A new Executive Order entitled "Maintaining Acceptable Water Pressure in Showerheads" (the "EO") was released on April 9, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/maintaining-acceptable-water-pressure-in-showerheads/
Ostensibly, the President was directing policy to address what he perceives to be over regulation of a part of our lives, and in this instance, the specific source of frustration is the belief that showerheads are over-regulated.
As readers are likely aware, for the last few decades, various pieces of equipment that we use in our homes and our commercial endeavors have been the subject of regulation at the Federal and State levels. While I was not there, my sense of these regulations is that they were focused on improving the efficiency of and thereby reducing the use of energy to power various types of machinery – the goal being, if the equipment is more efficient, then less power will be consumed in delivering the services sought by the piece of equipment (e.g., lights, boilers, HVAC, etc.).
These various levels of required efficiency are codified at 42 US Code 6295. If interested in the source material – https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-2000-title42-section6295&num=0&edition=2000
Standards for showerheads and faucets:
(1) The maximum water use allowed for any showerhead manufactured after January 1, 1994, is 2.5 gallons per minute when measured at a flowing water pressure of 80 pounds per square inch. Any such showerhead shall also meet the requirements of ASME/ANSI A112.18.1M–1989, 7.4.3(a).
(2) 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:
| Lavatory faucets | 2.5 gallons per minute |
| Lavatory replacement aerators | 2.5 gallons per minute |
| Kitchen faucets | 2.5 gallons per minute |
| Kitchen replacement aerators | 2.5 gallons per minute |
| Metering faucets | 0.25 gallons per cycle |
The EO indicates, as many would agree, that overregulation chokes the American economy...". Furthermore, many might agree that the above mandates might be a bit over zealous and that their shower pressure has been diminished due to the required maximum water usage rates stated above.
Given this, shall we say, "pressure", the President felt compelled to order the repeal of the Energy Conservation Program located at 10 C.F. R. 430.2 – meaning the above standards that apply to household and business items like light bulbs, boilers, HVAC equipment, refrigerators, micro waves, etc. In fact the EO contains language that "notice and comment is unnecessary because I [being the President] am ordering the repeal." [bracketed language added]. I hereby direct the Secretary of Energy to publish in the Federal Register a notice rescinding Energy Conservation Program...".
As one commentator, Jonathan Adler, noted, "if we want more water flow, that is a job for Congress, and if we want to conserve water, we would be better off with market pricing." Moreover, he points out that the President's assertion of authority "to repeal the regulation is a breath-taking assertion of presidential authority — and one that will almost certainly be rejected by the courts."
Green Spouts: I find this EO a bit curious in that it will be very unlikely to change behavior at the home or business level given that showerheads have already been installed at our homes and businesses and, given human nature, it is unlikely (if I project my approach on my readers) that homeowners and business owners will remove existing fully functional showerheads or toilets or light bulbs or other equipment to potentially get better/stronger water flow or a different color of light, merely because an EO says so; especially prior to the piece of equipment needing repair or replacement. That said, before a homeowner or business owner looks to change its lights, HVAC, boiler, or indeed its showerhead, it is likely that the homeowner/business owner will look to analyze the cost that will be incurred once the replacement equipment is put into operation – (i.e., the operational cost of the new equipment). If the user is shown that the replacement equipment with the better water flow or more beautiful light will cost her/him more money over the course of use then it is unlikely (albeit possible) that the user will switch back to a more heavy user or less efficient source of energy or, in this case, water. Convenience is indeed relevant to the decision, but so to is the economic implication of our actions on ourselves, our pocketbooks and on society writ large.
Duane Morris has an active Sustainability and Risk Mitigation Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and Risk Mitigation planning and initiatives. For more information, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Jeff Hamera, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.
