Austin Energy • Calpine Corporation • Consolidated 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 Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines; Petition for Reconsideration

Dear Gina and Janet, 

The Clean Energy Group is aware that CPower, Inc., EnergyConnect, Inc., EnerNOC, Inc., and 

Innoventive Power, LLC have filed a petition requesting that EPA reconsider the recent final 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines (RICE NESHAP). We understand that EPA has granted 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, the Clean Energy Group is a coalition of electric 

and natural gas companies that share a commitment to responsible environmental stewardship. 

We have been actively involved in promoting effective environmental regulation of the electric 

sector, and include demand response (DR) as one of our clean capacity 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 ability to build replacement generation as needed 

or otherwise meet demand through demand response, energy efficiency, and conservation.” 

In our comments on the proposed RICE NESHAP, we recommended that EPA establish a 

subcategory for RICE used in conjunction 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 line of defense against voltage reductions, rolling 

blackouts and, ultimately, grid failure. In the event of grid failure, many commercial and 

industrial facilities with backup generators (of all sizes, vintages 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 the relatively limited number participating in DR 

programs). Further, recovery from a grid failure could take hours, or days, during which these 

backup generators would likely continue to operate. Emissions from backup generation at 
 The Clean Energy Group 

Page 2 of 2

hundreds or thousands of facilities in the event of grid failure would be far higher and more 

sustained than would be the case if sufficient emergency 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 participating in DR programs, whose RICE would 

otherwise meet the definition and operating hour limitations of ‘emergency 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 included in the final rule 

was not included in the proposal, we did not comment 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 NESHAP language, which is also proposed for the 

Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition and Spark Ignition Internal 

Combustion Engines (RICE NSPS) (75 FR 32612), will discourage involvement by emergency 

DR participants that rely, in part, on the use of emergency engines to ensure vital facility needs 

are met during DR events. While rarely called, responding swiftly and 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 benefits of emergency DR programs. 

The Clean Energy Group looks forward to continuing to work with EPA on this issue. If you 

have any questions, please do not hesitate 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 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0088.