### Assessmellt ofPublic Comn1ents Proposed Revisions to the State ImplelnentationPlans for Regional Haze Pursuantto 40 CFR Section 51.308
Comments Received from Decerrlber2, 2009 to January**12~** 

### 2010 '
Response to Technical Comment onNY Regional Haze SIP Reasonable Progress Goals

. COlument: Section**9.4.1~** 

### New York State Measures describes the actions DEC expects will be needed in orderto meet the Reaso11able Progress Goals outuntil 2018. The emissionreductio11 strategy described in the SIP does not considertIle emissions trellds since 2002. NRG provided a con1parison ofprojected SIP reductions againstthe actual trends in S02 emissions from 2002 to 2008. The datapresentedby NRG indicates thatthe electric gel1eratil1g units' S02 reductions as aresllit ofCAIR and the New York Acid Deposition Reduction Program 11avealreadyresulted in meeting the state-wide 2018 goals. The tre11d ofEPA electric generating unit data since 2002 indicates thatthe State's response to CAIR and tIle New York Acid Deposition Reduction Pro,gramhas, for all intents and**pllrposes~** 

### already achieved both the SIPlTIodeling ofenlission control strategy goal alld 900/0 ofthe electric generating unit goal. Evaluation ofdaily data from EPA CAMD shows the effects ofCAIR andtIle New York Acid Deposition Reduction Progranl. Becallse there was aNew York only program, allowance compliallce options were not available over as large aregion andNew Yorl(
sources developed control strategies and installed control equipmentthat didresult in significant source enlissionreductions that will help attain short-term standards. There were significantreductio11S betweenthe average of2002 through 2004 (before the NY ADRP) alld 2005 through 2008 (aftertIle NY ADRP). DEC llas also presumedthatthe CAIR cap and trade emissions trading progralTI is not an effective strategy to reduce daily emissions withi.nNew York State to insure compliance withtIle worst in1pactvisibiIitydays and highest expected ozone levels. However., DEC has not providedjustification for that clain1. (1)


### Page 1 of6Response: 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 ofNew York's Acid Deposition RedLlction Program (ADRP) and the federal Clean Air Illterstate Rltle (CAIR). rrhe Departmentdoes 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 abase 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 ofvisibility impairing pollutants will indeed OCCLlr and will assist in achieving the Reasonable Progress Goals.

On December23, 2008,·the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District ofCollunbia Circuit relnanded the federal CAIRrule bacl<to EPA for revision. While the Department anticipates that a similar level ofemission reduction nlay result froiTI the progralTI thatreplaces CAIR, the details and impleme11tation schedlLle ofthe replacementrule is unknown at prese11t. The Department will make allY reqllired amendments to its rllles once the replacen1ent rule 11as been prolTIulgated by 

### EPA.As aresult., 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 yearprogress report as reqLlired under 40 CFR 51.308 (g) and (h) andmal(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 of6BART Comments

2 COlTIlnellt: Commenter is cOllcerned abollt the draft BART fllle's requirelnents and potential significant adverse reliability implications. DECmllst considerthese 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 Departmentintends 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 orderto 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

.Assessmentpriorto its adoption ofPart 

### 249., but anticipates that sources sl10uld take reliability issues into consideration as they cOlTIplete tIle five-factor BART analysis. Consideration ofthe 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 tllattIle additioll'ofcontrol equipment is technically and econolnically feasible and results in an improvement in visibility impairment. The Department u11derstands thatthe 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 ofthe Page 3 of6Departlnent's determination (which lnustbe cOl1lpleted priorto the Janllary.15'1 201 1 FIP date)., to install any control eqllipment approved as BART. EPA's Regional Haze Rulerequires SUCll c011trols to be illstalled within five years ofSIP approval or as expeditiollsly as practicable. Tllis Regional Haze Rule requirel1lent also prevents tIle Department fro111 waiting until aftertl1e 2018 reasonable progres's date to ellforce the installation of

( BART controls. IftIleisslle arises where EGU sources are reqllired to i11stall c011trols under BART and are unable to schedule generator olltages for suchretrofits dlle to system load COllditio11S, an acceptable alternate compliance schedule can be discllssed. It is certainly notthe Department's intentiollto enforce such requirements Wlle!l tlley will have a negative. ilnpact on the reliability ofthe state's bllik power systeln.

3 Comment: TIle tecl1nicaljustification 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 AirInterstate Rule (CAIR). DEC has not included an evaillation ofactual emissions., since 2002, in the supporting documentatioll forthe Regional Haze SIP. DEC must evaluate and compare its proposed actions againstwhatthe 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 atthis time, witI1 corresponding negative implicatiolls for the state oftoday's eC0110n1Y. The reductions reqllired under existing regulatory programs already meettIle regional haze Reasonable Progress Goals. Specifically., e111ission reductions in the state, since 2002, appearto be atthe levels proposed for 2018 in t11e Regional Haze SIP. As aresult, the BART Rule may be unnecessary, giventhat 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 ofenforceable controllneaSllreS., including ADRP Page 4 of6and CAIR. While emission reductio11s realized by the ADRP and now t11e CAIRprogran1, appear to exceed the RPGs inthe Regional Haze 

### SIP, this level ofemissions redllctions is beyond the enforceable limitations ofthe adoptedrules. As a**result~** emissions oftl1ese sources could increase wit110l1t violating tlle existing regll1ations and impactthe ability to Ineet the RPGs. The Departlnent will perform the reqllired periodic (5 year) progress reportto evaluate its ability to 'meettl1e RPG by 2018. The Department will evaluate all programs in place or plannedby**EPA~** including the CAIRreplacementrule., to deterll1ille it is meeting its obligation in regards to RPGs. Ifadditional enlission reductions are needed., the Departll1entwill 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 ofCAIR., in cOlnbination with those ofthe 

### ADRP., delTIonstrably have reduced emissions onthe order ofwhat DEC proposes. (2) Response: See Response.to Commellt 

### 3.



### A nunlber ofcomn1ents were received that were not pertillent to tllis rulemal<ing. These COlnments concerned theNOx 

### RACT rule 

### andwill be addressed 

### inthat rulemaking process.

Page 

### 5 of

### 6CommentorNo. 

### 1 2 

### LIST OF COMMENTORS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD
Comn1el1tor 

### ROGER**CAIAZZA~** 

### NRG ENERGY, INC. RADMILLA P. MILETICH, INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS OFNEW**YORK~** 

### INC.

Page 60f6