Tim Reed: Joining me once again is Jason Tolleson, senior director of government affairs at the HPBA. Jason, every time we talk, there’s a lot going on in your world. How’s the last month been for you?

Jason Tolleson: Really busy—for me and my whole government affairs team here at HPBA. Whether it’s federal activity on the regulatory side or continued work on the legislative side, it’s been busy.

TR: I believe it. We’re in full swing now with the affiliate conferences going on in different parts of the country, and I’m sure you’ve been traveling for some of that. I want to get into all of it, but let’s start with the EPA. I actually saw a post online yesterday about some cool stuff involving our industry and the EPA. Maybe we can start there.

JT: Thanks for staying on top of all the social posting, because that’s where we promote this news. I want to give a huge shout-out to Karen Arpino, executive director of several of our affiliates. She was invited to attend an event in New York City where EPA Administrator Zeldin was recognized for his work. It was a tremendous opportunity. She had a great meet-and-greet before the event, got a few minutes with the administrator, and used it to reintroduce the hearth industry to him and raise some of our pressing concerns—a quick elevator speech on what we see going on. We look forward to the follow-up with him, his chief of staff, and other contacts we have at the EPA. So it was a tremendous opportunity for her to get that spotlight with the administrator.

TR: Really quick—he’s the top of the EPA, right?

JT: That’s correct. As administrator, he’s the head of the EPA.

TR: So Karen was invited to this event where he was being recognized, and she used that quick moment to explain some of the difficulties of our industry—and now that’s leading to engagement.

JT: Absolutely. When you take this all the way back to the Government Affairs Leadership Academy and the skills we talk about—how to take advantage of those short, quick meetings to make your points heard—this is exactly it. And a shout-out to some of our manufacturers, including Chris Neufeld from Blaze King, who helped provide prep comments for Karen going into that brief but very impactful meeting. Kudos to everyone involved in putting it together.

TR: Building on that, what else is happening with the EPA?

JT: Just last week, I was at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., meeting with more of the rank-and-file folks who work on our wood heater program—dealing with test method development and certificates. Those were really positive engagements. In fact, it was a collaborative effort with the Pellet Fuels Institute, going to some of their meetings both at the EPA and on Capitol Hill, since their fuel is used in a lot of our pellet stove products. To have that coalition approach—where they raise their concerns and we reinforce it from the hearth appliance side—is great. The EPA has had a very open-door policy and engagement with industry, so to tie Karen’s event at the top of the agency together with these continued staff meetings is excellent. This is my fourth or fifth in-person meeting this year alone with staff at that level. We’ve got them well informed about our concerns, and we continue to drive a positive relationship.

TR: That’s awesome. We’ve talked about this in the past, but the new NSPS is on the horizon—it’s really going to come together in the next year and a half or so. So these conversations with the EPA are incredibly important.

JT: Very timely. Based on the timeline—both their internal deadlines and the consent decree, the lawsuit settlement between the EPA and certain states who sued them over the timeliness of the NSPS process—they should have everything wrapped up, the draft comment period and the final publication, for cordwood and pellet stoves by December of 2027. We call that the triple-A part of the NSPS. Most of that work is going on now through the end of this year. For hydronic heaters and warm air furnaces, they’re in the quad-Q portion of the rule, and everything comes into play a year later—draft in 2027, final rule by 2028.

So as all those pieces come together, the conversation is about what works today. What parts of the rule have been favorable? What parts of the rule has the industry become accustomed to? And what areas could use improvement? Could we take more of a scalpel approach instead of a hatchet if the industry has developed and worked within the current testing environment? One area of concern is certificates and the five-year renewal period for them. When you look at other segments across the EPA’s regulated entities, it’s very unique to have a five-year certificate in addition to an eight-year rule. I think about the paperwork burden for both EPA staff and manufacturers who are constantly chasing this—and the ongoing delays in getting these renewals. The product is no less compliant when it’s built, sealed, and shipped out to a distributor and on to a retailer. But somewhere in that process, as it sits on the showroom floor, if that certificate expires, now we have a whole different scenario to work with.

TR: Even though the product itself is still compliant with the current NSPS rules.

JT: Absolutely. So that’s an area for that scalpel approach, versus taking a sledgehammer to the entire thing. We’ll be curious to see how the EPA decides to move forward, but industry input will be given all along the way.

TR: We really appreciate you guys continuing to advocate for our industry. I remember back between 2015 and 2020, when the last NSPS revisions were happening—and for anyone who’s been living under a rock, NSPS stands for New Source Performance Standards—that whole process was pretty stressful leading up to 2020. Even though it was eight to 10 years ago now, it still feels fresh in the rearview mirror. So it’s great that we’re being so proactive in working with the EPA on this new revision.

JT: Absolutely. As I’m getting closer to my two-year mark with the association, it’s been a great introduction—going back in the way-back machine, pulling up files from 2013 and 2014, getting into the 2015 rule. I was looking at something from 1988 earlier today, some of the original test methods that came into play, like OM7, and thinking, “Wow, there’s such a history in this.” But also, look at all the improvements that have been made in that time. From what stoves used to put out in the pre-regulated space, to Oregon coming online, to the first NSPS, then 2015 and 2020—you see real innovation within our industry, which leads back to that point about certificates. Maybe there was a rationale back then to get product out of circulation at a quicker pace with these renewals. But we’ve had more frequency with the NSPS from 2015 to 2020 until now. Do we need to revisit that, to look at where the emissions output is—which is truly what the marker in the NSPS, the test method, is measuring—rather than the sales channel?

If a manufacturer modifies a wood stove, they have to submit for a new certificate, so you have that natural evolution. If the EPA writes a new rule or a new method, that’s a natural evolution of the certification process too. But the burden on staff—especially seeing how much EPA staff has been reduced, with continued proposed budget cuts—is significant. The president proposed cutting the EPA’s budget by half; the House just agreed to a 20% reduction. So if there are going to be continued reductions in staff, and our product doesn’t change from certificate to certificate—or if it does, they have to reapply—that sounds like a heavy burden on both sides.

TR: It’s like a win-win for both sides. Now, let’s shift to fuel choice. We’ve been talking about this for a while. Last month, we were just stuck in a wait-and-see place. Where’s the fuel choice bill now?

JT: Thanks for bringing that up. Still a little bit of a holding pattern, but the targets have narrowed. This week, there was close collaboration between Chris Connor on my team, who does our federal work, and our executive directors—two come to mind, Karen Arpino and Eric Hash from our Southeast affiliate. We had two targets on the House Rules Committee, and we said, “Hey, can you get letters in? Can you get some emails in? Here are the retailers in their district for these congressional targets—can you do this?” Then, Chris sent follow-up correspondence and went over to their offices to meet with staff. So the target list is narrowing, and we’re trying our best.

TR: So again, for folks listening, if you get the call saying, “Hey, you need to send this email and write this letter,” we’ve got to do it—because time is of the essence. It’s neat that the affiliate directors responded so quickly.

JT: Absolutely. And stay tuned, all retailers out there. As soon as we get word that it’s going to get a vote before the Rules Committee or go to the House floor, you’ll receive that call to action. We’ll hit every member of Congress with emails and letter drops. That’s the plan as soon as we get confirmation of the vote.

TR: We’ll be waiting for that. Is there any update on the Senate side? I know we’ve talked about how it’s close to a vote on the House side, but how about the Senate?

JT: I had some meetings last week with Senate staff on it. Things move a little differently over there—and sometimes that can be advantageous if you’re trying to work out agreements, because things are a bit more deliberative in the Senate. One key thing is getting a little more bipartisan support on that side. As we get closer to our congressional fly-in the third week of June, that target list may vary based on trying to reach some moderate Democrats in the Senate. You need 60 votes to get past the filibuster, so is there language that could be agreed upon by some Democrats or independents that would help get us to that 60 number? That’s the target moving forward. We’re still waiting to see what the final language looks like in the Senate bill. We think they’re going to give us something different from the House, and then we’ll put the two versions together and see what we can do.

TR: That’s great context. What else is going on in your world of government affairs?

JT: Two things. First, my team is preparing a policy update webinar on Wednesday, June 10 at 12pm ET. A blast email just went out today about it—there’s one on codes and standards and one on the policy update. So check your inbox. It’s for members only; you just go through the registration portal and put your organization name in, so we can confirm members are calling in. We’ll give a little more play-by-play on what’s going on with the fuel choice narrative at both the federal and state levels. We’ll also discuss some of the state legislation we’ve been looking at. And we’ll highlight the activity of our affiliates who have been out doing lobby days and taking advantage of their annual meetings to promote government affairs work.

And that’s a perfect segue into our fly-in. Members of the Government Affairs Leadership Academy, as well as the HPBA board of directors, will be in D.C. We’ve got a list of key offices we want to meet with, to share our narrative about the industry—who we are, what we represent, the fact that our members are the experts on hearth—as well as give an update on fuel choice and an overall update on EPA solid fuel issues. Hopefully, some of the backlog in certificates will have cleared, and we can give a status check on where things are headed with the next rule. So those are the big three things we’ll be bringing up.

TR: I’ve been a part of a couple of D.C. fly-ins in the past, and I’ve always walked away really impacted by them. I say this quite a bit, but there are a lot of areas of government where I hold a cynical view—and yet at the same time, I’ve always been amazed that we have the ability to use our voice, and that people really can listen to what we say. I hold those two things together as both true: You can acknowledge that things aren’t the way they should be, and you can still use your voice. That’s a tremendous opportunity. So, for folks coming in for the first time for the fly-in, what are you hoping they walk away with?

JT: That exact sense you just shared—going in and feeling that you’re making a difference. You’re engaging with these officials and their staff to inform, to educate, and to build a relationship. It doesn’t start and stop with that one meeting on Capitol Hill. There’s the invite: “Come visit the shop. Let us be a resource when issues like fuel choice come up.” That one meeting is a key element, but the continued relationship is huge. So I always say it doesn’t stop there. Do the follow-up. If you have an open house or you’re celebrating 10 or 25 years in business, it doesn’t hurt to drop an invitation to the district staff and keep that door open. Our products are quite unique, and they’re heavily regulated from multiple fronts—from building codes, to restrictions on natural gas, to a really big eight-year rule with the EPA. So that constant feedback—and sharing your knowledge and expertise with them on our products—is invaluable.

TR: Absolutely. A couple of things come to mind as we round out. That story about Karen being in a position to meet the head of the EPA and have something ready to say—I had a similar experience a number of years ago. I was in an airport with a friend, getting ready to fly home, and I saw Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon ordering something at the place next to us. My friend and I looked at each other like, “What do we do? We’ve got to talk to him.” So I went over and reintroduced myself (we’d had a previous meeting, back in the time of the new NSPS). Because of the training I’d had at the Government Affairs Academy, it was a little nerve-wracking, but he was just a person, and I was able to communicate something. In the days since, we’ve had communication with his staff, and also with our other senator, Ron Wyden—to the point where one of Wyden’s local team members came to our business to meet with other hearth retailers about NSPS. So you’re right: It’s a relationship. If someone politically has an agenda opposed to our industry, you may not win them over right away, but the continued relationship is like water on a rock. It eventually starts to make inroads.

JT: Absolutely. I’ve been doing government affairs for about 25 years now, and there are still surprising moments for me. Going into that fly-in last week with the Pellet Fuels Institute, I walked into a meeting thinking, “I don’t know if this is going to go our way.” But I still went in. And I walked out pleasantly surprised, thinking, Really? Did that just happen? That was really positive. We were able to provide information that was useful to both sides on some language they’d been working on behind the scenes. We may not agree in the end, but we have to be willing to take down the preconceived notion that we’re not going to find alignment. I’ll talk to anyone, I’ll work with anyone. For me, that was a moment of reflection: This is how it’s done. You still go in; you still have the conversation. You may find folks who completely disagree with you and wrap the meeting in two minutes, or you may get lucky and talk for 25. That happened to me last week, and it was a great reminder of what I tell other people: Take advantage of every opportunity.

TR: That’s awesome. Jason, we’re so thankful for the work you and the rest of the HPBA are doing. I’m excited to talk again next month about the updates we’ll have after everything. It’s easy to just go it alone in our industry, but as my friend Daniel Hammer says, “Alone we fade; together we burn.” So let’s burn bright.

JT: Absolutely. Thanks again.