### From: "Pugh, Theresa" <TPugh@publicpower.org>

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Hofmann, Alex" <ahofmann@publicpower.org>, "Nipper, Joe" <JNipper@publicpower.org>, RobertJ

Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 11/30/2012 06:49 PM

Subject: RICE Language

Hi Melanie:

Thank you for asking Alex (and APPA) about some clarifying language that you and others at EPA are thinking about

for RICE. We spoke to EnerNoc earlier this week and learned from them that they too were thinking of some

clarifications. We took their recommended language, which we think is helpful, and offer some additional language

(the text in red fonts in the attached) that we think could be used to help APPA. We don’t think (and hope) it would

hurt EnerNoc or any others.

I do have one question for you: Since next week is December and we assume that the final rule might come out in

December we have a question about timing. Do utilities with RICE units that might need additional compliance time

from the May 3, 2013 deadline have to submit compliance extension requests by Jan. 3, 2013? If so, we would want

to inform our members soon since some folks take the last week of December off.

Please excuse my ignorance, but when a rule is under reconsideration, I don’t know if the original deadline remains

in place. In this instance, would a utility anticipating that it might need RICE units during winter storm season (but

might anticipate that they would retrofit or replace the unit after winter), and thus need more time to meet the

original May 3, 2013 compliance deadline.

If you have any questions about Alex’s language, I can pull him out of the big meeting that he has here all of next

week. He is in the office but tied up. But we certainly will be responsive to you if you have further questions. And I

hope to hear from you if our folks should send in any requests for additional compliance time.

Thank you. I hope that you have an enjoyable weekend.

Theresa

Thank you,

Theresa(See attached file: NESHAP 40 CFR 63 - EPA Trigger with suggested changes.docx)NESHAP 40 CFR 63.6640(f)(2)

(ii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for emergency demand response

for periods in which the Reliability Coordinator or other authorized entity as

determined by the Reliability Coordinator under NERC Reliability Standard EOP

‐

002

‐ 3 has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA Level 2).

(iii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for emergency demand response

for periods in which the Balancing Authority cannot comply with the Control

Performance and Disturbance Standards and requests RICE operation under NERC

Reliability Standard EOP

‐ 002

‐ 3.1 (R6). Deleted: regional transmission authority or

equivalent balancing authority and transmission

operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert

Level 2 (EEA Level 2) as defined in the North

American Electric Reliability Corporation Reliability

Standard EOP

‐ 002

‐ 3, Capacity and Energy

Emergencies.

Formatted: Font: +Body, 14 pt

Formatted: Highlight

Formatted: Font: +Body, 14 pt

Comment [AH1]: This is APPA’s suggested

addition to the EnerNoc language above. It resolves

the mentioned role of the balancing authority in the

original language. 11/30/2012