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. 

Wood Heating Trends in Utah

The proposal by the Governor of Utah to ban the wintertime use of wood and pellet stoves was met with intense opposition from a large majority of Utah residents and the wood stove industry. It also underscored the need for Utah state agencies, the media, and the public to better understand the role of wood heating and its prevalence in the United States. This short paper compares census data of wood heating in Utah compared to the rest of the country.

As of 2013, 10,500, or 1.2%, of Utah residents use mainly wood and pellets for their primary heating, far less than the national average of 2.1%, according to the US Census. There are likely to be an additional 40,000 to 50,000 who use it as a secondary heat source, though the US Census does not track secondary heating.  The EPA however estimates that there are about 93,000 wood and pellet stoves in Utah, some of which may not be used at all or only occasionally.

Utah is one of the states that buck the national norm, in that far more homes heated with wood and pellets in 1990 compared to 1940. Utah residents gave up wood heating faster than the United States as a whole, with the number of homes mainly heating with wood hitting a low point in 1950, two decades before the rest of the country. But between 1970 and 1990, Utahns embraced wood heating far more aggressively than the rest of the country. The number of Utah homes mainly heating with wood rose from 0.3% in 1970 to 3.2% in 1990, a high point that the state has not hit since then.


The rapid growth of wood and pellets in Utah since 1970 is likely due to many of the same reasons it has grown so quickly elsewhere: both gas and oil prices had been climbing, until gas prices finally dropped in 2008 and oil prices just starting dropping in 2014.  And, the increase of wood and pellet heating may also be linked to an increased desire for household energy security by both conservative and liberal households, but for different reasons.

Median household income remained relatively static in Utah for most of the 2000s before they began falling in 2008 and rising again in 2012, compared to the US where incomes first decreased in 2007 and only started recovering in 2013. Often, more households turn away wood heating as incomes rise and this is likely a factor in Utah since 2012 as well.

Since 2005, the percent of Utahns using wood or pellet as a primary or sole heat source has ranged between 1% and 1.4%, and since 2010 has remained steady at 1.2%, significantly below the national rate of 2.1% that has remained unchanged since 2009. Wood heating peaked in 2009, at the height of the recession and dropped slightly as the economy has picked up.

Wood and pellets are the fastest growing heating fuel in Utah, followed by electricity, as it is the US overall. Wood and pellet heating as a primary heat source had increased nearly 40% in Utah from 2000 to 2013, slightly less than the nation overall.

Utah is quite different than national heating trends when it comes to gas and oil. Gas heating has grown 30% in Utah since 2000, yet has only grown by 4% nationally. This increase in gas heating may be tied to slower growth of wood heating in areas with gas lines, while wood heating remains robust in areas without gas lines. Accurate county data could confirm this.  And oil heating has dropped far quicker in Utah than it has in the nation overall, although it has not been a very widespread form of residential heating in Utah.

Utah has the lowest percentage of homes heated primarily with wood in the West.  The Census does not have county level data of wood heating in Utah, but typically rural counties have far more wood heating than more urban ones.  And, lower income counties typically have more primary wood heating and higher income counties have more secondary wood heating.

EPA Estimates of Fireplaces, Stoves and Boilers in Utah

The EPA figures, above, estimate nearly a quarter million wood fueled devices in Utah.  A majority of those are fireplaces and studies show that a large percent of fireplaces are never used or only used once a week, unlike stoves which are often used every day.  About 93,000 units are stoves, nearly 16,000 of which are pellet stoves, 48,000 uncertified stoves (most made prior to 1990) and 26,000 are EPA certified stoves, made since 1990.

As this chart shows, 84% of Utah residents heat with gas, one of the highest percentages in the U.S. The second most popular heating fuel is electricity, which heats 11% of Utah homes, followed by propane, which heats 2%.  The fourth most common heating fuel is wood and pellets which account for 1.2% of homes.

Sample Wood Smoke Nuisance Regulations

This outdoor wood boilers in Morgan
County Utah was somehow found not
to be a nuisance by a County Judge. 

Updated: May 2022 - Many jurisdictions in the Western US have “burn bans” that disallow the use of wood or pellet stoves when air quality is very poor, often in conjunction with weather inversions.  Nuisance regulations, on the other hand, apply when one person is creating excessive smoke that bothers an immediate neighbor.  That person may be using an EPA certified stove, an old stove or an outdoor or indoor boiler.

In the US, wood smoke complaints are handled locally, and more often than not, local officials are at a loss to handle complaints effectively. There is also a range of standards by which excessive smoke is measured.  Lack of resolution between neighbors is all too common, due sometimes to a lack of a clear nuisance standard for that town or county, or simply due to a lack of the ability or willingness to enforce a nuisance standard.  

The Alliance for Green Heat and many in the wood heating community support strong nuisance regulations and urge local officials to train their staff to enforce them.  Often, the problem is less about the stove technology and more about poor operator behavior. Many stove owners do not understand that their energy solution should not be their neighbor's problem.  Reducing fossil fuel use is a great benefit of wood stoves, but when a single stove is too polluting, or there are simply too many stoves in a valley or town, solutions are needed.  Pellet stoves are often an excellent solution from a pollution standpoint.

In areas with frequent inversions and in urban areas, limiting the new installations of cordwood stoves is often a good solution.  And, not allowing the installation of uncertified, second hand stoves is also a good solution.  Requiring permits and professional installation can also help.  

Sometimes, standards are less important than the discretion and findings of a local health official.  In Massachusetts, for example, a City Commissioner of Public Health has wide discretion to order someone to stop burning wood, as a Commission did in June 2017 after local residents complained of smoke from a restaurant. The 6-page decision found that a $65,000 scrubber performed poorly and ordered the owner to stop burning wood and charcoal.

If a jurisdiction has no written standard or regulation and does not allow the kind of discretion a health commission in Massachusetts has, the sample provisions below offer an excellent starting point for the jurisdiction to adopt.  Most jurisdictions use "opacity" as a measure of smoke - meaning the ability to see through it.  An opacity of 20% or lower is often listed as acceptable, but not always.  In some regulations, a specific amount of start-up time is exempted, ranging from 6 to 20 minutes in these sample regulations. However, many wood stove experts say 20 - 30 minutes is often the time needed to get a fire without visible smoke.

The Ringellman chart or scale was developed in 1888 and is still sometimes used and referenced today.

The Ringellman scale was adapted by the US Bureau of Mines.

The Alliance for Green Heat has noticed an increase in complaints about wood smoke.  We know that in many cases excessive wood smoke results from burning unseasoned wood, caused in part by the shortage of seasoned firewood this year.  Too many people with wood stoves wait until the fall to order wood and too many firewood distributors try to pass off unseasoned wood as seasoned.

The proposed ban of stoves in Utah has also brought the issue of “responsible burning” to the forefront, with industry calling for EPA certified equipment to be exempt from any ban.  These nuisance provisions, with a few exceptions, make no distinction between the kind of device that is being used, and focus solely on how well the operator is using it. 

STATES

We have updated the links to current laws as much as possible, but check the actual language in the current law, not on our summary to be sure of how the law or regulation works.

Colorado

No person shall cause or allow the emission of smoke exceeding twenty-percent opacity from any flue or chimney, except for a single fifteen-minute period for cold start-up. Any emission in excess hereof is hereby declared to be a nuisance and is prohibited.

Maine (2013)

A person who operates in a densely populated area an outdoor wood-burning device that produces visible emissions, measured as any opacity, totaling 12 minutes in any hour that cross onto land or buildings immediately adjacent to a dwelling or commercial building not owned by the owner of the outdoor wood-burning device creates a nuisance.

Massachusetts (2022)

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) regulations limit visible smoke (or "opacity") and prohibit air pollution that places people at risk, interferes with property uses, threatens natural resources, or creates nuisances, such as excessive odor and soot.

Oregon (2014)

Wood smoke in Oregon

* Existing sources outside special control areas. No person may emit any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is equal to or greater than 40% opacity.
* New sources in all areas and existing sources within special control areas: No person may emit any air contaminants for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is equal to or greater than 20% opacity.

Utah (2021)

* A nuisance is anything which is injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. A nuisance may be the subject of an action.
* A nuisance under this part includes tobacco smoke that drifts into any residential unit a person rents, leases, or owns, from another residential or commercial unit. [There is no mention of wood smoke or opacity in the nuisance provisions of the Utah Code.]

MODEL ORDINANCE

California Bay Area model ordinance

No person shall cause or allow a visible emission from any wood-burning device in any building or structure that exceeds No. 1 on the Ringlemann Chart or 20 percent opacity for a period or periods aggregating more than three consecutive minutes in any one hour period. Visible emissions created during a fifteen-minute start-up period are exempt from this regulation.

CITIES AND COUNTIES

Albuquerque, NM

* Certified wood heaters may be operated during a no-burn period provided that no visible emissions are produced after a twenty (20) minute period following start up or refueling.
* During a period in which the Director has not declared a no-burn, no person shall operate a solid fuel heating device in a manner which produces emission into the atmosphere if the emissions exceed 30 % opacity twenty (20) minutes or longer after ignition or refueling of the solid fuel burning device. Visible emission opacity shall be determined by an observer certified by the Director.

Amherst, MA

Smoke shall not exceed an average of 20% opacity for any 2-minute period during an hour or average of 40% for 6 minutes after start-up.

Davis, CA

The emission into the open air of visible smoke from any residential indoor non-wood pellet-burning appliance or any non EPA-Phase II certified wood burning appliance or fireplace used for home- heating purposes in such manner or in such amounts as to endanger or tend to endanger the health, comfort, safety or welfare of any reasonable person, or to cause unreasonable injury or damage to property or which could cause annoyance or discomfort in the area of the emission, is prohibited.

Eugene, OR (2021)

* During a green or yellow advisory, no person in charge of property shall operate or allow to be operated a solid-fuel space-heating device which discharges emissions that are of an opacity greater than 40 percent. This provision does not apply to the emissions during the building of a new fire, for a period or periods aggregating no more than ten minutes in any four-hour period.
* Upon a determination that a person has violated section 6.255 of this code, the city manager may impose upon the violator and any other person in charge of the property, an administrative penalty not greater than $500.

Fort Collins, CO
* After the first 15-minutes of start-up, smoke from the chimney must be at or less than 20% opacity (smoke should be barely visible looking at it with your back to the sun).
* Violation of City Code can result in a summons to appear in municipal court resulting in a fine of up to $1,000 and 180 days in jail.

Juneau, AK (2008)

No person may operate a solid fuel-fired heating device in such a manner that visible emissions reduce visibility through the exhaust for more than 15 minutes in any one hour by 50% opacity or greater.

St. Louis, MO (2021)

"The emission or escape into the ambient (outside) air within the City from any source or sources whatsoever of smoke, ashes, dust, soot, cinders, dirt, grime, acids, fumes, gases, vapors, odors, or any other substances or elements in such amounts as are detrimental to, or endanger the health, comfort, safety, welfare, property, or the normal conduct of business shall constitute a public nuisance, and it is considered unlawful for any person to cause, permit, or maintain any such public nuisance.  The Commissioner of Health and or his or her designee operating as Delegated Agents of the State of Missouri, may give additional consideration to the presence of emissions that cause severe annoyance or discomfort, or are offensive and objectionable to a significant number of citizens as determined by the Commissioner of Health and or his or her designee within the City of St. Louis Department of Health."

Vancouver, WA

* State law limits the density of smoke from indoor fires to ensure that people use clean burning techniques. This requirement is called the 20 percent smoke opacity limit. Opacity means how much your view through the smoke is blocked.
* 100 percent opacity means you can't see anything through the smoke. 20 percent opacity means there is very little smoke and you can see almost perfectly through it. If you use dry enough fuel, the right equipment, and give your fire the right amount of air, there should be no visible smoke from your chimney or stove pipe--only heat waves.
* There are two exceptions to the opacity rule which allow you limited time for denser smoke:
• Starting the fire. You have up to 20 minutes every four hours.
• Stoking the fire. You have up to six consecutive minutes in any one-hour period.

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.

An Open Letter to the Utah Legislature in Support of Outdoor Wood Boiler Regulations

The Utah legislature is moving quickly to overturn very reasonable and fair regulations on outdoor wood boilers. Please consider adding your signature to the open letter below, urging Utah to keep the regulations approved by their Air Quality Board.

Utah's regulations allow the installation of EPA Phase 2 outdoor wood boilers in most of the state, but ban them from the very populated areas around Salt Lake which are in air quality non-attainment.

An outdoor boiler manufacturer is aggressively fighting to get the legislature to overturn those regulation based on many misleading statements. Click here for the flyer being circulated to Utah Senators, which argues that outdoor boilers are far more efficient and cleaner than stoves.

The legislation, HB 394, was passed by the Utah house yesterday by a vote of 79 to 12. It moved to the Senate today and will be voted on Wednesday or Thursday without being referring to any committee for a hearing. This legislation will "amend the powers of the Air Quality Board" and prohibit them from "regulating the sale, installation, replacement or operation of an outdoor wood boiler any differently from any other solid fuel burning devices."

If the Senate passes this measure, unregulated and unqualified outdoor wood boilers will be allowed to be installed in Utah.

If you can add your name to the letter below, please email your name (and affiliation if you want your affiliation to appear on the letter) to melissa@forgreenheat.org by no later than 4:00 pm on Wednesday, March 13.

For more information about this, click here.

*****

Dear esteemed members of the Utah Senate,

We, the undersigned, are writing to urge you not to vote for HB 394 which would overturn Utah's outdoor wood boiler regulations.

The Utah rule finalized by the Air Quality Board is very reasonable, fair and consistent with efforts and regulations in many other states. Revoking the rule is unwarranted and unwise and will open up a market for boiler companies to sell extremely polluting and unregulated appliances.

The efforts to overturn this regulation are based on misleading and inaccurate claims, as set forth in the flyer "Some Facts About HB 294." For example, the flyer claims:

"Outdoor wood boilers are completely legal in 49 other states and only banned in Utah's non-attainment areas."

"Outdoor wood boilers are many times more efficient than EPA certified indoor wood burners."

States all over the country are enacting regulations similar to the ones Utah developed. These regulations are reasonable and necessary to prevent the spread of the most polluting wood burning device in America -- outdoor wood boilers that are not EPA qualified.

At the very least, this bill deserves a full hearing and should not be voted on quickly at the very end of the legislative session. We urge you to protect the reputation of the Utah Senate and not vote for this flawed bill that is based on so many misrepresentations.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

Outdoor boilers cleaner than wood stoves, boiler lobby tells Utah legislators

Legislators move to overturn outdoor boiler regulations

In a heated fight over whether outdoor boilers should be allowed in areas of Utah with poor air quality, the outdoor boiler lobby is trying to sway lawmakers with data that purports to show that boilers are cleaner than wood stoves.

However, the opposite is usually true.  Wood stoves tend to be far, far cleaner than conventional outdoor wood boilers.  Data provided by Central Boiler was deliberately misleading, and was dismissed by experts.

(Update: The outdoor wood boiler lobby was not successful and in March 2013 Utah passed regulations that restrict what types can be installed in Utah.)

The lead Utah resident pushing for regulations that would allow outdoor boilers, Daniel Leavitt, represented himself as a concerned citizen to the Utah Air Quality Board, and the Utah paper refers to him as a resident who operates his outdoor wood boiler to heat his home. But what the paper didn't mention is that Leavitt is also a prominent Utah lawyer specializing in government relations and the brother of the former Governor of Utah. In addition, Leavitt was being paid by Central Boiler, the boiler manufacturer leading the campaign.

In February, Utah adopted regulations that allowed the installation of Phase 2 outdoor boilers in most of the state but banned them in populated areas that do not meet federal air quality attainment standards. Central Boiler had fought against the regulations but were ultimately unsuccessful. 

After the regulations were promulgated, the boiler manufacturer took its case to the legislature. On March 7, a near unanimous legislative committee sided with Central Boiler. They approved HB394, which “prohibits the Air Quality Board from regulating the sale, installation, replacement, or operation of an outdoor wood  boiler differently than other solid fuel burning
 devices.” Om March 11, the bill was passed by the Utah House and moved to the Senate.

Central Boiler submitted comments arguing that Phase 2 outdoor boilers “are cleaner than EPA certified wood stoves.” David Leavitt, the "concerned citizen" hired by Central Boiler, is also carrying that message. "These outdoor wood boilers are vastly more efficient than burning anything indoors," he told the Deseret News.  

“Utah legislators should understand that even the best wood stoves and wood boilers are only as clean as the wood that is loaded in them,” said John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat, a independent non-profit promoting cleaner and more efficient wood heating. Outdoor wood boilers have fireboxes usually ranging from 14-60 cubic feet while a wood stove firebox is 2-3 cubic feet.

"Outdoor boilers are often loaded with large, unseasoned and unsplit logs and trash, unlike stoves. This is a key reason that states regulate outdoor wood boilers and not stoves. Central Boiler advertisements showing efficiencies in the 90s are based on calculations that have been repudiated by the EPA," Ackerly added.

The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) said the objections that that Central Boiler and Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA) had with the regulations were “similar” and publicly responded to them. Privately, some people say the positions of Central Boiler and HPBA had key differences but the public record does not reveal what they were.  

According to the Utah DEQ, the issues raised by Central Boiler and HPBA included:

• DEQ appears to place greater weight to various out-of-state agencies and others who are generally skeptical towards the emissions reduction results achieved under the US EPA hydronic heater program.
• DEQ has not provided scientific data or other rationale supporting what types of outdoor wood boilers were allowed under the rule.
• DAQ has not published any data showing that outdoor furnaces currently make impacts within the nonattainment and maintenance areas or that they will contribute to the exceedance of the NAAQS.
• The 1000 ft. setback from schools is not necessary based on modeling conducted by the State of New York.

In response to the first proposed regulations, Central Boiler argued that the “rule lacks scientific support and would unfairly prohibit Utah residents from purchasing and using clean-burning wood furnaces.” A main thrust of Central Boilers argument is that Phase 2 boilers “are cleaner than EPA certified wood stoves.” Specifically they claim that “average emissions for a Phase 2 OHH are 77% less than those from EPA-Certified woodstoves.” The full submission by Central Boiler can be found here.

"These outdoor wood boilers are vastly more efficient than burning anything indoors," Levitt said.

In response to repeated misleading advertising practices, the EPA sent letters to outdoor boiler manufacturers requesting them to desist from certain claims and statements.  

The EPA listed actual efficiencies of Phase 2 outdoor wood boilers at 39 to 78% efficient in 2013 with an average of 63%.  In 2016, after all boilers were required to meet EPA emission and safety regulations, efficiencies rose to an average of 74% and a top rated unit at 82% efficiency. As of November 2017, many units are above 85% efficiency and the highest at 90% efficiency.

Update, 3/13/13: The Alliance for Green Heat is organizing a sign-on letter to the Utah Legislature urging them to not vote for the Senate bill without at least a full hearing. Click here for more details.