This comment letter response contains two parts:   

(1) The original submittal from the commenter.

(2) A data base printout of EPA’s response to each point raised by the commenter.

Notes about the response letters:

• The response letters were generated by a data base used to track the content of all public

comment submittals and ensure that the Agency responds to each. Each comment letter

was assigned a Letter ID that corresponds to the last four digits of the docket number of the

original comment (as posted on www.regulations.gov).

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA‐assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.  

• The data base contains Comment text from the letters submitted by commenters.  

Many hard copy letters were scanned into electronic format for inclusion in the data

base. As a result, there may be some typographical errors attributable to optical

character recognition issues.  However, all original submittals were reviewed in the

process of drafting responses to ensure that the comment content was understood and

appropriately addressed.

• The content of each comment letter was divided into topic areas and assigned a unique

Comment ID.  Additionally, one or more Comment Codes (i.e., unique topic area ID) was

assigned to each discrete point raised by a commenter. This information was added to

the data base. To inform final rulemaking decisions, all comments and information

received on a given topic were reviewed by technical experts in each rule area (e.g., on

construction requirements).  

• Following decisions on the final rule requirements, Individual responses were drafted

by topic area to ensure completeness and consistency of the responses with the final

rule and other responses to similar comments.  Each discrete point made by a

commenter was given a unique response.

• Upon completion of comment responses, all information was entered into the data base.

Each letter response is a compilation of each comment and its individual response,

compiled in the order of the original comment letter.  As a result of this process, there is

repetition in the response text.  The Agency believes this approach ensures completeness

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.   

• All comments in a topic area were reviewed, evaluated, and responded to concurrently.  

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.
Steven L. Beshear 

p. 1 

David L. Armstrong 

Governor Chairman 

Leonard K. Peters Commonwealth of Kentucky James W. Gardner 

Secretary Public Service Commission Vice Chairman 

Energy and Environment Cabinet 211 Sower Blvd . 

P.O . Box 615 John W. Clay 

Frankfort, Kentucky 40602-0615 Commissioner 

Telephone: (502) 564-3940 

Fax: (502) 564-3460 

psc.ky.gov 

November 10, 2008 

Water Docket 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Mailcode : 2822T 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave ., NW. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Docket #EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

To Whom It May Concern : 

~OV ~ ~ Lu) . 

On behalf of the Kentucky Public Service Commission, ("KPSC"), I would like to offer 

the following comments on the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA's") 

proposed Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control ("UIC") 

Program for Carbon Dioxide ("C02") Geologic Sequestration ("GS") Wells, published in 

the Federal Register on July 25, 2008. 

Broadly speaking the proposed rule appears to be intended to help protect underground 

sources of drinking water from the possible contaminating effects of injecting massive 

amounts of compressed C02 into underground geological formations for long-term 

geological sequestration. As over 107 million people within the United States obtain 

their drinking water from underground sources-over 400,000 of whom are in the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky-it is vital that the nation's drinking water supply be 

protected from such contamination .' 

KPSC also commends EPA for its efforts in formulating the proposed rule, because it 

will further the prospect of deploying effective technological solutions to the problem of 

capturing and sequestering carbon emissions from coal combustion and gasification, as 

it appears likely that federal legislation to limit carbon emissions will become law in the 

future. 

NOV 10 zoos 

1 See, "FACTOIDS : Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2007," pp. 4-5, found at 

http://www .epa .gov/safewater/data/pdfs/data factoids 2007 .pdf. 

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com /[~ An Equal Opportunity Employer M/FID 

~ ~ Lo"NOLm wWwr 
p. 2 

Docket #EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

Kentucky Public Service Commission 

October 10, 2008 

Page Two 

Without clear rules to govern the underground injection and long-term sequestration of 

C02, the full-scale deployment of C02 capture and sequestration technology on a 

nationwide basis could be subject to inconsistent and uncertain treatment under diverse 

state regulatory procedures. That, in turn, could unnecessarily complicate and forestall 

the process of effectively dealing with climate change, which would be especially vexing 

for states like Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and 

Wyoming whose coal reserves will continue to be used to ensure the nation's energy 

independence into the future. 

Furthermore, KPSC supports the goal of EPA's proposed rule to, "enable the continued 

use of coal in a manner that greatly reduces the associated C02 emissions while other 

safe and affordable alternative energy sources are developed in the coming decades. 

,2 

KPSC also supports EPA's "strategy to address climate change through : (1) Slowing the 

growth of emissions ; (2) strengthenin~g science, technology and institutions ; and 

(3) enhancing international cooperation ." P 

urges EPA to act cooperatively with those regulated entities that will be directly 

affected by the implementation of the underground injection rule such that the total 

costs of the program can be kept to a minimum. KPSC encourages EPA to recognize 

that this is only one of many new regulations and rules related to carbon capture and 

sequestration that will have a substantial impact on utilities' costs of service . Under 

traditional rate-making principles and pursuant to specific statutory requirements, the 

utilities' ratepayers will ultimately bear the burden of those additional costs. At a time 

when the costs for all utilities are increasing - such as rising fuel, material, capital and 

labor costs - the additional impact of new environmental requirements may prove to be 

unbearably burdensome to many utility customers. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your consideration of these 

comments in the development of the final rule. Should you have any questions on the 

comments, please contact staff attorney, Rick Bertelson, at (502) 564-3940 . 

2 73 Fed. Reg. 43,496 (July 25, 2008). 

Sincerely, 

3 Id . 

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com An Equal Opportunity Employer MIFID 

WaRIQLLD 3PIIP? 
Letter ID: 0231 

Commenter: David L. Armstrong 

Organization: Kentucky Public Service Commission 

Letter ID: 0231 Comment ID: 21891 Letter Lines: 33 to 66 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: Broadly speaking the proposed rule appears to be intended to help protect 

underground sources of drinking water from the possible contaminating effects of 

injecting massive amounts of compressed C02 into underground geological 

formations for long-term geological sequestration. As over 107 million people 

within the United States obtain their drinking water from underground sourcesover 400,000 of whom are in the Commonwealth of Kentucky-it is vital that the 

nation's drinking water supply be protected from such contamination. [FN1] 

[FN1: See, "FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2007," pp. 

4-5, found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/data factoids 2007.pdf.] 

KPSC also commends EPA for its efforts in formulating the proposed rule, because 

it will further the prospect of deploying effective technological solutions to 

the problem of capturing and sequestering carbon emissions from coal combustion 

and gasification, as it appears likely that federal legislation to limit carbon 

emissions will become law in the future. 

Without clear rules to govern the underground injection and long-term 

equestration of C02, the full-scale deployment of C02 capture and sequestration 

technology on a nationwide basis could be subject to inconsistent and uncertain 

treatment under diverse state regulatory procedures. That, in turn, could 

unnecessarily complicate and forestall the process of effectively dealing with 

climate change, which would be especially vexing for states like Kentucky, 

Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming whose coal 

reserves will continue to be used to ensure the nation's energy independence 

into the future. 

Furthermore, KPSC supports the goal of EPA's proposed rule to, "enable the 

continued use of coal in a manner that greatly reduces the associated C02 

emissions while other safe and affordable alternative energy sources are 

developed in the coming decades. [FN2] KPSC also supports EPA's "strategy to 

address climate change through: (1) Slowing the growth of emissions; (2) 

strengthening science, technology and institutions; and (3) enhancing 

international cooperation ." [FN3] 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the 

existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation 

1
technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC 

Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection 

of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the 

unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative 

buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in 

captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. 

Letter ID: 0231 Comment ID: 21892 Letter Lines: 68 to 81 

Comment Code: 6000 3. Cost of the Proposed Rule 

Comment: [FN2: 73 Fed. Reg. 43,496 (July 25, 2008)] 

[FN3: Id.] 

KPSC urges EPA to act cooperatively with those regulated entities that will be 

directly affected by the implementation of the underground injection rule such 

that the total costs of the program can be kept to a minimum. KPSC encourages 

EPA to recognize that this is only one of many new regulations and rules related 

to carbon capture and sequestration that will have a substantial impact on 

utilities' costs of service. Under traditional rate-making principles and 

pursuant to specific statutory requirements, the utilities' ratepayers will 

ultimately bear the burden of those additional costs. At a time when the costs 

for all utilities are increasing -such as rising fuel, material, capital and 

labor costs -the additional impact of new environmental requirements may prove 

to be unbearably burdensome to many utility customers. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule addresses costs associated with 

sequestration only, i.e., not capture or transportation. Any impacts on the cost of electricity are 

likely to be influenced by all aspects of CCS, including capture, transport, and sequestration. 

EPA adds that it does not establish or attempt to influence electric costs –they are set by factors 

the Agency does not control. Sequestration costs are expected to be a small component of total 

CCS project costs; EPA estimates that the GS rule requirements amount to approximately 2 

percent of the total CCS project costs. 

EPA acknowledges that the Class VI requirements have associated costs beyond baseline (Class 

I industrial wells) costs. The Agency clarifies that the purpose of the GS regulation, promulgated 

under authority of the SDWA, is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a 

manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

2