## Mid

- Atlantic , LLC

February 16 , 201 1

Deborah Rabin Regulations Coordinator

Air & Radiation Management Administration Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Blvd , Suite 730 Baltimore, MD 2 1230

- 1720

Re: C omments on Proposed Chang es to MDE Regulations

GenOn Energy Inc. (“GenOn”) offers the Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) the following comments to certain proposed regulation changes that were published in the Maryland Register, Volume 38, Issue 2 on January 14, 2011

.

26.11.09.01, .02, & .10

– Fuel Burning Equipment that Burns Used Oil Notice of Proposed Action [11

- 027

- P]

Facilities with fuel

- burning equipment having a heat input rating greater than 50 million Btu per hour that have received permission from MDE to burn on

- specification used oil should not be required to reapply to MDE to continue their current practice. Subsection 10A(3) lays out reasonable conditions for “A person who is burning used oil or WCF under a current written approval from the Department ...”, however subsection 10A(4)(b) appears to trump that language by requiring fuel

- burning equipment with a heat input capacity rating of 50 million MBtu or greater to “obtain written approval from the Department”.

GenOn owns three power plants in Marylan d with fuel

- burning equipment that is permitted to burn on

- specification used oil. All of these boilers have heat input ratings greater than 50 million Btu per hour. GenOn does not support

this regulation change if it causes facilities to seek approval f rom MDE for a practice which has previously been approved. Existing sources that have approval to burn on

- specification used oil , regardless of size, should be

allowed to retain th at status.

26.09.01 & .02

– Maryland CO2 Budget Trading Program

N otice o f Proposed Action [11

- 030

- P]

As the Statement of Purpose in the Notice of Proposed Action recognizes (38 Md. Reg. 101, ( January 14 , 2011) )

, the Clean Air Act defines “major source” for Title V purposes as one that emits 100 tons per year of any pollutan t. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661(2)(B); 7602(j). Similarly, a “major emitting facility” for purposes of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program is one with emissions of a pollutant equal to or more than 100 TPY ( if it is a categorized source ) or 250 TPY ( it is a non

- categorized source ). 42 U.S.C.7479(1) I n the so

- called “Tailoring Rule” cited in the Notice for Proposal, the United S tates Environmental Protection Agency has purported to elevate

these “major’ thresholds

, specifically as they apply to Gre en House gases (“GHG”), substantially above those imposed in the Clean Air Act . A s EPA acknowledges, the extension of the PSD and Title V programs to all

stat i onary sources that emit CO2 and other GHGs above the threshold levels stated in the CAA's text w ould produce 'absurd' results. It was incumbent on EPA to avoid these results by interpreting 'pollutant,' as used in the Act's PSD and Title V provisions, as not including GHGs. EPA's fundamental error was its inclusion of CO2 in the definition of 'regu lated NSR pollutant' at all

. GenOn Mid

- Atlantic, LLC
8301 Professional Place, Suite 230
Landover, MD 20785Moverover, these changes to the thresholds are not simply an interpretation of a de minimus level. T he Clean Air Act's "major" source threshold s of 100 and 250 TPY make clear that GHGs are not among the class of pollutants Con gress intended those programs to cover

. The premise of the Tailoring Rule and related EPA rules

-- i.e., that EPA can and should take regulatory action that subjects GHG to the PSD and Title V programs

-- is

unsound

. T he Tailoring Rule is the subject of litigation

, and it should not be used as the basis of a regulation in Maryland.

If you have questions on these comments , please c ontact me at 301

- 955

- 9168 or david.cramer@genon.com

. Thank

you.

Sincerely,

David S. Cramer Director, Environmental Policy & Regulation

GenOn Mid

- Atlantic, LLC