Impact on elderly and disabled strikes a chord.
The
Department of Energy’s proposal to re-define showerheads as shower valves is headed
for an early fall conclusion and may contain some provisions favorable to the
plumbing industry, but indications are that the final ruling is likely to add
significant restrictions to showerhead choice.
Those
were among the details confirmed by
Scott Blake Harris, the DOE’s general counsel, during a
recent wide-ranging and candid interview on this hot-button topic with
PM. He left little doubt that
some of the industry’s complaints are falling on deaf ears.
Harris
said his hope is to clarify the definition, which was originally proposed as
allowing only a single showerhead using no more than 2.5 gallons of water per
minute per showering compartment, to be finalized in several months.
“We’re
shooting for September, but it could fall into October,” Harris said. “By early
fall, we want it done.”
Responding
to widespread criticism concerning the lack of original involvement of
stakeholders prior to the proposal being placed in the Federal Register, Harris pointed out the agency, because it was
only clarifying a definition, was under no obligation to have a public comments
period, which it did allow.
“We
are under no obligation to get comments,” Harris said. “We did not want to do
this in a way that is unfair or in a way that caught people by surprise. We are
simply explaining to people what the existing rule means for future guidance. I
believe in the process of public comment and the raising of any concerns or
complaints. It’s a valuable process to go through and we decided to go through
with it.
“We’ve
learned a lot of things in the public comments, like hand-held devices for the
elderly and disabled being enormously helpful. We’re taking those comments into
account.”
Harris
noted the current way he has presented the interpretation of the showerhead definition
may not necessarily be the way it will end up in his final ruling.
“We
will issue a final guidance in the fall. But having said that, nothing is over
until it over,” he explained. “No final decision has been made one way or the
other on this. I anticipate the final rule to be somewhat different than the
purposed rule. We take this process seriously. We’re reading the comments and
learning about them and that will affect our thinking. We’ve provided much more
process here than required by law.”
Harris
confirmed the specific issue of how the rule would affect the elderly and
disabled will be taken into consideration.
“The
rule is not going to say the elderly and disabled can buy something. We’ll
draft the rule in such a way where, for example, devices that provide handheld
nozzles that the elderly and disabled use will be treated in a different way
than a showerhead that has half-a-dozen nozzles,” he said. “I don’t know quite
how that is going to work yet. We do intend to address those concerns. My mom
is in assisted living and has Parkinson’s disease. I understand the issue. We
do not want to bring any undue harm to anybody.”
He
also mentioned a grace period could be attached to the final ruling.
“My
inclination is there will be a certain amount of time where we will take no
enforcement action under the new rule,” Harris said. “That will allow
manufacturers to sell existing inventory. It’s not my goal to cause any
economic disruption. It’s not my goal to have people throw away showerheads.”
Harris
said the DOE also offered the plumbing industry additional time to submit
comments on the subject.
“We
offered an extension of time and we were told it wasn’t needed and that they
intended to sue us. Our understanding was industry needed more time to express
their concerns,” he stated. “That’s fine to bring action against the
government. If they do sue us, which is fine, I’m confident we will prevail.
The truth is, my instinct is to work with industry on crafting rules and
accomplishing stated objectives. I’m not sure industry is as interested in
working with us as I had hoped. If I was representing industry, I think I would
have handled it differently.”
Harris
also tackled two of the plumbing industry’s biggest concerns about the proposed
definition interpretation—consumer choice and economic impact.
“Civilization
is about a balance of individual choice and social needs,” Harris began. “My
kid would desperately love to drive 95 miles per hour on the Interstate.
Society says he can’t. There are people here in my office who would love to
smoke cigarettes in the office. Society said you can’t because of the impact on
other people. This rule is a restraint on choice because of other people
wasting water and wasting an enormous amount of energy. Because of that,
Congress put this constraint on.
“The
second part of this is none of these devices tell people they are using 10
gallons of water per minute when the current law says 2.5 gallons per minute.
I’m not entirely sure in this day and age that if someone went to buy a
showerhead and was told how much water they would be using that they would
actually choose to waste 10-15 gallons of water per minute. Most people would
be appalled, I think.”
Harris
also questions the plumbing industry’s $400 million per year economic impact
figure if the ruling would go into effect.
“They
have to provide the information to back that up,” Harris said. “Based on
numbers we’ve seen, these showerheads are in 1 to 4 percent of homes. I don’t
know how you do the math to get $400 million. If you don’t have a
10-gallon-per-minute showerhead, you still need a showerhead. It’s going to be
less expensive. Maybe people don’t spend $5,000 on the shower and they spend
$1,000 or $200 or 49 bucks like me?”
Harris
stressed numerous times the DOE is simply clarifying a definition it adopted
from Congress.
“Congress
ruled on this issue almost 20 years ago,” Harris said. “It says any showerhead
can’t be more than 2.5 gallons per minute. If you add two nozzles, that’s two
showerheads? Give me a break. That doesn’t pass the giggle test. If your
showerhead has four nozzles, then the showerhead should use 10 gallons per
minute rather than the statute-mandated 2.5. I thought that was somewhat of a
stretch.
“It’s
clear to me industry wrongly and mistakenly adopted this view to what the law
meant. We issued an interpretation and will respond to substantive arguments
people make. People are entitled to do that and those comments will have an
impact on our thinking as is appropriate.”
Harris
has invited individuals to read the public comments on this issue at
www.regulations.gov.