tl 

BLUE SKY ENVIRONMENTAL LLC 

June 30,2004 

Mr. Robert T. Donaldson, Associate Director 

Business Compliance Division 

Bureau of Waste Prevention 

Department of Environmental Protection 

One Winter Street, Eighth Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to 310 CMR 7.00 and 310 CMR 70.00 

Dear Mr. Donaldson: 

These comments supplement the testimony (see attached) that I provided to the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") on June 22, 2004 at the public hearing 

regarding the proposed regulation changes for engines and turbines (310 CMR 7.00 and 310 CMR 

70.00). My specific comments are as follows: 

• Amending the definition of "emergency" is very important to keeping the lights on in 

Massachusetts. The DEP should include language in the definition that will allow 

emergency engines to operate during ISO's OP 4, Action 12 conditions. These conditions 

are very rarely called by the ISO; they are reserved for real emergencies. 

• The modified definition of "emergency" should apply to all new and existing sources, 

whether they are permitted by rule or by an air plan approval. All emergency engines 

should be treated consistently. Thus, the existing air regulations for emergency engines as 

regulated by permit by rule need to be amended so that the definition of "emergency" also 

applies to existing emergency engines located at facilities with existing air plan approvals. 

Thus, the modified definition of emergency will be consistent; otherwise, the DEP will 

have to modify every air plan approval that has been issued for emergency engines. 

• The Plan Approval option should be extended to all types of facilities, not just a select few 

as the DEP has proposed. 

• I believe the distributed generation ("DG") limits, as proposed, are too low. Although I 

agree with the use of fuel-neutral, output-based standards for large base-load power 

generating facilities, I do not agree that fuel-neutral standards should be used for small DG 

engines. Diesel-fueled DG engines will not be able to meet the proposed standards, even 

with add-on controls. An emissions fee system similar to what New Hampshire has 

enacted should be implemented as soon as possible. I propose that the DEP initiate a 

committee with the task of developing an emissions fee-based system in lieu of the 

1040 Great Plain Avenue • 2n d Floor • Needham, MA • 02492 

Telephone 781-453-1150 • CeU 617-834-8408 »Fax 781-453-1142 
Mr. Robert Donaldson 

Department of Environmental Protection 

June 30, 2004 

Page 2 

proposed emission standards. I am confident that a proposed system could be developed 

in a few months and I would happily agree to participate in the development of it. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to comment on these regulations. If you have any questions or 

require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 781-453-1150. 

Sincerely, 

Blue Sky Environmental LLC 

Donald C. DiCristofafo, CCM 

President 

enclosure 

1040 Great Plain Avenue • 2n d Floor • Needham, MA • 02492 

Telephone 781-453-1150 • CeU 617-834-8408 »Fax 781-453-1142 
TESTIMONY 

From 

Donald C. DiCristofaro, CCM 

Blue Sky Environmental LLC 

1040 Great Plain Avenue; 2n d Floor 

Needham,MA 02492 

Regarding 

Proposed Amendments to 310 CMR 7.00 and 310 CMR 70.00 

June 22, 2004 

My name is Don DiCristofaro and I am an air quality meteorologist with over 23 years of 

experience in air permitting. My company is Blue Sky Environmental LLC of Needham, 

Massachusetts. I have two degrees in meteorology and I am a Certified Consulting 

Meteorologist as designated by the American Meteorological Society. Last summer I 

participated in the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's ("DEP") State 

Implementation Plan Revision Advisory Committee ("SIPRAC") subcommittee that 

developed the proposed distributed generation regulations for Connecticut. These 

proposed regulations that have gone through the hearing process and that are expected to 

be approved this fall and enacted on January 1, 2005 are similar to the proposed 

Massachusetts DEP regulations, but with some key differences, especially regarding the 

definition of "emergency." I would like to focus my comments today on the definition 

of "emergency." 

I am also representing today Pinpoint Power LLC of Needham, Massachusetts and 

EnerNOC, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts. Pinpoint Power develops, owns and manages 

power and demand side management assets in the Northeast. Pinpoint Power has been an 

active Demand Response Provider in the New England Power Pool since 2002. 

EnerNOC is a privately-funded company that helps energy users manage their energy 

consumption and reduce their demand for electricity during localized and system-wide 

capacity deficiency emergencies to create a more robust and reliable electricity grid - a 

solution called Demand Response. EnerNOC is active in areas where the electricity grid 

is most strained, including Northeast Massachusetts/Boston ("NEMA/Boston"), New 

York City, Long Island, and Southwest Connecticut ("SWCT"). 

We applaud the DEP's efforts to proactively address both new distributed generation 

technology and at the same time the urgent need to increase the reliability of electric 

power supplies in Massachusetts. 

The Independent System Operator for New England ("ISO New England" or "ISO"), the 

not-for-profit entity responsible for operating New England's bulk power system, has 

determined that electric load in parts of Massachusetts could exceed the capability of 

1 
existing electric generating and transmission resources in the region. Under certain 

conditions, these existing resources may not be able to supply the load without 

overloading the lines or reducing voltage. In 2002, the ISO reported that two to four 

times per year the ISO was only one step away from shedding 50 to 100 megawatts 

("MW") of load for as many as ten hours at a time. The Commonwealth needs to act 

immediately to ensure the continued reliability of power supplies in Massachusetts. 

Without this reliability, Massachusetts' economy and business climate will severely 

suffer. 

The DEP's intent to amend the definition of "emergency" to include situations when ISO 

New England declares Action 12 under NEPOOL Operating Procedure 4 ("OP 4") 

"Action During A Capacity Deficiency" or higher for a specified area is strongly 

supported. This will allow back-up generators to participate in ISO New England's 30-

minute real-time demand response program (the "emergency" demand response 

program). OP 4, Action 12, as it is referred to, is the start of brownouts with the next step 

being involuntary interruptions of load. This declaration is taken very seriously by the 

ISO. In fact, even under the extreme weather conditions which occurred during the 

summer of 2002, the ISO did not declare OP 4, Action 12. Other than on August 15, 

2003, in response to the major power failure that occurred throughout the Northeast, this 

level has rarely been declared - it is truly reserved for emergency situations. This 

declaration should not be confused with other ISO programs that are enacted for 

economic reasons (such as the ISO's price response program). 

The specific language of OP 4, Action 12, as approved by the NEPOOL Participants 

Committee on June 26, 2003, is: 

"Implement a voltage reduction of five percent (5%) of normal operating voltage 

requiring more than 10 minutes to implement. Interrupt Real-Time Demand 

Response - 30 Minutes or Less Notification (that requires a voltage reduction to 

be implemented)." 

We recommend that the DEP use language similar to the language that the Connecticut 

DEP has used in its proposed amendment to the definition of "emergency." This 

proposal has gone through the public hearing process and is expected to be enacted on 

January 1, 2005. The proposed language that the Connecticut DEP has proposed in §22a174-22(a)(4) that revises the definition of "emergency" is: 

"requires the operation of the emergency engine during the period of time 

in which the New England Region System Operator begins voltage 

reductions or involuntary load interruptions within the Connecticut load 

zone." 

This amendment does not explicitly use the term OP 4, Action 12 because the 

Connecticut SIPRAC subcommittee of the DEP that drafted these proposed regulations 

was concerned that ISO may change the terminology in the future. Thus, language was 

used that describes OP 4, Action 12 instead. It is not until OP 4, Action 12 that the ISO 

can implement voltage reductions. Further, the definition does not even identify the ISONew England by name - but rather uses the New England Region System Operator 

terminology instead - to account for any future reorganization or renaming of that entity. 

2 

i 
We do not believe the language that the DEP proposes in its revisions to 310 CMR 7.00 

is adequate. Specifically, the proposed language: 

"Emergency shall also mean when the imminent threat of a power outage is 

likely due to failure of the electrical supply or when capacity deficiencies 

result in a deviation of voltage from the electrical supplier to the premises of 

three percent (3%) above or five percent (5%) below standard voltage." 

should be replaced with the following language that combines the Massachusetts DEP's 

proposed language along with what the Connecticut DEP is using: 

"Emergency shall also mean when the imminent threat of a power outage is 

likely due to failure of the electrical supply, such as when the operation of the 

emergency engine is required during the period of time in which the New 

England Region System Operator begins voltage reductions or involuntary 

load interruptions within the Massachusetts load zone." 

The modified definition of "emergency" should apply to all new and existing sources, 

whether they are permitted by rule or by an air plan approval. All emergency engines 

should be treated consistently. Thus, the existing air regulations for emergency engines 

as regulated by permit by rule need to be amended so that the definition of "emergency" 

also applies to existing emergency engines located at facilities with existing air plan 

approvals. Thus, the modified definition of emergency will be consistent; otherwise, the 

DEP will have to modify every air plan approval that has been issued for emergency 

engines. 

A report prepared by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. for the Environmental Protection 

Agency ("EPA") entitled "Results of Demand Response Emissions Modeling" by Geoff 

Keith, Bruce Biewald, David White and Mike Drunsic dated August, 2003 and revised 

September 4, 2003, assesses the impacts of demand response ("DR") and energy 

efficiency programs in New England using an electric system dispatch model. As the 

report states, "when the DR resource is used to meet reserve requirements, the result is 

more efficient unit commitment, reduced operation of oil- and gas-fired steam units and 

increased operation of combined-cycle units in New England." Even assuming all DR is 

from diesels, the report showed a net benefit in air quality. Thus, by changing the 

definition of "emergency", more DR resources will provide the necessary reserve 

capacity and regional air quality should actually improve. 

As noted in the Synapse report, "New England has a small amount of quick-start capacity 

relative to the regional peak load compared to most other control areas. Many analysts 

have noted that this requires large power plants to operate more than they would 

otherwise have to in order to maintain sufficient operating reserves - capacity that can be 

provided quickly in response to unplanned losses of capacity. A key goal of this work for 

EPA was to verify that large units were indeed being operated more than necessary in 

New England to meet reserve requirements, to gauge the probable emission impacts of 

this dynamic, and to estimate potential emission reductions that additional DR could 

provide if it were used to meet operating reserve requirements." 

3 
We are supportive of the Department's efforts to foster the development of improved 

combustion and pollution control technologies that would lower emissions of air 

pollutants and improve air quality in the Commonwealth. However, the ensuing 

requirements cannot be so stringent that the Commonwealth's stated goals of promoting 

new technologies, increasing the availability of renewable energy, ensuring the reliability 

of the electrical supply system, and improving environmental quality are not realized. 

We are hopeful that the Department will give further consideration to its proposal. We 

are confident that through such a deliberative process the appropriate balance that is 

needed in this instance can be realized to the ultimate benefit of the environment and the 

regulated community alike. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our 

comments. 

4