![](media/image1.png)

# TXU Power L. Ed Powell, Ph.D.

#  Manager Environmental Policy

August 23, 2005

Mr. Stephen E. Calopedis

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Information Administration

EI-81

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

RE: Comments on the Energy Information Administration's Revised Form
EIA-1605 and Draft Instructions. Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 125,
Pages 37798-27800.

Dear Mr. Calopedis:

TXU Power, Dallas, Texas appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
Energy Information Administration's Revised Form EIa-1605 and the
accompanying Draft Instructions. The principal business of TXU Power
(hereinafter referred to as TXU) is the production and marketing of
electrical energy in Texas. TXU Power is the largest producer of
electricity in Texas and the second-largest unregulated generator in the
U.S. It owns or leases over 18,300 megawatts of generation, including
2,300 MW of nuclear capacity and 5,837 MW of lignite/coal capacity. TXU
Power supplies 70% of the fuel used at its lignite/coal plants through
one of the nation's largest surface coal-mining operations.

TXU is a member of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Electric
Power Industry Climate Initiative (EPICI). Through these organizations
we have been part of the dialogue between the energy sector and the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) on the 1605(b) guidelines revisions as well
as on the Administration's Climate VISION program. We endorse and
support the detailed written comments of EEI on the proposed 1605 forms
and draft instructions. For the most part, we have not repeated their
comments herein.

In addition, TXU was an active participant in the development of the
joint DOE/utility industry Climate Challenge Program in the mid 1990s.
The initial goal of this program was to develop a program for reporting
greenhouse gas reductions with a base year of 1990 and looking forward
to how emissions by the year 2000 could be reduced. Since that time, TXU
has developed specific projects that avoided or eliminated green house
gas emissions or off-set emissions via carbon sequestration and other
means. Since the mid 1990s we have annually reported the results of our
efforts following the guidelines and reporting forms developed by the
DOE (although the initial target for the Climate Challenge Program was
the year 2000, TXU and many other utility participants have continued
our greenhouse gas reduction and reporting efforts). The results of
these efforts have been carefully reviewed by DOE and have been reported
to the public each year in various DOE publications and databases. As
these DOE reports show, TXU's program has been responsible for some of
the largest reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

TXU supports a voluntary approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and we support the Administration's goal of reducing the power sector's
carbon intensity this decade. Regardless of eventual changes in the
1605(b) reporting program and their effect on our ability to continue to
officially report emission reductions, we intend to continue to pursue
efficiency programs and take other actions, such as carbon
sequestration, that reduce or off-set greenhouse gas emissions from our
operations.

In June 2005, we submitted comments on DOE's revisions to the Guidelines
for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting, including the Interim Final
General Guidelines and the Draft Technical Guidelines. Throughout the
lengthy process of developing these guidelines TXU has steadfastly
objected to the approach DOE was taking and the idea of having a
two-tiered reporting system for reporters and registers. Implementation
of this concept, along with the prescriptive details in the technical
guidelines, in our opinion did nothing but discourage future
participation in the program and thereby hinder industry's progress
toward reducing emissions. Specifically, we pointed out in our June 2005
letter, TXU's continued participation in the 1605 program is
questionable. Our resources are better spent in continuing to address
greenhouse gas emissions and emissions reductions rather than filling
out paperwork.

We also in our June 2005 comments expressed our objection to DOE's
piecemeal approach to the entire process. This objection continues with
the issuance of the revised forms and the draft instructions. For
example, the absence of several appendices (especially Appendix G and
the Simplified Emission Inventory Tool) in our opinion are significant
omissions which leaves us with the necessity to comment on a
substantively incomplete document. In this regard, we support EEI's
request for an extension of time to comment on the proposed Form 1605
and the Draft Instructions.

It is interesting to note that during the time we have been dealing with
DOE's revisions to the 1605 program and forms, we have submitted the
results of our 2004 efforts to DOE. In the existing program, our efforts
resulted in the avoidance, elimination or sequestration of more than 26
million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. We have just received
detailed comments on our submittal from DOE which we will address as we
complete this annual process. We have nothing but good things to say
about dealing with DOE in this reporting program. The DOE staff has been
highly professional and competent. Under the new program, with the
revised baseline, most of our past efforts will be eliminated and no
longer recognized -- they didn't go away, they simply get lost in the
process and no longer count.

We have examined the Federal Register notice, the revised forms and
accompanying draft instructions and offer the following specific
comments:

1.  EIA's efforts are premature. As the Federal Register notice
    (p. 37799) notes, "...the proposed revised EIA-1605 form represents
    EIA's interpretation of the Interim Final General Guidelines and
    draft Technical Guidelines ...". DOE has yet to finalize the General
    Guidelines and the Technical Guidelines that define the1605 program.
    TXU has examined the public record of comments posted on the DOE
    website and believes that DOE has a considerable amount of work
    ahead to effectively respond to the 80 or so comments. In resolving
    these comments, DOE could change the reporting guidelines and/or
    technical guidelines in ways that would significantly affect the
    forms and directions currently provided by EIA for comment. This
    will necessitate additional delay and perhaps wasted effort on
    everyone's part.

2.  EIA misrepresents the paperwork burden for reporting. TXU is a
    sizable entity and we have been reporting under the 1605(b)
    guidelines since the mid 1990s so we are not new to this process. We
    are now faced potentially with filling out a form that extends to
    more than 50 pages. We have been doing 1605(b) reports
    electronically for several years and our program is complex enough
    that it takes us more than 40 hours to the reporting under the
    current guidelines and forms. If we had the information in hand for
    the proposed program, perhaps we could fill out the form in 40 hours
    or less. We certainly could not gather the requisite information in
    40 hours and certainly could not have the information prepared for
    filling and verified in anything close to 40 hours. In addition,
    because the proposed forms do not make a clear distinction
    concerning which parts need to be filled out for reporters versus
    the parts that apply to registers, it is not possible to estimate
    the paperwork burden for us.

3.  The process needs to be simplified. If DOE/EIA continues in its
    determination to develop a two-tiered reporting system, then EIA
    needs to develop two separate reporting forms and instructions. In
    this way, we can better understand what information EIA believes is
    needed just for those who wish to report versus those who chose to
    register. EIA has so clouded the picture, that should we decide to
    simply report, we will find the burden excessive and will be
    required to provide information that is not meaningful or useful.
    For example, if we do not intend to register, what is the purpose
    for filling out Schedule IV? In addition, throughout the draft
    General Instructions, the generic term "reporters" is used;
    sometimes it appears to apply to entities which chose to report
    rather than register and other times it appears to apply to any
    entity filing a report.

4.  We do not understand the usefulness of Part C, Other Indirect
    Emissions on the forms (instruction on page 26 of the Draft
    Instructions). As we read it, TXU can chose to report other forms of
    indirect emissions, such as emissions associated with employee
    commuting, but these emissions are not to be included in our
    emission inventory and we can not take credit for actions we take to
    reduce emissions from this source if we chose to register emissions
    reductions. In addition, the estimates that can't be used for
    anything "... must be based on emission measurements or estimation
    methods identified in the Technical Guidelines or approved by DOE."
    Does this make any sense at all?

5.  EIA also requested comments on the decision to discontinue use of
    the Form EIA-1605EZ. Although TXU has not used this form, we believe
    that it should be continued. If the 92 pages of Guidelines, the 285
    pages of Technical Guidelines, and the 78 pages of 1605 Form
    Instructions didn't discourage small reporters, such as households,
    individuals and small businesses, from ever reporting under the 1605
    program, the 54 pages of forms certainly would. Small reporters
    should have a less daunting way of participating in the program and
    we believe that EIA is doing them a disservice by eliminating a
    1605EZ approach.

In conclusion, TXU believes that DOE/EIA is a long way from successful
completion of its task of revising the 1605 program. Unfortunately, we
foresee another round or two of revisions and comments because it is
absolutely critical to mesh the guidelines with the forms in a workable
way. Again, we encourage DOE/EIA to simplify the process and then
provide clear direction. The most sensible way to do this is to drop the
two-tiered approach by doing away with the registering concept and
offering workable forms to achieve the objectives of clarity,
simplicity, and straightforwardness. While we agree with much of the
methodology for accounting for greenhouse gas reductions and the need or
desirability of consistency, we encourage DOE/EIA to embrace inclusion
by fostering a program that encourages meaningful participation by a
wide majority of current "reporters".

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed
documents.

Very truly yours,

Original signed and mailed

L. Ed Powell, Ph.D.