Assessmellt of Public Comn1ents

Proposed Revisions to the State Implelnentation Plans for Regional Haze Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 51.308

Comments Received from Decerrlber 2, 2009 to January 12~ 2010 '

Response to Technical Comment on NY Regional Haze SIP Reasonable Progress Goals

. COlument: Section 9.4.1~ New York State Measures describes the actions DEC expects will be needed

in order to meet the Reaso11able Progress Goals out until 2018. The emission reductio11 strategy described in the

SIP does not consider tIle emissions trellds since 2002. NRG provided a con1parison of projected SIP

reductions against the actual trends in S02 emissions from 2002 to 2008. The data presented by NRG indicates

that the electric gel1eratil1g units' S02 reductions as a resllit of CAIR and the New York Acid Deposition

Reduction Program 11avealready resulted in meeting the state-wide 2018 goals. The tre11d of EPA electric

generating unit data since 2002 indicates that the State's response to CAIR and tIle New York Acid Deposition

Reduction Pro,gram has, for all intents and pllrposes~ already achieved both the SIPlTIodeling of enlission

control strategy goal alld 900/0 ofthe electric generating unit goal. Evaluation of daily data from EPA CAMD

shows the effects of CAIR and tIle New York Acid Deposition Reduction Progranl. Becallse there was a New

York only program, allowance compliallce options were not available over as large a region and New Yorl(

sources developed control strategies and installed control equipment that did result in significant source

enlission reductions that will help attain short-term standards. There were significant reductio11S between the

average of2002 through 2004 (before the NY ADRP) alld 2005 through 2008 (after tIle NY ADRP). DEC llas

also presumed that the CAIR cap and trade emissions trading progralTI is not an effective strategy to reduce

daily emissions withi.n New York State to insure compliance with tIle worst in1pact visibiIitydays and highest

expected ozone levels. However., DEC has not provided justification for that clain1. (1)

Page 1 of 6
Response: This comment contends that there have already been emission redLlctions siI1ce 2002 that

meet the Reasonable Progress Goal (RPG) for 2018., based to a large degree on the requirelnents of New York's

Acid Deposition RedLlction Program (ADRP) and the federal Clean Air Illterstate Rltle (CAIR). rrhe

Department does not displlte this., and in fact., agrees. The Department adopted the ADRP and the subseqllent

roughly equivalent federal rule, CAIR., in large pali to control these emissions frOITI tllese very SOllrces. Using

2002 as a base year, futlIre year inventories were developed for 2009., 2012 alld 2018. These future year

emission inventories incillde emissions growth due to projected,increases in population al1d eCOI10ITIic activity

as well as the emissions redllctions due to the implemelltatioll ofthe aforementiolled and otller control

measures. Based on MANE-VU's modeling analyses., it is anticipated that, ol).ce BART a11alyses as required by

New York's regulation have been conducted., and the applicable etnission controls are installed., a significant

reduction in emissions of visibility impairing pollutants will indeed OCCLlr and will assist in achieving the

Reasonable Progress Goals.

On December23, 2008, ·the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Collunbia Circuit relnanded the

federal CAIR rule bacl< to EPA for revision. While the Department anticipates that a similar level of emission

reduction nlay result froiTI the progralTI that replaces CAIR, the details and impleme11tation schedlLle ofthe

replacement rule is unknown at prese11t. The Department will make allY reqllired amendments to its rllles once

the replacen1ent rule 11as been prolTIulgated by EPA.As a result., the effectiveness ofthe program that replaces

CAIR as a strategy to reduce daily emissions within Ne,v Yorl< State to enSllre compliance with tIle worst

impact visibility days and highest expected ozone levels cannot yet be deterlllined. The Department plans on

revisiting the calclllations ofthe RPG in the reqllired 5 year progress report as reqLlired under 40 CFR 51.308

(g) and (h) and mal(e the adjustments necessary to assure the RPGs are met with enforceable measures by 2018..

This includes considering the four factors: cost; time for ilnplenlentation; energy and environmental impacts;

and remaining useful life.

Page 2 of 6
BART Comments

2 COlTIlnellt: Commenter is cOllcerned abollt the draft BART fllle's requirelnents and potential significant

adverse reliability implications. DECmllst consider these potential reliability problems carefully~ in light ofthe

aggressive tilnetables under the draft rille. DEC should withhold final approval ofthe draft BART rule and tl1e

Regional Haze SIP llntil the New Yorl< Independent SystelTI Operator's reliability ilnpact analysis is cOlnplete

and its results are available. (2)

Response: The Department intends to maintain tl1e October 1., 2010 deadline as the due date for each

source's BART analysis. The October 1, 2010 date has been establisl1ed in order to provide the FLMs and EPA

with enough time to review and approve each BART determination .before Janllary 15 2011. EPA would

otherwise be required to impose a Federal Ilnplementatioll Plan (FIP) to institute a Regional Haze Program in

New York. Tllis schedule does not allow tIle Department an opportllnity to review the 2010 Reliability Needs

.Assessment prior to its adoption of Part 249., but anticipates that sources sl10uld take reliability issues into

consideration as they cOlTIplete tIle five-factor BART analysis. Consideration of the five factors is meant to

prevent any deleteriolls economic effects or overly burdensome impacts frOlTI being imposed on silbject sources.

When a source's five-factor BART analysis projects negl~gible improvements in visibility fron1 the addition of

controls, such controls will not be required. BART emission limits apply to SOilrces which have shovvn throug11

tIle five-factor BART allalysis tllat tIle additioll'of control equipment is technically and econolnically feasible

and results in an improvement in visibility impairment. The Department u11derstands that the proposed deadline

for having approved control eqlliplnent installed and operating Inay be bllrdensome'l and intends to delay the

compliance date until Janllary 1., 2014. TI1is will allow each source 1110re than three years from the tilTIe oftheir

five-factor BART analysis sllbmittal, and approxin1ately t11ree years from EPA" s final approval of the

Page 3 of 6
Departlnent's determination (which lnust be cOl1lpleted prior to the Janllary .15'1 201 1 FIP date)., to install any

control eqllipment approved as BART. EPA's Regional Haze Rule requires SUCll c011trols to be illstalled within

five years of SIP approval or as expeditiollsly as practicable. Tllis Regional Haze Rule requirel1lent also

prevents tIle Department fro111 waiting until after tl1e 2018 reasonable progres's date to ellforce the installation of (

BART controls. If tIle isslle arises where EGU sources are reqllired to i11stall c011trols under BART and are

unable to schedule generator olltages for such retrofits dlle to system load COllditio11S, an acceptable alternate

compliance schedule can be discllssed. It is certainly not the Department's intentioll to enforce such

requirements Wlle!l tlley will have a negative. ilnpact on the reliability ofthe state's bllik power systeln.

3 Comment: TIle tecl1nical justification for both SIPs fails to acknowledge the en1ission reductions froin

the electric generating sector, as a result ofthe New Yor!< Acid Deposition Redllction Program (ADRP) and

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). DEC has not included an evaillation of actual emissions., since 2002, in the

supporting documentatioll for the Regional Haze SIP. DEC must evaluate and compare its proposed actions

against what the state already has ac.hieved. The SIP's failure to analyze the actual redllctions made means that

New Yorl< sources may be targeted llllnecessarily for furt11er reductio11S at this time, witI1 corresponding

negative implicatiolls for the state oftoday's eC0110n1Y. The reductions reqllired under existing regulatory

programs already meet tIle regional haze Reasonable Progress Goals. Specifically., e111ission reductions in the

state, since 2002, appear to be at the levels proposed for 2018 in t11e Regional Haze SIP. As a result, the BART

Rule may be unnecessary, given that electric gelleratil1g units are Ineeting the 2018 targets. (2)

Response: New Yorl< used the baseline emission inventory year as 2002 for regional haze. From this,

future year inventories were developed for 2009,2012 alld 2018 based on t11is base year. These future year

emission inventories include emissions growth due to projected increases in poplliation and econolnic activity

as well as tIle emissions reductions dlH~ to the in1plementation of enforceable controllneaSllreS., including ADRP

Page 4 of6
and CAIR. While emission reductio11s realized by the ADRP and now t11e CAIR progran1, appear to exceed the

RPGs in the Regional Haze SIP, this level of emissions redllctions is beyond the enforceable limitations ofthe

adopted rules. As a result~ emissions oftl1ese sources could increase wit110l1t violating tlle existing regll1ations

and impact the ability to Ineet the RPGs. The Departlnent will perform the reqllired periodic (5 year) progress

report to evaluate its ability to 'meet tl1e RPG by 2018. The Department will evaluate all programs in place or

planned by EPA~ including the CAIR replacement rule., to deterll1ille it is meeting its obligation in regards to

RPGs. If additional enlission reductions are needed., the Departll1ent will initiate the necessary efforts to reduce

emissions to n1eet the RPGs.

4 Comment: DEC believes that the CAIR regulation is not a sufficient basis for redllctions needed for its

SIP. However., the requirements of CAIR., in cOlnbination with those of the ADRP., delTIonstrably have reduced

emissions on the order of what DEC proposes. (2)

Response: See Response.to Commellt 3.

A nunlber of comn1ents were received that were not pertillent to tllis rulemal<ing. These COlnments concerned

theNOx RACT rule and will be addressed in that rulemaking process.

Page 5 of 6
Commentor No.

1

2

LIST OF COMMENTORS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS

DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD

Comn1el1tor

ROGER CAIAZZA~ NRG ENERGY, INC.

RADMILLA P. MILETICH, INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS OF NEW

YORK~ INC.

Page 60f6