Friday, November 4, 2022

AGH urges the IRS to issue guidance on wood heater eligibility for tax credits

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments.  IRS guidance on wood heaters is long overdue.  The Alliance is an independent non-profit organization that strives to represent the interests of consumers of wood and pellet heaters.  We believe a tax credit for wood and pellet heaters is essential as we transition from fossil fuel to renewable fuels. 

The IRS asked whether guidance needed to define the term "thermal efficiency rating"? If so, what testing procedures should the Treasury Department and the IRS consider requiring or permitting to be used by manufacturers to measure thermal efficiency and demonstrate ratings that are valid for purposes of the § 25C credit?


Summary: The most reliable method to protect consumers, ensure that tax credits are going to compliant models and create a level playing field for manufacturers is for Treasury/IRS to specify that eligibility is limited to units listed in the EPA Certified Wood Stove Database that have an overall weighted average efficiency of 75% or more using the higher heating value of the fuel.  


Using the EPA database to determine eligibility is the most effective solution from a variety of public policy perspectives but it is not without problems: multiple test methods result in disparate EPA seasonal average efficiency results for wood and pellet boilers, which are not comparable, and which are not helpful for consumers or for the purposes of setting an efficiency threshold for the tax credit.  The EPA is aware of the problem but an impending change in IRS guidance on wood heater tax credits is likely to hurt members of the industry who sell some of the most sophisticated modern wood heating equipment.  We urge the IRS to consult with the EPA on this problem and find a solution as soon as possible.


In addition, we urge the IRS to make it clear that the $2,000 tax credit for wood heaters is in addition to the $1,200 for other 25C qualifying home projects, not instead of them. The IRS should clarify that the full $3,200 is available to taxpayers. We also urge the IRS to confirm that 25C tax credits are available to renters, not just to owners of residences, based on the removal of the term “owner” by Congress.

Finally, the IRS asked for comments on certification or other requirements for home energy auditors.  We urge the IRS to affirm that when energy auditors are directed to inspect HVAC systems, that wood and pellet heaters are recognized as legitimate heating devices and need to be inspected for safety based on nationally recognized criteria, just as other heating systems are.  Various agencies and institutions such as DOE, NREL and BPI have begun to address this problem but wood heater remain marginalized, leaving many older, self-installed units that pose fire hazards and are not being properly inspected.

Background on wood and pellet heater testing: There is universal acceptance among test labs and manufacturers that efficiency is measured using in accordance with CSA B415.1-10.  When stoves are tested for EPA certification, the traditional test is to use the EPA’s “Method 28” which consists of 4 burn rates, from low (Category 1) to high (Category 4).  The lowest burn rate allows the lowest amount of air to flow through the stove and typically produces a higher efficiency.  High burn rates allow maximum airflow through the stove, and typically produce lower efficiencies.  The labs then combine these 4 efficiency numbers and produce “a weighted average efficiency” which is what is recorded on the EPA database of certified heaters as “overall efficiency.”

CSA B415 produces three types of efficiency: Overall efficiency, combustion efficiency and thermal efficiency.  The EPA uses Overall Efficiency to get an Average Overall Efficiency” and EPA guidance on testing deficiencies makes no reference to “thermal efficiency.”  Even within the wood and pellet heater industry, there is confusion between the terms “overall efficiency,” “thermal efficiency” and “weighted average efficiency.” The image below is an representative example of how test labs report efficiencies.  

Each of the four burn rates produces an overall efficiency number, and combustion efficiency number and heat transfer, or thermal efficiency number.  The EPA averages the four overall heating efficiency numbers to get a weighted average efficiency.  In the EPA database, this weighted average efficiency is in the column titled “Overall efficiency- HHV.” (The EPA used to use the term “Actual measured efficiency CSA B415.1 after they stopped using default, estimated efficiencies in 2015.)

There are eight labs approved by the EPA to conduct certification testing, including one in Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark and Sweden.  The labs do not use efficiency terminology consistently, and often just refer to “efficiency” rather than “overall efficiency” or “weighted average efficiency” rather than “weighted average overall efficiency.” All labs clearly distinguish HHV and LHV, and no lab uses “thermal efficiency” in their weighted averages, as far as we know.

However, some manufacturers will use “Heat transfer efficiency” otherwise known as “thermal efficiency” numbers to qualify models for the tax credit because they tend to be 1-2% higher than “overall efficiency.” Thus, if a stove has an average overall efficiency of 75%, it could have a single burn rate as low as 69%, using thermal efficiency numbers.  No manufacturer uses combustion efficiency for purposes of the tax credit as far as we know.  Combustion efficiencies tend to be in the 96-98% range.

Wood heaters are tested by EPA approved labs and then the EPA uses the data in the report to certify the stove for sale. Once it’s certified the EPA puts summary data on its Database of certified wood heaters. Since 2015, the EPA has also required manufacturers to post the non-confidential parts of their lab test report on their website.  Those reports are public and you can find the efficiency numbers for each burn rate, but they are not easy for consumers to navigate. On the contrary, they are dense, full of fine, highly technical jargon and are only used by regulators and experts.

Statistics: Currently, 25 of the 31 central wood heaters are eligible for the tax credit, using the EPA list.  113 of the 262 room heaters are above 75%, using the EPA list.  Overall, that would make about half of all heaters eligible, if the IRS were to use the efficiencies listed on the EPA database.

Public policy considerations: To achieve a level of transparency for the consumer, using the EPA database of certified heaters is an obvious solution.  Some consumers care about efficiency and the only place that consumers can make side-to-side comparisons is on the EPA database.  With pellet stoves, efficiency typically matters more than wood stoves because unlike cordwood, all pellets must be purchased, and a more efficient stove can save consumers by using less fuel.

If the IRS wants to be more lenient with manufacturers and allow more than about half of heaters to qualify, it could keep allowing manufacturers to issue certificates without any guidance, or specifically say that if any burn rate achieves 75% efficiency or more, it can be eligible for the tax credit.  If the IRS specified this, we expect all manufacturers would quickly adopt this system and about 80% or more of appliances would be deemed eligible.

Public policy is also served by setting a level playing field for all manufacturers, instead of allowing some brands to undercut others by claiming their units are eligible for the tax credit when they are below 75% on the EPA database.  Almost all US manufactures now use the EPA database to determine if their models are eligible.  

By setting an efficiency threshold for wood heaters, certain types of wood heater benefit.  The Alliance for Green Heat has monitored the changes to efficiency in wood heater for more than 10 years and documented the various ways that manufacturers claim that their stoves are eligible for the tax credit.  The averages below were calculated several years ago, when efficiencies were lower but the conclusion is remains the same: hybrid wood stoves have on average, the highest efficiencies are virtually all of them qualify for the tax credit, under any definition.  More manufacturers are building hybrid stoves in order to qualify for the tax credit and whereas there were only 6 models several years ago, today there are at least 21. Non-catalytic stoves, the cheapest, most popular, and most basic stove, have the hardest time reaching 75% efficiency. Today, only 15 out of 113 non-catalytic models are 75% or over.

From a public policy perspective, setting a 75% efficiency minimum, using the EPA database of certified heaters, is positive in that it tends to favor stoves that emit fewer particulate matters (PM) emissions.  Non-catalytic stoves tend to have higher emissions both in the lab and in the hands of homeowners if other factors are equalized such as moisture content of wood and ability of the operator. Pellet stoves and hybrid stoves tend to the cleanest, as used by homeowners.

Many taxpayers want to be able to download a certificate of eligibility to keep in their files, and taking a screen shot of the EPA list may not be as easy or feel as secure. The owner’s manual of the stove almost always has the weighted average efficiency, so that can also serve as proof of eligibility for the taxpayer.

There are two classes of heaters that would be unfairly penalized by an IRS requirement to base eligibility off the efficiency numbers in the EPA database.  The first is that multiple test methods result in disparate EPA seasonal average efficiency results for some indoor wood and pellet boilers which are abnormally low and are not comparable to other boilers or helpful for consumers or for the purposes of setting an efficiency threshold for the tax credit.  The EPA is aware of the problem, as is NESCAUM and NYSDERDA who are involved in testing programs to try to identify the calculations and assumptions leading to this problem and then find a solution.

The second are Masonry heaters are also penalized but since they do not yet have a pathway to EPA certification, the solution is more complicated. There are consistent and reliable ways to test factory-built masonry heaters and those manufacturers could issue Certificates of eligibility for the tax credit, but they will not be listed on the EPA database.  Standard combustion chambers used in site-built masonry heaters could also be tested but this is more complicated.  The Masonry Heater Association is the point group on this issue.

IRS options

The IRS has several options, depending on what their goals are.  


1.     The first, and best option, in our opinion is to use the “overall efficiency” numbers listed on the EPA database of certified wood heaters be the sole arbiter and end the practice of using manufacturer certificates, or only allow manufactures to issue certificates for heater models that are listed at 75% efficiency or higher on the EPA database. Many of the benefits of this are discussed above in the public policy discussion.


2.     There is a hybrid option of allowing manufacturers to issue certificates of eligibility if a model exceeds is 75% efficient or over for stoves and outdoor boilers or furnaces, or is 75% or more overall efficiency on any of their burn rates for indoor boilers or furnaces. 


3.     There is the current system, where manufacturers self-issue a certificate to declare that a particular model is eligible, sometimes without any reference to efficiency figures or definitions. This has resulted in manufacturers claiming models with weighted average efficiencies as low as 64% to be eligible. This has also allowed manufacturers to claim units that are not EPA certified to be eligible without providing any efficiency data. Another weakness of this option is that there is no agency with the time, resources, or agility to provide enforcement in this area, leaving consumers vulnerable to false claims. 


On the following pages, we have included representative samples of four types of manufacture certificates of eligibility for the tax credit.  The disparity of the language used and the range of models that are claimed to be eligible for the credit show a clear need for more guidance for the IRS.


A. Example of a certificate that claims eligibility without reference to efficiency, even though it appears all units are above 75% efficiency based on the EPA database.


B. Example of a company that claims its units are eligible, even though they are well below 75% on the EPA list and do not meet 75% even on individual burn rates.


C. Example of EPA non-certified stoves without EPA approved third party lab efficiency data to claim eligibility.


D. Example of a certificate that claims models are eligible solely because they are “qualified energy property” with no reference to efficiency.


Wednesday, September 7, 2022

Funding approved for wood heat tours from Maryland to NH & VT

September 7, 2022 

Program Contact: Maura Ross, Wood Energy Coordinator: 304-676-9224

Media Contact: Sabrina Bachman, Maryland Clean Energy Center: 301-314-6066

Alliance for Green Heat Contact: John Ackerly, The Alliance for Green Heat


Maryland Advances Biomass Wood Energy Solutions 

$25,000 awarded from the Maryland Agricultural Education & 

Rural Development Assistance Fund grant to conduct in-person, on-site education efforts


COLLEGE PARK, Md. –  Maryland continues to search for ways to develop and expand the state’s existing renewable energy portfolio. Thermal wood energy is beginning to gain traction and attention across the state as a sustainable option to traditional heating fuels such as propane and other fossil fuels. Despite the idea of thermal wood energy being widely known, the newer and advanced large-scale systems installed with efficient cleaning controls are typically not thought of when wood energy is mentioned.

To help show what these systems are and how they operate, as well as speak directly to facilities about their experience with a wood energy system, the Alliance for Green Heat and the Maryland Clean Energy Center have partnered together to organize and host educational tours to learn from other states as well as see where Maryland’s wood energy sector currently stands.

Maura Ross, project lead for
wood energy tours in NH & VT

The two tours funded through the Rural Maryland Council grant will take attendees to Vermont and New Hampshire. Attendees will include those who are interested in renewable energy and can make decisions on the future of wood energy in Maryland, such as policymakers, environmental groups, and facility managers who want to make the switch from fossil fuels to renewables as quickly as possible. 

Vermont and New Hampshire are seen as the country’s leaders regarding wood energy – heating not only homes, but schools, commercial facilities, an entire town’s public buildings, and even downtown sidewalks! They began the development of their wood energy sector almost twenty years ago and have continually seen the benefits of reducing their energy dependence on fossil fuels and the increasing health of their forests through sustainable management practices resulting from a strong logging sector.

“Tours to New Hampshire and Vermont will enable Maryland stakeholders to meet experts who run the systems and the building owners who pay for far cheaper heat," said John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat.

This education-focused grant will also fund a case study, providing a detailed overview of one of the two tours. It will include information on the locations visited, the systems in place, the benefits of wood energy experienced, and the lessons learned from each facility. The information in the case study will help not only those who were unable to attend the tours but be a vital resource for decision makers and facility owners to reference when considering thermal wood energy.

“There are numerous misconceptions regarding wood energy since it not a common energy source anymore and confusion about the difference between sustainable forest management and overharvesting,” states Maura Ross, the wood energy coordinator at the Maryland Clean Energy Center, “but seeing is believing. If we can get those who are passionate about switching over to renewable energy on these tours where they see the environmental benefits themselves and speak with those who work with energy every day, I believe that the opinion of wood energy in the state will change.”

The tours will be hosted between early December and early April, with the case study released before June 2023.

The Educational Tour project is supported, in partnership, by the Alliance for Green Heat and the Maryland Clean Energy Center and funded by the Rural Maryland Council through the Maryland Agricultural Education and Rural Development Assistance Fund. This effort is also supported by the U.S. Forest Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Maryland State Wood Energy Team.


The Maryland Clean Energy Center (MCEC) was created in 2008 to encourage the transformation of the energy economy. MCEC works to implement financing solutions that catalyze the growth of business, create jobs, and make clean energy technologies, products and services affordable and accessible for Maryland consumers.

The Alliance for Green Heat promotes modern wood and pellet heating systems as a low-carbon, sustainable and affordable energy solution. The Alliance works to advance cleaner and more efficient residential heating technology, particularly for low and middle-income families.



Friday, June 17, 2022

Wood and pellet appliance sales surge amid demographic heating changes

Fuel prices, extreme weather & heat pumps driving changes

By John Ackerly & Caroline Solomon


With rising gas, oil and electricity prices, wood and pellet stove manufacturers are struggling to keep up with a demand not seen in more than a decade. In Europe, demand for stoves is even larger, with lines forming outside hearth stores in hopes of getting one installed before the next heating season.


This recent surge comes on the heels of major demographic shifts already underway in wood and pellet heating in America. Households in southern states are retiring old stoves and not buying as many new ones, while in many northern states, demand has been surging. And while wood and pellet stoves are far more dominant in rural areas, there has been significant growth in some urban areas in recent decades. 


From 2000 to 2020, the number of U.S. homes using wood and pellets as a primary heating fuel grew very slightly, from 1.68% in 2000 to 1.70% in 2020, based on U.S. Census data. In real numbers, that means 2,075,845 households are using wood or pellets as a primary fuel. An additional 8 to 9 million homes use wood or pellets as a secondary heat source, making it the most popular secondary heating fuel after electricity. (The US Census gathered this data in 2000 and 2020 by asking the following question: “Which FUEL is used MOST for heating this house, apartment, or mobile home?”) 

However, this national data obscures some important local and regional trends. In some urban areas, wood heating is growing rapidly, while in some states it is falling rapidly. This is one of the first analyses based on US Census data to identify these trends in wood heat, which have been playing out over the last 20 years.  

Nationally, electricity continues its ascent and will likely become the most common heating fuel by 2030, if not before. In 1940, when the US Census began tracking heating fuel, wood was the second most common household heating source after coal. Wood heat steadily dropped, bottoming out in 1970 at 1.3% of homes, and then peaking at 3.9% in 1990. Primary wood and pellet heat could see a dramatic rise again if oil and gas prices stay high, for example going from 1.7% of homes back to 2.5% or even 3%, but that would still barely register on national graphs like the one above.


Overall, the only sources of heating that are rising between 2000 and 2020 are electricity, solar and wood, although wood only had a tiny rise. Fuel oil, propane, coal and gas all fell. 

Based on US Census Data. Compiled by the Alliance for Green Heat.

Urban vs. rural wood heat trends


On average, urban areas in the US saw an increase of 7.05% in wood heat, while rural areas saw an increase of 5.58%. But in 3 states, the number of homes using wood or pellets in urban areas more than doubled, and nearly doubled in 2 other states.  

Based on US Census Data. Compiled by the Alliance for Green Heat.

Michigan and Pennsylvania are both in the top 5 states for wood heating growth in urban and rural areas. Interestingly, the fastest growth in rural areas is not in the states where wood heating is most common. It’s important to note that the rapid increase in wood heat in some states does not always correlate with stove sales. One possible explanation is that many homes that used their stoves as a secondary heater in 2000 are using it as a primary heater in 2020. 


For the Northeast and Midwest, the urban change is much higher than the rural change; and in the South, urban wood heat usage is decreasing at a slower rate than rural wood heat usage. The West is the only region in which urban wood heat usage is falling more quickly than rural usage. 


But wood and pellet heating remains mainly a rural phenomenon. About four times the number of homes heat primarily with wood or pellets in rural areas than they do in urban areas. As a percentage, in 2020 less than half a percent of urban homes heat with wood but nearly 7% of rural ones do. 


More than 80% of Americans live in areas classified as “urban” by the US Census, which includes thousands of towns and suburban areas around cities. In 2010, Census data found 57% of households who primarily heat with wood live in rural areas, 40% in suburban areas and only 3% in urban areas.


The growth of wood heat in urban areas may reflect a much faster growth of pellet stoves, compared to wood stoves. In some states, hearth retailers sell more pellet stoves than wood stoves. Nationally, experts often say that about a one quarter to one third of all stove sales are pellet stoves, but there is no reliable data indicating exact percentages or where they are installed. Some urban areas, in addition to areas that experience frequent weather inversions, are beginning to ban the new installation of wood fireplaces and wood stoves. This is an effective way to ensure wood smoke does not get much worse where wood stoves are already common. For the smoke issues that do remain in more urban areas, wood smoke is primarily driven by outdoor fire pits, chimmneys and fireplaces.

In one of the only academic studies of U.S. wood heating trends published in 2012, the authors identified changes in wages and other energy prices as key drivers of demographic shifts in wood heat usage. That study, Analysis of U.S. residential wood energy consumption: 1967–2009, is an excellent overview of many factors impacting wood heat, and was done at the end of a 4-decade period of gradual decline in wood heat. This was before wood heat began trending up in 2000, ending its decades-long decline. 

Little research has been done in recent years on wood and pellet heat usage in urban and rural areas. One of the very few comprehensive analyses of U.S. wood heat usage, a report from 2012, called its lack of a breakdown of urban vs. rural wood heat as a “shortcoming” that was due to a “lack of time series data corresponding to urban/rural areas.” 


State and regional wood and pellet heat trends 


The states with the highest percentage of homes using wood or pellets as a primary heating fuel have remained relatively steady over the years. New Mexico was ranked sixth in 2010, quickly rose to third place in 2019, and then dropped back to fourth in 2020. One potential reason there could be more rapid changes in primary heating with wood and pellets is that a stove can be a primary heater one year and a secondary heater the next, which is usually not the case with central heating systems using oil, gas or electricity for fuel.

Based on US Census data. Compiled by the Alliance for Green Heat.

Many states experienced dramatic increases in wood heat usage from 2000 to 2020, while others saw declines in wood heat. The majority of the states which saw an increase in wood heat were not in New England and the Pacific Northwest where it is most popular, but in second tier states a bit further south. States where wood heat dropped the most are the warmest, southernmost states in the country.


Based on US Census Data. Compiled by the Alliance for Green Heat.

Aggregating by region, the general trend seen with states located in northern vs. southern regions holds. The two regions that saw increases in wood heat were the Northeast (+51.05%) and the Midwest (+27.73%), while the South and the West both saw overall decreases (-28.31% and -9.94%, respectively). 

Based on US Census Data. Compiled by the Alliance for Green Heat.


Selected state graphs


The residential heating mix in each state tells a different story over the years and presents different challenges to lowering the greenhouse gas intensity of heating fuel.

Wood and pellet heating has typically been the second most common primary heating fuel in Maine after oil. Wood did not prove to be any more popular in Maine in 1970 than it did in the rest of the country, but when heating oil costs rose, wood heating bounced back in a much dramatic way.

Wood heating in Washington state closely parallels Maine, starting at over 50%, diving to under 2% in 1970 and then rebounding in 1990. Electricity, however, has been extremely popular in Washington, probably due to milder winters, and local, cheaper hydroelectricity.

One of the largest, unknown stories about wood heat is that it was far more popular in the south in the 1950s, 60s and 70s than the rest of the country, including New England. This was largely because many rural Black communities were not included in gas or electricity infrastructure projects that enabled wealthier communities to get off wood and coal. Many households that rely on wood heat to this day do so not out of choice but out of necessity, and represent a significant, though little-noticed, energy justice issue.


Policy considerations


The rapid rise of wood heat presents a number of policy considerations that are frequently overlooked. Wood and pellet heating is often seen more of a public health nuisance in some circles, an energy lifeline in others, and a solution to shed fossil fuels in others. All of these narratives are valid and must be balanced at the local, state and federal level. 


Lack of understanding of the issues is a major barrier, as many policymakers and organizations often confound the issue of burning industrial pellets to make electricity with the sustainable use of premium pellets for local heat. And many still assume wood heat primarily involves cutting live trees, instead of sourcing wood that is already down or dead and has no other use. There is little awareness that pellet heat is consistently far cleaner than cord wood heat. Finally, there is still a lack of awareness that wood smoke, which may smell good to many people, is a serious health issue. 


If utilizing the cleanest and most modern wood and pellet heating to reduce fossil fuel use was the goal, federal and state governments could focus tax incentives and rebates on pellet stoves and boilers, as some states already do. Already in Vermont and other areas, the high rate of wood and pellet heat reduces stress on the grid during winter peak load periods, which are likely to get worse as more of our energy needs are electrified. If the federal government wanted to support rural low-income families to utilize free local wood, it could drastically increase its R&D funding to jumpstart the production of automated wood stoves that use computer chips to regulate air supply and prevent smoldering.


We can expect some cities and states to restrict new installations of wood heaters in densely inhabited areas and others to expand modern, automated heat at the commercial and residential level. Such outcomes are not inconsistent but require more educated debate among policymakers and the public. Already some of these policies are helping to shape the rise and fall of wood and pellet heat across America, but are likely a small influence compared to market forces. 




While wood and pellet heating has changed little in the last 20 years at the national level, regional and state changes have been significant. At a national level, studies show that reductions in household size, growth in heated floor area per house, and increased access to space cooling are the main drivers of increases in energy and GHG emissions after population growth. Improved generation efficiency and decarbonization of electricity supply are bringing about GHG emission reductions. Wood and pellet heat may be on the rise again, meaning it could factor more into national discussions of energy security and decarbonization.


This paper looks at the size of primary wood and pellet heating at the national and state level, but the role of secondary wood and pellet heating is equally, if not more, important in terms of sheer BTU output and reductions in fossil fuels.  Similar challenges of understanding, guiding and managing the pros and cons of wood heat are emerging across the northern and southern hemisphere and particularly in Europe, where the energy implications of Russians invasion of Ukraine are most acute. 


The next 20 years will likely see an even more rapid shift in residential heating fuel, as climate change becomes a more urgent issue. Electrification is emerging as the dominant, most obvious solution to home heating but wood and pellet heating may emerge as larger factor in the Northeast region and in various other states.


Saturday, May 14, 2022

A snapshot of wood stoves on Craigslist: from collectors items, to illegal stove sales to just junk

Craiglist is a popular site to buy and sell wood stoves and these 35 stoves represent a sampling of wood heaters on the market in May 2022 from all over the country.  Ordered from most expensive to least expensive, they tell a story of wood heating in America over the last century and many of these stoves represented the zenith of wood heating in their time.  Most of are operable although some are clearly beyond their lifespan and should be retired.  Many have been painstakingly restored, giving them a new lease on life.

Some new ones are being sold illegally as they do not meet current EPA regulations, which are required if the unit is sold new.  Others are being advertised and sold in states where it is illegal to advertise, sell, buy or install old uncertified stoves, like in Washington and Oregon. Many are exactly the kind of models that jurisdictions offer bounties for, to get them out of circulation.

In general, the Alliance for Green Heat does not support the sale and installation of wood stoves built before 1990, as most of these are more polluting than newer models, because they lack modern reburn technology.  However, if used with dry wood, and given enough air, some of these stoves can burn relatively cleanly in rural areas that do not experience frequent inversions and where the smoke will not impact neighbors.  The Alliance always recommends that stoves are permitted, where required and professionally installed, especially where they may need hefty clearances from combustibles.

In their lifetimes, many of these units may have displaced hundreds of tons of carbon from fossil fuel and some will continue to do so.  A few of these stoves belong in museums or collections or just used as decoration, not as heaters.  We hope you enjoy this tour down wood stove memory lane.

See our other photo essays on typical wood heating stoves around the world, tiny stoves,  and wood fired hot tubs,  

$6,699, New Central Boiler EZ Classic (uncertified), Big Rapids, MI

$3,995, Hearthstone, Catskills, NY

$2,800, Vermont Down Drafter, Keene, NH

$2,000, antique Belgian cook stove, Roslyn NY

$1,995, Harman stove, Delaware

$1,800, Lange Harmony, Cranford, RI

$1,650, New Ashley stove, Hazelton, PA

$1,250, Shipmate boat stove, Brookhaven NY

$1,200, Taylor outdoor boiler, Meadville PA

$1,100, Comforter, Kingston, NH

$1,000, Schrader, Everret, WA

$895, Fisher Mama Bear, Western MA

$675, Free Flow stove, Craftsbury VT

$500, cook stove, Jackson NH

$500, Glenwood parlor stove, Keene NH

$485, Basement wood stove, Fitchburg, MA

$518, New Victor, Baltimore MD

$500, Wedgewood, Sacramento CA

$500, tiny Cubic stove, Lockport NY

$425, Danish Lange, Catskills, NY

$400, Timberline, Delaware

$329, Franklin style stove, Canton, OH

$300, Portland stove, Effingham, NY

$300, Cawley-Lemay Stove, Portland, OR

$300, Trailblazer, Wasilla AK
$295, wood stove, Danville, VT

$275, Jotul, Berkeley Springs WV

$250, Sterling wood furnace, Rochester NY

$249, Napoleon, Denver CO

$225, antique stoves, Albany NY

$200, Frankfort stove, Utica, NY

$200, Anchor coal stove, Schenectedy, NY

$125, wood stove, Livingston MT

$125, Sandia, East Hartland, CT

$100, Morso, Washington DC

$100, Hearthstone, Waterbury VT

$100, Vermont Castings, Delaware

$40, wood stove, Kirkland, WA