***Environmental, Safety & Health***

***314.554.2388 (Phone)***

***314.554.4182 (Facsimile)***

***prpike@ameren.com***

June 22, 2005

Mark Friedrichs, PI-40

Office of Policy and International Affairs

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20585

By email: *1605bguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov*

**Re: Comments on [10 CFR Part 300, Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting;
Notice of Availability, 70 *Fed. Reg.* 15164 (March 24, 2005) and 10 CFR
Part 300, RIN 1901-AB11, Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas
Reporting; Interim Final Rule, 70 *Fed. Reg.* 15169 (March 24,
2005)]{.underline}**

Dear Mr. Friedrichs:

Ameren is pleased to submit comments on the Department of Energy Office
of Policy and International Affairs' ("OPIA's"), March 24, 2005,
*Federal Register* ("FR") notices on the interim final General
Guidelines, and draft Technical Guidelines for filing voluntary reports
of greenhouse gas emissions and reductions.

Ameren provides energy services to 2.3 million electric and 900,000
natural gas customers over nearly 64,000 square miles in Illinois and
Missouri. We have participated in the voluntary reporting of greenhouse
gases since 1995. Ameren is a member of the Edison Electric Institute
("EEI"), PowerTree Carbon Company, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
("USWAG"), and the "C2P2 Funders" and as a member of these groups, we
generally support the comments that they are submitting on the proposal.

Ameren was actively involved in the development of the original program
for reporting greenhouse gas reductions. In response, we have developed
programs to reduce or offset our emissions of greenhouse gases. In the
period from 1991 to 2003, we have been able to reduce or offset almost
17 million tons of CO2. We support a voluntary approach to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and intend to continue to look for
opportunities to reduce or offset those emissions. We also believe that
there needs to be an accurate, reliable, and verifiable national program
to recognize reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

However, we do not support the two-tiered system for reductions where
some reductions can be registered depending on the reporter's ability to
show net reductions because it creates an unnecessary difference in
emission reductions regardless of how they were made. A program where
identical actions could be recognized in very different ways does not
truly add any of the attributes that the Agency is striving for. For a
truly meaningful program, any reductions that meet a standard should be
recognized regardless of the entity that wishes to submit them to the
program.

**[Asset Ownership]{.underline}**

We have a number of issues, but believe that one of the most important
is the issue of asset ownership or reporting responsibility. The new
guidelines for ownership of emission reductions, coupled with the
requirement for entity reporting, create procedural and cost burdens on
projects that will make many of them infeasible and seriously discourage
their expansion as part of the 1605(b) voluntary reporting system.

Section 300.8(k) states that "The entity that DOE will assume to be
responsible for emission reduction, ... or sequestered carbon is the
entity with financial control of the facility, land ... or the place
where the sequestration action occurred." This places the initial
ownership of the reduction on the landowner. If an emitting entity
wishes to report the results of a sequestration project as an offset
against their emissions, that is allowed, but the landowner (called a
third party) is not relieved of its full reporting requirements.

Carbon sequestration or offsets can occur in many different ways, and
responsibility for those reductions does not always lie with the owners
of the property. Many if not most sequestration projects occur because
another entity wants to be able to show that they are sequestering
carbon dioxide. The entity that wants to show that reduction has the
financial involvement, but not the physical involvement (i.e., property
ownership). The guidelines as currently written do not allow the entity
which does not own the land, but paid for the sequestration to occur to
receive recognition under 1605(b) for those reductions. The impact of
this lack of recognition is that entities may decide to continue to take
part in sequestration projects, but not participate in the 1605(b)
program. Since the 1605(b) program is meant to act as the database for
greenhouse gas emissions and reductions for the nation it is important
that all involved parties be encouraged to participate in the data
collection. The undercounting of legitimate projects can lead to a
misperception of our country's actions on the global climate issue.

Instead of restricting the recognition for these projects, the following
language establishes that the party that finances the project is
responsible for the sequestration or offset project and receives the
recognition for those reductions under 1605(b).

"provided financing for the emission reduction project,"

into 300.8(k) after "... which generated the reported emissions," and
before "generated the energy that was sold..."

This change would not require the emitting entity to become an
aggregator of the reductions, but would allow the entity that financed
the project to receive the recognition for it. It would also avoid the
certification requirement and reporting of information on the third
party which can complicate the reporting process. Entities wishing to
report and potentially register these reductions would only submit the
appropriate information directly associated with the project much in the
same fashion it would for any other sub-entity within an organization.

When appropriate, the asset ownership or project responsibility can be
further clarified by formal legal means, form letter, or non-legal
documents that clarify who will be reporting and getting recognition for
the reductions. When an entity reports they can identify the type or
arrangement that has been established and provide sample language.
Reporting entities could potentially keep the reporting responsibility
documents for the life of the project plus three years after.

Organizations could develop sequestration projects and not report the
reductions providing that responsibility to a reporting entity that
wishes to finance reporting the project. Again the entity that provides
the ultimate financing for a project would be considered to be
responsible for the reductions and able to report and possibly register.
Reporting entities would have the opportunity to either revise previous
reports to incorporate these new reductions or report reductions based
on future accrued reductions.

**Forestry and Agriculture**

We are currently active in PowerTree Carbon Company and UtiliTree Carbon
Company and based on questions asked at workshops and industry sector
sponsored meetings with DOE and USDA personnel, we believe that we would
be unable to report the carbon reductions coming from the projects. It
is possible that Ameren or other participants in these two companies
might not have provided financial support had it been known that the
reductions could not be directly reported as reductions for the
participants. We have also been evaluating participation in agricultural
projects that have been shown to sequester greenhouse gases, but the new
guidelines may not allow recognition for our actions and although we
will continue to consider these projects, but there will be less of an
incentive.

**Renewable Energy**

Ameren like many utilities is evaluating options regarding the use of
renewable energy for the many benefits that they provide. We currently
purchase energy from renewable facilities that we do not own and
although in our contract we are paying for the right to report those
offsets from the renewable energy the new guidelines make it almost
impossible for us to report those reductions.

**Demand Side Management**

Ameren has already implemented a number of demand side management or
"DSM" projects that have helped us to attain emission reductions, but
the questions of ownership will limit or eliminate the ability to
recognize this valuable method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

**Geological Sequestration**

Ameren is one of the partner's in DOE's Geologic Carbon Sequestration
Illinois Basin Regional Partnership. Although, we plan to continue
participating in this partnership, even if the research develops a
workable sequestration option we do not believe that we could report our
activity in emission reductions.

**Coal Combustion By-Product Use**

Regardless of the status of reporting responsibility, our ability to
report this activity has already been removed in the Federal Register
notice. Previous reports from this activity amounted to the reporting of
almost 1.3 million tons in emissions being avoided. Although, we plan to
continue to finding new uses for coal combustion by-products, we will no
longer be allowed to report the resulting reductions.

**[Implementation]{.underline}**

Based on language in the Federal Register notice and statements made at
the workshops, the Agency plans to have a final version of both the
General and Technical Guidelines out in September of this year, with
participants using the new system for the 2005 report submittal in 2006.
As stated in our previous comments, we believe that participants will
need at least one year to establish procedures to address these new
Guidelines. We are already at mid-year and to obtain reliable data for
past actions may be difficult.

Another reason to delay implementation is the lack of the reporting
forms and models for review. Regardless of the timing of their
distribution for review it is another important piece of the puzzle that
will take time to review and determine internal responses to collect the
required data.

Again, we request that at least one year be allowed to pass before
requiring entities to report using the new guidelines.

**[Other Elements]{.underline}**

**Interim Final General Guidelines**

-   300.1(f) -- We support the periodic review of the General and
    Technical Guidelines; however, in light of the changes to the
    current Guidelines it may be prudent to delay the initial review for
    a few more years.

-   300.3(b) - We support the approach of encouraging companies and
    other reporting entities to report at the highest level, provided
    that they also have the flexibility to address the status of a
    sub-entity that may be reducing or avoiding emissions for some other
    entity.

-   300.5(b) -- We do not support the use of the year 2002 as the
    earliest start year. Entities should be allowed to determine their
    own start year based on the reliability and verifiability of their
    data. The establishment of 2002 as the start year means that those
    entities that were early adopters are being penalized for their
    action. We do support the ability to average up to four years of
    emissions in the determination of an entity's base period.

-   300.5(h)(1)(iv) -- In the documentation of changes in land holdings,
    we support the use of the same *de minimis* level proposed for
    300.6(f). This concept is would limit the requirement to facilities
    with substantial enough size to actually warrant documenting.

-   300.6(b) -- The addition of the rating system could help achieve the
    objective of improving the "accuracy, reliability, and
    verifiability" of reported emissions, but the way that it is being
    implemented seems to be contrary to the objective. The Agency states
    in the draft Technical Guideline 1.A.4.2 that the rating system is
    an ordinal system and that "two "A" rated methods for different
    sources may not be comparable" and it is unclear how this can occur
    within the stated objectives. It would seem that the use of the
    ordinal rating system allows very poor methods of data collection to
    be considered of equal value to a very high quality data collection
    method that would seem to lead to an inability to meet the three
    stated objectives of the reporting program.

-   300.6(f) -- The requirement to assess and report annual changes in
    managed terrestrial carbon stocks should have its own *de minimis*
    level. The utility sector has companies that own significant amounts
    of land and it will be difficult to assess all of their holdings for
    those annual changes. This *de minimis* is truly separate from the
    level established for emissions reporting in (g) because it is
    frequently a corporate asset that may not be considered as part of a
    company emission or sequestration strategy. Terrestrial carbon
    stocks should also not be considered part of (g) due to the amount
    of recordkeeping required to meet the standard does not easily apply
    to it. The problem is that companies often own a wide range of small
    and large properties that can be bought and sold within the course
    of a year. The recordkeeping to track these actions as well as
    building or demolition projects can be significant. Ameren agrees
    that this could be an important part of greenhouse gas
    sequestration; however the challenge to track down all possible
    changes could be a near impossible task. We would recommend an area
    *de minimis* with the understanding that companies willing to track
    smaller carbon stocks can include that in their reports. We are
    currently planning to use 100 acres as a reasonable size for
    evaluation of existing carbon stocks. This size property seemed
    reasonable to track and evaluate existing carbon stocks.

-   300.6(g)(1) -- We support the removal of an maximum tonnage amount
    from the determination of *de minimis*. We had submitted comments
    that the previous draft only allowed for 10,000 pounds as the *de
    minimis* amount for emissions and reductions which was relatively
    insignificant based on most electric utility emissions.

-   300.6(i) -- We support the eligibility for registration of emissions
    of greenhouse gases not listed in 300.2. If an entity can provide
    information sufficient to meet the registration standard they should
    be able to register those non-listed gases.

-   300.7(a) and (d) - As discussed in our initial paragraphs, we
    believe that third party reductions are the responsibility of the
    entity financially contributing to make the project occur and that
    reporting of those reduction would no different from other company
    owned operations and not warranting a separate certification or
    other documentation as identified in (d).

-   300.8(b) - We support allowing the use of subentities for
    calculating emission reductions and assume that this is also allowed
    for the calculation of emission inventories under 300.6.

-   300.8(h)(3) - Per our comments on 300.6(f), these changes would be
    based on a review of our carbon storage above the terrestrial *de
    minimis* level.

-   300.8(j)(3) -- We support the ability to include non-U.S.
    reductions.

-   300.8(k) -- We very strongly feel that the entity responsible for
    reporting emission reductions is the entity that has financially
    contributed to the activity that is providing the reduction. We
    believe that without this change that some entities will either stop
    reporting or discontinue these reduction activities,

-   300.9 -- We support EEI's comments that this Section should be
    consistent with 300,12.

-   300.10(a) -- We support the removal of the requirement that the
    chief executive officer must certify the report. We support allowing
    an officer or employee of the entity who is responsible for
    reporting the entity's compliance with environmental regulations to
    be able to certify the report.

-   300.10(c)(2) -- We understand the desire to avoid double-counting of
    emissions or reductions, but some actions may occur when the
    reporting entity financially supports another entities reductions
    without a formal written agreement between the two parties. In the
    vast majority of these situations the reporting entity would be the
    only reporting because these situations would frequently involve
    either individuals or entities that have emissions well below the
    current small emitter level.

-   300.11(a) -- We support the option of having reports reviewed by
    independent and qualified auditors. Requiring third-party review
    could have been an unnecessary additional cost to voluntary
    reporting.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any
questions, please contact me at (314) 554-2388.

Sincerely,

![](media/image1.png){width="1.3868055555555556in"
height="0.7784722222222222in"}

Paul R. Pike

Environmental Services Scientist