Clean air is a precious commodity, one upon which all of us depend, so keeping our air clean, safe and breathable is an important goal. To that end, the Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed more stringent standards for newly manufactured wood-burning stoves.
These New Source Performance Standards were proposed in early January and seek to improve air quality by requiring wood-burning devices to emit fewer particles and smoke. The last time these regulations were updated was in 1988, and this change would add in some residential wood-burning devices that were omitted from regulation at that time, among other provisions.
We support this effort to improve our air quality by promoting improved technology. According to the EPA, wood smoke creates particulate matter, causing respiratory problems. Wood smoke has even been classified as “probably carcinogenic in humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Anyone who lives near an outdoor wood-burning unit can testify to the smell it creates, which can make it difficult to breathe in the vicinity.
Despite the ill effects on health and environment, burning wood is a popular form of home heating in Maine, because it’s cheap and locally sourced. In fact, we’re among the top five states having residents who use only wood for their heat source, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. There’s a certain amount of tradition to burning wood and a great deal of Yankee independence in cutting from your own land, seasoning, splitting and stacking in preparation for the cold winters.
Given that background, wood burning is likely to continue as a popular heating source well into the future, especially since there is no expectation that heating oil or gas prices will decrease.
The EPA wants to improve the technology used in new wood stoves, which will help them burn more efficiently and emit less pollution. According to the EPA website, older stoves emit 15-30 grams of particulate emissions per hour, while a new, EPA certified stove emits 2-7 grams per hour and is 50 percent more efficient.
That’s a win-win for consumers and the environment, and it’s also a boon for businesses that sell these stoves.
The catch with the new EPA proposal is that old stoves will be grandfathered in, so people are likely to continue using them ”“ and polluting the air ”“ until those units fail. Woodstoves usually outlast their owners, however, so many of those who seek better air quality, including Maine DEP Commissioner Patricia Aho, say the EPA proposal doesn’t go far enough because it will have no impact for several years ”“ maybe even generations.
The EPA proposal notes an encouragement of changeout programs at the local level ”“ whereby homeowners receive a rebate on the purchase of new wood stove by turning in their old one ”“ but it does not mandate or include funding for any such program.
With no mandate to discontinue use of old wood stoves and no monetary incentive to purchase a new, more efficient one, it’s clear that most people will continue to use their old stoves until they no longer function, which means air quality will continue to suffer.
Upgrading to a more efficient heating options that creates less pollution will require a major investment, and it’s not one that most homeowners are willing, or even able, to make. Wood stoves are expensive, and those with improved technology will be even more so.
Aho and others suggest a rebate program, and while this is certainly a strong proposal to get people to make the switch, the question, as always, is: Where will the money come from? The DEP’s own rebate program does not have funding, and many interests are competing for funds in this state.
Efficiency Maine already offers a low-interest loan program for improvements to a home’s heating system, so we do not see the need for a separate rebate system at this time.
It’s hard to put a price on clean air, but if that’s really the end goal, any rebate program should instead encourage people to switch to a more efficient, cleaner energy source. Yes, burning wood is the fuel of choice for many Mainers, but it’s the most polluting form of heating, by far, and should not necessarily be encouraged with state money.
While new technology has allowed for the mitigation of wood smoke from heating stoves, the pollution they produce is still significantly greater than that of other heating sources. Consider the EPA’s own comparisons of fine particle emissions, by heating source: A fireplace puts out a whopping 28 lbs/MMBtus (million metric British thermal units), while an uncertified woodstove drops down to 4.6 and an EPA certified woodstove puts out 1.4. A pellet stove emits only .49, while oil and gas emit far less, at .013 lbs/MMBtus and .0083, respectively.
Some people will refuse to change their heating source, for expense or other reasons, but they should at least be educated about cleaner options and given the opportunity to use a rebate toward a kerosene, natural gas, oil or propane heating unit.
It’s clear that the EPA proposal should be implemented to decrease the pollution caused by wood-burning furnaces, since new units should allow as little pollution as possible. What’s less clear is how to encourage people to make the switch away from their older wood-burning stoves to either a newer one or a cleaner technology. Some manufacturers, such as Jotul, have had success with their own rebate programs, which helps them sell stoves while cleaning up the air for everyone.
The Efficiency Maine program is already in place, so rather than add a rebate program, we prefer this free market approach to the problem, for those who want to continue to burn wood. It’s better than using public money to subsidize the switch, particularly without a provision to move people away from burning wood.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
