L - Cfs_ q - tG f

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

Incentive Programs for Voluntary Replacement of Plumbing Products

for

Energy Policy Act (EPAct) -- Section 123

June 20, 1994

Scope and Participants

Section 123 of the Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) ch-arges the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) to issue recommendations to the States for

establishing State and local incentive programs designed to encourage the

acceleration of voluntary replacement-by consumers of existing showerheads,

faucets, water closets, and urinals with those products that meet the standards

established by the legislation.' Meeting this charge will require consultation

among DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, State officials, manufacturers,

suppliers and installers of plumbing equipment, and other interested parties.

DOE anticipates making the recommendations required in Section 123 of EPAct not

later than December 1995. A key part of this report will be comments from

government and industry representatives on effective incentive programs. The

meeting summarized in these minutes was designed as a planning session to receive

suggestions on how to effectively obtain those comments, ensuring both broad

participation and coverage of all pertinent issues regarding State and local

incentive programs. The public meeting was held in New York City on June 20,

1994, in conjunction with the annual conference of the American Water Works

Association.

The approximately 50 participants at this public meeting included State and local

government officials, as well as representatives from manufacturers, utilities

and related support organizations who have interests in programs to accelerate

voluntary replacement of plumbing products.

Opening Comments

Staff from the Appliance Standards Division of the U.S. Department of Energy

opened the meeting with a discussion of EPAct Section 123, to include its focus

on early replacement, effective voluntary incentives, and leadership by State and

local governments. A written summary of standards established for plumbing

products by EPAct was distributed. DOE staff emphasized a strong desire to

ensure that its recommendations be compatible with existing water conservation

programs and financial realities. This emphasis is especially important since

DOE resources available for the development of recommendations as required by

EPAct are relatively small, and significant DOE financial support to State and

local governments for the implementation of voluntary incentives is unlikely.

The objective of the public meeting was to obtain participants' opinions on:

issues and barriers related to voluntary programs; a strategy to develop

recommendations to States for voluntary programs; and next steps in the planning

1 A summary of standards for plumbing products is shown on Attachment 1.

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 1

EE-DET-94-003 COMMENT 16.3

~. 

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY 

Incentive Programs for Voluntary Replacement of Plumbing Products 

for 

Energy Policy Act (EPAct) -- Section 123 

June 20, 1994 

Scope and Participants 

Section 123 of the Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) charges the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) to issue recommendations to the States for 

establishing State and local incentive programs designed to encourage the 

acceleration of voluntary replacement- by consumers of existing showerheads, 

faucets, water closets, and urinals with those products that meet the standards 

established by the legislation. 1 Meeting this charge will require consultation 

among DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, State officials,manufacturers, 

suppliers and installers of plumbing equipment, and other interested parties. 

DOE anticipates making the recommendations required in Section 123 of EPAct not 

1 ater than December 1995. A key part of th is report wi 11 be comments from 

government and industry representatives on effective incentive programs. The 

meeting summarized in these minutes was designed as a planning session to receive 

suggestions on how to effectively obtain those comments, ensuring both broad . participation and coverage of all pertinent issues regarding State and local 

incentive programs. The public meeting was held in New York City on June 20, 

1994, in conjunction with the annual conference of the American Water Works 

Association. 

The approximately 50 participants at this public meeting included State and local 

government officials, as well as representatives from manufacturers, utilities 

and related support organizations who have interests in programs to accelerate 

voluntary replacement of plumbing products. 

Opening Comments 

Staff from the Appliance Standards Division of the U.S. Department of Energy opened the meeting with a discussion of EPAct Section 123, to include its focus 

on early replacement, effective voluntary incentives, and leadership by State and 

1 oca 1 governments. A written summary of standards estab 1 i shed for p 1 umbi ng products by EPAct was distributed. DOE staff emphasized a strong desire to 

ensure that its recommendations be compatible with existing water conservation 

programs and financial realities. This emphasis is especially important since 

DOE resources available for the development of recommendations as required by EPAct are relatively small, and significant DOE financial support to State and 

local governments for the implementation of voluntary incentives is unlikely. 

The objective of the public meeting was to obtain participants' opinions on: 

issues and barri ers related to va luntary programs; a strategy to develop recommendations to States for voluntary programs; and next steps in the planning 

.1 A summary of standards for·plumbing products is shown on Attachment 1. 

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 1 

~. 

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY 

Incentive Programs for Voluntary Replacement of Plumbing Products 

for 

Energy Policy Act (EPAct) -- Section 123 

June 20, 1994 

Scope and Participants 

Section 123 of the Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) charges the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) to issue recommendations to the States for 

establishing State and local incentive programs designed to encourage the 

acceleration of voluntary replacement- by consumers of existing showerheads, 

faucets, water closets, and urinals with those products that meet the standards 

established by the legislation. 1 Meeting this charge will require consultation 

among DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, State officials,manufacturers, 

suppliers and installers of plumbing equipment, and other interested parties. 

DOE anticipates making the recommendations required in Section 123 of EPAct not 

1 ater than December 1995. A key part of th is report wi 11 be comments from 

government and industry representatives on effective incentive programs. The 

meeting summarized in these minutes was designed as a planning session to receive 

suggestions on how to effectively obtain those comments, ensuring both broad . participation and coverage of all pertinent issues regarding State and local 

incentive programs. The public meeting was held in New York City on June 20, 

1994, in conjunction with the annual conference of the American Water Works 

Association. 

The approximately 50 participants at this public meeting included State and local 

government officials, as well as representatives from manufacturers, utilities 

and related support organizations who have interests in programs to accelerate 

voluntary replacement of plumbing products. 

Opening Comments 

Staff from the Appliance Standards Division of the U.S. Department of Energy opened the meeting with a discussion of EPAct Section 123, to include its focus 

on early replacement, effective voluntary incentives, and leadership by State and 

1 oca 1 governments. A written summary of standards estab 1 i shed for p 1 umbi ng products by EPAct was distributed. DOE staff emphasized a strong desire to 

ensure that its recommendations be compatible with existing water conservation 

programs and financial realities. This emphasis is especially important since 

DOE resources available for the development of recommendations as required by EPAct are relatively small, and significant DOE financial support to State and 

local governments for the implementation of voluntary incentives is unlikely. 

The objective of the public meeting was to obtain participants' opinions on: 

issues and barri ers related to va luntary programs; a strategy to develop recommendations to States for voluntary programs; and next steps in the planning 

.1 A summary of standards for·plumbing products is shown on Attachment 1. 

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 1 
process. A summary of discussions and suggestions made by workshop participants

is presented in the balance of this document. It is organized in four main

sections: (1) Issues and Barriers; (2) Key Questions for Program Development;

(3) Suggested Strategy for Voluntary Programs; and (4) Next Steps.

Issues and Barriers

Participants were requested to identify issues and barriers that currently exist

to constrain the development and implementation of incentive programs for the

voluntary replacement of plumbing products. Comments made by participants are

summarized below. Numbering is made for organization and reference only, and

implies neither consensus opinions nor priority order..

1) There are currently wide differences in the importance of water

conservation among States and utilities, and in the sophistication of

their water conservation programs. These differences include:

• Wide variations

program;

in "resources" available to support a conservation

• Wide variations

water system;

as a function of the "size" of a water utility or

and

• Wide variations as a function of the "outlook" of the respective

State Public Utility Commissions (PUC); i.e., there are probably

"50 different outlooks".

2) Reasons that are causes for the disparities among water conservation

programs include factors related to the valuation of water, consideration

of the related effects of conservation, and issues of pricing:

• The economic value of water can differ substantially by region.

These differences are further complicated by the lack of consistent

measures and methods to quantify the value of water.

• Water utilities commonly have a parochial vision that provides

little consideration of the related effects of water conservation on

such externalities as wastewater treatment, stormwater runoff and

the like.

• Water is widely underpriced.

3) Sound methods to evaluate the effectiveness of water conservation programs

do not exist, or are characterized by significant uncertainties:

• Little research has been performed to develop methods that can

isolate the specific effects of water conservation programs.

• Water utilities commonly do not fully understand how to accomplish

water conservation; i.e., they are demand -driven, traditionally

responding to consumer demand for more water, rather than leading

consumers to demand less water.

4) Most water utilities focus primarily on the short-term future, and on the

bottom-line dollar revenues that result from water sales. Conservation

programs require a different focus:

• Water conservation requires a longer term outlook. Since most

utilities make money from the construction of additional capacity

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 2

EE-DET-94-003 COMMENT 16.3

, '. 

process. A summary of discussions and suggestions made by workshop participants 

is presented in th~ balance of this document. It is organized in four main 

sections: (1) Issues and Barriers; (2) Key Questions for Program Development; 

(3) Suggested Strategy for Voluntary Programs; and (4) Next Steps. 

Issues and Barriers 

Participants were requested to identify issues and barriers that currently exist 

to constrain the development and implementation of incentive programs for the 

voluntary replacement of plumbing products. Comments made by participants are 

summarized below. Numbering is made for organization and reference only, and 

implies neither consensus opinions nor priority order .. 

1) There are currently wide differences in the importance of water 

conservat i on among States and uti 1 it i es, and in the soph i st i cat i on of 

their water conservation programs. These differences include: 

• Wide variations in "resources" available to support a conservation 

program; 

• Wide variations as a function of the "size" of a water utility or 

water system; and 

• Wide variations as a function of the "outlook" of the respective State Public Utility Commissions (PUC); i.e., there are probably 

"50 different outlooks". 

2) Reasons that are causes for the di sparit i es among water conservation 

programs include factors related to the valuation of water, consideration 

of the related effects of conservation, and issues of pricing: 

• 

• 

• 

The economic value of water can differ substantially by region. These differences are further complicated by the lack of consistent measur~s and methods to quantify the value of water. 

Water utilities commonly have a parochial vision that provides 

little consideration of the related effects of water conservation on 

such externalities as wastewater treatment, stormwater runoff and 

the like. 

Water is widely underpriced. .'.' 

3) Sound methods to evaluate the effectiveness of water conservation programs do not exist, or are characterized by significant uncertainties: 

• l itt 1 e research has been performed to develop methods that can 

isolate the specific effects of water conservation programs. 

• Water utilities commonly do not fully understand how to accomplish 

water conservation; i.e., they are demand-driven, traditionally 

responding to consumer demand for more water, rather than leading 

consumers to demand less water. 

4) Most water utilities focus primarily on the short-term future, and on the 

bottom-line dollar revenues that result from water sales. Conservation 

programs requ ire a different focus: . . 

• Water conservation requires a longer terin outlook. Since most 

utilities make money from the construction of additional capacity 

EPAct Section .123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 2 

, '. 

process. A summary of discussions and suggestions made by workshop participants 

is presented in th~ balance of this document. It is organized in four main 

sections: (1) Issues and Barriers; (2) Key Questions for Program Development; 

(3) Suggested Strategy for Voluntary Programs; and (4) Next Steps. 

Issues and Barriers 

Participants were requested to identify issues and barriers that currently exist 

to constrain the development and implementation of incentive programs for the 

voluntary replacement of plumbing products. Comments made by participants are 

summarized below. Numbering is made for organization and reference only, and 

implies neither consensus opinions nor priority order .. 

1) There are currently wide differences in the importance of water 

conservat i on among States and uti 1 it i es, and in the soph i st i cat i on of 

their water conservation programs. These differences include: 

• Wide variations in "resources" available to support a conservation 

program; 

• Wide variations as a function of the "size" of a water utility or 

water system; and 

• Wide variations as a function of the "outlook" of the respective State Public Utility Commissions (PUC); i.e., there are probably 

"50 different outlooks". 

2) Reasons that are causes for the di sparit i es among water conservation 

programs include factors related to the valuation of water, consideration 

of the related effects of conservation, and issues of pricing: 

• 

• 

• 

The economic value of water can differ substantially by region. These differences are further complicated by the lack of consistent measur~s and methods to quantify the value of water. 

Water utilities commonly have a parochial vision that provides 

little consideration of the related effects of water conservation on 

such externalities as wastewater treatment, stormwater runoff and 

the like. 

Water is widely underpriced. .'.' 

3) Sound methods to evaluate the effectiveness of water conservation programs do not exist, or are characterized by significant uncertainties: 

• l itt 1 e research has been performed to develop methods that can 

isolate the specific effects of water conservation programs. 

• Water utilities commonly do not fully understand how to accomplish 

water conservation; i.e., they are demand-driven, traditionally 

responding to consumer demand for more water, rather than leading 

consumers to demand less water. 

4) Most water utilities focus primarily on the short-term future, and on the 

bottom-line dollar revenues that result from water sales. Conservation 

programs requ ire a different focus: . . 

• Water conservation requires a longer terin outlook. Since most 

utilities make money from the construction of additional capacity 

EPAct Section .123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 2 
and the sales of more water, the change to conservation will be

difficult to make.

• An important start needed to change this short-term outlook could be

a focus on such concrete, longer-term issues as business retention -

- especially in areas with limited water resource availability.

5) Public Utility Commissions (PVC's) have a different perspective than do

most water utilities. They are service-oriented, rather than demandoriented.

• PVC's are charged primarily to assure a reasonable consumer cost and

level of service for water, with a reasonable profit for utilities,

but . . . .

• They usually have little or no competence in resource management.

Key Questions for Program Development

Following the discussion of issues and barriers, participants defined a series

of key questions they considered important in the definition of incentive

programs for voluntary replacement of plumbing products. A summary of their

suggestions follows. Again, numbering is made for organization and reference

only, and implies neither consensus opinions nor priority order.

1) Why should DOE support activities related to water conservation? The

following two reasons were suggested by participants:

•- To avoid water quality degradation and ensure adequate future

supplies; and

• To save energy for water and wastewater treatment, water heating,

etc.

2) What benefits will result from the "accelerated replacement" of plumbing

products? Participants suggested that two points must be addressed to

answer this question.

• Plumbing products will be replaced by consumers at a "normal" rate.

What is'the baseline for that "normal" rate, and what is the desired

range for "accelerated" rates that should result from early

replacement efforts?

• Can product prices and/or incentives for accelerated replacement be

set so that they are both cost-effective and successful in

influencing consumer behavior?

3) Is the issue of "water conservation" similar to that of "energy

conservation" for both water utilities and Public Utility Commissions?

Similarities and differences include:

• Both water and energy conservation programs will have "leaders" and

"followers" who are likely to remain relatively constant.

• To succeed, programs for both energy and water conservation require

effective efforts in public education and awareness.

• Unlike energy utilities, the water utility industry has many small

"Mom & Pop " water utilities with few resources and little

sophistication.

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 3

EE-DET-94-003 COMMENT 16.3

and the sal es of more water, the change to conservat i on wi 11 be 

difficult to make. 

• An important start needed to change this short-term outlook could be 

a focus on such concrete, longer-term issues as business retention - - especially in areas with limited water resource availability. 

5) Public Utility Commissions (PUC's) have a different perspective than do 

most water util ities. They are service-oriented, rather than demandoriented. 

• PUC's are charged primarily to assure a reasonable consumer cost and 

level of service for water, with a reasonable profit for utilities, 

but . . . . • They usually have little or no competence in resource management~ 

Key Questions for Program Development 

Following the discussion of issues and barriers, participants defined a series 

of key quest ions they cons i dered important in the defi n it i on of i ncent i ve 

programs for voluntary replacement of p 1 umbi ng products. A summary of thei r 

suggestions follows. Again, numbering is made for organization and reference 

on7y, and imp7ies neither consensus opinions nor priority order. 

1) Why should DOE support activities related to water conservation? The 

following two reasons were suggested by participants: 

.- To avoid water quality degradation and ensure adequate future 

suppl ies; and 

• To save energy for water and wastewater treatment, water heating, 

etc. 

2) What benefits will result from the "accelerated replacement" of plumbing 

products? Participants suggested that two points must be addressed to 

answer this question. 

• Plumbing products will be replaced by consumers at a "normal" rate. 

What is'the baseline for that "normal" rate, and what is the desired 

range for "accelerated" rates that should result from early 

replacement efforts? 

• Can product prices and/or incentives for accelerated replacement be 

set so that they are both cost-effective and successful in 

influencing consumer behavior? 

3) Is the issue of "water conservation" similar to that of "energy conservation" for both water utilities and Public Utility Commissions? 

Similarities and differences include: 

• Both water and energy conservation programs will have "leaders" and 

"followers" who are likely to remain relatively constant. 

• To succeed, programs for both energy and water conservation require 

effective efforts in public education and awareness. 

• Unlike energy utilities, the water utility industry has many small 

"Mom & Pop" water utilities with few resources and little 

sophistication. 

[PAct Section 123 Pub7ic Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 3 

and the sal es of more water, the change to conservat i on wi 11 be 

difficult to make. 

• An important start needed to change this short-term outlook could be 

a focus on such concrete, longer-term issues as business retention - - especially in areas with limited water resource availability. 

5) Public Utility Commissions (PUC's) have a different perspective than do 

most water util ities. They are service-oriented, rather than demandoriented. 

• PUC's are charged primarily to assure a reasonable consumer cost and 

level of service for water, with a reasonable profit for utilities, 

but . . . . • They usually have little or no competence in resource management~ 

Key Questions for Program Development 

Following the discussion of issues and barriers, participants defined a series 

of key quest ions they cons i dered important in the defi n it i on of i ncent i ve 

programs for voluntary replacement of p 1 umbi ng products. A summary of thei r 

suggestions follows. Again, numbering is made for organization and reference 

on7y, and imp7ies neither consensus opinions nor priority order. 

1) Why should DOE support activities related to water conservation? The 

following two reasons were suggested by participants: 

.- To avoid water quality degradation and ensure adequate future 

suppl ies; and 

• To save energy for water and wastewater treatment, water heating, 

etc. 

2) What benefits will result from the "accelerated replacement" of plumbing 

products? Participants suggested that two points must be addressed to 

answer this question. 

• Plumbing products will be replaced by consumers at a "normal" rate. 

What is'the baseline for that "normal" rate, and what is the desired 

range for "accelerated" rates that should result from early 

replacement efforts? 

• Can product prices and/or incentives for accelerated replacement be 

set so that they are both cost-effective and successful in 

influencing consumer behavior? 

3) Is the issue of "water conservation" similar to that of "energy conservation" for both water utilities and Public Utility Commissions? 

Similarities and differences include: 

• Both water and energy conservation programs will have "leaders" and 

"followers" who are likely to remain relatively constant. 

• To succeed, programs for both energy and water conservation require 

effective efforts in public education and awareness. 

• Unlike energy utilities, the water utility industry has many small 

"Mom & Pop" water utilities with few resources and little 

sophistication. 

[PAct Section 123 Pub7ic Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 3 
• Few water utilities want to design and implement marginal-cost

pricing strategies like those commonly used by energy utilities.

• Unlike energy utilities, few (if any) water utilities can currently

obtain a rate based return on capital for investments in

conservation.

4) What effects will accelerated replacement and other water conservation

programs have on issues of waste management ? Two specific effects were

noted by participants:

• An increase in solid waste disposal needs may be associated with

replacing a large number of older plumbing products and fixtures;

and

• Effective water conservation programs will cause lower flows in

wastewater treatment plants. Important questions related to these

lower flows include:

-- Will such lower flows contribute to effluent standards

violations . . . . or will they have little affect?

-- Will lower flows extend the life of wastewater treatment

plants and avoid the need to build extra capacity (similar to

DSM for energy utilities)?

5) What is an " incentive "? Suggestions made by participants included the

following:

• Regulatory change ( s) that allow a rate based return on capital for

water conservation investments similar to the allowances now in

place for conservation investments made by energy utilities.

• Cash , tax allowances, or other form of subsidy provided by the

Federal government to "seed " participation in conservation programs

by water utilities.

• Pricing of plumbing products and/or water supply to influence

consumer behavior.

• Other factors and considerations that may include the following:

-- Technical assistance provided to water utilities;

-- Ouantified measures for environmental responsibility and

improvement;

-- Improved plumbing product performance and affordability; and

-- Improved plumbing product aesthetics.

Suggested Strategy for Voluntary Programs

During the meeting , participants suggested several key elements that should be

included within an effective strategy for voluntary replacement of plumbing

products . A summary of their suggestions follows. These discussions were brief,

and the suggestions below should not be considered as a complete listing of all

elements within a successful strategy.

1) Recommendations made by DOE should recognize and address the disparities

among water utilities through financial and technical assistance provided

to those utilities . Specific suggestions included the following:

• Recommendations should build on current experience in water

conservation programs . They should include technical assistance or

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft ( 7/18/94) -- Page 4

EE-DET-94-003 COMMENT 16.3

• Few water utilities want to design and implement marginal-cost pricing strategies like those commonly used by energy utilities. 

• Unlike energy utilities, few (if any) water utilities can currently obtain a rate based return on capital for investments in 

conservation. 

4) What effects will accelerated replacement and other water conservation 

programs have on issues of waste management? Two specific effects were 

noted by participants: 

• . An increase in solid waste disposal needs may be associated with 

replacing a large number of older plumbing products and fixtures; 

and 

• Effective water conservation programs will cause lower flows in 

wastewater treatment plants. Important questions related to these 

lower flows include: 

Will such lower flows contribute to effluent standards 

violations .... or will they have little affect? 

Will lower flows extend the 1 i fe of wastewater treatment 

plants and avoid the need to build extra capacity (similar to 

DSM for energy utilities)? . 

5) What is an "incentive"? Suggestions made by participants included the 

foll owi ng: 

• Regulatory change(s) that allow a rate based return on capital for 

water conservation investments s imil ar to the allowances now in 

place for conservation investments made by energy utilities. 

• Cash, tax allowances, or ·other form of subsidy provided by the 

Federal government to "seed" participation in conservation programs 

by water utilities. 

• Pricing of plumbing products and/or water supply to influence 

consumer behavior. 

• Other factors and considerations that may include the following: Technical assistance provided to water utilities; 

Ouantified measures for environmental responsibility and 

improvement; 

Improved plumbing product performance and affordability; and 

Improved plumbing product aesthetics. 

Suggested Strategy for Vol~ntary Pr.ograms 

During the meeting, participants suggested several key elements that should be 

included within an effective strategy for voluntary replacement of plumbing 

products. A summary of their suggestions follows. These discussions were brief, 

and the suggestions below should not be considered as a complete listing of all 

elements within a successful strategy. 

1) Recommendations made by DOE should recognize and address the disparities 

among water utilities through financial and technical assistance provided 

to those utilities. Specific ~uggestions included the following: 

• Recommendations should build on current experience in water 

conservation programs. They should include technical assistance or 

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 4 

• Few water utilities want to design and implement marginal-cost pricing strategies like those commonly used by energy utilities. 

• Unlike energy utilities, few (if any) water utilities can currently obtain a rate based return on capital for investments in 

conservation. 

4) What effects will accelerated replacement and other water conservation 

programs have on issues of waste management? Two specific effects were 

noted by participants: 

• . An increase in solid waste disposal needs may be associated with 

replacing a large number of older plumbing products and fixtures; 

and 

• Effective water conservation programs will cause lower flows in 

wastewater treatment plants. Important questions related to these 

lower flows include: 

Will such lower flows contribute to effluent standards 

violations .... or will they have little affect? 

Will lower flows extend the 1 i fe of wastewater treatment 

plants and avoid the need to build extra capacity (similar to 

DSM for energy utilities)? . 

5) What is an "incentive"? Suggestions made by participants included the 

foll owi ng: 

• Regulatory change(s) that allow a rate based return on capital for 

water conservation investments s imil ar to the allowances now in 

place for conservation investments made by energy utilities. 

• Cash, tax allowances, or ·other form of subsidy provided by the 

Federal government to "seed" participation in conservation programs 

by water utilities. 

• Pricing of plumbing products and/or water supply to influence 

consumer behavior. 

• Other factors and considerations that may include the following: Technical assistance provided to water utilities; 

Ouantified measures for environmental responsibility and 

improvement; 

Improved plumbing product performance and affordability; and 

Improved plumbing product aesthetics. 

Suggested Strategy for Vol~ntary Pr.ograms 

During the meeting, participants suggested several key elements that should be 

included within an effective strategy for voluntary replacement of plumbing 

products. A summary of their suggestions follows. These discussions were brief, 

and the suggestions below should not be considered as a complete listing of all 

elements within a successful strategy. 

1) Recommendations made by DOE should recognize and address the disparities 

among water utilities through financial and technical assistance provided 

to those utilities. Specific ~uggestions included the following: 

• Recommendations should build on current experience in water 

conservation programs. They should include technical assistance or 

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 4 
other means to transfer programs and conservation methods that have

already been proven in existing State and water utility conservation

programs.

• Financial assistance should be provided directly to water utilities

if they are expected to pass-through financial incentives to

consumers.

2) Pricing of water sold to consumers should be used as a conservation

strategy. Comments made on the issue of pricing were as follows: .

• Rate structures can effectively drive market actions and consumer

buy-decisions.

• Recommendations should recognize "classic issues" of rate

regulation. As one example, rate structures are not now used for

resource management in PUCdecisions; rather, rate structures are

set by PUC's to ensure the lowest rates that will provide adequate

customer water services with reasonable utility profits.

3) Recommendations should be of a breadth sufficient to reach key actors.

The definition of key actors suggested by participants included the

following:

• Five major actors for "program development" are:

-- Water utilities

-- State and local governments

-- Public Utility Commissions

-- Environmental regulators

-- Accountants (especially those who make standards, rather than

CPA's)

• Two major actors essential for "program implementation" are:

-- Consumers = they make the buy-decisions and must be reached,

with special early emphases on the following two consumer

targets:

(a) Old housing where fixtures need replacing now; and

(b) Inefficient housing, such as HUD public housing

developments.

-- Manufacturers and Distributors = they have the biggest direct

profit incentive for accelerated sales of new plumbing

products.

Next Steps

The final portion of the meeting focused on actions, responsibilities and

scheduling for additional activities in developing DOE recommendations on

incentive programs for the voluntary replacement of plumbing products. A summary

of these activities as they were discussed during this public meeting follows.

No final consensus on these steps was achieved during the meeting.

1) Minutes and Post - Meeting Suggestions -- DOE will prepare a written summary

of discussions from this public meeting. Participants'who desire to make

written comments from this meeting will provide those comments to DOE. In

late July, 1994 , DOE will provide both the meeting minutes and the written

post - meeting suggestions to the Planning Group ( consisting of volunteers

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 5

EE-DET-94-003 COMMENT 16.3

other means to transfer programs and conservation methods that have 

already been proven in existing State and water utility conservation 

programs. 

• Financial assistance should be provided directly to water utilities 

if they are expected to pass-through financial incentives to 

consumers. 

2) Pricing of water sold to consumers should be used as a conservation 

strategy. Comments made on the issue of pricing were as follows: 

• Rate structures can effectively drive market actions and consumer 

buy-decisions. 

• Recommendations should recognize "classic issues" of rate 

regulation. As one example, rate structures are not now 'used for 

resource management in PUC~decisions; rather, rate structures are 

set by PUC's to ensure the lowest rates that will provide adequate 

customer water services with reasonable utility profits. 

3) Recommendations should be of a breadth sufficient to reach key actors. 

The definitifln of key actors suggested by participants included the 

following: 

• Five major actors for "program development" are: 

Water util ities 

State and local governments Public Utility Commissions 

Environmental regulators Accountants (especially those who make standards, rather than 

CPA's) 

• Two major actors essential for "program implementation" are: 

Next Steps 

Consumers = they make the buy-decisions and must be reached, 

with speci a 1 early emphases on the fo 11 owi ng two consumer 

targets: 

(a) Old housing where fixtures need replacing now; and 

(b) Ineff.icient housing, such as HUD public housing developments. Manufacturers and Distributors = they have the biggest direct 

profit incentive for accelerated sales of new plumbing products. 

The final portion of the meeting focused on actions, responsibilities and 

scheduling for additional activities in developing DOE recommendations on 

i ncent i ve programs for the voluntary replacement of p 1 umbi ng products. A summary of these activities as they were discussed du,ring this public meeting follows. 

No final consensus on these steps was achieved during the meeting. 

1) Minutes and Pflst-Meeting Suggestions -- DOE will prepare a written summary of discussions from this public meeting. Participants~ho desire to make 

written comments from this meeting will provide those comments to DOE. In 

late July, 1994, DOE will provide both the meeting minutes and the written 

post-meeting suggestions to the Planning Group (consisting of volunteers 

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 5 

other means to transfer programs and conservation methods that have 

already been proven in existing State and water utility conservation 

programs. 

• Financial assistance should be provided directly to water utilities 

if they are expected to pass-through financial incentives to 

consumers. 

2) Pricing of water sold to consumers should be used as a conservation 

strategy. Comments made on the issue of pricing were as follows: 

• Rate structures can effectively drive market actions and consumer 

buy-decisions. 

• Recommendations should recognize "classic issues" of rate 

regulation. As one example, rate structures are not now 'used for 

resource management in PUC~decisions; rather, rate structures are 

set by PUC's to ensure the lowest rates that will provide adequate 

customer water services with reasonable utility profits. 

3) Recommendations should be of a breadth sufficient to reach key actors. 

The definitifln of key actors suggested by participants included the 

following: 

• Five major actors for "program development" are: 

Water util ities 

State and local governments Public Utility Commissions 

Environmental regulators Accountants (especially those who make standards, rather than 

CPA's) 

• Two major actors essential for "program implementation" are: 

Next Steps 

Consumers = they make the buy-decisions and must be reached, 

with speci a 1 early emphases on the fo 11 owi ng two consumer 

targets: 

(a) Old housing where fixtures need replacing now; and 

(b) Ineff.icient housing, such as HUD public housing developments. Manufacturers and Distributors = they have the biggest direct 

profit incentive for accelerated sales of new plumbing products. 

The final portion of the meeting focused on actions, responsibilities and 

scheduling for additional activities in developing DOE recommendations on 

i ncent i ve programs for the voluntary replacement of p 1 umbi ng products. A summary of these activities as they were discussed du,ring this public meeting follows. 

No final consensus on these steps was achieved during the meeting. 

1) Minutes and Pflst-Meeting Suggestions -- DOE will prepare a written summary of discussions from this public meeting. Participants~ho desire to make 

written comments from this meeting will provide those comments to DOE. In 

late July, 1994, DOE will provide both the meeting minutes and the written 

post-meeting suggestions to the Planning Group (consisting of volunteers 

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 5 
drawn from the public meeting in New York and other interested

individuals).

2) Comments on Minutes -- Members of the Planning Group will be requested to

review and provide any additional comments on the minutes and the postmeeting suggestions to DOE. Comments will be due by late August, 1994,

and are particularly desired for the activities , schedules and

responsibilities to complete recommendations for incentive programs, as

described below.

3) Inventory of Methods and Experience -- Staff from the Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory ( LBL) will inventory water conservation literature to

identify and catalog differing methods and current experience in water

conservation programs and incentives. A first draft of this inventory

report will be produced in September, 1994.

4) "Strawman" Incentives and Recommendations -- Staff from DOE and LBL will

integrate results from all activities above into working draft

recommendations for voluntary incentive programs . These "strawman"

recommendations will be provided to the planning group for further comment

and revision in October, 1994. A revised draft that includes comments

made by the Planning Group will be prepared by December, 1994.

5) Next Review Meeting -- A meeting to review and critique the "Inventory"

and "Strawman " recommendations will be held in January 1995 in Santa Fe,

New Mexico , in conjunction with the next scheduled meeting of the Water

Conservation subgroup of the American Water Works Association.

A summary schedule and responsibilities for the five suggested actions listed

above follows:

Suggested Action Responsibility Schedule

Minutes/ Post-Meeting DOE and Late July, 1994

Suggestions Participants

Comments on Minutes/Suggestions Planning Group Late August, 1994

Inventory of Methods & Lawrence Berkeley September, 1994

Experience Lab

"Strawman " Incentives and DOE, LBL and October, 1994*

Recommendations Planning Group December , 1994**

Next Review Meeting DOE, LBL and January, 1995

Planning Group

Notes:

* First draft of "Strawman " recommendations provided to Planning Group for

review.

** Second draft of "Strawman " recommendations provided to Planning Group.

rpt_123.003

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94 ) -- Page 6

EE-DET-94-003 COMMENT 16.3

drawn from the public meeting in New York and other interested 

individuals). 

2) Comments on Minutes Members of the Planning Group will be requested to 

review and provide any additional comments on the minutes and the post- meeting suggestions to DOE. Comments will be due by late August, 1994, 

and are particularly desired for the activities, schedules and 

responsibilities to complete recommendations for incentive programs, as 

described below. 

3) Inventory of Methods and Experience -- Staff from the Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory (LBL) will inventory water conservation literature to . identify and catalog differing methods and current experience in water 

conservat i on programs and i ncent i ves. A fi rst draft of thi s inventory 

report will be produced in September, 1994. 

4) "Strawman" Incentives and Recommendations -- Staff from DOE and LBL will 

integrate results from all activities above into working draft 

recommend at ions for voluntary i ncent i ve programs. These" strawman" 

recommendations will be provided to the planning group for further comment 

and revision in October, 1994. A revised draft that includes comments 

made by the Planning Group will be prepared by December, 1994. 

5) Next Review Meeting -- A meeting to review and critique the "Inventory" 

and "Strawman" recommendations will be held in January 1995 in Santa Fe, 

New Mexico, in conjunction with the next scheduled meeting of the Water 

Conservation subgroup of the American Water Works Association. 

A summary schedule and responsibilities for the five suggested actions listed 

above follows: 

Suggested Action Responsibil ity Schedule 

Minutes/Post-Meeting DOE and Late July, 1994 

Suggestions Participants 

Comments on Mi nutes/Suggest ions Planning Group Late August, 1994 

Inventory of Methods & Lawrence Berkeley September, 1994 

Experience Lab 

"Strawman" Incentives and DOE, LBL and October, 1994* 

Recommendations Planning Group December, 1994** 

Next Review Meeting DOE, LBL and January, 1995 

Planning Group 

Notes: 

* First draft of "Strawman" recommendations provided to Pl anning Group for 

review. 

** Second draft of "Strawman" recommendations provided to Planning Group. 

rpt_123.003 

[PAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 6 

drawn from the public meeting in New York and other interested 

individuals). 

2) Comments on Minutes Members of the Planning Group will be requested to 

review and provide any additional comments on the minutes and the post- meeting suggestions to DOE. Comments will be due by late August, 1994, 

and are particularly desired for the activities, schedules and 

responsibilities to complete recommendations for incentive programs, as 

described below. 

3) Inventory of Methods and Experience -- Staff from the Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory (LBL) will inventory water conservation literature to . identify and catalog differing methods and current experience in water 

conservat i on programs and i ncent i ves. A fi rst draft of thi s inventory 

report will be produced in September, 1994. 

4) "Strawman" Incentives and Recommendations -- Staff from DOE and LBL will 

integrate results from all activities above into working draft 

recommend at ions for voluntary i ncent i ve programs. These" strawman" 

recommendations will be provided to the planning group for further comment 

and revision in October, 1994. A revised draft that includes comments 

made by the Planning Group will be prepared by December, 1994. 

5) Next Review Meeting -- A meeting to review and critique the "Inventory" 

and "Strawman" recommendations will be held in January 1995 in Santa Fe, 

New Mexico, in conjunction with the next scheduled meeting of the Water 

Conservation subgroup of the American Water Works Association. 

A summary schedule and responsibilities for the five suggested actions listed 

above follows: 

Suggested Action Responsibil ity Schedule 

Minutes/Post-Meeting DOE and Late July, 1994 

Suggestions Participants 

Comments on Mi nutes/Suggest ions Planning Group Late August, 1994 

Inventory of Methods & Lawrence Berkeley September, 1994 

Experience Lab 

"Strawman" Incentives and DOE, LBL and October, 1994* 

Recommendations Planning Group December, 1994** 

Next Review Meeting DOE, LBL and January, 1995 

Planning Group 

Notes: 

* First draft of "Strawman" recommendations provided to Pl anning Group for 

review. 

** Second draft of "Strawman" recommendations provided to Planning Group. 

rpt_123.003 

[PAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 6 
Attachment 1

Energy Conservation Requirements for Plumbing Products

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) -- Section 123

SUMOM OF ST&MARDS

Faucets. The maximum water use allowed for any of the following faucets

manufactured after January 1, 1994, when measured at a flowing water pressure of

80 pounds per square inch, is as follows:

Faucet Type Maximum Flow Rate

(Gallons per minute or per cycle)

Lavatory faucets 2.5 gpm

Lavatory replacement 2.5 gpm

aerators 2.5 gpm

Kitchen faucets 2.5 gpm

Kitchen replacement aerators 0.25 gpc

Metering faucets

Showerheads. The maximum water use allowed for any showerheads manufactured

after January 1, 1994, is 2.5 gallons per minute when measured at a flowing

pressure of 80 pourds per square inch.

Water Closets.

(1) The maximum water use allowed in gallons per flush for any of the following

water closets manufactured after January 1, 1994, is as follows:

Water Closet Type Maximum Flush Rate

(Gallons per flush)

Gravity tank-type toilets 1.6 gpf

Flushometer tank toilets 1.6 gpf

Electromechanical hydraulic 1.6 .gpf'

toilets 3.5 gpf

Blowout toilets

(2) The maximum water use allowed for any gravity tank-type white two-piece

toilet which bears an adhesive label conspicuous upon installation of the words

"Commercial Use Only" manufactured after January 1, 1994, and before January 1,

1997, is 3.5 gallons per flush.

(3) The maximum water use allowed for flushometer valve toilets, other than

blowout toilets, manufactured after January 1, 1997, is 1.6 gallons per flush.

Urinals . The maximum water use allowed for any urinals manufactured after

January 1, 1994, is 1.0 gallons per flush.

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 7

EE-DET-94-003 COMMENT 16.3

Attachment 1 

Energy Conservation Requirements for Plumbing Products 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) -- Section 123 

SUMKARr OF STAIIIDARDS 

Faucets. The maximum water use allowed for any of the fall owi ng faucets 

manufactured after January 1, 1994, when measured at a flowing water pressure of 

80 pounds per square inch, is as follows: 

Faucet Type Maximum Flow Rate 

(Gallons per minute or per cycle) 

Lavatory faucets 2.5 gpm 

Lavatory replacement 2.5 gpm 

aerators 2.5 gpm 

Kitchen faucets 2.5 gpm 

Kitchen replacement aerators 0.25 gpc 

Meter; ng faucets 

Showerheads. The maximum water use allowed for any showerheads manufactured 

after January 1, 1994, is 2.5 gallons per minute when measured at a flowing 

pressure of 80 pourds per square inch. -

Water Closets. 

(1) The maximum water use allowed in gallons per flush for any of the following 

water closets manufactured after January 1, 1994, is as follows: 

Water Closet Type Maximum Flush Rate 

(Gallons per flush) 

Gravity tank-type toilets 1. 6 gpf 

Flushometer tank toilets 1.6 gpf 

Electromechanical hydraulic 1.6gpf' 

toil ets 3.5 gpf Blowout toil ets 

(2) The maximum water use allowed for any gravity tank-type white two-piece toilet which bears an adhesive label conspicuous upon installation of the words 

"Commercial Use Only" manufactured after January 1, 1994, and before January 1, 

1997, is 3.5 gallons per flush. 

(3) The maximum water use allowed for flushometer valve toilets, other than 

blowout toilets, manufactured after January 1, 1997, is 1.6 gallons per flush. 

Urinals. The maximum water use .allowed for any urinals manufactured after 

January 1, 1994, is 1.0 gallons per flush. 

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 7 

Attachment 1 

Energy Conservation Requirements for Plumbing Products 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) -- Section 123 

SUMKARr OF STAIIIDARDS 

Faucets. The maximum water use allowed for any of the fall owi ng faucets 

manufactured after January 1, 1994, when measured at a flowing water pressure of 

80 pounds per square inch, is as follows: 

Faucet Type Maximum Flow Rate 

(Gallons per minute or per cycle) 

Lavatory faucets 2.5 gpm 

Lavatory replacement 2.5 gpm 

aerators 2.5 gpm 

Kitchen faucets 2.5 gpm 

Kitchen replacement aerators 0.25 gpc 

Meter; ng faucets 

Showerheads. The maximum water use allowed for any showerheads manufactured 

after January 1, 1994, is 2.5 gallons per minute when measured at a flowing 

pressure of 80 pourds per square inch. -

Water Closets. 

(1) The maximum water use allowed in gallons per flush for any of the following 

water closets manufactured after January 1, 1994, is as follows: 

Water Closet Type Maximum Flush Rate 

(Gallons per flush) 

Gravity tank-type toilets 1. 6 gpf 

Flushometer tank toilets 1.6 gpf 

Electromechanical hydraulic 1.6gpf' 

toil ets 3.5 gpf Blowout toil ets 

(2) The maximum water use allowed for any gravity tank-type white two-piece toilet which bears an adhesive label conspicuous upon installation of the words 

"Commercial Use Only" manufactured after January 1, 1994, and before January 1, 

1997, is 3.5 gallons per flush. 

(3) The maximum water use allowed for flushometer valve toilets, other than 

blowout toilets, manufactured after January 1, 1997, is 1.6 gallons per flush. 

Urinals. The maximum water use .allowed for any urinals manufactured after 

January 1, 1994, is 1.0 gallons per flush. 

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 7 
Attachment 2

Public Meeting Agenda

Incentive Programs for Voluntary Replacement of Plumbing Products

Energy Policy Act (EPAct) -- Section 123

U.S. Department of Energy

New York Hilton & Towers, Room 551

New York, New York

June 20, 1994

Introduction and Objectives

12:30 PM Welcome and Introductions Barbara Twigg

-- Objectives of the Meeting (Codes & Standards, DOE)

-- EPAct Requirements

12:45 PM Background Isaac Turiel

-- Federal Agency Involvement Camilla Dunham

-- LBL and DOE'Support (Lawrence Berkeley Lab)

Discussion and Comments2

1:00 PM Status, Issues and Resources All Workshop Participants

-- Goals for Voluntary Incentive Programs

-- Current Status, Issues and Barriers

-- Resource Requirements

2:00 PM Strategy to Develop Recommendations All Workshop Participants

-- Topics and Key Interests

-- Options for Participation

-- Planning Process and Committees

2:45 PM Wrap- up and Next Steps Barbara Twigg

-- Future Actions and Schedule (Codes & Standards, DOE)

3:00 PM Adjourn the Public Meeting

2 Approximate Time -- Discussions will begin after all formal presentations

are made.

Facilitator = Richard W. Zelinski, Princeton Economic Research, Inc.

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 8

EE-DET-94-003 COMMENT 16.3

" 

Attachment 2 

, Publ i c Meeting Agenda 

Incentive Programs for Voluntary Replacement of Plumbing Products 

Energy Policy Act (EPAct) -- Section 123 

u.s. Department of Energy 

New York Hilton & Towers, Room 551 

New York, New York 

June 20, 1994 

Introduction and Objectives 

12:30 PM Welcome and Introductions -- Objectives of the Meeting -- EPAct Requirements 

12:45 PM Background -- Federal Agency Involvement -- LBL and DOE 'Support 

Barbara Twigg 

(Codes & Standards, DOE) 

Isaac Turiel 

Camilla Dunham 

(Lawrence Berkeley Lab) 

Discussion and Comrnents 2 

1:00 PM status, Issues and Resources All Workshop Participants 

Goals for Voluntary Incentive Programs -- Current Status, Issues and Barriers -~ Resource Requirements 

2:00 PM Strategy to Develop Recommendations All Workshop Participants 

Topics and Key Interests -- Options for Participation -- Planning Process and Committees 

2:45 PM Wrap-up and Next Steps Barbara Twigg -- Future Actions and Schedule (Codes & Standards, DOE) 

3:00 PM Adjourn the Public Meeting 

2 Approximate Time -- Discussions will begin after all formal presentations 

are made. 

Facilitator = Richard W. Zelinski, Princeton Economic Research, Inc. 

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting ,Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 8 

" 

Attachment 2 

, Publ i c Meeting Agenda 

Incentive Programs for Voluntary Replacement of Plumbing Products 

Energy Policy Act (EPAct) -- Section 123 

u.s. Department of Energy 

New York Hilton & Towers, Room 551 

New York, New York 

June 20, 1994 

Introduction and Objectives 

12:30 PM Welcome and Introductions -- Objectives of the Meeting -- EPAct Requirements 

12:45 PM Background -- Federal Agency Involvement -- LBL and DOE 'Support 

Barbara Twigg 

(Codes & Standards, DOE) 

Isaac Turiel 

Camilla Dunham 

(Lawrence Berkeley Lab) 

Discussion and Comrnents 2 

1:00 PM status, Issues and Resources All Workshop Participants 

Goals for Voluntary Incentive Programs -- Current Status, Issues and Barriers -~ Resource Requirements 

2:00 PM Strategy to Develop Recommendations All Workshop Participants 

Topics and Key Interests -- Options for Participation -- Planning Process and Committees 

2:45 PM Wrap-up and Next Steps Barbara Twigg -- Future Actions and Schedule (Codes & Standards, DOE) 

3:00 PM Adjourn the Public Meeting 

2 Approximate Time -- Discussions will begin after all formal presentations 

are made. 

Facilitator = Richard W. Zelinski, Princeton Economic Research, Inc. 

EPAct Section 123 Public Meeting ,Draft (7/18/94) -- Page 8