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.