15 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - RHODE ISLAND
- 6.16 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - RHODE ISLAND
- 6.17 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - VERMONT
- 6.18 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - VERMONT
- 6.19 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - VERMONT
- 7 PLAINS
- 7.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- 7.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - IOWA
- 7.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - IOWA
- 7.4 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - IOWA
- 7.5 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - KANSAS
- 7.6 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - KANSAS
- 7.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - KANSAS
- 7.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MINNESOTA
- 7.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MINNESOTA
- 7.10 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MINNESOTA
- 7.11 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MISSOURI
- 7.12 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MISSOURI
- 7.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MISSOURI
- 7.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEBRASKA
- 7.15 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEBRASKA
- 7.16 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEBRASKA
- 7.17 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NORTH DAKOTA
- 7.18 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NORTH DAKOTA
- 7.19 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NORTH DAKOTA
- 7.20 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - SOUTH DAKOTA
- 7.21 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - SOUTH DAKOTA
- 7.22 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - SOUTH DAKOTA
- 8 ROCKIES
- 8.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- 8.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - COLORADO
- 8.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - COLORADO
- 8.4 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - COLORADO
- 8.5 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - IDAHO
- 8.6 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - IDAHO
- 8.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - IDAHO
- 8.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MONTANA
- 8.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MONTANA
- 8.10 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MONTANA
- 8.11 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - UTAH
- 8.12 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - UTAH
- 8.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - UTAH
- 8.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WYOMING
- 8.15 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WYOMING
- 8.16 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - WYOMING
- 9 SOUTHEAST
- 9.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- 9.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ALABAMA
- 9.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ALABAMA
- 9.4 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - ALABAMA
- 9.5 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ARKANSAS
- 9.6 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ARKANSAS
- 9.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - ARKANSAS
- 9.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - FLORIDA
- 9.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - FLORIDA
- 9.10 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - FLORIDA
- 9.11 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - GEORGIA
- 9.12 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - GEORGIA
- 9.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - GEORGIA
- 9.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - KENTUCKY
- 9.15 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - KENTUCKY
- 9.16 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - KENTUCKY
- 9.17 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - LOUISIANA
- 9.18 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - LOUISIANA
- 9.19 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - LOUISIANA
- 9.20 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MISSISSIPPI
- 9.21 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MISSISSIPPI
- 9.22 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - MISSISSIPPI
- 9.23 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NORTH CAROLINA
- 9.24 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NORTH CAROLINA
- 9.25 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NORTH CAROLINA
- 9.26 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - SOUTH CAROLINA
- 9.27 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - SOUTH CAROLINA
- 9.28 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - SOUTH CAROLINA
- 9.29 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - TENNESSEE
- 9.30 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - TENNESSEE
- 9.31 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - TENNESSEE
- 9.32 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - VIRGINIA
- 9.33 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - VIRGINIA
- 9.34 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - VIRGINIA
- 9.35 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WEST VIRGINIA
- 9.36 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WEST VIRGINIA
- 9.37 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - WEST VIRGINIA
- 10 SOUTHWEST
- 10.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- 10.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ARIZONA
- 10.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ARIZONA
- 10.4 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - ARIZONA
- 10.5 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW MEXICO
- 10.6 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW MEXICO
- 10.7 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - NEW MEXICO
- 10.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OKLAHOMA
- 10.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OKLAHOMA
- 10.10 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - OKLAHOMA
- 10.11 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - TEXAS
- 10.12 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - TEXAS
- 10.13 CITIES SORTED BY ZIPCODE - TEXAS
- 11 DISCLAIMERS, WARRANTEES, AND USER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
- 11.1 DISCLAIMERS & SAFE HARBOR
- 11.2 ICON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. USER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
Learn how to effectively navigate the market research process to help guide your organization on the journey to success.
Download eBook