EPA reverts to stricter wood stove testing

Agency scuttles one problematic test method, while backing another

The EPA announced that it was withdrawing the most commonly used test methods to certify wood stoves to EPA emission standards.  Those methods, ALT-125 and ALT-127, were developed by an ASTM committee and were the first ever designed to certify wood stoves using cordwood, instead of 2x4s and 4x4s, known as “cribs.” 

To hasten the transition from crib testing to cordwood testing, the EPA allowed cordwood tests to meet a looser 2.5-gram ceiling on particulate matter instead of 2.0 grams with cribs.  The protocol quickly gained favor with stove manufacturers as it was easier to meet the EPA threshold for fine particles in wood smoke.

By withdrawing those methods, the majority of stoves will have to be retested over the next 5 years with a different method, an expensive and time-intensive process for manufacturers.  Normally, the EPA rubber-stamps waivers from retesting for stove certifications every 5 years, and manufacturers have come to expect that, potentially allowing them to sell the same model for decades based on the original certification testing.

The EPA will honor certification tests using ALT-125 or ALT-127 completed prior to Feb. 23, 2022, the effective date for withdrawal of these alternative test methods.  The EPA released details of the withdrawal were released Jan. 21 and will appear in the Federal Register on Jan. 24, 2022.

Nine states had petitioned the EPA to withdraw ALT-125 and 127.  The EPA summarized the reasons cited by the states, saying the “method allows far too much flexibility within the methodology, such that a test lab can ‘explore’ in its testing to find approaches for passing any appliance, regardless of design, ultimately resulting in a certification program where a manufacturer simply pays the lab to provide a passing test, rather than to measure the actual emissions from their appliance without such positioning.”

Crib testing, on the right has been 
used since 1988 to certify stoves.
ALT-125 and 127 used the more
realistic fuel, cordwood, on the left.

The agency is standing behind another problematic test protocol, ALT-140, indicating a trend of approving test protocols before it sufficiently understands and reviews the data that supports them. Tom Morrissey, head of Woodstock Soapstone, studied the ALT-140 method and says it is “unusable” in its current condition and blasts the EPA for approving a method designed in secrecy and does not disclose underlying data.

The EPA’s move is part of a multi-year trend of EPA relying more on the expertise and data developed by air quality groups, and less on the expertise and data from the main industry association, the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA). The EPA appears to have been approving alternative methods before they have been used to certify stove models based on the work of the stakeholder group that wants the approval of the test method.

The withdrawal will involve manufacturers going back to testing with cribs after making the much-heralded transition to using cordwood, which is what homeowners use. The ALT-140 test method uses cord wood but no manufacturer has used it and none are likely to use it, based on the more secretive way that it was developed and lack of data showing that it works.  ALT-140 was developed by NESCAUM through funding from NYSERDA and sources say that NYSERDA may not be allowing release of the data, even to the EPA.

Morrissey included this image to 
illustrate his analysis of ALT-140

Tom Morrissey released a paper accusing the EPA of a “bait and switch” tactic by approving a method that allowed a higher particulate matter threshold and then revoking it.  Many manufacturers consider the underlying ASTM method sound but concede that the method could be tightened up to reduce its flexibility, rather than revoking it.  A manufacturer could still tighten up the ASTM method and try to get the EPA to accept it again, but that can be a long, expensive and uncertain process.  It is not uncommon for the EPA to revise methods and it is highly likely that ALT-140 will have to be revised.

The EPA approved the ASTM protocol for certifying wood stoves in 2018 after a lengthy and transparent 4-year development process by an ASTM committee dominated by industry insiders.  Many EPA and state officials were part of that process, but few had voting rights. Most were monitoring the process from the sidelines, and few had any background in test method development.  The EPA did not conduct any of its own tests to verify the method and NESCAUM was just building its own internal expertise.

 Within a few years, a majority of the stove models sold in the United States and Canada had been certified using the ASTM protocol, instead of the traditional Method 28 protocol that has been in place for decades.  The new ASTM method was being used to meet the stricter 2020 emission standards that required manufacturers to go from 4.5 grams of particulates an hour to 2.5 or less.  Currently, 90 out of 154 wood stoves were tested in EPA approved labs with the ASTM protocol. This rapid shift to cordwood testing began to draw scrutiny as reports emerged from a program run by the State of Alaska and NESCAUM.  Other reports emerged that some stoves did not have to change their design to cut their PM emissions in half, if they used the ASTM method. 

The intensive scrutiny from the state of Alaska found scores of deficiencies in most test reports, sending shock waves through the industry and the EPA offices that should have caught those errors.  In the process, regulators for the first time realized that the ASTM method allowed too much flexibility in key parts of the multi-day testing process.  Shortly after NESCAUM and the State of Alaska released details about the lack of EPA oversight of the stove certification program, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General announced it was conducting an internal investigation of the EPA’s certification program.  The results of that investigation will be made public later this year. 

 

Stove manufacturer documents scores of errors in NESCAUM report

NESCAUM responds to Morrissey as he issues Part 2 of his review

Tom Morrissey, owner of Woodstock Soapstone, a wood stove manufacturer, has written a blistering critique of a report that claimed the EPA wood stove certification process is “dysfunctional.”  

Tom Morrissey at his factory 
in West Lebanon, NH

The review by this independent manufacturer further ratchets up a conflict that has engulfed a section of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation.  The original report, “Assessment of EPA’s Residential Wood Heater Certification Program" by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), issued in March 2021, was based on a review of all test lab certification documents that had been sent to EPA to certify stoves to EPA’s regulatory standards.  The review was conducted jointly by the Alaska Department of Conservation (ADEC) and NESCAUM, with funding from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 

(June update: Tom Morrissey released part 2 of his review on June 15 and three days later, NESCAUM released their rebuttal to Morrissey's initial review.  NESCAUM appears to be standing behind its entire report and did not find any merit in Morrissey's critique.  On page 21, NESCAUM also addressed editorial comments in AGH's blog. Part 2 of Morrissey's critique mainly focuses on burn rate requirements adopted by ADEC as a deficiency, but not used by NYSERDA's IDC test method.  Morrissey also describes why the IDC will likely result in lower efficiencies because BTUs in the tail of the burn are not included and questions if the EPA should ever approve a test method where underlying calculations are not public.  AGH agrees with a substantial amount of the content in both the NESCAUM report and Morrissey's rejoinders and believe it's important for EPA officials, states and experts to consider both.)

NESCAUM and ADEC accused the EPA of running a dysfunctional certification program that “is easily manipulated by manufacturers and testing laboratories” and “EPA has done little to no oversight and enforcement.” Morrissey counters that NESCAUM and ADEC also have produced a dysfunctional assessment of the EPA program that is full of “error, bias and conflict of interest.”

We have excerpted key parts of Morrissey’s review below.  The full review, with scores of photos, can be downloaded here.  The Alliance for Green Heat believes it is important to consider both the NESCAUM report and rejoinders from Morrissey and another one from veteran lab technician Ben Myren together.  We believe there is substantial truth in all three of these documents.  Our initial response to the NESCAUM report was that it “overstated” its case, and AGH welcomes expert rejoinders that bring some balance to the conversation.  However, AGH still believes that EPA should take the NESCAUM report seriously because it is clear that the EPA certification and enforcement programs need significant improvement, and that these have been underfunded, understaffed and overlooked within the EPA.  

AGH also agrees that much of ADEC’s and NESCAUM’s review was hastily done without sufficient fact-checking.  The report carries an unfounded degree of authority that is now reverberating throughout the wood stove industry and its state and federal regulators, and the wider public is less likely to see these rejoinders.  NESCAUM and ADEC now have the opportunity to respond and explain some of the allegations in Morrissey's review or continue to stand behind that data that led to their conclusions. Numerous individuals have approached northeastern state government agencies who are members of NESCAUM, urging them to distance themselves from the report and not let their agency names be used on such reports in the future without more due diligence.

In early April, in response to the NESCAUM report, the EPA announced they were conducting an in-depth review of the certification process.  They placed most of the blame on the test labs and third party certifiers.  Morrissey’s review may cause the EPA to rethink its strategy and not put undue trust in the finding of the NESCAUM report.  Morrissey’s review is significant because he is not a member of the wood stove industry association and has often taken sides for and against industry interests – and the EPA’s. This is part 1 of his review and he expects to complete the second part in June.

AGH is concerned that the NESCAUM report, media coverage of it, and Morrissey and Myren’s rejoinder put so much focus on the inherent problems with wood stoves and the pollution they can cause, that the benefits of pellet stoves get overlooked.  Virtually nowhere is there recognition of the technology and reliability of pellet stoves and boilers as a far cleaner, renewable energy technology that can help households and businesses get off fossil heating fuel.  

Excerpts:

REVIEW (PART 1)

of

“ASSESSMENT OF EPA’s RESIDENTIAL WOOD HEATER CERTIFICATION PROGRAM” Written by NESCAUM, March 2021 

Page 1: In March 2021, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) published a document entitled “Assessment of EPA’s Residential Wood Heater Program (“Assessment”). The “Assessment” is the result of a review conducted by NESCAUM “in collaboration with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation” (ADEC). 

The “Assessment” is intended to influence “policymakers” by claiming 1) that the EPA Certification Program is dysfunctional and a systemic failure, 2) that there are a significant number of discrepancies and omissions in test reports submitted to EPA for approval, 3) that EPA has failed to conduct compliance audits, and 4) that the NESCAUM and ADEC could do a better job than EPA in, a) deter- mining which stoves are in fact the cleanest burning and, b) developing a test method for certifying wood burning appliances. NESCAUM has provided scant data to back up these major claims, and some of the data that it does present is riddled with discrepancies, omissions, bias errors, and conflict of interest, as detailed below. Bias is evident everywhere; in tone and use of language, in lack of transparency, in the selection of subjective criteria to attempt to discredit test methods and results, and in its attempt to advance NESCAUM’s own agenda4 with its “policy recommendations.” The bias is so pervasive that it undermines much of the “Assessment.” 

Page 3: In order to assess NESCAUM/ADEC’s data analysis and conclusions, we need to first look care- fully at its data collection methods and ask whether the underlying data is complete, credible, and unbiased. The main focus of this Part One of A Review of the “Assessment” is on how data was collected and tallied on “Summary Review Sheets” by ADEC. 

On the following pages I raise concerns about quality control, bias, and conflict of interest in NESCAUM/ADEC’s acquisition of data. It is clear that NESCAUM/ADEC reviewers lacked objectivity in assessing information, particularly with regards to the ASTM E-3053 method, and they reviewed individual test reports (knowingly or not) with the intent to discredit the ASTM E-3053 and advance their own interest in promoting the IDCTM method. 

Page 4: All ADEC data sheets that I have reviewed are undated and unsigned. Most have few, if any comments.  Many have unfilled spreadsheet boxes (data not collected). All of the ADEC reports of stoves made by Woodstock Soapstone Company have serious omissions, errors of fact, misreporting, and untrue statements. Of six Woodstock Soapstone Company models approved to the EPA 2020 Standards, two models were missing entirely, and one model was reviewed twice, on separate data sheets that were inconsistent and did not match (i.e., different reviewers looking at the same data, or the same reviewer on different dates looking at the same data). The fact that ADEC reviewed the same data twice, and the two completed spreadsheets are markedly different, speaks to the concern (also noted in footnote #2) about quality control. 

Page 5: On the pair of summary sheets where NESCAUM/ADEC inadvertently reviewed the same test report twice, there were 25 discrepancies between the two reports, including errors of transcription, op- posing claims that data was or was not reported, rounding errors, conflicting or inconsistent “flags” and numeric/arithmetic errors. This is not reassuring in terms of NESCAUM’s claimed consistency in generating the summary results, and raises the issue of whether NESCAUM’s own consistency and repeatability should be the subject of an audit. 

These two ADEC Summary Reports are reproduced on page 6, and an explanation of most of the errors on page 7. For simplicity sake, I refer to the report that is captioned Model 210a (but really Model 210) as Report A, and the Report that was (correctly) reviewing Model 210 as Report B. Both reports were posted and properly labeled on the Woodstock Soapstone website. But that’s not the point; these two reviews of the same report should produce similar, if not identical results, but they did not. 

These two Summary Sheets, which review the same test report,8 disclose obvious problems in the research and reporting methods employed by NESCAUM/ADEC, and the ability/willingness of NESCAUM/ADEC to impose meaningful quality controls on their inquiry. As noted early in this review (see footnote 2), there is little, if any, evidence of NESCAUM/ADEC cross-checking or vetting of the reviews or data in the “Assessment”. The task of auditing the “Assessment” and validating its so-called “data” and its various claims will now, probably, fall squarely on EPA. 

This is the central irony of this situation; NESCAUM’s own data and reporting is guilty of the same failures it attributes to EPA, namely failures in transparency, documentation, and auditing its own work product for consistency, impartiality, and accurateness. The EPA will now become responsible for cleaning up the NESCAUM mess. 

Page 8:  For the purpose of this initial review, I will focus mainly on stoves made by Woodstock Soap- stone Company. Next, I will examine the ADEC Summary Sheet for our Model 202/204. This is a “plain vanilla” Summary Sheet, compared to Model 210, on pages 6 and 7, above. 

ADEC encourages manufacturers to “review their certification test report summaries and submit corrections, and that any substantiated errors or corrections will be applied to the summary sheet.” So, I’ll just make the corrections here. On our Model 202/204, the initial ADEC summary sheet (see next page, LEFT COLUMN) makes the following errors (WHICH CUMULATIVELY TOTAL 13 FLAGS). I intend to address THREE ADDITIONAL RED FLAGS (related to Documentation of 1) run appropriateness, 2) run Validity, and 3) run anomalies on Part 2 of this Review. 

What is fascinating is that between early April 2021, when I downloaded the original Summary Review Sheet, and today (mid-May, 2021), ADEC performed an additional review and corrected some of its original errors, and made some new errors. Here are comments on the initial ADEC Summary Sheet. Comments on the revised Summary Sheet are on the next page. 

Page 10: According to the ADEC “PROCESS”, I am supposed to address all of these “issues” by

One of the many photos that
appear to provide evidence
contradicting ADEC "flags"

discussing them with ADEC, and maybe submitting modified or reformed test reports. Then ADEC will makes changes as it deems appropriate. Or not. 

Page 14: The “Assessment” claims that “90% of the stoves tested using ASTM E-3053 used debarked wood or failed to provide information about whether there was bark on the fuel.” (Assessment page 38) The “Assessment further claims that “61% of the stoves tested with ASTM E-3053 used squared wood for more than 50% of the pieces” (Assessment page 33), including the stove immediately above (Model 205) and the fuel for Model 202/204, pictured on pp 10-11. 

Based on my review, I cannot believe either of these claims. If the basic data underlying the “Assessment” is defective, then its claims of numerous deficiencies in testing and reporting, and its criticisms of ASTM E-3053 are suspect, because they are based on bad data. 

Page 19: I hope to have Part 2 in mid-June. There is a lot more to unpack in the “Assessment,” including: 

* The overall “Assessment” review strategy, and whether it is a credible basis for proceeding to the conclusions that the “Assessment” tries to come to. This strategy is basically to make a list of each and every requirement imposed by the NSPS, and then see if each and every item on the list can be identified in test reports, no matter how obscure or irrelevant the requirement might be. Otherwise, deficiencies are claimed by NESCAUM/ADEC without any apparent oversight or review, or any basis in fact. 

* The nexus of firebox size and calculation, loading direction, fuel length, and loading density. These are the second set of elements that the “Assessment” uses to criticize ASTM E-3053. 

* I’ll review this sentence, and how it has spawned innumerable “flags” (i.e., claims of violations of the NSPS) in the “Assessment’s flag-collection effort."

Despite claims of "devastating" impact, wood stove industry positioned to meet new emission standards

With the Step 2 deadline for wood and pellet stoves just a year away, most stove manufacturers say they are ready or will be soon. Many retailers also say they are ready, while others prepare to deeply discount stoves that can't be sold after May 2020. Gone are the days when industry was trying to convince Congress and the Administration that EPA's new stove regulations would have a "devastating" impact. Such claims are common in Washington, as groups try to rally their base, but it can also lead to a diminished credibility for an industry association if the hyperbole goes too far.

From the start, it was clear that the boiler and furnace manufacturers needed relief far more than stove companies and retailers.  Heads of outdoor boiler companies and indoor wood boilers that cost less than the average wood stove were leaders of a campaign to get Congress to give all classes of heaters a three-year delay in meeting the new standards.  At the same time, the industry association Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA) was challenging many of these standards in court, meaning a three-year delay could be permanent for some classes of heaters, if courts agreed with HPBA.  But it was never clear that stoves needed any delay and industry effort would have stalled innovation and efficiency improvements and put tens of thousands of families at higher risk of more wood smoke exposure.  The fallback position was that industry needed a two-year sell year, allowing manufacturers to sell Step 1 product during the fall and spring of 2019/2020, and retailers to sell Step 1 product until May 2022.  

At first, it appeared that the EPA under the current Administration was open to providing a two year  sell-through for stoves, but they have only issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for boilers and furnaces, not for stoves.  Theoretically, the EPA could still issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a sell through for stoves but at this point it may be too late to provide any meaningful relief.

Many states pushed back strongly against watering down the NSPS and no state filed comments backing the Trump Administration's proposals.  States also began preparing their own plans in the event the EPA does change NSPS timelines, which could create a patchwork of regulations and more antagonistic relationships with a renewable energy industry.

If some manufacturers were not taking the 2020 deadline sufficiently seriously from 2016 - 2018, they are all likely to be doing so now.  Instead of focusing on government relief, HPBA's outreach to industry stakeholders is taking an a more urgent tone that everyone needs to focus on heeding the May 2020 deadline. However, almost all manufacturers were already focused on May 2020 for their own financial health and to assure their retailers that they are a reliable future partner.  And, many manufacturers and virtually all retailers already are well-diversified with gas fireplaces and stoves which often outsell their wood and pellet appliances.

The list of stove manufacturers who are ready for 2020, almost are or “well-positioned” to be 2020 ready grows by the week. As of May 1, they include:  APR Industries, Blaze King, Even Temp, ExtraFlame, Foyers, Heat Tech, Hearthstone, Innovative Hearth Products, Jotul, Kuma, Laminoux, MF Fire, Napoleon, Pacific Energy, Rais, Regency, Roby, RSF Fireplaces, SBI, Stuv, Supreme, Thelin, Travis and Woodstock Soapstone.  Hearth & Home Technologies, by far the largest manufacturer, says a majority of its stoves will be 2020 certified this year.

The 2020 deadline will undoubtedly be tough for much of the industry, but it remains to be seen if it’s tougher than lean shipment years such as 2007 and 2012.  Overall, the threat to industry does not appear to be as serious as industry claimed even a year ago.  The 2020 deadline is also bringing about benefits. some foreseen and others not. Some retailers still have stocks of Step 1 stoves and there is likely to be some heavily discounted stoves in the final year leading up to the deadline.  Retailers are still ordering some Step 1 stoves, but in much smaller quantities.  Many retailers are only buying Step 2 stoves but may face still competition from fire sales of Step 1 stoves by competitors.  Sending Step 1 stoves to Canada could have been a good outlet, but the more populous Canadian provinces have either adopted the 2020 deadline or are in the process of doing so. Other foreign countries are still a good option.  Most big box stores have the buying power to protect themselves by requiring manufacturers to buy back unsold inventory, influence that specialty hearth retailers don't have. 

Over the last six months, HPBA has developed more clear and insistent messaging for retailers and is using social media more to get the message across.  A facebook post outlined 5 things retailers need to know to survive the NSPS. Included is also a fear that in the race to meet the 2 gram an hour standard, some manufacturers may be putting out stoves that haven't been sufficiently beta-tested and simply won't work well in the real world.  This could jeopardize retailers who unknowingly carry those stoves.  HBPA urged retailers to test the stoves themselves, before selling them to customers, a tall order for retailers over the summer season.  The message for consumers is that the next twelve months will be a buyers’ market with unprecedented sales and discounts of Step 1 products

For the most part, the hyperbole from industry that consumers would be priced out of new stoves and there would be very little variety of product on floors, is not materializing.  Some manufacturers that were well known for disparaging catalytic stoves are now embracing them, swelling the ranks of "hybrid" stoves that only mention the catalyst in the fine-print. Presumably, this new crop of hybrids learned the tough lessons of the 80s and 90s, and their catalyst are well protected from flame impingement.

The 2020 deadline is also providing industry a gradual transition to cordwood testing, as some manufacturers opt to test with it.  Some groups idealistically hoped for a far quicker transition to cordwood.  Stoves tested with cordwood can emit up to 2.5 grams an hour, although many of them are coming in under 2 grams.  Despite messaging in advertisements from HPBA that it "shares the same goals as regulators," the 2.5 gram an hour standard for cordwood is one of the many emission standards that HPBA is challenging in federal court.  The many delays to the lawsuit may make it tougher for HPBA if enough stove models come in under 2.5 grams an hour using the broadly applicable alternative ASTM cordwood test method.

Many stakeholders are already looking past the 2020 deadlines toward the next NSPS, which by law should be scheduled in 2023.  Whenever the 2015 NSPS is superseded, there is likely to be intense controversies over certification protocols for cordwood testing and a timeline for all stoves to be tested with cordwood.  Key northeastern states believe the consensus driven ASTM Method is deeply flawed and are working behind the scenes on new test methods.

Unlike the 1988 wood heater NSPS that decimated the ranks of small stove manufacturers, the 2015 NSPS does not appear to be forcing manufacturers out of business. The 1988 regulations drastically improved the functioning, safety, cleanliness and efficiency of stoves while also driving up prices of those that were not claimed to be exempt.  The question remains whether the 2015 NSPS will significantly improve the functionality of stoves as they become cleaner and more efficient in the lab. Pellet stoves may the winners as their lab numbers should hold up in homes of consumers, a significant benefit that is rarely acknowledged by most in industry.  We can all agree that there will be both intended and unintended consequences which will take years to unfold.  Stay tuned.

March 11, 2020 update: The EPA finalized amendments to the 2015 NSPS and did not provide a retailer sell-through.  They did remove pellet fuel minimum requirements but retained the list of prohibited fuels in the 2015 NSPS.

  

Wood and pellet stove prices rise 3% in wake of new EPA regulations

Since the EPA announced stricter emissions regulations for wood and pellet stoves, prices increased by an average of 3% over a two-year period when adjusted for inflation, based on a review of 77 popular stove models. Without inflation, prices increased by an average of 4%.

The Alliance for Green Heat, an independent non-profit focused on the wood and pellet heating sector, tracked retail prices for 77 wood and pellet stoves over a two-year period, from February 2015 to February 2017. The EPA announced new regulations on February 3rd and they took effect on May 15, 2015. Even stricter emission limits are set for 2020 and the Alliance will continue to track prices through 2020 and beyond.

We identified 77 stoves made by 7 popular brands with varying price points: Jotul, Blaze King, Harman, Quadrafire, Woodstock Soapstone, Hearthstone, US Stove, and Englander.

It is impossible to tell how much regulations contributed to the 3% price rise, although each of the 7 brands are going through periods of increased R&D as they work towards complying with the 2020 emission limits. The EPA set a maximum of 7.5 grams an hour in 1990, 4.5 in 2015 and 2.0 or 2.5 grams in 2020. Most stoves already met the 4.5 gram limit in 2015, but most do not meet the 2020 limits. It is possible that some companies are starting to pass those costs along to consumers.

There may be steeper price rises as 2020 approaches and companies have to begin more intensive R&D and certification testing.  However, industry is pushing a bill in Congress to delay the 2020 emission standards to 2023.  The Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association is also suing the EPA to block the 2020 emission standards for boilers and furnaces, but not necessarily for stoves.  The bill in Congress is partially designed to give the litigation enough time to get through the courts.  

We tracked the retail prices of 59 wood stoves and 18 pellet stoves using the sale or final price of the stove listed on the retailer’s website. Overall, the 59 wood stove retail prices rose an average of 4% ($80) or 3% ($45) when accounting for inflation. The pellet stove category saw a greater average price increase of 5% ($106) or 3% ($66) per stove when accounting for inflation.

• Four-fifths of the 77 wood and pellet stoves increased in price over the two years. Of these, the average price increase was 6% ($125) or 5% ($90) when adjusting for inflation.
• About one-fifth of the 77 stoves did not go up in price between February 2015 and 2017. The majority of the Englander and Blaze King models we tracked stayed the same price.
• Four wood stoves out of 77 wood and pellet stoves -- one Jotul, two Hearthstone, and one US Stove -- declined in price. The average decline was 6% ($250).

The EPA is required by law to do an economic regulatory impact analysis (PDF) and determine if the costs of the regulation outweigh the benefits. The EPA predicted slightly higher retail costs, and as a result, a slight decline in demand for new stoves. However, on balance they estimated that the overall health and other benefits vastly outweigh the costs.

Some commentators, members of Congress and editors claimed the EPA regulations would make wood stove prices rise sharply and be unaffordable for the average American.

The EPA also is required to assess the impact of the regulation on small businesses, since more than 90% of stove manufacturers and retailers are small firms. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the industry employed 15,911 workers in 2011.

Price changes by brand and stove type

The wood stoves with the highest price decreases, Hearthstone’s Bari 8170 and Lima 8150, which declined in price by $620 and $300 respectively, were the priced the highest of any stove on our list in 2015 at $4,999 and $5,299. No pellet stove we tracked declined in price in 2017 and the only two pellet stoves did not increase in price in 2017 (both Englanders priced between $1,000 and $2,000).

Wood stove price increases ranged from 1% (Hearthstone Castleton 8030 and Craftsbury 8391) to 35% (US Stove’s Large Woodstove). Among the wood stoves that increased in price between 2015 and 2017, the average increase was around $125 or 6% more than the 2015 price. Seven of the nine pellet stoves that rose in price increased by an even $100, regardless of their 2015 price, which represented a 3-4% increase. All five of the Harman pellet stoves, which retailed between $2,999 and $3,999 retail in 2015, were listed $100 higher by the same retailer in 2017.

For the sake of consistency, we only used stove prices at one or at most two retailers per brand. We used final or sale prices rather than “suggested retail price” or “regular price” when given. The number of stoves we selected per brand varied based on the number of models available in 2015 and the number of models that continued to be sold by that retailer in 2017.

Englander and US Stove had some of the lowest prices stoves we began tracking in 2015, with a median price of about $1,000. At about the middle were the brands Woodstock Soapstone (median price of $2,400), Quadrafire ($2,550), and Jotul ($2,700). The more expensive stove brands included our study, based on median prices, were Hearthstone ($2,900), Blaze King ($2,950), and Harman ($3,000).

Four out of five Blaze King stoves, three out of four Englander wood stoves and all (two) Englander pellet stoves did not increase in price over these two years. The sixteen Hearthstone wood and pellet stoves we tracked declined in price by an average of 1% ($3.75) per stove, thanks in great part to large drop in price for two of the brand’s priciest ($5,000+) wood stoves.

As for the brands that increased their prices, Jotul’s 19 wood stoves increased by an average of 3% ($79) each. Quadrafire’s and Harman’s wood and pellet stoves both increased by an average of 4% each ($101 for Quadrafire, $122 for Harman). Harman’s wood and pellet stoves increased in price by an average of $122 per stove. US Stove and Woodstock Soapstone had the greatest average price increases of any brand at 15% each (Woodstock Soapstone has frequent sales which we did not take into account). US Stove’s stove prices increased by an average of $155 per stove and Woodstock Soapstone’s increased by an average of $408 per stove.

The EPA regulations had a much larger impact on prices on companies making unregulated outdoor wood boilers and unregulated wood furnaces.  Prices for boilers rose at a sharper rate than stoves, although we did not track those prices and cannot offer any estimates.

Wood and pellet stove companies improve ratings with the Better Business Bureau; but does it matter?

In the age of Yelp, Facebook, and Angie’s List, millions of consumers still look to the Better Business Bureau (BBB) for ratings. While the BBB may have lost some of its luster, we have always urged consumers to consult it when buying a new stove.

When the Alliance for Green Heat reviewed BBB ratings for wood and pellet stove companies in 2013, most companies got A ratings, but some got Bs, one got a C and one got an F rating. As of January 2017, the same companies all have A+ ratings, except Hearth & Home Technologies, which has a B-.

Does this mean that stove companies have all become more trustworthy and reliable or that the BBB has become easier to manipulate? We think the answer lies more in the inability of the BBB to carefully assess every company. The recent ratings show the limitations of the old business rating model which the BBB was based on. However, the BBB still provides some useful information about stove companies.

First of all, look at which companies are actually accredited by BBB. Only Blaze King, Kuma, and Woodstock Soapstone are accredited, which means that they have provided written assurances that they meet BBB criteria. That doesn’t necessarily mean a lot, but the Alliance for Green Heat has independently confirmed that these three companies are among the few that consumers can trust to provide accurate data on their websites.

Second, past BBB history is still important. US Stove, for example, got an “F” in 2013, because they had “a history of violating BBB name and logo policy and falsely stated BBB Accreditation (or membership).” (See our 2013 review of BBB stove company ratings). The Alliance for Green Heat has also highlighted numerous cases of misleading or false advertising by US Stove, some of which still continues.

It’s important to understand the limitations of the BBB – and to rely on multiple sources. Unfortunately, Consumer Reports has done only a very limited review of pellet stoves and nothing on wood stoves. The Alliance for Green Heat rates some other review sites here.

We searched the BBB site for all major stove companies and found many of them there. We could find only one European stove company (Jotul) and several Canadian ones. For companies that own several brands, such as Hearth & Home Technologies, we found some of their brands, such as Harman and Vermont Castings, but could not find others, such as Quadra-fire.

Here is a chart showing BBB ratings as of January 2017:

Series 1 marks the number of resolved complaints. Series 2 marks the number of complaints that received no response. Keep in mind that this only tracks the complaints received by the BBB, and there are always many customer complaints not lodged through them. This may indicate that consumers can get better responsiveness from a stove manufacturer if they do file the complaint with the BBB.

The points are added up and a letter grade (A as the highest, F as the lowest) is assigned accordingly. In order to receive a good score, the volume of consumer complaints that are not responded to must remain low. The BBB takes into consideration whether the business makes a speedy and honest effort to fix the problem and resolve the complaint. The response of the business can mean the difference between an A and a B score. For example, as seen in the graph, HHT received 27 consumer complaints. Despite this relatively low number, HHT still got a B- because it apparently was not sufficiently responsive to some of the complaints. Click here to read a full overview of the BBB grading method.

While wood stove companies fare relatively well on BBB, some other products in the hearth industry do not. For example, Heat Surge, the Amish "miracle heater" that is heavily advertised and is also a exhibitor at HPBA trade shows currently has a B rating and hundreds of complaints filed against it. The Alliance for Green Heat has previously written about the company here.