.enginemanufacturers.org 

VIA EMAIL 

June 30, 2004 

Mr. Robert Donaldson 

Business Compliance Division 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

One Winter Street, 8th Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

RE: Written Comments of the Engine Manufacturers Association on Proposed Revisions 

to Sections 310 CMR 7.00 and 310 CMR 70.00, Engines and Combustion Turbines 

Dear Mr. Donaldson: 

The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) is the trade association representing the 

leading manufacturers of internal combustion engines including those diesel-fueled and gaseousfueled engines used in emergency standby and Distributed Generation (DG) applications that 

will be regulated by the proposed rule cited above. Accordingly, EMA has a direct and 

substantial interest in the pending Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) adoption and 

implementation of the additions and revisions to 310 CMR 7.00 and 70.00. 

EMA has played an active role with states, the federal government, and organizations 

across the country in developing appropriate emissions control standards and regulations for DG 

and emergency standby generators. With respect to the current rulemaking, EMA participated in 

the initial workshop and provided oral comments at the recent public hearings. In addition, 

EMA participated in the efforts of the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) to develop a state 

"model rule" to control emissions from DG; the RAP work product essentially serves as a 

template for the proposed Massachusetts standards. 

EMA appreciates the opportunity to provide input to DEP during the rule development 

process and believes that the proposed rule has been improved by incorporating some of the 

comments and recommendations from participants. In general, EMA supports the intent of the 

proposed regulation to establish emission standards for stationary engine and turbines and to 

streamline the approval process by expanding the Environmental Results Program. We believe 

that such actions can have a positive effect on air quality as well as encourage the expansion of 

DG resources in the state. EMA also supports the need to provide separate and distinct 

regulation of emergency, standby generators. 

However, as noted in our comments at the public hearing, EMA is concerned that several 

provisions of the rule will discourage the expansion of clean DG resources in the commonwealth 

EMA European Office, CP. 65, CH-1231 Conches, Switzerland 

Telephone and Facsimile: +41 22 784 3349 
and unnecessarily restrict the installation and use of stationary engines and generators to produce 

electricity for Massachusetts. The four primary concerns with the proposed regulations are as 

follows: 

• The proposed emissions standards for stationary engines are overly stringent and are 

neither technically feasible nor cost effective. 

• The proposed regulation will discourage the expansion of energy efficient and clean DG 

including combined heat and power (CHP) facilities in the state. 

• The regulation needs to incorporate appropriate standards for alternative and renewable 

fuels such as landfill, digester, and other biogases. 

Manufacturers cannot provide the three year or 15,000 hours certification required in the 

proposed regulation, thereby negating the intent of the regulation to streamline and 

reduce permitting requirements. 

The following provides EMA's detailed comments and recommendations on these key issues as 

well as some additional comments on other aspects of the rule. 

The proposed mission standards for new, non-emergency engines are unnecessarily 

stringent and will have a severe negative impact on the use of DG and CHP in the 

commonwealth. Massachusetts DEP should adopt alternate emission standards that are 

technically feasible and cost effective. This will allow Massachusetts' businesses and 

industry to continue to deploy clean DG resources, thereby taking advantage of the 

resultant enhanced reliability, economic savings, and air quality benefits off DG and CHP. 

The emission standards for new, non-emergency engines proposed in 310 CMR 7.26 are 

based on the RAP model rule and impose increasingly stringent requirements between 2005 and 

2012. The proposed NOx standards, starting with 0.6 lbs/MWh and decreasing to 0.15 

lbs/MWh, are sufficiently stringent to require all generators to be equipped with expensive NOx 

aftertreatment control equipment, even clean-burning natural gas units. 

Today, gaseous-fueled engines can achieve emissions levels of 2-6 lbs/MWh without 

aftertreatment while achieving energy efficiencies as high as 42%. Engines manufacturers are 

currently engaged in long-term research with the U.S. Department of Energy to improve engine 

efficiency and reduce emissions through the Advanced Reciprocating Engine Systems (ARES) 

program. The goal of this multi-year research and development program is to develop a high 

efficiency, low emitting engine that can generate electricity in a cost competitive manner. The 

2010 stretch goals for the ARES program are to produce prototype engines with 50% efficiency 

and a NOx emission level of 0.3 lbs/MWh. 

The proposed Massachusetts' regulation sets a 0.3 lbs/MWh emissions standard fully two 

years before completion of the ARES research and well before the possible successful 

commercialization of such engines. It also establishes an ultimate emission limit of 0.15 

lbs/MWh that is well below even the stretch goal of the ARES program. At this time, it has not 

been demonstrated that such extremely low NOx emissions levels are even technically feasible 

I 
on a sustainable basis for internal combustion engines. Meeting such stringent standards, even if 

they were feasible, would increase the costs of such systems and make their economic feasibility 

questionable at best. 

The net effect of the proposed standards will be to eliminate natural gas engines, the 

predominant technology for distributed generation and CHP units, from the marketplace in 

Massachusetts. 

As an example of the effect of overly stringent emissions standards on the DG 

marketplace, one need only look to California. California developed a NOx emission standard of 

0.5 lbs/MWh for small DG sources in 2001 with an effective date in 2003. Currently, only four 

generators sets have been certified to this standard, two microturbines and two fuel cells - all 

under 250 kW. Consequently, the options available to potential users of small DG systems have 

been severely curtailed, and any future expanded use of DG in California is in jeopardy. If DEP 

adopts the standards as proposed, we expect that no cost effective DG equipment will be certified 

in MA, thus rendering the entire regulation and streamlining program moot. 

Clearly, the end result of implementing any emissions standards for prime stationary 

engines should be to ensure that emissions from the source category are as low as practical, not 

to place a defacto ban on future installation or disrupt the market in such a way as to discourage 

further investment in product development and improvement. Unfortunately, the proposed 310 

CMR 7.26 NOx standards will likely make the installation of DG equipment economically 

infeasible, thereby curtailing any market growth prospects for DG equipment. Without a viable 

market, industry has no business reason to invest in developing cleaner energy resources in 

Massachusetts. 

Compounding the technical difficulties and high costs associated with the proposed NOx 

standards, the proposed regulation includes both a CO, PM and carbon dioxide standard that 

place further constraints on options and control strategies for stationary engines. Because of the 

very stringent NOx standards, all engine-based DG equipment will require the addition of 

aftertreatment equipment. For lean burn gaseous-fueled and compression ignition engines, 

manufacturers will be forced to use Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) aftertreatment devices 

that use urea to reduce NOx emission levels. 

In conjunction with the stringent NOx standard, DEP is proposing CO and CO2 standards 

as well. Because internal combustion engines are highly energy efficient compared to other 

forms of electricity generation, the proposed CO2 standard would not normally be problematic. 

However, when combined with the need for NOx, PM, and CO controls, all of which will require 

aftertreatment and result in lower overall energy and fuel efficiency. The addition of a CO2 

standard adds to the uncertainty and constraints on the DG system. The combination of strict 

emissions limits and energy efficiency constraints imposed by the CO2 emission standard will 

effectively remove any cost-effective options for DG in the state. 

DEP is proposing a CO standard of 2.0 lbs/MWh in 2008 and 1.0 lbs/MWh in 2012. As 

engine manufacturers work to meet the NOx standard, it will be problematic to simultaneously 

achieve a 90% reduction in CO emissions. Doing so will require the development and addition 

3 
of an additional aftertreatment device independent of the NOx reduction system. This will add to 

the complexity and costs of any emissions control system and will not result in substantial 

benefits to air quality. EMA recommends that the CO emissions limit remain stable through 

2012. 

To ensure a continuing viable market for DG in Massachusetts, EMA recommends that 

DEP propose reasonable and effective NOx standards that are in line with the state of technology 

as it continues to evolve over the near future. There are a number of emerging technologies to 

reduce NOx emissions from stationary engines, including the use of exhaust gas recirculation 

and thee-way catalysts, that offer promise for even greater emissions reductions in the future. 

However, these potential control technologies currently come with a high penalty in fuel and 

energy efficiency that degrade one of the great advantages of internal combustion engines, 

namely high energy efficiency. Industry and government need more time to develop these 

technologies so that not only are NOx emissions significantly decreased but also that the 

engine's inherent energy efficiency, reliability, and reasonable cost structure are maintained. 

Accordingly, EMA recommends that Massachusetts adopt the following NOx standards 

in the final regulation for new stationary, prime engines: 

. 2005 - 2.2 lbs/MWh 

. 2008- 1.0 lbs/MWh 

. 2012 - 0.3 lbs/Mwh 

These progressively more stringent emissions standards will allow the best performing 

generators to be installed without the need for expensive SCR aftertreatment devices through 

2007 and create or maintain a viable market for DG in the state. In addition, setting a reasonable 

standard of 2.2 lbs/MWh will also have a positive effect on NOx inventories since that emission 

rate is essentially equivalent to or lower than, average emissions levels produced by utility 

central and peaking generators and may also relieve the need to maintain spinning reserve 

capacity. The 2012 emission standard recommended by EMA is in line with industry and US 

DOE research objectives to develop and introduce extremely low-emission, cost-effective 

generators sets in the 2010-2012 timeframe. 

The 2005 emission standard for NOx recommended by EMA is significant since it will 

accomplish the dual goals of improving ambient air quality and allowing the continued 

expansion of DG in the state. Using the slightly higher emissions standard from 2005-2007 will 

allow the use of clean, gaseous-fueled generators without the need for SCR NOx aftertreatment 

devices, thus making the installation and operation of DG much more cost effective while 

assuring that DG is less polluting than the peaking power that it is replacing. 

EMA also recommends that the DEP maintain the initial 10 lb/MWh standard for CO 

throughout the time period and that DEP delete the CO2 standard from the regulation. Given the 

need to meet the other strict emissions standards of the proposed regulation, there is no way for 

engine or generator manufacturers to effectively control or alter the inherent CO2 emissions from 

a specific generator set. Considering that the priority to control emissions is properly placed on 

minimizing emissions of criteria pollutants, such as NOx, CO, and PM, and that C02 emissions 

4 

1 
from stationary engines are minimal, there is little to be gained by adding additional constraints 

that only make compliance with the primary emissions standards more difficult. 

Adoption and implementation of the regulation as proposed will discourage, and 

perhaps halt, the expansion of DG and CHP in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

As indicated in the Background section of the proposed regulations, the proposal is 

intended to assure deployment of environmentally sound stationary engines, regulate emissions 

consistent with needs and allow time for development of effective emissions reduction 

technologies. Because of the very stringent emissions control requirements proposed, 310 CMR 

7 does not achieve those intended outcomes. 

The primary reason that the proposed regulation fails in this regard is because the 

proposed NOx emissions standards go well beyond what is needed to assure that new DG 

sources are cleaner than the central station power plants that are currently producing the 

electricity that they will replace. As stated in the OTC Distributed Generation Initiative (March 

2001), air regulators need to ensure that new forms of electricity generation are at least as clean 

as the power they are replacing. The proposed NOx emissions standards go well beyond what is 

needed to meet that objective. 

Evidence that the EMA recommended NOx emissions standards are more than sufficient 

to protect air quality in Massachusetts comes from two recently completed reports. The Synapse 

Report1 concludes that when existing DG resources in New England are used to meet reserve 

requirements, there is a more efficient unit commitment, reduced operation of oil- and gas-fired 

steam units, and a potential reduction in criteria pollution emissions. Synapse reports that 

summer reductions could be as large as 41 tons of NOx if only gaseous-fueled DG units are used 

and 23 tons if only diesel-fired units are used. 

The conclusion of the report that "emissions reductions in criteria pollutants are likely to 

result from new DR (DG) resources that are used to meet reserve requirements" is based on NOx 

emission rates of 5 lb/MWh for gaseous-fueled internal combustion engines and 30 lbs/MWh for 

diesel fueled engines. Consequently, adopting the emissions limit of 2.2 lbs/MWh for new DG 

units would further enhance the NOx benefits reported in the Synapse report and result in even 

larger NOx emission reductions as new DG sources are added. 

The second source of information is the NESCAUM report on stationary diesel engines 

in the Northeast2. The report attempts to identify the number of stationary diesel engines in New 

England as well as their impact on air quality. Although acknowledging reliability problems 

with the information bases used to estimate the number of generators and their hours of 

operation, the NESCAUM report states that "additional emissions impacts associated with the 

use of stationary diesel generators in recently introduced formal demand response programs have 

1

 Keith, G., and B. Biewald. 2003 Results of Demand Response Emissions Modeling, Executive Summary. 

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc, June 18, 2003. 19 pp. 

2

 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. 2003. Stationary Diesel Engines in the Northeast: An 

Initial Assessment of the Regional Population, Control Technology Options, and Air Quality Policy Issues. 

NESCAUM, June 2003. Boston, 

5 
to date been small - on an annual basis - relative to state and local inventories of emissions from 

all pollution sources. .. It is important to emphasize that the most important emissions and 

public health concerns related to diesel generators probably have less to do with their NOx 

emissions or their contribution to overall emissions inventories typically used for attainment 

planning purposes." 

Furthermore, NESCAUM estimates annual NOx emissions for all electric generators in 

New York City and Fairfield County, CT, to be about 1% and 3%, respectively, of each state's 

annual NOx inventory. NESCAUM indicates that these may be overestimates since they 

assumed a high utilization rate of nearly 3,800 hours per year for all generators and used 15-year 

old emissions factors that do not reflect current emission levels from modern engines. The report 

states that NOx emissions from small diesel generators are likely to remain relatively modest in 

the context of state's overall attainment planning and obligations in most areas. 

Information in the above reports provides evidence that the emissions concerns in 

Massachusetts from distributed generation are not significant at this time and are likely to remain 

small. In addition, they demonstrate that increased deployment of DG resources can actually 

have a positive impact on emissions of criteria pollutants by eliminating the need for reserves 

and displacing higher emitting oil and gas fired central power plants. Given these facts, there is 

no justification for the state to adopt the very stringent emissions standards proposed, particularly 

when such emission standards will discourage, if not completely disrupt, any future growth in 

DG markets in the state. Because the proposed emissions standards would make DG sources 

much more expensive due to the need to add aftertreatment to all systems, the ultimate outcome 

of 310 CMR 7 will be to discourage the very DG sources that the above two reports indicate 

would have a positive effect on air quality. 

Revised emissions standards for engines that utilize alternate gaseous fuels, such as 

landfill gas and biogases, are needed so that the environmentally beneficial use of those 

fuels can continue. 

The proposed emission standards for stationary engines are problematic from a technical 

and cost-effectiveness standpoint for fuels such as diesel and natural gas. However, those 

standards will be impossible to meet when alternative or biofuels are used as a fuel 

There are many environmental, natural resource conservation, and air quality benefits to 

be gained when waste gases or biogases are used for fuel. Such gases, which would normally 

either be vented to the atmosphere or flared, can be harnessed by using internal combustion 

engines to produce electricity or heat. This approach has the dual benefits of reducing emissions 

and recycling energy. 

However, due to the inherent qualities and composition of these gas streams, it is often 

impossible to assure the quality of the gases as a combustion fuel or to apply catalyst-based 

aftertreatment systems. For the most part, emissions from engines utilizing these gas streams 

will have higher emissions compared to burning pipeline grade fuels that have a consistent 

quality. 

6 

i 
Because aftertreatment systems generally cannot be used, any stationary engine system 

using biofuels would not be able to meet the proposed standards. The regulation would have the 

effect of preventing the further utilization of the waste gas streams. This is unfortunate because 

there are many benefits from doing so. 

In order to assure the continued use of alternate fuel and waste gas streams such as 

landfill, digester, and biofuel gases, the regulation should establish separate emissions standards 

for these processes. DEP should survey emissions from existing facilities in the state and 

determine appropriate emissions standards based on the state of technology. Such emissions 

standards should also take into account the type of fuel used. 

The proposal to require manufacturers to certify that a generator will meet the 

proposed emissions standards for 15,000 hours of operation or 3 years is beyond the 

current industry standard and technical capability of emissions control equipment. 

Section (43)(e) of the proposed regulation requires that generator manufacturers supply a 

certified statement that a particular make and model of the generator has the ability to comply 

with the applicable emissions standards for 15,000 hours of operation or three years, whichever 

is less. 

Importantly, the proposed certification period goes well beyond the expected life of 

current engines and the emissions warranty requirements as applied to mobile source emissions 

by the U.S. EPA. Engines used in stationary sources are generally the same as those used in 

nonroad mobile applications which are manufactured to US EPA emissions standards. In the US 

EPA nonroad regulations, the useful life of nonroad engines, defined as the time period that the 

engines must meet emissions standards, is only 8,000 hours (40 CFR 1039.101). Moreover, 

engine manufacturers are only required to warrant emissions for all nonroad equipment for 3,000 

hours of operation (roughly 150,000 miles) or five years, whichever comes first (40 CFR 

1039.120). The emission certification period proposed by the DEP for these same engines in 

stationary applications is over twice as long as the normal useful life of the engine and 5 times 

longer than the emissions warranty period for nonroad engines and equipment. It is not logical 

or technically possible to guarantee that stationary engines will meet the proposed emissions 

limits for 15,000 hours when that time period is well beyond the useful life of the engine itself. 

A second reason why this proposed certification period is unreasonable is that the 

proposed emissions standards would require the use of aftertreatment devices to meet emissions 

limits, and engine and generator manufacturers must rely on the warranty conditions of the 

emissions control aftertreatment systems. Currently, these manufactures also do not warrant 

their products for such a long time period, and many systems are not designed to last 15,000 

hours. Therefore, it would be virtually impossible for generator manufacturers to certify that the 

emissions would meet the requirements of the proposed regulation when the manufactures of the 

requisite emission control equipment are not likely to provide such a warranty. 

Finally, given that the proposed regulation would become effective in 2005, even if the 

standards were adopted today and manufacturers were to immediately start testing integrated 

7 
systems, it would take until at least February 2006 to test DG systems for 15,000 hours of 

operation. Quite simply, there is insufficient time to complete the required testing in order to 

meet the proposed certification requirements. Consequently, there would essentially be no 

certified generators available for installation in the state until after mid 2006. 

Each manufacturer has their own policies and statements on warranty issues. Standards 

and practices not only vary among manufacturers, but also among technologies. The normal 

practice of most manufacturers is to certify or warrant their products for one year. 

Rather than require the generator manufacturer to provide certification for such an 

unreasonable time period, the DEP should require the operator to maintain the generator and any 

emissions control equipment so that the proposed emission limits are met. In this way, the 

operator will have a requirement to properly maintain or replace the equipment to ensure that 

emissions remain below the applicable standards. Manufacturers' warranty and certification 

programs will continue to be a competitive marketing issue, spurring manufacturers to offer 

improved products and better warranties. 

If any certification period is to be included in the final regulation, it should be reduced to 

a time period corresponding to current industry practice of offering a one year warranty. 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 

EMA supports the adoption of emissions standards for emergency engines based on 

the US EPA Nonroad Mobile Source Regulations 

EMA supports DEP's proposal to require emergency engines to meet US EPA nonroad 

engine standards. Applying the Tier 2 and Tier 3 nonroad engine standards will minimize 

emissions from this source category while at the same time ensuring that emergency engines will 

be able to perform their intended life-saving functions. 

EMA also supports the revision to the draft rule that eliminated emissions limits for 

emergency engines greater than 1 MW that were different from the US EPA Nonroad standards. 

This total alignment of emergency engine standards will eliminate confusion and also help assure 

that complaint engines are available in the greater than 1 MW size category. 

The DEP needs to clarify and prescribe the certification requirements for stationary 

engines. 

Section 43(e)(1) indicates that no person shall install an engine unless that person has 

certified compliance to the emissions standards in accordance with 310 CMR 70.00. Section 310 

CMR 70.03 requires the responsible person at a facility to simply state that the facility is in 

compliance with the requirements and the regulation does not appear to require any 

documentation regarding emissions standards. 

It appears that the DEP intends owner and operators of stationary engines to be 

responsible for certifying the performance of engines and systems rather than manufacturers. 

This should be clarified in the regulation. 

8 

i 
In addition, no requirements or guidance are given regarding what constitutes adequate 

documentation. Will a letter from a manufacturer be sufficient or must test results demonstrating 

compliance be submitted or available. In terms of engines that require aftertreatment, must the 

installed system be tested or will a statement from the aftertreatment equipment manufacturer 

and a statement regarding engine-out emissions suffice to obtain certification. 

EMA recommends that DEP review this section and clarify the requirements and the 

documentation that are necessary to certify engines for use in stationary applications. EMA 

supports the principle that the responsibility for certification to Section 310 CMR emissions 

standards be placed on the owner/operator of the facility. However, we also believe that such 

certification must be documented by statements, formal letters, or evidence of certification that 

are derived from test data or engineering studies. Otherwise, certification would be meaningless. 

EMA strongly supports the inclusion of adjusted emissions standards or emissions 

credit or offsets for DG facilities using Combined Heat and Power (CHP) technology in the 

final regulation. 

DG facilities that incorporate CHP into their design and operations provide many benefits 

including improved fuel and energy efficiency compared to DG facilities that only produce 

electricity. CHP facilities can produce useable heat and power at an efficiency rate of over 80% 

and thus creates an excellent opportunity to save fuel and conserve natural resources. The draft 

regulation does not recognize the emissions benefits of CHP that result from the use of excess 

heat from engines to provide benefits such as heating and cooling. CHP replaces the need for 

additional energy use through combustion to produce an equivalent benefit. 

The final regulation should incorporate provisions that allow emissions credits or offsets 

for DG facilities that utilize CHP. This should be in the form of higher allowable emissions 

limits for CHP facilities that reflect the emissions saved using the equivalent energy needed to 

produce the benefit. Incorporating such a benefit into the rule will encourage the further 

deployment of CHP facilities in the state. 

EMA believes that the recommended changes noted above are critical to making the proposed 

regulation feasible as well as to minimize the disruption of the DG market in Massachusetts. As 

noted, the more reasonable standards recommended by EMA will still be protective of the 

environment and fulfill the goals of the regulation. Even with these less stringent emissions 

standards, the resulting expanded deployment of DG will actually help reduce NOx and other 

emissions in the state. 

The Economic Impact of the proposed regulation as stated in Section V of the 

Background Document does not adequately reflect the real costs of the proposed regulation 

and should be revised. 

DEP indicates that there are essentially no economic impacts to the regulated community 

from the proposed regulation. This clearly is not the case. 

9 
DEP is establishing very stringent emission standards for stationary engine and turbine 

systems that will significantly increase the initial capital and operating costs of these Systems. It 

is certainly inaccurate to state that the regulation will not affect owners and operators of such 

systems. The regulations will, in fact, have a significant economic impact in Massachusetts by 

establishing future emission standards for stationary engines and turbines that will require the 

addition of aftertreatment and require suppliers to met very stringent performance standards. 

DEP needs to address these economic impacts of the regulation before it is finalized. 

EMA looks forward to continue to work with DEP and other stakeholders to craft a final 

regulation that achieves the stated goals of the agency to assure that emissions from DG in the 

state do not degrade air quality and to encourage the installation and deployment of clean, energy 

efficient DG to meet the state's growing electricity needs. 

We would be happy to provide additional information or answer any questions you may 

have. 

Sincerely, 

Joseph L. Suchecki 

Director, Public Affairs 

10