Department of Environmental Conservation

D E C banner

Parts 222 and 200 Assessment of Public Comments

Comments received from September 4, 2019 through 5:00 P.M., November 25, 2019

Comment 1: Demand Response Curtailment Service Providers (DR CSPs) agree in general with most of the proposed regulation but disagree with the claims in the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) that: (1) the use of engines in demand response is correlated with high ozone concentrations and (2) the costs for installing pollution controls. (Commenter 5)

Response to Comment 1: Thank you for your comment. However, the Department disagrees with the assertion that it correlated demand response (DR) events with high ozone concentrations. Demand response events have been called on high ozone days - including the July 2, 2018 event which is discussed in detail in the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS). The Department agrees that demand response events have not been called on every high ozone day. However, that is not the issue of concern. The ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are based upon a three-year mean of the fourth highest measured ozone concentration at each monitor in an area. Therefore, in developing a strategy to bring nonattainment area into compliance with the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, the Department must target sources operating on the days with the highest ozone readings. Since demand response sources have been called upon to operate on high ozone days, the Department included this source category in its strategy to bring the New York City metropolitan area (NYMA) into attainment with the ozone NAAQS.

Further, the cost estimates presented in the supporting documents in this rule making are based on capital and operational costs obtained from a variety of sources (see pages 28-31 of the RIS). The Department agrees that Manhattan has unique constraints which may add to the costs for installing new engines or pollution control systems. The costs estimates were provided to provide an estimate of compliance costs if source owners choose to comply with the requirements of Section 222.4 of Part 222 by controlling emissions. In addition, on page 29 of the RIS, an estimate of the costs for new engines was provided for comparison purposes. The Department believes that the benefits anticipated from Revised Part 222 justify the estimated costs.

Comment 2: In general, we agree with the proposed new rule. (Commenter 7)

Response to Comment 2: Thank you for your comment.

Comment 3: The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) regulation does not apply to engines currently defined as emergency engines in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) engine regulations (e.g., 40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ) - see Section 24-149.6(d) of the New York City Air Pollution Control Code. (Commenter 5)

Response to Comment 3: The definition of an emergency engine in the cited EPA regulation is different than the definition adopted by the Department. In Section 200.1 of 6 NYCRR Part 200, an emergency generator (or engine) is defined as:

(cq) Emergency power generating stationary internal combustion engine. A stationary internal combustion engine that operates as a mechanical or electrical power source only when the usual supply of power is unavailable and operates for no more than 500 hours per year. The 500 hours of annual operation for the engine include operation during emergency situations, routine maintenance, and routine exercising (for example, test firing the engine for one hour a week to ensure reliability). A stationary internal combustion engine used for peak shaving generation is not an emergency power generating stationary internal combustion engine.

This definition was first adopted in the early 1990s as required under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and incorporated into 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-2.1 When Subpart 227-2 was amended in 2010, this definition was moved into Part 200 and an additional point of clarification regarding emergency generators was added to 6 NYCRR 201-3.2(c)(6), "Permits and Registrations", which specifically states that "stationary internal combustion engines used for peak shaving and/or demand response programs are not exempt" from permitting requirements. The Department has not changed either definition with this rulemaking, nor has it proposed that emission standards apply to emergency generators. The Department has chosen to apply a stricter definition for emergency generators than EPA.

Comment 4: We are pleased that the proposed rule will apply only to the New York City metropolitan area as defined in Part 200.1(au). (Commenters 5, 7)

Response to Comment 4: Thank you for your comment. Part 222 will apply to the New York City metropolitan area, where NOx reductions are most needed, as that region of the State currently does not attain the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Comment 5: The definition of 'economic dispatch source' excludes "… distributed generation sources that provide electricity to power equipment or structures not served by distribution utilities." How is "not served" defined? (Commenters 2, 6)

Response to Comment 5: The phrase 'not served by distribution utilities' in the definition of the term 'economic dispatch sources' refers to generators that supply electricity to structures or equipment that are not powered by electricity provided by distribution utilities.

Comment 6: How is a generator providing electricity full time to a facility that also receives electric utility service, but still needs additional service classified? Such an application does not fall under the definition of demand response or price-responsive sources. It appears that such a source would not be subject to emissions testing pursuant to Section 222.5 of Part 222 or be required to obtain a Registration Certificate or State-facility permit per Section 222.3. (Commenters 2, 6)

Response to Comment 6: As stated on page 7 of the RIS, the purpose of Part 222 is to address emissions from emergency engines used in non-emergency applications. On page 8 of the RIS, the Department estimated that there were nearly 11,000 emergency engines in New York City. Further, the Department cited the New York City building code that requires buildings 75 feet or more in height to have emergency power sources onsite. The application described by the commenter does not fall under Part 222. However, such a source would be subject to 6 NYCRR Part 201, "Permits and Registrations", which establishes the permitting thresholds for devices that emit air pollutants.

Comment 7: The RIS does not address engines participating in Distribution Load Relief Programs (DLRP). These programs fall under the EPA's "50-hour rule" (see Section 40 CFR 63.6640(f)(4)(ii)). Part 222 should not apply to sources enrolled in DLRPs. (Commenter 5)

Response to Comment 7: Con Edison's DLRP and CSRP are both demand response programs. These programs are outlined in Rider T - Commercial Demand Response Programs of the Con Edison Electric Tariff Riders (see Leaf 268 et. seq.). Emergency generators, as defined at 6 NYCRR Part 200.1(cq), are not considered economic dispatch sources as that term is defined in Section 222.2 of Part 222. Since New York has adopted a more limited definition for emergency generators than the EPA, sources enrolled in DLRP are considered demand response sources subject to Part 222.

Comment 8: The selective application of the "Economic Dispatch Source" definition to certain distributed generation (DG) uses is unreasonably discriminatory towards DG units participating in DR programs. The Department has not provided any justification for why a DG source should be considered an economic dispatch source subject to Part 222 if it is used for a DR program while the same unit used for emergency generation purposes or to power equipment or structures not served by distribution utilities is exempt from Part 222. DG units used to power equipment or structures not served by the electric grid will run their engines far more hours per year than an economic dispatch source as defined in Part 222. Further, such sources likely operate on high ozone days. (Commenter 5)

Comment 9: The proposed rule would not apply to "distributed generation sources that provide electricity to power equipment or structures not served by distribution utilities." Thus, a structure not connected to the electric grid would be free to run fossil fuel-fired generators without any restrictions under Part 222, even during times of high ozone concentrations when DG units that participate in a demand response program would be prohibited from operating. In a hypothetical scenario where the former generator had a worse emissions profile than the latter generator, it begs the question of whether Part 222 would be effective in helping the State attain the ozone NAAQS. (Commenter 5)

Response to Comments 8-9: As stated on page 7 of the RIS, the purpose of Part 222 is to address and reduce emissions from emergency engines used in non-emergency applications. Engines that are not connected to the grid are subject to Part 201, "Permits and Registrations" unless they meet one of the exemptions listed in Subpart 201-3. Furthermore, as stated on page 25 of the RIS, a regulatory strategy to address emissions from DG sources not subject to this rule may be addressed through a separate rule making effort.

Comment 10: Where is the registered owner or operator of a DG source subject to Part 222 to send the notification required in Section 222.3 of Part 222? (Commenter 1)

Comment 11: Will the Department send a confirmation of receipt of a notification? (Commenter 1)

Comment 12: What format (e-mail, certified mail online dropbox, etc.) can be used to submit a notification? (Commenter 1)

Response to Comments 10-12: Notification letters must be sent to the attention of the Regional Air Pollution Control Engineer in the regional office serving the county where the source is located. The Department will not send a confirmation of receipt of notifications. Notifications may be submitted via e-mail or courier.

Comment 13: Part 222 provides no guidance for owners of DG sources who decide after March 15, 2020 that they would like to operate such sources as economic dispatch sources. We suggest that the rule be changed to remove the March 15, 2020 deadline. (Commenter 7)

Comment 14: The proposed rule is not clear on what documentation and what process would be required for new economic dispatch resources that intend to use generation after March 15, 2020 but have not submitted a written notice by that date. Such a process needs to be developed by the Department. (Commenter 8, 9)

Comment 15: Demand Response Curtailment Service Providers (DR CSPs) suggested that paragraph 222.3(b) be revised to read as follows:

(b) An owner or operator of a distributed generation source subject to a registration certificate or permit issued by the Department must notify the Department in writing whether the source will operate as an economic dispatch source. (Commenter 5)

Comment 16: If a source owner decides to enroll in a demand response program after March 15, 2020, how long prior to entering the market must they submit a notification pursuant to Section 222.3 of Part 222? (Commenter 1)

Comment 17: It is unclear whether the notification requirements apply to DG sources that are not subject to registration certificates or permits upon the effective date of Part 222. (Commenter 5)

Comment 18: Section 222.3(b) requires owners of DG units that are already "subject to a registration certificate or permit issued by the Department prior to the effective date of this Part" notify the Department in writing by March 15, 2020 of their intent to operate source sources as economic dispatch sources. It is unclear as to whether such DG owners would have the option of making a decision after March 15, 2020 and, if so, what procedures and requirements are applicable to such source owners. (Commenter 5)

Response to Comments 13-18: The purpose of subdivision 222.3(b) is to determine which sources currently subject to minor source permits will be subject to Part 222. In order to avoid the compliance issues raised in these comments, subdivision 222.3(b) has been revised as follows:

(b) An owner or operator of a distributed generation source that will operate as an economic dispatch source and is subject to a registration or permit issued by the Department prior to the effective date of this Part, must notify the Department in writing by March 15, 2021 or 30 days prior to operating the source as an economic dispatch source, whichever is later.

Comment 19: If an owner or operator currently participating in a demand response program fails to submit a Notification by March 15, 2020 but does not participate in demand response on or after May 1, 2020, will they be considered in violation of Section 222.3 of Part 222? (Commenter 1)

Comment 20: Will Notifications submitted after March 15, 2020 be accepted by the Department? Will the source owner be penalized for a late submittal? (Commenter 1)

Comment 21: Will facilities that miss the March 15, 2020 Notification submittal deadline be considered out of compliance with Part 222 effective March 16, 2020 or will the facility be considered in compliance until May 1, 2020? (Commenter 1)

Response to Comment 19-21: In the Revised Express Terms for Part 222, the Department changed subdivision 222.3(b) to require that notifications be submitted to the Department by March 15, 2021 or 30 days prior to operating the source as an economic dispatch source, whichever is later. Late notifications would not be considered a violation unless the source operated as an economic dispatch source after the applicable notification due date.

Comment 22: What information must be included in the Notification required in Section 222.3 of Part 222? (Commenter 1)

Response to Comment 22: The following information should be provided in a Notification pursuant to subdivision 222.3(b) of Revised Part 222: Facility name, location, DEC ID, sources subject to the rule (source type, nameplate rating, fuel used, model year or emission rate (if older than model year 2000).

Comment 23: Do the Notification requirements in Section 222.3 apply to emergency generators? (Commenter 2, 6)

Response to Comment 23: Emergency generators, as defined at 6 NYCRR Part 200.1(cq), are not considered economic dispatch sources as that term is defined in Section 222.2 of Revised Part 222. Therefore, emergency generators are not subject to the notification provisions in Section 222.3. Sources that fall under the definition of demand response sources or price-responsive sources are subject to the notification provisions.

Comment 24: The Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) supports the Department's revisions to the initial control requirements that make them consistent with their existing demand response tariffs.

Response to Comment 24: Thank you for your comment.

Comment 25: Con Edison requests that the Department complete this rulemaking as expeditiously as possible so that owners of economic dispatch sources that intend to participate in their demand response programs in 2020 may be certain of their compliance obligations under Part 222 early in the first quarter of 2020. (Commenter 4)

Comment 26: In order to allow vintage-1999 or older DG sources adequate time to comply with the requirements of paragraph 222.4(a), the May 1, 2020 compliance date should be changed to a date 18 months from the date of regulation enactment. (Commenter 5)

Comment 27: We suggest moving the compliance date in subdivision 222.4(a) of Part 222 to May 1, 2021 in order to allow sources of model year 2000 and older to be replaced or retrofitted with controls. (Commenter 7).

Comment 28: There is not enough time to upgrade pre-2000 model year sources by May 1, 2020. We suggest delaying the subdivision 222.4(a) compliance date to May 1, 2022. (Commenters 8, 9)

Comment 29: Given the ongoing controversy with fuel supply for natural gas, such as moratoriums in Westchester, Brooklyn and Queens, projects where engines are upgraded to fire natural gas are being delayed. This is another reason to support a 2022 implementation date. (Commenter 8)
Response to Comments 25-29: In the Revised Part 222, the compliance date set forth in subdivision 222.4(a) has been changed to May 1, 2021 in order to allow sufficient time for subject sources to comply with the revised rule.

Comment 30: Section 24-149.6(a) of the New York City Air Pollution Code applies only to compression ignition (diesel) engines. DR CSPs request that Section 222.4 be modified to match the New York City law. Specifically, the DR CSPs suggests that the NOx limits set forth in 222.4(a)(4), 222.4(a)(5), and 222.4(b)(3) be removed from Part 222. Alternatively, DEC could modify Section 222.4(a)(5) to read as follows:
(5) rich-burn engines: must be model year 2000 or newer or must be equipped with three-way catalyst emission controls. (Commenters 5, 7)

Response to Comment 30: As stated on pages 15-16 of the RIS, the requirements set forth in subdivision 222.4(a) of Part 222 were taken directly from language in the Con Edison and Orange & Rockland tariffs (e.g., see Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. Electric Tariff Rider E, Leaf 156.4, Revision 2).

Although Section 24-149.6 of the New York City Air Pollution Code only applies to compression-ignition engines, the Department believes treating each of these categories equally is appropriate. New York City's standards are based upon EPA regulations that were established on July 11, 2006 (40 CFR 60, Subpart IIII). EPA also established emission standards for new turbines (40 CFR 60, Subpart KKKK) on July 6, 2006 and spark-ignition engines (40 CFR 60, Subpart JJJJ) on January 18, 2008. Since all three source categories are used in demand response and can be used as price-responsive generation sources, the Department expanded upon Section 24-149.6 to further reduce emissions from economic dispatch sources as defined in Revised Part 222, in light of the NYMA's current nonattainment of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Comment 31: Commenter requests that a variance provision be included in Part 222 such as the provision included in the rule adopted on November 1, 2016. The commenter described their situation where three 2000 kW engines are used as economic dispatch sources enrolled in demand response programs. The engines have been equipped with selective catalytic reduction systems to control NOx emissions. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) granted a variance pursuant to Section 24-149.6 of the New York City Air Code on July 17, 2018 (letter attached to comment letter). In that letter, NYCDEP established a variance to the Tier 4 standard (0.5 g/bhp-h) of 2.3 g/bhp-h for the three economic dispatch engines. (Commenter 3)

Comment 32: Section 24-149.6 (citation corrected) of the New York City Air Pollution Control Code allows owners of diesel engines subject to that section time to comply with the Tier IV standards if they can demonstrate that compliance on January 1, 2025 would represent an undue hardship. In light of this provision, Con Edison requests that a similar provision be included in Part 222. Con Edison proposed that the following text be added to Section 222.4 of Part 222:

(c) Any owner or operator of an economic dispatch source subject to this Part that enters into a compliance agreement with the City of New York under the provisions of Section 24-149.6(c) of subchapter 6, chapter 1 of Title 24 of the New York City Administrative Code will have until no later than May 1, 2027 to come into compliance with the emission limits listed in 222.4(b). To obtain such an extension, the owner or operator must file with the Department a copy of its compliance agreement with the City of New York prior to January 1, 2025. (Commenter 4)

Response to Comments 31-32: Section 24-149.6 of the New York City Air Pollution Control Code provides for a variance as follows:

24-149.6(c). The owner or operator of a stationary reciprocating compression ignition internal combustion engine may apply to the commissioner for additional time to comply with the requirements of subdivision (a) or (b) of this section. If the owner or operator can show that the timeframes set forth in subdivision (a) or (b) of this section would constitute an undue hardship, the commissioner may enter into a compliance agreement with the owner or operator. In determining whether the owner or operator has demonstrated undue hardship pursuant to this subdivision, the commissioner may consider whether there is a showing of financial hardship, public necessity, or other emergency condition that would make compliance with the requirements of this section impracticable (emphasis added).

In the Revised Part 222, new subdivision 222.4(c) was added to establish up to a two-year extension to the subdivision 222.4(b) compliance date in cases where owners or operators can provide evidence, such as a contract, to demonstrate that they intend to meet the emission limits set forth in subdivision 222.4(b) as expeditiously as possible, but not later than April 30, 2027.

Comment 33: The DR CSPs do not agree with the cost estimates for installing pollution control equipment presented in the RIS. In their experience, the costs for installing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control systems in Manhattan exceeds one million dollars. (Commenter 5)

Response to Comment 33: The cost estimates presented in the supporting documents in this rule making are based on capital and operational costs obtained from a variety of sources (see pages 28-31 of the RIS). The Department agrees that Manhattan has unique constraints which may add to the costs for installing new engines or pollution control systems. The costs estimates were provided to provide an estimate of compliance costs if source owners choose to comply with the requirements of Section 222.4 of Revised Part 222 by controlling emissions. In addition, on page 29 of the RIS, an estimate of the costs for new engines was provided for comparison purposes. The Department believes that the benefits anticipated from Revised Part 222 justify the estimated costs.

Comment 34: In the interest of further reducing the regulatory burden of the proposed rule, Con Edison recommends that an exemption from the emissions testing provisions in Section 222.5 of Part 222 be provided for Tier IV engines. Such a requirement is duplicative of all the testing performed by manufacturers of Tier IV engines. Con Edison proposes that paragraph 222.5(a) of Part 222 be revised to read as follows:

(a) Except as set forth in clauses (1), (2) and (3) of this paragraph, emissions test reports demonstrating compliance with subdivision 222.4(b) must be submitted to and approved by the Department before an economic dispatch source may operate on or after May 1, 2025.

(1) An economic dispatch source that is a Tier IV engine as set forth in 40 CFR 60 Subparts IIII (citation corrected) and JJJJ is exempt from this emission testing requirement.

(2) Certification and documentation that the economic dispatch source is Tier IV engine must be submitted in writing by a professional engineer prior to May 1, 2025.

(3) Owners or operators of economic dispatch sources subject to subdivision 222.4(c) (see comment 32) must submit, in writing by a professional engineer, certification and documentation demonstrating the economic dispatch source is a Tier IV engine prior to May 1, 2027. (Commenter 4)

Response to Comment 34: By May 2025, many Tier IV engines will be ten years or older. Additionally, many spark ignition engines and turbines will be approaching 15 years in age at that time. As stated on page 28 of the RIS, the purpose of the one-time emissions testing requirement is to ensure that sources subject to the rule meet the emission standards set forth in Revised Part 222. The Department expects that sources that are well maintained will be able to demonstrate compliance with the NOx emission standards.

Comment 35: It is important that Part 222 is carefully developed and refined to ensure that it does not unnecessarily reduce or eliminate the reliability benefits that certain DG units can provide to the grid, and customers and the public generally. (Commenter 5)

Comment 36: We should be careful about how we go about regulating sources which only operate as a last resort before rolling or system-wide outages occur, which I think we can all agree would be one of the worst types of environmental and economic disasters. (Commenter 7)

Comment 37: Demand response sources are used very sparingly in order to prevent blackouts and these resources contribute very little NOx pollution compared to the pollution associated with uncontrolled operations during a blackout. Preventing blackouts is very important and should be taken into consideration when developing any type of regulation. (Commenter 8)

Comment 38: Grid operations have been changing and will continue to change with grid modernization, and the additions of intermittent wind, solar and energy storage resources. These operational changes have challenges and prematurely removing the last line of defense with emergency generators may impact reliability. (Commenter 8)

Response to Comments 35-38: The Department has worked with a wide-range of stakeholders during the development of Revised Part 222, including the New York Independent System Operator, and believes that the final rule balances the needs for NOx emission reductions with maintaining a reliable electric grid.

Comment 39: It is unclear that every building in New York City taller than 75 feet has an emergency generator with 1000 kilowatts (kw) of capacity. No evidence has been provided regarding this assertion other than footnote 5 of the RIS. DR CSPs question whether such an assertion is correct. (Commenter 5)

Response to Comment 39: Based on a review of the data generated from the notification provision (Section 222.3) in the rule adopted on November 1, 2016; and, issued registrations and permits, the Department was able to compile nameplate ratings for 226 sources in New York City. The average nameplate rating was 1102 kW. (NOTE: Footnote 5 in the RIS stated this value to be 1080 kW. Footnote 5 has been revised in the Revised RIS).

Comment 40: Given actual participation levels in demand response programs, the likelihood that 10,960 megawatts (MW) of emergency generators operating as economic dispatch sources is not reasonable. Such engines are required to supply emergency power only for life safety loads and not entire building loads. (Commenter 5)

Response to Comment 40: The Department did not assume that the full capacity of emergency generators would be used as price-responsive generation sources during any given event. As stated on page 24 of the RIS, the Department assumed a capacity factor of 0.323 for price-responsive generation sources. Therefore, the generation capacities used to present the emissions estimates in Table 8 of the RIS were2:

Pre-Model Year 2000: 4,877.5 MW x 0.323 = 1,575.4 MW
Model Year 2000 and newer: 6,082.5 MW x 0.323 = 1,964.6 MW
Total Estimated Generation Capacity of Price-Responsive Generation Sources: 3,540 MW

Comment 41: The text in the RIS regarding emergency generators and price-responsive generation sources is misleading and conflates the actual magnitude of the issue that the Department is purportedly trying to resolve via Part 222. This text should either be modified to reflect more realistic scenarios, or the Department should provide additional information supporting its assumptions. (Commenter 5)

Response to Comment 41: The generation and emission estimates cited by the commenter were based upon a worst-case scenario. The reason this was done is in consideration of the form of the ozone NAAQS.

Compliance with the ozone NAAQS is based upon a three-year mean of the fourth highest measured ozone concentration at each monitor in air basin. Therefore, in developing a strategy to bring an airshed into compliance with the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, the Department must target the days with the highest ozone readings. The Department presented potential emissions from price-responsive generation sources (see page 24 of the RIS) as a worst-case scenario. The Department believes that the provisions of Revised Part 222 will prevent that worst case from occurring - which would, at a minimum - avoid a situation where air quality could degrade even as additional regulatory strategies are implemented.

Comment 42: The Department has yet to show that the use of engines in demand response programs contributes to high ozone concentrations. It is also unclear whether the purported impacts of Part 222 on ozone levels can even be measured or quantified. Therefore, the DR CSPs question how the Department can assert that Part 222 is "a critical component" of meeting the ozone NAAQS. (Commenter 5)

Comment 43: The Department has not demonstrated any cause-and-effect relationship between an engine operating as part of a demand response program and high ozone levels. (Commenter 5)

Response to Comments 42-43: The Department disagrees with these assertions. The form of the ozone NAAQS is a three-year mean of the fourth highest ozone reading at a given monitoring location. Therefore, in developing strategies to bring the NYMA into attainment with the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, the Department must target emissions on the worst ozone days. In order to do so, the categories of sources that operate on those days need to be identified. Demand response events have been called on high ozone days. In the future, the Department believes this will continue to be true. Therefore, NOx emissions from demand response sources must be factored into the Department's strategy to bring the NYMA nonattainment area into compliance with the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The Department believes that the regulatory approach set forth in the new Part 222 represents a balance between reducing emissions from demand response sources (as well as limiting emissions from price-responsive generation sources) with maintaining the reliability of the electric grid.

For example, the high ozone levels observed on July 2, 2018 resulted from a wide range of sources, including interstate transport of ozone, NOx emissions from combustion sources (stationary and mobile) and VOC emissions from architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, consumer products, etc. within the nonattainment area.

In 2019, the Department adopted a new rule to reduce NOx emissions from peaking turbines (Subpart 227-3). In that rule, the Department estimated NOx reductions of 18 tons per day. Further, the Department adopted revisions to Part 205, "Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings," in which the estimated reduction in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was 16 tons per day, a fraction of which would occur in the NYMA.3 Additional rules are under development that will yield VOC reductions on the order of the Part 205 revisions. The NOx emission reductions anticipated from the adoption of Revised Part 222 are on the order of many regulations under development or revision by the Department. The emission reductions from Part 222 are estimated at 3.5 tons per day in 2021 and 5 tons per day by 2025 for demand response sources. A 3.5 or 5 ton per day reduction in NOx emissions is a necessary step towards meeting New York's obligations under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, upwind states are required to reduce pollution that could contribute to downwind states' inability to maintain or attain compliance with a NAAQS.4 According to EPA, New York's largest contribution to a monitor showing nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS is 0.0185 parts per million.5 The 2018 design value for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT moderate ozone nonattainment area (which includes the NYMA) is 0.083 parts per million.6 The emission reduction strategies the Department has adopted or is developing, including Revised Part 222, will be incorporated into the New York State Implementation Plan to fulfill New York's obligation with respect to the aforementioned CAA requirements.

Comment 44: Are emergency generators subject to registration certificates or state-facility permits? (Commenters 2, 6)

Response to Comment 44: Emergency generators, as defined at 6 NYCRR Part 200.1(cq) are exempt from permitting requirements per 6 NYCRR Subpart 201-3.2(c)(6).

List of Commenters:
1. Gina M. Geller, NRG Distributed Energy Resources
2. Robert LoPinto, P.E., Walden Environmental Engineering
3. Margaret Sexton, CBRE
4. Andrea Schmitz, Consolidated Edison Company
5. David Neiburg, Energy Spectrum; Peter Dotson-Westphalen, CPower Energy Management; Craig Gruber, Innoventive Power, LLC; Kevin A. Hamilton, NuEnergen, LLC; and Greg Geller, Enel
6. Robert LoPinto, P.E., Walden Environmental Engineering
7. Craig Gruber, Innoventive Power, LLC
8. David Ahrens, Energy Spectrum
9. Matt Cinadr, E Cubed Company LLC

__________

1 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
2 The capacity values in the first column of Table 8 of the RIS for the Proposed Rule were incorrect. The correct values are 4877.5 MW for pre-2000 model year engines and 6,082.5 MW for model year 2000 and newer engines. This equates to a 0.3 MW increase for both values. The capacity values in Table 8 have been corrected in the Revised RIS. In addition, an additional column has been added to Table 8 to help readers follow the emissions calculations.
3 Revised Regulatory Impact Statement for Part 205, page 7.
4 https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposal-addresses-good-neighbor-obligations-2008-ozone-standard
5 Federal Register, Volume 81, No. 207, October 26, 2016, page 74537.
6 https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report


  • Contact for this Page
  • NYSDEC
    Division of Air Resources
    Part 222
    625 Broadway
    Albany, NY 12203
    518-402-8396
    Send us an email
  • This Page Covers
  • Page applies to all NYS regions