Pro-wood heat group opposes more time to sell dirtier stoves

On November 21, 2018, the EPA announced it was taking comment on a 2-year sell-through provision for wood stoves and on other issues in the 2015 wood heater regulation. The Alliance for Green only submitted comments on the 2-year sell-through that would allow manufacturers to build and sell Step 1 wood and pellet stoves that emit up to 4.5 grams an hour and retailers to see them until June 15, 2022.  All stakeholder comments will be available to the public by going to www.regulations.gov and typing in EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196. 

Comments of the Alliance for Green Heat

Responding to

The United States Environmental Protection Agency

Comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196

Feb. 13, 2018

The Alliance for Green Heat (AGH) offers the following comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM),Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, published at 83 Fed. Reg. 61,585 (Nov. 30, 2018). 

AGH is a national, non-partisan, non-profit association that promotes advances in wood stove technology to ensure that wood and pellet stoves become steadily cleaner and more efficient.  AGH has held four Stove Design Challenges to highlight the potential of innovative design in wood and pellet stoves and to educate policymakers and consumers.

AGH opposes any proposal to provide “sell-through” periods or to extend other compliance deadlines when there are sufficient products available that comply with EPA’s applicable standards.  Achievable emission regulations, such as EPA’s NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, are based on levels that manufacturers can meet through the use of technology that has been adequately demonstrated for the source category. These standards, that recognize such demonstrated technologies, are vital to driving the innovation process that encourages more manufacturers to develop and manufacture cleaner and more efficient stoves.  

1.    There is no technical or legal justification to change the timeline for Step 2 compliance

EPA fails to provide any compelling technical or legal basis to justify aproposed sell-through for wood stoves.  The assertion that some manufacturers and retailers would financially benefit from a delay or sell-through is not consistent with the mandates of section 111.                                                                                                                                      

Section 111(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act defines “standard of performance” as  “a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction . . . .”  42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1) (2013) (emphasis added).  The proposal in the ANPRM to revise the applicable deadlines does not explain why such an approach would be consistent with the requirements in section 111.  Moreover, when developing the NSPS in 2015, EPA already took into account the cost of achieving the applicable standards as well as the available technology, which is why the Agency provided 5 years for the implementation of the Step 2 standards. The ANPRM fails to state how a sell-though is consistent with the requirements in section 111 and presents no other legal justification. 

2.    The 5-year timeline in the 2015 NSPS was sufficient

The 5-year timeline provided in the 2015 NSPS was sufficient for achieving the environmental and innovation goals of the NSPS while providing flexibility to industry.  AGH supports the timelines outlined in the 2015 NSPS that allows industry flexibility during the period between 2015 and the 5 years following.  Indeed, at the time these deadlines were promulgated, industry and EPA agreed that these time frames were sufficient for industry to transition to cleaner stoves.  Unfortunately, given the information in the record for this ANPRM, it appears that industry has been spending more resources on obtaining time extensions from Congress, the Executive Branch, and the courts than devoting such financial support to research and development (R&D) and testing.  

3.    A sell-through is not justified to protect non-catalytic stoves

Apparent from the docket for this rulemaking, a form letter comments for retailers made it easier for this market segment to comment on the need for a stove sell-through.  Much of that letter made the case that the range of choice of non-catalytic stoves for consumers would diminish.  The letters noted that, while “traditional catalytic wood heaters on the market today might meet the Step 2 requirements” in the lab, the stoves on the market may not meet the requirements “over a lifetime of real-world, in-home use.” The letter went on the express confidence that “[n]ew technologies will emerge as the result of regulation with technology that will surpass Step 2 emission limits while maintaining the ease of operation that consumers demand through the lifecycle of the stove.”

This assertion in the form comment letter has simply not played out in the market.  AGH notes that 27 models of non-catalytic stoves had achieved 2020 compliance as of October 2018, and that number will likely rise when the EPA next updates the list of certified wood stoves.  While the ratio of catalytic to non-catalytic models of stoves will rise, AGH believes it is premature to artificially protect the market for non-catalytic stoves by extending a sell-through to all classes of stoves, including pellet stoves.

AGH also highlights the rise of “hybrid stoves,” stoves that use both catalytic and non-catalytic technology to reduce particulates.  These stoves offer more options to homeowners to reduce particulates, options neither catalytic nor non-catalytic stoves can fully provide on their own.

         4.    Insufficient cost data on Step 2 stoves

While we are likely to see a small rise in the price of many stoves as a result of Step 2 compliance, there is a noticeable lack of data supporting such a conclusion.  The consolidation of models may help manufacturers sell more of each model, which is likely to help keep impacts on the price of stoves to a minimum.  Some stove prices may decrease or remain the same, as we saw when some uncertified stoves were required to become certified in 2015.  Prices of stoves are likely to be equally, if not more greatly, impacted in a positive way by improved automation processes, and in a negative way by tariffs and prices of steel. 

    5.    Insufficient data on the assertion that consumers will hold off buying new stoves

There is very little data about the proportion of consumers buying a wood or pellet stove for the first time, as compared to those who are replacing an older stove.  And often families switch from wood to pellet stoves, or vice versa.  First time stove buyers and those who will buy a stove anyway, may be far more numerous than those who would have bought a new stove if it were $100 cheaper. Trends show that extremely affordable stoves are still available at big box stores, including some Step 2 models. What may be more likely to occur is that more consumers will buy the more affordable stoves from big box stores instead of specialty hearth stores. There also are a growing number of certified stoves on the second-hand marketplace; these stoves still offer a better alternative than even older, uncertified stoves.   We hope that this comment process results in more data about the assertion that a sizable population of consumers will hold on to older stoves.  

6.    2018 was a great year for stove sales

Industry argues that manufacturers do not have the resources to undertake the certification process for Step 2 stoves, and that retailers cannot financially weather the transition.  Wood stove and especially pellet stove sales are significantly influenced by cold winters, the state of the economy and other factors which can be more significant than this NSPS. However, we note that industry – both manufacturers, retailers and chimney sweeps -- have just experienced a very successful year.   A successful 2018 is helping to propel industry in the final leg leading up to 2020.  

Hearth & Home magazine routinely interviews retailers about the state of their businesses.  Only one retailer in the February 2019 issue mentioned maintaining an inventory of Step 1 products, and the retailer did not express concern regarding the business climate. The majority of retailers sell hearth, patio and barbecue products, and often the retailers express viewpoints regarding all three sectors. These magazine interviews also show that retailers have increasingly diversified products.  We reproduced all the specific comments about stoves in the February 2019 issue of Hearth & Home.  Reproduced below are retailer comments from pages 68 – 70 of the magazine. To protect the identity of the retailer, the magazine only quotes identify the state in which the retailer resides rather than the name of the retailer.

Arkansas: “2018 turned out to be a good year overall.”

California: “We have been in business for 33 years and this was the best year yet.”

California: “Hearth department was up 8%.”

Connecticut: “This was one of our top Decembers since we’ve been in business; 2019 looks to be a great year, even though we had a very good 2018.”

Illinois: “Woodburning is slowly fading away, even in a rural wooded area like ours.”

Louisiana: “Our service business is up 67%.”

Nebraska: “Hearth sales were stagnant from 2017.  All in all, business was good, but we’re interested in seeing where the trade war steel prices go, along with tariff surcharges.”

New Jersey: “Another year has flown by.  Solid growth once again.”

Oregon: “We opened a new hearth showroom in fall of 2018.”

Pennsylvania: “Best calendar year in the last five years.  Also, very profitable.”

Virginia: “Wow, what a year!  I’ve worked here for 27 years and have never seen it this busy.  Thanks President Trump.  Business is a boomin’.  Can’t wait for this coming season.  Woo-hoo. $$$.”

Virginia: “2018 ended with record sales and installations of vent-free gas fireplaces, log sets and inserts.”

Wisconsin: “No slowing down in sales of high-end fireplaces, wood and gas.  Wow, what a time in our industry.”

Wisconsin: “Overall year-end we were way up.  Wood seems to be really strong.”

Wisconsin: “Busy year.  Easily could have had greater sales if we could find another good employee.  We have had some warranty issues and manufacturers did not stand behind their product.”

Wisconsin: “Wood and gas fireplaces are strong.  Plain steel wood stoves is a weak spot.  We’re clearing inventory of all non-2020 compliant wood stoves.  Will restock only 2020 compliant.”

7.    The number of stove models will temporarily shrink

While the number of different stove models will temporarily shrink due to the increased stringency of the standards, not all consumers will notice because there will continue to be a variety of products on the market.  Many manufactures are getting around any perceived limitation of products by certifying one firebox, then offering it in a variety of models –  such as with a pedestal, with legs, or even as an insert.   More manufacturers are beginning to offer a variety of stove models, so the standards’ impact on consumers will decrease even further.

8.    There is minimal public support for sell-throughs 

In 2014, EPA received 1,750 Comments in response to proposals that set 2020 as the deadline for Step 2 compliance.  Just 5 years later, the process led by the current administration’s EPA generated only 75 comments for the sell-through for furnaces and boilers, including comments from less than 10 individual citizens.  In addition, there is no state, county or city that supports providing a sell-through for what constitutes the dirtiest appliance class among wood heaters.  Clearly, the populations that are most greatly impacted by such a sell-through, recognize that this deregulatory action increases pollution far more than the financial benefit for manufacturers.

*****

-->

AGH appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. If there are any questions regarding any statements above, please contact John Ackerly at 301-204-9562.

Can the EPA Set Future Emission Limits Using a Cordwood Test?

In the proposed new regulations for residential wood heating devices, known as the New Source Performance Standards or “NSPS”, the EPA is not only trying to reduce the amount of smoke allowed from new stoves, but it is also proposing to switch the fuel used for testing devices in future years.

Traditionally, stoves have been tested using “crib” fuel, meaning Douglas Fir 2 x 4s and 4 x 4s that are stapled together to maximize the consistency of the fuel load.  EPA is proposing to allow manufacturers to use either crib wood or cordwood (which is more similar to the split wood logs that stove users typically burn) to test new stoves during the first phase of the proposed rule.  However, EPA would require that only cordwood be used to test stoves during the later phases of the rule.  Using cordwood for testing makes sense because a test using cordwood would likely come closer to what the real-world emissions from new stoves might be.

EPA is proposing that new stoves would be required to emit no more than 1.3 grams of particulate matter (smoke) an hour during the later phases of the rule (within 5-8 years) as demonstrated using cordwood.  Some observers have pointed out that although 1.3 grams an hour is already achievable today with some stoves tested with crib fuel, it is not clear how many (or if any at all) could pass the test using cordwood.  There is not any way to convert between tests using crib wood and tests using cordwood, and very few stoves have so far been tested using cordwood. 

Industry has voiced concerns, saying EPA cannot legally set a standard where there is insufficient data to back it up.  However, there are a number of ways EPA could still set a standard based on cordwood, even if it doesn’t have a mountain of data right now.  For example, there is legal precedent supporting EPA’s setting a rule based on what it reasonably predicts a technology could achieve in the future even if it doesn’t have hard data when it proposes a new rule.  In addition, there are many options for EPA to obtain more data before it finalizes the NSPS of which the wood stove community should be aware.

First, if EPA learns of new data using cordwood testing before it issues the final rule, it can issue a Notice of Data Availability, or “NODA” that makes the data available and requests additional comment.  Even absent a NODA, the EPA can consider comments and data submitted after May 5, but it is not required to do so.  This approach could allow EPA to collect more data about cordwood testing during the rest of 2014.

Second, EPA could issue an “Information Collection Request” under the Clean Air Act that would require manufacturers to test and turn in data on their stoves’ emission using a cordwood test.  

Third, EPA could re-open and re-consider the NSPS after it issues the final rule.  For instance, the agency could open a discrete part of the rule in 2 or 3 years for the sole purpose of setting or adjusting the emission limits for wood stoves using a cordwood test method.  EPA would have to go through the notice and comment process, but a technical update to the rule that adjusts the test method or emission limit based on new data could be completed relatively quickly, with a shorter comment period and fewer comments for EPA to consider.  

If the EPA ultimately sets very strict limits using cordwood for later phases of the NSPS, there is only a small chance that any lawsuit could stop the regulation from initially going into effect.  To prevent a regulation from going into effect, there is a very high burden of showing irreparable harm.  Also, courts are supposed to give EPA a lot of leeway in interpreting contested scientific or technical information (such as the achievability of the 1.3 gram per hour limit using cordwood).  Since the initial emission limits will be based on cribwood tests and will have little impact on the wood stove industry for the first several years, the wood stove industry will be hard pressed to show immediate, irreparable harm.  Warm air furnaces, outdoor boilers and other exempt appliances may have a better chance at showing irreparable harm as they have not been regulated before and there are manufacturers of those appliances who are more likely to be harmed or go out of business.  But those are the appliances that industry, states and others most want to be regulated, and where the greatest air quality benefits will come from.  However, EPA could also agree to stay the rule if industry is able to persuade it to do so.

As long as EPA itself doesn’t agree to stay the rule, the regulations would likely go into effect immediately upon final rulemaking, and all the initial emission limits would become law and would be effective even if industry sued.  If the industry were successful in suing EPA, a court could strike down certain provisions or remand the rule to the EPA.  Thus, a lawsuit by industry is very unlikely to stop the regulations from taking effect, may not succeed in the end, and would only prolong the uncertainty that industry has had to face to date.

EPA Inaction and an Industry Faction Are Holding us Back

On October 9, seven states and five environmental groups sued the EPA for failure to promulgate new emission standards for residential wood heaters.  If EPA had done its job years ago, as it was obligated to do under the Clean Air Act, the stove industry and consumers would be far better off today.

An example of the size of wood that
can be loaded in an outdoor boiler.

Instead, we have all been dragged down by an agency that has not taken residential wood heating seriously enough.  And some of the key outdoor wood boiler manufacturers have opposed reasonable state and local regulations on their products, leading to controversies with state air agencies and environmental groups that could be avoided.

The EPA did develop a voluntary program to help regulate outdoor wood boilers and states started adopting that in 2007.  Northeastern states, Indiana and Pennsylvania used that and Washington and Oregon effectively banned them outright. The states where outdoor boilers are most popular like Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, bowed to industry pressure and did not adopt the EPA voluntary program to protect their residents from these polluting devices. The voluntary program thus failed to protect citizens in most states.

Privately, most people in the wood heating industry agree that outdoor wood boilers have given the entire wood burning community a black eye.  Those devices, particularly concentrated in the Great Lakes region, are contributing towards a negative view of wood heating at a time when the public and policymakers could have been developing better technology, better policies and better regulations.

But some outdoor boiler manufacturers, such as Central Boiler, while officially saying that they want to be regulated, have fought in state after state to keep selling old-fashioned polluting boilers.  And now they are fighting the EPA over what they feel are far too burdensome regulations.

Meanwhile, in Western Europe, where such technologies are rare or don’t exist at all, governments are vigorously supporting wood heat technologies through rebates and incentives. In Eastern Europe, authorties are struggling with coal heating, and often lack the political willpower and economic resources to address highly polluting classes of coal heaters.

One reason some Western European countries have been able to incentivize wood heating is that almost every country has a green label to identify the cleanest and most efficient stoves and boilers, which gives lawmakers the ability to give rebates and incentives to the best products.  In the US, there is no Energy Star program for wood heaters and industry put the brakes on a 2013 Washington state initiative to create a green label program.  Once we have a green label program, I think we will start to see the tide turn, with states beginning to shift consumer purchases towards the cleanest and most efficient wood and pellet stoves and pellet boilers.

In polluted urban areas, like Denver and Montreal and parts of the Pacific Northwest, we are likely to see more bans on the new installation of wood stoves and a shift toward pellet stoves.  This may not be ideal, but it is also a reasonable response.  Cordwood isn’t an appropriate energy solution for lots of people in densely inhabited urban areas, particularly those that experience weather inversions, when the technology is so dependent on operators using seasoned wood and giving the appliance enough air. 

In coming months, our community will be increasingly in the public spotlight as these lawsuits against the EPA get underway and we have a 90-day public comment period over the EPA’s long awaited regulations.  We are in an era where technology can make wood and pellet stoves far cleaner, while still being affordable.  Many of these stoves were on display the National Mall at the Wood Stove Decathlon in mid-November.  There, policy makers saw what stove engineers are working on and are capable of creating.  They saw first hand that wood heat technology is developing fast and can be a vital part of our renewable energy future, not just a relic of the past.

Outdoor wood boilers are the most polluting class of residential wood heaters on the market today, and as such they will be the most in the news.  But the EPA regulations are still vital in requiring both wood and pellet stoves to become cleaner and more efficient.  Once that happens, public opinion can begin to shift in a more favorable way towards deploying modern wood and pellet technology to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, and shrinking the divide between US and European policy.