Austin Energy • Calpine Corporation • Conso lidated Edison, Inc. • Constellation Energy Entergy Corporation • Exelon Corporation • National Grid • New York Power Authority NextEra Energy • NRG Energy • Pepco Holdings, Inc. • PG&E Corporation Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. • Sempra Energy

The Clean Energy Group Michael Bradley

Director The Clean Energy Group 47 Junction Square Drive Concord, MA 01742

978-369-5533  978-369-7712 

### The

Clean Energy Group

August 19, 2010

Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Mail Code: 6101A Washington, DC 20460

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Mail Code: 6101A Washington, DC 20460

(submitted via email to mccarthy.gina@epa.gov)

Re: National Emission Standards for Hazardou s Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Peti tion for Reconsideration

Dear Gina and Janet,

The Clean Energy Group is aware that CPower , Inc., EnergyConnect, Inc., EnerNOC, Inc., and Innoventive Power, LLC have file d a petition requesting that EPA reconsider the recent final

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Ai r Pollutants for Reci procating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE NESHAP). We unders tand that EPA has gran ted both this petition and one by the state of Delaware, and would like to participate in this reconsideration given our unique position in the industry. As you know, th e Clean Energy Group is a coalition of electric and natural gas companies that share a commitme nt to responsible environmental stewardship. We have been actively involved in promoting eff ective environmental regul ation of the electric sector, and include demand response (DR) as one of our clean capaci ty options. As we noted in recent comments on EPA’s Draft Strategic Plan, “[a]s the nation’s power demands have grown, the electric industry has demonstrated a proven abili ty to build replacement generation as needed or otherwise meet demand through demand resp onse, energy efficiency, and conservation.”

In our comments on the proposed RICE NESHAP, we recommended that EPA establish a subcategory for RICE used in conj unction with emergency DR programs. i We commented that “[e]mergency DR events are not called based on economic benefit and are not regularly planned events.” As such, “these programs are a last li ne of defense against vo ltage reductions, rolling blackouts and, ultimately, grid failure. In the event of grid failure, many commercial and

industrial facilities with backup generators (of all sizes, vi ntages and high emission rates) would likely either automatically, or manually, switch on these engines (note that many more engines

would be involved in such a scenario than th e relatively limited number participating in DR programs). Further, recovery from a grid fail ure could take hours, or days, during which these backup generators would likely continue to ope rate. Emissions from backup generation atThe Clean Energy Group

Page 2 of 2 hundreds or thousands of facilitie s in the event of gr id failure would be far higher and more

sustained than would be the case if sufficient emer gency DR had been in place at the start of the emergency situation and prevented the grid failure.”

We also noted that Section 63.6640 of the proposed RICE NESHAP “could discourage participation in emergency DR programs based on the current definition of emergency stationary RICE. Specifically, customers interested in pa rticipating in DR programs, whose RICE would

otherwise meet the definition a nd operating hour limitations of ‘e mergency stationary RICE’, could effectively be required to re-characterize their RICE as ‘ non-emergency’ if they want to participate in DR programs.” As the fifteen (15) hour limit that EPA includ ed in the final rule was not included in the proposal, we did not co mment on this specific hourly limit, although we did suggest that “EPA establish a subcategory for these generators that serve facilities participating in a DR program and that only operate for 200 hours per year, including any hours operated for maintenance purposes.”

We remain concerned that the final RICE NE SHAP language, which is also proposed for the Standards of Performance for Stationary Comp ression Ignition and Sp ark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (RICE NSPS) (75 FR 32612) , will discourage involvement by emergency DR participants that rely, in pa rt, on the use of emergency engine s to ensure vital facility needs are met during DR events. While rarely ca lled, responding swiftly a nd appropriately to emergency DR events ensures the stability of the power grid, preventing grid failure and the associated environmental impacts.

For these reasons, the Clean Energy Group would like to work constructively with EPA to ensure the RICE NESHAP and related rules effectively reduce emissions while not jeopardizing the important air quality and grid stability be nefits of emergency DR programs.

The Clean Energy Group looks forward to continui ng to work with EPA on this issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesita te to contact me or Carrie Jenks at cjenks@mjbradley.com or (978) 369-5533.

Sincerely,

Michael Bradley

Director The Clean Energy Group

cc: Steve Page Peter Tsirigotis Melanie King

i Full comments available in the doc ket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0088.