10 states plan to sue the EPA over standards for residential wood-burning stoves

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.

armanidog

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2017
500
Northeast Georgia
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Attorneys general from 10 states plan to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, saying its failure to review and ensure emissions standards for residential wood-burning stoves has allowed the continued sale of appliances that could worsen pollution.

That means programs that encourage people to trade in older stoves and other wood-burning appliances, such as forced-air furnaces, haven’t necessarily improved air quality, the states say.

“If newer wood heaters do not meet cleaner standards, then programs to change out old wood heaters may provide little health benefits at significant public cost,” the states wrote Thursday in a 60-day notice of intent to sue.

The states involved are Alaska, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, as well as the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

They allege that the EPA’s current standards aren’t good enough and that even if they were, the agency’s testing and certification program is so ineffective that it has failed to ensure those standards...

The EPA’s Office of Inspector General, in a report released in February, found the EPA’s 2015 performance standards for residential wood heaters was flawed and said the agency has “approved methods that lack clarity and allow too much flexibility.”

“As a result, certification tests may not be accurate, do not reflect real-world conditions, and may result in some wood heaters being certified for sale that emit too much particulate-matter pollution,” the report said.

The agency supports programs aimed at replacing older, dirtier wood heaters with newer, cleaner models and distributed about $82 million in grants for residential exchanges between fiscal years 2015 and 2021, the report said.

“However, if the replacement models do not meet emission standards because of the reasons described above, millions of federal, state, and local dollars could be wasted,” it said.

 
I'd be interested to see how this law suit ties in with the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the EPA.
 
I'd be interested to see how this law suit ties in with the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the EPA.
They are completely unrelated. The epa didn't write these regulations they just administer them. And honestly many of these problems were due to under staffing
 
  • Like
Reactions: StoveInNH
I think IGs report, which the EPA did not dispute, layed everything out pretty well. To me this suit won’t bring change any faster. Is it about $$ or accountability, or trust? Probably. Seems a little late where was it 4 years ago???

Seems to me the EPA needs to take the testing in house.
 
I think IGs report, which the EPA did not dispute, layed everything out pretty well. To me this suit won’t bring change any faster. Is it about $$ or accountability, or trust? Probably. Seems a little late where was it 4 years ago???

Seems to me the EPA needs to take the testing in house.
Or atleast much better oversight of the testing. Now changing the procedure partway through was absolutely bs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EbS-P
The epa lost roughly 18% of their employees between 2017 and 2021. And a 26% cut in funding during that time. I will agree they certainly have their issues but those are massive cuts.
How do you know they weren't overstaffed and over-funded to begin with?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 71montess
How do you know they weren't overstaffed and over-funded to begin with?
Because when they lost that staff and funding they couldn't do their job properly. The backlog of stove approval was ridiculously long.

I am sure there is plenty of room for cuts. Maybe even to that level but it can't be done that quickly without compromising the work they need to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EbS-P
If the suit brings about more consistency in testing and reporting the results, that will be a good thing. Right now, lab reports from different testing labs often read differently. Some include full details on the stove to be tested up front and others bury it deep into the report, often in hand-scribbled notes. Some don't even include this info, relying instead on including the manual. The EPA should provide a sample template for the required information and order it is to be presented.

Another thing that has to get straightened out is crib vs cordwood testing and what qualifies as HHV (average or single test).
 
I'm all for burning as clean as possible. In my opinion, this is typical EPA. Go research the "Energy Star" appliance program and you'll understand what's happening with wood stove testing. It's smoke and mirrors and the pun was intended and timely.
 
I'm all for burning as clean as possible. In my opinion, this is typical EPA. Go research the "Energy Star" appliance program and you'll understand what's happening with wood stove testing. It's smoke and mirrors and the pun was intended and timely.
Other than the fact that our stoves burn much cleaner and are way more efficient than anything pre epa
 
  • Like
Reactions: FixerUpper
Other than the fact that our stoves burn much cleaner and are way more efficient than anything pre epa
Yet . . . 10 states are saying that the EPA rules may not be improving air quality.

"The states also said programs that encourage people to trade in older stoves and other wood-burning appliances have not necessarily improved air quality, which appears to fall in line with the IG report."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mmmm. Reality check is a heavily regulated burner.

With my cY2K EPA non cat I was burning about 10-12 cords per year in 2013. In summer 2014 I had a long haired daughter move out with 2 laundry baskets of hair product, and a new production EPA catalytic stove installed same summer. I kept (and keep) my house at roughly the same temperature. My wood consumption is down somewhere between 20-40% (high confidence) and my wood consumption is down 30% with reasonable confidence.

I have no doubt, absolutely zero doubt, the new technology kicks the pants off the old technology.

The real question here is "how much." How much are my emission reduced that my BTU in the envelope can remain the same temperature with wood consumption down 30%?

What I see local is the BK Princess and BK 20 boxes are still legal for sale in my local EPA defined rectangle of death on 01-02-2024. I happen to own a BK 30 box that didn't make ADEC's cut for whatever reason; it stands to reason that BK finds it less expensive to come up with a new box and shepherd it carefully through certification rather than spend the money to satisfy whatever wanker found a misplaced comma on the 30 sized boxes cert paperwork.

The main problem I see with ADEC's (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation) approach is they are planning for me to do a cold start twice daily and looking very hard at my cold start (first hour) emissions. The truth is my last cold start is usually in late September and I tend to do hot reloads from September into March. I have patiently explained this to my team red governor's local rep using small words, with pictures and arrows on the back of each photograph to be used against EPA; but at the end of the day I live in a small city and my governor doesn't need my city's votes to stay in office.

I will plan to find a mirror this winter than I can put out on my deck for monitoring. I suspect I can get from clean plume (hot coals) to clean plume (hot reload) under 10 minutes with visible plume in betweeny, but I am not going out on my deck barefoot at -20dF to prove it with my phone's camera.

Someone is going to spend a thousand years chained in a lake of fire for standing between me and carbon neutral heat, but I am not sure who that might be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yet . . . 10 states are saying that the EPA rules may not be improving air quality.

"The states also said programs that encourage people to trade in older stoves and other wood-burning appliances have not necessarily improved air quality, which appears to fall in line with the IG report."

To be clear those states have issue with the implementation of this last round of regulations and certification which admittedly was a mess. But the epa stepping in and regulating stoves has improved the industry dramatically from where it was in the early 80s before regulations started. To me its more important to find out why this time was such a mess compared to the others and fix it
 
To be clear those states have issue with the implementation of this last round of regulations and certification which admittedly was a mess. But the epa stepping in and regulating stoves has improved the industry dramatically from where it was in the early 80s before regulations started. To me its more important to find out why this time was such a mess compared to the others and fix it
To me, the issue is that you keep editing my posts to suit your needs.

The post of mine that bholler quoted is not my original post. My original post was edited to suit the moderators bias.

And before that, my posts were deleted that pointed out begreen's clear hypocrisy.

Does anyone else have a problem with these moderators imposing their bias?

Let's discuss things. And keep it civil. But just know that when a mod disagrees with you they can and WILL edit or delete your post and you'll never know . . . They will literally change your message and you will receive zero notification nor the ability to dispute their change.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: 71montess
To me, the issue is that you keep editing my posts to suit your needs.

The post of mine that bholler quoted is not my original post. My original post was edited to suit the moderators bias.

And before that, my posts were deleted that pointed out begreen's clear hypocrisy.

Does anyone else have a problem with these moderators imposing their bias?

Let's discuss things. And keep it civil. But just know that when a mod disagrees with you they can and WILL edit or delete your post and you'll never know . . . They will literally change your message and you will receive zero notification nor the ability to dispute their change.
I didn't remove anything material to the discussion. As far as begreen removing your posts you 2 took it to far into politics and he removed both your posts and his in order to keep in line with our terms of use.

I am trying to be very objective here. I acknowledge there were absolutely problems with the 2020 regulation rollout. But pointed out that overall the program has been a huge benefit for us. Can you dispute that?
 
I didn't remove anything material to the discussion. As far as begreen removing your posts you 2 took it to far into politics and he removed both your posts and his in order to keep in line with our terms of use.
Thanks for the explanation.

You're walking a fine line however. I applaud your efforts to moderate, however keep it fair.

Begreen was caught showing HIS political bias and I pointed it. Only then was the post deleted.

My postings weren't political. I merely asked for proof of begreen's political statements.

Editing opinions, especially without notification, is wrong.

That being said, I appreciate you volunteering and providing your expertise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bholler
Take it offline
Thanks for the explanation.

You're walking a fine line however. I applaud your efforts to moderate, however keep it fair.

Begreen was caught showing HIS political bias and I pointed it. Only then was the post deleted.

My postings weren't political. I merely asked for proof of begreen's political statements.

Editing opinions, especially without notification, is wrong.

That being said, I appreciate you volunteering and providing your expertise.
The string of posts was deleted because this website is not for political bickering. Maybe... is just throwing an opinion up against the wall and seeing if it sticks. That is why I countered with a 'maybe not' because there are at least 2 sides to a story, it was not intended to be political, but agree that I just should have nipped the conversation before that. After moderating for 15 yrs here agreed I should have clipped it sooner.

More discussion on this can be done in a PM.
 
To be clear those states have issue with the implementation of this last round of regulations and certification which admittedly was a mess. But the epa stepping in and regulating stoves has improved the industry dramatically from where it was in the early 80s before regulations started. To me its more important to find out why this time was such a mess compared to the others and fix it
Yes, modern stoves are way cleaner than stuff from the early/mid 80's...but to me this last round of regulation tightening was almost completely unnecessary, and the stuff made in lets say 2015 is plenty clean if operated properly, which means dry fuel too.
I said almost because the phase 2 (2020) rules were supposed to weed out some loopholes, like the one on firebox size that wood furnace manufacturers had used to exempt themselves from cleaning up their act (except Lamppa) oh, and the OWB's too, but they have mostly just switched to making their smoke dragon models "commercial" or "coal burning" to skirt the new rules.
So basically nothing really productive has come from the last, what, 8-10 years? Yeah some companies managed to "clean up" a few models a little, but we are splitting hairs now...the difference in a new stove from 2015 and one in 2023 is almost nothing, a gnat fart in a tornado compared to the Canadian wildfire smoke, to name just one source of pollution, that we really can't control....
 
  • Like
Reactions: fvhowler
Yes, modern stoves are way cleaner than stuff from the early/mid 80's...but to me this last round of regulation tightening was almost completely unnecessary, and the stuff made in lets say 2015 is plenty clean if operated properly, which means dry fuel too.
I said almost because the phase 2 (2020) rules were supposed to weed out some loopholes, like the one on firebox size that wood furnace manufacturers had used to exempt themselves from cleaning up their act (except Lamppa) oh, and the OWB's too, but they have mostly just switched to making their smoke dragon models "commercial" or "coal burning" to skirt the new rules.
So basically nothing really productive has come from the last, what, 8-10 years? Yeah some companies managed to "clean up" a few models a little, but we are splitting hairs now...the difference in a new stove from 2015 and one in 2023 is almost nothing, a gnat fart in a tornado compared to the Canadian wildfire smoke, to name just one source of pollution, that we really can't control....
I can absolutely agree with most of that
 
Yes, a lot of issues are with the operator and not the stove. Whether it's burning poorly seasoned wood, smoldering the fire, incorrect draft, or not maintaining the stove, these all fall in the territory of poor operation. That said, several stoves went from 3-4 gms/hr down to 1.5. A thousand gnat farts in a temperature inversion zone can lead to quite a stink. >>
 
  • Haha
Reactions: brenndatomu
Yes, a lot of issues are with the operator and not the stove. Whether it's burning poorly seasoned wood, smoldering the fire, incorrect draft, or not maintaining the stove, these all fall in the territory of poor operation. That said, several stoves went from 3-4 gms/hr down to 1.5. A thousand gnat farts in a temperature inversion zone can lead to quite a stink. >>
England started fining users ;

"If you own a log burner and reside in England, there's a chance that you may be up for a nasty surprise in the near future. According to the latest regulations relating to log burners, you may be fined up to £300 if your stove emits more than 3g of smoke per hour. In some cases, you may even get a criminal record."

 
England started fining users ;

"If you own a log burner and reside in England, there's a chance that you may be up for a nasty surprise in the near future. According to the latest regulations relating to log burners, you may be fined up to £300 if your stove emits more than 3g of smoke per hour. In some cases, you may even get a criminal record."

Wow! I wonder how they'll verify?