2023 Biomass Tax Credit Clarification

[hoot]

Some retailers are saying the stove must be installed by a professional in order to qualify for the credit.
I could not find anything that confirms this.
This is the only mention of installer and it looks to be a suggestion.

"To ensure that your stove burns as efficiently, cleanly, and safely as possible, be sure to have it installed by a professional credentialed by the National Fireplace Institute."

Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit - Hearth Patio & Barbecue Association | HPBA

Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit: What you need to know Every business in our industry should have a clear path to long-term growth—and a seat at the table to shape […]

www.hpba.org

 

[xterra]

Please refer to IRs.gov...the retailer aint gonna help you if Irs asks for receipts.. i'd call bs it.get a receipt either way.

Installing yourself still gets you the max tax credit if your stove/liner hits the max x 30%. So install cost could be irrelevant for a pricey stove.

 

[hoot]

Please refer to IRs.gov...the retailer aint gonna help you if Irs asks for receipts.. i'd call bs it.get a receipt either way.

Installing yourself still gets you the max tax credit if your stove/liner hits the max x 30%. So install cost could be irrelevant for a pricey stove.

Thank you and yes I easily hit the $2000 max.

 

[BKVP]

From a recent release by the Office of Inspector General at EPA May 22, 2024:

Furthermore, we found that manufacturers did not always properly represent their EPA wood-heater certifications in their advertising. For example, after receiving complaints about a manufacturer, the EPA reviewed the certification test results for that manufacturer’s wood heater and discovered that the manufacturer was falsely advertising its wood heater’s thermal efficiency rating. Specifically, although the wood heater achieved only a 70-percent thermal efficiency rating during the certification test, the manufacturer was advertising that it achieved a 75-percent thermal efficiency rating. This higher percent would enable purchasers to claim a tax credit for the appliance under 26 U.S.C. § 25C(d)(2)(B). In response, the EPA sent the manufacturer a cease-and-desist request via email, which the manufacturer did not act upon. As of the date of our investigation, the EPA had not conducted additional follow-up or revoked the certificate of compliance for that wood heater. Such revocation would have precluded the manufacturer from continuing to use false advertising to sell that wood heater in the United States.

 

[hoot]

Who is "the manufacturer"?

 

[BKVP]

Who is "the manufacturer"?

It is not mentioned. However the wording "precluded the manufacturer from continuing to use false advertising to sell that wood heater in the United States", would suggest Canadian or perhaps European.

BKVP

 

[BKVP]

What's interesting is that EPA really hasn't regulated efficiencies. I think the issue is the IRS has not defined the 75% requirement as the "overall" efficiency. This has allowed some to interpret what qualifies. A single test run hits 75% or higher and that qualifies? The efficiency on the EPA website is the overall efficiency.

BKVP

 

[begreen]

It is not mentioned. However the wording "precluded the manufacturer from continuing to use false advertising to sell that wood heater in the United States", would suggest Canadian or perhaps European.

BKVP

I was wondering if this refers to Enerco's (Cleveland Ironworks) line of stoves. The EPA database lists their stoves as 70% efficient, but they continue to advertise this at Home Depot and other places.


This is for the Huron from Cleveland's website.

 

[BKVP]

I was wondering if this refers to Enerco's (Cleveland Ironworks) line of stoves. The EPA database lists their stoves as 68-73% efficient, but they continue to advertise this at Home Depot and other places.

View attachment 327661

No idea, but there are others also using individual run performance as the metric. You can open test reports and they show very clearly the efficiency numbers for each test run.

BKVP

 

[begreen]

No idea, but there are others also using individual run performance as the metric. You can open test reports and they show very clearly the efficiency numbers for each test run.

BKVP

Yes, I did that early on. They are claiming tax credit certification based on the LHV results. The HHV results averaged 70%.

 

[BKVP]

You can find at least 2-3 others doing the same thing.

BKVP

 

[Guess52]

This has confused me as well. For example, SBI has certificates you can download.

https://sbiweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/7020/certificat-tax-credit-osburn-2023-2032.pdf

But if you look at the listed models, HHV for the 2000-I model, for example, is only 72%

Woodstove Database | Burnwise | US EPA

Am I missing something? Is there a risk of credit rejection?

 

[Todd]

I noticed Jøtul new F445 has an average 72% HHV efficiency but states it hit 77% max during testing so this qualifies the stove for the tax credit. Sounds like there needs to be some clarification on testing and efficiency.

 

[peakbagger]

I used to work a firm that tested large power plants. Pretty standard for any claim of performance is using standard deviation of the test results from multiple tests to come up with a plus or minus for any stated value. Just stating that a particular unit met a certain threshold during one test is definitely not a proper way to state performance.

 

[begreen]

I'm not a big fan of building a stove, car, etc. just to pass a test. Simple user errors (green wood, innadequate draft, too strong draft, poor maintenance, user spaceouts, etc.) will all modify the results as will outdoor temps. Maintenance is also a big factor. If maintainance is a pita, or expensive it is more likely to get deferred which often results in a poorer burning stove.

 

[BKVP]

Emissions testing doesn't have a significant amount of variability...but there is some. (M28R)

The latitude offered in ASTM3053, the "cordwood method" is the very reason EPA revoked the method.

BKVP

 

[Todd]

They should of based that tax credit off emissions rather than efficiency.