Utah bill HB 396: A Hastily Crafted Bill that Misses the Mark

Winter inversions, caused mainly by cars
and trucks, often obscure the Utah legislature
in a cloud of pollution that can last days.

A bill was just introduced in the Utah House of Representatives that would mandate certain types of change out programs, set air quality levels that can be used to call no burn days and otherwise undermine the ability of the state to help move toward cleaner burning and cleaner air.

(March 4 update: The bill passed 9-4 in the House committtee. April 1 update: Governor Herbert signed the bill.)

The key to reducing wood smoke in Utah's populated and often polluted valley surrounding Salt Lake City is a genuine partnership between the states air quality division, industry and other non-profits and stakeholders.  Ultimately, solutions are going to require funding, especially if a change out program is involved, which can be expensive.  For any significant amount of money to be used for change outs, the Utah governor and air quality division should support the change out, not have HB 396 thrust upon them, which will tie their hands.

Utah Governor Herbert's proposed seasonal ban was ill conceived and drawn up without sufficient consultation.  HB 396 was similarly drawn up without sufficient consultation and will not lead to genuine solutions that can get solid funding.

Like most others, the Alliance did not support the seasonal ban proposed by the Governor, but HB 396 is not the solution.  HB 396 was drafted by key stove industry members and reflects the interests of some stove retailers and manufacturers, but does not embrace many solutions which can benefit homeowners who heat with wood and pellets.

There are a variety of proven ways to reduce wood smoke while protecting the rights of families who heat with wood and pellets.  HB 396 only refers to several strategies and it ties the hands of the Division of Air Quality, without even providing funding for solutions.  Wood stove change out programs are one of the effective strategies, but HB 396 does not include many options and best practices that other jurisdictions use in change outs to support high efficiency wood and pellet heating while reducing emissions at the same time.

This hastily crafted bill needs to emphasize the interests of all Utahans, more than the just retailers and stove manufacturers who drafted the bill.  Lines 28 and 29 which require consultation with representatives of the solid fuel burning industry while not mentioning representatives of other concerned groups is unfortunate.  The solid fuel burning industry does not represent the consumers who use their products any more than any other industry group represents consumers of their products.  For instance, one of the most important reasons people heat with wood and pellets is to save money, particularly lower income families.  However, the solid fuel burning industry refuses to release the efficiencies of the stoves they sell.  Some pellet stoves are between 40 – 50% efficient and some are between 70 – 80% efficient, but industry has long stonewalled consumer interests to know which stoves are more efficient than others. 

Industry has also actively opposed change out and incentive programs which require the disclosure of efficiency or only make the cleanest stoves eligible for replacing older, uncertified stoves.  Such options and programs, however, benefit consumers and should be considered in any change out program.

Ultimately the solution in Utah, like in any jurisdiction, requires the active engagement of all stakeholders and the consideration of all solutions – and funding.   If industry, DAQ, and other stakeholders can agree on the parameters of a change out program, it will be far easier to secure funding each year and for that funding to have the most impact.  HB 396 will not achieve that and pits the solid fuel industry against the interests of many other key stakeholders.

For these reasons, we urge the Legislature to vote against HB 396.

Over the last 4 years, the Alliance for Green Heat has also advocated on behalf of families who heat with wood and pellets with members of the Utah legislature, the Utah Division of Air Quality and the Utah Air Quality Board.  We provide expert background on wood heating technology, wood smoke emissions, and analysis.

On the current debate in Utah, we issued three short papers to help policymakers and the public better understand the importance of wood and pellet heating and options to improve air quality:

Clearing the Air in Utah: A Wood Stove Compromise

http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/01/clearing-air-in-utah-wood-stove.html

As Utah debates seasonal stove ban, Salt Lake County adopts stricter rules  http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/01/as-utah-debates-seasonal-stove-ban-salt.html

Wood Heating Trends in Utah

http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/02/wood-heating-trends-in-utah.html

On February 24, we provided an informal briefing at the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) on options for reducing wood smoke that other jurisdictions are pursuing, none of which include a ban on stove use.  That powerpoint can be downloaded here. 

As Utah debates seasonal stove ban, Salt Lake County adopts stricter rules

The proposed state seasonal
ban affects 75% of the Utah
population. 

As Utahns debate a seemingly doomed proposal to ban seasonal stove use,  Utah’s most populous county enacted its own rules banning stove use on both mandatory and voluntary air actions days as of Jan. 1, 2016. In other counties, voluntary air action days continue to be voluntary.

This will impact about half of all wood burning appliances in the non-attainment counties and could contribute significantly to reducing wood smoke.  Salt Lake County has nearly 102,000 wood burning appliances, with fireplaces accounting for a majority of that with 60,000 units, according to EPA figures.  There are nearly 20,000 uncertified wood stoves and about the same number of pellet stoves and certified wood stoves.  

This stove inventory was provided by EPA who use a variety of databases and sources to estimate the deployment of wood burning devices.

The governor’s seasonal ban proposal that would impact 7 counties in and around Salt Lake City is drawing intense and sustained criticism from Utah residents, with only a few people speaking up in support of the ban.  It's also drawing national attention from the wood stove industry that wants a 2-stage system, where EPA certified stoves could be used in stage 1 and all stove use banned in stage 2.

On the other hand, Salt Lake County, which has a more than a third of the state’s population and nearly half of the population and half the stoves in the Wasatch front non-attainment area, went the opposite direction, including all stoves, certified and uncertified, in both stages of air action days.  “This is a significant measure and with more enforcement could achieve a quarter to a half of the reductions that the Governor's plan sought,” said John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat.

The issue has become an emotionally charged debate about individual rights vs. government control, striking a nerve within a deeply conservative part of the country.  In the public hearings, many people have testified about not being able to afford any other fuel than wood, and not wanting to be forced to use fossil fuel when they can use a cheaper renewable. 

But for air quality officials, the issue is simply about cleaning up the air and meeting federal air quality goals that are tied to highway funding.  The discussion quickly becomes about what the state can enforce and what it can’t.  The problem is that the state compliance capacity is already overstretched, with little ability to take on wood stoves.

However, that is different in Salt Lake County, which is moving ahead to enact stricter rules.  The County has decided to undertake the investigations of wood burning on mandatory no burn days itself, instead of leaving those to the state, which now only issues the fine.  Typically the initial warning is viewed an education process that leads to compliance, so that while many $25 fines have been given, rarely has the maximum of $299 been imposed. 

The new Salt Lake County rules, which take effect on Jan. 1, 2016, were not a reaction to the governor’s proposal or a rejection of the stove industry’s recommendations.  The County's process began before the state's process and ended before the stove industry got involved and helped set up the advocacy group Utahns for Responsible Burning.

According to officials at the Salt Lake Country Health Department, there was virtually no support for exempting EPA certified stoves from the county rule.  Both certified and uncertified stoves can produce excessive smoke, depending on operator behavior and moisture content of wood, with uncertified ones performing worse, on average.  While most EPA certified stoves produce 2 to 4.5 grams of particulates an hour in the lab when they are tested with specially prepared dry wood, they often produce far more in the real world.

The Alliance for Green Heat is urging Utah officials to consider phasing out uncertified stoves, since reducing the number of wood stoves will have the biggest impact.  “It may be that only about half of wood burners are really burning responsibly, whether they own a certified or uncertified stove,” Ackerly said.  “The uncertified stoves made before 1988 are now obsolete and most should not be used in densely populated areas,” Ackerly continued.

The current debate over wood heating comes less than 2 years after the outdoor wood boiler industry fought against Utah regulations that would prevent the installation of wood boilers on the Wasatch Front.  That debate also brought national attention of industry who hired lobbyists in Utah.  The industry effort to keep the market for outdoor boilers open in the non-attainment area was partially based on the now discredited argument that outdoor boilers were cleaner than wood stoves.

That case, like the current debate, involved questions of emissions data from test labs vs. emissions in the real world, and the likelihood that operators would be burning responsibly.

Clearing the Air in Utah: A Wood Stove Compromise

Republican Governor Gary Herbert
directed his air quality staff to prepare
a draft rule banning wintertime stove use.

Utah Governor Herbert’s proposal to ban wintertime use of residential wood and pellet stoves started a debate on the wrong foot.  But it is vital that something is done and there are several ways that wood smoke can be reduced on the Wasatch Front around Salt Lake City.

[Update, Jan. 20: In a setback to the stove industry campaign, Salt Lake County voted to ban use of all stoves during both voluntary and mandatory air action days as of 2016.]

First, a phase out of all uncertified wood stoves is both realistic and effective.  A phase out would mean that stoves made before 1988 could not be legally used after a certain date, such as January 1st, 2017.  Before that date, the state could offer a tax credit to people who turn in their old stove and upgrade to an EPA-certified pellet stove or gas stove.  This would protect the investment of anyone who bought a new EPA-certified wood stove in the last 25 years.

A series of public hearing on the
proposed ban have elicited over-
whelming popular opposition.

Second, all existing stoves could be grandfathered, but there also could be a ban on installing new fireplaces or wood stoves in homes in the non-attainment area.  Pellet stoves could still be installed as they can’t spew excessive smoke like wood stoves can if they are not operated correctly. Many towns and valleys with bad inversions have stopped the new installation of fireplaces and wood stoves.

Third, as long as people can still buy and install wood stoves and fireplaces, Utah could require that they be among the cleanest in the country.  Next year the national standard will be 4.5 grams an hour for wood and pellet stoves.  On the Wasatch front, you could require new stoves not to emit more than 3 or even 2 grams an hour.  

No matter what strategy Utah chooses, the state must commit more resources to implement and enforce it – even in the unlikely event they choose a full seasonal ban.  There will need to be trained compliance officers responsible for educating homeowners, inspecting homes, issuing warnings and, as a last resort, fines.  Typically there will be a minority of people who create the most smoke.  If those people can’t or won’t operate their stoves in a way that doesn’t create excessive smoke, fines should be imposed, just as fines are imposed for excessively loud music or any number of other nuisances. 

In mountain valleys, wood smoke can
make up more than 50% of PM during
inversions.  In the Salt Lake area, its
less than 10%.

Most appliances are only regulated at the point of manufacture.  After we purchase them, we are free to use a refrigerator or washing machine as long as we want, and abuse them in any way if we so choose.  But for big emitters like cars and stoves, some measures to ensure ongoing pollution reduction can be warranted. For better or worse, many wood stoves last even longer than the best-made refrigerators or washing machines.  Consumers tend to want to upgrade all sorts of appliances far sooner than they want to upgrade their wood stove.  But the benefits of upgrading to a new stove are similar in that consumers are getting a far more efficient and cleaner device.  And some good, new wood stoves cost as little as $700 at big-box hardware stores.

We think the solution to reducing wood smoke involves phasing out old stoves and issuing periodic

Salt Lake City, during one of their
frequent wintertime inversions.

fines to people who can’t operate their EPA certified stoves in ways that don’t make them belch excessive smoke.  A compromise of limiting the seasonal ban to fewer counties in Utah and half the duration – Jan. 1 to Feb. 15th, instead of Nov. 1st to March 15th – is an option, but not a popular one.  It may not be an effective one, either.

As a society, we need to encourage the responsible use of renewable energy and support household energy security.  Pellet stoves are already an environmentally responsible way to heat homes.  Wood stoves can be, but are more complicated, especially in densely inhabited areas with inversions.  A wood stove is a far bigger emitter of pollution than a car, and we need to start thinking about them as such.  Just as many states require emission testing when a second hand car is sold, Oregon has begun requiring the removal of an old stove when a house gets sold.  These are the sorts of solutions that can also work in Utah.

Governor Herbert is ready to make some tough decisions in order to accomplish something everyone wants – cleaner air. This proposal goes too far, but there are many other measures that can work, while respecting the ability of responsible stove owners to use a renewable resource to heat their home.  Regardless, Governor Herbert needs to show that he is ready to provide some more funding and resources to enact and enforce changes.  Otherwise, all of this controversy just amounts to hot air.

*******

✓ You can submit comments to the Utah Air Quality Board until February 9.  For more info, click here.

✓ For media coverage of the Utah public hearings, click here.

✓ For the AGH position on the industry response to the proposed ban, click on this Facebook post.