IRS proposes using EPA database to verify 75% efficiency for tax credit

Industry is split three ways on question of eligibility.

The IRS issued a proposed rule on October 25 to give guidance on how manufacturers can interpret

“75% efficiency.” They are proposing to adopt the EPA database as the means of determining efficiency, which has been long expected by many in industry.

The proposed rule is long-awaited by many who grew frustrated over the years that the IRS could not do what many felt was obvious: recognize the EPA efficiency listing. AGH was a prominent advocate for a uniform way to list efficiency as a way of protecting consumers, making a level playing field for manufacturers and instilling more faith in the industry. AGH often publicized exaggerated and misleading efficiency claims over the years.

Comments to this IRS notice are due by December 24, 2024 and a hearing is scheduled for January 21, 2025. The IRS notice can be found here.

Congress stipulated that biomass heaters at 75% efficiency, using the higher heating value, were eligible for a 30% tax credit, up to $2,000.

Most manufacturers were already using the efficiency numbers on the EPA database as the arbiter of which stoves or boilers were 75% efficient or higher. The EPA number is an average of the efficiencies on all the certification tests. But a few manufacturers chose to say their stoves qualified for the tax credit if any of the certification tests were 75% or higher.

The third faction, made up of masonry stove manufacturers, urged the IRS not to issue any further guidance, so that they could claim masonry stoves at 75% or higher could qualify even though they are not listed on the EPA database because they are not required to be EPA certified.

According to the Congressional Research Service, approximately 48,300 taxpayers claimed the biomass tax credit in 2023, making it the least likely tax credit that taxpayers claimed other than for home energy audits. There is no public data on how many biomass stoves and boilers were sold in recent years, but experts say that an average of 200,000 is plausible. EPA has the data but it is not organized or compiled.

Currently 67% of the 101 certified pellet stoves are 75% or higher, based on the EPA database figures and 45% of wood stoves are. However, 92% of cat and hybrid stoves are 75% or higher and only 15% of the 106 non-cat stoves on the market are 75% or higher.

The legacy of using efficiency to qualify for this tax credit, that started in 2008, raises many questions. Arguably, cleanliness is more important than efficiency when using wood, a renewable fuel that a substantial percent of Americans cut or collect on their own instead of purchasing it. The result is that stove manufacturers now focus more on efficiency, while sacrificing R&D to achieve incremental reductions of particulate matter. Congress controls the efficiency number, while EPA sets emissions levels, and a lower efficiency threshold could allow the EPA more leeway to set stricter emissions standards.

Most manufacturers did not submit comments on the proposed regulations. All comments can be found here. Among stove manufacturers, some manufacturers who make lower efficiency stoves (e.g. US Stoves) argued for the stricter definition of efficiency, while those making higher efficiency stoves (Hearth & Home Technologies) argued for a more lenient definition.

The comments by stakeholders outside the wood and pellet heating community provide an interesting snapshot into views on incentives for wood and pellet stoves and boilers. For instance, the American Lung Association does not support biomass stoves or boilers should be qualified energy property regardless of efficiency rating. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Attorney Generals of MA, CO, DE, IL, ME, MD, MI, NJ, NY OR, RI and DC believe a full carbon lifecycle analysis should be done to better calculate an efficiency rating.

However, based on their comment and the sources in the footnotes, it appears that they are confusing biomass to electricity, rather than focusing on biomass heat. While this is a common mistake in the media, it is notable that whoever drafted this comment for these states also made it. Nevertheless, these states do not oppose the tax credit but argue that a stricter one could be better. No commentator suggested that only pellet heaters, that are consistently cleaner and more efficient, should receive the tax credit. A carbon life cycle analysis however, would most likely favor cordwood over pellets.

Support using EPA database

Alliance for Green Heat: 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. (AGH’s full comment can be found here.)

BPA, ACEEE, ASE: The most reliable method to protect consumers and to ensure that tax credits are going to compliant models is for Treasury/IRS to specify that eligibility is limited to units listed in the EPA Certified Wood Stove Database as having an overall efficiency of 75% or more using the higher heating value of fuel.

Blaze King: Our company has always viewed the overall efficiency to be the metric intended by the IRS as the qualifier for the 75% high heating value.

Travis: In the interest of efficiency and the preservation of resources, the IRS should rely on EPA’s database to confirm whether biomass stoves meet the 75 percent rating requirement.

US Stove Company: Therefore, for a biomass stove or boiler regulated by the EPA to qualify for the 25C credit, only the average “overall efficiency” is reported in the EPA Certification report should be recognized. In addition, this same efficiency number will be posted on the EPA Wood Heater Database, therefore easily verifiable. This will eliminate any question or “gaming” of the tax credit.

Support using any single test run

Hearth & Home Technologies: In our view, the Treasury Department and the IRS should issue guidance stating that biomass stoves meet the definition of "qualified energy property'' provided they have a "a thermal efficiency rating of at least 75 percent (measured by the higher heating value of the fuel as reflected in a single certified test run)." Providing this guidance will resolve the current uncertainty about how to meet the HHV requirement. By establishing the single test criteria, a greater number of biomass stoves could qualify for the tax credit, thereby giving consumers more affordable choices to replace noncertified heaters while burning an efficient renewable energy source.

Stove Builder International: Manufacturers should be able to qualify a property …provided this efficiency number is 75% or greater and can be found in the property’s test report. An efficiency number of 75% or greater should be obtained when the property is used at a combustion setting typically used by consumers. For instance, in the case of a wood stove, the products are typically used by consumers at the low setting. That is, consumers use their stoves in slow-combustion mode to get an “overnight burn”. The stove can be used at a higher setting, but this setting is normally recommended upon start-up only. The basis of their argument is that manufacturers will “make up any number they want.” This could not be farther from the truth. We don’t know where this paranoia comes from.

If the efficiency criteria do not offer enough flexibility and most non-catalytic wood stoves cannot qualify for the 25C tax credit, we feel that the IRS misses its objective of helping the middle class to switch to cleaner, more efficient biomass appliances.

Support current language without further guidance

Masonry Heater Association: the IRS not to issue guidance that conflates the regulations of different types of biomass heaters, potentially imposing the requirements of one category of biomass heater onto another category, for tax credit eligibility. For example, woodstoves must be on the EPA's certified list, EPA Wood Stove Database, to be legally installed; however, this is not a legal requirement of all categories of biomass heaters, e.g. masonry heaters. Masonry heaters are a category of biomass heating appliance that the EPA has chosen to defer regulating.

Tulikivi: we feel that guidance is not needed as the original text is clear enough and allows masonry heaters that meet the efficiency requirement to qualify for the tax credit despite not being on the EPA list of certified appliances

Support strict enforcement based on efficiency tiers

Comments Of The Attorneys General Of Massachusetts, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, And The District Of Columbia; The California Air Resources Board; And The Ramsey County, Minnesota, Attorney: With respect to Section 25C’s biomass provisions, we urge Treasury and the IRS to strictly enforce energy efficiency tiers to verify qualification for biomass stoves and boilers. Per British thermal unit (BTU), wood has about the same carbon content as coal, and, according to EPA, wood contains about 75% more CO2 per BTU than natural gas. As a result, wood that is harvested and burned for energy immediately increases greenhouse gas emissions—even where it is displacing fossil fuels. Biomass combustion also emits other harmful air pollutants, like particulate matter, which is connected to a multitude of adverse health consequences including premature death, cardiovascular effects, asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. To avoid inadvertently increasing greenhouse gas and other harmful pollutant emissions through biomass incentives, Treasury and the IRS should comprehensively evaluate lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in calculating the efficiency rating of eligible biomass. If, however, Treasury and the IRS elect to rely on EPA wood stove certifications to demonstrate efficiency ratings, they should not allow certification based on test methods 125 and 127 (relying on ASTM 3053), which allow too much variability and manufacturer and laboratory manipulation.

Do not support including biomass heaters in the 25C tax credit

American Lung Association: The ALA recognizes that pollution from the combustion of wood and other biomass sources poses a significant threat to human health and supports measures to transition away from using these products for heat production. As such, we do not believe biomass stoves or boilers should be considered as part of a qualified energy property regardless of efficiency rating.

Other comments

Governor’s Office of NJ: Biomass stoves and boilers are a concern. It’s likely we would have difficulty supporting incentives for biomass but there may be cases that make sense.

Rewiring America: Treasury should structure the updated Form 5695 such that each product category (heat pumps for space heating/cooling, heat pump water heaters, biomass stoves, and biomass boilers) has its own line and can be tracked accordingly. This is crucial to track how many claims are filed for heat pumps and heat pump water heaters; otherwise, it would be impossible to distinguish between claims filed for heat pumps and biomass products.

DOE should focus resources on R&D to advance automated stove technologies

 The Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) released a Request for Information (RFI) seeking feedback on defining the goals and objectives for a planned effort to collect in-situ wood heater performance data in the field. The deadline to submit comments was September 30, 2024. John Ackerly, AGH President, submitted the following comment: 

There are a number of small portable
emission testing devices for wood stoves
that can be used in situ, or larger lab
equipment can be moved to a home.

"We believe BETO should minimize its role in funding in-situ testing efforts because in-situ testing is usually very complex and expensive, given BETO’s funding for residential wood heater technology development. There are many distinct objectives and reasons to do in-site testing, and stakeholders could eloquently make the case for any number of them. But given the size of BETO’s budget, we do not feel there is a compelling enough type of in-situ testing that is likely to be undertaken.

BETO’s mandate is to “support the development of cleaner burning, higher efficiency residential wood heaters” and it seems this has been interpreted more broadly over time, which is understandable to some point, given the dearth of high quality applications to develop next generation stove technology.

We would urge BETO to only fund in-site testing to the extent it directly focuses on modern, more automated stove technology. For example, it may be worthwhile doing some in-situ testing with an automated stove side by side with a traditional manually operated one, to provide data about how beneficial automation can be, if at all.

The list of questions in the Four Categories suggest that this RFI is wide-ranging without parameters related to development of cleaner burning, high efficiency residential heaters. In the United States, stoves must be tested for PM 2.5 to be certified for sale. Efficiency, as measured by B415, is not regulated, but tested and an existing IRS tax credit gives an incentive to hit 75% efficiency, HHV. Any new generation of more modern, cleaner and efficient wood stoves will need to focus on these metrics first.

To understand the potential of modern, automated stoves, it may be just as relevant to study pellet stoves, to understand how and why they have such a predictable emissions profile, compared to cordwood stoves. It is also relatively easy to test how clean and efficient pellet stoves are in-situ after 1 to 10 years in operation.

To achieve testing goals of how pellet stoves perform after 1 – 10 years of use, I would recommend simply using a Testo 380 and principally test for PM2.5, enabling more sampling of more devices.

There are a multitude of academic inquiries into residential wood smoke but BETO should first determine what avenues there are to more directly advance an R&D agenda, which could include emissions data showing how automation can reduce emissions. Cordwood furnaces have already made the transition from being manually operated to controlled by sensors, and the evidence is clear that sensors will keep a boiler or furnace far cleaner.

Some stakeholders who are heavily invested in manually operated stoves may want BETO to undertake in-situ testing studies, which can be endless. But one test of this RFI will be whether those stakeholders who are doing R&D on modern, more automated stoves need in situ testing data, and if so, what kind. Similarly, it may be instructive to see what kind of in-situ testing is recommended by stakeholders who regulate wood stoves, or are involved in health related studies.

BETO could consider doing an RFI on how to develop the next generation of wood stoves in the United States. R&D is perhaps the most important avenue but DOE funding in the solar, wind and geothermal sectors address scores of barriers to bringing a renewable technology to scale. Those barriers can also be addressed in the eco-system surrounding the wood heater community. Obviously, the wood heater sector will never have that level of resources, requiring a careful assessment of where scarce resources can best be used.

An RFI that engages this community on how to advance automated stove technology may help better understand why major manufacturers are hesitant or whether there are other initiatives that could be undertaken. In-situ testing may be one of them, but an RFI solely on in-site testing sends a confusing message to the wood heating community unless BETO better explains how it is part of a strategy to develop modern, more automated stove technology.

Press Release: AGH launches Firewood Community Safety Initiative to support high wood heating communities

 

Firewood from Dine Baadeiti
Wood Bank in Moenkopi, AZ

Oct. 3, 2024 - Today the Alliance for Green Heat announced the Firewood Community Safety Initiative, to help communities address wood heating safety issues. The initiative is funded by a three year grant from USDA’s Wood Education Research Center.

“Wood heating, when done well,  is an important renewable energy”, said John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat. “This new initiative will provide safe wood heating resources and strategies suitable for wood burning communities”

According to the Rural Energy Consumption Survey approximately 10-13 million U.S. households use wood heat. Wood stoves have long been at the forefront of reducing fossil fuels in rural, lower-income homes.  Unfortunately, many households use old, inefficient and poorly maintained wood stoves that leak smoke inside and outside of the home.

The Firewood Community Safety Initiative is aimed at any firewood bank or high wood-burning town.  Those who participate will receive technical assistance from AGH staff to improve the safety of low-income homes who heat with wood.  A free toolkit, including smoke detector, indoor air sensor, educational resources and other items, is available for towns and firewood banks who sign up for the initiative.

The Alliance is working with Hopi tribal members that lead Pikyanivi Warmth for Hopi and Tewa firewood bank to put air quality monitors in classrooms to educate students about indoor air PM2.5 concentrations. After taking readings at school, each student will take the monitor home for a few days and take readings in the room with their wood stove or heating appliance and see the difference. Almost all homes on the Hopi reservation rely on wood or coal and they hope to identify dangerous stoves and find funding to replace them.

Sixteen other firewood banks have signed up for the Initiative, and some will engage in indoor air quality testing like the Hopi, and others will focus on other strategies. The initiative is part of a larger program that provides small grants to firewood banks to help them serve low income homes who can’t afford to heat their homes.  To date, the Alliance for Green heat has provided over 100 grants to tribes, churches, towns, non-profits and volunteer groups that run firewood banks.

Also part of this initiative is educational activities like webinars and the first one is "Common Problems and Solutions to Self-Installed Wood Stoves" On Oct. 17, from 1:00 - 2:30 EST. 

The Firewood Community Safety Initiative is made possible by a grant from the Wood Education Center at the USDA Forest Service.

For more information contact Hannah Stinson at Hannah@forgreenheat.org. To sign up your firewood bank or community, please fill out the form here.

Ancestral Lands Conservation Corp in Kykotsmovi Village, AZ

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 renewable residential heating technology, particularly for low and middle-income families. Founded in 2009, the Alliance is an independent non-profit organization headquartered in Maryland with staff in Arkansas, Wisconsin and Wyoming. www.forgreenheat.org

Survey: Pellet stove owners love their stoves – and are also interested in heat pumps and solar panels

 Pellet stove adoption is growing and reached 25% of market compared to wood stoves in New England 

A survey taken by 486 people who use pellet stoves revealed some predictable and some unpredictable results. For instance, an overwhelming majority of pellet stove owners, 85%, said they would buy another pellet stove if theirs broke and 90% say their stove is reliable or very reliable, challenging a perception that pellet stoves are not very dependable. 

Pellet stoves are cleaner and more efficient than wood stoves and make up 25% of the stove market in New England, and 10% nationally, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Table CE7.1.  Until recently, likely around 5 years ago, American homes still made more renewable energy from wood and pellets than they did from residential solar photovoltaics, which have since surged past wood and pellet heat. 

The survey was undertaken between April and June of 2024 by the Alliance for Green Heat, an independent non-profit. AGH chose the Survey Monkey platform and circulated it through scores of social media pages, newsletters and neighborhood listservs. Thus, the survey is not rigorously scientific and likely over-represents pellet stove enthusiasts. Keeping that in mind, the data offers a glimpse into an important demographic of pellet stove users. By segmenting the data, we were also able to compare the views and values and pellet stove users based on income, region, motivation to buy a pellet stove and other characteristics. 

Of this group, 61% of the 486 respondents used their stoves for primary heat and in the future 38% were interested in buying heat pumps and 33% were interested in buying solar panels. Unlike households adopting solar panels, the primary reason homes adopt pellet stoves is for the substantial short term cost saving.  In the survey, all income groups except one listed “saving money” as the most common reason to heat with pellets.

Twenty-six percent of households with pellet stoves displaced electric heat (both resistance and heat pumps) 20% displaced oil, and 18% displaced wood, 16% displaced propane and 13% displaced gas. This along with several other questions showed a high crossover with wood and pellet stoves, as many households that used to heat with wood have moved to pellet heat. In some cases, the reverse also happens with homes moving from pellets to wood fuel. 

The median annual household income group was $75,000-$99,000, higher than than the national median ($74,580), and significantly lower than the median average income of homes with solar panels ($117,000 in 2022). The number of people per household was close to the national average with an average of 2.58. The national average is 2.51.

The survey also asked if pellet stove owners smelled smoke from their stoves and 17 % said they did, and 52% said they didn’t. In between those groups, 30% said they only smelled it during start-up which in most homes is no more than once a day. 

Survey respondents were from across the county, with respondents from every state except five, mostly in the deep south. The top 5 states were New Hampshire (10% of responses), Massachusetts (9%) and New York (9%), California (6%) and Pennsylvania (6%). Canada and countries outside of Canada and the US had 7% of responses. 

Scores of state and national studies show that small scale wood and pellet heat is enormously important to the transition away from fossil fuels both here and throughout Europe, in part because it does not strain the grid in the winter, and complements available renewable electricity.

Pellet heating has grown considerably in America, but public education lags, and there remains a lot of confusion about the export of pellets to make electricity versus the use of pellets for domestic heating.  The US Energy Information Administration publishes vital data about pellet production in America that can help clear up some of this confusion. 

Data from Each Question

Q1. How long have you been heating with pellets? The responses show a range of households who are just starting to use a wood stove, to those who have used them for a long time. That indicates that there is continued interest by new people in starting to use pellet stoves.

Q2. What is the main reason you heat with pellets? Respondents were only allowed to pick one answer. Predictably, “saving money” was the leading reason, with 43% choosing this as their main motivation. But the surprising aspect is that so many people chose avoidance of fossil fuel as their main motivation (23%). The 18% choosing “as a back-up” could either be a regular or periodica back-up to another heating system or an emergency back-up if their other heating system broke down. Or, it could be people who have battery back-ups or generators so they can use a pellet stove during a power outage.

The three most common “Other (please specify)” comments were related to the following categories:

1. The ease of use and consistency of pellet heat over log wood heat with comments such as, “Switched from firewood. Easier to deal with,” “Wood-fired heat, but more controllable than a wood stove,” and “Too old for firewood.”

2. It’s popularity in supplementing other heat or areas of home with comments like, “Heat compensation, my furnace doesn’t keep up with a big drafty house,” and “Supplement heat for my basement.”

3. Those heating with pellets because they are associated with the industry (pellet stove dealers, engineers, etc.)

Q3. Would you buy another? This may be one of the most surprising results: 85% said they would buy another pellet stove if their current one could not be fixed, with another 9% choosing “Maybe.” This indicates a strong loyalty to the appliance. For those who selected “Maybe (please explain),” their answers were concerned with whether the price of pellets remained reasonable and if their health still allowed them to deal with the physicality of pellets. Another popular reason for explaining further was that they were confident they could fix their pellet stove if it ever stopped working: “I’d probably just fix it because they’re easy to repair.” 

Q4. Primary or Secondary Heat? That 61%so many respondents use their pellet stove as a primary heater is somewhat surprising, since nationally, the number of people who use wood or pellet as a secondary heat source is higher than primary heat source. This may be because we tapped into a more enthusiastic demographic, or it may be an indication that pellet stove users use their stove for primary heating more than wood stove users. We also didn’t ask about house size, though we did ask about the number of people in the household, which averaged only 2.58. Thus, it may be that people who completed this survey have smaller homes, possibly close to the national median of 2,299 square feet for a single family home.

Q5. Other Main Source of Heat? Nothing surprising here. Electricity is the highest percentage with 26%, and many of those are likely homes with electric resistance heat or early model heat pumps which are not nearly as efficient as modern ones. It may come as a bit of a surprise to some that 18% of pellet stove users have cord wood as their other main source of heat. Cord wood is the third most common “other main source of heat” after electricity and oil, another indication that we may have reached a more hardcore, dedicated biomass heat demographic.

Q6. Interest in Heat Pumps or Solar Panels. Respondents could choose multiple answers on this one. On average, a respondent chose 1.3 options. We found it somewhat surprising to see such high interest in heat pumps and solar panels.

Q7.State of residence. No surprises here. The fact that we had such a good demographic diversity shows that our data doesn’t just represent one part of the country. 

Q8. Household income. According to the US Census, the median household income was $74,580 and the average was $74,755 in 2022. Both fall right below the median income bracket of the respondents of our survey ($75,000 - $99,000). This shows a lower household income for this group compared to homes that have solar panels, or drive electric cars.

Q9.Household size. The average household size is 2.58, slightly larger than the national average of 2.51.

Q10. Is your stove reliable? The number of households who strongly agreed or agreed that their pellet stove is reliable is remarkably high (90.1%). 

Q11. Do you smell wood smoke? While a majority did not smell any smoke in their house, 30% smelled some on start-up. And the fact that 17% of this group say they smell it more regularly is significant enough to warrant further study into this problem. AGH has done some at-home testing and found start-up smoke to produce about the same amount of PM as making breakfasts or dinners that involve frying, using a griddle or making well-done toast. While this was not an in-depth study, AGH believes that the very small amount of smoke during start up could be partially caused by stoves not being sufficiently cleaned, or it may be a design flaw in some stoves that are not completely airtight and can leak.

Q12. Concern about health impacts of wood smoke. This question was not worked as well as it could have been, because it could be interpreted two ways: first, are you concerned about the health effects of wood smoke generally, or are you concerned about the health effect of wood smoke from your own pellet stove. Thus, someone could be extremely concerned about the health implications but answered that they weren’t concerned because they didn’t smell it in their own home. 

All of these tables can also be viewed on the Survey Monkey platform.

Overlaying Responses from Two Different Questions

Survey Monkey allows you to take the individual answers of a question and see how those people answered another question, because all answers are attached to an IP address. Thus, we were able to see how different demographics answered different questions.

Income and main reason to heat with pellets

On Q2 overlaid with Q8, reasons for heating with pellets vs. income, saving money was the top rationale for all income categories exempt the middle, median income bracket. Lower income brackets favored saving money to some extent, and no one in the lowest bracket used their stove for ambience. As for being motivated to reduce fossil fuels, there is no clear pattern based on this sample of 486 people. 

Main reason to heat with pellets and interest in buying other appliances

Comparing Q2 and Q6 unsurprisingly shows that people who heat with pellets who are more motivated to reduce fossil are the most likely to be interested in buying solar panels. And people who are more motivated to save money least interested in solar or heat pumps.

Reliability vs. interest in buying another pellet stove 

Unsurprisingly, overall those who agreed or strongly agreed that their pellet stove was reliable were most likely to want to buy another one if it broke down. Those who strongly agreed that their pellet stove was reliable were more than twice as likely to want to buy another. 

Reliability and length of ownership

In this comparison, those who had their stove for longer than 10 years reported higher levels of satisfaction with reliability. And it was the group who owned stoves for 3 - 5 years who reported lower levels of satisfaction with reliability, possibly indicating that this is the period that repairs may be the highest.

Smelling smoke and length of ownership

This indicates that the group who smells smoke the most is 3 - 5 year ownership and that the longer you own a stove the less smoke you report smelling. 

Overlap between smelling wood smoke and being concerned about it 

When comparing the answers of concern to those having reported that they were smelling smoke, a majority of those smelling smoke were also concerned about the impacts of wood smoke. Those who did not smell wood smoke from their stove were least likely to consider it a health issue. (Again, the ambiguous wording of Q12 makes this comparison less useful.)

Issues and Limitations of the Survey Data

 

AGH intentionally created a short and simple survey to increase respondent activity but this also naturally made it more susceptible to bot activity. In addition, we offered two $75 gift cards which likely increased bot activity even more. Survey Monkey also did not have an option to include a CAPTCHA at the end of the survey, which would have been a simple tool that could have stopped some bot activity. 

 

Where IP addresses were repeated, and where the states also differed, the data was excluded from the analysis. Out of the original 626 responses, 140 of these were excluded on that basis. Bot activity appeared to be especially prevalent from batches of respondents identifying as being from Guam that also consistently submitted the same answer, with only one variation, for each submission. The exclusion of these responses did not significantly alter the results of any of the answers. 

Wood stoves essential in transition to heat pumps, say tribal experts

Shaina Oliver is from the Northern
Navajo Nation and represented Mom's
Clean Air Force at the Conference. 

In a series of meetings at the annual National Tribal Forum on Air Quality , experts voiced a consistent message: as we install heat pumps in tribal homes, we should also keep wood stoves.

Nowhere are wood stoves as common as on many tribal reservations, who have long relied on both wood and coal for residential heating. Some homes are still being outfitted with coal stoves that can also burn wood, whereas wood stoves cannot safely burn coal.

There is a historic amount of money available to tribes and other underserved communities that can be used for residential home energy upgrades, and this funding was possibly the most common theme of the air quality conference, held on the land of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians near the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

AGH was part of a panel workshop along with EPA’s Burn Wise, the Tribal Healthy Homes Network, Red Feather Development Group, and the Nez Perce Air Quality Program. Among the core topics were how change-out funds can best be used, how to reduce indoor wood smoke, improving firewood bank programs, switching from wood to electric heat pumps, etc. Some change out programs have been conducted, but the number of dangerously installed old stoves remains enormous. AGH now has funding for tribal firewood banks, which includes assistance in seasoning wood, and steps toward getting stoves inspected and repaired.

From left: John Ackerly, Joe Seidenberg,
Darian Dyer, Larry Brockman and
Danielle Johnson.

AGH's funding for firewood banks is helping tribal communities in the four corners area to transition away from coal heat. According to Shaina Oliver, an indigenous people's rights advocate and field organizer for Mom's Clean Air Force, a treaty forced on the Navajo Nation included a deal to mine coal on Navajo land, and tribal members were given free coal for heating, cooking - or selling. But when the mine closed, thousands of households struggled to heat their homes, even though coal can still be scavenged in some places. "We may not be able to control what we breath outdoors, but we can control the indoor air quality," said Shaina Oliver, which is why the National Tribal Air Association has pushed for replacements of wood stoves to newer ones that reduce indoor smoke.

The key problem with the conversion to heat pumps is mainly that they are expensive, and it could take decades for even a majority of tribal homes to have them. “Wood heating is vital for maintaining healthy homes in the Navajo and Hopi Nations and it is deeply ingrained in their cultures, representing healing, remembrance, and togetherness,” according to Joe Seidenberg, Executive Director of Red Feather Development Group that has been involved in many change-outs on the Hopi and Navajo reservations, and has one of the best wood heat education sites in the country.

An abnormally high percent of 
wood stoves on reservations are
dangerously installed.

“While the wave of electrification and heat pump technology will bring significant benefits to these communities, wood heating will never be completely replaced,” Mr. Seidenberg said. “The Colorado Plateau, rich in forested landscapes, provides ample wood resources, and using this wood helps preserve healthy ecosystems by preventing catastrophic wildfires through active thinning operations,” he continued.

The number of people who identify as Native Americans in the US, jumped from around 5 million in 2010 to more than 9 million in 2020, with about 78% living outside of reservations. The highest percentage of Native Americans in the U.S. are in Alaska, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, Montana, and North Dakota.

Compared to other races or ethnic populations, American Indian and Alaskan Native populations (AI/AN) have the highest poverty rates (24.1%)—almost twice the national rate (12.8%). Poverty, combined with living in rural areas, is one of the biggest determinants of whether wood or coal will be your primary source of heat.

For many of the large western tribes, particularly in the southwest, outdoor ambient wood smoke issues were far less of a problem than indoor wood smoke issues. As a result, there appears to be a trend away from wood stove change outs, toward a far more cost-effective solution: indoor air purifiers. There is also the expectation that heat pumps will reduce the amount of time that wood stoves are used.

AGH's Pam Porter with the
Cherokee firewood bank
staff. 

Many speakers voiced concern about the ongoing cost of heat pumps for homes that had been relying on wood, which is often cheaper. But for the many tribal homes that have electric baseboard heating, or propane heat, heat pumps can lower monthly bills significantly, sometimes to a fraction of the cost.

There are a number of funding opportunities open to tribes and non-profits that could be used for wood stove changeouts, for larger firewood bank projects, and to deploy heat pumps. EPA’s Burn Wise team at the conference urged tribes to explore this funding, including the EPA’s The Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program. Applicants typically apply in stages, starting with $150,000, and then going to $250,000 and finally $350,000. AGH could also partner with one of more firewood banks to apply for this funding.

EPA watchdog issues second stinging report on the EPA’s wood heater program

The EPA’s Office of Inspector General found continued lack of enforcement of the EPA wood heater regulations, more than a year after its first major investigative report found similar issues. Unlike that in-depth report, this new report cites very specific details of instances where manufacturers and labs have violated EPA regulations.  It found that even when the EPA knew of significant violations, it did not take action to correct the problem.  

The wood heater manufacturing and test lab industry is a collegial community where members rarely publicly criticize other members, even when major violations of the EPA regulations are widely known. However, manufacturers often relay private complaints about their competitors to the EPA, putting the EPA on notice of a wealth of compliance issues.

“We call on EPA leadership to provide more resources toward the wood stove program and address systemic enforcement issues,” said John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat. “Its also vital for the public to know that pellet stoves are not involved in much of this controversy and that many wood stove manufacturers make good products, follow the law and are being undercut by those who knowingly skirt regulations,” Mr. Ackerly said.

Over the last 15 years, the only entity that has consistently published specific instances of non-compliance is the Alliance for Green Heat (AGH) in its monthly newsletter, and on its website.  Like the EPA, AGH is often contacted by industry members who are troubled by the conduct of other members.  The OIG listed five instances of abuse that the EPA overlooked and failed to take sufficient action, but there are scores more.  For instance, the internet continues to be rife with the sale of uncertified wood heaters, including outdoor wood boilers, which the EPA has known about for years, and appears not to have done anything.

  

US Stove sold 4,321 stoves before they were certified

This week’s report from the OIG follows up on several high-profile cases that AGH has pressed the EPA to address, including widespread fraud at US Stove Company which the EPA has been silent on for 5 years. In that case, an employee of US Stove was outraged and blew the whistle on his company.  US Stove then sued the whistleblower, getting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against him to shut him up, which the local Tennessee court said was “in the public interest.” 

 This week’s OIG report described how US Stove manufactured and sold 4,321 stoves before they were certified, and d859 of them were sold even before the test lab started testing the unit. Though the EPA had all of these details, it did lead to further action.

The stove in question was never officially recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  A list of wood and pellet stove recalls can be found here.

A second whistleblower came forward, providing extensive details of fraud to the EPA, imploring them to take action.  That person wrote: “To those of us who refused to cooperate with this fraud [at the US Stove Company], we had hoped that the EPA would step in, enforce its regulations, and thus provide some level of protection and dignity to whistleblowers. I expect US Stove may come after me, and possibly file a lawsuit against me, as they did with the first whistleblower. The company has dragged that man through the mud, and forced him to hire expensive lawyers, just because he was willing to stand up for EPA regulations.”

False advertising of efficiency

Another major issue that AGH has pursued over the years is false or misleading advertising of efficiency levels, often telling consumers that the unit is eligible for the IRS tax credit, which requires stoves to be 75% efficient, using the higher heating value (HHV). In one case, a test lab listed the stove at 70% efficient, but the manufacturer told consumers it was 75% efficient and eligible for the tax credit. The EPA sent the manufacturer a cease-and-desist request via email, which the manufacturer did not act upon.  The OIG report said the EPA could have revoked the certification of the stove but has not taken further action.  

 

False and misleading efficiency advertising was widespread up until 2021, when most manufacturers began to advertise the efficiency as reported by test lab, and listed in the EPA database of certified stoves. US Stove continued to falsely represent some of its units and declined to comment on the record. Stove Builder International, a large Canadian manufacturer insists that various interpretations of efficiency were acceptable until and unless the IRS defined “efficiency” more clearly. For example, some experts argue that if a stove reaches 75% efficiency on any official test burn, it can qualify even if the average efficiency of all four burns is less than 75%.

 

While the OIG vigorously raises the issue of false advertising of stove efficiencies, it is far from clear whether OECA even believes it has the authority to address efficiency.  Efficiency testing became mandatory in 2020 but the EPA began listing efficiencies in 2012. The EPA does not regulate efficiency, as most European countries do, allowing stoves as low as 51% efficient to be certified.

 

EPA lab served as own third-party certifier

One of the 5 incidents of concern in the OIG report included an EPA approved lab serving as its own third-party certifier of a test report it has produced.  Again, the EPA knew about this but did not revoke the certification and “the lab remained approved by the EPA.”  

 

Test labs are allowed to be third party certifiers and most of them are.  However, they cannot certify the results of stoves tested in their own lab.  PFS-TECO, Intertek, OMNI, RISE (Sweden) and SZU (Czech Republic) are both test labs and third-party certifiers.  PolyTest (Canada), ClearStak and the Danish Technological Institute are approved test labs but are not third-party certifiers. 

 

Deviation from test methods

A fourth concern raised by the OIG, which has already been resolved, involved Lamppa manufacturing who makes Kuuma wood furnaces.  Lamppa had obtained an alternative test method, but the test lab deviated from that method, due to complications.  The manufactured disclosed the deviation and explained why, and the EPA certified it anyway.  After 5 years, the EPA informed Lamp it would not recertify the unit, and Lamppa had to retest and recertify the unit.  

 

Recommendation to the EPA

 

The OIG listed several significant recommendations, some of which could be incorporated into the next set of wood stove regulations, known as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), which the EPA is currently working on.

 

·      Including a federal criminal false statement clause into the wood heater certification application process, which would require manufacturers, but not necessarily retailers, to not make false statements in their advertising.

·      Develop procedures to revoke the approval of test labs that do not follow NSPS requirements.

·      Develop procedures to revoke the certification of wood heaters that do not coply with NSPS requirements.

·      Inform the OIG of investigations into fraud or abuse of the wood heater NSPS.

 The  OIG report can be found here.