EPA watchdog issues second stinging report on the EPA’s wood heater program

The EPA’s Office of Inspector General found continued lack of enforcement of the EPA wood heater regulations, more than a year after its first major investigative report found similar issues. Unlike that in-depth report, this new report cites very specific details of instances where manufacturers and labs have violated EPA regulations.  It found that even when the EPA knew of significant violations, it did not take action to correct the problem.  

The wood heater manufacturing and test lab industry is a collegial community where members rarely publicly criticize other members, even when major violations of the EPA regulations are widely known. However, manufacturers often relay private complaints about their competitors to the EPA, putting the EPA on notice of a wealth of compliance issues.

“We call on EPA leadership to provide more resources toward the wood stove program and address systemic enforcement issues,” said John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat. “Its also vital for the public to know that pellet stoves are not involved in much of this controversy and that many wood stove manufacturers make good products, follow the law and are being undercut by those who knowingly skirt regulations,” Mr. Ackerly said.

Over the last 15 years, the only entity that has consistently published specific instances of non-compliance is the Alliance for Green Heat (AGH) in its monthly newsletter, and on its website.  Like the EPA, AGH is often contacted by industry members who are troubled by the conduct of other members.  The OIG listed five instances of abuse that the EPA overlooked and failed to take sufficient action, but there are scores more.  For instance, the internet continues to be rife with the sale of uncertified wood heaters, including outdoor wood boilers, which the EPA has known about for years, and appears not to have done anything.

  

US Stove sold 4,321 stoves before they were certified

This week’s report from the OIG follows up on several high-profile cases that AGH has pressed the EPA to address, including widespread fraud at US Stove Company which the EPA has been silent on for 5 years. In that case, an employee of US Stove was outraged and blew the whistle on his company.  US Stove then sued the whistleblower, getting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against him to shut him up, which the local Tennessee court said was “in the public interest.” 

 This week’s OIG report described how US Stove manufactured and sold 4,321 stoves before they were certified, and d859 of them were sold even before the test lab started testing the unit. Though the EPA had all of these details, it did lead to further action.

The stove in question was never officially recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  A list of wood and pellet stove recalls can be found here.

A second whistleblower came forward, providing extensive details of fraud to the EPA, imploring them to take action.  That person wrote: “To those of us who refused to cooperate with this fraud [at the US Stove Company], we had hoped that the EPA would step in, enforce its regulations, and thus provide some level of protection and dignity to whistleblowers. I expect US Stove may come after me, and possibly file a lawsuit against me, as they did with the first whistleblower. The company has dragged that man through the mud, and forced him to hire expensive lawyers, just because he was willing to stand up for EPA regulations.”

False advertising of efficiency

Another major issue that AGH has pursued over the years is false or misleading advertising of efficiency levels, often telling consumers that the unit is eligible for the IRS tax credit, which requires stoves to be 75% efficient, using the higher heating value (HHV). In one case, a test lab listed the stove at 70% efficient, but the manufacturer told consumers it was 75% efficient and eligible for the tax credit. The EPA sent the manufacturer a cease-and-desist request via email, which the manufacturer did not act upon.  The OIG report said the EPA could have revoked the certification of the stove but has not taken further action.  

 

False and misleading efficiency advertising was widespread up until 2021, when most manufacturers began to advertise the efficiency as reported by test lab, and listed in the EPA database of certified stoves. US Stove continued to falsely represent some of its units and declined to comment on the record. Stove Builder International, a large Canadian manufacturer insists that various interpretations of efficiency were acceptable until and unless the IRS defined “efficiency” more clearly. For example, some experts argue that if a stove reaches 75% efficiency on any official test burn, it can qualify even if the average efficiency of all four burns is less than 75%.

 

While the OIG vigorously raises the issue of false advertising of stove efficiencies, it is far from clear whether OECA even believes it has the authority to address efficiency.  Efficiency testing became mandatory in 2020 but the EPA began listing efficiencies in 2012. The EPA does not regulate efficiency, as most European countries do, allowing stoves as low as 51% efficient to be certified.

 

EPA lab served as own third-party certifier

One of the 5 incidents of concern in the OIG report included an EPA approved lab serving as its own third-party certifier of a test report it has produced.  Again, the EPA knew about this but did not revoke the certification and “the lab remained approved by the EPA.”  

 

Test labs are allowed to be third party certifiers and most of them are.  However, they cannot certify the results of stoves tested in their own lab.  PFS-TECO, Intertek, OMNI, RISE (Sweden) and SZU (Czech Republic) are both test labs and third-party certifiers.  PolyTest (Canada), ClearStak and the Danish Technological Institute are approved test labs but are not third-party certifiers. 

 

Deviation from test methods

A fourth concern raised by the OIG, which has already been resolved, involved Lamppa manufacturing who makes Kuuma wood furnaces.  Lamppa had obtained an alternative test method, but the test lab deviated from that method, due to complications.  The manufactured disclosed the deviation and explained why, and the EPA certified it anyway.  After 5 years, the EPA informed Lamp it would not recertify the unit, and Lamppa had to retest and recertify the unit.  

 

Recommendation to the EPA

 

The OIG listed several significant recommendations, some of which could be incorporated into the next set of wood stove regulations, known as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), which the EPA is currently working on.

 

·      Including a federal criminal false statement clause into the wood heater certification application process, which would require manufacturers, but not necessarily retailers, to not make false statements in their advertising.

·      Develop procedures to revoke the approval of test labs that do not follow NSPS requirements.

·      Develop procedures to revoke the certification of wood heaters that do not coply with NSPS requirements.

·      Inform the OIG of investigations into fraud or abuse of the wood heater NSPS.

 The  OIG report can be found here. 

Consumers can now rely on almost all stove tax credit certificates issued by manufacturers

A sampling of tax credit certificates
issued by various manufacturers 

After ten years, almost all stove and boiler manufacturers appear to be accurately informing their consumers about which models are eligible for the tax credit for wood heaters that are at least 75% efficient.  Some outlets, such as We Love Fire, a network of 280 hearth retailers, go out of their way to educate customers on how to ensure the stove they are buying qualifies for the credit and urges them to check the EPA’s database.

There was widespread exaggeration and misleading advertising about stove efficiencies in the preceding decade, and the EPA did not require wood and pellet stove manufacturers to disclose the efficiency of their models, or even to test for it until 2015.

Consumers are often advised to download the manufacturer certificate and keep it in their files, along with the receipt for the stove, as proof that they properly took the credit.  However, the IRS does not require manufacturer certificates, and a screenshot of the EPA database, showing an efficiency of at least 75% for your model is even better documentation.

 

When Congress passed the new, higher tax credit legislation in 2020, they specified that the minimum 75% efficiency level must be measured using the higher heating value (HHV), eliminating previous ambiguity. However, Congress did not specifically refer to the EPA’s database, which lists the HHV efficiency of all stoves, boilers and furnaces.  Almost all of industry accepts the EPA database should be used to confirm efficiencies and encourages consumers to check it.  The Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA), the industry’s largest association, broke from its past practice and took a strong position that consumers should rely on the EPA database to determine efficiency.

 

The Ashley line of stoves is owned 
by US Stove, which issued this
current certificate.

AGH reviewed scores of certificates issued by stove and boiler manufacturers by brands such as Hearthstone, Jotul, Lopi, Quadrafire and many others and found for the first time that they all were providing their consumers accurate information.  We found only one stove manufacturer, US Stove Company, still willing to list stoves as qualifying for the tax credit that are under 75% efficient.  US Stove issued a certificate saying that four of its pellet stove models qualified for the credit despite test reports from third party EPA-approved labs showing the models have efficiencies of 64%, 66% and 69% (which is also how they are listed on the EPA database).  (As of Sept. 2022, US Stove still claims these units qualify for the tax credit.) The average pellet stove is about 73% efficient. Their test reports are provided on the US Stove website.  

John Voorhees, Vice President for Compliance at US Stove, signed the tax credit certificate that states

The Ashley certificate juxtaposed with
the EPA database 

“Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this certification statement, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the facts are true, correct, and complete.”  AGH reached out to Mr. Voorhees for clarification and to ensure the US Stove position was included in this blog, and though we exchanged many emails and US Stove provided relevant information, the company declined to permit AGH to quote from that exchange.  AGH will update this blog if US Stove chooses to provide any information that we can make public.

 

It is unclear why US Stove singled out the four models on this certificate when other models are listed with higher efficiencies, though none are above 75% except for one pellet stove made by their Breckwell brand.  When the tax credit was first passed by Congress in 2009, most companies declared that all of their models qualified.  That year, US Stove issued a certificate saying that 24 models were eligible for the credit requiring a minimum of 75% efficiency.  

In 2009, like many manufacturers, US
Stove listed all or almost all of of their
 models as meeting the requirements of
the 75% minimum efficiency tax credit.

Today, most boiler and furnace companies also seem to be following Congress’s plain language and only certifying units at 75% or more.  Boiler efficiencies are more complex because there are several test methods and the resulting efficiencies aren’t as comparable as they are with wood and pellet stoves. AGH found one indoor wood furnace manufacturer, Hy-C who makes the Shelter furnace, tested at 70% efficiency by the lab but the company issues a Certificate of Qualification that it meets the 75% HHV threshold. 

 

Tax credits for consumer appliances have a variety of purposes, in addition to incentivizing consumers to buy higher efficiency appliances.  They are designed to influence manufacturers to improve product efficiency, accelerate market penetration of more efficient products and potentially prepare the market for future mandatory requirements.  Currently, there is no required minimum efficiency for wood and pellet heaters.  For pellet stoves like the ones in question, they range from 58% efficient for a model produced by US Stove, to an 87% efficiency unit from Cleveland Iron works.

 

Wood and pellet stoves and boilers are an excellent way to reduce fossil fuels and affordably heat your home, especially in seasons like this one when fossil fuel prices are high.  Federal tax credits are an efficient way to help households reduce fossil fuel use with a renewable, low carbon fuel.  However, unless consumers use seasoned wood of under 20% moisture content, wood stoves can produce excessive smoke and will not reflect the efficiency achieved in the test lab.  AGH considers pellet stoves to be the optimum choice, as their combination of high efficiencies and very low particulate matter make them suitable for both rural and more densely inhabited towns and suburban areas.  Unlike wood stoves, the efficiency numbers achieved in the lab can generally be achieved by consumers if the unit is maintained properly. 

 

Even though most manufacturers are now issuing tax credit certificates for stoves that are at least 75% efficient, AGH urges consumers to also check the EPA’s database of wood heaters to be sure.  AGH has been in touch with IRS officials, urging them to issue guidance that wood heaters must be listed at 75% efficient or higher on the EPA database to close any remaining loopholes that a few manufacturers still try to use.  

Further reading

AGH urges the IRS to recognize efficiencies in the EPA database, Feb. 2021

Guidance on the 26% tax credit for wood heaters, Jan. 2021

A review of wood and pellet stove efficiency ratings, Jan. 2014, updated May 2020

How to claim the tax credit, Feb. 2018, updated Jan. 2021

AGH urges IRS guidance to recognize efficiencies in the EPA Database

 Attorneys for AGH have facilitated numerous phone calls and correspondence between AGH and the IRS staff who write guidance for Section 25D of the US tax code that provides tax credits for residential renewable energy property.  This summarizes our communications with IRS attorneys and staff.

 

The Alliance for Green Heat (AGH) strongly urges the IRS to issue guidance on which wood and pellet heaters are eligible for the new 26% ITC tax in Section 25D.  Congress added  “qualified biomass fuel property expenditures” to section 25D.  Just as with Section 25C, this include stoves, boilers and furnaces that use biomass as fuel.  (Ninety-nine percent of biomass heaters use wood or wood pellets, but corn or wood chips could be used as well.)

 

Modern wood and pellet heaters are an important part of the array of renewable technologies we need to combat climate change. This tax credit is an important policy tool to help taxpayers reduce their fossil heating fuel usage with a renewable fuel.  By targeting wood and pellet heaters that are at least 75% efficient, Congress is helping taxpayers afford the more expensive and cleaner heaters.  Congress is also benefitting those stove manufacturers who invested in the R&D to make more efficient heaters and encouraging all manufacturers to reach higher efficiency levels in the future.  

 

Your guidance can be very simple: to be eligible for the 25D tax credit, wood and pellet heaters (e.g. qualified biomass fuel property expenditures) must have an efficiency of 75% or higher on the EPA-Certified Wood Stove Database.  

 

You may want to also add that manufacturers cannot issue certificates of eligibility unless their heater is rated at 75% efficient or higher on the EPA-Certified Wood Stove Database.  Instead of taxpayers keeping manufacturers certificates of eligibility in their files, they could simply rely on the EPA database. 

 

We urge the IRS to act quickly on this because the tax credit is already in effect and manufacturers, retailers and consumers need to be sure which heaters qualify.  While we believe the plain meaning of the credit already is clear and that the EPA database is the obvious, authoritative resource, significant abuse of the credit is likely unless you issue timely guidance.

 

To be eligible the biomass fuel property, Congress stated that heaters must have “a thermal efficiency rating of at least 75 percent (measured by the higher heating value of the fuel).”  The IRS should provide guidance that the EPA Certified Wood Stove Database is the way to determine which heaters are at least 75% efficient. Note that the EPA maintains a data for room heaters (stoves) and for central heaters (boilers and furnaces).  Both of these databases use the higher heat value to measure efficiency and every EPA certified heater has a verified efficiency from an EPA approved third party test lab. 

 

The column in the EPA database is titled “Overall Efficiency” which they define as “the percentage of heat that is transferred to the space to be heated when a load of fuel (e.g., firewood, pellets) is burned.” Thus it is clear that their use of “overall efficiency” refers to thermal efficiency, as used by the US Congress.  

 

There is no other consistent, reliable and transparent way for stakeholders to determine the efficiency of qualified biomass fuel property other than using the efficiency listings on the EPA Certified Wood Heater Database.  Allowing manufacturers to issue certificates of eligibility based on cherry-picking the highest efficiency of one burn rate, rather than using the average of all the burn rates does not conform to the plain meaning of Congress’s intention.  If Congress wanted virtually all wood and pellet stoves and boilers to qualify, it could have either removed any reference to efficiency, or specifically said that the efficiency of any burn rate or test would qualify. Note that Congress also did not specify that efficiency numbers had to come from a third party, EPA approved test lab during a certification test.  Thus, a clever industry lawyer could argue, that in addition to choosing the highest efficiency number from any burn rate, they could also use their own test labs to determine efficiency or use a test from third party lab that was not part of a certification test.

 

Unfortunately, the wood and pellet stove industry has a track record of subverting the plain language that Congress has used when it defined which stoves should be eligible for the previous, $300 tax credit under section 25C.  Up until Jan. 1, 2021, when wood and pellet heaters were under Section 25C manufacturers could use the lower heating value, but more importantly, they did not have to disclose the efficiency of the stove at all, or to disclose whether it was from a third-party lab or their own lab. Thus, virtually every single wood and pellet heater qualified for the Section 25C tax credit.  AGH wrote many blogs about this problem, and how manufacturers were able to take advantage of this tax credit and mislead consumers into thinking they were buying stoves at 75% efficiency or higher.

 

We do not recommend that taxpayers rely on a certificate from the manufacturer, unless the IRS states that a manufacturer can only issue a certificate if it is consistent with the efficiency listing on the EPA database of certified stoves.  

 

In addition, your guidance could state that in order to eligible for the 25D tax credit, the biomass fuel property must be EPA certified and appear on the Database of EPA Certified stoves.  All residential heaters on the market today are supposed to be certified by the EPA.  Fireplaces and chimeneas are not considered be residential heaters, thus they are not covered by EPA regulations. Typically, they also do not have or advertise thermal efficiency values.  But there is always some company that will try to get their uncertified product eligible for the credit unless the IRS makes it clear what can be eligible.

 

Various sectors of the wood heating industry may urge you to use a different definition of 75%.  Currently,  the website of the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA) says that pending the expected IRS guidance, “the EPA certified wood heater database may be referenced.”  The Alliance for Green Heat worked with HPBA from 2017 through 2020 and they had been in agreement that the EPA database should be used to determine efficiency.  However, we understand that the Association’s Solid Fuel Section no longer has consensus on a position, and the Association is no longer able to take a position at this time. We understand that some leading companies believe that they can claim eligibility if any single burn rate was 75% or greater, instead of using the average of the burn rates.  This could result in an overwhelming majority of stoves being declared eligible.  Currently, about 45% of all wood and pellet stoves, boilers and furnaces would be eligible, based on the EPA list.

 

The only class of heater that has a good claim to high efficiency but cannot readily take advantage of this tax credit are masonry heaters.  Masonry heaters are currently exempt from EPA emission standards and thus do not have a pathway to measure and report emissions or efficiency.  While many masonry heater models are indisputable 75% efficient or higher, there is not a consistent, transparent way to compare them and find their efficiency, as there is with EPA certified stoves and boilers.  

According to the DOE website masonry heaters "produce more heat and less pollution than any other wood- or pellet-burning appliance."  The EPA website say Masonry heaters are typically very efficient heaters, and currently do not require EPA certification.   If the IRS is interested in finding a way to make masonry heaters eligible, I would encourage you to contact the Masonry Heater Association.  The Alliance for Green Heat is also available to provide you further detail about this uniquely clean and efficient class of wood heaters.

 

Congressional intent

 

AGH wrote a blog that looked at Congressional intent and noted that previous iterations of Congressional legislation included more detail.  For instance, For instance, the Home Energy Savings Act of 2019 said:

“This section would tighten energy efficiency standards for biomass stoves by requiring the efficiency to be determined in reference to the EPA’s “List of EPA Certified Wood Stoves,” “List of EPA Certified Hydronic Heaters,” or “List of EPA Certified Forced-Air Furnaces.” Biomass stoves, through 2020, would be required to have a thermal efficiency rating of at least 73 percent against these tighter standards. After 2020, biomass stoves would be required to have a thermal efficiency rating of at least 75 percent against these tighter standards.” 

This language was developed for Congress by a consortium of energy efficiency and other groups, including the Alliance to Save Energy, the ACEEE, our organization, HPBA and many others. This language turns up often in memos from this consortium to Congress, including this one on May 1, 2019.  If you scroll to the very bottom of the last page of that memo, you will find the suggested language for biomass heaters.

Biomass stove - Thermal efficiency of at least 75 percent. Product category cap of $300. 

o Proposed: Thermal efficiency of at least 73 percent higher heating value through 2020 – and 75 percent higher heating value after 2020 – as reported by the EPA on the "List of EPA Certified Wood Stoves" or “List of EPA Certified Hydronic Heaters” or “List of EPA Certified Forced-Air Furnaces.” Product category incentive cap raised to $400. 

Also please find attached an earlier memo signed by energy efficiency organization urging the IRS to use the North American higher heating value and the average efficiency.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.  I can be reached at 202-365-4765.  

Sincerely,

 

John Ackerly,

President

 

 

 

Wood and pellet stove companies that you can trust – and those you can’t

When it comes to listing accurate efficiency and BTU output on their websites, there are only a handful of companies that you can trust.

Updated on January 11, 2018 - For years, wood and pellet stove companies have listed exaggerated efficiencies and BTU output on their websites and brochures and no agency has challenged them for this practice.  Luckily, the EPA has started to list efficiencies on their list of certified stoves, so consumers have a easy way to check company claims.  

Most wood and pellet stove manufacturers use a variety of ways to say their stoves are more efficient than they actually are, and that they put out more heat than they actually do.  BTU output is the other area where manufacturers routinely report misleading data to consumers.  In the case of BTU output, even the EPA was willing to post those exaggerated numbers on its website, further contributing to the problem.

These issues are coming to light in the wake of new EPA regulations that require more accurate reporting and require manufacturers to post the test reports of independent labs that certify wood and pellet stoves.  Many stove manufacturers are not complying with the new rules and will not post their certification reports for consumers to see but some companies are complying.

A few companies stand out for providing the same efficiency numbers to their consumers as the independent test lab provided to the EPA.  They are: Blaze King, Jotul, Kuma, J.A. Roby, Seraph, Travis and Woodstock Soapstone.  Consumers can trust the efficiency numbers that these companies post on their websites and in their promotional materials.  

The same is not true of other companies, including many leading brands.  Most companies list efficiencies using the European (LHV) method, which can produce efficiencies of more than 100% and make their stoves appear 5 - 8 points higher than they actually are.  But some companies go further, publishing efficiencies that are 15 - 29 points higher than they actually are. 

The largest stove maker in the country, Hearth & Home Technologies (HHT), that owns Dutchwest, Harman, Heatilator, Quadra-Fire, Vermont Castings and others brands, published test lab reports for all their brands, several weeks after this blog first came out (in May 2016), which noted that they had not complied.  The company also says that actual efficiency numbers from independent test labs are recorded in the owners manuals in their stoves.  The result is that consumers see the exaggerated LHV efficiency on the brochures and website and then see the real number, often 5-10% lower, in the fine print of the owners manual.

HHT companies provide their lab reports on pages like these for Quadrafire, Harman.  For those and other HHT brands almost all the lab reports pre-dated the new EPA regulations, so actual efficiencies and BTU output are not included.  HHT has declined to voluntarily disclose efficiencies, like companies such as Jotul and Hearthstone have done.

One of the foremost experts in the hearth industry Dr. James Houck, an adjunct faculty member at the University of Portland in Oregon, used to work for Omni Test labs, the most well known test lab in the US.  He says, “Many of the pellet (and cordwood) stove efficiency values have been produced by commercial labs which optimized conditions and calculation methods." 

A wood stove test lab.

Under the new EPA stove regulations, known as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), labs may be more restrained from optimizing conditions and calculation methods and will be producing more accurate efficiency and BTU output numbers for consumers.  Still, labs are under pressure from their clients to produce the best possible emission, efficiency and BTU numbers, or they may take their business to a lab they think can produce the best numbers.

The new EPA rules are requiring the test labs to produce more accurate BTU output data, which is crucial for consumers to right size the appliance for their home.  The result will be that BTU figures posted by the EPA after May 2015 when the new rules began will be lower than the figures posted before May 2015.  

The EPA has not started enforcing some of the provisions of the 2015 regulations which are being ignored by many companies. And, its enforcement capabilities are slim, a fact that is not lost on the industry that it regulates. State agencies could help enforce the new regulations, particularly for manufacturers based in their states and if stakeholders in the state pressure them to do so.

Under the new rules, an independent lab testing the St. Croix Hastings pellet stove reported that it produced 7,000 – 27,000 BTU per hour.  However, the St. Croix website says the stove produces up 40,000 BTU per hour.  Many manufacturers used to use the BTU input, which is the amount of BTUs available in the fuel, rather than the BTU output from the stove.  But The EPA has been recording estimated and often exaggerated BTU figures on its list of certified stoves for many years and it will be a slow process for them to start recording more accurate BTU figures from new test reports.  The Alliance for Green Heat has urged the EPA to remove all exaggerated BTU data from their list of certified stoves and only post actual BTU output that is determined by an independent lab using an approved calculation.

“The problem with companies using all manner of efficiency and BTU calculations is there is a disincentive to report more accurate numbers that would make your stoves look less efficient and less powerful,” said John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat, a consumer focused wood heating non-profit organization.  “The new EPA rules are starting to change what gets posted on its list of certified stoves, but manufacturers can still virtually post whatever they want on their websites and no state or federal agency monitors that, as they do with cars and most consumer appliances,” Ackerly said.

Some companies are beginning to post their lab reports on their websites, so consumers who want extensive technical details can have access to them.  The reports are dense, often long and hard to digest, but can provide useful insights for those who want very detailed, technical information.  Blaze King, Enviro, Kuma and St. Croix were the first to post test lab report for all their stoves.  Jotul and HHT companies Quadrafire, Harman, Vermont Castings, Heat & Glo, Heatilator, Majestic and Eco-Choice now post them as well.   For some companies, such as St Croix, those test lab reports reveal that they have far higher efficiency and BTU numbers in their promotional materials.  Lab reports can also help consumers understand what air settings or power levels their stove is likely to be cleanest, dirtiest, most efficient and least efficient.

Lab reports from testing that was done prior to 2015 usually do not have efficiency numbers or have been whited out.  Some of the posted lab reports are from as early as 1989, are hundreds of pages long and by test labs that no longer exist such as EEMC, Lokee Labs and Northwest Testing.

Advice for consumers:  Beware of efficiency and BTU output claims on websites and promotional literature of wood and pellet stove manufacturers.  The only companies who accurately report their efficiencies on their websites that we are aware of are Blaze King, Kuma and Seraph, Travis and Woodstock Soapstone.  The EPA’s list of certified wood stoves contains more and more actual efficiency numbers and is one of the few reliable places for efficiency information.  Many companies are still holding out disclosing lab reports to consumers.  If you want to be certain you are buying a higher efficiency stove, buy one that discloses their actual efficiency and actual BTU output on the list of EPA certified stoves.  For more information on this topic and a list of stoves that have actual efficiency numbers, check our blog post, A Review of Wood and Pellet Stove Efficiency Ratings.

(This blog will be periodically updated as more data becomes available or if the companies mentioned reply to queries)

More than 40,000 new, uncertified stoves sold each year says EPA

The EPA recently released a figure of 40,000 uncertified, exempt stoves being sold each year.  An estimate on the volume of sales of these stoves had long been sought by the EPA and others, but manufacturers would not supply them.  Exempt wood stoves are not required by the EPA to meet any emissions standards and they are likely to emit five to ten times the smoke and particulates of an EPA certified stove.  These exempt, uncertified stoves usually sell for $200 to $500 a piece.  In contrast, EPA certified stoves typically start around $650. More and more used EPA stoves are coming onto the second hand market in the $300 - $800 price range.

Lit'l Sweetie, a typical exempt,
uncertified wood stove that has been
a popular seller in the US

Since the year 2000, about 135,000 EPA certified wood stoves and inserts have been sold each year, making the 40,000 new, uncertified stove market a considerable part of overall stoves sales in the US.  To get a sense of the robust exempt wood stove market, consumers can search for “wood stove” at Amazon.com.  Usually the majority of stoves shown for sale on the site are exempt, including barrel stove kits.

Next year the EPA is proposing to ban the production and sale of exempt wood stoves.  There is little doubt that the final rule will put an end to the sale of stoves that do not need to meet emission standards.  At the EPA’s pubic hearing in Boston on the proposed regulations, Steve Vogelzang, founder of the company that may have sold the most exempt wood stoves in the US, called on the EPA to reconsider their proposal, arguing that there is still a need for stoves like these to go into cabins and workshops.  He added that, if the EPA moves forward on the ban, “we are going to remove the most affordable stoves from the market.”  To read the full analysis of the impact of the EPA’s proposed regulations, see pp. 110 – 144 of the proposed rule.

One problem with exempt stoves is trying to keep them out of jurisdictions that they are not allowed to be sold in.  Washington and California have long banned new installations of them, and many retailers list those states as places they cannot be shipped to.  They are also not allowed to be sold or installed in Oregon and the Denver and Salt Lake City areas.  Vogelzang, probably the largest manufacturer of exempt stoves, does not provide any information to consumers on its website about where they can be shipped or installed.  US Stove, which now owns Vogelzang and is also a major manufacturer of exempt stoves, tells its consumers that they can’t ship to Washington and California, but does not mention Oregon or parts of Utah and Colorado.  According to Paul Williams, National Sales Manager for US Stove, while they may not have the information on their websites, when they get they calls and emails for exempt stoves, “our answer ... is they are not shipped to CA, OR, WA, CO and UT.”

Northern Tool + Equipment, a major in-store and online retailer that sells exempt wood stoves, advertises that the Vogelzang Lit’l Sweetie “meets or exceeds EPA requirements for exempt wood stoves.”  In reality, the Lit’l Sweetie does not meet or exceed any EPA emissions requirement, but is exempt from them.  The Alliance for Green Heat spotlighted this misleading advertising in September 2012 but misleading language is still common in advertisements for exempt stoves.  Northern Tool’s website is programmed to not take orders for exempt stoves from addresses in states where exempt stoves cannot be shipped.

Amazon.com, a venue many consumers turn to for everyday needs, may be the best major retail outlet for informing consumers that exempt stoves can’t be shipped to WA, OR, CA, UT or CO.  The site has a variety of sellers with product descriptions and also allows for consumers to directly ask and answer questions about the product.  Similarly, Home-Depot is good on both providing customer information and regulating the purchasing of exempt stoves.  They clearly label the stove as EPA exempt, say that they cannot ship to WA, OR, CA, UT or CO and the website will not let consumers purchase from those states.