![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.0020833333333334in"
height="1.0020833333333334in"}

**August 29, 2005**

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 Under Section 1605(b) of the National Energy Policy Act

Dear Mr. Calopedis:

The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) is pleased to offer
the following comments in response to the above-referenced U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) revised Form EIA-1605 ("Voluntary Reporting
of Greenhouse Gasses") and Instructions under Section 1605(b) of the
National Energy Policy Act.

### Background

SWANA is a not-for-profit association comprised of over 7,000 solid
waste professionals representative of local governments and private
companies across the U.S. and Canada. SWANA is involved in all aspects
of responsible municipal solid waste (MSW) management practices. SWANA
has an interest in this proceeding as the Association represents a broad
cross-section of public and private MSW landfill owners/operators that
provide waste disposal, landfill gas (LFG) collection and control, and
LFG-to-energy (LFGTE) services to numerous cities and communities across
the country.

There over 1,700 MSW landfills currently in the U.S., with most of them
still active and receiving waste. Each of these sites produces varying
amounts of LFG from the anaerobic degradation of the refuse. This gas
consists of about 50 percent methane (CH~4~), the primary component of
natural gas, about 50 percent carbon dioxide (CO~2~), and a small amount
of non-methane organic compounds. In effect, this methane and CO~2~ are
derived from the carbon material in the wastes being disposed in the
communities that the landfills serve. Landfills are repositories for
this carbon and through LFG collection and control and/or LFGTE, are
significant generators of GHG reductions. In fact, landfills account for
the largest reductions in human-related methane emissions in the United
States and worldwide.

In recognition of this resource and the potential GHG reductions from
landfills, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established
the Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). LMOP is a voluntary
assistance program that helps to reduce methane emissions from landfills
by encouraging the recovery and use of LFG as an energy resource. LMOP
forms partnerships with communities, landfill owners, utilities, power
marketers, states, project developers, tribes, and non-profit
organizations to overcome barriers to project development by helping
them assess project feasibility, find financing, and market the benefits
of project development to the community. EPA launched LMOP to encourage
productive use of this resource as part of the United States\'
commitment to reduce GHG emissions under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. From this Federal program, it is clear
that EPA believes that landfills represent a major source of GHG
reductions.

SWANA is very interested in the further development of the Voluntary
Guidelines and any reporting requirements, and their impact on our
ability to continue to report on our GHG reduction efforts. SWANA
expressed serious concerns with DOE's proposed revisions to the
Voluntary Guidelines for GHG reporting in our comments dated June 20,
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 EIA-1605.

With the above perspective hopefully putting our situation in context,
SWANA has the following general and specific comments on the proposed
revisions to Form EIA-1605 and its Instructions.

## General Concerns

SWANA believes the revised Voluntary Guidelines are deeply flawed and
require considerable revision if the waste industry as a whole is 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.

First, in its treatment of waste materials, the DOE guidelines would
establish that the CO~2~ emitted from the management of waste, such as
through combustion, would be considered biogenic and not attributable as
an emission to any facility.  However, if the waste emits methane
through landfilling, the emission is considered anthropogenic and
becomes a net emission from the facility. 

This view of biodegradation would have severe implications for the
operators of landfills, who would become net emitters of climate change
gases, even with LFG collection and control, on the scale of fossil fuel
users.  Imagine, for example, if future public policy imposed a carbon
tax, or required the purchase of offsets to meet mandated reduction
goals (such as is the case for industrial operations under the Kyoto
Treaty, and which is being considered for electricity generators in New
England, New York, and New Jersey under the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative).  In such a scenario, landfills would bear a large portion
of the burden and cost for GHG emissions, simply because they are
managing the waste that every community generates.

In the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the MSW industry's participation
was conditioned on a fairer treatment of landfill emissions, and indeed
landfills are considered zero emitters, partly in consideration of the
biogenic nature of methane as part of the natural carbon cycle, and
partly in deference to the huge store of carbon that remains in a
landfill even after biodegradation.  This latter consideration is a
segue into the second major concern.

DOE\'s approach does not contemplate the landfill being able to take
credit for carbon stores in the landfill because the landfill does not
sequester the carbon, which is defined exclusively as the extraction of
atmospheric carbon.  However, in a logic that defies explanation, wood
product manufacturers, for example, can claim that they are storing
carbon in their products, regardless of what happens to the product
after its useful life, and even though the manufacturer has no
responsibility for post-consumer use, and no decision role in the
ultimate fate of the waste.

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. 

One further issue we have is that the proposed revisions create a
requirement to obtain considerably more information and validation from
larger entities in order to \"register\" reductions. SWANA's review of
this proposal and after discussions with our membership, has led us to
conclude with these onerous requirements, many of our landfills may opt
not to participate in the program, which of course remains voluntary. 
This is especially true for our small public members. In addition, the
proposal for entity-wide reporting would be considered burdensome and
onerous by our large private waste companies with hundreds of operations
across the country.

Finally, on a related issue, SWANA also believes that credits should be
owned by the entity owning the landfill, and we urge DOE to accept this
recommendation. More than half of America's landfills are owned by
municipalities and any benefits associated with these facilities --
including greenhouse gas emissions credits -- should accrue to the
communities that own a facility. Similarly, private landfill operators
that worked to design and build landfills took on significant risk and
are providing the same service to the community as the public sites, and
they should be offered the reward of operating landfills, which provide
significant GHG reduction. We oppose assignment of GHG credits to either
the supplier of trash or the ultimate purchaser of electricity.

In addition to the general policy comments discussed above, SWANA
provided numerous detailed comments on specific issues in our June 20,
2005 letter, which we incorporate by reference herein.

##  

**[Specific Comments]{.underline}**

**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 SWANA members, 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}

We request that DOE 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 our members would enter information into this
field of the report. In the waste management industry, subentities would
typically be defined as landfills.

[Item 5 Recommendation:]{.underline}

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 for this item seem to indicate that the combustion of
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. This discrepancy should be
resolved.

[Item 1 -- Recommendations:]{.underline}

To maintain consistency in the report documentation and the industry,
LFG should be considered 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 combustion of LFG is considered anthropogenic, then the
most efficient way of accounting for the CO2 created is to revise the
default carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E) unit of measure. Methane
emissions will be 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 would therefore be adjusted
to 20.26 to 1. This is the methodology employed by the CCX.

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

The instructions seem to indicate that methane emitted from the landfill
is anthropogenic, when, in fact, the methane generated is biogenic in
origin. The landfill itself as a storage facility is anthropogenic;
however, the process in which the methane is produced is biogenic. It
should also be noted that the dynamic and heterogeneous nature of the
landfill environment makes it extremely difficult to accurately estimate
methane emissions. Finally, some research has indicated that the carbon
storage associated with landfills could be of a magnitude that would
cause the landfill to be considered a net carbon sink with respect to
GHG emissions, such as the work of Jean Bogner and others.

[Item 3 -- Recommendations:]{.underline}

SWANA recommends that the DOE follow the course of the Kyoto Protocol,
Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism, the CCX, the Government of Canada,
the Massachusetts program for CO2 reductions, the Regional Greenhouse
Gas Initiative, and the California Climate Action Registry by defining
MSW landfills as carbon neutral.

**Schedule V Emission Reductions\-\--**

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

SWANA 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.

[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. SWANA 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.

Thank you in advance for consideration of our views. We look forward to
working with

DOE on this very important issue.

Respectfully submitted,

![](media/image2.png){width="1.636111111111111in"
height="0.6118055555555556in"}

John H. Skinner, Ph.D.

SWANA Executive Director and CEO