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**~.** 

### PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY Incentive Programs for Voluntary Replacement of Plumbing Products for Energy PolicyAct (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 thatmeet 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 ofEPAct not 1

### ater than December 1995. Akey part of this report wi11 be comments from government and industry representatives on effective incentive programs. The meeting summarized in theseminuteswas designed as aplanning sessiontoreceive 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 approximately50participantsatthispublicmeeting includedStateandlocal government officials, as well as representatives from manufacturers, utilities and related support organizations who have interests in programs to accelerate voluntary replacement ofplumbing products. Opening Comments Staff from the Appliance Standards Division of the U.S. Department of Energy opened the meeting with adiscussion ofEPAct Section 123, to include its focus onearlyreplacement, effectivevoluntary incentives, andleadershipbyStateand 1



### oca1 

### governments. Awritten summary of standards estab1

### ished for p 1 umbing 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 valuntary programs; a strategy to develop recommendations toStatesforvoluntaryprograms; and next steps in theplanning

.1 

### Asummary ofstandardsfor·plumbing products is shown on Attachment 1.
EPAct Section 123 

### PublicMeeting Draft (7/18/94)

-- Page 1**~.** 

### PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY Incentive Programs for Voluntary Replacement of Plumbing Products for Energy PolicyAct (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 thatmeet 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 ofEPAct not 1

### ater than December 1995. Akey part of this report wi11 be comments from government and industry representatives on effective incentive programs. The meeting summarized in theseminuteswas designed as aplanning sessiontoreceive 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 approximately50participantsatthispublicmeeting includedStateandlocal government officials, as well as representatives from manufacturers, utilities and related support organizations who have interests in programs to accelerate voluntary replacement ofplumbing products. Opening Comments Staff from the Appliance Standards Division of the U.S. Department of Energy opened the meeting with adiscussion ofEPAct Section 123, to include its focus onearlyreplacement, effectivevoluntary incentives, andleadershipbyStateand 1



### oca1 

### governments. Awritten summary of standards estab1

### ished for p 1 umbing 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 valuntary programs; a strategy to develop recommendations toStatesforvoluntaryprograms; and next steps in theplanning

.1 

### Asummary ofstandardsfor·plumbing products is shown on Attachment 1.
EPAct Section 123 

### PublicMeeting Draft (7/18/94)

-- Page 1process. 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 , '.
process. Asummary ofdiscussions 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 Participantswere requested to identifyissues and barriers thatcurrentlyexist 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 norpriority order

.. 1) There are currently wide differences in the importance of water conservation among States and uti1ities, and in the sophistication 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 disparities among water conservation programs include factors related to the valuation ofwater, 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 lackofconsistent**measur~s** and methods to quantify the value of water. Water utilities commonly have a parochial vision that provides littleconsideration ofthe relatedeffects ofwater conservationon such externalities as wastewater treatment, stormwater runoff and the like. Water is widely underpriced. .'.' 3) Soundmethods to evaluatetheeffectiveness ofwater conservation programs do not exist, or are characterized by significant uncertainties: • litt1 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 primarilyon 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 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. Asummary ofdiscussions 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 Participantswere requested to identifyissues and barriers thatcurrentlyexist 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 norpriority order

.. 1) There are currently wide differences in the importance of water conservation among States and uti1ities, and in the sophistication 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 disparities among water conservation programs include factors related to the valuation ofwater, 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 lackofconsistent**measur~s** and methods to quantify the value of water. Water utilities commonly have a parochial vision that provides littleconsideration ofthe relatedeffects ofwater conservationon such externalities as wastewater treatment, stormwater runoff and the like. Water is widely underpriced. .'.' 3) Soundmethods to evaluatetheeffectiveness ofwater conservation programs do not exist, or are characterized by significant uncertainties: • litt1 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 primarilyon 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 terin outlook. Since most utilities make money from the construction of additional capacity

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

-- Page 2and 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 domost 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 and the sales of more water, the change to conservation wi11 be difficult to make. • An important start needed to change this short-termoutlookcould be afocus on such concrete, longer-termissues 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 utilities. They are service-oriented, rather than demandoriented.

• PUC's are charged primarilyto assure areasonable consumercost and level of service for water, with areasonable 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 p 1 umbing products. Asummary of their suggestions follows. Again, numbering is made for organization and reference on7y, and imp7ies neither consensus opinions norpriority 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'thebaseline 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 sales of more water, the change to conservation wi11 be difficult to make. • An important start needed to change this short-termoutlookcould be afocus on such concrete, longer-termissues 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 utilities. They are service-oriented, rather than demandoriented.

• PUC's are charged primarilyto assure areasonable consumercost and level of service for water, with areasonable 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 p 1 umbing products. Asummary of their suggestions follows. Again, numbering is made for organization and reference on7y, and imp7ies neither consensus opinions norpriority 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'thebaseline 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 • 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 ife 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**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. Asummary oftheirsuggestions follows. These discussionswerebrief, and the suggestions below shouldnot be considered as a complete listingofall 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 ife 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**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. Asummary oftheirsuggestions follows. These discussionswerebrief, and the suggestions below shouldnot be considered as a complete listingofall 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 4other 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 othermeans to transfer programs and conservation methods that have alreadybeen proven in existingStateand water utilityconservation programs. • Financial assistance should be provided directlytowater 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 utilities State and local governments Public Utility Commissions Environmental regulators Accountants (especiallythose who make standards, ratherthan CPA's)
• Two major actors essential for "program implementation" are:

Next Steps Consumers =they make the buy-decisions and must be reached, with specia 1 early emphases on the fo11owing 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 biggestdirect 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 incentive programs forthevoluntaryreplacement ofp 1 umbing products. Asummary of these activities as they were discussed du,ring this public meeting follows. 

### No final consensus on these stepswas achievedduring the meeting. 1) Minutes and Pflst-Meeting Suggestions

-- DOEwill prepare awrittensummary ofdiscussions from this public meeting.**Participants~ho** desiretomake written comments from thismeeting will provide those comments toDOE. In lateJuly, 1994, DOE will provideboth themeeting minutes and thewritten post-meeting suggestions to the Planning Group (consisting of volunteers



### EPAct Section 123 

### PublicMeeting Draft (7/18/94)

-- Page 5 othermeans to transfer programs and conservation methods that have alreadybeen proven in existingStateand water utilityconservation programs. • Financial assistance should be provided directlytowater 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 utilities State and local governments Public Utility Commissions Environmental regulators Accountants (especiallythose who make standards, ratherthan CPA's)
• Two major actors essential for "program implementation" are:

Next Steps Consumers =they make the buy-decisions and must be reached, with specia 1 early emphases on the fo11owing 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 biggestdirect 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 incentive programs forthevoluntaryreplacement ofp 1 umbing products. Asummary of these activities as they were discussed du,ring this public meeting follows. 

### No final consensus on these stepswas achievedduring the meeting. 1) Minutes and Pflst-Meeting Suggestions

-- DOEwill prepare awrittensummary ofdiscussions from this public meeting.**Participants~ho** desiretomake written comments from thismeeting will provide those comments toDOE. In lateJuly, 1994, DOE will provideboth themeeting minutes and thewritten post-meeting suggestions to the Planning Group (consisting of volunteers



### EPAct Section 123 

### PublicMeeting Draft (7/18/94)

-- Page 5drawn from the public meeting in New York and other interested

individuals). 2) Comments on Minutes

-- Members of the Planning Group will be requested toreview 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 drawn from the public meeting in New York and other interested individuals). 2) Comments on Minutes Members ofthe 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 inventorywater conservation literature to
. identify and catalog differing methods and current experience in water conservation programs and incentives. Afirst 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 tothe planning group for further comment and revision in October, 1994. Arevised draft that includes comments made by the Planning Group will be prepared by December, 1994. 5) Next Review Meeting

-- Ameeting 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. Asummary 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 CommentsonMinutes/Suggestions Planning Group Late August, 1994 Inventory ofMethods 

### & 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
[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 ofthe 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 inventorywater conservation literature to
. identify and catalog differing methods and current experience in water conservation programs and incentives. Afirst 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 tothe planning group for further comment and revision in October, 1994. Arevised draft that includes comments made by the Planning Group will be prepared by December, 1994. 5) Next Review Meeting

-- Ameeting 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. Asummary 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 CommentsonMinutes/Suggestions Planning Group Late August, 1994 Inventory ofMethods 

### & 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
[PAct Section 123 Public Meeting Draft (7/18/94)

-- Page 6Attachment 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 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 fallowing faucets manufactured afterJanuary 1, 1994, when measured at aflowing 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 of80 pourds per square inch.

- Water Closets. (1) The maximum water use allowed in gallons per flush for any ofthe following water closets manufactured after January 1, 1994, is as follows:
Water Closet Type Maximum Flush Rate (Gallons per flush) Gravity tank-type toilets 1.6gpf Flushometer tank toilets 1.6 gpf Electromechanical hydraulic 1.6gpf' 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 ofthe words "Commercial Use Only" manufactured afterJanuary 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 afterJanuary 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 fallowing faucets manufactured afterJanuary 1, 1994, when measured at aflowing 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 of80 pourds per square inch.

- Water Closets. (1) The maximum water use allowed in gallons per flush for any ofthe following water closets manufactured after January 1, 1994, is as follows:
Water Closet Type Maximum Flush Rate (Gallons per flush) Gravity tank-type toilets 1.6gpf Flushometer tank toilets 1.6 gpf Electromechanical hydraulic 1.6gpf' 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 ofthe words "Commercial Use Only" manufactured afterJanuary 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 afterJanuary 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 7Attachment 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 " 

### Attachment 2



### ,Publi c Meeting Agenda Incentive Programs for Voluntary Replacement of Plumbing Products Energy Policy Act (EPAct)

-- Section 123 

## u.s. Department ofEnergy New YorkHilton 

### &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 andDOE'Support 

### Barbara Twigg (Codes &

### Standards, DOE)
Isaac Turiel Camilla Dunham (Lawrence Berkeley Lab) 

### Discussion and Comrnents2 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 andKey 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 

### ApproximateTime

-- Discussionswill begin afterall formal presentations are made. Facilitator = RichardW. Zelinski, Princeton Economic Research, Inc.
EPAct Section 123 PublicMeeting 

### ,Draft (7/18/94)

-- Page 8 " 

### Attachment 2



### ,Publi c Meeting Agenda Incentive Programs for Voluntary Replacement of Plumbing Products Energy Policy Act (EPAct)

-- Section 123 

## u.s. Department ofEnergy New YorkHilton 

### &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 andDOE'Support 

### Barbara Twigg (Codes &

### Standards, DOE)
Isaac Turiel Camilla Dunham (Lawrence Berkeley Lab) 

### Discussion and Comrnents2 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 andKey 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 

### ApproximateTime

-- Discussionswill begin afterall formal presentations are made. Facilitator = RichardW. Zelinski, Princeton Economic Research, Inc.
EPAct Section 123 PublicMeeting 

### ,Draft (7/18/94)

-- Page 8