New building Reg's from obama - forget about that luxury shower.

[Hoover]

The article from the wall street journal is below. Basically, those water saving shower heads, now all fixtures in the shower will have to total 2.5 gal rather than each one individually needing to comply. Obama is having his Secretary of Energy interpret the 1992 law in a way that no one else does. Clinton's Sec of Energy was ok with the 2.5 gal per fixture but not this guy. If you are not familiar with Sec of Energy Steven Chu, he's more green than Al Gore or Greenpeace. This will probably end up in a court battle like Obama's ban on offshore drilling which he lost at the district court and appeals court level.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...611463490.html

A Water Fight Over Luxury Showers

By STEPHEN POWER

(Please see Corrections and Amplifications below.)

Gene Goforth sells showerheads—big ones, like the Raindance Imperial 600 AIR. Selling for as much as $5,457, it has a 24-inch spray face, 358 no-clog channels and a triple-massage option. "You can just stand under it, and it helps your psyche," says Mr. Goforth, who has one in his home.

Now, Mr. Goforth is in a lather over the federal government's tough new line on water-hogging showerheads, part of a new effort to enforce energy- and water-use regulations. "Leave my shower alone," Mr. Goforth recently wrote in a letter to the Department of Energy.

Regulators are going after some of the luxury shower fixtures that took off in the housing boom. Many have multiple nozzles, cost thousands of dollars and emit as many as 12 gallons of water a minute. In May, the DOE stunned the plumbing-products industry when it said it would adopt a strict definition of the term "showerhead" in enforcing standards that have been on the books—but largely unenforced—for nearly 20 years.

Industry response has been fast and furious. "It was not the legislative intent of Congress to authorize DOE to regulate the bathing habits of Americans," wrote Frederick Desborough, vice president of California Faucets, a Huntington Beach, Calif., manufacturer, in a letter to the DOE in June.

The showdown is a challenge to President Barack Obama and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, as they try to cajole—or compel—Americans to use water and energy more efficiently. Mr. Chu, a self-described "zealot" for energy efficiency, says he crawls around in his attic in his spare time installing extra insulation.

A 1992 federal law says a showerhead can deliver no more than 2.5 gallons per minute at a flowing water pressure of 80 pounds per square inch. For years, the term "showerhead" in federal regulations was understood by many manufacturers to mean a device that directs water onto a bather. Each nozzle in a shower was considered separate and in compliance if it delivered no more than the 2.5-gallon maximum. But in May, the DOE said a "showerhead" may incorporate "one or more sprays, nozzles or openings." Under the new interpretation, all nozzles would count as a single showerhead and be deemed noncompliant if, taken together, they exceed the 2.5 gallons-a-minute maximum.

In May, the DOE's general counsel, Scott Blake Harris, fined four showerhead makers $165,104 in civil penalties, alleging they failed to demonstrate compliance for some devices.

Manufacturers and retailers say the new rules affect not just upscale systems but also those with hand-held sprays used by the elderly and disabled. Multiple showerheads often found in shower rooms at schools or gyms could also be at risk, manufacturers say. Customers will be disgruntled because of limited product range, they add.

"Did Congress limit consumer choice? Absolutely," the DOE's Mr. Harris says. "When you waste water, you waste energy." Each multi-head shower fixture uses an extra 40 to 80 thermal units of energy per year, equivalent to 50 gallons of gasoline, or one barrel of oil, he says.

Mr. Harris says only manufacturers are subject to the new rules; homeowners aren't directly affected. Companies will have time to adjust product lines, and most consumers won't feel any effect, he says. "Ninety-five percent of us use normal showerheads," he adds.

From 1% to 4% of new homes built in the U.S. has a multi-head shower system, the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute estimates. The industry is "committed to bringing to market water-efficient plumbing products," says Barbara Higgens, executive director. Mr. Harris is making "a value judgment," she adds. "One person's waste is another person's therapeutic use of water."

Hansgrohe AG, of Germany, says its Raindance device meets the current 2.5-gallons-per-minute standard but would violate the proposed new definition of showerhead. It will "negatively impact an already weakened American industry, just as it begins to experience signs of recovery," the company said in a June 18 letter to the DOE.

Altmans Products, a U.S. unit of Grupo Helvex of Mexico City, says it got a letter from the DOE in January and has stopped selling several popular models, including the Shower Rose, which delivers 12 gallons of water a minute. Pedro Mier, the firm's vice president, says his customers "just like to feel they're getting a lot of water." Until getting the DOE letter, his firm didn't know U.S. law limited showerhead water usage, Mr. Mier says. "At first, I thought it was a scam."

Corrections & Amplifications
Barbara Higgens is the executive director of the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute. A previous version of this article misspelled her last name.

Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com

[MarkMc]

The article from the wall street journal is below. Basically, those water saving shower heads, now all fixtures in the shower will have to total 2.5 gal rather than each one individually needing to comply. Obama is having his Secretary of Energy interpret the 1992 law in a way that no one else does....

Or in a way some don't want to. It was a poorly written reg in that it made it far too simple to circumvent. Wonder if any lobbyists had anything to do with that. On the bright side at least it's not something being shoved down the ol' craw. Remember that over-consumption by the 2% represents a real [hidden] tax on the other 99% and that's one of those thing we really want to rally around to fight against.

[philthegreek]

Nothing really to stop someone from changing out the shower heads after the ol' C of O is in hand now is there. Also, it can be interpreted as per fixture, so if you include an isolation valve that does not allow more than one or two fixtures to operate at any given time, you should be good.
What is all the fuss over anyhow? The reg is to help us save a finite resource, potable water, that is already getting harder to procure. Wells have to be drilled deeper (sounds familiar), aquifers are becoming salinated (florida), drought is more widespread (Georgia and the Carolinas).
Want to waste water? Just take a longer shower.
When an aquifer goes dry, the people with the water saver shower heads are going to sue the deep pockets with the sixteen shower heads and turbo bidets in their bathrooms.


phil

[Ted S.]

Nothing really to stop someone from changing out the shower heads after the ol' C of O is in hand now is there.

I thought they are looking to stop the manufacture of non-compliant fixtures, not jsut the installation, thereby making only water efficient fixtures avalible?

[philthegreek]

OK, so still, what's the big deal? I'm sure the fixture companies, especially the higher end ones like Grøhe will have no problem complying and being leaders in innovation.
Remember when the car companies said it was impossible to get more mileage out of their engines AND have them burn clean at the same time? That didn't exactly "ruin" them.


phil

[Ted S.]

OK, so still, what's the big deal? I'm sure the fixture companies, especially the higher end ones like Grøhe will have no problem complying and being leaders in innovation.
Remember when the car companies said it was impossible to get more mileage out of their engines AND have them burn clean at the same time? That didn't exactly "ruin" them.


phil

Except for the fact we have no more muscle cars....

Anyway, water conservation is very important. I agree we need to take it more seriously, I actually am looking at learning more about conservation measures and working them into my business. I think it will become bigger business in the not so distant future.

[philthegreek]

Except for the fact we have no more muscle cars....

Anyway, water conservation is very important. I agree we need to take it more seriously, I actually am looking at learning more about conservation measures and working them into my business. I think it will become bigger business in the not so distant future.

You mean that the Corvette, Viper, new Mustang, new Camaro and Challenger are not muscle cars? Have you seen their performance stats?

phil

[Ted S.]

You mean that the Corvette, Viper, new Mustang, new Camaro and Challenger are not muscle cars? Have you seen their performance stats?

phil

No way man.

I am a fan of the old cars, my dream is a 1970 Chevelle SS LS56 with a 454 Rat. Fastest production car ever built. Although I would settle for and old Goat (GTO).

I rented a brand new Camaro in Austin, TX, it looks nice..."looks" being the key word there. If it gets more than 10mpg I'm not interested.

[Allan Edwards]

The first new car I ever bought was in 1970, it was a red Z-28 Camaro. I had 3 wrecks in it showing it off to my girlfriends.

[philthegreek]

If it is because you can't work on them yourself anymore, then I'm in agreement. But the first year Viper had a 0-60 of 4.72 seconds and the acceleration was kick-in-the-pants fierce. I was one of the first techs in the country to work on them and it was pure muscle.
I, myself have a 1967 Camaro in "process". It's a Daddy-Daughter project now but house expenses are keeping the work to a minimum.
As far as the auto companies, they could do it if they really wanted. They have no interest in legacy sales. All money guys again, no car guys :-p.

phil

[Hoover]

The muscle cars, suv's, etc. are getting pressure from the gov't (obama) increasing the ave. miles to a gal manufacturers must meet. Sure they'll be innovation to inprove things but it's also a lot easier and quicker to make cars smaller and put smaller engines in them. They will put more effort into the tech for Suv's but they just don't sell enough sports cars for them to justify the extra expenses. What they really need to do is clean up the trucking fleet. You see some trucks that are nasty polluters but they lobby better than individuals.

[swbuilder]

The first new car I ever bought was in 1970, it was a red Z-28 Camaro. I had 3 wrecks in it showing it off to my girlfriends.

Your insurance must have went thru the roof!

IMO there is nothing like the sound of a old pushrod v-8 with a lopey cam. These new cars are more drivable and can beat the old cars but can't replicate the experience for some reason. I had a 69 firebird about 25 years ago. That thing could smoke the tires till the cows came home.

[MarkMc]

Your insurance must have went thru the roof!

I'd guess that he paid out of pocket rather than make a claim on socialized risk costs abatement, and good on him for it too. I know I sure hated being lumped in that high rate age/gender bracket purely based on actions of others. ;