The Pellet Stove Industry: Stuck—or Ready to Break Through?

A conversation with Scott Williamson

Scott Williamson, a veteran pellet
stove technician

The pellet stove industry has long occupied a middle ground—promising, practical, and often economical—yet never quite breaking into the mainstream. To understand why, I spoke with Scott Williamson, a technician who has spent decades installing, repairing, and troubleshooting pellet stoves across New England.

Scott lives in Rehoboth, Massachusetts and runs Pellet-Stove-Service.com, serving primarily southeastern Massachusetts. Over the course of his career, he has worked on tens of thousands of stoves across a wide range of brands, installations, and real-world conditions—giving him a ground-level view of how these systems perform outside of ideal conditions.

He got into the business in an unconventional way: “My mother-in-law bought a used pellet stove but couldn’t find anyone willing to service it. I had tools, I was available, and I was dating their daughter at the time. I had never even heard of a pellet stove, but I somehow fixed it. The family owned a breakfast diner and started telling customers I could fix their pellet stoves. That’s how I got started. Three years later, I was so busy I had to quit my day job.”

By 2019, nearly 20 years later, his company had performed over 20,000 service calls across New England.

Scott also runs the Facebook group Pellet Stove Troubleshooting & Repair, which has nearly 17,000 members and functions as a real-time knowledge base where technicians and experienced owners work through real-world problems every day.

What’s Holding Pellet Stoves Back?

The biggest factor has been relatively low oil and gas prices. If that changes—like if the Strait of Hormuz situation affects supply—you could see pellet stoves rebound quickly.

Electricity is becoming a bigger part of the equation. My electric bill last month was $500, and that’s not unusual. People relying on heat pumps in higher-rate states may start to feel that more over time.

There’s also a perception problem that hasn’t gone away. A lot of people don’t distinguish pellet stoves from wood stoves. They assume they produce a lot of smoke, and they get lumped into the same EPA, non-profit or media reports that are critical of wood burning.

 

Do Poor-Quality Stoves Hurt the Industry?

I don’t see stove quality as the main issue. It’s more about installation and maintenance. The core technology works—but it’s sensitive to real-world conditions.

Pellet stoves run great under ideal conditions. But over time—especially as they get dirty—they lose efficiency. The combustion isn’t as clean, and performance drops off.

From a field perspective:

· About 5 out of 100 customers will have repair issues in each winter

· Of those, maybe 2 are more serious or expensive

Some manufacturers have introduced temperature-based feedback systems that adjust combustion automatically, keeping the combustion cleaner—but those features are still far from universal. If every stove had that kind of feedback, you’d see a lot fewer complaints.

Is the Service Sector Keeping Up?

No—and that’s one of the biggest problems. Many dealers prioritize selling stoves over servicing them.

That’s backwards. Service is what keeps customers. It’s where the long-term money is. It’s the same as cars—dealerships don’t stay in business on sales. They stay in business because they service those cars for years.

There’s also a structural problem with pricing. Service calls under $200 are common—but they’re not sustainable. Between travel time, diagnostics, and repairs, you’re burning yourself out. You really need to be closer to $300 to make it work.

At the same time, there aren’t enough experienced technicians—and many aren’t using technology effectively to run their businesses.

In my case, I stepped away from service for four years to work for a pellet parts supplier. A technician in the next town took over most of my accounts. He does a good job and he is a good guy. At this point, there’s no real reason for customers to leave him and come back to me.

How Important is NFI Certification?

NFI training is good—but it’s just a starting point. The bigger issue is that it doesn’t carry much weight in the real world:

· Not required by most states

· Limited consumer awareness

· No real incentive to maintain it

In 25 years, no customer has ever asked me if I’m NFI-certified. By contrast, licensing requirements are more meaningful.

In Massachusetts and most of New England, you need a state-issued HVAC license to install stoves. The test is tough, and you need to work under someone who already has it. It’s a barrier to entry—but after that, it’s mostly just maintaining it.

Pellet Supply and Quality

I don’t see pellet shortages as a major issue. Most problems are seasonal. At the end of the season, stores stop restocking and people can’t find pellets—but that’s usually because they waited too long. Pellet quality is a bit of an issue, but over time, most users figure out what works best in their stove.

Hidden Barriers: The Psychology of Use

One of the biggest challenges has less to do with technology and more to do with how people experience pellet heating.

Pellets have too many touchpoints. You’re buying fuel, you’re cleaning the stove, you’re dealing with maintenance. Even when pellets are cheaper overall, the frequent interaction creates friction. It feels like you’re always paying for something.

By contrast, oil and gas systems require far less interaction. They just run. There are fewer touchpoints, so it feels easier—even if it’s more expensive.

Why Pellet Stoves Struggle in New Homes

New homes aren’t designed with pellet stoves in mind. Masonry chimneys are disappearing, and pellet systems are rarely part of new construction.

Mobility also plays a role. People move more often now. The more owners a pellet stove has, the more likely it is to develop problems over time.  Lastly, some new homes are sealed tight, and pellet stoves have a hard time lighting.  If you open a nearby window just a crack, the stove lights right up.  So, those homes need outdoor air kits, that bring fresh outdoor air right into the stove, or right to the base of the stove.

 

A Better Model: Simplifying the System

Someone should simplify both the customer experience and the business model behind it. You could offer the stove, fuel, and service all in one monthly package—what I’d call ‘hassle-free heat.’ Repairs would be included.

For customers, that means predictable costs, fewer decisions and less uncertainty

For providers, it creates efficiency. Instead of dealing with dozens of stove models, you focus on one or two. Same parts, same training, same repair process.

Instead of stocking 500 SKUs, you might only need 15 or 20. And your technicians don’t need to know how to fix everything—they just need to be good at a few systems.

 

Are Heat Pumps a Threat?

They can be—but they can also work well together.  Pellet stoves and heat pumps are actually very complementary.

Use a heat pump for moderate temperatures, and a pellet stove when it gets really cold. Both are space heaters, and they can work in different parts of the house.  A lot will depend on electricity pricing. Electric rates can rise faster than pellet prices. That’s going to matter.

 

Outlook: Strong Fundamentals, Missing System

I wouldn’t call myself optimistic or pessimistic. The fundamentals are there—the fuel works, the technology works. What’s missing is everything around it:

· Reliable service infrastructure

· Better training pathways

· More standardization

· A simpler customer experience

If the industry can get those things right—and if energy prices push people to look for alternatives—there’s a lot of room for growth.

Wood pellet data is vital to understand contribution of pellet heating in America

 The Alliance for Green Heat submitted a public comment on the EIA's Densified Biomass Fuel Report earlier today. The EIA was gathering comments on a proposed three-year extension on the report along with specific questions on its function and use.

"The Alliance for Green Heat (AGH) would first like to thank the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) for giving the public an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed three-year extension to Form EIA-63C, “Densified Biomass Fuel Report.” As a national nonprofit that advocates for the reduction of fossil fuel heating through the responsible and sustainable use of wood and pellet heat, we are deeply invested in the outcome of the EIA and DOE’s decision to continue to collect data on pellets.

Summary: The EIA does not need to collect more information from pellet manufacturers. However, it does need to publicly release much more of the information it is gathering.

It is important for policymakers, environmental organizations, and the public to have a far more accurate understanding of the differences between how utility pellets are made, how premium heating pellets are made, and the carbon impacts of how they are used. Utility pellets have biodiversity, equity, and carbon impacts that are more serious than premium heating pellets based on their feedstock, the size and location of their manufacturing plants, and the enormous amount of waste heat that is lost when making electricity. Data gathered by the EIA provides some of the underlying metrics to understand those different impacts.

Wood pellets are an excellent low-carbon heating fuel for homes, businesses, and institutions. They will likely become an even greater complement to heat pumps in the future, based on the different pros and cons of each heating pathway as our energy grid seeks to keep up with increasing electric demand. Wood pellet production and use are also extremely important for better understanding air quality and whether states and air quality agencies have been able to increase the percentage of pellet stoves compared to wood stoves. Also, EIA data from their housing survey, part of the Residential Energy Consumption Survey, shows that wood pellets serve many very low-income homes. The 2020 data shows the income bracket with the highest reliance on pellet stoves compared to wood stoves is the $10,000 - $19,000 household income bracket. This makes wood pellets very relevant to the energy equity community.

Our industry and stakeholders have become used to seeing top-level data such as the wood pellet production capacity by region, overall production of heating vs. utility pellets, and domestic vs. foreign pellets. But to really appreciate the various roles this industry plays in providing renewable heating in America, we should all be versed in more granular detail.

For example, it is very important for government agencies, pellet stove manufacturers, pellet fuel distributors, retailers, and consumers to know the volume of:

• PFI certified domestic heating pellets made year-by-year,

• Non-PFI certified pellets made year-by-year if the percentage of bagged vs. bulk domestic heating pellets is trending up or down,

• Utility pellets used domestically,

• ENPlus A1 or A2 bulk heating pellets are made in the US (these would likely be bagged in Europe for residential distribution), and

• Compressed bricks, compressed logs, and briquettes made, year-by-year.

The EIA could also provide more detail about where wood comes from. It provides summary, top-level data, but we believe there is more data available that does not infringe on confidentiality.

A breakdown by state also tells an important story of pellet production in the United States. North Carolina, the top producer of industrial pellets for export, makes nearly as many pellets as the bottom 20 states combined - which produce heating pellets.

Response to EIA questions:

1. In response to the invitation to comment on the following statement: “(a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility,” AGH would like to highlight the value that the Densified Biomass Fuel Report provides to hundreds of stakeholders in the renewable energy space who need this information to assess the capacity of this sector. The data provided through the reports helps track trends in pellet production and increases the ability to produce accurate, science- based assessments on pellet heating. Without the Fuel Report, organizations would lose one of their most reliable and unbiased information sources on pellet data.

In the energy transition landscape that our nation is currently undertaking, being able to account for, and have accurate information on, all forms of renewable energy is paramount. If our nation’s leading agency on energy information is missing data and research on a large, mainstream, and established renewable energy source like biomass, the agency is failing to carry out its mission.

2. In response to the invitation to comment on the following statement: “(c) EIA can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect,” AGH would like to suggest that the EIA publish more of the data that it collects. Assuming no confidentiality conflicts, we believe publishing all gathered “Product Type” information is essential (e.g. amount of “Wood Pellets Premium (PFI certified) Bagged,” Wood Pellets Premium (PFI certified) Bulk”, etc.). Similarly, publishing data on “FeedStock Type” (e.g. “Roundwood,” “Sawdust,” “Waste Wood,” etc.) would be helpful when explaining to policymakers and the public the different supply chains in the pellet industry. This is particularly important for policymakers and the public to differentiate how heating vs. utility pellets are made. This would also provide industry and organizations with a clearer vision of the current capacity of biomass for heating, helping provide decision- makers with valid, data-driven information. Because this information is already gathered in the monthly reports, this would not add any time burdens on the pellet manufacturing companies.

Wood is a diverse and vital renewable energy source for America. Many Americans do not seem to know that up until 2015, wood produced more renewable energy than any other renewable source. Since 2016, biofuels have been the top producer, but the intensive process of converting solid biomass to biofuels sharply reduces its carbon benefits.

Many Americans may also be surprised that wood still produces more renewable energy than hydroelectric solar and geothermal combined. As recently as 2015, wood produced more energy than hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, and wind combined. It is a vital part of America’s transition to renewable energy to know that the use of wood as a renewable energy has been relatively stable but shrinking since 1985, and the amount of solar and wind energy has been rapidly growing. Part of this story is understanding and managing all the different feedstocks that go into wood energy - mainly pellets, wood chips, and wood logs.

The EIA can do a better job using the data that it collects from pellet manufacturers to tell a more detailed story about wood pellets made in America and pellet heating in America."

HPBA lawsuit extended again in hopes of renewed talks with EPA

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit agreed to yet another extension to the lawsuit brought by the Hearth Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA) and the Pellet Fuel Institute (PFI) against portions of the EPA’s 2015 residential wood heater regulations.

HPBA “hopes to be back in talks with the EPA” said Rachel Feinstein, Government Affairs Manager for HPBA. In the motion requesting the extension, HPBA explained that talks between them and HPBA had broken down under the Obama Administration, but after Trump's election, HPBA is again “attempting to discuss with DOJ and EPA whether the agencies are willing to engage in further discussions concerning the Rule.”

The Trump Administration has been re-opening rule making on many regulations, but some observers say it will likely be an uphill battle for the hearth industry because the EPA is already contending with many higher profile rules. In addition, even if the EPA were to agree to review parts of the NSPS, the rule would have to go through the notice and comment process that can take 1 to 3 years, at which point there could be a new President and a new head of the EPA.

The EPA can revise regulations at any point, with or without a pending lawsuit. It can commit to a new rule making process on selected parts of the NSPS, but it cannot necessarily guarantee any particular outcome. In cases of voluntary remand, petitioners can also lose their right to appeal.

If the case goes to court in 2018, the outcome partially depends on which panel of judges get appointed to the case and the result could be more unpredictable and potentially more favorable to the groups that intervened in the suit – the American Lung Association, the Clean Air Council and Environment and Human Health. If the case goes to court, the best outcome for HPBA would likely be a settlement agreement that puts part of the NSPS on hold until another rule making is complete.

HPBA and PFI now have until August 25 to file their brief laying out their grievances with the new regulations. HPBA is not challenging the requirement that when tested with cribwood, wood stoves must emit no more than 2 grams an hour as of 2020. This means that all stove manufacturers remain under this deadline to retest their stoves to achieve 2 grams an hour or less under the revised test method. All stoves that tested at 2 or under prior to May 15, 2015 still have to retest to be compliant with the 2020 limits. 

HPBA is challenging the requirement that if a stove is voluntarily tested with cordwood, it must achieve 2.5 grams per hour or less. HPBA asserts that since there is not yet an approved test method, it was premature for the EPA to set an emission limit. HPBA is also challenging emission limits for wood and pellet boilers and furnaces.

Related posts:

What consumers need to know about the new EPA wood stove rules. (Updated, June 2017)
HPBA gets delay in lawsuit to give Trump administration time to review.  (April 2017)
Paper undermines stove industry variability study. (August 2014)

HPBA gets delay in lawsuit to give Trump Administration time to review

President Trump shaking hands with
his EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, a
prominent climate change skeptic.

The Hearth Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA) moved to delay its lawsuit to allow the Trump administration time to review the settlement proposals that HPBA submitted in 2015 and 2016 and re-evaluate whether some issues can be settled out of court, according to its court filing.  The EPA and the environmental groups who intervened did not oppose the delay. They filed their motion with the US Court of Appeals weeks before they would have had to meet the first filing deadline.

The original suit was consolidated to include challenges from HPBA, the Pellet Fuel Institute (FPI), Tulikivi and Richard Burns and Company. In November 2016, the EPA informed HPBA that it would not continue in settlement talks, but they did reach an amicable settlement with Tulikivi, a masonry heater company that wanted masonry heaters to be a regulated technology under the NSPS. The EPA is seeking additional information with regard to PFI’s lawsuit.

On March 16, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals approved the 90-day delay sought by HPBA and set a new briefing schedule for the parties that plays out through the end of 2017. HPBA must file its brief with the Court on June 26, laying out a final list of issues it intends to litigate. After that, the EPA will respond with its positions on September 26, revealing how it will defend those portions of the regulations.

Less than a month later, the interveners must file their briefs. Interveners include the American Lung Association, Clean Air Council, and the Environment and Human Health, Inc. They are represented by Timothy Ballo of Earthjustice.

HPBA is simultaneously moving a bill in Congress to delay the 2020 provisions of the NSPS by 3 years, which in turn will give the legal proceedings time to play out. Another bill would erase the wood heater NSPS altogether. HPBA does not support this, but some individual boiler and pellet producers support it.

“The Trump Administration is a wild card for all parties in the lawsuit and the Alliance for Green Heat urges all parties to support the core provisions of the NSPS,” said John Ackerly of the Alliance for Green Heat. “For the future of wood heating in the US, we need to protect the transition to cord wood testing and adopt affordable test methods that reflect how consumers use stoves,” Ackerly added.

A blog “Hearth industry lists grounds for lawsuit against EPA” by the Alliance for Green Heat in 2015 laid out more details of the substance and process of the lawsuit. One often overlooked point is that HPBA does not appear to be challenging the 2020 emission standards for wood or pellet stoves, but only for outdoor wood boilers and warm air furnaces.

Petitioners' Brief(s)                               June 26, 2017

Respondent's Brief                                September 26, 2017

Intervenor for Respondent's Brief   October 18, 2017

Petitioners' Reply Brief(s)                  November 8, 2017

Deferred Appendix                               November 15, 2017

Final Briefs                                             November 22, 2017

Review of wood pellets for BTU, moisture and ash content

The Internet is full of opinions and reviews of wood pellet brands.  However, data of actual properties of various wood pellet brands is hard to locate.  It cost under $100 for a lab to test ash, moisture and BTU content of a pellet. We tested 4 popular brands, along with corn kernels, to see the variability between brands.  Our overall conclusion: much less variability than we expected (except for the corn).

Click on the brand name to see the full lab report from Twin Ports Testing for American Wood Fibers, Pennington, Curran Renewable Energy, Nation’s Choice , and Takoma Park Silo corn.

Conventional wisdom is that you should buy a couple bags of pellets to see how they work on your stove before buying a ton or more.  That's good advice, as some stoves handle a much wider range of pellets, while others do not.  It’s especially good advice in light of the lab testing we did, that shows little variation between moisture, ash and BTU content of four popular brands.  

The four brands we bought – made by American Wood Fiber, Curran, Pennington’s, and Nation’s Choice – are all major brands but only represent a small fraction of available brands.  Two of them are PFI certified, which means that they must meet certain quality guarantees and cannot have more than 1.0% ash, 8.0% moisture, and 0.5% fines, among various other requirements.  All four brands of pellets we tested fell within the parameters required by PFI premium grade, for the criteria that we tested – ash and moisture.  We did not test for fines or for durability or bulk density or chlorides – things that can be important for performance.  The cost for testing those qualities is about $250, more than we wanted to spend for each test.

We highly recommend choosing a brand that is PFI certified as it ensures a basic level of quality that should not be taken for granted.  A few manufactures add discarded wood pallets into their fiber mix and while some old pallets may still have clean wood in them, many do not.

Pellet manufacturers, whether they are PFI certified or not, usually do not disclose actual BTU, ash or fines, but just say that they do not exceed a certain level. 

Ash content: Ash is one of the biggest concerns of consumers since high ash pellets can clog up some stoves and require more cleaning.  Of the four brands we tested, the ash content was relatively similar, ranging from about 0.3% to 0.6%, far below the acceptable level under the PFI certified standard of 1.0%.  

BTUs: 

Whether your stove is 60% efficient or 80% efficient, you will get more heat from a pellet with more BTUs.  Some pellet brands may have up to 8,800 BTUs per pound and some only 8,000. The highest BTU pellets are made from 100% softwood, like Douglas Fir and will have lower ash and will cost more. That is only a 9% difference in BTU output.  The higher BTU pellets we tested had 8,439 BTUs per pound, 5% more than the lowest BTU brand, which had 8,011.  Softwood pellets may also burn cleaner.  

Moisture content:

Moisture content varied even less than ash and BTU content between the four brands we tested. The low was 5.1% and the high was 5.8%.  PFI allows up to 8%.

Look for the PFI certified
box to help ensure you
are buying high quality
pellets.

Price:

Price on all these 4 brands can vary depending on the time of year, the location, the seller, and whether or not a ton is purchased. Pennington’s, Nation’s Choice, and Curran have all been available at big box outlets in the $250/ton range over the past several months.  The American Wood Fiber Ultra Premium White Pine is more expensive, as 100% softwood pellets tend to be, especially on the east coast.

Options for future testing

Testing and publishing the BTU, moisture and ash content of dozens of common wood pellet brands would be a great resource for consumers.  Please let us know if you agree or have suggestions about how to develop and maintain a reliable, independent data base of pellet characteristics.

This report and the pellet testing was supported in part by a grant from the Maryland-based Rouse Charitable Foundation.