# Conservatio n La w Foundatio n Jun e 30 , 200 4 B Y HAN D Mass . Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protectio n 1 Winter Stree t Boston , M A 0210 8 Attn : Rober

t Donaldson , 8 t hfloo r Re: Proposed

Revisions to Emissions Standards for Stationary Engines and

Combustion Turbines in 310CMR 7.26(40)-(44) Dea r Mr . Donaldson : Ia mwritin g on behal f

o f th e Conservation La

w Foundatio n (CLF ) an

d it s membershi

p t o submit th e followin g comment

s on th e propose d amendment

s to th e emission s standard

s fo r engine s an

d combustio n turbines . CLF , amember-supporte d nonprofi t

organization , wa

s founde d i n 1966 . CLF' s missio n i s to wor

k t o solve th e environmenta

l problems tha

t threate n th e people , natura

l resource s an

d communitie s o f

Ne w England . CL F appreciate s thi s chanc e t o commen

t on th e proposed emission s standards fo r distribute d generation (DG ) technologies . Th e us e o f D G fo r on-sit e generation o f

electricit y i s agrowin g tren d i n th e energ y sector . Polic y maker

s an d advocate s alik

e hav e heralded thi s trend , a

s man y D G technologie s offe r cleaner, mor

e efficien t

generation o f

electricity . Th

e amendment

s propose d b y th e Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protectio n (Department ) suppl y acritica l mean

s o f ensurin g tha t D G technologie s develo

p i n a n environmentally soun

d manner . B y creating aggressiv e clea n air standard s fo r engine s an

d turbines , th e Departmen

t ca n guid e industr y developmen

t t o ensur e acleaner, healthie

r futur e fo r

Massachusetts . Upo n reviewin g th

e mos t recen t draf t o f th e emission s standards , CL F remain s supportiv e o f th e schem e developed b

y th e Department . Th

e standard

s fo r nitrogen oxide s ar

e aggressiv

e throughou

t th e regulatio n an

d th e inclusio n o f

aCO 2 standar d fo r non-emergenc

y engine s i s commendable . Additionally , w e applaud th

e Department' s decisio n t o expan d th e applicabilit

y o f th e U S EPA' s emission s standard s fo r non-roa d engine s to al l emergenc y engines . However , CL F i s disappointe d t o se e tha t th e Rul e does not include an

y credit schem e fo r concurren

t emission s reduction s fro mcombine d hea t an d powe r (CHP ) an d reduce d flarin g fo r

emergenc y or non-emergenc

y engine s o

r turbines . W

e ar e als o discouraged tha

t th e mandator

y review provisio n an

d th e CO 2 standar d tha t appl y to non-emergenc

y generator

s d o not appl y to emergenc

y generators . Additionally , a n ammoni astandar

d should hav

e bee n include d fo r

non emergenc y engines an

d aC O standar

d fo r emergenc y turbines . 6 2 Summe

r Street , Boston , Massachusett s 02110-101 6 • Phone : 617-350-099 0 • Fax : 617-350-403 0 • www.clf.or g MAINE : 1 4 Main e Street , Suit e 200 , Brunswick , Main e 04011-202 6 • 207-729-773 3 • Fax : 207-729-737 3 NE W HAMPSHIRE : 2 7 Nort h Mai n Street , Concord , Ne w Hampshir e 03301-493 0 • 603-225-306 0 • Fax : 603-225-305 9 RHOD E ISLAND : 5 5 Dorranc e Street , Providence , Rhod e Islan d 0290 3 • 401-351-110 2 • Fax : 401-351-113 0 VERMONT : 1 5 Eas t

Stat e Street , Suit

e 4 , Montpelier , Vermon t 05602-301 0 • 802-223-599 2 • Fax : 802-223-006 0Conservation La w Foundation

I . CL F generall

y support

s th e Department' s propose d D G regulation . CLF support

s th e propose d emission s limitation s established fo r emergenc

y an d non-emergenc

y generators . Th

e standard

s fo r non-emergenc

y generator

s ar e aggressiv

e withou t imposin g a

n undu e burde n o n D G customer

s o r manufacturers . Specifically , th e NO xstandards propose

d fo r non-emergenc

y engine s ar

e bot h aggressiv

e an d reasonable . A s noted i n previou s comments , th e NO xstandard

s ar e mor e lenien t tha n thos e adopte

d i n othe r states , includin g California , Eas t Texa s an d Connecticut . Althoug h curren t diese l fuele d engine s wil l hav

e troubl e meeting th

e propose d NO xstandards , othe

r reciprocatin g engine s wil l be abl

e to mee t them . Lean-bur

n engine s fuele d b y natura l ga s ca n alread y achiev e th e propose d 200 4 NO xstandar

d wit h selectiv e catalyti c reductio n (SCR) systems . Wit h reasonabl e researc h an d developmen

t efforts , thes

e unit s wil l b

e abl e t o mee t th e proposed 200 8 an

d 201 2 standards . Rich

bur n engine s fuele d by natura l ga s ca n als o mee

t th e propose d 200 4 NO xstandar

d b y using athree-wa

y catalyst ; these unit s to o shoul d b e abl e to mee t th e 200 8 an d 201 2 standards . I n additio n t

o th e NO xstandards , CL F applaud s th e Department' s decision to establish aCO 2 standar d fo r non-emergenc

y engines . A CO

2 standar d i s th e firs t ste p t o effectiv e implementatio n o f th e environmenta

l an d publi c healt

h mandates i n th

e Department' s enablin g legislatio n an d th e Massachusett

s Climat e Protectio n Plan . Change s mad e to th e propose d standard

s fo r emergenc

y generator

s i n th e Ma y 200 4 Draf t Regulatio n ar

e als o commendable . I n particular , CL F supports th e Department' s decisio n to exten d th e applicabilit

y o f th e EP A non-roa

d emission standard

s i n 4 0 CF

R 89.11 2 to al l emergenc

y engines , rathe

r tha n onl y t o those wit

h outpu t unde r 1MW . Th

e EP A standards sufficientl y regulat e nitrogen oxide s (NOx) , carbo

n monoxid

e (CO) , hydrocarbon an

d particulat

e matte r (PM) . B y bringin g al l emergenc y engine s unde

r on e standard , th

e Departmen

t simplifie s th

e regulation , mor

e adequatel

y protects Massachusetts' s air

quality , an

d avoid s undu

e regulator

y burde n o n th e Department . Furthermore , becaus e engin e manufacturers ar

e alread y preparing fo r

th e EP A standards , incorporatin g the mint o th e propose d emission s limitation s should not lea d to additiona

l cost s fo r small engin

e manufacturers . II . Th e regulation

s should includ e credit

s fo r concurrentemission s reduction

s fro m CH P and reduce d flaring. Th e Department' s Ma

y 200 4 Draf t D G Regulation s d

o no t includ e credit s fo r

concurren

t emission s reduction s fro mus e o f combine d hea

t an d powe r (CHP ) o r reduce d flarin g fo r

eithe r emergenc

y o r non-emergenc

y generators . CLF opposes thi s omissio n fro mth e Draf t Regulations . Suc

h aprovisio n i s acrucia

l componen

t o f acomprehensiv

e engin e an d turbin e emission s schem e aimed a t overal l emission s reduction s an

d efficien t

fue l use . W e understan

d tha t th e Departmen

t i s concerne

d abou t project s "nettin g out " o f Best Availabl e Contro l Technology (BACT ) i f credit s fo r

concurren

t emission reduction s ar

e implemented. 1 However , CLF believe s tha

t th e overal l benefit s o f

acredi t schem e woul d outweig h thi s concern . A s th e Departmen

t knows , CH

P system s us e byproduct

hea t fo r non-electri c processes , suc h a s spac e an d wate r

1 Se e Dept . o f Envt' l Protection , Commonwealt h o f Mass. , Propose

d Amendment

s t o 31 0 CM R7.0

0 e t sea,, a t 3 (Ma y 2004 ) (responding to comment

s received o n a

n earlie r draft) . CLF: "Defending the Law of the Land" 2Conservatio n La w Foundatio n heating . Becaus

e o f thi s dua l capacity , eve

n les s efficien t

CH P unit s ar e cleane r tha n BAC T alternative s i f separat e electri c an

d therma l generator

s ar e used . Additionally , i f

th e Departmen

t wer e t o adop t th e schem e propose d b y th e Regulator

y Assistanc e Projec t

(RAP ) Mode l Rule 2 , th

e amoun t o f th e credi t woul d not

b e significan t

enoug h t o result i n th e remova l o f pollutio n contro l technologie s o r th e installatio n o f

"dirty " units . Instea

d o f "th e consequenc

e bein g a'dirtier' , no n state-of-the-ar t [generator]," 3 th

e credi t simpl y provide s incentive s fo r CH P tha t recogniz e th

e unique advantages o f

thi s technology . CH

P reduce s overal l level s o f harmfu l emission s whe

n take n i n contex

t o f al l availabl e technologies . I f

th e Departmen

t wishe s to ensur

e tha t onl y trul y efficien t

CH P unit s ar e utilized , othe

r alternative s ar

e available . For

example , th

e credi t coul d b e restricte d to "Qualifyin g Facilities, " a s define d by PURPA. 4 Regardles s o f the means , som

e metho d o f

rewardin g CH

P fo r displacin g emission s fro m othe r sources i s essential . Incentive s fo r CH P wil l enabl

e th e effectiv e developmen

t an d penetration o f thes e technologies , acritica l componen t o f meeting risin g energ

y demands . Th e Commonwealt

h o f Massachusett

s explicitl y recognize d th e importanc e o f

CH P i n th e recentl y release d Massachusett

s Climate Protectio n Plan . The Pla n call s upon th

e Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protectio n "t

o review [Massachusetts's ] existin g law s an d regulator

y policies , an

d mak e recommendation s tha t facilitat e th

e introductio n o f

distribute d energ

y sources , givin g specia

l attentio n to .. . combined hea t an d power

.... " (emphasi s added). 5 Th e Departmen

t als o acknowledged th

e importanc e o f

CH P i n it s ow n comment

s t o th e proposed amendments , statin g tha t "[th e Department

] favor s an

d encourages th

e installatio n o f

CH P systems." 6 Th

e prudence o f

acredi t schem e to addres s th

e importanc e o f

CHP , despit

e concerns regarding BACT , i s highlighte d b y th e fac t tha t th e Californi arule , th

e RA P Mode l Rule , th

e Eas t Texa s D G permi t

an d th e draf t Connecticu

t permi t al l include credit s fo r

emission s reduction s fro m CHP . CLF strongly encourage s th e Departmen

t to conside

r th e combined , positiv e impac t o f CH P an d adop t aprovisio n simila

r t o on e propose d by th e RA P Mode l Rule . The RA P Mode l Rul e represent s a collaborativ e effor t

betwee n awide arra

y o f interes t group s an

d th e contributio n o f

independen

t consultants . W

e believ e th

e approac h advance

d i n i t i s soun d an d commen

d i t to th e Department . W e als o recommen

d tha t th e Departmen

t include provision s fo r

creditin g concurren

t emission reduction s achieve

d by reduced flarin g o f

wast e gases . Give n tha

t flarin g i s require d i n Massachusett s fo r man y facilities , owner

s o f engine s an

d turbine s a

t suc h facilitie s shoul d b

e allowe d t o ne

t avoide d emission s fro mflarin g against their emission s fo r

complianc e purposes . Adoptin g policie s tha t promot e energ y efficien t

practice s effectuate s aclea r goa l o f th e Commonwealth . Th

e RA P Mode l Rule allow s operator s eithe r to calculat

e avoide d emission s fro madisplace d flar e or t o us e defaul t emission rate s define d i n th

e rule . W e believ e thi s i s a

n effectiv e mean

s t o calculat

e emission s avoide d b

y reduce d flaring .

2 Th e Regulator

y Assistance Project , Mode l Regulation s fo r the Outpu

t o f Specifie d Ai r

Emission s Fro mSmaller-Scal e Electri c Generatio n Resources (Review Draft , Octobe r 2002) . 3 Propose d Amendment

s to 31 0 CM R 7.0

0 e t sea. , a t 3 . 4 22 0 CM R 8.0

2 (indicatin g tha

t "Qualifyin g Facility mean s smal l powe

r producers an

d cogenerator

s tha t mee t th e criteri a specifie d b y FER

C i n 1 8 C.F.R . § § 292.203(a ) an d (b)") . 5 Th e Commonwealt

h o f Massachusetts , Massachusett s Climat e Protectio n Plan , a

t 3 1 (Sprin g 2004) . 6 Propose d Amendment

s t o 31 0 CM R 7.0

0 e t sea. , a t 4 . CLF: "Defending the Law of the Land" 3Conservatio n La w Foundation III . Th e mandator

y revie w provisio n an

d CO 2 standard applicabl e t o non-emergenc

y generator

s should also appl

y t o emergenc

y generators . CL F i s disappointe d i n th e Department' s failur e t o include mandator y review s o f

th e emission s limitation s fo r

emergenc

y generators . Th

e Department' s hesitanc

y to include suc

h aprovisio n i s surprisin g since arevie w requiremen t fo r emergenc

y generator

s woul d impos e littl e additiona l burde n o n th e Department . Th

e Departmen

t ha s alread y provide d fo r

amandator

y revie w i n 2010 , 201 7 an d ever y fiv e year s thereafte

r "o f th e stat e of, an d expecte d changes in , technology an d emission rates " o f

non emergenc y generators . 31 0 CM R7.26(43)(b)(2)-(3) . Th e scop e o f these review s shoul d b

e altered to encompas s emergenc

y generator

s i n additio n to non-emergenc y ones . A t

aminimum , th

e propose d regulatio n shoul d include aprovisio n clarifyin g tha t th e Departmen

t i s authorize d t o revie w th e standard

s fo r emergenc

y generator

s fro mtime t o time. 7 A revie w o f th e stat e o f technology an

d emission rate s o f emergenc y generator

s i s critica l to ensuring tha t Massachusetts' s citizen s receive th e ful l benefi t

o f relevan t advances i n technology . CLF encourage s th

e Departmen

t to replicat

e th e CO 2 standar d proposed fo r

non-emergenc

y engine s fo r

emergenc

y generators . A s th

e primar y greenhouse ga

s (GHG ) responsible fo r

risin g globa

l temperatures , regulatio n o f CO 2 wil l b e critica l a

s Massachusett

s work s towar

d it s "tough but

realistic " Q goa l o f reducin g it s GH G emission s t o 199 0 level s b y 2010 . Recognizin g tha t thi s reductio n wil l tak

e time , th e Climat e Pla n expressl y states tha

t "Massachusett

s i s callin g on th

e publi c an

d privat e sector s .. . t o tak e actio n now. " (emphasi s added) . An y revisio n o f emission s regulation s should , therefore , incorporat

e limit s on greenhouse ga s emissions . Th

e RA P Mode l Rul e suggest s th e sam e CO 2 limitation s no w propose

d fo r non-emergenc

y engine s fo r

al l generators : Carbo

n Dioxid e Phas e On e (installe d on o

r afte r 1/1/04 ) 1,90

0 lbs./MW h Phas e Tw o (installe d on o

r afte r 1/1/08 ) 1,90 0 lbs./MW h Phas e Thre e (installe d o

n o r after 1/1/12 ) 1,650 lbs./MW h CLF recommend

s tha t th e Departmen

t adop t standard s a t least a s aggressiv

e a s these . Th

e CO 2 limit s liste d her e ar e not exceptionally rigorous , but the y recogniz e th

e increasingly urgen

t nee d to contro l th

e release o f greenhouse gases .

7 Th e regulatio n coul d include aprovisio n simila r to 31 0 CMR7.26(43)(b)(4) , whic h states tha t th e "Departmen

t ma y a t othe r time s review th

e stat e o f technology an

d emission rate s to determin e whethe r th e emission limit s define d i n Table 3 should b e amended. " 8 Massachusett

s Climat e Protectio n Pla

n a t 1 3 (2004) . CLF. - "Defending the Law of the Land" 4Conservation La w Foundation

IV . Th e propose

d emission

s limitations fo r non-emergenc y engine s should includ e a n ammoni

a standard . CLF' s enthusiasmfo r

th e standard

s i s dampene

d b y disappointmen

t ove r th e Department' s disregar d o f th e nee d fo r ammoni astandard

s fo r non-emergenc

y engines . A s note d previously , man y engin e owner s wil l comply wit h these regulation s by usin g selective catalyti c reductio n (SCR ) systems , whic h creat

e aris k o f ammoni aslip . W

e urge th e Departmen

t t o addres s thi s issu

e an d appl y th e propose d ammoniastandar

d fo r non-emergenc

y turbine s to non-emergenc y engine s

CL F i s discourage

d by th e Department' s omissio n o f acarbon monoxid

e (CO ) standar

d fo r emergenc y turbines . A s note d i n ou r previou s comments , emission s o f CO ofte n ris e a

s combustion processes ar

e manage d to minimiz e NO xemissions . Failur e to regulat

e bot h o f these pollutant s i s likel y to resul t i n unintended increase s i n C O emissions . Th e Department' s hesitanc

y t o regulat

e i n thi s are

ai s bafflin g whe

n aC O standar d o f 0. 5 lb/MW h woul d ensur e a n appropriat

e limi t o f C O emission s an

d stil l allo w smal l turbine owner s to comfortabl y mee

t th e NO xstandard . Furthermore , includin g aCO standar d directl y further s th

e purpos e o f

th e Department' s enabling legislation , 31 0 C.M.R . 7.00 , whic h i s "t o preven t th e occurrence o f

condition s o f

air pollutio n wher

e suc h d o not exis t [and] .. . to attain , preserve , an d conserv e th e highest possible qualit

y o f th e ambien t air compatibl e with need

s o f society. " CLF encourages th

e Departmen

t to preven t unintende d increase s i n C O b y includin g alimi t fo r emergenc

y turbines , a

s i t ha s alread y don e fo r emergenc

y engine s an

d non-emergenc

y generators . Despit e th e omission s mentione d above , CLF support s th e promulgatio n o f

thes e emission s standards . The

y ensur e adequat e attainmen

t o f Massachusetts' s goal s unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t an d addres s th e potentia l fo r environmenta

l degradation wit h unguide d developmen t o f D G technologies . W

e applaud th

e Department' s responsivenes s t o previou s comment s an d extension o f

th e EPA' s emission s standard s fo r non-roa d engine s to al l emergenc y engines . W

e urge th e Departmen

t t o conside

r an d implemen t furthe r improvements t o th

e propose d amendments . Th

e goa l o f th e regulatio n wil l b

e furthere d by includin g acredi t schem e fo r concurren

t emission s reduction s fo r

CFf P an d reduce d flaring ; includin g amandator

y revie w provisio n an

d CO 2 standard

s fo r emergenc

y generators ; creating a

n ammoni astandar

d fo r non-emergenc

y engines ; an

d regulatin g C O fro memergenc y turbines . V . Th e propose

d standard s fo r emergenc y turbines should includ e a n emission

s limi tfo r CO .

Conclusio n

Ver y trul y yours , Ton i P . Hick s Staf f Attorne y

CLF. - "Defending the Law of the Land" 5