ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, INC. 

1655 NORTH FORT MYER DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 FAX: 703/528-5106 TEL: 703/528-1900 

June 30, 2004 

Mr. Robert Donaldson 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Business Compliance Division 

One Winter Street 

Boston, MA 02108 

Dear Mr. Donaldson: 

This letter is a follow-up to my previous comments regarding the proposed Massachusetts 

regulations for small engines and turbines, 310 CMR 7.20. This letter focuses on the lack of 

recognition for CHP in the proposed rule. 

Combined heat and power (CHP) is the sequential generation of electric and thermal output from 

a common heat input. CHP systems use much less energy than required to provide the same 

input from conventional separate thermal and electric generation. By using less fuel the CHP 

system also reduces emissions of all pollutants. The benefits of CHP have been recognized by 

the U.S. EPA, U.S. DOE, NESCAUM, STAPPA/ALAPCO, many environmental organizations 

and many states. 

The discussion in the proposed rule suggests that recognizing the thermal output of CHP would 

be an illegal "netting out of BACT" and result in increased emissions. I believe that this is 

incorrect on both counts. 

First, the goal of recognizing the thermal output of CHP is not to avoid regulation, but to 

recognize the emission reductions that are actually achieved through the application of a higher 

efficiency technology (CHP). The use of increased efficiency as a form of pollution prevention 

(P2) to reduce emissions has been widely endorsed by environmental regulators and 

environmentalists. P2 is not just an alternative to conventional emission control technologies, it 

is actually preferable because it reduces emissions of all pollutants, avoids the generation of 

secondary pollutants and reduces consumption of fossil fuel. Thus, from a purely policy goal, 

promoting emission reductions through efficient CHP would seem to be a high priority for 

Massachusetts. 

From a legal position, the "netting out of BACT" argument seems to assume that only direct 

emission control technologies can be included as part of the BACT assessment of emission 

reductions. In fact, Federal guidance on BACT instructs states to include inherently lowemitting processes as part of the BACT analysis. This would include the emission reduction 

benefits of a higher efficiency process such as CHP. A complete assessment of BACT should 
Letter to: Bob Donaldson 

June 30, 2004 

Page 2 

therefore include the cost-effectiveness of CHP as an alternative emission control technology. 

Since the goal of the proposed rule is streamlined permitting, a simpler alternative is called for. 

The RAP model rule includes a structure that recognizes the thermal output of a new CHP 

facility by incorporating the effect of an avoided thermal generator (boiler) that applies BACT. 

Thus this incorporates the effect of BACT on the thermal component of the CHP facility without 

a lengthy calculation and provides recognition of the effect of pollution prevention in setting an 

appropriate electricity-based emission limit for the CHP facility. This is not netting out of 

BACT. It is appropriately considering the effect of efficiency in a BACT analysis. This is a 

legal approach and should be included in the Massachusetts rule. 

The state of Massachusetts has been at the forefront of encouraging energy efficiency through 

the use of output-based regulation. This effort is becoming more important as Massachusetts 

expands its programs to reduce greenhouse gases as well as criteria pollutants. CHP is the most 

widely applicable and immediately available technology to achieve these goals. I hope that you 

will not miss the opportunity to take full advantage of this important tool. 

Sincerely, 

Joel Bluestein, P.E.