RE: Maine buying up OWBs?
- Thread starter firefighterjake
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
GRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr................RAWR
Great! My tax dollars are now going to be used for this.
Great! My tax dollars are now going to be used for this.
CHA.....CHING!
I think that they should look at property tax breaks/deductions for those people instead.
I really do miss Maine though.
!I think that they should look at property tax breaks/deductions for those people instead.
I really do miss Maine though.
State lawmakers directed the DEP to create the buy-back program in legislation passed earlier this year but did not fund it. A portion of the anticipated funding will come from violators of the state’s environmental laws who agree to deposit money into the program as part of their fines. Another source could be the state’s general fund.
Contact your legislator and express your indignation as to general fund monies possibly being used. Mine helped author the banning legislation. And am sure he wouldn't want to use general funds for buy backs.
Will
Pretty amazing that the manufacturers can sell these, pocket all their profit, and then Maine will buy them at full retail from the users....
I used to have the impression of Mainers as practical people with common sense.....but that has gone by the wayside. Heck, why doesn't the government of Maine sue the manufacturers?
Just another buyout......
I used to have the impression of Mainers as practical people with common sense.....but that has gone by the wayside. Heck, why doesn't the government of Maine sue the manufacturers?
Just another buyout......
as a maine resident and TAXPAYER - I'm ticked at this plan to buy back.
All partys involved did so knowingly and willingly. Sure, after purchase and installation the Government might have changed the rules on allowable emmisions, but does that make it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for upgrades or replacements? In that case - I have an old 1982 pick-up truck used for dump runs, am sure it is polluting far higher than current standards - Where do sign up for the State to give me a new truck?
All partys involved did so knowingly and willingly. Sure, after purchase and installation the Government might have changed the rules on allowable emmisions, but does that make it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for upgrades or replacements? In that case - I have an old 1982 pick-up truck used for dump runs, am sure it is polluting far higher than current standards - Where do sign up for the State to give me a new truck?
I can see where it could be a tough situation.
On one hand, we all know there are people out there burning green wood, old tires, and generally creating enormous amounts of noxious fumes that could drop a moose at a thousand yards. Even us libertarians would agree that the government has a role in protecting us from idiots who would make our air unbreathable through their ignorance or disregard for common sense operation of their wood-burning appliance.
On the other hand, there are folks who will complain loudly about the smallest grievance - I know someone who would complain if the next door neighbor was burning a scented candle on the deck.
I suspect at least a small majority of trial lawyers might even agree that at least some complaints are baseless.
It would be tremendously expensive to monitor a dispute with equipment that could provide measurements against a definitive standard over a useful period of time.
What's a self-respecting government agency to do?
1) Outright ban. Simple, effective, not all that many voters out there with OWBs. Pretty tempting.
2) Set standards. Requires the establishment of entire new monitoring and enforcement agencies, millions in new equipment. Also pretty tempting. Added bonus: will keep lawyers busy for years arguing the interpretations of the hundreds of pages of fine print.
3) Do nothing. Path of least resistance, but as dead moose and complaints pile up, might not look so good.
Reading the Maine proposal, I think I see tight-fisted Yankees setting up a system where owners of offending boilers might be led to jump through a long series of hoops in the hope of getting money with no actual guarantee that anyone could ever actually qualify.
I can see it now: Owner has dragged OWB off of pad and halfway across yard to meet setback rules. Now wants money. "Sorry, Earl. Your chimney height's just a bit short. Fix it and I'll come back next month". You could keep this going for years.
That way, the people making the complaint can see that the offender is doing all sorts of things (some of which might actually help) over a long period. With luck, one or the other might pass away, the boiler might rust out, the owner might give up, and in any event no money would have to be paid out until well after the next election.
Pretty smart, I say.
On one hand, we all know there are people out there burning green wood, old tires, and generally creating enormous amounts of noxious fumes that could drop a moose at a thousand yards. Even us libertarians would agree that the government has a role in protecting us from idiots who would make our air unbreathable through their ignorance or disregard for common sense operation of their wood-burning appliance.
On the other hand, there are folks who will complain loudly about the smallest grievance - I know someone who would complain if the next door neighbor was burning a scented candle on the deck.
I suspect at least a small majority of trial lawyers might even agree that at least some complaints are baseless.
It would be tremendously expensive to monitor a dispute with equipment that could provide measurements against a definitive standard over a useful period of time.
What's a self-respecting government agency to do?
1) Outright ban. Simple, effective, not all that many voters out there with OWBs. Pretty tempting.
2) Set standards. Requires the establishment of entire new monitoring and enforcement agencies, millions in new equipment. Also pretty tempting. Added bonus: will keep lawyers busy for years arguing the interpretations of the hundreds of pages of fine print.
3) Do nothing. Path of least resistance, but as dead moose and complaints pile up, might not look so good.
Reading the Maine proposal, I think I see tight-fisted Yankees setting up a system where owners of offending boilers might be led to jump through a long series of hoops in the hope of getting money with no actual guarantee that anyone could ever actually qualify.
I can see it now: Owner has dragged OWB off of pad and halfway across yard to meet setback rules. Now wants money. "Sorry, Earl. Your chimney height's just a bit short. Fix it and I'll come back next month". You could keep this going for years.
That way, the people making the complaint can see that the offender is doing all sorts of things (some of which might actually help) over a long period. With luck, one or the other might pass away, the boiler might rust out, the owner might give up, and in any event no money would have to be paid out until well after the next election.
Pretty smart, I say.
I wonder why no one wants to move to our state?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Webmaster said:
We have a Govenor and legislator controlled by liberals, that is why we get this non-sense.
They should sue the homeowners who installed them and force them to clean up their problem. No one forced the homeowners to install these things.
If a business put something like these in you bet your a$$$ the state would force them to clean up their act.
oliver5528 said:
Ha, I work for the New York State and this bit of government action is nothing compared to New York. We can shame that the first 12 seconds of every Monday morning.
I'd move over there in a heart beat. (and bring my Tarm of course!!)
Eric
This is the same group of environmentalists that is pushing for alternatives and renewables to get off fossil fuels
BUT
1) They want wind turbans but THEY don't want to look at them
2) No nukes
3) No hydro
4) No outdoor boilers now
I don't get it.
Bob
BUT
1) They want wind turbans but THEY don't want to look at them
2) No nukes
3) No hydro
4) No outdoor boilers now
I don't get it.
Bob
TurboZ said:
You probably know better than most - that if the state sued them, you and your friends would be yelling about the enviro nut jobs suing people for burning wood.
That's the sad fact. You can't win.
I have to somewhat agree with NF - from a "solve the worst now" perspective, the idea makes some sense.....and government rarely does stuff that makes sense. Example which is similar....years ago, they figured out that only a very few cars are responsible for the vast majority of the pollution. Someone came up with a machine which identified these cars as they drove by, took the license numbers, etc.
But the state was already in bed with equipment makers and sub-contractors who made emissions equipment to test every car, every year. Guess which idea carried the day????
So, in some warped way it makes sense.......sometimes, as NF says, you have to solve the problem at the present instead of looking at all the reasons it exists.
It does make me chuckle, however, that it really does seem that just about everyone is willing to take "free" money - even as they complain about the nanny state. A real "Hearth.com Guy" would get rid of the OWB on their own and pay for the replacement themselves (in an ideal world)......or. figure out some way to clean it up otherwise.
BTW, the same logic Maine is using is applied to the largest corporations, etc. - in NJ...when electric and gas were deregulated, the state gave 9 BILLION dollars in guarantees to the utilities and agreed NOT to lower rates more than 10% - because the utilities jumped up and down about all their old inefficient generation plants and they wanted to make sure they could keep using them and still make a big profit.
Oh, it was a GOP controlled state at the time...but I don't think that matters. When it comes to handing out money, both parties have an agreement to share and share alike (your money with big business).
WAHOO! Another item off my bucket list!
This is almost as good as getting a sticky ;-)
Of course, it could only happen when I have tongue planted firmly in cheek.......
RobCo said:
I guess I have to explain to you...the same as my wife.....
"There is no THEY"
There is only you and me........
Whenever someone pulls out the "they" card, you know to watch out.....
Personally, I LOVE seeing wind turbines spinning above the horizon....or even locally......
Dams are mostly OK, but you gotta be careful if there is an entire eco-system you wipe out. I doubt anyone wants salmon to cease existing (well, not many people).
We have the technology today to have a lot of our cake and eat it too. That is what we should do, IMHO. Hopefully we will all laugh sometime in the future about how we were scrambling for clean energy....because I truly think it will be abundant and be able to integrate with an improved lifestyle and environment.
Well put Craig.
As I stated earlier. Go to Maine.gov and locate your legislator and voice your concern for the buyout scam of the dirty OWB's. The same time it takes to post here you can email your legislators. Both senate and house. I am hopeful there won't be a lot of general funds used for this purpose. Especially when people take the time to let em know we know.
Will
Willman said:
It's a very simple way to "talk' to your legislator. Not a waste of your time. Fairly easy to do on the fed level.
I have gotten replies from Collins and nothing from Snowe. Wonder if it is a reelection thing. My local legislator in the house replies. My senator no replies. Still I keep it up. Can't hurt to let em know whats on my mind.
Will
If this silly "buyback" thing ever becomes a reality, I wonder who would end up with those boilers?
Some state employee would be my guess. What a scam.
Some state employee would be my guess. What a scam.
This is all 'Crazy' talk.
"Boiler owners and manufacturers say the contraptions generate about as much smoke and soot as many modern indoor wood stoves when properly operated and maintained."
I- nor Central Boiler have ever called an OWB a 'contraption'. :coolsmirk:
Don't burn wood, in Maine....yea right.
We will start drilling in the Gulf of Maine for oil in a few years.... just freeze in the winters, until then.
"Boiler owners and manufacturers say the contraptions generate about as much smoke and soot as many modern indoor wood stoves when properly operated and maintained."
I- nor Central Boiler have ever called an OWB a 'contraption'. :coolsmirk:
Don't burn wood, in Maine....yea right.
We will start drilling in the Gulf of Maine for oil in a few years.... just freeze in the winters, until then.
- Status
Similar threads
