Dec. 4 Webinar: Best Practices in Wood and Pellet Stove Programs

The University of Maryland Extension Woodland Stewardship Education program will host a one-hour webinar on Thursday, December 4th from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. to provide an overview of the “best practices” in wood and pellet stove incentive programs across the United States. 
Sign up here.
As renewable energy programs grow around the country, more and more states are including incentives for wood or pellet boilers and stoves. Unlike other household appliances, such as refrigerators, furnaces or washing machines, wood heating equipment have no “Energy Star” labels for consumers to consult to make energy efficiency comparisons. Consequently, several states have devised a range of methods to determine the eligibility of cleaner and more efficient stoves and boilers.
This webinar will explore the features of these programs, and will use Maryland’s stove incentive program as an example of how one state met its goals for ensuring consumers purchase the most efficient appliances available. The speakers will identify what they see as emerging best practices in stove and boiler incentive programs as these initiatives become more mainstream.
This webinar features presentations from Jonathan Kays, University of Maryland Extension Natural Resource Extension Specialist; John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat; and Emilee Van Norden, Clean Energy Program Manager of the Maryland Energy Administration.
The webinar is free and open to the public.  Sign up now to reserve a spot.
For related content: 

Heated Up!

Rookie Wood Stove Makers Get Highest Score in Design Workshop


Taylor Myers and Ryan
Fisher with the Mulciber,
the highest ranking stove.
A stove designed and built by graduate engineering students received the 
highest score in an international Stove Design Workshop focused on automated wood stove technology.  The goal of the event was to assess innovative technologies that can help stoves reduce real-world emissions that result from poor operation by the consumer and use of unseasoned wood, both of which are widespread problems. 

Ten judges scored the stoves based on emissions, efficiency, innovation, market appeal and safety.  The highest scoring stove, the Mulciber, adapted emission control techniques that are in automobiles, such as an oxygen sensor that controls the fuel-to-air ratio, a continuously engaged catalyst and an exhaust gas fan.  The Mulciber was also tested with unseasoned, 50% moisture content wood and performed quite well.   The team, who had never built a stove before the 2013 Wood Stove Decathlon, overhauled their first prototype and have now formed the company MF Fire to bring the stove to market.  

The Workshop was held at the DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York and brought together a diverse range of stakeholders – students, professors, industry, regulators, air quality experts – who spent a week together analyzing the problems and solutions to residential cord wood emissions.

Five stoves competed in the event, which is part of the ongoing Wood Stove Design Challenge run by the non-profit group, Alliance for Green Heat. In 2013, the Design Challenge hosted the Wood Stove Decathlon on the National Mall in Washington DC, a high profile event modeled after the Solar Decathlon.  This year, the event was at a lab so that stoves could be tested more rigorously and test data could be shared with the participants.

The core problem is that most consumers do not operate wood stoves well and many use unseasoned wood.  In addition, EPA certification testing for wood stoves do not simulate how wood is burned in people’s homes.  For decades, manufacturers have been building stoves to pass that test, but not necessarily to burn cleanly in homes.  This workshop addressed that by testing with cordwood that was not fully seasoned, capturing some start-up emissions in the test and assessing how automation can reduce operator error.  At Brookhaven, stoves were tested at four parts of their burn cycle: warm start, steady state 1, hot reload and steady state 2. The current EPA stove certification test uses seasoned 2x4s and 4x4s and only tests for emissions after the start-up period, once the stove is hot.

Automated stoves, where computers, not consumers, adjust the air-to-fuel ratio, cannot be tested by EPA test methods so they are not able to enter the US marketplace.   A major goal of the Workshop was to start designing an alternative test method to the EPA’s method, so that automated stoves can be tested and become certified in the US, as they already are in Europe. Tom Butcher, a senior scientist at Brookhaven Lab, hosted one of the public webinars during the week on that topic.

Rankings: The judges gave double weight to emissions and efficiency, as they did in the 2013 Wood Stove Decathlon, because of the importance of those values.  This year, the judges decided not to judge affordability since most of the stoves were prototypes or technologies designed to be integrated into other stoves and ultimate costs and pricing was too speculative. Each of the 10 judges scored each stove on innovation and market appeal.  The other three criteria were based on lab tests.
“We want to congratulate the MF Fire team – and all the teams – for participating in a process of sharing innovation, ideas and test results,” said John Ackerly, coordinator of the event and President of the Alliance for Green Heat.  “These stoves have many of the solutions to excessive smoke from modern-day wood stoves and are challenging the EPA and the stove industry, to catch up with new technologies and new opportunities,” Ackerly said.

The Wittus team with the Twinfire.
While MF Fire stove, the Mulciber, had the highest combined score, several of the other stoves stood out in key areas.  The German Twinfire, designed by the Wittus team, had the second highest overall efficiency, at 74%, and one of the lowest emission rates on a test run.  Its automated air regulation enabled the stove to perform consistently well at different part of the burn cycle and it received the highest score for consumer appeal, for its downdraft flame into a lower chamber.  
The VcV, wired to monitor
temperature in key spots
The VcV, a New Zealand mechanical device that operates without any electricity, achieved the highest average efficiency, at 82% based in part on the lowest average stack temperature at 167 degrees (F), and the lowest emission rate on one of its tests.  It also received the second highest marks for innovation.  This was the only stove that did not require electricity and will be very affordable. Three out of four tests were very, very good, but on one the hot reloads, something happened and that reduced its overall numbers, and took it out of contention for first or second place.  This device has undergone extensive R&D and is one of the entries that is closest to being ready for the market.

The Catalus Ventus by ClearStak, received the highest score of all for CO reduction, and the second

The ClearStak team with the
Catalus Ventus

highest for emissions.   It was a highly innovative entry, employing dual cyclones, a pre-heated, continuously engaged catalyst and a fabric filter.  Its sensors and controller kept the oxygen rates incredibly steady, within half a percentage point. The technology could be integrated into a new stove, or added on to an existing stove. The designers did not try to optimize efficiency, which impacted their overall score.   

The Kleiss, ready for testing.
The Kleiss arrived at the competition with the hallmarks of an innovative, automated stove that could handle wet wood and nearly eliminate operator error.  The stoves sensors and algorithms were designed to maintain very hot combustion temperatures and to allow the operator to call for more of less heat, while prioritizing cleanliness.  However, the stove did not perform as expected, with secondary air contributing to primary burning with a large fuel load.   

Test results for all the stoves are available here.  (References to grams per hour are not comparable to EPA gram per hour tests since the Workshop used tougher test protocols.) A series of presentations by the stove designers about their stoves and other stove and combustion experts are also available.


The Wood Stove Design Challenge is a technology competition that also strives to bring key stakeholders together to assess and learn about new stove technology.  Primary funding came from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), the Osprey Foundation and the US Forest Service.  Testing support was provided by Myren Labs, Masonry Heaters Association and Testo and Wohler, two German companies who are pushing the envelope of accurate real time lab and field testing of particulate matter.  The Chimney Safety Institute of America and Olympia Chimney donated the chimney installations, and Blaze King and Woodstock Soapstone also provided support.

The 12 member Organizing Committee oversaw developing protocols, testing and scoring and included representatives from Alliance for Green Heat, Aprovecho Research Lab, Brookhaven National Lab, Clarkson University, Hearth.com, Masonry Heater Association, Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, Myren Labs, NYSERDA, US Forest Service and Washington Department of Ecology. The Committee is now considering options for a 2015 Stove Design Challenge.


Heated Up!

Old-timey wood stoves need to get new-timey if we really want to make use of them

Monday, December 8, 2014
Nashua Telegraph
by David Brooks

Tom Butcher from Brookhaven Lab,
second from right, tests an automated
stove from New Zealand. Ben Myren,
left, did R&D work on it.

I don’t think very hard when I light up the old wood-burning stove in my basement. Turns out, that might be a problem.

“Combustion technology is incredibly complex. Numerous chemical engineers, combustion engineers, mechanical engineers around the world are constantly trying to understand the intricacies associated with combustion. It is absolutely not what you and I would think – just light a match … especially when you want to get clean combustion and use wood efficiently,” said Rob Rizzo, manager of the Renewable Thermal Program for the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources.

Rizzo was among the organizers of the 2014 Stove Design Workshop held in November at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, the latest in a number of attempts to add some high-tech wizardry to that staple of New England life, the wood stove. (For details, see forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2014/11/rookie-wood-stove-makers-get-highest.html)

Why tinker with something as well-established as wood stoves?

Because, like me, most people don’t think too hard when using them, which makes them inefficient and polluting.

We use green wood or wet wood, and we fiddle with the damper in the wrong way, causing partial combustion and thus more pollution.

The Stove Design Workshop, like a national Stove Design Challenge in 2013 that featured two New Hampshire entries, wants to find technology that can better cope with our stupidity.

The five finalists in the design workshop used a variety of techniques to work around people, including oxygen sensors that control fuel-to-air ratio, a common emission-control technique in cars, and a New Zealand stove that has a “barometrically operated variable choke venturi tube” to control the amount of combustion air entering a stove, particularly at lower burn rates.

“The whole concept with the design challenge is to come up with solid-wood stove that eliminates the human interface. Basically hit a start button and walk away; that is the concept we’re aiming at,” he said.

This already happens with pellet stoves, of course, which is why pellets has led a wood-burning renaissance for building heat.

The drawback is that they burn pellets made of compressed sawdust rather than the wood I can snag for free off my property, especially after the Thanksgiving snowstorm knocked down so many big limbs.

The lure of free fuel means that a lot of people still burn non-pelletized wood for some or all of their heat, although it’s not clear how many.

I have never been able to find good data about people who use cordwood (a.k.a. “roundwood”) as their principal heat source, partly because it’s hard to pin down. I, for example, use it only as a minor supplement of the pellet stove in the living room and our oil-fired furnace.

Rizzo said he didn’t know any data either, but he said that wood stoves remain important, especially in western Massachusetts.

Just as important as convenience is cleanliness. Wood stoves can produce a lot of pollution, particularly fine-particle soot, that is a health hazard. This is particularly a problem around Keene, which has a lot of wood-burning stoves and a geography that traps air in certain weather conditions.

New Hampshire has used rebates to get people to turn in their old stoves for cleaner versions, although with limited success.

But those cleaner stoves aren’t all that great; they’re little more than old stoves with catalytic converters in the stovepipe. Hence the push to build a better mousetrap, so to speak.

“It’s exciting to see new ideas coming forward. We have some educated guesses but we need to do better,” Rizzo said.

“We need to collect more data, about efficiency, emissions, consumption volumes, and also source of wood, sustainability of wood source, quality of wood source. Because rural America is always going to be burning round wood.”

More info:

Heated Up!

EPA Declines to Release Efficiency Data on Wood Pellet Stoves

On Thursday, the EPA said it would not release efficiency data on pellet stoves, one of the most popular renewable energy technologies in American homes.  About one million homes use pellet stoves in the United States, yet none of the major stove manufacturers disclose the tested efficiency of their products. 
The EPA recently set stricter emission standards for wood and pellet stoves, but did not require the disclosure of efficiencies of stoves currently on the market.
The Alliance for Green Heat filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the EPA on June 3, 2015 urging the agency to release stove emission and efficiency information.  In their response letter, the EPA agreed to release detailed emission test results and other data, but denied requests for efficiency information, leaving consumers in the dark as to whether they own a 50% efficient stove or an 80% efficient stove.  Click here for a copy of the EPA letter.
The Alliance for Green Heat filed the FOIA request because stove manufacturers routinely advertise misleading and exaggerated efficiency claims.  No federal or state agency requires manufacturers to use a common method of reporting stove efficiency in their promotional materials.
Most households use pellet stoves because they can save $ 500 to more than $ 2,000 per winter by using wood pellets in place of oil, propane or electricity.  However, the potential savings fluctuate widely based on the efficiency of the stove.
The EPA said they decided not to release the efficiency data because “trade secrets and commercial or financial information are exempt from being released” to the public.  Stove manufacturers claim that their efficiency information, along with almost all other data obtained from the certification testing is “confidential business information.” 
However, the EPA left open the possibility that it might release the efficiency values if the Alliance for Green Heat wants to receive a “final confidentiality determination” that would involve giving manufacturers an opportunity to substantiate their confidentiality claims.
John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat said that the organization intends to seek a final determination from the EPA.  “Cars, furnaces and large appliances all have to report their efficiency and energy use to the public and this is a critical part of helping consumers save money and help the environment.  Why should there be a special exemption for pellet stoves?” Ackerly asked. 
“The lack of transparency on efficiency is holding this sector, as other forms of renewable energy are quickly gaining traction,” Ackerly noted. 
The new EPA wood heater regulations will require manufacturers to disclosure the efficiency of new wood and pellet stoves tested after May 15, 2015.  However, stoves that are already on the market will not need to be tested for another 4-5 years and will not be required to disclose their efficiency until this time.  Many manufacturers obtain efficiency data during their EPA certification tests and include them in their test reports to the EPA, although they do not release them to the public.  The FOIA was an attempt to get the EPA to release this information that it already has in its files.
Pellet stoves have a very wide range of efficiencies and manufacturers may claim that if they released the actual efficiency of their stoves it cold cause substantial harm to their competitive position, which is one of the reasons the EPA withholds business information.
Stove manufacturers are also hesitant to disclose efficiency information to their consumers because if their efficiencies are under 75%, their product would not be eligible for a federal tax credit that has often been retroactively renewed and requires a 75% minimum efficiency.  Since neither Congress, nor the IRS, nor EPA requires any standardized measure of efficiency, stove manufacturers can claim that nearly 100% of stoves on the market are 75% efficient.  If the EPA were to disclose actual efficiencies, it would make it harder for manufacturers to convince consumers that all their stoves were over 75% efficient.
The number of U.S. homes with pellet stoves far outnumber those with residential solar panels by a ratio of about 2:1.  Pellet stoves typically cost $ 1,100-$ 3,500, and have a payback period of 3-7 years depending on such factors as the price of the fossil fuel being displaced, the frequency the stove is used – and its efficiency.

Heated Up!

Wood and Pellet Stove Tax Credit Extended through Dec. 31, 2014

Stove manufacturers routinely claim
75% efficiency to be eligible for the
tax credit, even when stoves are far
below 75%.  The average wood and
pellet stove may be around 70%.

Updated on December 16, 2014 – A short term extension of the $ 300 federal tax credit to purchase a new wood or pellet stove was signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 19, after having passed the House and the Senate.

The law extends a host of tax provision through Dec. 31 2014, making it almost entirely a retroactive tax credit.   A two-year deal that would have extended selected tax credits through Dec. 21, 2015 fell through.





The tax credit, which started out at $ 1,500 applied to all stoves that were at least 75% efficient.  The stove industry used a loophole to help ensure that all EPA certified wood stoves and all pellet stoves could claim to be 75% efficient.  As a result, many consumers are unwittingly buying stoves that may be less than 60% efficient, or even less than 50% efficient.  Pellet stoves in particular can be very low efficiency, saddling consumers with unnecessarily high pellet fuel bills.

Because of this loophole, the stove tax credit has long been criticized in the energy efficiency community as being dominated by “free riders” because the credit applies to virtually every stove and does not push consumers toward the most efficient ones. Instead of giving consumers an incentive to buy higher efficiency or “greener” appliances, like Energy Star appliances that help people save money, the government has been giving a discount to all wood and pellet stoves (other than uncertified, exempt wood stoves.) 

Of the hundreds of stove models on the market, manufacturers have only disclosed actual, third party verified efficiencies for about 20 models and they are listed here. Blaze King is the only stove manufacturer who discloses actual efficiencies for all their models.  To date, all the major pellet stove manufacturers have refused to disclose any actual efficiencies.  Seraph Industries, a very small pellet stove maker, has disclosed their efficiencies and they are quite high.
The EPA, nor any other federal or state agency involved in wood and pellet stove education, warns consumers that they are not necessarily buying a 75% efficient stove, as promised by manufacturers who issue certificates assuring consumers that their stoves are eligible for the tax credit.
The Alliance for Green Heat has been a long-time advocate of a robust tax credit, but only for stoves that are genuinely cleaner and more efficient.  The federal tax credit has never incorporated particulate emissions into its eligibility requirements.
Consumers who bought a stove in 2014 can claim the credit on their 2014 taxes, assuming they have not exceeded the $ 500 limit for residential energy improvements.  

In addition to the federal tax credit, more states are beginning to offer incentives, including Idaho, Oregon, Maryland, Montana and New York.  

Heated Up!

20 Stunning Wood Fired Hot Tubs from Around the World

Wood fired baths are an ancient tradition, dating back at least to Roman times when baths called hypocausts were built by running hot flue gases under a stone tub.  Those Roman tubs were also off the grid, as are these.  Some are quirky, some romantic, some practical and some just downright hedonistic.  Which is your favorite?
See our other photo essays: Wood Stoves from Around the World, and and Firewood Collection and Stacking from around the world. 

Heated Up!

How to claim the $300 stove tax credit

President Obama signed into a law a package of tax credits including the one for wood and pellet stoves.  The stove credit is for $ 300 for stoves purchased between Jan. 1, 2014 and Dec. 31 2014, making it almost entirely a retroactive “incentive.”
To take the credit, taxpayers need to use IRS Form 5695. A biomass stove purchase would be claimed in line 22a of form 5695. The form can be confusing because it never specifies biomass heating equipment, even though its included in the tax break.  Taxpayers do not have submit receipts with their taxes.  They just have to keep the sales receipt and the declaration from the manufacturer stating the stove is eligible, in their records.
There is a $ 500 limit is a lifetime limit for all energy efficiency property, including insulation, doors,
windows or other wood or pellet stoves. So, if a taxpayer has claimed $ 300 in previous years, for example, they could only claim $ 200 on the 2014 taxes for a qualifying stove.

The tax credit can also apply to wood and pellet boilers.  For outdoor boilers, check this EPA list for efficiency levels. Of the 39 qualified outdoor wood and pellet boilers on the list, only 13 appear to qualify for the tax credit.  (Industry uses the European lower heating value (LHV) to qualify for the tax credit, but American HVAC products use the higher heating value (HHV).  The EPA list uses HHV values and anything on the EPA list that is under 68% efficiency HHV, is not likely to be 75% LHV. If a manufacturer, claims a unit on this list qualifies for the tax credit, but has no efficiency rating or is listed at 67% or lower, you may want to contact the EPA to confirm.)

Since this is almost entirely retroactive, stove retailers may want to contact customers from 2014 and notify them that they may now be eligible for the tax credit.  
The credit is available to qualifying stoves that are 75% efficient or greater.  Industry used a loophole so that virtually every EPA certified wood stove, and every pellet stove (certified and uncertified) qualifies as 75% efficient.  Stove manufacturers were allowed to self-certify their efficiency, using a variety of efficiency calculations and choosing whichever test came out highest.  For more on this topic, click here.
Other heating and cooling equipment had far stricter qualification standards to ensure that consumers got a tax credit for a genuinely more efficient appliance or item.  With pellet stoves especially, consumers could have bought a 55% efficient stove, but calculated their fuel savings at 75%, based on manufacturers assurances. Experts believe that 75% (LHV) may be about the average efficiency of a wood or pellet stove.  Despite claims from industry and many other source, pellet stoves are not necessarily any more efficient than wood stoves.  
Natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or hot water boiler with an annual fuel utilization (AFUE) rate of 95 or greater: $ 150
Split system air source heat pump that meets or exceeds 15 SEER/12.5 EER/8.5 HSPF: $ 300
Split system central air conditioner that meets or exceeds 16 SEER and 13 EER: $ 300
Natural gas, propane, or oil water heater which has either an energy factor of at least 0.82 or a thermal efficiency of at least 90 percent: $ 300
Electric heat pump water heater with an energy factor (EF) of at least 2.0: $ 300
The 2014 tax break cost taxpayers about $ 42 billion.  The tax credit for stoves alone is not likely to cost more than $ 50 million and that’s if a majority of people who bought stoves learn about the credit and take it on their tax return.
By re-enacting the extenders only for 2014, lawmakers have effectively forced themselves to consider the temporary breaks again next year and have opened the door to ending or refashioning some.  Experts say it is highly unlikely that the current batch of tax credits will be extended again in 2015, but some other legislation will be crafted that will selectively extend some, possibly permanently, but at least for multiple years.

While re-instating the tax credits helps many homeowners and businesses, simply extending them to the end of the year offers little certainty going forward for various clean energy sectors.  For the stove manufacturers, the tax credit can give a small boost to sales but the production tax credits for the wind  industry can be vital to whether large scale projects move forward or not. 

Heated Up!

As Utah debates seasonal stove ban, Salt Lake County adopts stricter rules

The proposed state seasonal
ban affects 75% of the Utah
population. 
As Utahns debate a seemingly doomed proposal to ban seasonal stove use,  Utah’s most populous county enacted its own rules banning stove use on both mandatory and voluntary air actions days as of Jan. 1, 2016. In other counties, voluntary air action days continue to be voluntary.

This will impact about half of all wood burning appliances in the non-attainment counties and could contribute significantly to reducing wood smoke.  Salt Lake County has nearly 102,000 wood burning appliances, with fireplaces accounting for a majority of that with 60,000 units, according to EPA figures.  There are nearly 20,000 uncertified wood stoves and about the same number of pellet stoves and certified wood stoves.  

This stove inventory was provided by EPA who use a variety of databases and sources to estimate the deployment of wood burning devices.
The governor’s seasonal ban proposal that would impact 7 counties in and around Salt Lake City is drawing intense and sustained criticism from Utah residents, with only a few people speaking up in support of the ban.  It’s also drawing national attention from the wood stove industry that wants a 2-stage system, where EPA certified stoves could be used in stage 1 and all stove use banned in stage 2.
On the other hand, Salt Lake County, which has a more than a third of the state’s population and nearly half of the population and half the stoves in the Wasatch front non-attainment area, went the opposite direction, including all stoves, certified and uncertified, in both stages of air action days.  “This is a significant measure and with more enforcement could achieve a quarter to a half of the reductions that the Governor’s plan sought,” said John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat.

The issue has become an emotionally charged debate about individual rights vs. government control, striking a nerve within a deeply conservative part of the country.  In the public hearings, many people have testified about not being able to afford any other fuel than wood, and not wanting to be forced to use fossil fuel when they can use a cheaper renewable. 
But for air quality officials, the issue is simply about cleaning up the air and meeting federal air quality goals that are tied to highway funding.  The discussion quickly becomes about what the state can enforce and what it can’t.  The problem is that the state compliance capacity is already overstretched, with little ability to take on wood stoves.
However, that is different in Salt Lake County, which is moving ahead to enact stricter rules.  The County has decided to undertake the investigations of wood burning on mandatory no burn days itself, instead of leaving those to the state, which now only issues the fine.  Typically the initial warning is viewed an education process that leads to compliance, so that while many $ 25 fines have been given, rarely has the maximum of $ 299 been imposed. 
The new Salt Lake County rules, which take effect on Jan. 1, 2016, were not a reaction to the governor’s proposal or a rejection of the stove industry’s recommendations.  The County’s process began before the state’s process and ended before the stove industry got involved and helped set up the advocacy group Utahns for Responsible Burning.
According to officials at the Salt Lake Country Health Department, there was virtually no support for exempting EPA certified stoves from the county rule.  Both certified and uncertified stoves can produce excessive smoke, depending on operator behavior and moisture content of wood, with uncertified ones performing worse, on average.  While most EPA certified stoves produce 2 to 4.5 grams of particulates an hour in the lab when they are tested with specially prepared dry wood, they often produce far more in the real world.
The Alliance for Green Heat is urging Utah officials to consider phasing out uncertified stoves, since reducing the number of wood stoves will have the biggest impact.  “It may be that only about half of wood burners are really burning responsibly, whether they own a certified or uncertified stove,” Ackerly said.  “The uncertified stoves made before 1988 are now obsolete and most should not be used in densely populated areas,” Ackerly continued.

The current debate over wood heating comes less than 2 years after the outdoor wood boiler industry fought against Utah regulations that would prevent the installation of wood boilers on the Wasatch Front.  That debate also brought national attention of industry who hired lobbyists in Utah.  The industry effort to keep the market for outdoor boilers open in the non-attainment area was partially based on the now discredited argument that outdoor boilers were cleaner than wood stoves.

That case, like the current debate, involved questions of emissions data from test labs vs. emissions in the real world, and the likelihood that operators would be burning responsibly.


Heated Up!

Wood Heating Trends in Utah


The proposal by the Governor of Utah to ban the wintertime use of wood and pellet stoves was met with intense opposition from a large majority of Utah residents and the wood stove industry. It also underscored the need for Utah state agencies, the media, and the public to better understand the role of wood heating and its prevalence in the United States. This short paper compares census data of wood heating in Utah compared to the rest of the country. As of 2013, 10,500, or 1.2%, of Utah residents use mainly wood and pellets for their primary heating, far less than the national average of 2.1%, according to the US Census. There are likely to be an additional 40,000 to 50,000 who use it as a secondary heat source, though the US Census does not track secondary heating.  The EPA however estimates that there are about 93,000 wood and pellet stoves in Utah, some of which may not be used at all or only occasionally. Utah is one of the states that buck the national norm, in that far more homes heated with wood and pellets in 1990 compared to 1940. Utah residents gave up wood heating faster than the United States as a whole, with the number of homes mainly heating with wood hitting a low point in 1950, two decades before the rest of the country. But between 1970 and 1990, Utahns embraced wood heating far more aggressively than the rest of the country. The number of Utah homes mainly heating with wood rose from 0.3% in 1970 to 3.2% in 1990, a high point that the state has not hit since then.
The rapid growth of wood and pellets in Utah since 1970 is likely due to many of the same reasons it has grown so quickly elsewhere: both gas and oil prices had been climbing, until gas prices finally dropped in 2008 and oil prices just starting dropping in 2014.  And, the increase of wood and pellet heating may also be linked to an increased desire for household energy security by both conservative and liberal households, but for different reasons.
Median household income remained relatively static in Utah for most of the 2000s before they began falling in 2008 and rising again in 2012, compared to the US where incomes first decreased in 2007 and only started recovering in 2013. Often, more households turn away wood heating as incomes rise and this is likely a factor in Utah since 2012 as well.
Since 2005, the percent of Utahns using wood or pellet as a primary or sole heat source has ranged between 1% and 1.4%, and since 2010 has remained steady at 1.2%, significantly below the national rate of 2.1% that has remained unchanged since 2009. Wood heating peaked in 2009, at the height of the recession and dropped slightly as the economy has picked up.
Wood and pellets are the fastest growing heating fuel in Utah, followed by electricity, as it is the US overall. Wood and pellet heating as a primary heat source had increased nearly 40% in Utah from 2000 to 2013, slightly less than the nation overall. Utah is quite different than national heating trends when it comes to gas and oil. Gas heating has grown 30% in Utah since 2000, yet has only grown by 4% nationally. This increase in gas heating may be tied to slower growth of wood heating in areas with gas lines, while wood heating remains robust in areas without gas lines. Accurate county data could confirm this.  And oil heating has dropped far quicker in Utah than it has in the nation overall, although it has not been a very widespread form of residential heating in Utah.
Utah has the lowest percentage of homes heated primarily with wood in the West.  The Census does not have county level data of wood heating in Utah, but typically rural counties have far more wood heating than more urban ones.  And, lower income counties typically have more primary wood heating and higher income counties have more secondary wood heating. EPA Estimates of Fireplaces, Stoves and Boilers in Utah
The EPA figures, above, estimate nearly a quarter million wood fueled devices in Utah.  A majority of those are fireplaces and studies show that a large percent of fireplaces are never used or only used once a week, unlike stoves which are often used every day.  About 93,000 units are stoves, nearly 16,000 of which are pellet stoves, 48,000 uncertified stoves (most made prior to 1990) and 26,000 are EPA certified stoves, made since 1990.
As this chart shows, 84% of Utah residents heat with gas, one of the highest percentages in the U.S. The second most popular heating fuel is electricity, which heats 11% of Utah homes, followed by propane, which heats 2%.  The fourth most common heating fuel is wood and pellets which account for 1.2% of homes.
Heated Up!

New EPA Stove Regulations Begin Cleaner Chapter for Wood Heating

Statement by the Alliance for Green Heat on the Wood Heater NSPS

Key EPA architects of this NSPS include
Greg Green, left, and Gil Wood,  right  and
Amanda Simcox. Gil retired on February 3. 
Overall, the EPA did a good job and released a fair rule that includes many compromises between industry and air quality agencies.  We think these rules are good for consumers and will not drive prices up substantially for most product categories, but will result in cleaner and more efficient appliances that will ultimately save consumers time and money. This is our initial reaction to the rule, which we will be followed by a more thorough analysis.

High performance stoves: The EPA took some key steps to address the lack of recognition for high performing appliances. Notably, stoves that test with cordwood in the next 5 years can use a special EPA label that will alert consumers that the device is designed and tested for use like the consumer will use it. This shift is possibly as important than just lowering emission standards for wood stoves. Along these lines, the EPA is also allowing stoves that already meet the 2020 standards, to use a special label so consumers can more easily recognize these higher performing stoves. We are, however, very disappointed that the EPA removed the long-standing requirement that all stoves have a consumer hang-tag that helps consumers better appreciate the basic differences between all stoves on the showroom floor.

Boiler testing: Another positive step forward is EPA’s recognition of the European test method EN303-5 to certify European style indoor pellet boilers that have been accepted by Renewable Heat New York (RHNY). Also boilers certified by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) will be automatically deemed EPA certified. This is another step to recognizing higher performance equipment. NYSERDA deserves credit for the R&D, test method and other funding that EPA and DOE should have been doing to develop higher performance equipment. These parts of the new EPA rule will help give consumers more options to buy cleaner and more efficient devices.

Stove emission standards: As expected, the EPA is staying with the de facto status quo for the next 5 years, at 4.5 grams an hour (g/hr). The 2 g/hr standard for stoves as of 2020 is fair and reasonable. As the EPA explained in the rule “nearly 90 percent of current catalytic/hybrid stoves and over 18 percent of current non-catalytic stoves” already meet the Step 2 emission limit of 2 g/hr. We hope that those manufacturers who have to redesign stoves use the opportunity to redesign to use cordwood and to reduce start-up and fugitive emissions. The optional Step 2 certification test for cordwood at 2.5 g/hr represents a very creative and positive approach by the EPA to move towards required cord wood testing.

Some independent stove and boiler companies played a vital role in broadening the debate and sharing key data sets that enabled the EPA to show that some stoves can already meet the Step 2 standards of 2 g/hr with cordwood. We are pleased that companies who participated in the 2013 Wood Stove Design Challenge helped the EPA and OMB understand that smallest manufacturers can undertake the R&D to make very clean and affordable stoves that operate well on cordwood.

Key issues not addressed: Some of the most important issues with wood stoves are difficult to address in regulations, such as indoor air quality from fugitive smoke and the ability for homeowners to reduce air-flow so much that the stove smolders for hours on end, which is often a nightly occurrence. Ultimately, we believe that some types of automation are needed to prevent the widespread consumer misuse of wood stoves. The attempt by the EPA to set a maximum emission level while the stove is on its lowest burn rate was a good start. We had urged the EPA to more formally address alternative tests for automated stoves that hold tremendous promise to reduce widespread poor operation by consumers.

Warm air furnaces: Delaying the standards for all warm air furnaces for 1 – 2 years was a mistake because some companies have little ability or intention of meeting the Step 1 standards. An interim measure after 6 months to distinguish between companies on their way towards meeting standards and those who aren’t would have been far better.

Exempt wood stoves:
We are very pleased to see that the era of exempt wood stoves is over. About 1 out of every 3 or 4 new wood stoves sold in America has been exempt in recent years and EPA had considered a weaker standard for them, but is now holding them to same standard as all other stoves.

Masonry heaters:
The EPA was not able to set standards for masonry heaters but we are glad to see that the EPA has charted a path forward to work with the Masonry Heater Association so that masonry heaters become a certified appliance category

Sell-through period: The sell-through period, set at 8 months through December 31st is fair for certified wood stoves, pellet stoves and qualified or EN303-5 approved boilers, but too long for exempt wood stoves and traditional outdoor boilers which should have come off the market sooner.

Electronic reporting: We were very glad to see that the EPA will begin electronic reporting for stove certification tests and provide more transparency for the public and access more data that is not Confidential Business Information (CBI) about stove tests.

Efficiency: Achievable efficiency standards are important in the near future and we are pleased that the EPA will finally require the manufacturers to test for, and report actual efficiency numbers not only to the EPA, but also on their websites. In practice however, many existing stoves many not have to retest for 3-5 years and it is unclear if they will have to disclose efficiency before then, unless they do it voluntarily. This is particularly important for boilers and pellet stoves that have a very wide range of efficiencies.

Renewable energy: We are very disappointed that the EPA did not mention the term “renewable” in this rule. The EPA Office of Air and Radiation should take into consideration that this sector has potential not just to make cleaner energy, but to use a renewable energy source and displace fossil fuels. Governor Cuomo’s Renewable Heat New York is investing tens of millions into the sector and integrates the goal of driving down emissions, driving up efficiency while replacing fossil fuels and offering homeowners an affordable, renewable heating source. In addition to setting minimum emission standards for lab testing, the EPA should adopt a more integrated approach to this technology that is being increasingly adopted not just by New York, but by other states as well.

In conclusion, the EPA crafted a fair and balanced rule overall and took some important steps towards testing with cordwood and recognizing those companies who take steps to build stoves based on how consumers operates them. In the long run, this new rule will result in cleaner appliances and a better foundation for renewable wood and pellet heating.

Full EPA rule and fact sheets

Wood and pellet stoves

Step New PM emissions limit Compliance deadlines
Step 1: All uncertified wood and pellet stoves (cat and non-cat) 4.5 grams per hour for crib wood test method

If tested with cordwood, emissions test method must be approved, and stoves must meet crib wood limit

60 days after publication in the Federal Register
Step 2: All wood and pellet stoves (cat and non-cat) 2.0 grams per hour, or 2.5 grams per hour if tested with cordwood (test method must be approved) 5 years after publication in the Federal Register (2020)

Hydronic heaters

Step New PM emissions limit Compliance deadlines
Step 1 0.32 pounds per million Btu heat output (weighted average), with a cap of 18 grams per hour for individual test runs (crib wood test method)

If tested with cordwood, emissions test method must be approved, and stoves must meet crib wood limit

60 days after publication in the Federal Register
Step 2 0.10 pounds per million Btu heat output for each burn rate, or 0.15 pounds per million Btu heat output for each burn rate. If tested with cordwood; method must be approved 5 years after publication in the Federal Register (2020)

Warm air furnaces

Step Standard Compliance deadlines
Step 1 Operational/work practice standards 60 days after publication in the Federal Register
Step 2 Emissions limit of 0.93 pounds of PM per million Btu heat output, weighted average. Cordwood testing is required for forced air furnaces Small furnaces: 1 year after publication in the Federal Register (2016)

Large furnaces: 2 years after publication (2017)

Step 3 Emissions limit of 0.15 pounds of PM per million Btu heat output for each individual burn rate. Cordwood testing required All furnaces: 5 years after publication in the Federal Register (2020)

Related stories:
Private Talks Yield Consensus on Key Issues in NSPS
Paper Undermines Stove Industry Variability Study

Heated Up!