----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/19/2010 02:23 PM

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |"Wemhoff, Bill G." <bill.wemhoff@nreca.coop> 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |10/19/2010 02:19 PM 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |Petition for Reconsideration - SI RICE NESHAP 8-20-10 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

Attached for your information is a Petition for Reconsideration of the Spark 

Ignition Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine August 20, 2010, final rule 

that was delivered to Administrator Jackson today.

In the petition, NRECA is requesting that EPA relax the restrictions in the 

final rule regarding the use of emergency RICE for peak shaving and demand 

reduction programs. The change we are proposing would not result in any 

additional run-time above the 100 hours of operation that is already provided 

for in the rule, but would allow owners/operators to use their units without 

restriction up to 100 hours-per-year for non-emergency operation in ways that 

best meet their particular circumstances and needs. Under this arrangement, 

all hours of operation for maintenance, testing, peak shaving, demand 
reduction, and all other non-emergency operation would be at the 

owner/operator discretion – but not to exceed 100 hours-per-year.

I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have regarding the 

petition.

Bill Wemhoff

Sr. Principal, Environmental Policy

NRECA

ph (703) 907-5824

<<1010petitioncvrf (2).docx>> <<Petition1010.docx>>

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for 

the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 

privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or 

distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 

contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 

message. (See attached file:

1010petitioncvrf (2).docx)(See attached file: Petition1010.docx)
4301 Wilson Blvd.  Arlington, VA 22203-1860  tel: 703.907.5500  www.nreca.coop 

October 19, 2010 

By Hand Delivery 

The Honorable Lisa Jackson 

Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building (Mail Code 1101) 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Re: Petition for Reconsideration of Portions of the Final Rule: National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

Please find enclosed the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association’s (NRECA) Petition for 

Reconsideration of portions of the Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines promulgated on August 20, 2010, (75 

Fed. Reg. 51,570) pursuant to Clean Air Act § 307(d)(7)(B). The enclosed Petition for 

Reconsideration addresses restrictions contained in the final rule that prohibit the use of small 

emergency generating units for peak shaving programs and demand reduction service beginning 

May 2013 without the addition of expensive emission reduction technology on units that are 500 

horsepower and larger. 

Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. I can be reached at 

(703)907-5824 or bill.wemhoff@nreca.coop. 

Sincerely, 

(original signed) 

Bill Wemhoff 

Senior Principal, Environmental Policy 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 

4301 Wilson Blvd. 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Enclosure 

cc: Robert Wayland 

 Melanie King 

 Kevin Bromberg, SBA 
1 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 

 ) 

National Emission Standards for ) 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for ) 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion ) Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708 

Engines; Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 51,570 ) 

(August 20, 2010) ) 

 )

 

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (“NRECA”) hereby requests 

that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) reconsider portions 

of the above-captioned final rule pursuant to § 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or 

“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B). Specifically, NRECA requests that EPA remove the 

restrictions it has placed on the use of small emergency electric generating units for peak 

shaving and demand reduction operation in the rule’s requirements for emergency stationary 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (“RICE”) (§63.6640) (75 Fed. Reg. 51,591). 

This change would not result in any additional run-time above the 100 hours of operation that 

is already provided for in the rule, but would allow owners/operators to use their units 

without restriction up to 100 hours-per-year for non-emergency operation in ways that best 

meet their particular circumstances and needs. 

The Petitioner

NRECA is the national service organization for more than 900 not-for-profit rural 

electric utilities that provide electric energy to approximately 42 million consumers in 47 

states or 12 percent of the nation’s population. Kilowatt-hour sales by rural electric 

cooperatives account for approximately 11 percent of all electric energy sold in the 

United States. NRECA members generate approximately 50 percent of the electric 

energy they sell and purchase the remaining 50 percent from non-NRECA members. The 

vast majority of NRECA members are not-for profit, consumer-owned cooperatives. 
2 

NRECA’s members also include approximately 66 generation and transmission (“G&T”) 

cooperatives, which generate and transmit power to 668 of the 846 distribution 

cooperatives. The G&Ts are owned by the distribution cooperatives they serve. 

Remaining distribution cooperatives receive power directly from other generation sources 

within the electric utility sector. Both distribution and G&T cooperatives were formed to 

provide reliable electric service to their owner-members at the lowest reasonable cost. 

 

Grounds for the Reconsideration

Under CAA § 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator must convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration if a person raising an objection to a promulgated rule can demonstrate that it 

was impracticable to raise the objection within the period for public comment, or if the grounds 

for the objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 

judicial review), and if the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. In that 

proceeding, the Administrator is to provide the same procedural rights as would have been 

afforded had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed. 42 U.S.C. § 

7607(d)(7)(B). NRECA’s objections meet these criteria and a new rulemaking proceeding 

should be convened with respect to the issues described in this petition. 

EPA has promulgated a variety of New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) and 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAPs”) for RICE on a 

piecemeal basis, including, at a minimum, the following actions in recent years: 

 NESHAPs for engines above 500 horsepower (“HP”) at major sources, 69 Fed. 

Reg. 33,474 (June 15, 2004) (Subpart ZZZZ of 40 C.F.R. Part 63), 

 NSPS for compression ignition Internal Compression Engines (“ICE”), 71 Fed. 

Reg. 39,154 (July 11, 2006) (Subpart IIII of 40 C.F.R. Part 60), 

 NSPS for spark ignition ICE, 73 Fed. Reg. 3,568 (Jan. 18, 2008) (Subpart JJJJ of 

40 C.F.R. Part 60), 

 NESHAPs for engines below 500 HP at major sources, 73 Fed. Reg. 3,568 (Jan. 

18, 2008) (Subpart ZZZZ of 40 C.F.R. Part 63)1, 

 NESHAPs for compression ignition RICE, 75 Fed. Reg. 9,648 (Mar. 3, 2010) 

(Subpart ZZZZ of 40 C.F.R. Part 63), and 

 

1

 The rule promulgated on January 18, 2008, included New Source Performance Standards for ICE and 

NESHAPs for RICE. 
3 

 NESHAPs for spark ignition RICE, 75 Fed. Reg. 51,570 (Aug. 20, 2010) (Subpart 

ZZZZ of 40 C.F.R. Part 63). 

EPA’s extended and sporadic rulemaking process has fostered confusion within the 

regulated community, particularly in regard to owners and operators of small emergency 

generating units participating in peak shaving programs. Furthermore, there remain 

inconsistencies in the rules regarding how certain RICE are to be regulated. For example, 

in EPA’s final rule for spark ignition (“SI”) RICE, the Agency finalized a subcategory of 

nonemergency RICE that operate 24 hours or less per year at area sources. (75 Fed. Reg. 

51,572, col. 2; and Table 6, No. 9, 75 Fed. Reg. 51,601, August 20, 2010). This 

subcategory is not included in the Agency’s final rule for compression ignition (“CI”) 

RICE under Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ. EPA, itself, has recognized and attempted to cure 

some of the inconsistencies with its current proposal to revise the definition of “emergency 

stationary internal combustion engine” in its July 2006 NSPS2

. 

Furthermore, as mentioned above, the majority of these small stationary SI and CI 

engines are not owned by cooperatives, but rather by the consumer-owners they serve. 

Distribution cooperatives, having no major electric generation facilities of their own, are 

concerned primarily with distributing electric power to their retail consumers. They simply 

do not have the resources or a practical reason to keep track of and review the many EPA 

rulemaking activities under the Clean Air Act to see if one of these rulemakings may have 

an impact on their operation of delivering electrical power. Without an outreach from 

EPA, which was absent in these rulemakings, these small entities could not anticipate that 

the proposed rule for emergency generators would undermine and destroy their very 

practical and highly successful peak shaving programs. 

 In addition, because the bulk of the small emergency generating units, which are the 

subject matter of this petition, are not owned by these cooperatives, it was impractical for 

them to contemplate that the continued use of these resources in an efficient and productive 

manner for the benefit of their rural consumer-owners would be wiped out by a Federal 

Government that professes goals of increased energy efficiency and resource conservation. 

 

2

 Proposed Revisions to the NSPS for spark ignition stationary RICE (75 Fed. Reg. 32,612, June 8, 2010) 
4 

Also, the maximum 15 hours-per-year limit for emergency demand reduction 

operation was not included in the March 2009 proposal, so there was no basis to foresee 

that EPA would spontaneously issue its final rule with that restriction. The 15 hours limit 

appeared in the final rule after the comment period, so it was impossible to object to it 

before EPA indicated that it was considering such a limit. Thus, the grounds for this 

objection arose after the period for public comments. 

NRECA believes the inconsistencies in the rulemakings, the piecemeal way in which 

EPA has addressed the regulation of RICE, and the significant limitations it placed in the 

final rule without the opportunity for comment has made it impractical for small 

distribution electric cooperatives to raise the objections described herein during the 

public comment period. NRECA further believes that the objections raised in this 

Petition for Reconsideration are of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Peak 

shaving and demand reduction programs are a major use of many of these small 

emergency generators and the continuation of these programs is a significant 

consideration for the owners and operators of these units. The Administrator, therefore, 

must convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the objections raised herein. 

Background

EPA proposed NESHAPs for stationary RICE on March 5, 2009, (74 Fed. Reg. 

9,698). The Agency promulgated a final rule for stationary CI engines on March 3, 2010, (75 

Fed. Reg. 9,648), and for SI stationary RICE on August 20, 2010, (75 Fed. Reg. 51,570). 

Among the engines covered by these rules are small emergency generating units 

owned and located at residential, commercial, and institutional facilities across rural 

America. A number of distribution rural electric cooperatives have made arrangements 

with some owners of these small generating units to use them for peak-shaving and 

demand reduction purposes and also for system reliability considerations. While these 

arrangements do not generate income for the cooperative, they do help offset the costs of 

these units by reducing the cooperative’s demand on central station power supplies 

during periods of very high demand. The resulting reduced costs or economic benefits 

are in turn shared with the owner of the emergency unit – a win-win situation. 

EPA’s final RICE NESHAP rules exempt residential, commercial, and institutional 

emergency generating units located at area sources from rule requirements. The final rules, 
5 

however, include a section that defines how emergency stationary RICE can be used. These 

provisions prohibit the use of emergency units for peak-shaving programs and allows very 

limited use for other demand reduction purposes. Beginning in 2013, existing emergency 

units larger than a specified size will not be able to continue to be used in peak shaving 

programs without being reclassified as “non-emergency” units and adding expensive 

emission reduction technology on a dollar-per-ton basis in order to meet stringent emission 

limits. The additional costs of the new requirements will potentially make it economically 

prohibitive for their continued use in these programs. The result will be increased costs for 

distribution cooperatives. Being not-for-profit electricity providers, they will be forced to 

pass these costs along to their consumer-owners. 

Argument

NRECA believes the restrictions on the use of small stationary compression 

ignition and spark ignition RICE emergency generating units for peak shaving and 

demand reduction purposes should be eliminated entirely. Alternatively, the restrictions 

should be minimized so as to not diminish the value of these programs. 

EPA’s RICE NESHAP rules allow emergency units to operate up to 100 hoursper-year or more3

 for testing, maintenance, etc., including 50 hours-per-year for nonemergency situations – but specifically not for peak-shaving purposes. Peak shaving 

programs involve minimal hours of operation, thereby potentially not adding to the 

allowed 100 annual hours of operation contained in the rules. Continuing the use of peak 

shaving programs, therefore, would not cause additional public health risks or 

environmental harm beyond those already contemplated in the final rule. Elimination of 

peak-shaving programs, however, would require the procurement of additional central 

station capacity and potentially the addition of transmission and distribution line capacity 

to service the demand increase. 

EPA’s final RICE NESHAP rules also limit the use of small stationary emergency 

generating units to 15 hours-per-year as a way to prevent system-wide electrical failures, 

 

3

 The owner or operator may petition the Administrator for approval of additional hours to be used for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator maintains 

records indicating that Federal, State, or local standards require maintenance and testing of emergency 

RICE beyond 100 hours-per-year. (§63.6640ሻ (75 Fed. Reg. 51,591 / Col. 2). 
6 

including blackouts. Collapse of the grid system could potentially cause significant 

environmental impacts, well in excess of the effects of emissions from these units if used 

to prevent such disasters. 

While peak-shaving programs do not generate income for the distribution 

cooperative, they do produce economic benefits by reducing the level of demand on their 

electric power suppliers, resulting in reduced demand costs. These reduced costs, in turn, 

are shared with the owners of these small emergency generating units that participate in 

peak shaving programs: a win-win arrangement that helps hold down power costs for the 

owners of these units, as well as for the cooperatives other consumer-owners. Reduced 

cost of electrical energy is a very important consideration during this time of national 

economic strain and is of particular importance to rural electric cooperatives as they serve 

some of the most economically depressed areas in the nation. 

NRECA is aware of at least one distribution cooperative that purchased 

emergency generators and located them at area hospitals and hurricane shelters. These 

generators provide the necessary full backup service reliability that is needed at these 

facilities. Without these cooperative-supplied emergency units, the hospitals and 

emergency shelters would need to buy their own units at a cost of millions of dollars. 

To help offset the costs of these units, the cooperative uses them in peak shaving and 

demand reduction programs. Without the benefits of these programs, however, the cooperative 

advises that it may be forced to discontinue this service. In that event, these facilities will be 

forced to purchase their own units with the costs borne by the residents of the cooperative 

service area – an area of the country already severely economically depressed. 

Another restriction contained in the final RICE NESHAP rules is in regard to the 

limitation of 15 hours-per-year for demand reduction purposes. The final rule restrictions may 

prevent emergency engines from continued participation in emergency demand reduction 

programs since the engines may no longer be able to meet Independent System Operator 

(“ISO”) tariff requirements that specify minimum hours of availability to participate. The 

result again would be higher costs, the need for replacement capacity, and a potentially less 

reliable electric grid system that depends upon central station versus distributed generation. 
7 

Conclusion

NRECA supports EPA’s efforts to protect public health and the environment from harm 

caused by the presence of toxic air pollutants. NRECA is very concerned, however, that the 

Agency has included unnecessary restrictions in this NESHAP rule that will cause economic 

harm across rural America without providing any meaningful environmental benefit. 

In light of the minimal environmental effects but significant benefit from having 

these small stationary emergency units available, NRECA requests that EPA reconsider 

the provisions of the final RICE NESHAP rules that restrict the operation of these 

emergency units for peak-shaving and demand reduction programs. 

NRECA believes the restrictions on the use of small stationary compression 

ignition and spark ignition RICE emergency generating units for peak-shaving and 

demand reduction purposes should be eliminated entirely. Alternatively, the restrictions 

should be minimized so as to not diminish the value of these programs. 

NRECA suggests that one way that EPA could address this issue for SI RICE is to 

revise §63.6640 in its August 20, 2010, final rule by simply removing the restrictions on 

peak shaving and demand reduction service, and the 50 hour limitation on non-emergency 

service. This change would not result in any additional run-time above the 100 hours of 

operation that is already provided for in the rule. In other words, the change would allow 

owners/operators of small stationary emergency generating units to use their units without 

restriction up to 100 hours-per-year for non-emergency operation in ways that best meet 

their particular circumstances and needs. All hours of operation for maintenance, testing, 

peak shaving, demand reduction, and all other non-emergency operation would be at the 

owner/operators discretion - but not to exceed 100 hours-per-year. Owners/operators with 

special circumstances that require additional operating hours could petition the Agency for 

additional hours of non-emergency operation on a case-by-case basis. Upon adequate 

justification, the additional hours would not be unreasonably denied by the Agency. 

Revising the final SI RICE NESHAP rules in this manner would not, and must not, 

detract in any way from the unlimited hours of operation needed for true emergency service. 

NRECA also believes it is necessary and urges EPA to amend the March 2010 CI 

RICE NESHAP final rule and the July 2006 NSPS rule with conforming changes so all 

applicable rules are clear and consistent.