# Obama Administration Considers New Regulations for Woodstoves



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ion-faces-backlash-on-wood-stove-regulations/

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Here's the complete article.

It's the usual sledgehammer approach from Washington D.C. to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Many states and counties have their own local regulations restricting wood stove design and use based on local conditions. Washington would just screw things up worse ... as usual.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/05/obama-administration-faces-backlash-on-wood-stove-regulations/

A federal proposal requiring more efficiency from wood-burning stoves has ignited a debate between the Obama administration and lawmakers who oppose the new regulations, arguing the rules impose an unfair burden on people in remote areas.

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule changes in January that would dramatically tighten emissions requirements on new wood-powered heaters, though does not impact ones already in homes.

The EPA estimates that as much as 13 percent of all soot pollution in the U.S. is a result of inefficient wood-fired stoves and boilers.

The dispute pits several mostly urban states, mainly in the northeast, against some rural states such as South Dakota, which says the rules would impose an unfair burden on people in remote areas. About one in four South Dakota homes has a fireplace or wood stove.

Among those opposed to new rules are South Dakota Republicans Sen. John Thune and Rep. Kristi Noem, who say the new requirements will have a big impact on South Dakotans who rely on wood stoves during the long winter.

"Leave it to the EPA to impose more regulations on an affordable and renewable fuel source after one of the coldest winters on record and a costly propane shortage," Noem said.

Last week, Thune wrote EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy asking her to abandon the proposed changes and work with Congress to find a more balanced approach.

"South Dakota and many other states are continuing to deal with a propane shortage, which has resulted in record-high propane prices," Thune wrote. "Many families turn to secondary sources of heat, such as wood stoves, when propane and heating fuel prices increase." Residential propane prices surged this winter to $4 a gallon, nearly double the typical rate.

The regulations the EPA has on the books date back to 1988, and don't take into account some wood-burning devices that weren't in use back then. The proposed rules would give manufacturers five years to make products that reduce emissions by approximately 80 percent.

It would apply to wood heaters, including outdoor and indoor wood-fired boilers, known as hydronic heaters. The changes would only apply to new stoves and rules would not impact outdoor fireplaces, fire pits or other types of outdoor fire containers.

In Missouri, more than three dozen lawmakers co-sponsored a bill declaring that "All Missourians have a right to heat their homes and businesses using wood-burning furnaces, stoves, fireplaces and heaters." Democratic and Republican members of Congress from Maine, Montana and Missouri have also expressed concerns about the EPA's proposal.

"The EPA should not make it harder for families to heat their homes with wood stoves and ban the production of America's current wood burning stoves," Rep. Billy Long, R-Mo., said in a statement this week.

In an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal on Friday, Maine Gov. Paul LePage said the proposal may actually end up increasing the amount of harmful smoke in the air by making it prohibitively expensive for homeowners to buy new stoves.

"The industry has projected that in 2015, 85,000 wood stoves will be manufactured and sold. Yet if the new EPA-compliant wood stoves are too expensive, many people will just hold on to their old stoves, which only exacerbates the potential health threat from smoke," LePage wrote.

LePage also said another concern is that the EPA's proposal does not distinguish between catalytic and noncatalytic wood stoves, which produce different smoke emissions. He said the agency could eliminate noncatalytic stoves by holding both types to the same standard.

"In addition to foisting yet more rules on an already oversaturated regulatory environment, the EPA is picking winners and losers in the marketplace," he wrote.

In Minnesota, a group of lawmakers have introduced a proposal aimed at nullifying EPA regulations in part because of the wood-stove proposal. KBJR-TV reported that the bill would make the agency's regulatory authority invalid inside the state.

There are roughly 12 million homes in the U.S. with wood stoves overall. Of those, as many as 9 million are less than half as efficient as more modern stoves, according to the EPA. About 2 percent U.S. homes rely on wood as their primary heating source, a number that has risen in the last 10 years.

Mike Hindbjorgen works at The Fire Emporium, a Sioux Falls, South Dakota store that sells a variety of stoves, including wood-fired models. He said the overall trend he has seen has been away from wood stoves to models powered by natural gas. But he said his store still sees rural clients who have been affected by increased propane prices who are interested in wood models.

"When they took that shock on propane prices, a lot of them were thinking three or four grand for a new wood stove makes sense," said Hindbjorgen, 46. "The price of propane is jumping around ... they're trying to put a budget together."

Hindbjorgen said even those purchases were usually more efficient wood-fired models than traditional stoves.

Manufacturers and politicians in states with large rural populations have remained skeptical of new regulations and opposed to changes.

In October, seven states primarily located in the urban northeast - New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont - sued the EPA asking the agency to update their emission policy to include wood-fired boilers.

The EPA has been careful to note the new regulations won't require people to buy new devices, just put more efficient models in when they replace old stoves. The agency has said the changes are needed to lower emissions and improve air quality.

The comment period on the new regulations is drawing to a close and the EPA will then move to the next phase of its rule making process.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


----------



## sailaway (Mar 12, 2009)

Unfortunately we live in an era of wanting to regulate everything. I just want to use mine to stay warm, purify water and maybe cook a meal. Just keeping it simple


----------



## UncleJoe (Jan 11, 2009)

Hey! Shouldn't you be working?


----------



## AdmiralD7S (Dec 6, 2012)

From reading the article, I'm not sure I'm opposed to the proposed legislation. I will note that there is missing information, including:

1. Cost of new stoves that conform to the proposed legislation vs cost of "comparable" stoves that do not. The article implies a significant cost increase, but I want numbers.

2. A more detailed analysis of pollution reduction. This would include putting wood stove emission alongside both other implements creating the same type of emissions as well as how emissions from wood stoves compare to other emission types (e.g., against aerosols).


There will always be a struggle between people championing "leave me alone to do what I want" and some form of government regulating folks. With respect to environmental matters, I believe if the populace as a while are left unchecked, we're going to screw things up. However, we should be ensuring that governmental policy/legislation is focused on appropriate areas that will encourage and promote beneficial aspects of conservation and preservation instead of relentlessly pounding one area.

As written, the article by itself doesn't have near enough information to take an educated stance.


Sent from my iPhone usi


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

AdmiralD7S said:


> From reading the article, I'm not sure I'm opposed to the proposed legislation. I will note that there is missing information, including:
> 
> 1. Cost of new stoves that conform to the proposed legislation vs cost of "comparable" stoves that do not. The article implies a significant cost increase, but I want numbers.
> 
> ...


There's a lot of missing information. Not only the cost of new stoves but efficiency as well. I've heard a lot of bad reports regarding stoves with catalytic converters. Also, there's no breakdown between private stoves for home heating vs. commercial wood fired boilers. I suspect some cooking on the numbers as well.

Additionally, the sledgehammer, one-size-fits-all approach of the feds generally misses the boat.

Overall these regulations are disastrous for our economy and often hurt those least able to cope with the price increases. We can use the approach that making these regulation apply only to big business will not hurt the little guys but that's nonsense. Businesses are in it for the profit. When the feds charge businesses the businesses rise prices. If they can't raise prices they go bankrupt and/or move the operation overseas which cost us all in jobs and financial security.

Perhaps the first thing to be examined is if there is a real problem that needs to be addressed. I remain unconvinced on that one. Secondly, is the proposed solution viable?

The US closed its last raw lead smelting operation by regulating it to death so now we ship the ore (and the jobs) to foreign nations and buy lead from them. That happened while that idiot Bush was at the controls. Now we have the Moslim loving, US hating, dictator wanna-be, Odumbo in office trying to finish what Bush began.

We can regulate the US to death, destroying our economy with environmental over-regulation and send our jobs and businesses to China who wants us (the US) to contribute money to them to build environmentally friendly power plants and industries.

Tell me that makes sense!


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

mosquitomountainman said:


> There's a lot of missing information. Not only the cost of new stoves but efficiency as well. I've heard a lot of bad reports regarding stoves with catalytic converters. Also, there's no breakdown between private stoves for home heating vs. commercial wood fired boilers. I suspect some cooking on the numbers as well.
> 
> Look where the numbers are coming from, why would you expect to hear the full story? "The EPA estimates that as much as 13%..." What about the other 87%? IS anyone looking into that? What percentage of that ESTIMATED 13% will be addressed by this? Typical nanny state.
> 
> ...


Message too short!


----------



## PurpleHeartJarhead (Mar 23, 2014)

mosquitomountainman said:


> Perhaps the first thing to be examined is if there is a real problem that needs to be addressed. I remain unconvinced on that one. Secondly, is the proposed solution viable?


The EPA is an organization of solutions looking for problems that do not exist.

In it's infancy and early years, this was not a bad organization. But as the progressive/socialist/communist radicals of the 60's infiltrated the government in the 70's and beyond, it has one purpose and one purpose only, the redistribution of wealth.


----------



## cnsper (Sep 20, 2012)

Not only are our state flowers now blooming....










But the Idiots are blooming too!


----------



## biobacon (Aug 20, 2012)

Well based on how good of a job he did with those "assault rifles" its gonna be hard as heck to buy a wood stove this winter.


----------



## faithmarie (Oct 18, 2008)

We bought a beautiful wood stove for 300 this winter and it was wonderfully warm in our house this winter


----------



## faithmarie (Oct 18, 2008)

I want to keep looking for deals like this.. incase we find someone who needs one .. we had to cut two dead trees on our property .. one elm and one maple.. both struck by lighting .. they are coming in handy...


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

The Obama administration's war on fossil fuels continues. First we had the war on coal with Obama destroying the American coal industry by executive order. Coal burning power plants were forced to shut down because they couldn't afford the government mandated upgrades. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the EPA declared CO2 to be a pollutant and banned all burning of firewood.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

mosquitomountainman said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/05/obama-administration-faces-backlash-on-wood-stove-regulations/
> 
> The EPA estimates that as much as 13 percent of all soot pollution in the U.S. is a result of inefficient wood-fired stoves and boilers


13 percent? The sources of their data are obviously very flawed.

They should have to prove their research... not just quote "guesses"


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

LincTex said:


> 13 percent? The sources of their data are obviously very flawed.
> 
> They should have to prove their research... not just quote "guesses"


No to mention that burning wood correctly will cut way down on soot levels...no matter what kind of stove you use.


----------



## PreparedRifleman73 (Nov 2, 2012)

http://www.northlandsnewscenter.com...k-EPA-to-the-curb-in-Minnesota-250866281.html

My state is considering a bill to nullify EPA authority within our state borders. Go Minnesota!


----------



## musketjim (Dec 7, 2011)

The EPA in conjunction with our lapdog borough assembly (county commissioners) are hard at work here in interior Alaska shutting down woodstoves. Heating oil is at 3.69 a gal. here with my available discounts and I drive by the pipeline every day. -60 for extended periods and our spineless politicians won't tell the EPA to pound sand because our conditions here are obviously different from most. We have voted several times to keep our woodstoves up and running. The EPA came I and said thank you for playing but we know better. Our locals are working up fine schedules to put in place. What worthless people we have elected, civil disobedience will be our only option.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

hawkmiles said:


> My state is considering a bill to nullify EPA authority within our state borders. Go Minnesota!


MN is very "democrat"... which is also typically very pro-EPA... wonder how that came about?!?


----------



## PurpleHeartJarhead (Mar 23, 2014)

LincTex said:


> MN is very "democrat"... which is also typically very pro-EPA... wonder how that came about?!?


Considering is not the same as passing. Not been brought to the floor yet, nor will it IMHO.

Even if it did pass a floor vote, the trust-fund baby governor would veto it.

Sent telepathically through my thumbs to my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------

