For anyone interested in how these lawsuits are shaping up, more details are emerging this week.
Tulikivi is suing because they want to be regulated, and think EPA was wrong not to set emission standards for masonry heaters.
Richard Burns & Co is a Philadelphia based waste facility that recycles lots of things, including construction & demolition debris, and they also make wood pellets.
The big hitter, HPBA, has 3 major grounds in their suit:
1. The 2020 particulate matter emission standards for wood heaters, residential hydronic heaters and residential forced-air furnaces are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
2. The “failure to include adjustments for test method precision” is in the compliance audit testing is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
3. The ability of the EPA to use test methods and other provisions that are not developed through a consensus standard-making process.
The Pellet Fuel Institute hasn't yet filed the basis of their suit, but earlier said they were challenging the EPA's authority to regulate pellet fuel.
More details and analysis here: http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/06/hearth-industry-lists-grounds-for.html
Personally, I think the time and money going into these lawsuits would be better spent on R&D!
John
Tulikivi is suing because they want to be regulated, and think EPA was wrong not to set emission standards for masonry heaters.
Richard Burns & Co is a Philadelphia based waste facility that recycles lots of things, including construction & demolition debris, and they also make wood pellets.
The big hitter, HPBA, has 3 major grounds in their suit:
1. The 2020 particulate matter emission standards for wood heaters, residential hydronic heaters and residential forced-air furnaces are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
2. The “failure to include adjustments for test method precision” is in the compliance audit testing is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
3. The ability of the EPA to use test methods and other provisions that are not developed through a consensus standard-making process.
The Pellet Fuel Institute hasn't yet filed the basis of their suit, but earlier said they were challenging the EPA's authority to regulate pellet fuel.
More details and analysis here: http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/06/hearth-industry-lists-grounds-for.html
Personally, I think the time and money going into these lawsuits would be better spent on R&D!
John
