![](media/image1.png)

August 29, 2005

# Via Electronic Mail

Mr. Stephen E. Calopedis

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Information Administration (EI-81)

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

RE: Revised Form EIA-1605, "Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases" and
instructions

Dear Mr. Calopedis:

Waste Management, Inc. (WM) is pleased to submit comments to the
Department of Energy (DOE) on its revised Form EIA-1605 for the
voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases, and the accompanying
instructions.

Waste Management has been an active supporter of the development of
reasonable public policy and reporting regimens regarding climate
change. Over the past four years, WM has submitted information on
voluntary GHG reductions to DOE dating back to 1995, pursuant to the
existing 1605(b) guidelines. We report on over 200 individual projects.
From 1995 through 2003, those reductions totaled over 172.5 million tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent, largely through the recovery or
destruction of landfill gas. In addition, WM is a founding member of the
Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), and has agreed to reduce its GHG
emissions by 4% through 2006 and to participate in the nation's only
active exchange trading program for climate change gases. WM has
voluntarily contributed GHG reductions to events such as the Salt Lake
City Olympics and the 2004 Super Bowl to help make these events
climate-neutral. We have also engaged in some private greenhouse gas
transactions, including a sale of options to purchase future GHG
reductions, as well as straightforward sales of direct GHG reductions.

Waste Management is thus deeply interested in the further development of
the Voluntary Guidelines and reporting form, and their impact on our
ability to continue to report on our GHG reduction efforts. WM expressed
its serious concerns with DOE's proposed revisions to the guidelines for
greenhouse gas reporting in our comments dated June 22, 2005. In these
comments, we reiterate a number of those concerns with the revised
guidelines in our General Comments section, and also provide specific
comments on Schedules II, III and V of the proposed reporting form.
Waste Management believes the revised Voluntary Guidelines are deeply
flawed and require considerable revision if the waste industry as a
whole and WM in particular are to continue their participation in and
support for the 1605(b) program. **We therefore urge DOE to extend the
timeframe for finalizing both the guidelines and reporting form so that
fundamental revisions can be made.**

GENERAL COMMENTS:

The model that DOE uses to account for carbon movement and emissions
through the economy is inherently biased against waste management
operations. This is because the DOE's proposed production model carries
carbon forward in products until a facility emission occurs, thereby
continually transferring the carbon emissions from a product throughout
its life cycle to the waste management entity that ultimately receives
it. The inherent bias in this model is exacerbated by DOE's irregular
view of the natural process of waste biodegradation. In short, in DOE's
scheme, the waste management entity is almost *always* accountable for
carbon emissions during product life cycle. DOE arrived at this position
by determining that (1) landfill methane is not biogenic, but
anthropogenic, (2) the landfill operator is "accountable" for that
methane emission when reporting emission inventories, (3) the landfill
operator, while accountable for methane emissions from his facility, may
not claim credit for carbon storage at the landfill, and (4) product
manufacturers may claim credit for the carbon storage that occurs in
their products that may be placed in a landfill after use, but bear no
responsibility for the carbon emissions that may occur from the
management of its products after their useful life. In applying this
flawed and inequitable policy, DOE has not considered important aspects
of the waste industry and its role in managing carbon-based materials
that are used in our industrial society, particularly in managing the
products that will eventually wind up in the waste stream.

DOE's proposed approach fails to acknowledge that the landfill operator
has no direct control over the content of the waste that is generated by
his customers, or over the natural biochemical processes in the landfill
that generate the landfill emissions. The design and operations for a
modern municipal waste landfill are prescribed by EPA's Solid Waste
Disposal Facility Criteria, 40 CFR Part 258. These rules, which all new
landfills and expansions at existing landfills began following in 1993,
contemplate and promote the anaerobic biodegradation of organic matter
in the landfill, which is the biogenic source of landfill methane. The
landfill operator, in short, does not produce methane by choice.
(Operators of municipal solid waste landfills may control or recover
that methane, either through voluntary action or as a by-product of
Clean Air Act regulation of emissions of non-methane organic
constituents at larger landfills). In addition, unlike producers of
electric energy that may choose their fuel, the landfill operator cannot
"choose" the materials that go into the landfill. The waste manager must
accept the wastes generated by his customers. The landfill operator's
accountability is appropriately limited to operating the facility in
compliance with established environmental, health, and safety
regulations and using best management practices. It is inequitable for
landfill operator participants in the 1605(b) Program to be held
accountable, as entity reporters, for methane emissions from landfill
operations.

Also of concern, the DOE program would appear to allow landfills to
register credit for reductions only for increased methane destruction in
comparison to the base year, which ignores the LFG generation profile of
active and closed landfills. DOE's proposed methodology inappropriately
treats landfills as industrial production facilities with emission
profiles similar to electricity generation or product manufacture,
thereby ignoring fundamental differences that call for specialized
treatment of waste management operations. Landfills cannot "choose" the
product they "use" for their industrial "process". Landfills also cannot
"choose" to cease operations and thereby stop emissions, as the landfill
will continue to produce methane for years subsequent to closure.

DOE's treatment of landfills is inconsistent with other domestic and
international protocols for landfill methane emissions including Kyoto,
The World Resources Institute, World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, California Climate Action Registry (CCAR), and CCX, which
all treat landfills as carbon neutral, and allow methane reductions to
be treated as offsets for emissions external to the landfill. The
combination of landfills potentially being categorized as net emitters
of GHG with an inability to take some credit for carbon storage is
deeply troubling and creates a poor standard upon which to base future
public policy.

Landfills store significant amounts of carbon, and their carbon storage
typically offsets the fraction of carbon that is released as methane. In
developing the CCX approach for reporting on emissions and emissions
reductions, it was determined that there are not sufficient tools
available for adequately calculating the amount of carbon or methane
produced by landfilling---particularly at uncontrolled landfills. In
fact, EPA has recognized significant problems with its tool for
estimating landfill emissions and is launching an effort in 2006 to
revise and update its air emissions factors for solid waste landfills.
CCX determined that the current landfill emissions estimation tools
could not produce data of sufficient quality or accuracy to serve as the
basis of a trading program and decided to simply treat the landfills as
carbon neutral. Since reasonably accurate measurements may be made of
the amount of methane collected and combusted, CCX allows landfills to
measure methane collection and combustion for the registration of
tradable offsets.

**Entity wide reporting requirements for decentralized service companies
such as WM, are a considerable disincentive to Program participation.**
Waste Management, like many other national service companies, consists
of hundreds of facilities that serve local markets. Although financial
accounting systems are centralized, many of the quantities and
calculations that go into an inventory for GHG emissions are not, and
data gathering and collation may be time-consuming and expensive.

DOE should work with industry representatives to develop sector specific
general guidelines for reporting that take into account the unique
elements of that industry's carbon footprint and the industry's ability
to collect and collate information that is useful to developing public
policy on controlling climate change gases. The value of "verifiable"
reductions should be secondary to the value of information on
opportunities for reduction through application of technology or
management practices.

Waste Management appreciates DOE's desire to develop a more refined GHG
accounting system; however, as a participant of the 1605(b) voluntary
reporting program for the past years, WM believes that the proposed
revised Guidelines, Report Form, and Reporting Instructions have some
serious shortcomings that must be addressed. It is WM's understanding
that a major goal of the 1605(b) program is to promote, not inhibit,
participation. Excessively laborious or inequitable requirements will
have profoundly negative impacts on future participation in this
voluntary program.

**SPECIFIC COMMENTS**

**Schedule II. Subentity Identification and Description**

[Item 2 -- Reason for Delineation of Subentity]{.underline}

The Distinct Estimation Method and Distinct Output Metric (for intensity
calculation) do not appear to provide a useful location for registration
in the waste industry. The Distinct Estimation Method indicates that the
box should be checked if one intends to use different methods to
calculate reductions for two or more subentities. The Distinct Output
Metric is intended for calculating emission reductions using changes in
the emission intensity for one or more subentities because a different
metric is required to accurately measure output. In past emission
reductions reports submitted by WM, the calculations have been prepared
as discrete reductions. These reductions have been calculated using the
same **method**, but with different **metrics** (e.g., methane content
or total LFG flow rate) that generate differences in the output.

[Item 2 Recommendation]{.underline}

Expand the applicability of the Distinct Output Metric to include
discrete reductions calculated using different output metrics.

[Item 5 -- Organizational Boundaries of Subentity]{.underline}

We are unsure about how to enter information into this field of the
report. In the waste management industry, subentities would typically be
defined as landfills. Additional clarification should be provided
concerning data entry in this field.

**Schedule III. Entity and Subentity Emissions and Sequestration
Inventories**

[Item 1 -- Stationary Combustion]{.underline}

The instructions seem to indicate that the combustion of landfill gas
(LFG) is considered an anthropogenic process because the LFG is of
anthropogenic origin; thus, producing reportable CO~2~ emissions.
However, Section 2.4.5.6.2 of the Draft Technical Guidelines, indicates
that if methane is captured and combusted in a flare, the increase in
CO~2~ should be considered biogenic. While WM would concede that the
landfill facility is anthropogenic, and the associated governmental
rules and management practices that govern the management of landfilled
material are anthropogenic, the natural degradation process that
produces methane in a landfill is biogenic.

[Item 1 -- Recommendations]{.underline}

We strongly recommend that DOE recognize that the natural degradation
process employed by landfills and which produces landfill gas is
biogenic; thus, the CO~2~ emissions from combustion should be considered
biogenic, as well. Please note that additional detail concerning this
assertion is provided in Item 3.

However, if the DOE wants to account for the CO2 emissions associated
with the combustion of LFG, we recommend that the DOE examine the CCX
methodology for doing so. The CCX determined that the most efficient way
of accounting for the CO2 created is to revise the default carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2E) unit of measure. Methane emissions are
converted to metric tons CO2E using the 100-year global warming
potential value established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. The 23 to 1 value is therefore adjusted to 20.26 to 1.

[Item 3 -- Emissions and Sequestration Inventory]{.underline}

The instructions indicate that methane emitted from the landfill is
anthropogenic, when, in fact, the methane generated is biogenic in
origin. As previously outlined in our comments, while the landfill
itself is anthropogenic, the process by which the methane is produced is
a natural biological process and is therefore biogenic.

[Item 3 -- Recommendations]{.underline}

WM recommends that the DOE follow the course of the Kyoto Protocol,
Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism, the CCX, the Government of Canada,
The World Resources Institute, the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, the Massachusetts program for CO2 reductions,
and the California Climate Action Registry by defining municipal solid
waste landfills as carbon neutral.

**Schedule V Emission Reductions**

[Part H -- Action-specific Methods -- Reductions from Landfill Methane
Recovery]{.underline}

WM agrees with the method used to calculate the information requested in
Item 2 (Action Quantification) of this part, but recommends some
flexibility in the order of the calculations. Often the available data
may be LFG flow rate and methane content making it necessary to perform
the calculations in a different order. It should also be noted that the
Rating system calculations appear to add an extraneous step to the
process of preparing emissions and emissions reductions calculations.

[Part H -- Recommendations]{.underline}

Based on the information provided by the Gas Processor Suppliers
Association Engineering Data Book, the heat content of pure methane is
1010 BTU/scf. WM recommends that some flexibility be provided concerning
the order of making these calculations to account for the available
data. The DOE should consider eliminating the requirement for
calculating a weighted average and implement a more simplified method of
describing the type of measurement activity.

Waste Management appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
important program and would like to work with you to develop the
fundamental revisions necessary to make this program workable and
attractive to the waste management industry. If you have any questions,
please contact either of us: Amy Banister at (713) 328-7340; or Kerry
Kelly at (202) 639-1218.

Sincerely,

Amy Van Kolken Banister Carter Lee "Kerry" Kelly

Senior Director of Air Programs Director of Government Affairs