![]() |
A screen shot of part of the navigation of different fuel types in the new EPA database |
Consumer friendly site is cause of worry for some
The EPA said the new database was designed to“improve accessibility and usefulness” by allowing users to search for the cleanest stoves, the most efficient stoves, those designed to burn cordwood and other attributes.
A wide range of stakeholders, from industry to states to non-profits, had been urging the EPA to switch to a modern searchable format for nearly a decade. The painfully slow development of the database at times seemed to epitomize the government's reputation to move at a snail’s pace. The list is maintained by the EPA’s Office of Enforcement, which like much of the EPA has been hit with repeated budget cuts and loss of staff in recent years.
The sleek new functionality of the list, allowing users to focus on one parameter or another, is also worrying to many in the stove industry. Traditionally, this list of certified wood heaters has not been a primary information source for consumers. But with this new functionality, consumers may start relying on it more and more, leading to some unintended results, such as worse buying decisions or ones that favor some manufacturers over others. Similar to the feature in the old excel spreadsheets, the new database now also indicates new additions.
One fear is that consumers will put too much reliance on higher BTU output if they can easily search and cross reference by these values. Right-sizing a stove is already problematic, and the BTU values on the list are overinflated due to loose parameters that allow labs to show high BTU output. Another fear, expressed by some manufacturers at the recent HPBA Expo in Nashville, is that consumers will favor “Cord Wood” stoves over “Crib Wood” stoves because they are not familiar with the lexicon of stove testing and the legacy of crib wood.
The EPA chose to include a box that helps consumers identify the cleanest and most efficient stoves,
and some say that this puts unwarranted attention to values that won’t necessarily translate from the lab to the home. This “Quick Searches” box will likely be used by consumers who don’t understand pellet stoves work similarly in the home as they do in the lab, but wood stoves can only achieve the optimal lab numbers with a large bed of coals, dry wood and careful operation.
and some say that this puts unwarranted attention to values that won’t necessarily translate from the lab to the home. This “Quick Searches” box will likely be used by consumers who don’t understand pellet stoves work similarly in the home as they do in the lab, but wood stoves can only achieve the optimal lab numbers with a large bed of coals, dry wood and careful operation.
This “certified fuel type” feature also sheds light on one the biggest problems with the new searchable data – accuracy. Six wood stoves were initially listed as using wood chips as a fuel, an apparent mistake according to one of the manufacturers of those stoves. As of November 2020, two stoves are still listed as being tested with wood chips, even though no such test method exists. This could hurt sales of those units if consumers are relying on the database to narrow down the stoves they may purchase. EPA staff are quick to say that this is a work in progress and it is incumbent on manufacturers to vet the list and provide the EPA with corrections. In 2017, the HPBA warned the EPA that many inaccuracies existed in the database. Many of the same errors are still listed two years later. A whole new frontier of recognizing deficiencies is now being opened up by an Alaska initiative that is reviewing all certification documents.
The Alliance for Green Heat welcomes the new database and had the opportunity to provide input on several occasions as other stakeholders did. Some of our suggestions and wording was adopted and some was not. AGH believes that the new database will help consumers become more educated about the working of stoves and the terminology, but it will take time and effort by the wood heating community. AGH is currently urging the EPA to add a column showing what test method was used to identify single burn rate stoves and stoves that used an alternative test method.
The release of the database was coordinated with the update of some key pages on the EPA's Burn Wise website. The EPA finally changed their page on hydronic heaters which previously defined and pictured them just as outdoor boilers, a change that AGH had urged them to make for years. They also made major changes to their efficiency page which had not been updated since the EPA began requiring testing and reporting of efficiency of stoves.
Hybrid stoves, which almost all use both catalysts and air tubes for secondary combustion, are listed as a subtype and there are now 19 stoves listed as hybrid. AGH is urging the EPA to also add “automated stoves” as a subtype in the future. Both hybrid and automated stoves offer great promise to help consumers run stoves more cleanly.
The database is separated into two: “Room Heaters” and “Central Heaters” and you have to select one or the other or your search may turn up empty. There are 32 central heaters with 12 that use pellet fuel. Of the 32 heaters, only 3 are forced air furnaces.
The Alliance for Green Heat welcomes the new database and had the opportunity to provide input on several occasions as other stakeholders did. Some of our suggestions and wording was adopted and some was not. AGH believes that the new database will help consumers become more educated about the working of stoves and the terminology, but it will take time and effort by the wood heating community. AGH is currently urging the EPA to add a column showing what test method was used to identify single burn rate stoves and stoves that used an alternative test method.
The release of the database was coordinated with the update of some key pages on the EPA's Burn Wise website. The EPA finally changed their page on hydronic heaters which previously defined and pictured them just as outdoor boilers, a change that AGH had urged them to make for years. They also made major changes to their efficiency page which had not been updated since the EPA began requiring testing and reporting of efficiency of stoves.
Features and functions
· Pellet stoves
The database shows 98 out of the 242 models are pellet stoves. Nearly half of the pellet stove models are 1 gram or under.
· Catalytic Stoves
The database shows that 30 of the 144 models are catalytic, and another 19 are hybrids which also use catalysts.
· Hybrid Stoves
![]() |
Wood stoves are divided into three subtypes - cat, non-cat and hybrid. |
· Cord vs. Crib wood
As of Nov. 2020, 83 of the 144 wood stoves were tested with cord wood, indicating a surging popularity with the ASTM test method, that allows more flexibility in the lab.
BTU Output
As of Nov. 2020, 83 of the 144 wood stoves were tested with cord wood, indicating a surging popularity with the ASTM test method, that allows more flexibility in the lab.
BTU Output
With tighter homes and a new breed of tiny homes, it is now easy to search for stoves with the lowest BTU output. Many models are tested at less than 25,000 BTU. AGH believes that many units still have erroneously high BTU values based on loose parameters in lab testing and reporting, and these values should be used with great caution.
Firebox volume
The cubic size of the firebox is an equally useful tool to estimate BTU output. They range from 0.5 to 4.4 cubic feet. AGH has concerns that some BTU output figures are exaggerated due to the allowable calculations that labs can use to estimate heat output. Small fire boxes are usually considered to be up to 1.5 cubic feet and good for holding a fire for no more than 4-6 hours. Medium fireboxes are in the 1.5 to 2.5 range and usually can hold heat for 6 - 9 hours and large fireboxes are 2.5 - 4.5 cubic feet and can easily hold heat overnight.
Test method
In December of 2020 the EPA added a column to designate the test method that was used to determine emissions, but they have not yet populated the column with any data. This will help better understand which are single rate burn stoves, for example, and which stoves got variances. The detail will be too technical for the average consumer but useful for stove geeks and agencies.
· Efficiency
The EPA has chosen to use the term “overall efficiency” instead of simply “efficiency.” Some manufactures use “optimal efficiency” or “maximum efficiency” instead of publishing the EPA tested efficiency, which is lower. One hundred out of 244 models tested at 75% HHV efficiency or greater.
· Carbon monoxide
Like efficiency, carbon monoxide is required to be tested and publicly disclosed, but there is no regulated minimum or maximum that must be met. The CO listing raised concern from some who worry that consumers may use it instead of PM as a primary indicator of cleanliness, or that consumers may think it’s an indication of amounts of CO emitted into the room.
·
· Previously certified
The database also shows the 205 stoves that were previously EPA certified at 4.6 grams or higher, a feature that could be very helpful for change out program managers who want to target older certified stoves, many of which need replacement.
· Key terms and definitions
The EPA provides a new page with definitions of key terms such as adjustable burn rate vs. single burn rate heaters, fireplace insert, wood pellets, etc.
· Central Heaters
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia_mXpvywWQ5IEGMTlXWFIfTL0swH20MzwgjBLezQ9nN9yhRV3SuiV4-2RcdkIVtSTOJKl9bdKGnEAX-RRUrgPPSELQh7En8BkukPni23YrYklXs9J5JrEb7C-otewDUYhcO40_DmX6g/s200/EPA+heater+box.jpg)
·
Not included in the new database
Some stakeholders have urged the EPA to include more search attributes, such as the test method, lab, and a link to the detailed lab report that manufacturers are required to post on their websites. The list also does not say whether PFI certified pellets were used during certification testing and are thus technically required to be used by the consumer. Up until 2007, the list used to include the deadline that the five year certification certificate expired. Up until the summer of 2015, the list included the outmoded estimated default efficiencies, which listed all non-cats at 63%, cats at 72% and pellet stoves at 78%. The default efficiencies were set based on testing in the mid and late 1980s, resulting in relative accurate estimates for wood stoves, but helping to develop the enduring myth that pellet stoves had such high average efficiencies.
Contact Rafael Sanchez at the EPA's Office of Enforcement to address errors or omissions in the database, (sanchez.rafael@epa.gov) at (202) 564-7028.
Not included in the new database
Some stakeholders have urged the EPA to include more search attributes, such as the test method, lab, and a link to the detailed lab report that manufacturers are required to post on their websites. The list also does not say whether PFI certified pellets were used during certification testing and are thus technically required to be used by the consumer. Up until 2007, the list used to include the deadline that the five year certification certificate expired. Up until the summer of 2015, the list included the outmoded estimated default efficiencies, which listed all non-cats at 63%, cats at 72% and pellet stoves at 78%. The default efficiencies were set based on testing in the mid and late 1980s, resulting in relative accurate estimates for wood stoves, but helping to develop the enduring myth that pellet stoves had such high average efficiencies.
Contact Rafael Sanchez at the EPA's Office of Enforcement to address errors or omissions in the database, (sanchez.rafael@epa.gov) at (202) 564-7028.
No comments:
Post a Comment