Biden Coming for Your Stove!
"Cooking with gas" could become a thing of the past. But it probably won't.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board warns “Biden Is Coming for Your Gas Stove.”
Coercion in the cause of banning fossil fuels is no vice for the Biden Administration, which is now coming after cooks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) could soon ban gas stoves.
CPSC Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. teased in an interview with Bloomberg News this week that the agency plans to propose new regulations for gas stoves, which could include a ban. “This is a hidden hazard,” Mr. Trumka said. “Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”
Mr. Trumka isn’t worried that gas stoves might cause accidental burns—a hidden hazard for electric range-tops that stay hot long after they’re turned off. Instead, the agency’s purported concern is that gas stoves cause indoor air pollution and asthma, though there’s scant evidence to support such claims.
Even the Environmental Protection Agency says “gas stoves (and gas fireplace inserts) do not require EPA certification. Whether designed to burn natural gas or propane, they burn very cleanly, emitting very little pollution.” It adds that “many cooking appliances and the process of cooking itself can increase levels of indoor PM [particulate matter].”
As the California Air Resources Board explains, “heating oil, fat and other food ingredients, especially at high temperatures” can generate pollutants, and “studies show that air can be unhealthy to breathe when people cook in kitchens with poor ventilation. The best way to ventilate your kitchen is to use a properly-installed, high efficiency range hood over your stove.”
Studies flogged by the climate left don’t account for the effects of ventilation. One even sealed a test kitchen in plastic tarps in an effort to show that gas stoves increase pollution. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood, the most comprehensive global study to date, found “no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.”
The real hazard isn’t gas stoves but how people use them. Not that this distinction matters to the CPSC, which has a long history of targeting products such as window blinds, IKEA dressers, and Peloton treadmills because of accidents that are the fault of customers. In this case, Mr. Trumka wants to use indoor pollution as a pretext to advance the climate left’s goal of forcing all buildings to use electricity for everything.
It’s not enough to force Americans to buy electric cars. We must all cook on electric stoves too.
The Fox Newsification of a once-serious editorial page is sad to see. This is a serious issue that deserves scrutiny, not sensationalism and alarmism.
First off, there’s zero evidence that President Biden is behind any of this. This is almost certainly a regulatory agency responding to an issue under its remit and proposing regulations to deal with said issue. And, yes, it’s a real issue.
As Shannon Osaka explains at WaPo (“There’s a secret pollution source in 40 million homes. The U.S. may try to ban it.“):
For years, scientists and health advocates have tried to bring attention to a secret source of air pollution sitting in 40 million homes around the United States — which jump-starts childhood asthma, increases the risk of respiratory problems, and emits planet-warming gasses.
It’s the gas stove.
And now, those efforts seem to be gaining traction. On Monday, Richard Trumka Jr., one of the four commissioners of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, said in an interview that the agency was considering a ban on gas stoves — or, at least, standards around the amount of toxic fumes such stoves can spew into Americans’ kitchens. Some cities — including Los Angeles, Seattle and New York — have already moved to ban gas stoves in certain new homes and apartments. Kathy Hochul (D), the governor of New York, has also proposed banning gas hookups, including for gas stoves, in new buildings in the entire state.
All cooking creates some form of air pollution. But gas stoves are burning natural gas, a mix of methane and other chemicals. That means that when a gas stove is on, it releases not only fine pieces of particulate matter that can invade the lungs, but also nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde — all of which have been linked to various health risks.
Scientists have identified nitrogen dioxide, for example, as contributing to childhood onset of asthma and worsening asthma symptoms. According to one study, children living in a household with gas stoves have a 42 percent increased likelihood of already having asthma and a 24 percent increased risk of developing asthma at some point in their lifetime. Last week, scientists from the clean energy think tank RMI estimated in a peer-reviewed study that 12.7 percent of childhood asthmas could be attributed to living in a household with a gas stove. Some scientists have compared the risks of gas stove use to having a smoker in the home.
The Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the power to regulate indoor air quality, and homes with gas stoves can often have nitrogen dioxide levels far in excess of EPA outdoor guidelines. The European Union, meanwhile, is currently urging lawmakers to establish indoor air quality regulations across the bloc.
A major contributing factor to childhood asthma has been identified and, not shockingly, regulators across the world are taking steps to solve the problem.
But Americans have been slow to switch to electric or induction stoves— in part because of the efforts of the natural gas industry. Beginning in the 1930s, the gas industry released commercials, advertisements, and slogans connecting “cooking with gas” with culinary bliss. (At one point in the 1980s there was even a catchy, and somewhat cringeworthy, rap video.) In recent years, gas companies have hired PR firms to oppose local bans on gas appliances in new buildings — with representatives sometimes infiltrating neighborhood social media groups.
Now, however, the tide seems to be turning, as the connection between natural gas cooking, climate change, and poor health becomes more visible. Natural gas stoves are not huge emitters of carbon dioxide, but connecting homes to gas lines creates a long-term dependence on fossil fuels that can be hard to break. Research has also shown that gas stoves emit methane — a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide in the short-term — even when they are turned off.
Some consumers have been reluctant to make the shift to electric stoves given the cost of higher-end induction stoves, which offer more versatility that traditional electric ranges. But the Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark climate bill passed last year, includes cash to help low- and moderate-income households move away from their gas stoves. Starting later this year, millions of Americans could get up to $840 off the cost of an electric or induction stove.
Now, I’ve never tried an induction stove. I’ve had various electric stoves, both of the traditional coil variety and the smooth glass type, and much prefer gas. Indeed, I paid a decent amount of money to convert a perfectly functional flat electric stove to a gas model in the previous house and had the capacity for a gas cooktop* as a requirement when looking for this one. Still, the fact that they’re a significant indoor pollution hazard is noteworthy.
Second, the solution will almost certainly not be a complete ban on gas stoves but rather improved ventilation requirements. (Which, frankly, should be forthcoming, anyway, in the post-COVID 19 world.)
The Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency responsible for managing the safety of U.S. consumer products, is not going to ban gas stoves — or even propose any regulations — anytime soon.
“Any regulatory action by the Commission will involve a lengthy process,” a spokesperson said in an email. Agency staff will begin collecting data on gas stove hazards this year, with the aim to propose “solutions to those hazards” later in the year.
Commissioner Trumka also clarified on Twitter that any regulations would apply to new products, not current ones in homes: “CPSC isn’t coming for anyone’s gas stoves,” he wrote.
The American Gas Association pushed back against the recent research and on natural gas cooking and asthma. “Any efforts to ban highly efficient natural gas stoves should raise alarm bells for the 187 million Americans who depend on this essential fuel every day,” they said in a statement.
But as more and more information emerges about the health risks — and as the Biden administration focuses in on electrifying household appliances across the country — the move from gas to electric may be a question not of “if,” but of “when.”
Again, I’m skeptical that an actual ban will happen given consumer preferences and alternative solutions. But, as Osaka notes, New York is strongly considering it. And neighboring Montgomery County, Maryland just passed, by a 9-0 vote, natural gas heating for new buildings. Interestingly, restaurants and a handful of other categories will be exempt.
_____________
*We ultimately narrowed our search to an area without county utilities, so the overwhelming number of homes here are electric-only.
Do authors who write this think they’ve hit on something really compelling? It’s exactly like when someone tries to counter the existential threat of climate change by saying “but what about those poor birds who get hit by wind turbines?”
The WSJ editorial board members probably have scant knowledge of how a stove works, but you know that iron grate that holds your teapot over the flames of a gas stove? This is going to really shock you but it stays pretty hot after the gas is shut off.
WRT the cooking aspect, gas stoves are definitely superior to coil, it’s not even a contest. (I think the glass top ranges are essentially coils with glass over them.) The instantaneous temperature control, ability to fine tune the temp, generally quicker to boil water or bring oil back up to temp when frying–everything’s better on gas.
That said, I think for most people a range is a range. WSJ et al are trying to gin up outrage among people who probably really don’t give a damn one way or the other–they cook on the stove that came with their abode, and if/when it goes out they replace it based on the hookup available.
Induction ranges are great, a suitable replacement for gas. The one major flaw is they can really mess with certain medical electronics. We had to remove the induction stove that came with our new house for fear it would shut off my sister’s heart pump when she visits. (Note: this was strongly suggested by her cardiologist, not an action taken because someone on the internet said so.)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15828884/
My impression has been that gas fireplaces — conversion of woodburners — has been the rapid growth sector (at least, in MY family).
As a comparison of course gas infinitely better. But are they included in stats?
The WSJ’s editorial and opinion pages have been populated by fools and knaves since Murdoch purchased the paper. Fortunately the news sections continue to produce quality reporting.
Regarding gas stoves, much ado about nothing.
and
So… I’m supposed to believe the organization with a clear bias and agenda to get rid of gas use, but not the “most comprehensive global study to date”.
Gotcha.
JFC…shades of the incandescent light bulb rage. RWNJ & comedian Tim Allen even made it a constant joke on his show, whatever that was called.
Some days I am just shocked/embarrassed/distressed by how dumb Rupert Murdoch and his Republicans have made this nation.
@Neil Hudelson:
In my experience natural gas is indeed king. But I will take a glass-top over propane, every time.
Restaurants already have strict regulations regarding ventilation.
They will have to pry my gas stove out of my cold dead hands. And, BTW, we are installing a gas fireplace tomorrow. Good thing all my kids are grown and none have asthma.
@Neil Hudelson:
It’s a measure of how effective the gas-industry’s advertising has been when so many people say this when it’s not in fact true
Consumer Reports: Gas vs. Electric Range: Which Is Better?
@Neil Hudelson: I’m confused. The paper you linked to said that there were no observed effects from inductive ovens on medical devices but you removed it anyway?
From Ron Filipkowski on Twitter;
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1613185697078190082
New York is doing more than considering it, I believe they are moving to phase out equipment powered by fossil fuels (this is definitely in place for anything that heats, and the new building standards are all-electric, which means no gas stoves).
Where the proverbial rubber will meet the road is when items need replacing. If a homeowner with a gas stove that breaks/stops working, in a few years they won’t be able to purchase a replacement (through carrots/sticks in the regulatory process, NY is looking to require new replacements be electric). The real question is, will that homeowner convert to electric or will that homeowner drive to the closest big-box home improvement store over the state line and buy what they want?
@MarkedMan: @MarkedMan:
Sorry, posted wrong article. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19246854/
Her cardiologist recommended staying 3 ft away from induction hobs, her LVAD (which she has, not a pacemaker) therapist recommended she not be around them, and the American Heart Association recommends caution. You tell me what you’d do in this situation, keep the stove where it is or do a small thing to ensure your sister doesn’t drop dead when she tries to cook mac n cheese at your house?
I chose the latter. Can always put the stove back in later, just a small walk to the barn.
ETA: I composed a kind of shitty reply until I realized your “I’m confused’ comment was probably innocent and not meant to poke me. Woke up on the wrong side of the bed, and my first draft confirmed to me I should probably not engage people on the internet today.
@Stormy Dragon:
So 50% of electric stoves are rated Very Good and 60% of Gas Stoves are rated Very Good. Thanks for the study!
Overall, I prefer electric stove for cooking and wood burning fireplace.
I simmer more than sear and don’t care for cast iron, so electric is fine by me.
We took the gas logs out of the fireplace and had our chimney rehabbed. Bought a splitter. As they say, a fire warms you twice, but the effort to build a fire is part of a primal ritual that I find centering. And nothing compares to the sound and smell of a crackling fire.
The upshot of suggesting a ban on gas stoves will end in a jump in sales of gas stoves, of course.
@Neil Hudelson:
Yes, because the other 50% of electric stoves were excellent and the other 40% of gas stoves were worse than very good
There seems to be an issue with using electricity for heating elements, as we also saw a few days back in the matter of the car heater reducing the range of EVs.
As I see it, when you burn fuel you get heat, whether or not you get anything else. In contrast, electricity doesn’t produce much heat. To produce heat with electricity you must impede the flow with a resistor. That is, you must make inefficient use of the electrical energy.
Not that a gas flame is perfectly efficient, either. Part of the heat produced is transferred to the cookware, but a lot is wasted as ambient heat, and some more goes to heat up the stove.
But the issue with inefficient use of electricity is that you need to use up a lot of it. Ergo electric space heaters, ovens, stoves, etc. really use up a lot of power.
I wonder if hydrogen would be an adequate substitute for use in stoves, or for that matter in industrial processes. Many of the issues with it, like the space it takes up, are easier to handle in fixed, non-moving structures. It wouldn’t need to be liquefied, either, so no need for cryogenic processes or storage.
@Kathy:
I see this touted as a reason that gas stoves are bad. I say it’s one reason that I love having one. I do far more cooking in the winter–and far longer cooking (e.g., things like soup that simmer for a long time)–and that “waste” heat helps to keep the house warm (and smelling yummy). In the summer, I’m eating salads and sandwiches, and grilling outside, so there’s no issue with “wasted” heat.
(I’ve been making stock from veg and meat scraps on the weekends. The kettle simmers for a day and a half (turned off at night) and I have a nice warm kitchen as a side effect.)
@Neil Hudelson: Nope, I would have done exactly what you did. I was just wondering why you linked to that paper.
I know something (a lot actually) about testing medical devices and I can be pretty sure that if a medical device, a) has passed all its susceptibility testing, b) has been manufactured with no deviations from the unit(s) under test, then it won’t be susceptible to noise from an induction oven that a) has passed all its emissions testing, and b) has been manufactured with no deviations from the unit(s) under test. But that’s one “pretty sure” and two “if”s too many to risk someone’s life. The thing I would worry about the most is that second “b)”, especially if it is mostly designed and principally manufactured in China.
I really don’t like cooking on a traditional electric stove and much prefer gas. But when we moved into our current place 3 years ago it came with an induction top and my wife and I both prefer it over gas. It seems to change temperature as fast and it truly and easily simmers as low as I want it to go. That super-low simmer was never achievable on any gas stove I ever had, especially given that I’m now cooking smaller quantities for two people. On the induction I can go below simmer, to essentially “keep warm”.
We cook a bit for different groups. Homeless shelter, church, school events. I grew up using gas and that is what we mostly use. That said, we bought a couple of portable induction devices for our events and I have been impressed. It really is hard to do a simmer or lower with a gas range and very easy with the induction units. Also very easy to clean. If I had it to do over would do kitchen with induction units or at least a combo gas/induction. We did shakshuka for about 60 people Sunday and it ended up being really easy. Made a big batch of the sauce part and kept it hoot but not boiling on the induction unit. Made a bunch of soft boiled eggs then just added them to the sauce part as we needed more and people trailed in. Also did some sausage and kept it warm with the other induction heater so that the meatatarians could be happy. Much easier than using chafing sets to keep stuff warm.
Steve
Steve
@Mu Yixiao:
I know it’s a massive burden to click a link or two before posting a snide comment, but do you ever bother to figure anything out before you post?
Here are the authors of the study:
Link to the study.
You want some more?
This isn’t the first time I’ve urged you to try to figure out what’s what before you post. But you seem determined to just accept whatever aligns with your preferences. So it won’t be the last either.
@Kurtz:
Here are the people in charge of ISAAC (which has been studying this since at least 1995):
International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC)
M I Asher
Dept of Paediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
U Keil
Institut für Epidemiologie und Sozialmedizin, Universität Münster, Germany
H R Anderson
Dept of Public Health Sciences, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, London, UK.
R Beasley
Department of Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine, New Zealand
J Crane
Department of Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine, New Zealand
F Martinez
Departament d’Epidemiologia i Salut Pública, Institut Municipal d’Investigació Mèdica, Barcelona, Spain
E A Mitchell
Department of Paediatrics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
N Pearce
epartment of Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine, New Zealand
B Sibbald
Division of General Practice and Primary Care, St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, UK
A W Stewart
Department of Community Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
===
Whereas you obviously looked up ISAAC and read through the abstracts of 30 years of studies and decided that one study is more valid than 30 years of global research. Right?
M Innes Asher 1, Alistair W Stewart, Javier Mallol, Stephen Montefort, Christopher K W Lai, Nadia Aït-Khaled, Joseph Odhiambo. et. al.
There are a couple hundred more if you’d care to look them up.
I was going to comment on the data from the ISAAC and the clean energy think tank RMI, but I see we’ve already reached the facts/alternative facts dividing line on this topic. Oh well.
Having lived in a stronghold of Reddy Kilowatt’s for most of my life, I’ve become accustomed to using an electric range and am pretty good at it. I did like the convenience of temperature control on gas cooktops* and would be happy enough to use one should the situation arise. I don’t think that I would be so happy as to replumb a house for gas lines in order to have a gas stove, but I’m pretty tight with a buck.
*Stoves were a “new-fangled idea” in Korea when I went there to teach in 2008. Only people who lived in newly constructed apartments had ranges in them and nearly all of the women that were in my classes who had ranges in their kitchens had never had one before. Most of them also agreed that the oven is the most convenient cupboard for pots and pans that they’d ever had in any of their previous homes. I don’t recall ever having met a Korean woman who had cooked something in an oven during the 8 years I lived there. Who needs to use an oven when the roasted chicken, pork trotters, or barbecued ribs truck shows up in your neighborhood with great regularity? (And I learned how to make pork stock from buying trotters at E-mart when I discovered the conveniently supplied bones from the shank included at the bottom of my tray of meat. [yum! emoji])
@Jen: My guess would be option B. But then again, this is part of why conservatives have traditionally been against states banning thing. The more interesting thing to me is that they still believe that individual states can ban abortions and that will work. (Of course, the REAL motivations for banning abortions are different and generally not commerce related, so there’s THAT issue.)
@Kathy:
Problem with hydrogen is its duo-atomic molecular nature. It can leak through seals that keep methane contained.
And apparently can also have nasty chemical interactions with pipes, existing pipe liners and seals etc. I don’t know enough about chemistry to do more than repeat that.
The leaks issue is major; it entails a total pipe network upgrade, unless you want houses going “boom” on a regular basis.
Also, some of the non-methane components of domestic gas are deliberate additives to make it smell “gassy”. IIRC pure methane has very little smell, and hydrogen is entirely odourless.
I also think hydrogen burns appreciable hotter than methane, which might be an issue.
@Mu Yixiao:
It so happens that the study you reject relies on a meta-analysis, i.e., 20 years of studies published between 1992 and 2013, showing a positive correlation between asthma and gas cooking.
This meta-analysis was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE). The study with the tree-hugging hippie co-author only estimates the health impact of gas cooking, assuming that the meta-analysis published in the IJE is correct.
The IJE currently has an impact factor of 9.685. For reference: 3 is already considered good.
In short, while there may be other studies with different findings, it is far from unlikely that gas cooking increases the risk of asthma in children.
Which means that your orginal take is both prejudiced and lazy.
@JohnSF:
I think hydrogen flames are nearly invisible, too. It would be too easy to leave the stove on, especially with a low flame.
So, we’d best get used to induction stoves and cookware.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
I’m curious, what were you going to say? It seems to me that we have multiple studies that seem to say different things. Presumably the experts are trying to suss out why there are differences. In any case, assuming that legitimate scientists are involved, it’s not a competition.
@Mu Yixiao:
Way to miss my point. I in no way implied that one study is better than the other (you did.) I didn’t claim one study was flawed and the other wasn’t (WSJ and you did.)
Scroll up and reread the passage from WSJ.
Scroll down from there and reread your comment.
Scroll down to mine and reread what I wrote about your comment and then understand the point about ventilation.
Find the bullshit in the first two.
WSJ:
The second quote in my post shows that this is a blatant lie. Secondly, they don’t provide a link to or citation for the study they claim put plastic tarp around the kitchen. Which would be required to determine the thought process behind doing that. My guess? There is a good reason for it, but none of us know because the Editorial Board isn’t interested in rigor.
You:
You misidentified the source as biased without even checking to see who the authors were. They aren’t some clean energy think tank researchers paid to produce papers with a pre-determined conclusion. You implied this is what it was.
No, I didn’t sort through a bunch of abstracts, because I’m not trying to discredit one study or the other. And if that was my goal, I most definitely would not rely solely on abstracts.
So far you have made two claims:
1.) one study shouldn’t be trusted because it came from a biased source. That claim is flawed because it relies on incomplete information.
2.) a long list of authors followed by “hundreds more!” That misses the point and is meaningless anyway.
If you really want to dig into the studies and analyze the design and statistical analysis, do it. No one is stopping you. But that isn’t what you did there.
And no, it isn’t on me to do it, because I didn’t take a position other than to point out that you have a habit of these kinds of comments. I wouldn’t even respond if your tone didn’t resemble a high school sophomore sitting in the back of the class.
Is that clearer?
@Kathy:
I suspect in Europe, at any rate, methane is going to be around for a fairly long time; the existing domestic infrastructure is huge.
IIRC about a third of all EU households are gas heated.
In the UK it’s three quarters.
That’s one reason some people are pushing for “green methane” as a medium term solution.
@Just nutha ignint cracker: My guess is that it will be a mix, with key factors being what manufacturers come up with for the “new & improved” all-electric, cost (of the replacement units, any modifications that need to be made, such as capping gas lines and perhaps installation of an outlet if needed, and the cost of gas), and hassle. People closer to borders are more likely to look to nearby states than those who would need to travel for hours.
I think of the border issue a lot because it happens here in (tax-free) NH a lot. Go to any shopping area or state liquor store near to the state lines here, and you’ll see a variety of license plates.
Aside from asthma, there are other reasons to phase out gas and gas and gas pipelines.BALTIMORE —
Yes, different incident and yes, we do have a neighborhood called Pigtown. There’s a good micro-brewery there.
This is one that happened just last week
If there were no gas lines and you came up with the idea of running flammable and explosive gas through tens of thousands of miles of pipe buried under all sorts of roadways and entering private homes and businesses alike, and connected to millions of uninspected, unmaintained fittings, you would be rightfully laughed off of Shark Tank.
@JohnSF:
Burning hydrogen also produces 1800 deg F steam, which may be okay in a furnace, but probably not something you want right above a range someone is standing right next to
@Jen: I live on the border with Oregon state (no sales tax), so I see some of that phenomenon just at malls and such. Longview is the biggest city in the SW Washington/NW Oregon region until the Portland metro area, so it attracts a lot of business from smaller nearby Oregon towns, but that’s also helped by no sales tax on groceries and prescription drugs.
We live in a country with American Cheese, Hamburger Helper and Dino Nuggets. I don’t think the difference between electric, gas and induction is going to make a big difference in most American cooking.
This seems far less consequential than the shift from incandescent to CFL and LED. Electric stoves work well, unlike those first years of shitty bulbs.
I used to be a gas stove advocate, but my enthusiasm was overblown and has somewhat waned over time.
Unless you are a super precise home chef and have spent several hundred hours judging the gas stove flame output vs. cook outcome, you are barking at the moon. It’s basically a guessing game unless you give it serious continued attention.
You have better fine temperature control with gas, but better gross temperature control with an electric coil.
For 99% of home cooking it is immaterial. If you are super fancy pants, gas is definitely preferable. If you cook to eat and not impress, electric is perfectly acceptable. Sometimes preferred.
Once you know what your electric stove-top means by 1 or 2 or 2.5 or 3.5 or 4 you can dial it in mostly. Just by being moderately observant over time you can figure it out fairly easily. Clunky on rapid temperature transitions, yes, but consistent. I know what 2 and a half means on my main coil, and I know that 3 is significantly different.
Any decent home cook can adapt easily to one or the other quickly.
Besides, Biden is not coming for your gas stove, it is a subcommittee of a subcommittee looking into a pertinent and salient subject in their wheelhouse. Biden did not know about it until it was reported guaranteed. Government agencies, and their specific purview, exist for a reason.
Unless Biden is like Trump and really hates that shower head output is too low, this decision was 17 levels below what a President should be concerned about.
That Trump was obsessed about shower head output speaks to his narcissisism about his hair. It does not mean a future President would care even in the slightest about such an issue. It is really fucking odd that a sitting US President went out of his way to change the rules about plumbing.