HB 5042 repeals the Department of Energy’s December 20, 2021 final rule titled “Energy Conservation Program: Definition of Showerhead” (86 FR 71797) and directs that the department’s earlier December 16, 2020 final rule (85 FR 81341) — the previous definition of “showerhead” — “shall have the force and effect of law.” The bill is narrowly focused: it changes which agency definition applies when determining the acceptable water pressure for a showerhead.
This matters for manufacturers, test laboratories, retailers, state and local plumbing authorities, and energy and water regulators because the operative definition determines how products are tested, certified, labeled, and enforced under federal energy conservation rules. Reverting to the prior definition changes the compliance baseline and could affect product design, certification timelines, and state-federal alignment on plumbing and water-efficiency standards.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals a DOE final rule published in December 2021 and makes a DOE final rule published in December 2020 the operative definition of “showerhead,” giving that 2020 text the force of federal law. It does not otherwise amend underlying energy conservation statutes or numeric performance standards.
Who It Affects
Showerhead manufacturers, test labs, and certification bodies that rely on DOE definitions to assess acceptable water pressure and compliance; retailers and importers who market showerheads in the U.S.; state and local plumbing code bodies that reference federal definitions; and DOE enforcement teams responsible for appliance rules.
Why It Matters
Which regulatory text governs the term “showerhead” determines testing protocols and compliance flags that can trigger enforcement actions, recalls, or market access restrictions. Restoring the 2020 definition resets that baseline and can alter the market for higher- or lower-pressure shower fixtures without changing substantive statutory performance standards.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is short and procedural: it instructs that one DOE final rule be removed and another DOE final rule be treated as having the force of law. The title and text make clear the subject — defining the word “showerhead” for purposes of determining acceptable water pressure — but the bill does not itself set a numeric flow or pressure standard.
Instead, it determines which agency definition governs how those measurements are applied.
For regulated parties, the practical effect is to change the regulatory reference point. When DOE inspects products, reviews test reports, or pursues enforcement, it will use the December 16, 2020 definition rather than the December 20, 2021 definition.
That can change whether particular models qualify as compliant showerheads under federal energy conservation rules because the words that trigger measurement methods, exceptions, or product categories flow from the operative definition.The bill’s language — specifically making the 2020 final rule have “the force and effect of law” — effectively codifies an agency regulation into statutory form. That reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk that future agency reinterpretations will alter the operative definition unless Congress acts again or a court overturns the statutory adoption.
However, because HB 5042 does not amend the statutory framework that gives DOE its broader authority, the underlying statutory standards and DOE’s enforcement powers remain as before.Operational questions follow: test labs and certifiers will need clear guidance from DOE about which test methods and reference points correspond to the reinstated definition; manufacturers that designed products to conform to the 2021 definition may face redesign, relabeling, or retesting choices; and state plumbing codes or efficiency programs that relied on the 2021 text will have to decide whether to align with the federal change or keep differing language. The bill itself does not include transition timelines, enforcement clauses, or funding for implementation, so agencies and regulated entities will need to resolve sequencing and compliance timing through guidance or separate rulemaking.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill explicitly repeals the DOE final rule published at 86 Fed. Reg. 71797 (Dec. 20, 2021).
It directs that the DOE final rule published at 85 Fed. Reg. 81341 (Dec. 16, 2020) "shall have the force and effect of law.", The statutory change is limited to the definition of "showerhead" as used to determine acceptable water pressure; it does not specify numerical pressure or flow-rate limits.
HB 5042 is two subsections tall: (a) a repeal clause and (b) an adoption/codification clause making the earlier rule operative.
The bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Darrell Issa with four cosponsors (Cloud, Moore of Alabama, Rulli, Luna), signaling industry-oriented sponsorship.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Repeal of DOE 2021 final rule
This subsection repeals the Department of Energy’s December 20, 2021 final rule (86 Fed. Reg. 71797) that redefined “showerhead.” Repeal removes the 2021 regulatory text from the federal register and from any administrative reliance; after repeal, that text no longer serves as an agency reference for determining acceptable water pressure.
Codification of DOE 2020 final rule
This subsection directs that the DOE’s December 16, 2020 final rule (85 Fed. Reg. 81341) be treated as having the force and effect of law. Practically, Congress is adopting the 2020 agency definition as the operative legal standard for assessing showerhead water pressure, removing an avenue for DOE to rely on the 2021 text unless Congress or a court changes the statutory baseline.
Narrow subject, wide practical consequences
Although the text addresses only the definition, that definition functions as the hinge for testing protocols, certification criteria, and enforcement decisions under DOE’s energy conservation program. The statute does not alter DOE’s broader statutory authorities, numeric standards, or enforcement mechanisms, but it changes the reference language DOE and regulated parties must use when interpreting those authorities as applied to showerheads.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Manufacturers whose products match the 2020 definition: They avoid reclassification or stricter testing that the 2021 definition might have triggered, preserving existing product lines and market access without immediate redesign.
- Retailers and importers selling showerheads compliant under the 2020 definition: They face fewer immediate compliance disruptions, relabeling costs, and potential inventory write-downs tied to the later rule.
- Consumers preferring higher-pressure shower fixtures: If the 2020 definition is less restrictive, consumers who value stronger shower pressure may retain access to a broader range of products.
- Trade associations and industry groups that lobbied for the 2020 definition: They gain regulatory certainty because Congress has frozen the definition in statutory form rather than leaving it subject to future agency reinterpretation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Manufacturers that invested to meet the 2021 definition: Those firms may have incurred redesign, testing, or compliance costs that now yield less regulatory advantage, and they may face sunk costs if the market preference reverts.
- State and local plumbing authorities aiming for tighter water-efficiency standards: States that aligned codes to the 2021 definition may experience misalignment with the federal baseline and administrative friction when harmonizing codes.
- DOE and enforcement bodies: The department may need to issue new guidance, adjust enforcement protocols, and defend any litigation challenging the legislative adoption of agency language.
- Environmental and water-conservation groups: If the 2020 definition permits higher pressure or flow, groups focused on conservation may face setbacks in reducing residential water and energy use and could increase advocacy or litigation costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between restoring an industry-favored regulatory baseline (which preserves existing products, manufacturing practices, and consumer options) and advancing water- and energy-saving regulation (which may require tighter definitions and testing that limit pressure or flow). Congress’s move to adopt agency language as law resolves regulatory uncertainty in one direction but does so by trading away administrative flexibility to adjust definitions as technology, standards, or conservation priorities evolve.
The bill adopts agency text as statute without amending the underlying statute that empowers DOE. That raises several operational and legal questions.
First, codifying a prior final rule can reduce agency flexibility: DOE retains statutory authority over energy conservation standards but must now apply a definition that Congress chose to import — limiting the agency’s ability to refine definitions via notice-and-comment rulemaking unless Congress acts again. Second, the bill contains no transition timetable, so regulated parties and DOE will need to negotiate practical compliance deadlines and guidance; absent that, industry may face uncertainty about which products to test and certify now and in the near term.
Third, the legislative adoption of an agency rule could prompt litigation on separation-of-powers or procedural grounds, especially if affected parties argue that Congress improperly bypassed typical notice-and-comment processes for a statutory enactment of agency language.
Finally, the bill focuses narrowly on definition rather than performance metrics. That narrowness creates an implementation tension: a single definitional change can have outsized ripple effects through test procedures, state codes, voluntary standards (ANSI/ASME), and enforcement practice, but HB 5042 leaves resolution of those downstream effects to agencies, industry, and states.
The absence of explicit transitional or coordination mechanisms means disputes over interoperability of federal and state standards, conformity assessment, and enforcement jurisdiction are likely to arise and could take years to sort out in guidance, intergovernmental coordination, or litigation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.