First page of the Incentive archive.

Forthcoming Report on Ideal Methods for Stove Incentive Packages

Posted by Earth Stove on March 11, 2014 with No Commentsas , , , , , ,
The Alliance for Eco-friendly Heat was awarded a grant by the University of Maryland Extension (UME) to examine the Maryland wood and pellet stove rebate plan and other point out incentive packages and compose a paper on “best practices” for stove incentive packages.&nbsp The paper would be introduced at a conference, revealed as a UME truth sheet, offered on a UME webinar and posted on the internet sites for UME and the Alliance. &nbspKey states we will search at incorporate Maryland, Maine, New York, Oregon, Washington and Massachusetts. &nbspThe Alliance has worked formerly with the College of Maryland Extension and created a set of wood heating reality sheets.
Background: In the final two several years, numerous states have initiated wood and pellet stove incentive applications and practically all of them have had to make adjustments right after establishing needs that did not work effectively.&nbsp Even though this is a typical part of the studying curve of establishing a system for any appliance or technological innovation, the lessons learned are important for other packages. It is also partly since revolutionary stove incentive applications that consider to target on cleanest or most effective stoves are new and there are not many illustrations to draw from.&nbsp Most states craft their very own system and get components from other states.&nbsp A lot more states are now in the approach of making a plan and could use a roadmap that lays out what labored nicely and what didn’t.&nbsp
Task Description
a.&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp We will make contact with present packages to see if they have any info that they can release for us to evaluate.&nbsp At a bare minimum, we will do a entire examination of data that Maryland can share.&nbsp In other states, we will at minimum question for substantial amount details and gather as a lot as achievable from the internet.
b.&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp We will assessment general public plan objectives of each software, no matter whether its primarily renewable energy production, smoke reduction, supporting to give inexpensive warmth for rural inhabitants or a mixture of the a few.&nbsp This will also involve interviews with the managers of individuals packages.
c.&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp We will evaluation the requirements and demands of every single plan in terms of requiring professional set up and outside air, limiting eligibility of stoves by emissions and performance, restricting eligibility by spot or income of home, etc.&nbsp

d.&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp We will consider to create average expenses for the installation and/or elimination of each wooden stove, and match that with the advantages.
Why the Alliance?
This venture taps into a core expertise of the Alliance for Eco-friendly Heat.&nbsp We have interactions with the managers of many incentive packages and have supplied suggestions and comments to numerous of them. This report will also be partly an current to a major report&nbspon stove incentives&nbspwe did three years ago that was funded by US Forest Service’s Wood Schooling and Study Middle.&nbsp

The budget for the venture is $ seven,500 and the College of Maryland Extension Support grant handles a 3rd of that.&nbsp

Heated Up!

More States Start Innovative Stove Incentive Programs

Posted by Earth Stove on February 8, 2014 with No Commentsas , , , , , ,
More states are starting or changing their stove incentive programs to tighten eligibility, require professional installation, and often, to install an outside air supply.  Until recently, incentive programs only required that wood stoves be EPA certified.  And even though the EPA certifies many pellet stoves, it does not recommend EPA certified pellet stoves be required in incentive or change-out programs.  Change-out programs designed and managed by the EPA and HPBA allowed virtually any new wood or pellet stove to be installed.  The new trend led by states is changing all that.
The Oregon program, which began in 2013, is the most complex in terms of requirements, but provides up to a $ 1,500 tax credit.  To date, the highest tax credit awarded was $ 960, according to Deby Davis of the Oregon Department of Energy. 
For larger tax credits, the Oregon program requires that stoves have actual measured efficiencies and be listed on the EPA list of certified wood stoves.  Only 19 stoves to date have provided the EPA with actual efficiencies and those brands are getting a bump in sales in Oregon and Maine.  If the manufacturer of the stove has not provided the EPA with an actual measured efficiency, the Oregon tax credit is $ 144 for non-catalytic stoves, $ 216 for catalytic and $ 288 for pellet stoves. 
The Maine program had required actual efficiencies but is in the process of changing to require emission limits only.  The emission limits of 3.5 grams per hour for wood stoves and 2.5 for pellet stoves mirror the emission limits in Oregon.  Despite a very generous $ 5,000 rebate for residential boilers, the Maine program provides only $ 250 per stove and it is still unclear how successful the program is.
The Maryland program is slightly stricter on emissions, with an upper threshold of 3.0 for wood and 2.0 for pellet stoves, but does not require pellet stoves to be EPA certified.  As a result, it may be incentivizing some very low efficiency pellet stoves.  The program is unique in that the $ 500 – $ 700 rebate is only available to homes that do not have access to natural gas.  None of the three programs require that an uncertified stove be traded in for a new stove.
 
These programs mark a trend towards stricter eligibility for stoves incentivized with taxpayer funds.  But managers of these programs are struggling with some unintended barriers and consequences.  In Oregon, the program excludes all pellet stoves but one because only one pellet stove manufacturer, Seraph, has provided verified efficiency to the EPA.  In Maine, the program initially required stoves to be installed by contractors with a solid fuel license, but did not provide for hearth professionals to do installations.  That glitch is being changed as well.
The tax credit calculation in Oregon favors non-catalytic stoves over the cleaner catalytic or pellet stoves, which puts the agency in charge of the program, the Oregon Department of Energy, at odds with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.  The Oregon tax credit amount is based on the efficiency improvement over the EPA’s default efficiency.  So a non-cat tested at 70% would have a 7% improvement over the 63% default.  A pellet stove tested at 75% would not have any improvement over the 78% EPA default efficiency.  The program thus unintentionally puts pellet stoves at a disadvantage because the EPA set unrealistically high default efficiency for pellet stoves. 
Oregon, Maine and Maryland require professional installation and Oregon and Maine require inclusion of outside air supply.  In Oregon, this could mean simply a $ 35 vent that provides air within several feet of the stove.  All three programs avoid “free riders” to some extent because even if the incentive does not lead to the sale, the state achieves important goals of professional installation, cleaner appliances, outside air where applicable, etc.  Free riders is a term used for consumers who get a rebate but who would have made the same purchase regardless of the incentive.
The proposed new EPA stove regulations will require all stoves to be tested and listed for efficiency, but there is widespread concern that the EPA will not require — or even have the capacity to make — efficiencies available to the public within the first year or two after promulgation.  This is leading Oregon and other states to consider keeping or even starting to use efficiency requirements in their incentive programs. 


Heated Up!