Wood Energy for Residential 

Heating in Alaska: Current 

Conditions, Attitudes, and 

Expected Use

David L. Nicholls, Allen M. Brackley, and Valerie Barber

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-826

July 2010
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) 

or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

David L. Nicholls is a forest products technologist and Allen M. Brackley is a 

research forester, Alaska Wood Utilization Research and Development Center, 

204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835; and Valerie Barber is an assistant professor, 

Forest Products Program, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, 533 E Fireweed Ave., 

Palmer, AK 99645.

Cover photographs: cordwood by David Nicholls; stoves by Allen Brackley.
Abstract

Nicholls, David L.; Brackley, Allen M.; Barber, Valerie. 2010. Wood energy 

for residential heating in Alaska: current conditions, attitudes, and expected 

use. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-826. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 30 p.

This study considered three aspects of residential wood energy use in Alaska: 

current conditions and fuel consumption, knowledge and attitudes, and future use 

and conditions. We found that heating oil was the primary fuel for home heating 

in southeast and interior Alaska, whereas natural gas was used most often in 

south-central Alaska (Anchorage). Firewood heating played a much more important role as a secondary (vs. primary) heating source in all regions of Alaska. In 

interior Alaska, there was a somewhat greater interest in the use of wood energy 

compared to other regions. Likewise, consumption of fossil fuels was considerably greater in interior Alaska. Cost was a primary factor influencing motivation 

to convert to wood energy. Most respondents were at least somewhat familiar 

with residential wood-burning systems, however relatively few were familiar with 

Environmental Protection Agency certified woodstoves. Firewood/cordwood 

was by far the preferred wood fuel choice, whereas wood briquettes were least 

preferred. Similarly, firewood was the type of wood fuel that respondents were 

most familiar with. Variations were observed between Alaska’s primary regions 

(southeast, south-central, and interior). This could be attributed to a number of 

factors including colder climates in interior Alaska, and overall low use of wood 

energy in south-central Alaska because of preferences for natural gas. Fuel oil 

prices of $4.00 to $5.00 per gallon would be needed for most homeowners to 

convert to wood heating. There was a broad range of willingness to pay for new 

wood energy systems (from about $1,000 to $3,000). However, this survey was 

not random and results may not be representative of the populations at each 

sampling location. 

Keywords: Alaska, biomass, bioenergy, wood energy, renewable, cordwood, 

pellets, fossil fuels.

1

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

Introduction

Given the peak in fuel oil prices during 2008, there has been an increased interest 

in renewable energy for home heating in many areas in Alaska. Wood energy is an 

important renewable energy option in forested regions of the state, and can be easily implemented on a small scale using local resources. During the past few years, 

a resurgence of wood energy for home heating has occurred in addition to larger 

scale wood heating facilities, including a school (Craig, Alaska) and several wood 

products facilities having lumber dry kilns (Craig, Thorne Bay, Hoonah, and Delta 

Junction, Alaska). On Prince of Wales Island, feasibility assessments have identified potential opportunities for even more facilities, including cordwood heating of 

schools, community centers, and several other public buildings (T.R. Miles 2006). 

In Sitka, a city resolution has set a goal of using “local labor and materials including recycled paper and cardboard” to heat 800 homes by the end of 2009 (City and 

Borough of Sitka, Alaska 2008). Benefits of increased use of biomass energy in 

Alaska could include reduced home heating costs, efficient use of waste products, 

and additional revenues for local sawmills. Other benefits that could be more difficult to quantify include carbon emission reductions, improved forest health, and 

habitat and watershed restoration benefits (Tongass Futures Roundtable 2008). 

Natural gas is the major fuel used in south-central Alaska. There have been 

recent price increases for this source of energy, and the potential exists for natural 

gas shortages in this region by 2012, especially if colder than normal winters persist 

(Loy 2009). Regardless of these factors, natural gas still has a competitive advantage over wood in south-central Alaska, although with an uncertain future. In interior Alaska, heating oil is commonly used for residential heating. However, wood 

energy is being increasingly used for residential heating, and larger facilities have 

been established in Delta Junction and Dot Lake, Alaska (Nicholls 2009). Although 

high fuel oil prices have resulted in a significant interest in wood energy, recent 

price fluctuations underscore the importance of developing stable fuel sources not 

subject to demand based on world markets or changing economic conditions. 

An important first step in adopting wood energy will be understanding consumer preferences for various wood energy products, the types of existing and new 

equipment, and the ones preferred by residential consumers. Several wood energy 

equipment dealers in southeast Alaska have become established, and in recent years 

business has increased considerably (Bauman 2005). Other forest products firms 

and fuel suppliers have expanded their product lines to include firewood. Fuel availability differs by region, but wood energy products that are available to southeast 

Alaska residents include firewood/cordwood (figs. 1 and 2), pellets (fig. 3), and 

other densified fuel products. Cordwood is firewood cut and split into conveniently 

An important first 

step in adopting 

wood energy will 

be understanding 

consumer preferences 

for various wood 

energy products, the 

types of existing and 

new equipment, and 

the ones preferred by 

residential consumers. 
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Figure 1—Firewood bundles for sale at a grocery store in southeast 

Alaska. 

Figure 2—Stacked cordwood at a wood-burning facility in south-central Alaska. David Nicholls

David Nicholls
3

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

sized pieces for easy stacking. Pellets are made from compacted sawdust or other 

wood waste products. Biobricks are made from compressed wood waste (like 

pellets) but formed into larger stackable bricks. On Prince of Wales Island, a new 

biomass cooperative has been formed among local mill owners to combine and 

utilize mill waste wood. A business plan is being developed to build a facility to 

manufacture biobricks for an alternative source of energy. 

In 2007, the Fairbanks Economic Development Council conducted a survey to 

determine interest of consumers in the Fairbanks area to convert to wood pellets 

(Robb 2007). When consumers were made aware of the costs, 42 percent of those 

in the southeast and 55 percent of those in the Fairbanks areas stated they would 

consider converting to pellet fuel. Important wood fuel properties include unit 

size, density, moisture content, and moisture resistance. Also important will be 

fuel delivery method and labor requirements to prepare, transport, and burn fuel in 

homes. In Sitka and other parts of southeast Alaska having limited road systems, 

an important consideration will be whether wood fuel is to be transported by barge 

from outlying areas (vs. harvested adjacent to local roads). Already, a major wood 

products facility in southeast Alaska is producing firewood and has started delivery 

service to regional markets by barge. 

Figure 3–Wood pellets for sale at a grocery store in southeast Alaska. 

David Nicholls
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Challenges to increased wood energy use in Alaska include having relatively 

few wood products producers or harvesters capable of supplying firewood on a 

steady basis and in economic quantities. Once the extent of wood fuel markets is 

known, interested entrepreneurs can plan business startup activities for production 

and distribution of wood fuel as well as sales of wood-burning equipment.

Potential Wood Fuel Sources 

The following sections identify potential sources of wood fuel, and these could 

differ by region. For example, more sawmill residues could be available for wood 

energy in southeast Alaska, whereas in south-central and interior Alaska, other 

sources, such as hazardous fuel clearings, could be used. 

Sawmill Residues

There is limited information relative to the volume of lumber produced in Alaska 

outside the southeast region. Southeast Alaska is home to 12 active mills, 3 of 

which each produce in excess of 3 million board feet annually. Since 2002, actual 

lumber production in southeast Alaska has ranged between 31 and 34.6 million 

board feet per year (Brackley and Crone 2009, Brackley et al. 2006). About half of 

the stated log volume is processed into lumber, and the remaining volume includes 

slabs, edging, chips, sawdust, bark, and trim ends. Sawmill residuals are located at 

the mill site, in proximity to users, and available for use or conversion to various 

energy products.

Harvesting Residues

Saw logs are the only product harvested by most logging operations in Alaska. In 

all areas of Alaska, trees and portions of trees that are not suitable for saw logs can 

be recovered and processed into energy products. The potential sources of energy 

products include rough and rotten trees, tops, limbs, and stems from trees that are 

below the size required to produce saw logs. In all harvesting operations, a transportation system has been established to move material from stump to market. A 

case-by-case analysis of the economics of producing energy products from existing 

harvest areas is beyond the scope of this paper. Obviously, harvesting areas that are 

near users have a higher potential than those in remote areas.

Thinnings From Forest Management Activities

Approximately 425,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska 

have been harvested since 1950 (Nowacki et al. 2001). Option 6 of the Tongass 

Land Management Plan (USDA FS 2008) identifies 225,000 acres available for 
5

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

future thinning. Thinnings have the potential to provide both high-value products 

such as house logs and biomass for home and district heating projects. Wildlife 

habitat enhancement on Prince of Wales Island includes a variety of silvicultural 

operations such as precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, pruning, gap creation, and tree planting (USDA FS 2007). During fiscal years 2004 through 2007, 

an average of 5,449 acres per year were precommercially thinned in the Tongass 

National Forest.1 During fall 2007 in a managed watershed near Sitka (Starrigavan 

area), forest restoration activities treated 10 acres. This stand was about 35 years 

old and yielded close to 18 cords of firewood to 31 clients.2 Although each client 

used only about half a cord of firewood, this could provide significant benefits to 

residents who use wood as a secondary heating source. 

DeMars (2000) found that precommercial thinning of spruce-hemlock (Picea 

sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. and Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) stands in southeast 

Alaska were generally beneficial when managing for wood production, and that 

medium to heavy thinnings should be favored. Heavy thinning could reduce wood 

quality; however, wildlife habitat could be improved through additional understory 

vegetation. Other studies considered Sitka spruce and western hemlock management on high-productivity and low-productivity sites in southeast Alaska (Barbour 

et al. 2005). By using the forest vegetation simulator (FVS), researchers found that 

precommercial thinnings could be used at stand age 20, and that stand spacing 

(ranging from 12.1 ft by 12.1 ft to 20 ft by 20 ft) had an important influence on 

merchantable timber volume. 

Hazardous Fuel Clearings

Some communities in Alaska are close to hazardous fuels that increase fire risk. 

For example, in the Fairbanks area, 250 acres has already been harvested in the 

Cash Creek drainage to reduce hazardous fuel loads. It is estimated that over 

100,000 green tons of biomass could become available for power generation in 

the Fairbanks area within the next 10 years (assuming harvests on 5,000 total 

acres of 20 green tons per acre) (Nicholls et al. 2006). More than 1,200 acres are 

listed within 13 hazardous fuel treatment units in the Fairbanks area (Hanson 

2007), potentially offering additional opportunities for biomass utilization. One 

of the potential problems with using hazardous fuel removals for bioenergy is the 

possibility of a sudden surge of biomass over a short timeframe as severe fire risks 

1

 Spores, S. 2008. Personal communication. Acting forest silviculturist, Tongass 

National Forest, 648 Mission St., Ketchikan, AK 99901.

2

 Heuer, P. 2008. Personal communication. Silviculturist, Tongass National Forest, 

204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

are being mitigated, and conversely, potential shortfalls in biomass supply during 

years in which few acres burn.

Research Objectives 

This study evaluates wood energy use by residential consumers in Alaska (fig. 4). 

The scope of this project is to evaluate current consumer knowledge and attitudes in 

Alaska relative to wood energy use versus other heating fuels. A specific objective 

of this study is to characterize the current use of wood energy for residential heating in Alaska’s three most populated regions (southeast, south-central, and interior). 

The scope of this paper is to evaluate conditions related to future and expected 

conditions for residential wood energy use in Alaska. Specific objectives include:

• Assess heating oil prices needed to induce Alaska residents to convert to 

wood energy.

• Evaluate daily maintenance time that wood energy adopters would be 

willing to spend.

• Evaluate willingness to pay for new wood energy systems and for home 

energy efficiency measures.

Figure 4—State of Alaska, indicating regions.

Far North

South-Central

Southwest

Southeast

Nome

Prudhoe Bay

Barrow

Dillingham

Bethel

Fort Yukon

Fairbanks Tok

Sitka

Sand Point

Unalaska

Interior

Delta Junction

Glennallen

Far North

South-Central

Southwest

Southeast

Nome

Prudhoe Bay

Barrow

Dillingham

Bethel

Fort Yukon

Fairbanks Tok

Sitka

Sand Point

Unalaska

Interior

Delta Junction

Glennallen

King Salmon

Petersburg

Wrangell

Homer

Haines

Anchorage Palmer

Kodiak Kodiak

Kenai

Skagway

Juneau

Dutch Harbor

Cordova

Seward

Valdez Soldotna

Ketchikan

 A specific objective 

of this study is to 

characterize the 

current use of wood 

energy for residential 

heating in Alaska’s 

three most populated 

regions. 
7

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

Methods 

In this study, we evaluated consumer preferences for renewable energy by using 

survey methods. The survey was conducted at local businesses in five Alaska 

locations (tables 1 and 2). Venues included hardware stores and home improvement 

centers, grocery stores, a large “big-box” retail center, and a home and garden show. 

Most locations were sampled over several days (however, two of the locations in 

Fairbanks were sampled for only 1 day). All surveys were conducted in partnership 

with the University of Alaska-Fairbanks (UAF), Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Forest Products Program. Surveys were reviewed 

and approved for use by the UAF Institutional Review Board. 

Table 1—Wood energy survey sampling locations for five communities in Alaska

Sampling venue

Home	 Grocery	 Hardware	 Home	 “Big box”	

Location	 Sampling dates	 center	 store	 store	 show	 store

Sitka March–May 2008 X X X

Juneau May 2008 X X

Ketchikan September 2008 X X

Anchorage September 2008 X

Fairbanks September 2008 X X

Table 2—Regional response rate to Alaska wood energy use survey

Number of	 Percentage	

Region	 Sample locations	 usable responses	 of total

Percent

Southeast Sitka, Juneau, Ketchikan 477 62.9

South-central Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Valley 141 18.6

Interior Fairbanks and outlying communities 140 18.5

 Total 758 100.0

Response data were collected in Sitka (March–May 2008), in Juneau (May 

2008), and in Anchorage, Ketchikan, and Fairbanks (September 2008). Note that 

home heating oil prices in general experienced a significant increase during our 

sampling period (March to September 2008). Thus, survey results may have differed if a respondent had answered in September versus in March. The surveys 

considered preferences for renewable energy use, equipment, and energy products. 

A total of 758 usable responses were collected (from the 509 participants in southeast, 149 in south-central, and 146 in interior Alaska). Screening questions were 

used so that a respondent who was under 18 years old, from a household that had 

already responded, or not a local resident, was omitted from the survey results.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Respondents were asked to consider only space heating applications for their 

home. Because several of the questions pertained to household energy use, we 

evaluated only one survey per household. Respondents who were landlords were 

asked to provide information based on all properties owned (e.g., total use of energy 

for home heating). Those who were renters were still permitted to complete surveys, although people whose primary residence was a boat were not included. No 

information on household income was collected. Surveys were conducted at various 

times of the day and various days of the week (including weekdays and weekends). 

Prospective respondents were asked at random if they would be interested in 

completing a survey; however, there was no way to control who actually completed 

surveys (and so the survey was not random).3 Thus, the survey was not representative of each region or location sampled. For example, the state’s largest population 

center, Anchorage, was sampled at only one location (a home show), whereas in 

southeast Alaska, samples were conducted at seven locations in three cities. Also, 

we conducted the survey in urban areas (the largest Alaskan cities), and there are 

likely differences in viewpoints between these residents and those living in rural 

towns and villages. 

Questions were broadly grouped into three themes, all relating to use of wood 

energy for home heating (complete survey is provided in the appendix):

• Current conditions for household wood energy use

• Knowledge and attitudes of residential energy consumers

• Future (expected) use of wood energy

Visual displays of firewood, pellets, and densified wood fuel were present 

while respondents completed their surveys. An incentive (small candy or key chain) 

was also offered to respondents who completed a survey.

Results 

This paper focuses on current conditions for residential heating with wood energy 

in Alaska, including primary and secondary home heating sources as well as 

fossil fuel type, price, and consumption. The data were evaluated based on geographic region (southeast, south-central, interior) and by gender (male vs. female 

respondents).

3

 It was observed that people who seemed more interested in wood energy were more likely 

to take the time to complete a survey.
9

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

Primary Home Heating Source

This survey found that heating oil was the primary fuel for home heating in 

southeast and interior Alaska, whereas natural gas dominated in south-central 

Alaska (including Anchorage) (fig. 5). Heating sources were more diversified in 

southeast Alaska, where electricity and firewood also played important roles. Very 

few respondents (less than 1 percent of responses, statewide) indicated using wood 

pellets as a primary heating source (fig. 5). Firewood use (cords per year) was 

moderately higher in the interior region vs. other regions.

Figure 5—Primary fuel used for home heating, by Alaska region.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Southeast South-central Interior

Responses (percent)

Heating oil

Electricity

Propane

Firewood/cordwood

Wood pellets

Other wood

Natural gas

Secondary Home Heating Source

In general, secondary home heating represented a much more diverse energy mix 

(vs. primary heating) (table 3). Firewood heating played a much more important 

role, especially in south-central and interior Alaska, where it was the leading 

secondary home heating energy source. In most cases, electricity was preferred to 

heating oil for secondary heating, and this was especially true in southeast Alaska. 

Wood Heating Use and Equipment Purchases

Most respondents had considered wood as a home heating source, with the greatest interest occurring in the interior region (for both male and female respondents) 

(table 4). Of those using wood fuel, firewood was preferred by a wide margin over 

wood pellets (table 5). Average firewood use was greatest in the interior region 

Firewood heating 

played an important 

role, especially in 

south-central and 

interior Alaska.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Table 3—Secondary home heating source for respondents, by Alaska region

Number of	 Percentage of	

Region	 Heating source	 responses	 regional total

Percent

Southeast Heating oil 73 22.7

Electricity 156 48.4

Propane 15 4.7

Firewood/cordwood 74 23.0

Wood pellets 4 1.2

Natural gas 0 0

 Regional total 322 100

South-central Heating oil 2 2.5

Electricity 26 32.1

Propane 4 4.9

Firewood/cordwood 48 59.3

Wood pellets 0 0

Natural gas 1 1.2

 Regional total 81 100

Interior Heating oil 17 18.5

Electricity 16 17.4

Propane 1 1.1

Firewood/cordwood 56 60.8

Wood pellets 2 2.2

Natural gas 0 0

 Regional total 92 100

Table 4—Wood heating interest and equipment purchases

Have you purchased any wood-burning

Have you considered wood as a home heating source?	 equipment within the past 10 years?

Male	 Female	 Male	 Female

Number of	 Percentage	 Number of	 Percentage	 Number of	 Percentage	 Number of	 Percentage	

Alaska region	 responses	 of total	 responses	 of total	 responses	 of total	 responses	 of total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Southeast Yes 210 74 100 69 77 28 31 22

No 75 26 45 31 203 73 113 78

 Total 285 100 145 100 280 100 144 100

South- Yes 44 70 36 49 17 27 16 22

 central No 19 30 38 51 45 73 57 78

 Total 63 100 74 100 62 100 73 100

Interior Yes 93 83 20 80 51 46 8 33

No 19 17 5 20 59 54 16 67

 Total 112 100 25 100 110 100 24 100
11

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

(versus other regions) for both male and female respondents. Firewood use in southcentral Alaska was the lowest of any region, based on number of responses and also 

average cords per year.

Fewer respondents had actually purchased wood heating systems within the 

past 10 years (and again, the greatest interest in wood heating was by interior 

Alaska respondents). In the 2000 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2000), it was 

estimated that wood was the primary fuel for home heating in about 4 percent of 

Alaska households (fig. 6). The Census does not collect any information about 

secondary sources of energy for home heating. Our survey data indicated a considerably higher use of wood fuel (approximately 30 percent of total respondents). 

However, our survey included primary and 

secondary heating use, and did not cover 

all regions of Alaska (but rather focused 

on the largest cities in Alaska). Furthermore, the survey was not random in that 

people having a greater interest in wood 

may have been more likely to voluntarily 

complete a survey, and the survey was 

generally offered only for a short period at 

each sampling location. Lastly, the season 

could have influenced respondent attitudes 

and answers. For example, the Fairbanks 

survey was administered during late September (beginning of the winter heating 

season), whereas in Sitka, responses were 

collected in spring (end of heating season). 

Table 5—Firewood and wood pellet consumption for home heating, based on 

respondents who indicated some use of wood fuel

Firewood consumption	 Wood pellet consumption

Average cords	 Number of	 Average tons	 Number of	

Alaska region	 per year	 responses	 per year	 responses

Cords Tons

Southeast 3.61 135 2.65 5

South-central 2.32 38 0 0

Interior 4.43 63 3.33 3

Figure 6—Primary fuel used for home heating in Alaska 

(source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

Fuel oil and

kerosene

(36%)

Electricity

(10%)

Utility gas

(46%)

Wood

(4%)

Coal or coke

(0%)

Other fuel (1%)

No fuel used

(1%)

Bottled, tank, LP

(2%)
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Fossil Fuel Type, Price, and Consumption

In our survey, fuel oil was the most widely used fossil fuel (table 6); however, most 

natural gas use occurred in the south-central region. Consumption of fossil fuel 

(among those who indicated some use of fossil fuels) was considerably greater in 

interior Alaska vs. southeast or south-central Alaska (table 7). Fuel oil prices were 

relatively uniform across the state (ranging from about $4.10 to $4.25 per gallon) 

(table 8). It should be noted that prices have fallen considerably since the data were 

collected (during spring, summer, and fall of 2008), and the time this report was 

prepared (December 2009).

Table 6—Fossil fuel type used for residential heating in Alaska, 

based on respondents who indicated some use of fossil fuels

Fossil fuel type	 Number of responses	 Percentage of total

Percent

Fuel oila 439 75.9

Natural gas 113 19.6

Propane 17 2.9

Kerosene 9 1.6

 Total 578 100

a

 Includes No. 1 heating oil, No. 2 heating oil, No. 1 diesel, and No. 2 diesel.

Table 7—Fossil fuela consumption for residential heating in Alaska, based 

on respondents who indicated some use of fossil fuels

Number of	 Percentage of total	 Average household	

Alaska region	 responses	 regional responses	 fossil fuel consumption

Percent Gallons per year

Southeast 178 37 749.2

South-central 6 4 750.0

Interior 81 58 1,151.5

a

 Includes No. 1 heating oil, No. 2 heating oil, No. 1 diesel, No. 2 diesel, kerosene, and propane.

Table 8—Fossil fuela price for residential heating in Alaska, based on 

respondents who indicated some use of fossil fuels

Number of	 Percentage of total	 Average fossil	

Alaska region	 responses	 regional responses	 fuel price

Percent Dollars per gallon

Southeast 214 45 4.21

South-central 8 6 4.24

Interior 86 61 4.09

a

 Includes No. 1 heating oil, No. 2 heating oil, No. 1 diesel, No. 2 diesel, kerosene, and propane.
13

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

Factors to Motivate Conversion to Wood Energy

Cost was the key factor influencing respondent’s motivation to convert to wood 

energy from some other fuel type (see fig. 7). Interior Alaska respondents were 

especially cost-conscious, whereas southeast Alaska respondents were less 

concerned about overall cost. In general, respondents were not concerned about 

a lack of local wood energy equipment vendors, and this was especially true in 

the interior region (Fairbanks). Of the three regions sampled, southeast Alaska 

respondents were the most concerned about finding local equipment vendors or 

local wood fuel suppliers.

Figure 7—Factors to motivate conversion to wood energy, by Alaska region.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Cost 

less

Environmentally

responsible 

Local

vendors

Local wood 

fuel suppliers

Other 

Responses (percent)

Factors to motivate conversion to wood energy

Southeast

South-central

Interior

Potential Barriers to Wood Energy Use

Here, respondents were provided with a list of potential barriers (i.e., negative attributes) that could either prevent them from converting to future use of wood energy 

or might restrict their current use of wood energy. Note that within the “other” 

category, a number of positive comments were voluntarily offered (see fig. 8). The 

written comments by those who selected “other” included a variety of other barriers, such as fire hazard, lack of storage room for wood fuel, high initial/conversion 

expenses, asthma, allergies, and environmental concerns. The fact that so many 

written comments were offered (197 total) suggests that wood energy is very much 

on people’s “radar.”

Cost was the key 

factor influencing 

respondent’s 

motivation to convert 

to wood energy.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Figure 8—Viewpoint and potential barriers to residential wood energy use, by Alaska region. Note: 

The written comments by those who selected “other” included a variety of other barriers, such as fire 

hazard, lack of storage room for wood fuel, high initial/conversion expenses, asthma, allergies, and 

environmental concerns. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Smoky Expensive Not widely

available yet

Too much 

work

Other 

Responses (percent)

Viewpoint on wood energy

Southeast

South-central

Interior

“Too much work” was the main barrier or objection to wood energy adoption. 

This was most often cited in south-central Alaska (close to 45 percent of responses), 

and less often cited in the interior (close to 22 percent of responses). “Expensive” 

was rarely listed as an objection, especially among interior respondents. Also infrequently listed as a barrier was “not widely available yet.” The interior appeared to 

have greatest overall availability of wood energy (i.e., least often cited “not widely 

available”).

Most wood energy barriers (including “smoky,” “expensive,” “availability,” and 

“too much work”) were generally greatest for south-central respondents; therefore, 

it is not surprising that overall wood energy use was lowest in this region. There 

was great variation between regions in the “other” response (fig. 8). Here, respondents could write in any comment of their choice (either negative or positive).

Knowledge Regarding Residential Wood Burning

Most respondents were “somewhat” familiar with residential wood burning (fig. 9). 

South-central respondents had overall lower knowledge than those in southeast or 

interior Alaska, and southeast Alaska and interior Alaska respondents were fairly 

evenly matched across all knowledge levels. Once again, people more interested in 

wood energy may have been more likely to stop and complete a survey.

“Too much work” 

was the main barrier 

or objection to wood 

energy adoption. 
15

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

Figure 9—Knowledge level regarding residential wood burning, by Alaska region.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Very Somewhat Not at all

Responses (percent)

Knowledgeable regarding residential wood burning

60

Southeast

South-central

Interior

Knowledge Regarding Environmental Protection Agency 

Certified Woodstoves and Standards

Respondents were asked “How familiar are you with EPA certified woodstoves and/

or EPA standards for residential wood burning and air quality?” Most respondents 

were “not at all” familiar with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified 

woodstoves (ranging from about 40 to 70 percent by region) (fig. 10). However, in 

interior Alaska this was fairly even between “somewhat” and “not at all” categories. 

South-central respondents had overall lower knowledge than southeast or interior 

Alaska, whereas interior respondents had overall greatest knowledge of EPAcertified woodstoves.

Environmental Protection Agency-certified woodstoves and other highefficiency wood burners could help improve air quality within areas that are 

“at-risk.” Juneau has experienced burn bans and other air quality issues in the 

Mendenhall Valley area. In Fairbanks, continued use of outdoor wood boilers 

could exacerbate winter air quality problems related to vehicle use. This could be 

significant given that Fairbanks is already an air quality nonattainment area for 

carbon monoxide (CO) and likely to be designated nonattainment for particulate 

matter (PM 2.5) as determined by the EPA (Alaska Division of Air Quality 2010). 
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Preferred Wood Fuel Types

Firewood/cordwood was by far the preferred wood fuel choice, accounting for 

between 50 and 70 percent for responses for all regions (fig. 11). The interior had 

the highest preference for firewood (over 70 percent of respondents). Briquettes 

were least preferred with fewer than 10 percent of responses in all three regions 

(and 0 percent in the interior). South-central Alaska had a higher percentage of 

respondents answering “don’t know” for preferred fuel type. The local wood fuel 

supply and availability could have influenced these responses (i.e., introduced a 

bias). 

Wood Fuel Knowledge

Most respondents had either somewhat or very little overall knowledge of wood 

pellets (fig. 12). South-central respondents had the least overall knowledge of the 

three regions, and southeast and interior respondents were very closely matched for 

all three knowledge levels. Relatively few respondents considered themselves to be 

“very knowledgeable” regarding wood pellets. Most respondents had very little or 

no knowledge regarding wood briquettes (fig. 13), with between 75 and 85 percent 

of respondents, by region. Less than 5 percent of respondents in any region considered themselves “very familiar.” Firewood was by far the type of wood fuel with 

Figure 10—Familiarity with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified woodstoves, by 

Alaska region.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

65

70

75

Very Somewhat Not at all

Responses (percent)

Familiar with EPA-certified woodstoves

60

Southeast

South-central

Interior

Firewood/cordwood 

was by far the 

preferred wood 

fuel choice.
17

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

Figure 11—Preferred wood fuel types, by Alaska region.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

65

70

75

Pellets Briquettes Firewood/cordwood Don’t know

Respondent’s first choice (percent)

Wood fuel preference

60

Southeast

South-central

Interior

Figure 12—Knowledge level regarding wood pellet fuel, by Alaska region.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

65

70

Very Somewhat Very little/not at all

Responses (percent)

Knowledgeable about wood pellets

60 Southeast

South-central

Interior
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Figure 13—Knowledge level regarding wood briquette fuel, by Alaska region.

which respondents were most familiar (fig. 14). Overall, interior respondents had 

the greatest familiarity and south-central respondents the least familiarity. Similar 

to the results of “Preferred Wood Fuel Types,” the local availability of the different types of wood fuel, as well as respondent experience with wood heating could 

have influenced these findings. 

Fuel Oil Price Needed to Convert to Wood Energy

Most respondents indicated a price range of $4.00 to $5.00 per gallon as the 

market price for fuel oil at which they would convert to wood energy. Our results 

suggest that there is an “elbow” between $3.50 and $4.00 per gallon (fig. 15). 

At $3.50 per gallon fuel oil, very few people (about 5 percent of respondents 

at each location) were willing to switch to wood energy. Overall, a surprising 

number of respondents indicated that they would not switch from fossil fuels to 

wood heating, regardless of price. This was especially true among south-central 

respondents, where about 34 percent of respondents fit this category. This could be 

in part due to the relatively small sample size in Anchorage (n = 41), and because 

most respondents used natural gas and therefore did not respond to this question. 

Interior respondents indicated a sharp increase in willingness to convert between 

$4.00 and $5.00 per gallon (fig. 15). 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

65

75

Very Somewhat Very little/not at all

Responses (percent)

Knowledgeable about wood briquettes

60

70

85

90

80 Southeast

South-central

Interior

Most respondents 

indicated a price 

range of $4.00 to 

$5.00 per gallon as 

the market price for 

fuel oil at which they 

would convert to 

wood energy. 
19

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

Figure 14—Knowledge level regarding cordwood/firewood fuel, by Alaska region.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

65

70

75

Responses (percent)

Knowledgeable about cordwood/firewood

60

Southeast

South-central

Interior

Very Somewhat Very little/not at all

Figure 15—Fuel oil price needed to convert to wood energy, by Alaska region.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Southeast

South-central

Interior

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 5.00 Not switch

regardless

of price

Responses (percent)

Fuel oil price (dollars per gallon)
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Figure 16—Maximum maintenance time willing to spend on wood energy system, by Alaska region.

Note that fuel oil prices rose sharply during the data collection period (from 

about March to September 2008), and that interior respondents were sampled 

during the later part of this period, when fuel oil prices were higher. It is also likely 

that there was some variation in fuel oil market prices between regions, and in our 

study we did not attempt to normalize prices across sampling locations. Thus, fuel 

oil at a stated price may have seemed expensive to respondents in some locations, 

but not in other locations. 

Maintenance Time Willing to Spend on Wood Energy System

Most respondents indicated a willingness to spend 15 to 30 minutes per day 

on maintenance for a residential wood energy system (fig. 16). Relatively few 

respondents indicated a willingness of 45 minutes per day or more maintenance 

time; however, the response rate was uniform between 45, 60, and more than 60 

minutes per day. South-central Alaska had the highest proportion of respondents 

indicating “0 minutes per day” (approximately 20 percent of all respondents), and 

this was more than double that of southeast or interior. It is interesting to note that 

“too much work” was widely cited as a barrier to potential use of wood energy, 

also part of this same survey. 

This question was presented hypothetically to respondents (i.e., they were 

asked “If you owned a wood energy system for home heating, how many minutes 

per day would you be willing to spend on maintenance?”). Therefore, the responses 

included prospective, as well as actual, wood energy users. Further, we defined 

Southeast

South-central

Interior

Responses (percent)

Maintenance time (minutes per day)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 15 30 45 60 >60
21

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

Figure 17—Amount willing to pay for new residential wood energy system, by Alaska region.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Southeast

South-central

Interior

Responses (percent)

Cost of system (thousand dollars)

0 0–1 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 >5

“maintenance” to include a wide range of activities related to wood energy use, 

including receiving fuelwood (but not cutting or splitting it), “stoking” the burner, 

ash removal, and routine maintenance. Because our definition of “maintenance” 

was so broad, this could have influenced the higher proportion of respondents in 

the 45 minutes and greater categories.

Willingness to Pay for a Wood Energy System

Responses covered a broad range of prices; however, most respondents indicated 

a willingness to pay between $1,000 and $3,000. This would be within the price 

range of many commercial firewood and pellet home heating systems. Southcentral Alaska respondents had the greatest proportion of “$0” willingness to 

pay (about 22 percent of respondents) (fig. 17). For both southeast and interior 

Alaska, the highest response rate occurred for the $1,000 to $2,000 price range 

(with approximately 30 and 28 percent of respondents, respectively). A surprising number of respondents in the interior (approximately 14 percent) indicated a 

willingness to pay more than $5,000 for a new wood energy system. 

Note that respondents included those who already owned wood energy 

systems as well as those who did not, and no information was provided to respondents about actual market prices for wood heating systems. Also, respondents’ 

willingness to pay could have been influenced by their choice of wood energy 

system (e.g., firewood vs. wood pellets). 
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Figure 18—Willingness to pay for home energy efficiency measures, by Alaska region.

Willingness to Pay for Home Energy Efficiency

Respondents were asked how much they would be willing to pay annually for 

energy efficiency improvements to their home. Most responses ranged from $250 

to $1,000 per year (fig. 18). Interior respondents indicated a high willingness to 

pay, with steadily increasing response rates from $0 per year to more than $1,000 

per year. Indeed, the greatest response category was for interior residents at greater 

than $1,000 per year (almost 35 percent of respondents). About 60 percent of 

interior Alaska respondents indicated a willingness to pay $500 per year or greater. 

For southeast Alaska respondents, responses were fairly evenly distributed for all 

categories greater than $100 per year. Most south-central Alaska respondents indicated a willingness to pay $500 per year or less (almost 70 percent of respondents). 

A limitation of this question was that it asked for annual expenses for home energy 

efficiency. Based on feedback for those completing surveys, a more appropriate 

indicator might have been expenses over a longer period (perhaps 5 or 10 years), to 

more closely match actual spending habits for energy efficiency improvements. 

Cost of measures (dollars per year)

0 0–100 101–250 251–500 501–1,000 >1,000

Southeast

South-central

Interior

Responses (percent)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35
23

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

Conclusions

Current Conditions and Fuel Consumption

Current residential heating needs were met primarily by heating oil in southeast 

and interior Alaska, and by natural gas in south-central Alaska. Firewood was 

generally more important as a secondary fuel source (versus primary fuel source) 

in all regions of Alaska. Further, firewood was favored by a wide margin among 

wood fuel users in Alaska, with almost no current use of wood pellets, briquettes, 

or other densified fuel. This could be due to a lack of local sources for pellets, 

briquettes, or other densified fuel. 

These results indicate that most Alaska households sampled have at least 

considered wood energy for home heating, and that the greatest near-term 

opportunity is for increased use of firewood. However, production of wood pellets 

and other densified fuels has been considered in Alaska, and the state’s first major 

pellet facility is planned for operation in late 2009 (Mowry 2009). Separately, 

a pellet-making facility in Delta Junction, Alaska, has been in development for 

several years. Households that have multiple-fuel heating systems can increase 

their use of wood incrementally, as greater supplies become available. Although air 

quality issues were not considered in this paper, increased use of wood energy is 

likely to have some impact on emissions. This is an important concern in Alaska 

cities like Fairbanks and Juneau, where air quality can be a problem during winter 

months. Lastly, fuel oil price fluctuations could have an important influence on 

wood energy use and equipment purchasing decisions. Prices are currently well 

below recent highs, and it remains to be seen what impact this may have on wood 

energy use. 

Knowledge and Attitudes

We found numerous regional variations in expected wood energy use between 

southeast, south-central, and interior Alaska. Cost was the most important factor 

influencing motivation to convert to wood energy. Of the three regions sampled, 

southeast Alaska respondents were the most concerned about finding local equipment vendors or local wood fuel suppliers. “Too much work” was the main barrier 

or objection to wood energy use for residential heating. Most respondents were at 

least somewhat familiar with residential wood burning, although Anchorage area 

respondents had overall lower knowledge than those in southeast or interior Alaska. 

Most respondents had very little familiarity with EPA-certified woodstoves. 

Firewood/cordwood was by far the preferred wood fuel choice, whereas compressed 

wood briquettes were least preferred. Similarly, knowledge of firewood was the 

highest of any fuel type. 
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

These findings are significant because of the importance of consumer attitudes 

in influencing wood energy use and equipment purchasing decisions. As potential 

consumers become more knowledgeable about wood energy or adopt a favorable 

viewpoint, they will become more likely to use wood fuel. Outreach and education programs through schools, universities, and government agencies can have a 

beneficial effect in knowledge transfer and diffusion. Although these findings are 

important, they do not represent a random sampling of residents at the survey locations, and should not be used for marketing or product development decisions. The 

findings indicate the need for more detailed research on wood fuel use in Alaska, 

especially in regions of the state that were not sampled in this study. 

Future Use and Conditions

We found numerous regional variations in expected wood energy use among 

southeast, south-central, and interior Alaska. This could be attributed to factors 

such as climate, familiarity with wood for home heating, and underlying 

preferences for nonwood fuel sources. We found that a fuel oil price of $4.00 to 

$5.00 per gallon should be sufficient to induce most homeowners to convert to 

wood heating. Although this fuel price (or higher) was prevalent in many parts 

of Alaska in summer 2008, recent dramatic price declines could already have an 

effect on consumer interest in wood energy. Most consumers were willing to pay 

from between $1,000 to $3,000 for new wood energy systems. However, the recent 

economic downtown (late 2008 and early 2009) could already have an influence 

on consumer spending decisions, their willingness to pay, and ability to borrow 

money. When considering expenses for home energy efficiency, most respondents 

were willing to pay between $250 and $1,000 per year, with interior residents 

at the higher end of this range. Fairbanks area residents also exhibited a greater 

willingness to pay for wood energy systems. Although household income was not 

evaluated in this study, it is an important consideration and could be incorporated 

into future research. This study identifies significant regional differences in the 

way Alaskans perceive wood energy, their potential use of wood for residential 

heating, and their willingness to pay for wood energy versus other sources. 
25

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Acres 0.405 Hectares

Feet (ft) .3048 Meters

Board feet, log scale .0045 Cubic meters, logs

Board feet, lumber scale .0024 Cubic meters, lumber

Tons .907 Tonnes or Megagrams

Cords 3.625 Cubic meters

Gallons 3.78 Liters

Literature Cited

Alaska Division of Air Quality. 2010. Air non-point and mobile sources. 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/anpms/pm/pm_fund.htm. (17 February 2010). 

Barbour, R.J.; Zaborske, R.R.; McClellan, M.H.; Christian, L.; Golnick, D. 

2005. Young-stand management options and their implications for wood quality 

and other values. Landscape and Urban Planning. 72: 79–94.

Bauman, M. 2005. Wood stove sales heat up as fuel prices skyrocket. Alaska 

Journal of Commerce. September 25. http://alaskajournal.com/stories/092505/

hom_20050925016.shtml. (15 January 2009).

Brackley, A.; Crone, L. 2009. Estimating sawmill processing capacity for Tongass 

Timber: 2005 and 2006 update. Res. Note PNW-RN-561. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

15 p. 

Brackley, A.M.; Parrent, D.J.; Rojas, T.D. 2006. Estimating sawmill processing 

capacity for Tongass timber: 2003 and 2004 update. Res. Note PNW-RN-553. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 18 p.

City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska. 2008. Resolution 2008-07. A resolution of the 

City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska supporting the development of a wood based 

fuel for space heating in Sitka. http://sitka.legistar.com/Legislation.aspx. (March 

2010).

DeMars, D.J. 2000. Stand-density study of spruce-hemlock stands in southeastern 

Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-496. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 60 p.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Hanson, D. 2007. Analysis of wood volume available from hazard fuel reduction 

projects and development of wood residue markets in the Fairbanks area. 

Fairbanks, AK: State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division 

of Forestry. 23 p. http://forestry.alaska.gov/pdfs/07Biomass_Report.pdf. 

(15 January 2009).

Loy, W. 2009. Gas shortage stirs pols—governor, mayor, senator seek energy 

security as CI natural gas runs low. Petroleum News. Week of 9 August. http://

www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/735566322.shtml. (17 February 2010).

Mowry, T. 2009. Wood pellet manufacturing plant planned for Fairbanks. 

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. http://www.timberbuysell.com/community/

DisplayAd.asp?id=4228. (March 2010).

Nicholls, D.L. 2009. Wood energy in Alaska—case study evaluations of selected 

facilities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-793. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 33 p.

Nicholls, D.L.; Patterson, S.E.; Uloth, E. 2006. Wood and coal cofiring in interior 

Alaska: utilizing woody biomass from wildland defensible-space fire treatments 

and other sources. Res. Note PNW-RN-551. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 15 p.

Nowacki, G.; Shepard, M.; Krosse, P.; Pawuk, W.; Fisher, G.; Baichtal, J.; 

Brew, D.; Kissinger, E.; Brock, T. 2001. Ecological subsections of southeast 

Alaska and neighboring areas of Canada. Tech. Pub. No. R10-TP-75. Juneau, AK: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. 306 p.

Robb, S. 2007. Survey to assess community support for pellet fuel. Fairbanks, 

AK: Information Insights, Inc. Prepared for: Fairbanks Economic Development 

Corporation, 301 Cushman Street, Fairbanks, AK 99701. 36 p.

Tongass Futures Roundtable. 2008. Biomass energy. http://www.tongassfutures.

net/biomass. (7 November 2009). 

T.R. Miles Technical Consultants, Inc. 2006. Feasibility assessment for wood 

heating—final report. Prepared for Alaska Wood Energy Development Task 

Group. 80 p. http://jedc.org/forms/AWEDTG_WoodEnergyFeasibility.pdf. 

(6 May 2008).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2007. Tongass 

National Forest, Prince of Wales Island, timber stand improvement. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/districts/pow/projects_plans/timber/ 

timber_stand_improv/young_growth.shtml. (4 February 2009).
27

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2008. Tongass 

National Forest land and resource management plan. R10-MB-603b. Juneau, 

AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. 468 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census [U.S. Census Bureau]. 2000. 

Census of housing—historical census of housing tables—house heating fuel. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ census/historic/fuels.html. 

(20 March 2008).
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

Appendix

Questions asked of wood energy survey respondents:

Instructions and screening information

• Please answer the following questions regarding your use of fuels for home heating. 

• Consider only space heating applications for your home (unless otherwise indicated). 

• Please don’t complete this survey if someone in your household has already responded.

• Please complete this survey only if you are a local resident.

Housing status

My housing status: □ I am a renter □ I am a home owner □ I own 1 or more units that I rent out 

# of seasonal rental units: _________

# of year-round rental units: _______

Survey questions

1. What is your primary heating source for your home?

A. Heating oil

B. Electricity

C. Propane

D. Firewood or cordwood

E. Wood pellets

F. Other wood source (specify) _______________

2. What is your secondary heating source for your home?

A. Heating oil

B. Electricity

C. Propane

D. Firewood or cordwood

E. Wood pellets

F. Other wood source (specify) _______________

3. What fuel does your hot water heater use? ________________________________________

4. Have you considered wood as a home heating source?

Yes or No

5. If you have burned wood for home heating within the past year, please indicate the amount:

# cords firewood ___________ # tons pellets or briquettes __________

6. Have you purchased any wood burning equipment within the past 10 years?

Yes or No

If yes, what type of equipment? __________________________________________________

7. How familiar are you with EPA-certified woodstoves and/or EPA standards for residential wood 

burning and air quality?

A. Very familiar

B. Somewhat familiar

C. Not at all familiar
29

Wood Energy for Residential Heating in Alaska: Current Conditions, Attitudes, and Expected Use

8. Please indicate your fossil fuel used for home heating (if applicable)

A. Primary fossil fuel used _______________________________ (indicate type)

B. Current fossil fuel market price (estimates OK) _______________ ($ per gallon)

C. Current fossil fuel consumption (estimates OK) _______________ (gallons per year)

9. What factors might possibly motivate you to start using wood energy as a primary or secondary 

heating source for your home?

A. If it costs less than fossil fuels, I’d consider it 

B. It’s the environmentally responsible thing to do

C. If there were local vendors for wood burning equipment in town, I’d consider it 

D. If there were local wood fuel suppliers, I’d consider it

E. Other factors (please specify) ____________________________________________ 

10. Which statements most closely characterize your viewpoint on wood energy for home heating?

A. It’s smoky

B. It’s expensive

C. It’s not widely available yet

D. It’s too much work to supply wood and/or maintain system

E. Other _____________________________________________________________

11. What is your level of knowledge regarding residential wood burning systems?

A. Very knowledgeable

B. Somewhat knowledgeable

C. Not at all knowledgeable

12. When considering wood fuel, which would you prefer?

A. Wood pellets

B. Wood briquettes 

C. Firewood / cordwood

D. Don’t know

13. Please rate your knowledge on the following types of wood fuel:

Knowledge level Wood pellets Wood briquettes Cordwood/firewood

Very knowledgeable

Somewhat knowledgeable

Very little or not at all 

knowledgeable

14. How expensive would fuel oil need to become per gallon before you would consider converting to 

wood fuel? (Please answer only if you are currently using fuel oil.)

A. $2

B. $2.50

C. $3 

D. $3.50

E. $4

F. $5

G. I wouldn’t switch, regardless of price
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-826

15. If you owned a wood energy system for home heating, how many minutes per day would 

you be willing to spend on maintenance? (Please consider all related activities, including 

receiving fuelwood, “stoking” the burner, ash removal, maintenance, etc.)

A. 0 mins/day 

B. Up to 15 mins/day

C. Up to 30 mins/day

D. Up to 45 mins/day

E. Up to 60 mins/day

F. More than 60 mins/day

16. How much would you be willing to pay for a wood burning system?

A. I would not consider paying anything

B. $0–$1,000

C. $1,001–$2,000

D. $2,001–$3,000

E. $3,001–$4,000

F. $4,001–$5,000

G. More than $5,000

17. How many square feet is your primary residence (approximate living space)? ______ (sq. ft.)

18. How many people live in your home? ______

19. Do you live in your local residence seasonally OR year-round?

20. How much would you be willing to pay per year to increase the energy efficiency of your home?

A. Nothing ($0)

B. $1–$100/year

C. $101–$250/year

D. $251–$500/year

E. $501–$1,000/year

F. More than $1,000/year

21. Please indicate your gender:

A. Female

B. Male

22.Please indicate your age:

A. 18–30

B. 31–40

C. 41–50

D. 51–60

E. 61–70

F. >70
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

333 SW First Avenue 

P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use, $300