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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industry and Air Quality Agencies Spar at EPA’s Public Hearing on New Wood Stove Regulations

Most of the controversy at the EPA’s public hearing on their new residential wood heater regulations was not about outdoor wood boilers or other unregulated heaters but about the traditional wood stove.

Greg Green, Alison Simcox and Gil
Wood from the EPA listen to testimony
at the Boston public hearing.

The largest bloc of speakers was from industry that appeared to have a well-coordinated, consistent message that these rules are ill-conceived and counter-productive.  Most of the industry speakers made the point that the rules would likely raise the cost of stoves considerably, thereby slowing the switch from old, more polluting stoves to new, cleaner ones.  They said that the solution to wood smoke should focus on changing out older stoves, not trying to squeeze another gram per hour or two out of newer ones.

More than a dozen air quality officials and advocates spoke just as passionately about the need for cleaner stoves, expressing general support for the proposed regulations and arguing for a short timetable for them to take effect.  State officials from New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota and Washington argued for the regulations while one state, Maine, sided much more with industry.  Patricia Aho, Commissioner from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection expressed many reservations about the proposed rule, including strong reservations about a move toward more catalytic stoves.  Several state officials called for Phase 1 standards, which take effect right away, to be stricter.

An assistant for Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont said the Senator was generally supportive and would be providing formal written comments.  He, like many of the speakers, talked about the importance of wood stoves for middle and lower-income consumers.  A legislator from Missouri on the opposite side of the political spectrum said it is clear that the “EPA is trying to outlaw wood stoves” and that the EPA should not allow “environmental groups to be involved in the rulemaking.”

One notable difference between the EPA and most state officials is that the latter all talked about the importance of wood and pellets as a local, affordable and renewable energy source, themes that are largely absent in the EPA proposal or website.

One consistent talking point echoed by many industry presenters was that catalytic stoves performed well only in the laboratory and that consumers did not operate them well in their homes, leading to excess pollution.  Many in industry called on the EPA to allow non-catalytic stoves to meet a more lenient emission standard while holding cat stoves to a more stringent one.  Tom Morrissey, owner of Woodstock Soapstone vigorously defended catalytic stoves and called into question a report funded by US and Canadian non-cat producers.

While most of industry speakers supported change-outs over tighter emission standards for new stoves, one manufacturer who makes the exempt, uncertified stoves seemed to be advocating for the continued ability to sell these stoves.  The EPA estimates that about 20,000 new exempt, uncertified stoves are sold and installed each year. 

Many of the manufacturers argued for the need for sell-through periods and more lead-time to comply with the new standards.  Other stakeholders called for an end of the sale of unqualified outdoor wood boilers as soon as possible, with no sell-through period. 

An importer of European boilers urged the EPA to also accept the Brookhaven test method for boilers with thermal storage and set an achievable emission target for that method which includes start-up emissions.  A retailer of Central Boiler outdoor boilers from New Hampshire talked about his lower-income consumers who could not afford a qualified unit, and urged the EPA to allow him to a reasonable sell-through period for his qualified units.

A manufacturer of fireplaces called on the EPA to regulate fireplaces, instead of exempting them again, as the EPA proposes.  The American Lung Association strongly supported this, also urging that fireplaces be regulated.  Several representatives of masonry stove builders urged the EPA to further work with them to ensure that their units could be certified.

The CEO of US Stoves noted that the SBA and OMB had serious problems with the EPA’s proposed rules and stressed how many of their customers were from low-income homes that are very sensitive to even small price increases.  US Stoves and others currently sell quite a few EPA certified models in the $600 - $900 range, comparable to the price of stoves in the 1970s when adjusted for inflation.

Several organizations, including the Alliance for Green Heat, spoke of the benefits of consumers having access to third-party verified efficiency numbers using a consistent efficiency measurement and having that number prominently displayed on a hang-tag on the showroom floor.  The EPA proposed to eliminate the hangtag with no explanation as to why.

Pro-wood heating group says EPA regulations reasonable and will help industry grow

The Alliance for Green Heat welcomed the release of proposed EPA regulations on residential wood and pellet heating equipment, saying that new, stricter emission standards “will help America embrace wood and pellet heating as a vital renewable energy that can help drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption.”

More than 10 million American homes heat with wood and pellets, ten times more than solar and geothermal combined, according to data from EIA and the US census. “We can harness the huge demand for this type of renewable energy if the stoves and boilers are clean enough,” said John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat. “We believe the emissions numbers released by the EPA today are reasonable and achievable and will help the wood stove industry grow and thrive in coming decades,” Ackerly continued.

The proposed rule has few surprises in terms of emission numbers. Virtually all the key numbers were included in draft proposed rules shared with industry, states and non-profits during 2013. But the proposed rule does reflect the much stricter numbers the EPA developed after states and air quality agencies intervened in 2012. Previously, the EPA was considering 2.5 grams per hour to be the strictest level for wood and pellet stoves. But last year, the EPA floated a 1.3 grams per hour for all pellet and wood stoves and that is the number that was released today.

The EPA is proposing that wood and pellet stoves initially meet a 4.5 grams per hour standard, and then meet a much stricter standard of 1.3 grams per hour 5 years after promulgation. Alternatively, the EPA proposes a 3-step process of going to 2.5 grams per hour after 3 years and then 1.3 grams an hour after 8 years.

Similarly, the EPA is proposing two options for furnaces and boilers. The first would establish strict emission limits after 5 years, and the second would have an intermediate step after 3 years, and then the stricter standard after 8 years. Initially, warm air furnaces would only be held to 0.93 lb/MMBTU, whereas hydronic heaters would be held to 0.32. Ultimately, both would need to reach 0.06 lb/MMBTU either 5 or 8 years after promulgation. It is widely anticipated that industry will advocate for the 3-step process and that EPA would be open to this as well.

The EPA’s press release said that “when these standards are fully implemented ... [c]onsumers will also see a monetary benefit from efficiency improvements in the new woodstoves, which use less wood to heat homes.” However, the EPA decided not to include any efficiency standard, leaving open the possibility that some very inefficient units may remain on the market. Wood and pellet heating appliances are the only HVAC equipment without minimum efficiency standards.

Both efficiency and CO would have to be recorded and reported under the new proposed rules. To avoid logjams in testing to the new standards, the EPA is proposing “to allow ISO-accredited laboratories and ISO-accredited certifying bodies to increase the availability of laboratories and certifiers.” 

The EPA is scheduling a public hearing on these regulations in Boston on February 26. Interested parties should register by February 19 at http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters if they want to make public comments. Each person will be limited to 5 minutes. The public has 90 days to comment on the regulations after they are posted in the Federal Register, which is expected to happen in the next week or two. 

The proposed rule does offer an unusual glimpse into disagreements between the EPA, the Small Business Agency (SBA) and the Office of Budget and Management (OMB).  In the Panel Report, the “SBA and OMB recommended that the EPA not move forward with proposed emission limits for pellet stoves, indoor hydronic heaters, biomass pellet stoves, masonry heaters.” The EPA however rejected this recommendation and provided a sound basis for their proposal to include pellet stoves, all hydronic heaters and masonry heaters.

The SBA and OMB also recommended that the NSPS only cover parts of the country where wood smoke pollution was high. They suggested that states and regions where wood smoke is not high be allowed to issue their own regulations and consider voluntary standards. The EPA chose to highlight and counter these recommendations in its proposed rule, showing that they have considered these options but found they were not justified.

The Alliance for Green Heat is a non-profit consumer advocacy organization that fights for cleaner and more efficient wood and pellet heating to help households affordably switch to a renewable heating fuel.

For the full regulations see: http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters

A summary of the regulations prepared by EPA, without emission numbers, can be found here:
www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-12/documents/proposed_wood_heater_nsps_overview_fact_sheet_1.pdf