EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People

[HectorBuckBuster]

Pretty soon we will have nothing to use for heat. Coals bad, now wood, and then NY Bans Fracking.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/01/29/epas-wood-burning-stove-ban-has-chilling-consequences-for-many-rural-people/

[Dinsdale]

My woodstove fell out of my boat and sank....

Oh wait, those were my guns.

[Mr VJP]

This EPA (Economic Persecution Agency) is going to be the biggest player in this administration's tyrannical agenda over the next two years.

 

Meanwhile, ISIS will be burning human bodies to keep warm.

 

 

[reeltime]

yup the states say we can't burn wood but its ok for them to dump millions of tons of salt on the roads every winter and millions of gallons of petroleum products on the roads doing tar and chipping every summer..

 

it just makes ya and ask what idiotic ideas will these over paid government folks come up with next. 

 

 

[jesse.james]

So does this just mean the sale of or use? I know that's all we use at my cabin

Edited February 4, 2015 by jesse.james

[Curmudgeon]

They can have my 100 year old cook stove when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!

[Mr VJP]

A lot of aging hippies from the Woodstock generation are about to find out the EPA is NOT their friend.

 

[nyantler]

I hope this goes over as well as the no grilling law they were thinking about a few years back.. it never got off the ground once the people got word of it... No barbequing? Yeah, like that was gonna happen.

[Mr VJP]

This wood stove law has already passed.  It's not a bill or a proposal, it's the law for the future.

[Mr VJP]

This is but another example of EPA and other government agencies working with activist environmental groups to sue and settle on claims that afford leverage to enact new regulations which they lack statutory authority to otherwise accomplish.

“Sue and settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein  court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action both they and the litigants want.

[scolopaxmatt]

What a wonderfully terrible piece of legislation. 

 

I must admit, the system works. 

 

But not for you or I.

[thphm]

I hope they are going to give me a lifetime supply of what ever to heat my house and hot water. Because this is how I have been doing it since I have been retired .

Just another way of the rich getting richer, they are Pi+++D because it is taking money out of there pockets.If it is about Air pollution that is a bunch of BS. How much pollution comes from the drilling rigs and pumps to get the Oil/ Gas out of the ground and how much comes from the means of transporting it to every business and homes in the country.Just another way to Screw us. 

[Mr VJP]

Actually the rich, at least those of the conservative persuasion, are very much opposed to this oppressive regulation, which was instituted without a vote from any elected representative.  This is how an activist administration operates.

 

[Mr VJP]

And who pays for this litigation? All-too-often we taxpayers are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties. According to a 2011 GAO report, this amounted to millions of dollars awarded to environmental organizations for EPA litigations between 1995 and 2010. Three “Big Green” groups received 41% of this payback, with Earthjustice accounting for 30 percent ($4,655,425).  Two other organizations with histories of lobbying for regulations EPA wants while also receiving agency funding are the American Lung Association (ALA) and the Sierra Club.

In addition, the Department of Justice forked over at least $43 million of our money defending EPA in court between 1998 and 2010. This didn’t include money spent by EPA for their legal costs in connection with those rip-offs because EPA doesn’t keep track of their attorney’s time on a case-by-case basis.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has concluded that Sue and Settle rulemaking is responsible for many of EPA’s “most controversial, economically significant regulations that have plagued the business community for the past few years”.Included are regulations on power plants, refineries, mining operations, cement plants, chemical manufacturers, and a host of other industries. Such consent decree-based rulemaking enables EPA to argue to Congress: “The court made us do it.”

[Mr VJP]

Only weeks after EPA enacted its new stove rules, attorneys general of seven states sued the agency to crack down on wood-burning water heaters as well. The lawsuit was filed by Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, all predominately Democrat states.  

[jesse.james]

So is it illegal to sell them or is it illegal to actually use them?

[nyantler]

This wood stove law has already passed.  It's not a bill or a proposal, it's the law for the future.

I can't remember but I think the grill ban was passed too.. then squashed or never implemented.

[jesse.james]

On January 3, 2014, EPA proposed revisions to the residential wood heater new source performance standards (NSPS) under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The draft revisions apply to new heaters ONLY and do not apply to existing wood stoves and other wood heaters installed in peoples’ homes. Go to www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters to review and comment on the proposed revisions before final standards are issued. EPA will accept written comments for 90 days after publication of the proposal in the Federal Register.

Materials Related to Proposed Revisions to the

[philoshop]

A truly textbook definition of regulatory overreach, sponsored by environmental terrorists and condoned by the federal government. A national solution to a regional problem. If there's a problem in your area, deal with it in your area. It amounts to a tourniquet around the neck to stop a nose bleed.

In-home wood-burning appliances will be grandfathered for the existing homeowner. (I don't know about outdoor wood burners. In many places they will be banned completely). When a residence is sold, a non-EPA-compliant appliance must be removed and destroyed.

 

The new compliant stoves can be nice, if you don't need much heat and you can afford them. 4 to 5 times the cost of the stove I currently have and will eventually have to replace. It will be cheaper for me to burn NG, basically. Can't imagine that's part of the motivation though.

 

I haven't looked into what the proposed punishments will be for illegally keeping warm. Guantanamo maybe?

 

I really wish Steve Forbes would run for president. He gives voice to the sane in this country.

Edited February 5, 2015 by philoshop

[philoshop]

Just wanted to add that the proposed regs aren't official yet, AFAIK. No one has much say in them anymore unless they have an office in DC, but as of now the legislation is still pending.

[jjb4900]

don't the more efficient one's burn more of the crap that would normally be spewed out into the environment, thus giving you more heat out of what you would normally burn?

[philoshop]

In theory, yes. In practice, not so much. The new, soon-to-be-mandated stoves tend to be very fussy with regard to airflow under normal operating conditions.

If the wood is kiln-dried, and it's burned under laboratory conditions, you'll get amazing efficiency with very little particulate emission. These were the conditions under which the new reg's were tested. Using normal, air-dried firewood in a cold climate environment requires almost constant air-flow adjustments to get anywhere near the same amount of heat that would be produced by an 'older' stove. To compensate for this, many new stoves have electronic damping systems so they don't require babysitting. These don't work well at all if the electricity goes out.

In short, the new-design stoves are made to burn the smoke rather than the wood. Burning the smoke is fine for the atmosphere but it doesn't produce much heat for your house.

A well-maintained old-school stove being fed properly air-dried wood produces very little visible smoke, and plenty of heat, even when I'm gone for the day or if the power goes out. As far as the overall environment, I can't imagine there's any less impact from any other power source when all is said and done. My neighbors actually like the smell of my stove in the morning when I throw a couple of cherry splits in to get it going for the day. In other places the smoke is definitely an issue, and that should be dealt with in those parts of the country through local legislation.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

I wonder if burning wood is any worse than the nasty old burner we have in the shop? Burns old oil,trnaay fluid,brake fluid you name it and that thing will burn it. Smoke?  Ya that thing makes clouds. Must be OSHA approved i guess.

[nyantler]

All the wood stoves in NY couldn't have as much impact on the environment as just one day of powering cities like NYC, Vegas, DC and others. Funny how nobody ever sees that. Just the trash that is removed from NYC alone is more of an environmental hazard and it is trucked and barged somewhere else other than NYC to become someone else's problem.

[growalot]

Our first wood stove was one of the first catayltic wood stoves made...yep you really had to do alot of adjusting and watching the thermostat on the top...but it worked well...it actually is still working at camp...but with the same unit it had when we took it down there years ago...lol pretty sure not doing what it did when we first bought it...seeing your suppose to replace those every so often... The new soap stone  in storage has a converter as well...hhhmmm probably won't be legal now.