# Draft Cost Analysis for the Federal

Requirements Under the Underground

Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide

Geologic Sequestration Wells (Final GS Rule)

# Office of Water (460 6 M)

EPA 816-R-10-01 3

July 2010

www.epa.gov/safewater

# Draft Cost Analysis for the i July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Contents

Appendices .................................................................................................................... ................ iv

Exhibits ...................................................................................................................... .....................v

List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................. ........... vii

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. ........ 1-1

1.1 Technical, Public Health, and Regulatory Issues Addressed by the GS Rule ........... 1-2

1.1.1 Description of the Issue ................................................................................ 1-3

1.1.2 Public Health Concern to Be Addressed....................................................... 1-4

1.1.3 Statutory Authority for Pr omulgating the Rule ............................................ 1-4

1.2 Regulatory History ............................................................................................... ..... 1-5

1.3 Economic Rationale................................................................................................... 1-6

2. Consideration of Regulatory Alternatives ......................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2- 1

2.2 Process for Development of Re gulatory Alternatives ............................................... 2-1

2.3 Regulatory Alternatives Considered.......................................................................... 2-3

2.3.1 Regulatory Alternative 1 ................................................................................ 2-3

2.3.2 Regulatory Alternative 2 ................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.3 Regulatory Alternative 3 ................................................................................ 2-6

2.3.4 Regulatory Alternative 4 ................................................................................ 2-9

2.3.5 Comparative Summary of Regul atory Alternatives .................................... 2-11

2.4 Final Rule Requirements .......................................................................................... 2-27

3. Baseline Analysis ............................................................................................................. ..... 3-1

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... .......... 3-1

3.2 Data Sources ............................................................................................................... 3- 1

3.2.1 Published Data ............................................................................................. .. 3-1

3.2.2 Department of Energy Pilot Project Data ...................................................... 3-2

3.2.3 DOE Inventory Data ...................................................................................... 3- 3

3.2.4 Laboratory Research ....................................................................................... 3-3

3.3 Hydrogeologic Settings ............................................................................................... 3-3

3.3.1 Formation Types ............................................................................................ 3-4

3.3.2 Formation Capacity ........................................................................................ 3-5

3.4 Geologic Sequestration Ru le Baseline ......................................................................... 3-5

3.4.1 Projects Comprising the Baseline ................................................................... 3-6

3.4.2 Project Characteristics .................................................................................... 3-8

3.5 Sources of Uncertainty .............................................................................................. 3-10

# Draft Cost Analysis for the ii July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 4. Benefits Analysis ............................................................................................................. ..... 4-1

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Relative Risks – Qualitative Analysis ......................................................................... 4-1

4.2.1 Site Characterization ...................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.2 Area of Review (AoR) and Corrective Action .............................................. 4-5

4.2.3 Injection Well Construction ........................................................................... 4-6

4.2.4 Injection Well Operation ................................................................................ 4-7

4.2.5 Mechanical Integrity Testing ......................................................................... 4-8

4.2.6 Testing, Monitoring, and Reporting ............................................................... 4-9

4.2.7 Injection Well Plugging, Post-Injection Site Care (PISC), and Site

Closure .................................................................................................... ..... 4-10

4.2.8 Financial Responsibility ............................................................................... 4-11

4.2.9 Emergency and Remedial Response ............................................................ 4-11

4.2.10 Adaptive Regulatory Process ....................................................................... 4-11

4.2.11 Overall Estimate of Change in Risk ............................................................. 4-12

4.3 Ancillary Benefits ...................................................................................................... 4-13

4.4 Uncertainty in Benefits Estimates ............................................................................. 4-14

5. Cost Analysis .............................................................................................................. .......... 5-1

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... ........ 5-1

5.2 General Cost Assumptions and Methodology ............................................................. 5-2

5.2.1 Labor Rates ................................................................................................ .... 5-4

5.2.2 General and Administrative Costs ................................................................. 5-5

5.3 Projecting and Di scounting National Costs ................................................................ 5-5

5.4 Derivation of Costs for Owners and Operators of GS Wells and the Permitting

Authority ..................................................................................................5 

# -6

5.4.1 Rule Implementation and Annual Administration ......................................... 5-9

5.4.2 Geologic Site Characterization ...................................................................... 5-9

5.4.2.1 Annualized Costs for Geologic Site Char acterization ................ 5-11

5.4.3 Area of Review and Corrective Action ........................................................ 5-11

5.4.3.1 Annualized Costs for Ar ea of Review and Corrective Action .... 5-12

5.4.4 Injection Well Construction ......................................................................... 5-13

5.4.4.1 Annualized Costs fo r Injection Well Construction ..................... 5-16

5.4.5 Injection Well Operation.............................................................................. 5-16

5.4.5.1 Annualized Costs for Injection Well Operation .......................... 5-19

5.4.6 Mechanical Integrity Testing ....................................................................... 5-19

5.4.6.1 Annualized Costs for Mechanical Integrity Testing ................... 5-20

5.4.7 Monitoring ................................................................................................. .. 5-21

5.4.7.1 Annualized Costs for Monitoring ............................................... 5-23

5.4.8 Well Pluggi ng and Post-injection Site Care ................................................. 5-24

5.4.8.1 Annualized Costs for Well Plugging and PISC .......................... 5-26

5.4.9 Financial Responsibility............................................................................... 5-26

5.4.9.1 Annualized Costs for Financial Responsibility ........................... 5-27

5.4.10 Emergency and Remedial Response Plans .................................................. 5-28

5.4.11 Permitting Authority Costs .......................................................................... 5-28

5.4.11.1 Rule Implementation and Annual Administration ...................... 5-29

5.4.11.2 Geologic Site Ch aracterization ................................................... 5-29

5.4.11.3 Area of Review and Corrective Action ....................................... 5-29

5.4.11.4 Injection Well Construction ........................................................ 5-29

# Draft Cost Analysis for the iii July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 5.4.11.5 Injection Well Operation ............................................................. 5-30

5.4.11.6 Mechanical Integrity Testing ...................................................... 5-30

5.4.11.7 Monitoring .................................................................................. 5-3 0

5.4.11.8 Well Plugging and PISC ............................................................. 5-30

5.4.11.9 Financial Responsibility.............................................................. 5-31

5.4.11.10 Emergency and Remedial Response Plans ................................. 5-31

5.5 Estimated Costs to Households ................................................................................ 5-34

5.6 Comparison of Annualized Incremen tal Costs for All Regulatory Alternatives

Considered ............................................................................................................... 5-35

5.6.1 Costs Summed by Type of Expenditure ...................................................... 5-36

5.6.2 Costs Summed by Rule Component ............................................................ 5-36

5.7 Comparison of Costs and Benefits ........................................................................... 5-37

5.8 Other Economic Measures ....................................................................................... 5-3 8

5.9 Non-quantified Costs and Uncertainties in Cost Estimates ..................................... 5-38

5.9.1 Non-quantified Costs ................................................................................... 5-3 8

5.9.2 Uncertainties in Cost Estimates ................................................................... 5-38

6. Economic Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6 -1

6.2 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review ........................................ 6-2

6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act ........................................................................................... 6-2

6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act .......................................................................................... 6-3

6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) ................................................................ 6-4

6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism ........................................................................... 6-4

6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments .............................................................................................................. 6-5

6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Childre n from Environmental Health Risks

and Safety Risks ....................................................................................................... .. 6-5

6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use .................................................................................................... 6-6

6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ............................................... 6-6

6.11 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations a nd Low-Income Populations .................................................. 6-6

7. References

.................................... 

# ..............................................................7-1

# Draft Cost Analysis for the iv July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Appendices

Appendix A Proforma Projects

Appendix B Project Algorithms

Appendix C Summary of Rule Costs

# Draft Cost Analysis for the v July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibits

Exhibit 2.1 Comparison of Alternatives for GS of CO2 ..................................................2-12

Exhibit 3.1 Schedule of Baseline Project Deployment By Formation Type and

Project Size

........................... 

# .....................................................3-7

Exhibit 3.2 Project Characteristic s By Formation Type and Size ......................................3-9

Exhibit 4.1 Estimated Change in Risk for Components of the RAs Compared to the

Regulatory Baseline .........................................................................................4-3

Exhibit 5.1 Loaded Labor Rates by Standa rd Occupational Classification (SOC) and

Government Schedule Codes- 2008$ ...............................................................5-5

Exhibit 5.2 Project Characteristics By Formation Type and Size ......................................5-8

Exhibit 5.3 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Site

Characterization (2008$) ...............................................................................5-10

Exhibit 5.4 Owner and Operator Cost Estim ates for Geologic Site Characterization –

Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate

($Millions, 2008$) .........................................................................................5-11

Exhibit 5.5 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for AoR and

Corrective Action (2008$) .............................................................................5-12

Exhibit 5.6 Owner and Operator Cost Es timates for AoR and Corrective Action –

Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate

($Millions, 2008$) .........................................................................................5-13

Exhibit 5.7 Owner and Operator Burden a nd Unit Cost Estimates for Injection Well

Construction (2008$) .....................................................................................5-15

Exhibit 5.8 Owner and Operator Cost Estim ates for Injection Well Construction –

Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate

($Millions, 2008$) .........................................................................................5-16

Exhibit 5.9 Owner and Operator Burden a nd Unit Cost Estimates for Well Operation

(2008$)

................................................................................. 

# ......5-18

Exhibit 5.10 Owner and Operator Cost Estimates for Well Operation – Annualized

Values Using a 3% and 7% Di scount Rate ($Millions, 2008$) .....................5-19

Exhibit 5.11 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Conducting

MIT (2008$)

........................ 

# .....................................................5-20

Exhibit 5.12 Owner and Operator Cost Estimates for MIT – Annualized Values

Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$) .................................5-21

Exhibit 5.13 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Monitoring

(2008$)

............ 

# ......................................................................5-23

Exhibit 5.14 Owner and Operator Cost Es timates for Monitoring – Annualized Values

Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$) .................................5-24

Exhibit 5.15 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Well Plugging

and PISC (2008$) ...........................................................................................5-25

Exhibit 5.16 Owner and Operator Cost Estimates for Well Plugging and PISC –

Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate

($Millions, 2008$) .........................................................................................5-26

Exhibit 5.17 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Financial

Responsibility (2008$) ...................................................................................5-27

Exhibit 5.18 Owner and Operator Cost Estimates for Financial Responsibility –

Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate (2008$) ...................5-28

# Draft Cost Analysis for the vi July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.19 Permitting Authority Burden and Unit Cost Estimates (2008$) ....................5-32

Exhibit 5.20 Permitting Authority Cost Estimates – Annualized Values Using a

3% and 7% Discount Ra te ($Millions, 2008$) ..............................................5-34

Exhibit 5.21 Incremental Rule Costs for All Regulatory Alternatives Considered –

Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate

($Millions, 2008$) .........................................................................................5-35

Exhibit 5.22 Incremental Rule Costs – Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7%

Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$) ..................................................................5-36

Exhibit 5.23 Total and Incremental Rule Costs by Regulator y Alternative and

Rule Component – Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7%

Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$) ..................................................................5-37

Exhibit 5.24 Total and Incremental Rule Co sts After Increasing/Decreasing the Baseline

Number of Projects by 50% - A nnualized Values Using a 3% and 7%

Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$) ..................................................................5-42

Exhibit 5.25 Total and Incremental Ru le Costs Based on 50% Increased Labor

Rate - Annualized Values Using a 3% Di scount Rate

($Millions, 2008$) .........................................................................................5-42

Exhibit 5.26 Total and Incremental Rule Costs, Change in Cost from Primary

Analysis Resulting from 25% Increa se/Decrease in Monitoring Wells –

Annualized Values Using a 3% Di scount Rate ($Millions, 2008$) ..............5-42

Exhibit 5.27 Annualized Rule Costs By Project Type Per Metric Tonne and

Per Project (2008$) ........................................................................................5-43

Exhibit 6.1 Average Annual Net Change Burden and Costs for the GS ICR ....................6-3

# Draft Cost Analysis for the vii July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# List of Acronyms

AAPG American Associati on of Petroleum Geologists

AoR Area of Review

API American Petroleum Institute

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CCS Carbon Capture and Storage

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIR Color Infrared Orthoimagery

CO 2 

# Carbon Dioxide

CSLF Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

DOE Department of Energy

ECBM Enhanced Coal Bed Methane

EO Executive Order

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ER Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery

FR Federal Register

G&A General and Administrative

GIS Geographic Information System

GS Geologic Sequestration

Gt Gigatons

GWPC Ground Water Protection Council

ICR Information Collection Request

IOGCC Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IZ Injection Zone

LBNL Lawrence Berkley National Laboratories

LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging

MI Mechanical Integrity

MIT Mechanical Integrity Testing

MMV Measurement, Monitoring, and Verification

NAICS North American Indus try Classification System

NATCARB National Carbon

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NODA Notice of Data Availability

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OAL Oxygen Activation Log

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PBMS Performance Based Measurement System

PISC Post-injection Site Care

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

PV Present Value

RA Regulatory Alternative

# Draft Cost Analysis for the viii July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# RCSP Regional Carbon Se questration Partnership

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SBA Small Business Association

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SOC Standard Occupational Classification

SPE Society for Petroleum Engineers

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

UIC Underground Injection Control

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 1-1 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 1. Introduction

This Cost Analysis evaluates the costs a nd potential benefits of the new Federal

Requirements under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide

(CO 2 

# ) Geologic Sequestration (G S) Wells (the GS Rule). Executive Order (EO) 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735) requires the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to estimate the economic im pact of rules that have an annual effect on

the economy of over $100 million and make that anal ysis available to the public in conjunction

with publication of the final rule. EPA has chos en to publish a comprehensive cost analysis and

a relative risk analysis to accompany the GS rule even though the Agency has determined that

the annual cost is below the $100 million threshold. These analyses consider both the relative

costs of the regulatory alternativ es and the reduction in risk re lative to baseline provided by each

alternative in selecting the final rule. 1



# The final GS rule establishes minimum Fe deral requirements under the Safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA) for injection of CO 2 

# for the purposes of long-term storage (also known as

GS). The final rule creates a new class of inje ction well, Class VI, and sets minimum technical

criteria for the purposes of protecting undergro und sources of drinking water (USDWs). The

elements of the GS Rule are based on the existing Underground In jection Control (UIC)

regulatory framework with modifications to addre ss the unique nature of GS in the anticipation

of its eventual use to reduce CO 2 

# emissions to the atmosphere.

An outline of the organization of this Cost An alysis is provided below. The remainder of

this chapter summarizes the techni cal, regulatory, and public health issues addressed by the final

rule (Section 1.1) and provides an overview of the UIC Program regulatory framework on which

the rule is based (Section 1.2). It also explains the statutory authorit y for the rule and the

economic rationale for adopting a regulatory approach (Section 1.3).

The remainder of this cost analysis is organized into the following chapters:

 Chapter 2 presents a review of the alternat ive regulatory approaches EPA considered

during development of the GS rule and the rationale for selecting the minimum

requirements that comprise the final rule.

 Chapter 3 characterizes conditions that exist prior to promulgation of the GS rule. It

includes a profile of hydroge ologic settings available for GS and potential CO 2 

# storage capacity. It also provi des projection estimates of the number and types of GS

projects likely to be affected by the rule.

1 

# EPA developed a relative risk analysis in place of a quanti fied assessment of risk becau se GS is a new technology

and the results from research on the po tential effects of GS on underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) are

not yet available.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 1-2 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

#  Chapter 4 presents a discussion of the risk and benefit tradeoffs between compliance

with existing UIC regulations and the four regulatory a lternatives considered. A

qualitative discussion of the potential economic benefits of the final rule is also

presented.

 Chapter 5 presents an estimate of the cost s of implementing the final rule to owners

and operators and primacy agencies. The costs of the other regulator y alternatives that

were considered are compared.

 Chapter 6 discusses the effect s of the GS rule on different segments of the population

and considers the executive orders and re quirements applicable to this rulemaking,

including the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA).

 Chapter 7 lists references cited in Chapters 1 - 6.

This Cost Analysis presents results from detailed and complex analyses. To help the

reader track the various calculations a nd analyses, the following are provided:

 Appendices

- Appendix A presents the characteristics that factor into costs for each pro forma

(representative project type) case.

- Appendix B presents a matrix that include s the algorithms that define unit costs

for different regulatory components, and an application factor that describes the

extent to which each cost applies under each regulatory alternative.

- Appendix C presents detailed cost spread sheets that are output from the cost

model for each of the regulatory alternativ es considered in this cost analysis.

 Exhibits - Most tabular exhibits include a row that provides the formulas used to

calculate the contents of each column.

 Sources for information that is used, but not calculated within the exhibits.

 Supporting electronic file output (i.e., GS rule cost model output).



# 1.1 Technical, Public Health, and Regula tory Issues Addressed by the GS Rule

The Agency has developed a final rule that has tailored the ex isting UIC regulatory

framework to address the unique nature of CO 2 

# injection for GS for the purposes of protecting

USDWs. The rule contains tailored re quirements for the following criteria:

1. Site Characterization,

2. Area of Review and Corrective Action,

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 1-3 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 3. Injection Well Construction,

4. Injection Well Operation,

5. Mechanical Integrity Testing,

6. Monitoring,

7. Injection Well Plugging, Post-injection Site Care (P ISC) and Site Closure,

8. Financial Responsibility, and

9. Emergency and Remedial Response.

1.1.1 Description of the Issue

Geologic sequestration is th e process of injecting CO 2 

# captured from an emissions source

(e.g., a power plant or industrial fa cility) into deep subsurface rock formations for long-term

storage to reduce CO 2 

# emissions to the atmosphere. To inject captured CO 2 

# , the CO 2 

# is typically

converted from a gaseous state to a supercritical state. The CO 2 

# is then delivered from the source

to the GS site where it is injected into deep subsurface rock formations (such as deep saline

formations and oil and gas reser voirs) via an injection well.

Many of the injection and monitoring technol ogies that may be applicable to GS are

commercially available today and are being used by the oil and gas industry for enhancing oil

and gas production. However, th ese technologies have yet to be widely demonstrated at the

larger scale needed for GS. It is expected th at GS projects will inject large volumes of CO 2 

# . CO 2 

# in the subsurface is buoyant and is highly mobile. While CO 2 

# itself is not a drinking water

contaminant, CO 2 

# in the presence of water forms a weak acid and can cause leaching and

mobilization of naturally-occurring metals and or other contaminants from geologic formations

into groundwater if injection well s are not properly sited, operated and monitored. The GS Rule

provides minimum requirements to protect US DWs from endangerment as this climate

mitigation technology is developed and deployed.

Experimental field research on GS in the U.S. is being led by the Department of Energy

(DOE) under the Regional Carbon Sequestration Pa rtnerships (RSCPs) program. Over the past

several years, several experime ntal pilot or demonstration projects for GS have come into

operation or have completed injection. Before pr omulgation of this rule, these projects were

permitted under the existing UIC Program regulati ons as either Class V experimental technology

wells 2 

# , Class I non-hazardous waste injection wells (the baseline scenario for this cost analysis),

or Class II injecti on wells (where the CO 2 

# injection is associated w ith oil or gas recovery).

Following promulgation of the GS Rule, proj ects whose primary purpose is to inject CO 2 

# for

long-term storage will be permitted as Class VI.

2 

# This classification is appropriate for experimental GS projects, and is addressed in EPA’s March 2007 UIC

Program Guidance # 83: Using the Class V Experimental Technology Well Classification for Pilot Carbon

Geologic Sequestration Projects

.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 1-4 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# For the purpose of developing the baseline esti mate of projects to deploy as required for

the cost analysis, EPA considered the current legislative environment only, as recommended in

EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2000). EPA acknowledges that if

legislation is passed that limits CO 2 

# emissions to the atmonsphere in the future, it will create an

economic incentive for more projects to deploy. Although GS is occurring now on a relatively

small scale, it could play a larger role in mitigating CO 2 

# emissions from a variety of stationary

sources. For example, 95 percent of the 500 larg est stationary sources are located within 50

miles of a candidate GS rese rvoir (Dooley et al., 2006).

While predictions about large-sc ale availability and the rate of GS deployment are subject

to considerable uncertainty, EPA analysis of C ongressional climate chan ge legislative proposals

indicate that GS has the potential to play a significant role in climate change scenarios. EPA’s

summary of this analysis is provided in the preamble cost se ction (Section IV) of the final rule.

Because of this uncertainty in the actual number of projects expected to deploy over the

period of this analysis (2011-2060), EPA also cons idered a baseline and costing scenario under

an assumption of climate change legislation that limits CO 2 

# emissions. The results of this

alternative-legislation scenari o, and a sensitivity analysis th at considers a 50% increase and

decrease in the baseline deployment, are pres ented in Chapter 5 of the Cost Analysis. A

discussion of the composition of the baseline deve loped for this cost analysis is presented in

Chapter 3 of the Cost Analysis.

1.1.2 Public Health Concern to Be Addressed

The injection of CO 2 

# , if not properly managed, could e ndanger USDWs because the large

injection volumes expected, the relative buoyancy of CO 2 

# and its potential mobility within

subsurface geologic formations, combined with the corrosive nature of CO 2 

# in the presence of

water, could mobilize contaminants from the surrounding formations and decrease pH of the

groundwater. In addition, larg e injection volumes could push saline ground water into fresh

water sources.

Such changes to ground water quality coul d compromise drinking water quality,

requiring treatment to make the water potable, and in some cases resulting in the inability to

produce potable water (e.g., where the cost of treat ment is prohibitive). The GS rule will protect

USDWs by requiring that approp riate measures related to proper siting, injection well

construction and operation, monito ring and testing, plugging, PISC, and site closure that mitigate

the risks to USDWs be implemented for all GS wells.

1.1.3 Statutory Authority for Promulgating the Rule

The GS rule is focused on USDW protecti on under the authority of Part C of SDWA

(SDWA § 1422 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.) and applies to injection wells in the U.S.,

including those in State territorial waters.

SDWA is designed to protect the quality of drinking water sources in the U.S. and

prescribes that EPA issu e regulations for State 3 

# UIC Programs that contain “minimum

3 

# Reference to “States” includes Tribes and Territories.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 1-5 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# requirements for effective programs to prevent underground injection which endangers drinking

water sources.” Congress further defined endangerment as follows:

Underground injection endangers drinking water sources if su ch injection may result in

the presence in underground water which suppl ies or can reasonabl y be expected to

supply any public water system of any cont aminant, and if the presence of such

contaminant may result in such system’s not complying with any national primary

drinking water regulation or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons

(SDWA §1421(d)(2)).

Under this authority, the Agency has promulga ted a series of UIC regulations at 40 CFR

Parts 144 through 148. The chief goal of any Fe derally approved UIC Program (whether

administered by a State, Territory, Tribe or EPA) is the protection of USDWs. This includes not

only those formations that are pr esently being used for drinking water, but also those that can

reasonably be expected to be used in the futu re. EPA has established th rough its UIC regulations

that USDWs are underground aquifers with less than 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total

dissolved solids (TDS) and which contain a suffi cient quantity of ground water to supply a

public water system (40 CFR 144.3). Section 1421( b) (3)(A) of the SDWA also provides that

EPA’s UIC regulations shall “p ermit or provide for consideration of varying geologic,

hydrological, or historical conditions in different States and in different ar eas within a State.” 4



# Under the SDWA, the injection of any “fluid” is subject to the requirements of the UIC

Program. A “fluid” is defined under §144.3 as any material or s ubstance that flows or moves

whether in a semisolid, liquid, slud ge, gas or other form or state, and includes the injection of

liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) into the subsurface. Examples of the fluids currently

injected into wells subject to UIC requirements include: CO 2 

# for the purposes of enhancing

recovery of oil and natural gas, water that is st ored to meet water supply demands in dry seasons,

and wastes generated by industrial users. CO 2 

# injected for the purpose of GS is subject to the

SDWA.



# 1.2 Regulatory History

When EPA initially promulgated its UIC Progr am regulations, it defi ned five classes of

injection wells based on similariti es in the fluids injected, cons truction, injection depth, design,

and operating techniques. This categorization ensures that wells with common design and

operating techniques are required to meet appropriate performance cr iteria and is described in the

following paragraph.

Class I wells, which inject hazardous wa stes, industrial non-hazardous liquids, or

municipal wastewaters beneath the lowermost US DW, are technically soph isticated and subject

to stringent construction and ope ration standards. Class II wells inject fluids (including CO 2 

# )

associated with oil and gas production. Class III wells inject fluids a ssociated with solution

mining of minerals. Class IV wells inject hazar dous or radioactive wastes into or above

4 

# The federal codes under which EPA promulgated these administrative and permitting regulations and associated

dates of passage are described in the Preamble for the GS rule.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 1-6 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# USDWs. 5 

# Class V includes all injection wells that ar e not included in Classe s I-IV. In general,

Class V wells inject non-hazardous fluids into or above USDWs; however, there are some deep

Class V wells that inject below USDWs. Cl ass V wells include GS experimental technology

wells used for GS pilot projects.

Currently, almost all existing CO 2 

# injection in the U.S. involves Class II wells (for oil and

gas production purposes) and Class V experimental technology wells, with a very limited amount

involving Class I wells:

 For the past several decades CO 2 

# has been injected via Class II wells for enhanced oil

and gas recovery (ER). In ER operations, CO 2 

# is injected to make the residual oil in a

reservoir more mobile and facilitate recovery. Class II well operators and permitting

authorities have decades of expertise w ith injection, includ ing injection of CO 2 

# for the

purposes of oil and gas production, with oi l and gas reservoir dynamics, and with

injection well construction. Although the majority of CO 2 

# is likely to be injected into

saline formations over the l ong term, it is anticipated that, given the experience and

the availability of background data and infr astructure related to Class II injection,

many Class II projects will want to transition to long-term storage projects in oil and

gas reservoirs early in the deployment phase.

 Over the past decade, pilot-scale projects began injecting small volumes of CO 2 

# to

test GS technologies and inform EPA’ s final decision on how to regulate GS

activities. To allow permitting of pilot-scale GS projects in advance of a GS

rulemaking, EPA issued guidance to assist state and EPA regional UIC Programs in

processing permit applications for pilot and other small-scale experimental GS

projects. In the UIC Program Guidance # 83: Usi ng the Class V Experimental

Technology Well Classification for Pilo t Carbon Geologic Sequestration Projects

(USEPA, 2007), EPA recommends that pilot GS projects be permitted as Class V

experimental technology wells. The guidance applies to pilot CO 2 

# injection projects

of an experimental nature that are designed to assess the efficacy of CO 2 

# injection for

the purposes of long-term GS.

The final rule defines a new class of injection well (Class VI) that is specifically tailored

to injection of CO 2 

# into deep subsurface formations for long-term storage.



# 1.3 Economic Rationale

This section addresses the economic rationa le for choosing a regulatory approach to

govern GS and thus protect public drinking wate r supplies (i.e., by protecting USDWs) rather

than nonregulatory alternatives. Although the fina l rule is not subject to the requirement

(including provision of an economic rationale) of EO 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

(58 FR 51735) for an economic rationale for the ru le because it is not economically significant,

EPA is providing the rationale below.

5 

# Class IV wells are currently banned unless authorized under an approved federal or state ground water remediation

project.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 1-7 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# EO 12866 states the following:

[E]ach agency shall identif y the problem that it inte nds to address (including,

where applicable, the failures of the priv ate markets or public institutions that

warrant new agency action) as well as assess the significance of that problem.

(Section 1, b(1))

In addition, Office of Management and B udget (OMB) Circular A-4, dated September

17, 2003, states that “...[the analyst] should try to explain whether the action is intended to

address a significant market failure or to meet some other compelling public need such as

improving governmental processes or promoting inta ngible values such as distributional fairness

or privacy.” (OMB, 2003).

In the case of large-scale GS, two major types of market failures are present—the

presence of externalities (related to the nature of the affected resources facing complex property

rights issues and being generally regarded as public goods); and information asymmetry between

GS injection well operators and potentially affect ed public water systems and private well users.

These market failures work separately and togeth er to distort the workings of a free market.

Furthermore, the promulgation of a regulation that limits CO 2 

# emissions during the period of this

analysis would exacerbate these market failures based on the expected increase in GS projects

and amplification of the issues described below.

The presence of externalities is the first mark et failure, resulting from the nature of the

affected resources. In this case, there are two resources that will be potentially affected by

injection of CO 2 

# under the final rule—the aquifers th at serve as USDWs and the underground

formations that can sequester CO 2 

# . Under the SDWA, EPA protects USDWs for public use and

establishes a regulatory structur e (the UIC Program) to preven t potential contamination that

supersedes property rights/ownership issues. B ecause the UIC Program focuses specifically on

protection of USDWs, there exists less regulatory history in de fining ownership/property rights

for underground formations not containing viable drinking water resources. Because of the

complexity in defining property rights for non-USDW underground formations, for the purpose

of this analysis non-USDWs are treated consistently with the treatment of USDWs, i.e., they are

regarded as public goods. As public goods, the pote ntial side effects from the operation of GS

wells (i.e., contamination of USDWs or other underground formations due to improper siting,

construction, operation, or closur e) would likely be uncompensated by those responsible for such

contamination in absence of the UIC Program of regulation. The costs of the final GS Rule as

presented in this analysis represent the costs for the additional protect ion of USDWs provided by

the Class VI regulation, which ta ilors protective measures to th e risks posed by GS projects.

The second market failure results from an asymmetry in information held by GS well

owners and operators versus pot entially affected public water system and private well users.

There are an estimated 105,249 smalle r public water systems in the Unit ed States out of a total of

153,530 public water systems (USEPA, 2005a). This estimate includes Transient and NonTransient Non Community Water Systems and Co mmunity Water Systems serving fewer than

1,001 customers. Additionally, many families in rura l communities operate private wells. All of

these systems and individuals would be at a disa dvantage in trying to maintain a quality water

supply if they were not informed of the potenti al risks that a GS proj ect in their community

might pose to their current or future potential wa ter supplies. However, GS by nature is complex.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 1-8 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# The potential risk for water quality changes may be difficult to convey in a meaningful way to

the large number of people that could be affecte d, i.e., those who are curr ent and potential future

consumers of the water from the aquifers under consideration, and the large associated

transaction costs in educating a large number of people in a co mplex, nuanced discussion of GS.

The SDWA provides a level of protection from exposure to drinking water contaminants

for which consumers may not be in a position to advocate for themselves. SDWA regulations are

not intended to restructure market mechanisms or to establish competition in supply; rather, they

establish minimum performance requirements and the level of service to be provided that best

reflect public preferences for protectiveness. Th e Federal regulations reduce the high information

and transaction costs by acting on be half of consumers in balanci ng risk reduction and the social

costs of achieving this risk reduction.

Two of the major types of market failures are present in the implementation of GS

operations and interrelate. USDWs and other inje ction formations are generally considered

public goods which subject them to potential adverse externalities without a non-market

intervention. Further, the complex nature of GS and the potential resulting water quality issues

may be difficult to convey in a meaningful way to the potentially affected water systems with an

amount of effort that is reasonable for both sides. These market failures di stort the workings of a

free market and are the basis for governme ntal intervention. Congress acknowledged these

market conditions when it established a federa l regulatory approach to protecting USDWs under

SDWA.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-1 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 2. Consideration of Regu latory Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

The United States Environmental Protection Agen cy (EPA) is finalizing Federal Requirements

under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) fo r underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO 2 

# ) for the

purposes of Geologic Sequestration (G S Rule). The GS Rule was develo ped to ensure consistency in

permitting underground injection of CO 2 

# at geologic sequestration (GS) operations across the U.S. and

provide requirements to prevent endangerment of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) in

anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO 2 

# emissions to the atmosphere. This cost analysis

has been informed by Federal and no n-Federal entities on GS to determin e how best to tailor existing

underground injection requirements for CO 2 

# for GS (described in S ection 2.2). Four regulatory

alternatives (RAs) (see Section 2.3 ) were developed for managing the risks to USDWs associated with

GS. Benefits and costs are estimated for each of the regulatory alternatives in this Cost Analysis. EPA

selected an alternative as the final GS Rule, whic h is described in Secti on 2.4 of this chapter.



# 2.2 Process for Development of Regulatory Alternatives

The GS Rule builds upon longstanding programmatic requirements that have been in place since

the 1980s and are used to manage over 800,000 injection wells nationwid e. EPA has taken a number of

steps to inform the GS rule including: conducting research; conducting stak eholder coordination and

outreach; issuing a proposed rulemaking and solic iting and reviewing public comment; and publishing a

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for comment to seek additional i nput on the rulemaking.

The following workshops were held to identify t echnical, administrative, and regulatory issues

associated with pilot and large-scale GS projects:

 Measurement, Monitoring, and Verification (MMV) Workshop. On January 16, 2008 EPA held a

technical workshop on MMV in New Orleans, LA. The workshop included presentations by

industry, academic, and government researchers on th eir experience with and use of subsurface and

near-surface monitoring techniques. The presen tations were followed by “round table” breakout

discussions where participants discussed the availa bility and utility of various monitoring techniques

that may be applicable to GS projects.

 Geologic Setting and Area of Revi ew Considerations Workshop . EPA held a technical workshop in

Washington, D.C. on July 10 and 11, 2007 to discuss geologic considerations and Area of Review

(AoR) issues related to GS. The workshop consis ted of three presentation sessions, during which

industry and government experts de scribed current research on: s ubsurface geologic information

needed to determine whether a site is appropriate for GS, the role of artificial conduits in the AoR on

siting decisions, factors that affect the size and shape of the AoR, and corrective actions to address

wells in the AoR. To conclude the workshop, a panel of experts representing the Regional

Partnerships and Interstate O il & Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) presented their experiences

with pilot and experimental GS projects.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-2 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

#  Well Construction and Mechanical In tegrity Testing Workshop (MIT) . EPA held a technical

workshop in Albuquerque, New Mexico on March 14, 2007 to address well construction and MIT

issues related to GS. The workshop format includ ed technical presentation s on current research by

industry, academia, and government agencies on experi mental research in the U.S. and Canada into

wellbore integrity and CO 2 

# -cement interactions, modeling, the im pact of wellbore integrity on GS

site selection, and industry re search on well construction.

 State Regulators’ Workshop on Geologic Sequestration of CO 2



# . At the Ground Water Protection

Council’s (GWPC) UIC Technical meeting in San Antonio, Texas on January 24, 2007, EPA and

DOE collaborated on a workshop to discuss a nd formulate the questions related to CO 2 

# injection that

EPA would need to answer in its rulemaking pr ocess. In sessions led by the National Energy

Technology Laboratory (NETL), expert s presented the status of Department of Energy (DOE)

research projects on AoR studies, in jection well management, and MMV.

 International Symposium on Site Characterization for CO 2 

# Geologic Storage. Participants at this

symposium, held in Berkeley, CA on Marc h 20-22, 2006, discussed various aspects of

characterization and se lection of potential CO 2 

# storage sites. The symposium emphasized advances

in process understanding, developm ent of measurement methods, identi fication of key site features

and parameters, site characteriza tion strategies, and case studies. The presenta tions and discussions

addressed: site characte rization methods; regional-sc ale site selection; site characterization case

studies; leakage from storage formations, includi ng pathways, effects, and implications for site

characterization; fundamental pro cesses and technical issues rela ted to site characterization;

screening and characterization tools; and regulatory and social issues.

 Risk Assessment for Geologic CO 2 

# Storage Workshop. Following the GWPC fall meeting in

Portland, Oregon, state and EPA experts on GS, gr ound water and underground injection, and health

and environmental effects of CO 2 

# met on September 28-29, 2005. They discussed the development

of a risk assessment framework to identify potential risks and to consider relevant field experience

that could be applicable to inj ection and long-term storage of CO 2 

# . Some of the key topics addressed

at the workshop were abandoned wells, faults , and ground water displacement. Participants

discussed key issues in conducting a risk assessment of geologic carbon storage.

 Modeling and Reservoir Simulation fo r Geologic Carbon Storage Workshop . On April 6-7, 2005,

EPA held a workshop for 60 EPA headquarters and regional staff in Houston, Texas to assess the

potential application of reservoi r models and reservoir simulation to GS and to provide EPA with

information about the ‘state of the art’ in the development and application of modeling approaches

and numerical simulators for geologic CO 2 

# storage. They also discu ssed the role of models and

reservoir simulation in supporting risk assessmen t and risk communication for GS sites. The

workshop informed EPA about ways that geologic m odels and reservoir simulation might be applied

during key stages in th e life cycle of a CO 2 

# storage reservoir, from site selection and characterization

through injection operations and pos t-injection verification of CO 2 

# containment.

Throughout the rulemaking process, the Agency conduc ted public workshops and public hearings, consultations with specific groups, and EPA representati ves attended meetings to explain the GS rulemaking effort to interested pub lic and stakeholder groups.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-3 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# EPA held public meetings to discuss EPA’s ru lemaking approach, and consulted with other

stakeholder groups including non-gove rnmental organizations (NGOs) to gain a better understanding of

stakeholder interests and concerns. As part of this outreach, EPA conducted two stakeholder workshops

with participants from industry, environmental groups, utilities, academia, states , and the general public.

These workshops, held in December 2007 and February 2008. EPA also specifically targeted outreach

and consultation efforts to engage States and Tribes.

EPA has also been monitoring ongoing GS research and work by academia, the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and World Resources Inst itute’s Carbon Capture

and Storage (CCS) working group.

Agency Activities Conducted for Proposed Rulemaking

On July 25, 2008, EPA published the proposed “Fed eral Requirements Under the Underground

Injection Control (UIC) Progr am for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 

# ) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells” (73 FR

43492). The Agency proposed a new class of injection we ll (Class VI), along with technical criteria for

permitting GS wells that tailored the existing UIC regulatory framework to address the unique nature of

CO 2 

# injection for GS. Based on public comments receiv ed on the proposed rule, the Agency identified

several topics upon which it needed additional public comment. On August 31, 2009, EPA published

supplemental information related to geol ogic sequestration in a NODA (74 FR 44802).

The NODA presented new data and information from the DOE’s NETL, including preliminary

field data from the DOE-sponsored Regional Carbon Sequestration Part nership (RCSP) projects. The

Notice presented the results of GS-related studi es conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory (LBNL) concerning both GS projects and modeling to pr edict the potential impacts on

ground water from GS activiti es (discussed in secti on II.C.2 of today’s pub lication). The NODA also

presented an alternative to addre ss public comments and concerns about the proposed injection depth

requirements for Class VI wells.



# 2.3 Regulatory Alternatives Considered

EPA developed four RAs that a ddress the unique technical and administrative considerations

posed by the GS of CO 2 

# . These four RAs are described in the next few sections and at the end of this

section, Exhibit 2.1 summarizes each alternative.

2.3.1 Regulatory Alternative 1

Under this first alternative, GS wells would n eed to be sited, construc ted, operated, maintained,

monitored, and closed in a manner that protects US DWs. RA1 would apply th e performance standard

under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 144.12(a) that prohibits fluid m ovement that endangers

USDWs. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumed that operators would construct wells to inject

below the lowermost USDW.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-4 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# No specific “technology” standards would acco mpany the performance standard and each

permitting authority would be left to interpret what technical standards or best management practices

would be included in GS well permits based on th e geology of the proposed site and the proposed

injection activity. Permitting authorities are encouraged to issue permits for GS wells so that owners and

operators would be subject to enforceable standards.

This alternative would offer flexibility to each perm itting authority to interpret what would need to be

included in GS well permits. While some stakeholde rs advocated a flexible approach for certain

elements of a GS regulation, none advocated complete fl exibility in the GS rule. If this alternative were

adopted, EPA would need to develop numerous techni cal guidances to assist permitting authorities and

to help injection well owners and operators unde rstand and interpret the performance standards.

2.3.2 Regulatory Alternative 2

This RA is similar to the “basic” UIC Program re gulatory standards for injection associated with

oil and gas recovery, modified to address the poten tial impacts to USDWs from the injection of large

volumes of potentially corrosive CO 2 

# . The GS-specific components of this RA include the use of

corrosion-resistant construction materials and surface at mospheric or soil gas monitoring. This RA also

gives permitting authorities flexibility to interpret cer tain elements in their permit requirements. For the

purpose of this analysis, EPA assumed that operat ors would construct wells to inject below the

lowermost USDW.

Geologic Site Characterization: Under this RA, GS wells would need to be sited in an area with

geological layers that are adequate for receiving proposed volumes of injected CO 2 

# , confining it below

USDWs, and providing long-term storage with no move ment of any fluids that endangers a USDW. An

adequate site would consist of: an injection zone of sufficient ar eal extent, thickness, porosity, and

permeability; a containment mechanism that is free of major non-sealing faults; and a primary confining

system of sufficient areal extent and integrity to allow injection at the proposed rates and volumes

without initiating or propagating fractures. Similar c onfigurations are typical of oil and gas wells which

are typically located in areas where the natural ge ology confines oil and/or natural gas in permeable

formations below a confining system.

Under this RA, the owners and operators of a pr oposed GS injection we ll would demonstrate the

presence and adequacy of the injection zone a nd confining system by pr oviding geological data,

including geological names and lit hologic descriptions of the form ations, and information on their

thickness and depth. Owners and operators would also provide a map of the injection well and the

applicable AoR and other information, such as maps, cross-sections, and a list of penetrations into the

injection zone. Under this RA, owners and operators would also pr ovide the geologic name and depth to

bottom of all USDWs that may be affected by the injection.

AoR and Corrective Action: Under this RA, owners and operato rs would define the AoR for the

GS project based on a calculated radius or by modeli ng. The use of models is encouraged, but would not

be required. Within the defined AoR, owners and ope rators would locate and identify all artificial

penetrations (including active and abandoned wells and mines) that penetrate the confining system;

provide a description of each well’s type, construc tion, date drilled, location, and depth; determine,

based on publicly available data , whether the abandoned wells have been plugged in a manner that

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-5 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# prevents the movement of CO 2 

# or associated fluids; and employ co rrective action at all wells that may

endanger USDWs using appropriate methods approved by the Director.

Injection Well Construction: Under this RA, GS wells would be cased and cemented to prevent

movement of fluids into or betw een USDWs. This mirrors the curr ent Class II requirements; however

this RA includes additional components to address the unique nature of CO 2 

# injected for GS. For

example, RA2 would require that the casing and tubing for GS wells be adequate to withstand the

corrosive nature of the injected CO 2 

# and any impurities at the antic ipated operational conditions, and

meet American Petroleum Institute (API) standards for casing, tubing, and packer. GS wells would also

be constructed using corrosion-resistant cement in zones where contact between the cement and CO 2 

# is

likely or where cement integrity is critical (e.g., through the primary confining system). Owners and

operators would need to verify the integrity and location of the cement using the best available

technologies for evaluating cement quality, identifying the location of channels or contaminated cement,

and validating the casing-cement and cement-formation bonds through the primary confining system.

Injection Well Operation: Under this RA, CO 2 

# injection for GS should be conducted such that

the pressure during injection does not initiate new fractures or pr opagate existing fractures in the

confining zone adjacent to the USDWs. Higher ope rating pressures may be allowed if approved by the

permitting authority. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumed that operators would inject below

the lowermost USDW.

MIT: Under this RA, owners and operators of GS wells would demonstrate that their wells have

internal MI (i.e., that there is no significant leak in the casing, tubing or pack er) and external MI, (i.e.,

there is no significant fluid movement into a USDW through vertical channels adjacent to the injection

well bore).

Under this RA, owners and operators of GS wells would demonstr ate internal MI by

continuously monitoring injection pressure, flow ra te, injected volumes, and pressure on the annulus

between the tubing and the long-stri ng casing. This RA does not stipul ate specific testing methods for

external MITs; rather, flexibility is provided to owners and operators and permitting authorities to

propose and approve methods that ar e appropriate to the specific proj ect. A variety of testing methods

are available and a flexible a pproach would allow owners and operators to adopt new testing

technologies that ar e appropriate to CO 2 

# injection if they become availa ble. Under this RA, MITs would

be conducted at a frequency determined by the permitting authority.

Monitoring: Under this RA, GS well owners and operato rs would monitor the nature of injected

fluids at a frequency sufficient to yi eld data representative of their ch aracteristics, as determined by the

permitting authority. Owners and operators would repor t annually on the characteristics of injection

fluids, injection pressure, flow ra te, temperature, volume and annular pressure, and on the results of

MITs.

Injection Well Pluggi ng and Post-Injection Site Care (PISC): When injection through a well is

concluded, the injection well would be plugged in a way that ensures th at it would not serve as a conduit

for future fluid movement. Under this RA, owners and operators of GS wells would take appropriate

actions, as approved by the permitting authority, to plug the injection well. Plugging activities may

include ensuring that the well is in a state of static equilibrium with mud or equalized prior to placement

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-6 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# of the plugs; plugging the well with cement in a manne r that will not allow the movement of fluids

either into or between USDWs; placing cement plugs; and tagging and testing each plug used for seal

and stability. RA2 would also require owners and operators of GS wells to submit to the permitting

authority a plan for conducting post- injection monitoring for ten years after injection wells are plugged

to confirm that any post-injection CO 2 

# movement is limited to intende d zones (it does not specify the

methods by which accurate monitoring data may be collected, however). Once approved, owners and

operators would then be required to implement the approved plan.

Financial Responsibility: Under this RA, owners and operators would demonstrate the resources

necessary to plug th e injection well.

2.3.3 Regulatory Alternative 3

For reasons discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this Cost Analysis, RA 3 has been selected as the

final rule.

Many of the geologic data elements under this RA are similar to those required under the Class I

non-hazardous regulations. This RA contains techni cal standards that mirror the stringent deep-well

requirements for disposal of non-ha zardous industrial wastes, with some additional requirements to

account for the unique nature of CO 2 

# injection for GS. It is more st ringent and prescriptive than RA2.

The paragraphs below describe the specific elements of this alternative, hi ghlighting the differences

between RA2 and RA3.

Site Characterization: Under this RA, in addition to an ad equate injection zone, containment

mechanism, and primary confining system, an owner or operator of a proposed GS site may be required,

at the Director’s discretion, to characterize additiona l zones that could impede vertical fluid movement,

allow for pressure dissipation, and provide addi tional opportunities for monitoring, mitigation, and

remediation.

This RA is more prescriptive than RA2 regarding the types and level of detail of the geological

information that owners and operators would submit. The owner or operator of a proposed GS project

site demonstrate the presence and adequacy of the injection and conf ining zones by providing

information on the geologic structure, overburden and subsurface structures, and geochemical

information about native and injected fluids.

To evaluate the potential for adve rse effects associated with CO 2 

# injection, owners and operators

also provide information on fractures in the confining zone and, if directed, any additional zones. Under

RA3, owners and operators also el iminate sites with potential seis mic risks. Additionally, under RA3,

owners and operators characterize the overburden and subsurface structures, and provide data on

subsurface porosity and permeability and geomechani cal information, e.g., on fractures, stress, rock

strength, and formation fluids.

Operators and operators also submit data on geoc hemistry within the injection zone and above

the confining zone, including USDWs; this serve as baseline data to which results of future monitoring

would be compared throughout the injection phase. Ge ochemical data could also serve as inputs for

modeling to predict CO 2 

# movement.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-7 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# AoR and Corrective Action : Under this RA, owners and operato rs of GS wells determine, in

three dimensions, the extent of the AoR based on com putational modeling that accounts for the physical

and chemical properties of all phases of the injected CO 2 

# stream, CO 2 

# plume, and the associated pressure

front. The models will be based on data collected at the site as part of the site characterization as well as

anticipated operating data. Addition ally, owners and operators iden tify all artificial penetrations

(including active and abandoned wells and mines) in the AoR, determine based on publically available

data which of these pose a risk to USDWs and th erefore need corrective ac tion, and apply corrective

action using materials compatible w ith the carbon dioxide stream and other appropriate methods. At the

Director’s discretion, owners and operators have the option to phase-in corr ective action and focus on

those wells in the portion of the AoR that would be intersected by the CO 2 

# plume or pressure front over

the early years of th e injection operation.

This RA also requires all owners and operators to develop and submit an AoR and corrective

action plan as a part of the permit application. The plan will describe how th e owner or operator would

determine the initial AoR, what corrective action w ill be performed up front and what will be phased in,

and a plan for periodic reevaluati on of the AoR (at least every 5 years) to inco rporate monitoring and

operational data to verify that the CO 2 

# is moving as predicted within the subsurface. The requirement to

maintain and implement an approved plan is directly enforceable regardless of whether the requirement

is a condition of the permit.

Injection Well Construction: This RA prescribes that the we ll’s surface casing be set through the

base of the lowermost USDW (unless a waiver is gr anted to inject above the USDW) and be cemented

to the surface. In a limited number of cases under RA3, owners and operators may apply for and receive

a waiver of the requirement to inject below the lowermost USDW. In such cases, additional

requirements would apply and are as de scribed in the following subsection, Well Operation

.

Under RA3, the long string casing and cement wo uld extend to the injection zone and be

cemented to the surface. A packer will be required and be set opposite a cemented interval of the long

string casing, at a depth approved by the Director. As with RA2, the well will be constructed with

materials that meet or exceed standards develo ped by API or American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) International and can withstand the corrosive nature of the injected CO 2 

# and any

impurities throughout the life of the project. Cements would be required to be compatible with the CO 2, 

# and the adequacy of the cement would be verified us ing the best available t echnologies. During drilling

and construction, the owner or operato r run logs, surveys, and tests to determine or verify the properties

of subsurface formations to assure confor mance with the construction requirements.

Injection Well Operation: Under this RA, the CO 2 

# injection pressure will not be permitted to

exceed 90 percent of the fracture pressure of the inje ction zone, and injection would not be allowed to

initiate new fractures, propagate ex isting fractures, or cause fluid m ovement into USDWs. Under this

RA, owners and operators will also be required to inject below the lowermost USDW, except in the

limited number of cases where operators apply for and receive a permit for a waiver of this requirement.

Waiver applications will demonstrate that USDWs above and below the injection zone will not be

endangered as a result of CO 2 

# injection and will evaluate the follo wing components: the integrity of the

upper and lower confining units; the suitability of the injection zone ; the potential capacity of the

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-8 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# geologic formation to sequester CO 2 

# ; community needs, demands, and supply from drinking water

sources; and any other applicable considerations or informati on requested by the director.

The owner or operator will be required to equip the well with alarms and automatic surface shutoff systems or, at the discretion of the Director, down-hole shut-o ff systems (e.g., automatic shut-off

check valves) for onshore wells or, other mechanical devices that provide equi valent protection; and

alarms and automatic down-hole shut-off systems for we lls located offshore but within State territorial

waters, designed to alert the operator and shut-in th e well when operating parameters such as annulus

pressure, injection rate, or other parameters dive rge beyond permitted ranges and/or gradients specified

in the permit. UIC Permits for Class VI wells will be issued for the operating life of the facility and the

PISC period. The Director will review each issued Class VI well UIC permit at least once every 5 years

to determine whether it should be modified, re voked and reissued, terminated or modified.

MIT: As with RA2, owners and operators of GS wells will need to demonstrate that their wells

have internal and external MI. It differs from RA2 in that it specifies the tests that may be used to

demonstrate external MI, e.g., a tr acer survey, temperature or noise logs, a casing inspection log, or

another suitable method required and/or approved by the Director. Additionally, under this RA, MITs

will be conducted at least once every year.

Monitoring: Like RA2, this RA requires owners and operators to monitor their injectate.

However, this RA also requires owners and operators to continuously monitor in jection pressure, rates,

and volumes, as well as the pressure on the annul us. Owners and operators also monitor the well

materials for signs of corrosion. Operators woul d submit semi-annual opera ting reports, and would

submit MIT and other test results within 24 hours if they indicate a problem with operations.

Under this RA3, owners and operators of GS we lls develop and implement a plan to perform

testing and monitoring to protect US DWs by tracking the position of the CO 2 

# plume and pressure front;

monitoring for geochemical changes in subsurface form ations; and if directed, monitoring at the surface

for evidence that CO 2 

# may have leaked to USDWs.

Owners and operators conduct a pressu re fall-off test at least once ev ery five years. The owner or

operator also track the subsurface extent of the CO 2 

# plume and pressure front by monitoring pressure

changes above the confining zone, or using geophysical techniques (e.g., seismic, electrical, gravity, or

electromagnetic surveys and/or other down-hole CO 2 

# detection tools).

This RA also requires owners and operators to monitor ground water quality and geochemical

changes above the confining zone using a network of monitoring wells and track changes relative to

baseline geochemical data.

Finally, under this RA, owners a nd operators report twice per ye ar, rather than annually, on all

required monitoring.

Injection Well Pl ugging and PISC: Under this RA, owners and operators submit, gain approval

for, and implement a well plugging plan. To plug inj ection wells owners and operators: flush the well

with a buffer fluid, perform an MI test, and plug the well in a manner that will prevent the movement of

fluid that may endanger USDWs.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-9 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Under this RA, owners and operators develop an d implement a plan for PISC and site closure

and submit the plan as part of the permit applicati on. For at least 50 years (unl ess the Director approves

a shorter time frame), owners and operators m onitor the site to show the position of the CO 2 

# plume and

pressure front and demonstrate that USDWs are not being endange red. After 50 years, owners and

operators perform a non-endangerm ent demonstration that the CO 2 

# plume and pressure front have

stabilized and that no additional monitoring is needed to assure that the project does not pose an

endangerment to USDWs. At this point, the Direct or will determine whether further monitoring is

necessary or authorize closure of the site.

Financial Responsibility: Under RA3, owners and ope rators demonstrate and maintain financial

responsibility and resources for pl ugging the injection well, correc tive action, remediation, providing

post-injection site monitoring a nd closure (accounting for inflation) and emergency and remedial

response. The requirement to maintain adequate fi nancial responsibility and resources is directly

enforceable regardless of whether the requirement is a condition of the permit. The Director is charged

with approving financial instruments submitted by owners and operators that he or she deems sufficient

to address endangerment to USDWs. Acceptable fi nancial instruments include: trust funds, surety

bonds, letters of credit, escrow accounts and insura nce. The owner or operator must maintain such

financial responsibility and resources until (1) The Director receives and appr oves the completed PISC

and site closure plan; and (2) The Director determin es that the site has reached the end of the post

injection site care period.

Emergency and Remedial Response: Under RA3, owners and opera tors develop, implement and

periodically update a plan that describes actions to be taken to address events that may cause

endangerment to USDWs during the cons truction, operation and PISC periods of a GS project. If there is

evidence of potential endangerment of USDWs, the owner or operator would be required to cease

injection, investigate and identify the release, notify the Dire ctor within 24 hours, and implement the

emergency and remedial response plan.

2.3.4 Regulatory Alternative 4

This RA prescribes specific technologies that GS well owners and operators would use for

geologic studies, models, and well materials to prot ect USDWs from the injection of large volumes of

CO 2 

# . This alternative is the most prescriptive; it pr ovides the most regulatory certainty and consistency

(and therefore the least flexibility). Many compone nts of this RA equal or exceed the activities

performed by owners and operators of Class I hazar dous waste injection wells and it includes additional

elements beyond the other RAs. The following sections describe this RA, highlighting the differences

from RA3.

Site Characterization: Under this RA, all GS sites would need to have, in addition to the

injection zone, containment mechanism, and confining system, additional zones th at will impede vertical

fluid movement, allow for pressu re dissipation, and provi de additional opportunities for monitoring,

mitigation, and remediation. This differs from RA3 in that every GS site would need to have these

additional layers. It is equivalent to the current requirements for Cl ass I hazardous waste injection wells,

and differs from RA3 in that it applies to all GS projects.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-10 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Under this RA, owners and operators would provide more detailed data about the injection zone

and confining zones than under the ot her alternatives. In addition to th e data that owners and operators

would submit under RA3, they would also need to submit geological core data, outcrop data, 3-

dimensional seismic survey data, and well logs. In areas with insufficient data, owners and operators

would be encouraged to drill at l east one stratigraphi c test well to describe the specific petrophysical

parameters of the injection zone and the primary confining system and additional confining and

containment zones. Under this RA, the baseline geochemical data would include more detailed

information, e.g., on water-rock-CO 2 

# geochemistry and mineral reactions.

AoR and Corrective Action: As with RA3, owners and operators would be required to develop

and implement an AoR and corrective action plan desc ribing the process by whic h they would define the

AoR, apply corrective action, and peri odically reevaluate the AoR. As with RA3, owners and operators

would define the AoR using computational models of the injected CO 2 

# stream, CO 2 

# plume and the

associated pressure front that are based on informati on collected as part of th e site characterization as

well as anticipated operating data . This RA would also specify that the models predict the CO 2 

# plume

movement over 10,000 years.

As with RA3, owners and operato rs would determine which wells in the AoR require corrective

action based on recent, reliable plugging records and remediate any wells that may endanger USDWs.

This RA would also specify that wells needing corrective action be remediated using materials

compatible with the carbon dioxide stream or othe r appropriate corre ctive action methods. As in RA3,

owners and operators would, at the Director’s discretion, have the opt ion to phase in corrective action.

This RA would specify that the AoR reevaluati on be performed at le ast once every 5 years.

Injection Well Construction: As with RA3, this RA would speci fy the use of well materials and

technologies (e.g., for casing, tubing, and cements) th at employ the corrosion- resistant technologies.

However, several elements of this RA are more pres criptive. For example, this RA would require the use

of specialized, corrosion-resistant ma terials such as latex cement, me tal alloys, and specialized tubing.

RA4 also specifies that the surface casing be set 100 feet below the lowermost USDW and that the

packer be set no more than 100 f eet above the uppermost perforati on. As with RA3, during drilling and

construction, the owner or operato r would run logs, surveys, and te sts to determine or verify the

properties of subsurface formations to assure c onformance with the construction requirements.

Injection Well Operation: Under this RA, injection should be c onducted such that pressure in the

injection zone does not exceed 90 percent of the fract ure pressure in any portion of the area defined by

the anticipated pressure front, or th e capillary entry pressure at any point in the lower-most portion of

the primary confinement system. As with RAs 2 a nd 3, injection may not initiate new fractures,

propagate existing fractures, or caus e fluid movement into USDWs.

RA4 contains two additional elements that are specific to injection of CO 2 

# for GS. First, owners

and operators would have to inject below the lo wermost USDW, at a sufficient depth so the CO 2 

# would

remain in a supercritical state to potentia lly avoid MI concerns associated with CO 2 

# phase changes.

Second, owners and operators would, at the Director ’s discretion, be required to add an odorant or a

tracer to the injected CO 2 

# to facilitate early detection of leaks or movement outside of the intended

injection zone to protect USDWs.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-11 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# MIT: As with RA3, owners and operators of GS we lls would demonstrate that their wells have

internal and external MI. The sole difference is that this RA would re quire that the testing be conducted

at least twice annually.

Monitoring: Some of the monitoring elements of this RA parallel those in RA3 (i.e., owners or

operators would conduct baseline geochemical monitoring and deve lop and implement plans for

monitoring geochemical changes in the subsurfa ce, monitoring their injectate, tracking the CO 2 

# plume

and pressure front, and conducting surface atmospheric or soil gas CO 2 

# monitoring). This RA also

requires that a pressure fall -off test be conducted annually.

This RA differs from RA3 in that it would prescr ibe the use of certain sophisticated technologies,

which exceed the detail prescribed in the existing regul ations. For example, it specifies that the network

of monitoring wells used for ge ochemical monitoring should be c onstructed, using best available

technologies, of corrosion-resistan t materials that could withsta nd extended contact with the CO 2 

# to

provide some assurance that monitoring wells in the AoR do not potentially become conduits for

movement of fluids out of the injection zone.

Under this RA, surface atmospheric or soil ga s monitoring would be expanded to include

monitoring at all artif icial penetrations and at other sensitive areas (e.g., in buildings and man-made

surface structures that are intended for human occupancy) within the AoR.

In addition, under this RA, operato rs or operators would report m onthly on the characteristics of

injection fluids, injection pressure , flow rate, temperature, volume and annular pressure, and on the

results of MITs, and ground water a nd atmospheric/soil gas monitoring.

Injection Well Pl ugging and PISC: Under this RA, owners and operators would develop and the

implement well plugging and PISC and site clos ure plans specified under RA3. Plugging activities

would be similar to those require d under RA3. This RA differs from RA3 in that the post-injection

monitoring period would be ove r a period of 100 years (also followed by a non-endangerment

demonstration).

Financial Responsibility: The financial responsibili ty requirements under this RA are the same

as under RA3, i.e., the owners and operators would de monstrate financial responsibility for plugging the

well, corrective action, remediati on, providing post-injection monitori ng, and emergency and remedial

response, accounting for inflation.

Emergency and Remedial Response: The requirements for deve loping and implementing an

emergency and remedial response plan to address move ment of injection or formation fluids that may

endanger USDWs under RA4 are the same as those that would be required under RA3.

2.3.5 Comparative Summary of Regulatory Alternatives

Exhibit 2.1 below summarizes the com ponents of each RA of the GS rule.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-12July 2010Final GS RuleExhibit 2.1 Comparison of Alternatives for GS of CO2REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Site CharacterizationGS wells must be sited in a mannerthat protects USDWs from endangerment.A geologic system comprised of:A receiving zone of sufficient arealextent, thickness, porosity, andpermeability;A containment mechanism that isfree of transmissive faults or fractures; andA confining zone of sufficient arealextent and integrity to contain allinjected fluid to allow injection atproposed rates and volumes without initiating or propagating fractures in the confining zone.A geologic system comprised of:An injection zone of sufficient areal extent,thickness, porosity, and permeability;A containment mechanism that is free oftransmissive faults or fractures;A confining zone of sufficient areal extent andintegrity to contain all injected fluid to allow injection at proposed rates and volumes without initiating or propagating fractures in theconfining zone; andAt the Director’s discretion, additional zonesthat will impede vertical fluid movement, allowfor pressure dissipation, are free of faults andfractures, and provide additional opportunitiesfor monitoring, mitigation, and remediation.A geologic system comprised of:A injection zone of sufficient depth,areal extent, thickness, porosity, andpermeability;A containment mechanism that is freeof transmissive faults or fractures;A primary confining system of sufficient areal extent and integrity to contain all injected fluid to allow injectionat proposed rates and volumes withoutinitiating or propagating fractures in theconfining zone; andAdditional zones that will impede vertical fluid movement, allow for pressuredissipation, are free of faults and fractures, and provide additional opportunities for monitoring, mitigation, andremediation.Provide geological data on the injectionzone and confining zone, including:Lithologic description.Geological name.Thickness and depth.Provide information on thegeologic structure of theproposed site, including:Maps and cross sections of local geologicstructure;Identification of faults and fractures in theconfining zone and determination that theywould not interfere with containment;At the Director’s discretion, identification offaults and fractures in additional zones anddetermination that theywould not interferewith containment;Eliminate sites with potential seismic risks.Provide information on the geologic structure of the proposed site, including:Maps and cross sections of local geologic structure.Identification of faults and fractures inthe primary confining system and determination that they would not interfere with containment.Identification of faults and fractures inadditional zones and determinationthat they would not interfere with containment.Information on seismic history and thepresence/depth of seismic sources.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-13July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Provide a map of the injection well andthe applicable AoR.Characterize the geologic structure and hydrogeologic properties of the proposed storage site andoverlying formations based on:Data on the areal extent, thickness, capacity,porosity, and permeability of the receivingformations, the confining zones and, at theDirector’s discretion, any additional zones.Geomechanical information on fractures,stress, rock strength, and in situ fluid pressures within the confining zones.Geologic and topographic maps and crosssections illustrating regional geology.Characterize the geologic structure and hydrogeologic propertiesof the proposed storage site and overlying formations based on:Data on the areal extent, thickness,capacity, porosity, and permeability ofthe receiving formations, the primaryconfining system, and additional confining and containment zones, including any geology/facies changes, basedon geologic cores, outcrop data, 3-dimensional seismic surveys, and welllogs.In areas with insufficient data, the drilling of at least one stratigraphic testwell in the area is encouraged to determine site specific petrophysical parameters of the injection and confiningformations.Geomechanical information on fractures, stress, rock strength, and in situfluid pressures within the primary confining system and additional confiningand containment zones.Geologic and topographic maps andcross sections illustrating regional geology.Provide the geologic name and depthto bottom of all USDWs that may beaffected by the injection.Provide geochemical information on subsurfaceaquifers, including all USDWs:Baseline geochemistry.Maps and cross sections of USDWs.Provide geochemical information on subsurface aquifers, including all USDWs:Baseline geochemical data on waterrock-CO2geochemistry and mineralreactions.Maps and cross sections of USDWs.Conduct baseline geochemical monitoring withinthe injection system andabove the confining system before injection commences.Conduct baseline geochemical monitoringwithin the injection system and above theconfining systems before injection commences.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-14July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Provide information on the AoR:Maps and cross sections of theAoR.List of penetrations into the injection zone.Provide information on the AoR:Maps and cross sections of the AoR.List and maps of all penetrations into the injection zone and confining zones, and at theDirector’s discretion, into any additionalzones, including structures that are intendedfor human occupancy using publicly availabledata..List and associated data (well type and construction, date drilled,location, depth, plugging record, and anyother information required by the Director) for all wells into theconfining zones.Provide information on the AoR:Maps and cross sections of the AoR.List and maps of penetrations into theinjection zone and additional confiningand containment zones includingstructures that are intended for humanoccupancy using publicly available data.List and associated data (well type andconstruction, date drilled, location,depth, plugging record, and any otherinformation required by the Director)for all wells into the injection zone, discretionary confining and containmentzones.Provide information on proposed:Operating dataFormation testing programStimulation programInjection procedureSurface and subsurface well construction (including schematic)Contingency plan to address well shut-ins andfailuresTesting and Monitoring PlanInjection well construction proceduresFederal Register (FR) responsibility demonstrationInjection well plugging planPISC and site closure planEmergency and remedial plan; andAny other information requested by the DirectorProvide information on proposed:Operating dataFormation testing programStimulation programInjection procedureSurface and subsurface well construction(including schematic)Contingency plan to address well shutins and failuresTesting and Monitoring PlanInjection well construction proceduresFR responsibility demonstrationInjection well plugging planPISC and site closure planEmergency and remedial plan; andAny other information requested by the DirectorDraft Cost Analysis for the 2-15July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Provide, in operating permit application:All available logging and testing dataMI demonstrationAnticipated max.injection pressureFormation testing resultsInjection procedureInformation on the compatibility of CO2streamwith formation fluids and minerals in the injection and confining zones and with proposedwell construction materialsModeled AoRStatus of corrective action on wells in the AoR;and,Any other information required by the Director.Provide, in operating permit application:All available logging and testing dataMI demonstrationAnticipated max.injection pressureFormation testing resultsInjection procedureInformation on the compatibility of CO2stream with formation fluids and mineralsin the injection and confining zones andwith proposed well construction materialsModeled AoRStatus of corrective action on wells in theAoR; and,Any other information required by theDirector.AoR Study and Corrective ActionThe AoR may be determined by a calculating a fixed radius or by modeling.The AoR is delineated using computational model-ing that accounts for the physical and chemicalproperties of all phases of the injected CO2stream,CO2plume, and pressure front for an appropriatetimeframe to ensure there is no longer a threat toUSDWs based on proposed injection rates andvolumes. Models must be based on site specificinformation, geologic information collected to characterize the injectionzone, confining zones, andadditional zones, as well as anticipated operatingdata.The AoR is delineated using computationalmodeling that accounts for the physical andchemical properties of all phases of the injected CO2stream, CO2plume, and pressurefront for 10,000 years based on proposedinjection rates and volumes. Models must bebased on site specific information, geologicinformation collected to characterize the injection zone, confining zones, and additionalzones, as well as anticipated operating data.As a part of the permit application, the owner/operator develops and submits an AoR and corrective action plan for Director approval that:Requires the reevaluation of the AoR at a minimum fixed frequency not to exceed five years;and;Describes how and when (prior to/outside ofthe minimum fixed frequency) the AoR will bereevaluated taking into account: changes insite operation; when monitoring data differsfrom modeling results; and, considerations formaintaining site access; andCorresponds with the CO2plume and pressurefrontandindicates whether corrective actionwill performed up-front or on a phased-in basis; how corrective action will be adjusted if theAoR changes; and how site access will beguaranteed for future corrective action.As a part of the permit application, the owner/operator develops and submits an AoRand corrective action plan for Director approval that:Requires the reevaluation of the AoR ata minimum of every five years;Describes how and when the AoR will bereevaluated taking into account: changesin site operation; when monitoring datadiffers from modeling results; and, considerations for maintaining site access;andCorresponds with the CO2plume andpressure frontandindicates whether corrective action will performed up-front oron a phased-in basis; how corrective action will be adjusted if the AoR changes;and how site access will be guaranteedfor future corrective action.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-16July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Identify all artificial penetrations (including active and abandoned wells andmines) in the AoR that penetrate theconfining zone. Provide: a description ofeach well's type, construction, datedrilled, location, depth, record of plugging and/or completion, and any additional information the Director may require.Identify all artificial penetrations (including activeand abandoned wells and mines) in the AoR thatpenetrate the confining t zones (and at the Director’s discretion any additional zones) and pose anendangerment to USDWs. Provide: a description ofeach well's type, construction, date drilled, location,depth, record of plugging and/or completion, andany additional information the Director may require.Identify all artificial penetrations (includingactive and abandoned wells and mines) inthe AoR that penetrate the primary confiningsystem and additional confining and containment zones, and pose an endangerment toUSDWs. Provide: a description of each well'stype, construction, date drilled, location,depth, record of plugging and/or completion,and any additional information the Directormay require.Determine if they have been plugged ina manner that prevents the movementof CO2or associated fluids, and identifythose that need corrective action.Determine if they have been plugged in a mannerthat prevents the movement of CO2or associatedfluids based on reliable, recent plugging records,and identify those that need corrective action.Determine if they have been plugged in amanner that preventsthe movement of CO2or associated fluids based on reliable, recentplugging records, and identify those that needcorrective action.Conduct corrective action for the entireAoR prior to injection, remediatingthose wells in the AoR that pose a riskto USDWs using appropriate correctiveaction methods determined by the permitting authorityCorrective action will be conducted up-front or on aphased-in basis as per the AoR and correctiveaction plan (and if approved by the director). Thisincludes, remediating those wells in the AoR thatpose a risk to USDWs using materials compatiblewith the CO2stream and other appropriate corrective action methods.Corrective action will be conducted up-frontor on a phased-in basis as per the AoR andcorrective action plan (and if approved by thedirector). This includes, remediating thosewells in the AoR that pose a risk to USDWsusing materials compatible with the CO2stream and other appropriate corrective action methods.Injection Well ConstructionGS wells must be constructed in amanner that protects USDWs fromendangerment.The well must be cased and cementedto prevent movement of fluids into orbetween USDWs.Provide to the Director for approval of casing andcementing program:Depth to injection zone; injection, external, internalpressure and axial loading; hole size; size andgrade of casing strings; information about CO2stream (corrosiveness, quantity, composition, temperature) and formation fluids; down-hole temperatures; lithology of injection and confining zones;type/grade of cement; and cement additives;And, for approval of tubing and packer use: (inaddition to information above)Depth of setting; annular pressure; injection rate;casing size; and tubing tensile, burst, and collapsestrengths.Provide to the Director for approval of casingand cementing program:Depth to injection zone; injection, external,internal pressure and axial loading; hole size;size and grade of casing strings; informationabout CO2stream (corrosiveness, quantity,composition, temperature) and formationfluids; down-hole temperatures; lithology ofinjection and confining zones; type/grade ofcement.Wells should be constructed to injectbelow the lowermost USDW. In alimited number of cases, an application for a waiver of the requirementto inject below the lowermost USDWmay be approved; the Injection WellOperation section ofthis table (below) provides additional details regarding waivers.Wells should be constructed to injectbelow the lowermost USDW. In a limited number of cases, an applicationfor a waiver of the requirement to injectbelow the lowermost USDW may beapproved; the Injection Well Operationsection of this table (below) providesadditional details regarding waivers.Surface casing should be set through the base ofthe lowermost USDW and cemented to the surfacethrough the use of a single or multiple strings ofcasing and cement. In a limited number of cases,an application for a waiver of the requirement toinject below the lowermost USDW may be approved; the Injection WellOperation section of thistable (below) provides additional details regardingwaivers.Surface casing drilled below the USDW shallbe set 100 feet below the lowest USDW andcemented to the surface.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-17July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4The integrity and location of the cementmust be verified using technology capable of radially evaluating cementquality, identifying the location of channels or contaminated cement, and validating the casing-cement and cementformation bonds through primary confining system.At least one long-string casing, using a sufficientnumber of centralizers, must extend to the injectionzone and must be cemented by circulating cementto the surface in one or more stages. The integrityand location of the cement must be verified usingthe best available technology capable of radiallyevaluating cement quality and identifying the location of channels to ensure that USDWs are notendangered.At least one long-string casing, using a sufficient number of centralizers, must extend tothe injection zone and must be cemented bycirculating cement to the surface in one ormore stages. The integrity and location of thecement must be verified using the best available technology capable of radially evaluatingcement quality and identifying the location ofchannels to ensure that USDWs are not endangered.Casing, tubing, and packer should beadequate to withstand the corrosivenature of the injected CO2and any impurities at the anticipated pressure,temperature and otheroperational conditions and meet API standards.Casing, tubing, and packer should be adequate towithstand the corrosive nature of the injected CO2and any impurities at the anticipated pressure,temperature and other operational conditions andmeet API standards.Use specialized, corrosion-resistant materialssuch as metal alloy casing and specializedtubing that can withstand the corrosive natureof the injected CO2and any impurities at theanticipated pressure, temperature and otheroperational conditions and must meet APIstandards using best available technologies.Inject through tubing and packer that is set at adepth opposite a cemented interval of the longstring casing at a depth approved of by the Director.Inject through tubing and packer that is set ata depth opposite a cemented interval of thelong-string casing and set no more than 100feet above the uppermost perforation or openhole for the CO2storage reservoir.Use corrosion resistant cements inzones where cement-CO2contact islikely or cement integrity is critical (e.g.cement zones through primary confining system).Use corrosion-resistant cement (e.g., phosphatebased non-Portland cements), that can withstandextended contact with injected CO2and associatedimpurities throughout thelife of the project.Use specialized corrosion-resistant latex cement that can withstand extended contactwith injected CO2and associated impuritiesthroughout the lifeof the project.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-18July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Logging, Sampling, and Testing Prior to Injection Well OperationGS wells must be constructed andoperated in manner that protectsUSDWs from endangerment.Submit to the Director:A schedule of all logging, sampling, and testing activities to be completed 30 days prior toconducting first test and notification of anychanges 30 days prior to next test.A report prepared by a knowledgeable loganalyst that includes an interpretation of alllogs and tests conducted to determine or verifydepth, thickness, porosity, permeability, and lithology of, and formation fluid salinity of, all relevant geologic formations.Logs and tests must include:Deviation checksOther logs as required by Director at various intervals, including:Beforesurface casing installation: resistivity, sp,and caliper logs; andAftercasing is set and cemented: cement bondand variable density log to evaluate cement qualityradially;Beforelong-string casing installation: resistivity,spontaneous potential,porosity, caliper, gammaray, fracture finder, and any other logs required byDirector; andAfterlong-string casing is set and cemented: cement bond and variable density log, and a temperature log; andA series of MIT logs which may include pressuretest, tracer survey, temp.or noise log, casing inspection log and any other tests required by Director.Submit to the Director:A schedule of all logging, sampling, andtesting activities to be completed 30 daysprior to conducting first test and notification of any changes 30 days prior to nexttest.A report prepared by a knowledgeablelog analyst that includes an interpretationof all logs and tests conducted to determine or verify depth, thickness, porosity,permeability, and lithology of, and formation fluid salinity of, all relevant geologicformations.Logs and tests must include:Deviation checksOther logs as required by Director atvarious intervals, including:Beforesurface casing installation: resistivity,sp, and caliper logs; andAftercasing is set and cemented: cementbond and variable density log;Beforelong-string casing installation: resistivity, spontaneous potential, porosity, caliper,gamma ray, fracture finder, and any otherlogs required by Director; andAfterlong-string casing is set and cemented:cement bond and variable density log, and atemperature log; andA series of MIT logs which may include pressure test, tracer survey, temperature or noiselog, casing inspection log if required by Director and any other tests required by Director.Take whole cores and sidewall cores in the injection zone and confining systems and formation fluidsamples from the injection zone(s) and submit tothe director a detailed report and well log information about the cores and formation fluid samples,prepared by a log analyst; and any other or comparable information required and approved of by Director.Take and submit to Director, whole cores andsidewall cores in the injection zone and confining systems and formation fluid samples ofthe injection zone; and any other or comparable information required and approved of byDirector.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-19July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Record fluid temperature, pH, conductivity, reservoir pressure, and static fluid level of the injectionzone(s).Record fluid temperature, pH, conductivity,reservoir pressure, and static fluid level of theinjection zone.Determine or calculate injection and confining zonefracture pressure; physical and chemical characteristics of the injectionzone, confining zone, andinjection zone formation fluids.Determine or calculate injection and confiningzone fracture pressure; physical and chemical characteristics of the injection zone, confining zone, and injection zone formation fluids.Perform a pump test or injectivity test prior to operation to verify hydrogeologic characteristics of theinjection zone.Perform a pump test or injectivity test prior tooperation to verify hydrogeologic characteristics of the injection zone.Injection Well OperationGS wells must be operated in amanner that protects USDWs fromendangerment.Injection should be conducted such thatthe pressure during injection does notinitiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures in the confining zoneadjacent to the USDWs.Higher operating pressures may beallowed if approved by the permittingauthority.Injection should be conducted such that pressurein the injection zone does not exceed 90 percent ofthe fracture pressure of the injection zone in anyportion of the area definedby the anticipated pressure front. Injection may notinitiate new fractures,propagate existing fractures in the injection zone,or cause fluid movement into USDWs; and, annulus pressure should exceed operating injectionpressure unless otherwise specified by the Director.Injection should be conducted such thatpressure in the injection zone does not exceed 90 percent of the fracture pressure ofthe injection zone in any portion of the areadefined by the anticipated pressure front, orthe capillary entry pressure at any point in thelower most portion of the primary confiningsystem. Injection may not initiate new fractures, propagate existing fractures, or causefluid movement into USDWs; and, annuluspressure should exceed operating injectionpressure unless otherwise specified by theDirector.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-20July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Injection must be below the lowermost USDW, except in the limitednumber of cases in which a waiverapplication is approved. (See RA3for waiver application requirements.)Injection must be below the lowermostUSDW, except in the limited number ofcases in which a waiver application isapproved. (See RA3 for waiver application requirements.)Injection must be below the lowermost USDW,except in the limited number of cases in which awaiver application is approved.Owners/operators seeking a waiver to inject belowthe lowermost USDW must submit to the Director asupplemental report that demonstrates USDWsabove and below the injection zone will not be endangered as a result of CO2injection. Before beinggranted a waiver, owners/operators would have toevaluate the following components as they relate totheir GS projects:the integrity of the upper and lower confiningunits;the suitability of the injection zone;the potential capacity of the geologic formationto sequester CO2;community needs, demands, and supply fromdrinking water sources; andany other applicable considerations or information requested by the Director.The director will give public notice that a waiverapplication has been submitted. The supplementalreport must include the following:Injection zone is laterally continuous, not hydraulically connected to USDWs; does not outcrop; and has adequate injectivity, volume,and sufficient porosity to safely contain the injected CO2 and formation fluids, and has appropriate geochemistry.Injection zone is adequate to prevent fluidmovement and pressure buildup outside of theinjection zone; and, thatthe confining units arefree of transmissive faults and fractures.Using computational modeling, show thatUSDWs above and below the injection zonewill not be endangered as a result of fluidmovement.Well design and construction, in conjunctionwith the waiver, will ensure isolation of the injectate.Monitoring and testing and any additionalplans will be tailored to the GS project to ensure protection of USDWs above and belowthe injection zone.Injection must be below the lowermostUSDW and the CO2must remain in a supercritical state to avoidMI concerns associatedwith phase change.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-21July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Owners and operators are be required to equip thewell with alarms and down-hole shut-off systems orother safety devices (e.g., check valves) approvedby the Director, designed to alert the owner or operator and shut-in the well when operating parameters such as annulus pressure, injection rate, orother parameters diverge beyond permitted rangesand/or gradients specified in the permit.Equip with down-hole safety shutoff valvesthat engage when any operating parametersdiverge beyond permitted ranges or a drop inannulus pressure is detected.At the director’s discretion, add an odorant ora tracer to the injected CO2to facilitate earlydetection of leaks or movement outside of theintended injection zone in order to preventendangerment of USDWs.If a shutdown (i.e. down-hole or at the surface) istriggered, cease injection;investigate and identifycause of shutdown; determine if CO2has leakedinto unintended zones; notify Director; restore anddemonstrate MI to Director; notify Director wheninjection will resume.If a down-hole shutdown is triggered, ceaseinjection; investigate and identify cause ofshutdown; determine if CO2has leaked intounintended zones; notify Director; restore anddemonstrate MI to Director; notify Directorwhen injection will resume.MITGS wells must be monitored in amanner that protects USDWs fromendangerment.Demonstrate internal MI by monitoringinjection pressure, flow rate, injectedvolumes, and pressure on the annulusas specified by the permitting authority.Demonstrate internal MI by continuously monitoring injection pressure, flowrate, injected volumes,and pressure on the annulus between the tubingand the long-string casing.Demonstrate internal MI by continuouslymonitoring injection pressure, flow rate, injected volumes, and pressure on the annulusbetween the tubing and the long-string casing.Demonstrate external MI, i.e., there isno significant fluid movement into aUSDW through vertical channels adjacent to the injection well bore at a frequency specified by the permitting authority.Demonstrate external MI, i.e., there is no significant fluid movement into a USDW through verticalchannels adjacent to the injection well bore using atracer survey of the bottom-hole cement (using aCO2-soluble tracer or a suitable alternative method(e.g., Oxygen Activation Log (OAL)), a temperatureor noise logs or other tests suitable to wells injecting liquid/super critical CO2fluids as approved bythe permitting authority), or if required by the director a casing inspection log; or, another suitablemethod required and/or approved by the Director atleast once per year.Demonstrate external MI, i.e., there is nosignificant fluid movement into a USDWthrough vertical channels adjacent to the injection well bore using a tracer survey of thebottom-hole cement (using a CO2-solubletracer or a suitable alternative method (e.g.,OAL), a temperature or noise logs or othertests suitable to wells injecting liquid/supercritical CO2fluids as approved by the permitting authority), or if required by the director acasing inspection log; or, another suitablemethod required and/or approved by the Director at least twice per year.Report within 30 days(or with the next reportingperiod, whichever is later) the results of periodic MItests, other tests required by the Director, or wellworkovers.Report within 30 days (or with the next reporting period, whichever is later) the results ofperiodic MI tests, other tests required by theDirector, or well workovers.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-22July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4MonitoringAs a part of the permit application, develop andsubmit a testing and monitoring plan for Directorapproval.As a part of the permit application, developand submit a testing and monitoring plan forDirector approval.GS wells must be monitored in amanner that protects USDWs fromendangerment.Monitor the nature of injected fluids at afrequency sufficient to yield data representative of their characteristics.Monitor the nature of injected fluids at a frequencysufficient to yield data representative of their characteristics.Monitor the nature of injected fluids at a frequency sufficient to yield data representativeof their characteristics and to demonstratetheir compatibility with the well materials.Monitor injection wells for loss of mass, thickness,cracking, pitting and other signs of corrosion on aquarterly basis to ensure that the well componentsmaintain integrity using coupons, routing CO2through a loop in the well, or an alternative methodapproved by the Director.Monitor injection wells for loss of mass, thickness, cracking, pitting and other signs of corrosion on a quarterly basis to ensure that thewell components maintain integrity usingcoupons, routing CO2through a loop in thewell, or an alternative method approved bythe Director.Conduct a pressure fall-off test at least once every5 years.Conduct a pressure fall-off test at least onceper year.Track the subsurface extent of the CO2plume andpressure front using pressure and temperaturegauges, resistivity logs, and other monitoring toolsor using geophysical techniques (e.g., seismic,electrical, gravity, or electromagnetic surveys)and/or other down-hole CO2detection tools or other methods as determined by the director.Track the subsurface extent of the CO2plume and pressure front using pressure andtemperature gauges, resistivity logs, and other monitoring tools and using geophysicaltechniques (e.g., seismic, electrical, gravity,or electromagnetic surveys) and other downhole CO2detection tools as determined bythe director.Monitor geochemical changes above the confiningzone (and at the Director’s discretion any additionalzones). The number of monitoring wells should bebased on site-specific information and may be afunction of CO2injection rate and volume, geology,the presence of artificial penetrations, or other factors.Monitor geochemical changes above the confining zone and additional confining and containment zones using best available technologies. Develop a monitoring well strategy; thenumber of monitoring wells should be basedon site-specific information and may be afunction of CO2injection rate and volume,geology, the presence of artificial penetrations, or other factors; wells should be constructed of corrosion-resistant materials.At the Director’s discretion and as part of the permit application, develop and implement a plan forsurface air monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring todetect leakage of CO2in the AoR to ensure thatCO2and any other contaminants moving with theCO2have not migrated through USDWs.Develop and implement a plan for surface airmonitoring and/or soil gas monitoring todetect leakage of CO2in the AoR, at all artificial penetrations within the AoR, and at othersensitive areas, e.g., in buildings and manmade surface structures that are intended forhuman occupancy to ensure that CO2andany other contaminants moving with the CO2have not migrated through USDWs.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-23July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Report annually on the characteristicsof injection fluids, injection pressure,flow rate, temperature, volume and annular pressure, and on the results ofMITs.Report twice per year on the characteristics of injection fluids and any changes from proposed operating data; injection pressure, flow rate, temperature, volume and annular pressure; a description ofevents that exceed operating parameters for annulus or injection pressures and any events that trigger a shutdown and response taken; monthly volume of CO2stream injected; and results of allmonitoring. Report on MIT results within 30 days oftesting, except in the cases where MIT or other testindicates a problem with the operations, whichwould be reported within 24 hours. Reports mustbe submitted to an electronic EPA system.Records on operational data are kept for 10 yearsafter collection and certain other data are kept until10 years after site closure.Report monthly on the characteristics of injection fluids and any changes from proposedoperating data; injection pressure, flow rate,temperature, volume and annular pressure; adescription of events that exceed operatingparameters for annulus or injection pressuresand any events that trigger a shutdown andresponse taken; monthly volume of CO2stream injected; and results of all monitoring.Report on MIT results within 30 days of testing, except in the cases where MIT or othertest indicates a problem with the operations,which would be reported within 24 hours.Reports must be submitted to an electronicEPA system. Records on operational dataare kept for 10 years after collection and certain other data are kept until 10 years aftersite closure.Well Plugging, PISCand Site ClosureAs a part of the permit application, develop andsubmit a well plugging plan for Director approvalwhich includes: appropriate test methods to determine bottom-hole reservoir pressure and MIT to beused; type and number of plugs; location/placement of each plug; type of CO2compatible material to be used in plugging; and the methodof plug placement.As a part of the permit application, developand submit a well plugging plan for Directorapproval which includes: appropriate testmethods to determine bottom-hole reservoirpressure and MIT to be used; type and number of plugs; location/placement of each plug;type of CO2compatible material to be used inplugging; and the method of plug placement.GS wells must be closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.Ensure that the well isin a state of stat-ic equilibrium with mud equalized priorto placement of the plugs (or as required by the permitting authority).Flush the well with a buffer fluid and determinebottom-hole reservoir pressure prior to well plug-ging.Flush the well with a buffer fluid and deter-mine bottom-hole reservoir pressure prior towell plugging.Perform an MIT prior to plugging the well to ensurethe integrity of that portionof the long-string casingand cement that will be left in the ground afterplugging.Perform an MIT prior to plugging the well toensure the integrity of that portion of the longstring casing and cement that will be left inthe ground after plugging.Plug the well with cement in a mannerthat will not allow the movement of fluids either into or between USDWs (oras required by the permitting authority),placing the cement plugs in a mannerspecified by the Director.Notify the Director at least 60 days before pluggingthe well, submitting any revisions to the well plugging plan for Director approval; and, plug the injection well per the approved well plugging plan.Notify the Director at least 60 days beforeplugging the well, submitting any revisions tothe well plugging plan for Director approval;and, plug the injection well per the approvedwell plugging plan.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-24July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Within 60 days after plugging or at the time of thenext quarterly report (whichever is less), owner/operator must submita certified plugging reportto the Director. The owner or operator shall retainthe well plugging report for ten years following siteclosure.Within 60 days after plugging or at the time ofthe next quarterly report (whichever is less),owner/operator must submit a certified plugging report to the Director.As a part of the permit application, develop and submit a plan for Directorapproval to address PISC and site closure requirements and monitoring, for10 years after project closure.As a part of the permit application, develop andsubmit a plan for Director approval to addressPISC (and monitoring) and closure requirements,for 50 years after cessation of injection.The plan should include the:Pressure differential between pre-injection andpost-injection pressuresin the injection zonePredicted position of the CO2plume and pressure frontA description of post-injection monitoring (location, methods, and frequency)A proposed schedule for submitting monitoringresults to the Director.Upon cessation of injection, the plan should be reapproved by the Director, amended or original.At 50 years (or before or after with Director approval), a non-endangerment demonstration will beperformed and the director will determine if furthermonitoring is necessary.As a part of the permit application, developand submit a plan for Director approval toaddress PISC (and monitoring) and closurerequirements, for 100 years after cessation ofinjection.The plan should include the:Pressure differential between preinjection and post-injection pressures inthe injection zonePredicted position of the CO2plume andpressure frontA description of post-injection monitoring(location, methods, and frequency)A proposed schedule for submitting monitoring results to the Director.Upon cessation of injection, the plan shouldbe re-approved by the Director, amended ororiginal.After 100 years (or before or after with Director approval), a non-endangerment demonstration will be performed and the director willdetermine if further monitoring is necessary.Conduct post-injectsite monitoring perthe Director-approved plan to confirmthat CO2movement is limited to intended zonesConduct post-injection site monitoring per the Director-approved plan (which may include pressurefall-off test; seismic monitoring, if appropriate; monitoring in and above the injection zone and theUSDW) to confirm that CO2movement is limited tointended zones.Conduct post-injection site monitoring per theDirector-approved plan (which may includepressure fall-off test; seismic monitoring, ifappropriate; monitoring in and above the injection zone and the USDW) to confirm thatCO2movement is limited to intended zones.After site-closure is authorized by the Director, plugall monitoring wells in a manner that will preventendangerment of USDWs.After site-closure is authorized by the Director, plug all monitoring wells in a manner thatwill prevent endangerment of USDWs.Submit a site closure report to the Director within90 days, that must be retained for ten years, thatincludes: documentation of (all) well plugging;submission of a survey plat to specified parties;documentation of notification to parties that mayhave authority over future drilling activities in theAoR; records reflecting CO2characteristicsSubmit a site closure report to the Directorwithin 90 days that includes: documentationof (all) well plugging; submission of a surveyplat to specified parties; documentation ofnotification to partiesthat may have authorityover future drilling activities in the AoR;records reflecting CO2characteristicsDraft Cost Analysis for the 2-25July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Record a notation on the deed to the facility property indicating that the land was used for GS; nameof authority with which survey plat was filed; injection volume, zones, and duration.Record a notation on the deed to the facilityproperty indicating that the land was used forGS; name of authority with which survey platwas filed; injection volume, zones, and duration.Retain for 10 years following site closure, and, afterthree years deliver to the Director, records of thenature, composition,and volume of the CO2stream.Retain for 3 years following site closure, and,after three years deliver to the Director,records of the nature,composition, and volume of the CO2stream.Financial ResponsibilityProvide through a performance bond, orother appropriate means, the resourcesnecessary plug the well.Demonstrate and maintain financial responsibilityand resources for plugging the well, corrective action, remediation and providing post-injection sitemonitoring and closure, accounting for inflation.Demonstrate and maintain financial responsibility for plugging the well, corrective action,remediation and providing post-injection sitemonitoring and closure, accounting for inflation.Emergency and Remedial ResponseAs a part of the permit application, develop andsubmit an emergency and remedial response planfor Director approval that describes actions to betaken to address movement of injection or formation fluids that may endanger USDWs. Therequirement to maintain and implement anapproved plan is directly enforceable regardless ofwhether the requirementis a condition of thepermit.As a part of the permit application, developand submit an emergency and remedial response plan for Director approval that describes actions to be taken to addressmovement of injection or formation fluids thatmay endanger USDWs.If evidence shows potential endangerment ofUSDWs, the owner or operator should cease injection; notify the Director;investigate and identifyCO2release; implement the emergency and remedial response plan;And, prior to re-commencing injection, demonstrateto the Director non-endangerment to USDWs.If evidence shows potential endangerment ofUSDWs, the owner or operator should, ceaseinjection; notify the Director; investigate andidentify CO2release; implement the plan;implement the emergency and remedial response plan;And, prior to re-commencing injection, demonstrate to the Director non-endangerment toUSDWs.Notify the Director and obtain approval for wellworkovers.Notify the Director and obtain approval forwell workovers.Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-26July 2010Final GS RuleREGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 4Periodically review the emergency and remedialresponse plan at least once every five years. Anyamendments to the emergency and remedial response plan must be approved by the Director andshall be submitted within one year of an AOR reevaluation.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 2-27 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 2.4 Final Rule Requirements

EPA selected RA3 as the best alternative fo r the final rule. Compared to the baseline

condition of the current UIC Program regulations, RA3 offers significantly greater protection to

USDWs because it is tailored spec ifically to GS and includes re quirements necessary to prevent

endangerment via migration of fluids into USDW s than RA1 and RA2 Additionally, RA3 offers

greater protection over the baseline (Class I non-hazardous wells) because the RA3 requirements

are tailored to address the unique nature of injection of CO2 for the purposes of GS. This alternative also incorporates flexibility or Director’s discretion wherever appr opriate. RA4 provides

the most reduction in risks and overall costs because it prescribes the most stringent standards.

However, EPA does not believe that the incr eased requirements under RA4 compared to RA3

are necessary to provide the nece ssary protection to USDWs. De tailed results of the costs for

the regulatory alternatives considered are prov ided in Chapter 5 and Appendix C of this Cost

Analysis.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 3-1 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 3. Baseline Analysis

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the carbon dioxide (CO 2 

# ) geologic sequestration (GS) projects that

form the baseline incorporated into the GS Ru le Cost Analysis including their hydrogeologic

characteristics and other project ch aracteristics affecting the costs of the rule. It presents the data

sources for the baseline information and an overv iew of the uncertainty associated with these

data. The United States Environmental Pr otection Agency (EPA) has estimated the

characteristics for a representative group of proj ects that are expected to deploy under existing

legislation over the 50-year pe riod of analysis of the GS Rule. This chapter summarizes the

information relevant to the cost analysis presen ted in Chapter 5, and is organized as follows:

 Section 3.2 describes the data sources used to inform development of the project

baseline. These sources include published data sources, data from current pilot

projects submitted by Department of Energy (DOE), and laboratory data.

 Section 3.3 provides background that describes the vari ous types and distribution of

hydrogeologic settings identified as po tential receiving formations for CO 2 

# injected

for the purpose of GS in the U.S.

 Section 3.4 introduces the group of GS projects c onstituting the baseline by size of

project and type of receiving formation, and pr esents characteristic s for each type of

project.

 Section 3.5 identifies the sources of uncer tainty in the baseline analysis.



# 3.2 Data Sources

EPA used a variety of data sources to create baseline forecasts for the cost analysis,

including data published/collected by DOE, indu stry, and academia, pilot project data and

laboratory data from efforts by DOE in c onjunction with seven regional sequestration

partnerships. These data s ources are described below.

3.2.1 Published Data

Over the past several years, DOE and seven CO 2 

# GS Regional Carbon Sequestration

Partnerships (RCSPs) (comprising private sect or, academia, and government representatives)

have assessed and characterized the potential CO 2 

# sequestration capacity in the United States.

Through their efforts, DOE has published the National Carbon (NATCARB) Atlas (DOE, 2008),

which categorizes GS potential by geologic setting and geologic ba sin or state, often providing

the data in geographic information system (G IS) format. The NATCARB Atlas also presents

information on the research conducted regarding various potential rece iving formations, and

includes an estimated total U.S. CO 2 

# GS capacity of approximately 3,500 gigatons (Gt) although

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 3-2 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# the actual capacity may be lower one site-speci fic technical and economic considerations are

addressed.

To estimate non-DOE large-scale projects, EP A consulted sources including the Carbon

Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration Database

(updated June, 2009), which EPA downloaded 1 

# and filtered for U.S. based projects of a

significant scale. 2



# 3.2.2 Department of Energy Pilot Project Data

The research sponsored by DOE began in 2003 with the Characterization Phase, in which

the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in Morgantown, West Virginia and the

seven regional partnerships conducted the geologic analysis that resulted in the NATCARB Atlas

described above. During the Validation Ph ase (2005-2009), field re searchers conducted

validation tests of re servoir simulation methods, data co llection methods for capacity and

injectivity, and the performance of monitoring technologies. The partnerships are also field

testing approaches to well completion methods, ope rations, and site closur e, with a variety of

objectives including:

 

# Testing the effectiveness of various we ll materials and injection practices;

 

# Validating models of the fate and transport of CO 2 

# in the subsurface;

 

# Developing a thorough understandin g of the geology, hydrogeology, and

geochemistry at potential GS sites;

 

# Assessing the usefulness of geophysical survey and monitoring techniques;

 

# Testing failure scenarios;

 

# Developing experience necessary fo r development of large-scale CO 2 

# GS; and

 

# Building public confidence that GS can be performed without adverse risks.

The results of research at three of these site s (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in

Paradox Basin, Southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico) were presented in

EPA’s August 31, 2009 Notice of Data Availability (NODA) (74 FR 44802).

During the Deployment Phase (2008-2017), the pa rtnerships are conducting large volume

carbon storage tests to demonstrate that large-scale CO 2 

# injection and storage can be achieved

safely and economically.

1 

# http://www.cslforum.org/projects/index.html

2 

# For the purposes of this analysis, a threshold of 1 million tons CO 2 

# per year injection volume was used to

determine those projects lik ely to be large-scale.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 3-3 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 3.2.3 DOE Inventory Data

EPA consulted with DOE in conjunction with the partnerships to inform the baseline

number of GS projects estimated to deploy in the U.S over the timeframe of this analysis. DOE

relied on information about existing projects, f unding estimates and discussions with members of

the regional partnerships to deve lop the projected baseline invent ory and associated project data

elements (e.g., duration and volume of injection, formation type, etc.).

3.2.4 Laboratory Research

EPA and DOE have co-funded research by th e Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

(LBNL) to study and evaluate the physiochemical processes of CO 2 

# injection and to explore any

potential impacts on ground water aquifers and drinking water sour ces. Current research includes

the following:

 

# Modeling potential impacts of CO 2 

# injection on ground water aquifers and drinking

water sources;

 

# Assessing potential changes in regional gr ound water flow, including displacement of

pre-existing saline water or hydrocarbons that could im pact underground sources of

drinking water (USDWs) or other resources; and

 

# Integrating laboratory, field and modeling effo rts with the objectiv e of evaluating the

potential consequences of CO 2 

# leaks from GS operations into ground water resources

The results of some of this research were published in the NODA. See Section 2.2 of this

Cost Analysis for additional information. Informati on gained from this research will be used to

evaluate potential risks and develop safeguard s to protect USDWs from endangerment. As

described in the Preamble to the final GS Rule, EPA will adapt the rule over time as relevant

information emerges from research c onducted and from GS field experience.



# 3.3 Hydrogeologic Settings

The various hydrogeologic settings of the form ations across the U.S. that may serve as

targets for long-term GS repres ent a significant range of storag e potential, geographic location,

and technical and economic merits, which could all affect the potential costs of GS. The

variables that define the hydrogeologic setting include the type and properties of receiving

formation and cap rock formation, other component s of the reservoir over burden, the location of

current or potential USDWs, and the presence of artificial penetrations , fractures, or other

potentially vulnerable attributes of the system . These variables are important in determining

project parameters such as the required minimu m depth of the injection well (or whether an

injection depth waiver will be sought); the mi nimum number of monito ring wells; and maximum

injection rates, volumes, and pressures. Th e geographic location of the potential receiving

formations can also determine the feasibility of injection projects depe nding on the location of

the CO 2 

# source. Although the costs of CO 2 

# transport do not fall within the scope of this rule, the

locational advantages of one type of formation ove r another will be an important consideration in

the siting of the forecasted proj ects that compose the baseline of this Cost Analysis.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 3-4 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 3.3.1 Formation Types

The requirements in the final rule are desi gned to ensure protection of USDWs through

proper siting, well construction, operation, monitori ng, and post-injection site care (PISC) at all

sites selected for GS irrespect ive of formation type. For the purpose of conducting this Cost

Analysis, EPA has identified several types of geologic formations that may serve as suitable

formations for sequestering CO 2



# . 3



# Saline Formations

Saline formations are deep and geographically extensive water-saturated rock layers with

a high total dissolved solids (T DS) content (i.e., over 10,000 ppm TD S). Using volumes from the

Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada (DOE, 2007b) EPA estimates that

between 91.8 and 97.6 percent of potential GS storage capacity is in deep saline formations.

Their geographic distribution covers all regions of the U.S. and because many are overlain by

impermeable formations it makes them leading candidates for GS. Many are in close proximity

to major CO 2 

# stationary sources, which has the po tential for substantially lower CO 2 

# transportation costs. However, because they ar e currently of limited economic value (i.e., they

are not used as drinking water s ources or contain any mineral res ources), most saline formations

are not as well studied as other formation types being considered for GS. Pilot tests are currently

being performed in saline formations to furthe r evaluate their large- scale GS potential.

Oil and Gas Reservoirs

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and enhanced gas recovery (EGR) technologies,

collectively referred to as enhanced recovery (ER), are used in o il and gas reservoirs to improve

production efficiency. Injection of CO 2 

# is one of several ER techni ques that have successfully

been used to boost production efficiency of oil and gas by re-pressurizing the reservoir, and in

the case of oil, by also increasi ng mobility. Injection wells used for ER are regulated through the

Underground Injection Contro l (UIC) Class II program.

Oil and gas reservoirs are very well studied and understood du e to the amount of research

needed for oil and gas exploration, and account fo r between 1.1 to 3.8 percent of the potential

storage capacity in the U.S. (DOE, 2008). The volumes of CO 2 

# to be injected and left behind in

the formation for the purpose GS would be much greater than traditionally seen in CO 2 

# enhanced

oil and gas recovery operations. Geographic distri bution of oil and gas reservoirs corresponds to

areas that have been drilled for oil and gas in the past including Appalachia, the Gulf Coast, MidContinent, and the Rockies.

Unmineable Coal Seams

CO 2 

# may be injected into coal seams to displ ace methane that adsorbs onto the surface of

the coal, provided injection does not enda nger USDWs; such formations account for

approximately 1.4 – 4.4 percent of the potenti al U.S. storage capacity (DOE, 2008). DOE

estimates that for every molecule of methane displaced in enhanced coal bed methane (ECBM)

3 

# CO 2 

# injection in certain situations such as for the purpose of enhanced oil and gas recovery (ER) operations may

not be covered under the GS rule. The preamble to the proposed rule provides a full discussion of applicability under

the GS rule for different injection scenarios.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 3-5 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# operations, three to thirteen CO 2 

# molecules are adsorbed. (DOE OF E, 2007) This process allows

the methane to be captured and produced for eco nomic purposes. Coalbed methane potential is

concentrated in the areas of New Mexico a nd Wyoming. There are currently no large-scale CO 2 

# ECBM projects, but DOE reports that initia l field studies have demonstrated that CO 2 

# ECBM and

GS into coal seams is technically feasible.

Other Formation Types

Other types of formations such as basalts, or ganic rich shales, and abandoned mines also

could potentially serve as CO 2 

# reservoirs, provided injecti on does not endanger USDWs. In

particular, shale gas is important to consider and is associated with some of the new shale gas

basins that have emerged over the past decade. Th ese types of formations are not as well studied

and are not believed to be as te chnologically or economically feas ible as saline formations, oil

and gas reservoirs, and unmineable coal seams fo r GS. Research is ongoing in these formations

and their viability as sequestration sites has not been proven. Therefore, EPA expects that CO 2 

# injection into these types of formations will be permitted as Class V experimental technology

wells.

3.3.2 Formation Capacity

EPA has developed estimates of the total U.S. CO 2 

# storage potential by type of injection

formation. This estimate extrapolates from prior NATCARB estimates into the previously

excluded geographic areas of the Un ited States to yield a total U. S. estimate of 3,374 Gt. Deep

saline formations account for the largest estimated potential CO 2 

# storage at 2,990 Gt, followed

by oil and gas at 126 Gt, shale formations at 107 Gt, coal and coalbed methane at 51 Gt, and

onshore saline-filled basalt at 100 Gt.



# 3.4 Geologic Sequestration Rule Baseline

This analysis estimates the anticipated level of GS activity in the United States under the

existing regulatory conditions, as per EPA guide lines on economic analysis. In this baseline

analysis, the Agency assumes that there will be no new national climate change legislation. In

the absence of the development of new require ments for GS wells, EPA anticipates that the

owners and operators of GS wells would be pe rmitted as Class V experimental technology wells,

in accordance with UIC Program Guidance #83. Th is class of wells affords the UIC primacy

agency discretion to issue permits that meet s ite-specific conditions for experimental projects.

Based on review of early permits issued, the permit conditions for existing Class V experimental

technology wells that test GS tec hnology have been similar in st ringency to those for Class I

industrial wells, which will provid e USDWs with protection that meet the goals of the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Specific requirements that may involve a great deal of discretion

and thus greater variability in implementation (e.g., area of review (AoR) determinations) can

have a significant impact on the amount of USDW protection under a particular permit.

This cost analysis includes estimated costs projected over a 50-year instead of a 25-year

time period, as is normally performed for EPA drinking water regulations. EPA elected to

increase the analysis period to better reflect the lifecycle costs of GS projects. For large projects,

this includes 1 year of construc tion, 40 years of injection, and 9 years of post-closure monitoring

which concludes the timeframe of an alysis. For pilot projects, this analysis captures the entire 15

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 3-6 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# year period, including 1 year of construction, 4 years of injec tion, and 10 years of post closure

monitoring. For projects in oil and gas reservoirs transitioning to GS, this includes 20 years of

operating for the primary purpose of oil and gas production under an existing UIC Class II

permit, and 10 years under Class VI permit wher e the primary purpose is long-term storage.

3.4.1 Projects Comprising the Baseline

Based on analysis of existing data obtained from DOE on GS and current pilot programs

as described in Section 3.2, EPA assumes there will be 29 projects for the baseline that are

anticipated to be affected by the GS rule. Th ese projects include 2 DOE-sponsored pilot saline

projects, 8 large-scale DOE-sponsored projects in saline formations, and 4 at ER sites for a total

of 14 DOE-sponsored projects. In addition, EPA es timates from the CSLF database as described

in Section 3.2 that 15 projects not sponsored by DOE should be included in the baseline: 3 saline

and 12 ER.

Projects permitted prior to the finalization of the GS rule will be managed under existing

UIC Program requirements and are not included in this baseline. Initially, the primary purpose of

ER projects will continue to be oil and gas production, thus CO 2 

# sequestration (as the primary

purpose) is modeled to start later in the analysis period compared to other project types. Exhibit

3.1 summarizes the forecast for deployment of these projects by type of pr oject and project scale

(pilot vs. large) over 50 years.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 3-7 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 3.1 Schedule of Baseline Project Deployment by Formation Type and

Project Size 1



# Year Type of Formation

Saline Formations Enhanced Recovery

Pilot

Project Large

Project Waivered

Saline ER Waivered

ER

2011

- - - - -

2012

- 0.86 0.05

- -

2013

- 0.86 0.05

- -

2014

- 1.71 0.10

- -

2015

- - - - -

2016

- 1.71 0.10

- -

2017 2.0 4.28 0.24

- -

2018

- - - - -

2019

- - - - -

2020

- - - - -

2021

- - - - -

2022

- - - - -

2023

- - - - -

2024

- - - - -

2025

- - - - -

2026

- - - - -

2027

- - - - -

2028

- - - - -

2029

- - - 0.86 0.05

2030

- - - - -

2031

- - - 0.86 0.05

2032

- - - 3.42 0.19

2033

- - - 2.57 0.14

2034

- - - 0.86 0.05

2035

- - - 1.71 0.10

2036

- - - 2.57 0.14

2037

- - - 0.86 0.05

.

.

. - - - - -

2060

- - - - -

Total 2.0 9.4 0.52 13.7 0.76

Notes: Estimates represent modeled parameters for the baseline as a whole, and therefore do not represent any

one individual project and are generally not whole numbers. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Estimates of

the number of all projects total to 26.4, and are a portion of the 29 initial projects included in the initial baseline

because the analysis assumes that 5% are excluded based on projects that apply for, but do not receive waivers,

and 5% are excluded because permit applications that are not approved based on geological or mechanical

issues at the site. Chapter 5 of the Cost Analysis descr ibes how costs are accounted for in the case of a project

permit or waiver application that is not approved.

1 

# This analysis captures 50 years of analysis; for large proj ects, this includes 1 year of construction, 40 years of

injection, and 9 years of post-closure monitoring. For pilo t projects, this analysis c aptures the entire 15 year

period, including 1 year of construction, 4 years of inje ction, and 10 years of post closure monitoring. The annual

volume injected by large projects is expected to be great er than for smaller projects and greater for saline vs. ER

project types.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 3-8 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 3.4.2 Project Characteristics

Exhibit 3.2 summarizes the project characteristic s that drive differentials in costs for the

baseline projects. Some items, such as the costs of permitting, are expected to be fairly uniform,

regardless of project type. Howeve r, characteristics such as stor age capacity, injection depth, and

storage efficiency are all affected by the local geologic conditions. Additional information on the

derivation of the estimates presented in Exhibit 3.2 can be found in the Geologic CO 2 

# Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis (EPA, 2010a).

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 3-9 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 3.2 Project Characteristics By Formation Type and Size

Pilot Large Large

Waivered

Depth to Top of Injection

Interval (ft) 7,900 7,900 4,400 5,700 3,312

Depth to Bottom of

Injection Interval (ft) 8,500 8,500 5,000 5,800 3,412

Metric tonnes capacity at

100% storage efficiency 30,022,272 737,154,000 737,154,000 32,574,981 29,860,399

Storage efficiency 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 49.4% 49.4%

Injection Area (mi 2 

# ) 4 

# 0.9 23.3 23.8 8.4 8.2

Total Number of wells in

AoR 5 116 119 167 165

Injection Wells Required

(total) 3 4 4 17 16

Tubing Diameter (inches) 6 6 6 4 4

Depth of Stratigraphic

Tests (ft.) 2,400 9,350 5,500 6,380 6,380

Number of Monitoring

Wells above Injection

Zone 1 

# 1 6 9 23

Number of Monitoring

Wells into Injection Zone 1 

# 1 6 9 23

Depth of Monitoring

Wells 2 

# (feet) 5,783 5,783 4,783 4,192 3,266

Long-string Casing of

Monitoring Wells (diam.

inches) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

Injection Period (years) 3 

# 4 40 40 10 10

Source: Appendix A

Notes:

(5) Projects that receive approval of a waiver of the requirement to inject below the lowermost

USDW have reduced depth and a higher number of monitoring wells; this information is provided

in the pro forma sheets presented in Appendix A of this Cost Analysis. (3) GS projects in oil and gas reservoirs are assumed to operate for 30 years: 20 years under the

existing UIC class II well regulations while the site is still used primarily for oil/gas production,

and for the remaining 10 years under class VI for the primary purpose of long-term storage. This

cost analysis includes costs for ER projects beginning with their transition from production to GS,

i.e., 20 years into the 30 year injection period.

(4) The Injection Area is the size of the area estimated to encompass the plume throughout the

project lifecycle. 

# Type of Project

Saline

ER Characteristic

(1) The number of monitoring wells per site varies according to the RA and the size of the project

area assumed for a representative project. Shown are the required number of wells in the pro

forma of each project type for the selected RA (RA3).

(2) Well depths shown represent the typical (mean) monitoring well depth. Shown are the figures

for RA3. Under RA3 and RA4, one third of the monitoring wells would be drilled to the bottom of

the injection zone, while the other monitoring wells for RA3 and RA4, and all monitoring wells for

RA1 and RA2, would be drilled to a depth halfway between the bottom of the lowest USDW and

the top of the containment formation. Depth of monitoring wells for waivered projects reflects

borehole drilled below the IZ, which will include monitoring equipment in the same well for

monitoring both above and below IZ. 

# ER

Waivered

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 3-10 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 3.5 Sources of Uncertainty

Because of the nascent nature of the climat e change legislative landscape, the number and

characteristics of projects comprising the baseline represent a source of uncertainty in this Cost

Analysis. Pilot projects are defined by the type of geologic formation that will receive the CO 2 

# , the number of injection wells, the volume of CO 2 

# to be injected, and th e length of the injection

period, all of which are incorporated into the ba seline estimate for the GS Rule Cost Analysis.

Some parameters, such as the number of projects and the length of the in jection period, represent

direct multipliers used to develop costs in this analysis. For example, a doubling of the number

of projects (all else being equa l) would double the estimated cost of the regulation, assuming the

costs of those projects are not attributable to another regulation. Other uncertainties affect unit

cost estimates, which have a less direct impact on the regulation cost; there are more than 100

unit costs, and doubling one of them has a relati vely small impact on total cost. For example,

injection volumes would influe nce injection rates, the need ed areal extent of the CO 2 

# injection

zone, and the size of the AoR, which in turn influe nces unit cost parameters such as the cost of

corrective action, the numbers of injection and monitoring wells deployed, and operation and

maintenance costs.

At this time, the Agency regards the baseli ne estimates presented in this chapter as

reasonable and representative of the current i ndustry status. Depending on how many of these

projects actually deploy during th e 50-year period of analysis and the associated characteristics

of those projects, the baseline estimates used in this Cost Analysis ma y result in an over- or

underestimate of GS Rule costs. A discussion and an alysis that considers un certainty in the total

number of projects, the number of monitoring wells constructed per inj ection well, and the

variance in cost across formation type and projec t scale is presented in Section 5.9.2 of the Cost

Analysis.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-1 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 4. Benefits Analysis

4.1 Introduction

The regulatory alternatives (RAs) consider ed during the development of the Federal

Requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Ac t (SDWA) for undergro und injection of carbon

dioxide (CO 2 

# ) for the purposes of Geologic Sequestra tion (GS Rule) were designed to protect

underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). This protection is the direct benefit of the GS

Rule. Each of the alternatives considered prov ides a level of USDW pr otection that corresponds

to the stringency of the requirements of that alte rnative. This chapter uses a qualitative approach

to examine the risk tradeoffs between compliance with existing requirements, (i.e., the regulatory

baseline) and the four regulator y alternatives considered.

The regulatory baseline, for the purpose of this analysis, consists of Agency estimates of

the decisions regarding GS projects permitting aut horities and owners and operators would have

made under current Underground Injection Cont rol (UIC) Program regulations. The Agency

assumes that, absent a GS rule, permitting author ities would issue permits with conditions that

are similar in stringency to those for Class I indu strial waste disposal well s. A review of permits

issued to early pilot projects indicates that this is the case. Current permits require that these

projects have siting, constructi on, operating (i.e., injection be low the lowermost USDW), and

monitoring and testing requirements that matc h Class I requirements. Consistent with UIC

Program Guidance # 83, some of these wells are classified as Class V experimental technology

wells; however they have permit conditions that meet the requirements of Class I non-hazardous

wells.

As described in Section 4.2.11 of this chapter, this qualita tive consideration of reduction

in risks to USDWs under each alternative relative to the baseline scenario i ndicates that risks are

reduced the most under RA4, the mo st prescriptive of the altern atives, and least under RA1 and

RA2. While this analysis show s that both RA3 and RA4 signifi cantly increase protection of

USDWs over baseline and over RA1 and RA2, EPA does not believe that the increased

requirements under RA4 as compared to RA3 are necessary to provide the necessary protection

to USDWs. Therefore the United States Enviro nmental Protection Agency (EPA) has selected

RA3 as the best alternative.



# 4.2 Relative Risks – Qualitative Analysis

The direct benefit of the GS Rule is the protection of USDWs from potential

contamination related to the GS activity. Due to the anticipated large CO 2 

# injection volumes

associated with GS, the buoyant and mobile natu re of the injectate and its corrosivity in the

presence of water, EPA has determined that tailored requirements, modeled on the existing UIC

regulatory framework, are appropr iate for wells injecting CO 2 

# for GS. 1 

# Because GS is still in the

early phases of deployment, qua ntitative correlations be tween GS project components, such as

site characteristics or operati ng parameters, and the incidence of migration of fluid away from

the injection site or leakage from the borehole are not available. This limite d availability of data

1 

# A detailed description of these concerns is provided in section II.3 of the Preamble for the GS Rule.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-2 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# precludes development of a quantitative risk an alysis with regard to the probability of

contamination. However, considerable work has been done to qualitatively assess the

vulnerabilities in various geologi c settings for GS projects that could result in an increased

probability of leakage or fluid migration away from the injection zone or borehole. Further

evaluation of these potential risks is provided in the Vulnerability Evaluation Framework for

Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide (USEPA, 2010d). Section 4.3 of this document

discusses these vulnerabilities and the broader ramifications of such contamination on the

ecological and human environment, the protectio n of which is largely outside the statutory

authority of the SDWA (except as it relates to protection of USDWs) but is included here to

provide for a broader unde rstanding of the nature of the risk from GS.

The current assumptions are that: 1) CO 2 

# injection could cause the movement of brine or

brackish water into a USDW, thereby requiring furt her treatment of that water to meet drinking

water requirements; and 2) the presence of CO 2 

# and associated impurities could acidify

formation fluids or the soil or rock matrix, and could mobilize arsenic or other drinking water

contaminants that were previously adsorbed to the soil/rock matrix into the ground water. Since

these risks are not yet quantifie d, the information available is not conducive to quantifying the

potential costs avoided by mitigating them.

It should be noted that this analysis is not intended to quantify the magnitude of the

increase or decrease in risk relative to the baseline or determine which requirements have the

greatest effect on the increase/decrease in risk re lative to baseline or each other. Because of the

limited implementation of GS projects, particularly at the scales intende d at full deployment, no

data exist to support a quantitative analysis of which re quirements (or lack thereof) would

decrease or increase risk to the greatest extent.

This analysis instead presents the estimated direction of change in risk for regulatory

alternatives of the GS Rule c onsidered relative to the existing (baseline) conditions. The term

“baseline” in this chapter refe rs to risks as they exist unde r current regulations, which are

summarized in the first column of Exhibit 4.1. The terms “increase, ” “decrease,” and “no

change,” indicate the direction of risk change wh en comparing the regulatory alternatives to the

baseline, and not the magnitude of any such change . A discussion of risk ch ange associated with

each of the regulatory components presented follows Exhibit 4.1.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-3 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 4.1 Estimated Change in Risk for Components of the RAs Compared to

the Regulatory Baseline

BASELINE Risk Change Relative to Baseline for RAs Considered

Alternative 1 A lternative 2 A lternative 3 Alternative 4

1. Site Characterization

Geologic system consisting of an

injection zone; trapping mechanism;

and confining system to allow injection

at proposed rates and volumes.

Provide maps and cross sections of

local and regional geology, Area of

Review (AoR), and USDWs;

characterize the overburden and

subsurface; and provide information on

fractures, stress, rock strength, and in

situ fluid pressures within cap rock. Increase Increase Decrease Decrease

2. AoR and Corrective Action

AoR is either a 1⁄4 mile radius or

determined by mathematical formula.

Identify all wells in the AoR that

penetrate the injection zone and

provide a description of each; identify

the status of corrective action for wells

in the AoR; and remediate those

posing the greatest risk to USDWs. Increase Decrease De crease Decrease

3. Injection Well Construction

The well must be cased and cemented

to prevent movement of fluids into or

between USDWs and to withstand the

injected materials at the anticipated

pressure, temperature and other

operational conditions. Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease

4. Injection Well Operation

Limit injection pressure to avoid

initiating new fractures or propagate

existing fractures in the confining zone

adjacent to the USDWs. Inject below

the lowermost USDW (or above the

lowermost USDW with an approved

waiver). Increase Increase Decrease Decrease

5. Mechanical Integrity Testing (MIT)

Demonstrate internal and external

mechanical integrity (MI) every 5 years.

Conduct a pressure fall-off test every 5

years. Increase Increase Decrease Decrease

6. Monitoring

Monitor the nature of injected fluids at a

frequency sufficient to yield data

representative of thei r characteristics.

Conduct ground water monitoring

within the AoR. Report quarterly. Increase Increase Decrease Decrease

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-4 July 2010

Final GS Rule BASELINE Risk Change Relative to Baseline for RAs Considered

Alternative 1 A lternative 2 A lternative 3 Alternative 4

7. Well Plugging, Post-Injection Site Care (PISC), and Closure

Ensure that the well is in a state of

static equilibrium and plugged using

approved methods. Plugs shall be

tagged and tested. Conduct postinjection monitoring to confirm that CO 2



# movement is limited to intended zones. Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease

8. Financial Responsibility

Demonstrate and maintain financial

responsibility and resources to plug

and abandon the well. Increase No Change De crease Decrease

9. Emergency and Remedial Response

No specific requirement. No Change No Change Decrease Decrease

Overall Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease

Note: See Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the components of each regulatory alternative.



# 4.2.1 Site Characterization

Under current regulations, owne rs and operators of GS wells would need to demonstrate

that the injection site is in an area with geol ogic formations that can receive and confine the

injected fluids below USDWs such that these fluids remain isolated in or der to ensure protection

of USDWs from endangerment. Owne rs and operators must provide maps and cross sections of

local geologic structure, USDWs, and the Ao R and characterize the overburden using data on

size, capacity, porosity, and permeability and ge omechanical information on fractures, stress,

rock strength, and in situ fluid pressures w ithin the cap rock and storage reservoir.

Compared to this baseline, RA1 increases ri sk because the performance standard that

wells be sited in a manner that protects USDW s from endangerment is su bject to considerable

interpretation on the part of the owner and operator and permitting authority; this may result in a

certain portion of owners and operators not charact erizing the site as th oroughly as described in

the baseline, which could potential ly result in injection at a si te with fewer of the protective

safeguards that are necessary, gi ven the unique nature of the CO 2 

# injectate (as described in

Section 4.2).

RA2 does prescribe some require ments regarding the geological data to be provided, but

these are slightly less prescriptive than the ba seline. Given the importance of a detailed sitespecific geologic characterization to selecting an adequate GS site , the lack of detail in RA2 may

increase risk relative to the baseline.

RA3 and RA4 both have requirements that ar e more stringent and specific than the

baseline. Under these alternatives the owners a nd operators of GS wells would be required to

perform a detailed assessment of the geologic, hydrogeologic, geochemical and geomechanical

properties of the proposed GS site to ensure that the wells are sited in appropriate locations and

inject into suitable formations. Additionally, so me GS owners and operators would have to

identify additional zones above the confining zone that will impede vertical fluid movement,

allow for pressure dissipation, and provide a dditional opportunities for monitoring, mitigation,

and remediation. Characterizing these layers woul d be at the Director’s discretion in RA3 and

required for all GS sites in RA4. Further, many of the specific site characterization requirements

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-5 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# in RA3 and RA4 more adequately address the unique nature of CO 2 

# injection for GS, such as:

requirements for structural and hydrogeologic da ta, seismic history, geomechanical data, and

identification and evaluation of faults and fr actures. Additionally, RA4 would require owners

and operators to further characterize the ove rburden using geologic cores, outcrop data, 3-

dimensional seismic surveys, and well logs and, at the Director’s discre tion, drill a stratigraphic

test well to provide more deta iled baseline data on subsurface formations. Because a more

detailed site characterization improves the owners and operator’s and Director’s ability to

evaluate the presence (or absence) of necessary protective geologic elements, the greater detail

involved in characterizing the site under these RA s will likely decrease risk to USDWs relative

to the baseline.

4.2.2 Area of Review (AoR) and Corrective Action

Under current Class I non-hazar dous regulations, the AoR for a GS site would be either a

1⁄4 mile radius around the injection well or woul d be delineated by a mathematical formula.

Within the delineated AoR, owners and operators must identify all wells that penetrate the

injection zone and provide information about each well's type, constr uction, depth, and plugging,

and identify which wells require corrective action. Wells in the AoR that pose a risk to USDWs

must be addressed using appropr iate corrective action methods.

RA1 does not specify a minimum size of the AoR or methods for delineating the AoR;

additionally this RA does not include specific requirements for identifying and addressing

improperly plugged wells in the AoR. Due to th is lack of specificity and the potential to

inadequately address all conduits for fluid movement to USDWs, RA1 may further increase risk

relative to the baseline.

Under RA2, owners and operators would de fine the AoR based on a calculated fixed

radius or by modeling. Assuming that some owne rs and operators choose to develop a model,

this represents a slight decrease in risk from baseline. Within the defined AoR, owners and

operators must identify all artificial penetratio ns; determine, based on pu blicly available data,

whether abandoned wells have been plugged in a manner that prevents the movement of CO 2 

# or

associated fluids from the stor age reservoir; and employ correctiv e action at those wells that pose

a risk to USDWs using appropriate methods de termined in consultation with the permitting

authority. Because they directly address the potential for USDW contamination via abandoned

wells, the additional requirements under RA2 result in a decrease in risk relative to the baseline

regulatory requirements.

RA3 and RA4 may further decrease risk by requ iring owners and operators to define the

AoR using sophisticated computational models based on site specific data that accounts for

multiphase flow and the buoyancy of CO 2 

# . This type of modeling is the most accurate tool

available for predicting the migration of the CO 2 

# plume and associated pressure front in the

subsurface until the plume movement ceases and pr essures stabilize, or for a fixed time period

determined by the Director. (RA4 would require th at the models predict plume and pressure front

movement over 10,000 years.) A dditionally, the use of computational models improves

predictions of the extent and direction of the CO 2 

# plume and pressure front to allow better

targeting of corrective action and monitori ng. Because using a fixed radius would underrepresent the size and shape of th e large volumes of injected CO 2 

# , the requirement to delineate

the AoR using computational modeling decreases ri sk relative to baseline. This is because GS

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-6 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# projects would likely have an AoR much larger and less uniform in size than 1⁄4 mile AoR due to

the large volumes injected and buoyancy of CO 2



# .

As in RA2, RA3 and RA4 would require owne rs and operators to identify all well

penetrations in the AoR, determine if they ha ve been plugged in a manner that prevents fluid

movement, and apply corrective ac tion to those wells as needed. RA3 and RA4 are more specific

in that they require that correc tive action be performed using mate rials that are compatible with

CO 2 

# , therefore reducing risk of degrading existin g well materials that come in contact with

injected CO 2 

# . These alternatives also allow owners and operators to “phase” corrective action (if

allowed by the Director); this is not anticipated to increase or decrease risk relative to the

baseline.

Finally, RA3 and RA4 would require owners and operators to periodically reevaluate the

AoR over the life of the injection project to acco unt for any operational changes and incorporate

monitoring data. Both RA3 and RA4 require this reevaluation at least every five years, or

whenever operational changes or monitoring data dictate a need. This reevaluation would help

owners and operators to verify that the CO 2 

# plume is moving as predicted or provide an

opportunity to adjust the injection operation, mo nitoring, or corrective action to address changes

in the predicted AoR and therefore w ould reduce risk rela tive to baseline.

4.2.3 Injection Well Construction

For well construction activities, the baseline specifies that GS wells be cased and

cemented to prevent movement of fluids into US DWs. RA1, with no explicit technical standards,

requires generally that GS wells be constructe d in a manner that will protect USDWs from

endangerment; thus, the Agency assumes that give n the uncertainty in how this standard would

be implemented, wells could potentially be cons tructed without the appropriate materials and

methods that specifically addre ss the risks associated with CO 2 

# injection and risk under RA1

increases from baseline.

RA2, RA3, and RA4 would address risk by e xplicitly requiring that GS wells be

constructed and cemented with cas ing, tubing, and packer that meet API or ASTM International

standards and are compatible with CO 2 

# . Each RA provides increasing specificity. RA 2 allows

the Director’s discretion to approve well materials and desi gn. RA3 specifies the use of

cemented surface casing (base of the lowermos t USDW to surface) and long string casing

(cemented from injection zone to surface) must be compatible with fluids with which they may

be expected to come into contact. Additiona lly, RA3 also allows the use of horizontal well

drilling techniques for GS wells wh ich helps to reduce the number of injection wells potentially

needed at a GS site thereby reducing the number of potential leakage pathways into USDWs.

RA4 would require that the surface casing extend 100 feet below the lowermost USDW and the

use of specialized, corrosion-resistant materials such as metal alloy casing, specialized tubing,

and latex cements. These specific elements, wh ich address the unique characteristics of CO 2 

# in

the presence of water and are demonstrated to reduce the chances of compromising well

integrity, are therefore expected to de crease risk relative to the baseline.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-7 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 4.2.4 Injection Well Operation

Under current regulations, in jection must be conducted su ch that the pressure during

injection does not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures in the confining zone

adjacent to the USDWs. Injection must be below the lowermost USDW.

RA1 applies the performance standard that in jection wells must be operated in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment but does not explicitly limit injection pressure.

Therefore, the Agency assumes that in a porti on of the cases, appropria te injection pressure

limitations may not be employed, suggesting an incr ease in risk for RA1 from the baseline. RA2

has similar requirements as the baseline but allows for higher injection pre ssure at the Director’s

discretion; to the extent that it is possible to allow pressures that increase the risk of fracture,

RA2 may potentially increase risk relative to ba seline. EPA assumes in the analysis that under

RA1 and RA2 operators would inject below th e lowermost USDW, except for in limited cases

when a waiver of this depth requirement was appr oved, as discussed further below with regard to

RA3. The explicit formal waiver application process and additional permit conditions that

directly address the presence of USDWs above and below the injection zone will result in a

minimal increase in risk for RA1 an d RA2 relative to the baseline.

RA3 and RA4 require that owne rs and operators limit injection pressure to less than the

fracture pressure of the injection formation in any portion of the area defined by the anticipated

pressure front; RA4 additionally considers the capillary entry pressure at any point in the

lowermost portion of the confining zone. To the ex tent that these limitations reduce the chance of

initiating new fractures or propaga ting existing fractures in the inje ction zone, they decrease risk

relative to the baseline.

RA4 would require that in all cases, oper ators inject below the lowermost USDW, as

under the baseline scenario. This would apply in most cases to RA3, how ever, as for RA1 and

RA2, owners and operators would have the opti on in limited circumstances to seek a waiver

from this requirement to allow injection into non-USDW formations between USDWs in cases

where there are deep USDWs and/or where inject ion into the lowermost USDW would result in

impractical or technically infeas ible well construction. In these limited circumstances owners and

operators would be required to submit additional data and be subject to additional requirements

above and beyond the RA3 requirements for wells injecting below the lowermost USDWs as

added protection. By giving owners and operators the option of injecting above the lowermost

USDW via the waiver process, there is an in cremental risk increase relative to complete

prohibition of the practice as under the baseline and RA4. However, the explicit formal waiver

application process and additional permit conditi ons that directly a ddress the presence of

USDWs above and below the inject ion zone will result in a mi nimal increase in risk for RA3

relative to the baseline.

RA4 additionally requires that the de pth be sufficient to retain the CO 2 

# in a supercritical

state; this can help reduce pot ential MI concerns associated with phase changes and decreases

risk relative to baseline.

RA3 and RA4 also require th at injection wells are equi pped with down-hole shut-off

systems or other safety mechanisms, e.g., check va lves, that engage if any critical operating

parameters are exceeded and describe the remedial actions that owners and operators must take if

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-8 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# the devices engage. This requirement under RA3 a llows for director’s discretion unless wells are

located in offshore territorial state waters wher e they are required because EPA believes that

devices besides down-hole shut-off systems, such as check valves, may provide equal protection

in some instances and RA3 allows for their use, if approved by the Director, provided they offer

an equal level of protecti on to USDWs as an automatic down-hole shut-off device. 2 

# By not

allowing the director to approve an alternative device in a ny case, RA4 offers the most

protection, but possibly at an unnecessary cost in terms of the increased risk for damage to the

wells during operation. The requirement for down -hole safety mechanisms under RA3 and RA4

can help prevent leaks in the well or fractures in the confining layer that may in turn result in

fluid movement that endangers a USDW. They also help assure that problems within the well

system are addressed immediately, decr easing risk relative to the baseline.

Additionally, RA4 allows the Dire ctor to require that an odoran t or a tracer be introduced

to the injected CO 2 

# to facilitate early detection of leak s or movement outside of the intended

injection zone in order to pr event endangerment of USDWs. To the extent that odorants or

tracers are detected and result in modifications to the injection operati on or early actions, RA4

further decreases risk relative to baseline.

Overall, under RA3 and RA4, there is expected to be a decrease in risk relative to the

baseline for injection we ll operation requirements.

4.2.5 Mechanical Integrity Testing

Under the baseline, GS well owners and ope rators will demonstrate that wells have

internal mechanical integrity (M I) (i.e., there is no significant leak in the casing, tubing, or

packer), and external MI (i.e., there is no si gnificant fluid movement into a USDW through

vertical channels adjacent to th e injection well bore). The gene ral performance based measure of

RA1, to monitor wells in a manner and freque ncy that protects USDWs from endangerment

allows for greater interpretation in setting permit conditions. In some cases, directors may

specify mechanical integrity testing (MIT) types and frequencies that are more protective than

baseline requirements. Therefore, RA1 poten tially increases risk from the baseline.

RA2 does not specify a testing frequency; ra ther, it provides flexibility to permitting

authorities to specify MIT methods and testing frequencies that are appr opriate to the specific

project. As such, the Agency assumes that Director s may choose a testing interval of more than 5

years which could potentially allow MI problem s to go undetected for lo nger periods of time;

therefore, RA2 potentially incr eases risk from baseline.

Under RA3 and RA4, owners and operator s must demonstrate internal MI by

continuously monitoring injection pressure, flow rate, injected volumes, and pressure on the

annulus between the tubing and the long stri ng casing. Continuous monitoring can provide

almost immediate warning that there is a problem with the injection well’s internal MI, which is

one of the most significant concerns , given the corrosive nature of CO 2 

# . This requirement would

2 

# Requirements specific to ocean injection wells in the Fe deral outer continental shelf are to be proposed under a

separate regulation by the Minerals Management Service, and are not included in the GS Rule.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-9 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# directly address the unique nature of CO 2 

# injection for GS and therefor e is expected to decrease

risk from baseline.

Under RA3 and RA4, owners and operators mu st demonstrate external MI using an

approved tracer survey such as an oxygen-activ ation log or temperatur e or noise logs. The

Director also has the discretion to require a cas ing inspection log to de termine the presence or

absence of any casing corrosion. The external MI T requirements in these RAs differ in their

frequency: they must be performed at least annually in RA3 and twice annually in RA4.

The more specific MIT requirements and the greater frequency of testing in RA3 and

RA4 decrease risk from the baseline by providing earlier indication of any MI problems, and

potentially to a greater degree in RA4, given the shorter frequencies.

4.2.6 Testing, Monitoring, and Reporting

Under the baseline, owners and operators of GS wells would monitor the nature of

injected fluids; conduct ground wate r monitoring within the AoR (a t the Director’s discretion);

and report quarterly on these resu lts and on the characteristics of injection fluids, injection

pressure, flow rate, volume and annular pressure, and the results of MITs.

RA1 would leave the specific m onitoring requirements to the discretion of the Director;

potentially reducing the amount of monitoring performed relative to the baseline and thus would

mitigate less risk than the baseline scenario.

Under RA2, owners and operators would mon itor the nature of injected fluids at a

frequency sufficient to yield data representative of their char acteristics. Owners and operators

would report annually on the char acteristics of injection fluids, injection pressure, flow rate,

temperature, volume and annular pressure, and on the results of MITs. Because ground water

monitoring would not be performed under RA2, EPA assumes that this alternative would

increase risk relative to baseline because it eliminates an opportunity to detect unacceptable

movement of CO 2 

# or other fluids.

Under RA3, owners and operators would deve lop, implement, and periodically review a

plan for conducting testing and moni toring that is tailored to the site. This RA includes additional

monitoring, including injectate monitoring; corrosion monitori ng of the well’s tubular,

mechanical and cement components; pressure fall-off testing; CO 2 

# plume and pressure front

tracking; and ground water quali ty monitoring. Under RA3, owners and operators will report

operating and monitoring results twice per year in operating reports, unless the monthly MIT or

other periodic tests re vealed operations were somehow co mpromised, in which case 24 hour

notification is required. Because the required mo nitoring plan and these monitoring requirements

are tailored to the risks associated wi th injection of large volumes of CO 2 

# and to the specific

aspects of the site and operational conditions, RA 3 is expected to mitigate more risk than the

baseline requirements.

RA4 includes all of the monito ring requirements in RA3, with additional specificity on

some elements. In addition to corrosion mon itoring, owners and opera tors would need to

demonstrate compatibility of well materials to the injected CO 2 

# . Owners and operators would

perform a pressure fall-off test annually instead of every 5 years as with RA3. The ground water

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-10 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# monitoring requirements are more specific than under RA3, requiring that the monitoring wells

are constructed with corrosion-re sistant materials. It requires that the surface air and soil gas

monitoring regime include all arti ficial penetrations within the AoR and other sensitive areas,

e.g., in buildings and manmade surface structur es that are intended for human occupancy.

Finally, under RA4, owners and operators woul d submit monitoring reports every month. With

additional monitoring requirements that are tailore d to the GS site and address the specific

contamination concerns associated with GS, RA4 would also be expected to mitigate more risk

than the baseline requirements.

4.2.7 Injection Well Plugging, Post-Injectio n Site Care (PISC), and Site Closure

At the conclusion of injection of CO 2 

# for GS, the injection well must be plugged in a way

that ensures that it would not se rve as a conduit for future fluid movement. Under the baseline,

owners and operators would ensure that the well is in a state of static equilibrium, plug the well

using approved methods, and tag and test all plugs. Owners and operato rs would also conduct

post-injection monitoring to confirm that the CO 2 

# movement is limited to intended zones.

RA1 has no specific requirements with resp ect to plugging and post-injection monitoring

and therefore increases risk relative to the ba seline. RA2 includes some specific injection well

plugging requirements, including ensuring that the well is in a state of static equilibrium,

plugging the well using approved methods, and taggi ng and testing all plugs. This RA also

would require owners and operators to conduc t post-injection monitoring for 10 years per a

Director-approved plan. Th e inclusion of specific PI SC requirements that CO 2 

# movement be

monitored following injection activ ities to ensure that it is lim ited to intended zones in RA2

would pose a decreased risk relative to the baseline.

RA3 and RA4 contain more specific require ments for well plugging and PISC and site

closure. Both alternatives would require owners and operators to flush the well with a buffer

fluid, determine bottom-hole reserv oir pressure, perform a final external MIT, and plug the well

in a manner using approved methods that will pr event the movement of fluid that may endanger

USDWs. Additionally, these RAs require owners a nd operators to develop and implement a plan

to conduct PISC monitoring, (which may include pressure monitoring; geophysical monitoring,

if appropriate; and geochemical monitoring in an d above the injection zone and the USDW) to

confirm that CO 2 

# movement is limited to intended z ones. The sole difference between the

alternatives is the time frame: 50 years for RA3 (the Director ha s the discretion to shorten or

lengthen timeframe based on PISC data) and 100 years for RA4. Following the PISC monitoring,

owners and operators would perf orm a non-endangerment demonstration to ensure that there is

no threat to USDWs and that no further monitoring is necessary. At this point , closure of the site

is authorized.

The requirements in RA3 and RA4 for PISC mo nitoring for extended time frames that are

tailored to site-specific conditi ons and the operational history of the injection operation and a

final non-endangerment demonstration are specific to the unique nature of GS and are estimated

to mitigate more risk than under the baseline regulatory scenario.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-11 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 4.2.8 Financial Responsibility

Under the baseline regulatory scenario, owners and operators must de monstrate that they

have the resources necessary to plug and abandon the injection well throu gh a performance bond,

or other appropriate means.

RA1 does not have such a requirement, and to the extent that there would not be

resources to plug the injection well at the end of injection activiti es, suggests an increase in risk

relative to the baseline. RA2 w ould require the operator to pr ovide through a performance bond,

or other appropriate means, the resources necessary to plug the well; this is the same requirement

as in the baseline; thus there is no change relative to baseline.

RA3 and RA4 require the operator to demonstr ate and maintain financial responsibility

for not only plugging the injection well, but also for all needed correctiv e action, emergency and

remedial response, and PISC and closure. Owners and operators would need to adjust the cost

estimates for these activities peri odically to account for inflation and other conditions that may

affect costs. RA3 and RA4 mitigate more risk rela tive to the baseline because they provide more

assurance that funds will be available to pay for the necessary activities and also provide for

funds to address additional protective activitie s, e.g., corrective action, PISC, and emergency and

remedial response.

4.2.9 Emergency and Remedial Response

Emergency and remedial response plans outline the specific steps an operator would take

in the event of evidence that injected fluids are endangeri ng USDWs. Although injection well

owners and operators are required to cease injection and take nece ssary actions if they discover

evidence of USDW endangerment, the Class I no n-hazardous regulations do not have a specific

requirement to develop and implement such a plan ; thus, the baseline is presumed to have no

such requirement. RA1 and RA2 have no such requirements and are assumed to present no

change in risk relative to the baseline.

RA3 and RA4 would require GS well owners an d operators to develop and periodically

review an emergency and remedial response plan that describes actions to be taken to address

events that may cause an endangerment to a USDW during the construc tion, operation and PISC

periods of a GS project. In the even t that there is evidence that the CO 2 

# or pressure front is

endangering USDWs, the operator would cease inj ection, take necessary steps to identify and

characterize the extent of any release, and impl ement the emergency and remedial response plan.

By providing a means to address a release of CO 2 

# or endangerment of USDWs, RA3 and RA4

decrease risk relative to the baseline. By following this site specific plan for this possible event,

the steps that will be taken will prevent even greater damage and will facilitate prompt well

repair if that is necessary.

4.2.10 Adaptive Regulatory Process

Under RA 3 and RA4, once the rule is final EP A will continue to collect and review all

available information related to GS research to determine the need for modifications of the

minimum Federal requirements for Class VI wells. Every six years, the Agency will collect and

review data to determine if m odifications to the requirements are necessary. By allowing for the

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-12 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# possible inclusion of added requirements (or modifi cation of existing requir ements) to ensure the

safe injection and sequestering of CO 2 

# , RA3 and RA4 would result in a decrease in risk relative

to the baseline regulatory requirements. RA1 and RA2 does not explicitly specify the inclusion

of periodic evaluation for Class VI wells, thus th ere would be no change in risk relative to the

baseline.

4.2.11 Overall Estimate of Change in Risk

Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.11 describe the chan ge in the direction of risk based on

consideration of each regulatory al ternative 1 – 4 relative to the ba seline regulatory requirements.

These changes were assessed for each component category of the GS Rule and RAs. An overall

assessment of the direction of risk change for each regulatory alternative as a whole relative to

the baseline requires consideration of the relati ve importance of each component to the risk

mitigation provided by the alternative.

As shown in Exhibit 4.1, EPA estimates that under RA1, risk will move from the baseline

in the direction of increase for eight of the ten components assessed; no change in risk is

estimated related to emergency and remedial resp onse. Thus, EPA estimates an overall increase

in risk relative to the baseline for RA1.

Under RA2, EPA estimates that risk will incr ease for four of the eleven programmatic

components of the GS rule (geologic charac terization, injection we ll operation, MIT, and

monitoring); that it will decrease in three ca tegories (AoR /correctiv e action, well construction,

and well plugging/PISC); and that it will not change from the baseline relative to four categories

(financial responsibility, emergency and remedi al response, injection depth waivers, and the

adaptive rulemaking process). Although this a lternative generally has many of the same

requirements as the baseline, RA2 allows the Dir ector to exercise discretion to modify these

requirements. This introduces the potential for some permit standards to be less stringent than

under the baseline. However, given the importan ce of the AoR/corrective action and construction

components (which decrease risk relative to the base line), it is expected th at the overall resulting

change in risk will be a slight decr ease in comparison to the baseline.

Both RA3 and RA4 uniformly decrease risk ac ross all regulatory components, indicating

an overall decrease in ri sk under both regulatory alternatives. Th is is primarily attributed to the

additional specificity in each of these alternatives th at are tailored to address the unique nature of

GS. However, in many instances the requirement s under RA4 are more prescriptive or specify

better technologies than under RA3; this results in the potential fo r risk reduction to be greatest

under RA4.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-13 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 4.3 Ancillary Benefits

In addition to the direct benefits associated with the GS Rule, the Agency has identified

potential benefits in the protecti ons provided to affected entities that are not directly addressed

under the authority of the UIC Program as pres cribed under the SDWA, which is limited to

protection of USDWs. These ancill ary protections apply to categor ies such as human health and

welfare, the atmosphere, ecological receptors, su rface water, and the physical environment. Risk

to these entities from GS is not well understood; however, to the ex tent that such risk exists, the

GS Rule mitigates it by requiring measures to protect USDWs from contamination. These

measures include prevention of fluid migration away from the storage formation and injection

site and extensive monitoring both during opera tions and after injection has ceased. These

ancillary benefits are summarized below a nd are described in greater detail in the Vulnerability

Evaluation Framework for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide (USEPA, 2010d).

Human Health/Welfare

By requiring owners and operators to employ measures to protect USDWs from

endangerment, the GS Rule mitigates the risk of illness associated with ingestion of acidic or

brackish water or water that may be contaminat ed by materials that are mobilized from the

soil/rock matrix. These measures include mon itoring requirements and appropriate operational

thresholds that decrease the potential for large scale CO 2 

# leaks. As CO 2 

# is an asphyxiant, humans

can experience adverse health effects at elevated CO 2 

# concentrations (Raschi et al., 1997), and

extremely high concentrations (a bove 30 percent) can result in fatality. Although the likelihood

of CO 2 

# release from a GS operation is not understood in quantified terms, the GS Rule mitigates

this risk.

Cultural and recreational resources may also be preserved by the GS Rule. Requirements

for geological characterization of the well site and monitoring of the movement of the CO 2 

# plume will help maintain the physical integrity of the project surface area by mitigating potential

risk of uplift of the surface topography or induced seismicity. Ecological resources that are used

as recreation resources, such as rivers and lakes, will also experience reduced risk of

contamination as a result of the rule by confining the CO 2 

# and brine below USDWs. The GS

Rule may also mitigate potential risk to forest s and other flora by protecting it from the harmful

effects of exposure to elevated CO 2 

# levels.

Contaminated ground and surface water could have effects on surface and subsurface

economic resources. The site characterization and monitoring aspects of the GS Rule mitigate

this risk by ensuring fluid isolation. This ancilla ry benefit to the rule extends to forestry,

agricultural, and other surface industries, which could experience reduced yields and diminished

utility of land if ground or su rface water is contaminated by CO 2 

# , brine, or mobilized

contaminants. It also mitigates risk to subsurf ace resources such as oil and gas reservoirs, which

could be affected by pressure from CO 2 

# plumes.

Surface Water

Through geologic siting and well construction st andards that prevent fluid movement in

the subsurface and monitoring standards that w ould provide early warnin g of leakage out of

intended zones, the GS Rule mitigates potential ri sk of contamination of surface water from GS

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-14 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# operations. Specifically, the GS Rule mitigates th e risk of water quality degradation that is

associated with CO 2 

# contamination, including: increased salinity, increased acidity, and

mobilization of metals and impurities. It also mitigates the risk that pressure from CO 2 

# injection

will affect regional ground water flow, which could affect the availability of water in certain

areas.

Ecological Receptors

By requiring measures to contain the CO 2 

# and preventing fluid movement away from the

injection site and storage formation, the GS Rule helps to mitigate the risk that some animal

species could experience negative he alth effects associated with CO 2 

# exposure. Acidification of

surface water due to CO 2 

# contamination could kill species sens itive to changes in pH living in or

consuming the water, and species that dwell in the soil may be especially vulnerable to the

effects of contaminated surface water and soil. CO 2 

# would also lower carbonate levels in water

which would significantly affect calcifying aquatic organisms, which could be unable to form

shells in acidic water.

Atmosphere

The GS Rule’s requirements that reduce the likelihood of CO 2 

# migrating to USDWs will

mitigate the risk of sequestered CO 2 

# escaping to the atmosphere, helping to ensure that the

benefits of reduced CO 2 

# emissions to the atmosphere with regard to climate change are

maintained. The well plugging and PISC require ments in the GS Rule further reduce the

potential for leakage of CO 2 

# into the atmosphere and ensure effective long-term storage.

Additionally, plants relyi ng on a water source that is impacted by injected CO 2 

# may be

intolerant of the pH change or high concentrations of CO 2, 

# which can inhibit root respiration and

hinder oxygen uptake and plant growth. In the case of CO 2 

# contamination of plant life, animal

species depending on these plants would also suffe r detrimental health effects. The extensive

geologic siting process, well cons truction, and monitoring requirements associated with the GS

Rule mitigate these potential risks by guarding against CO 2 

# leakage.

Physical Environment

Uplift and induced seismic activity as a result of subsurface pressure changes associated

with injecting large volumes of CO 2 

# could have significant financ ial ramifications as well as

negative effects on human health. Subsurface pr essure changes that exceed a formation’s

geomechanical strength could cau se fracturing or reactivate fau lts and increase the potential for

the aforementioned effects. The GS Rule helps to mitigate this kind of risk through evaluation of

subsurface geomechanics, the presence of transm issive faults and fractures, and the seismic

history of the site; injection pressure limitations; and monitoring of the CO 2 

# plume and pressure

changes.



# 4.4 Uncertainty in Benefits Estimates

In the absence of data allowing a quantita tive assessment of GS rule benefits, the

assessment of relative risks (and associated benefit potential) posed by each alternative

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 4-15 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# considered is subjective. The four regulatory alternatives consider ed in this analysis represent

increasing levels of regulatory ce rtainty that are assumed to corre late with relative risk. This

assumption is based on the potential differences in interpretations that can be made when sole

discretion is given to different permitting author ities. The interpretation of how this discretion

will be utilized is the major driver of uncertainty within the relative risk estimates presented in

this chapter. EPA’s experience within the UI C Program suggests that in those areas where

discretion is allowed there are distinct differences in interp retation among permitting authorities

nationally. The magnitude and impact of such diff erences is difficult to predict for the GS rule,

but EPA believes its general interp retation of a decrease in pote ntial risks in correlation to

decreasing regulatory disc retion is justified.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-1 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 5. Cost Analysis

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents an estimate of the na tional costs of the Federal Requirements under

the Underground Injection Control (UIC ) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 

# ) Geologic

Sequestration (GS) Wells (the GS Rule), as well as a brief qualita tive discussion comparing costs

to the benefits anticipated to accrue as a result of the GS Rule. This national cost estimate,

prepared by the United States Environmental Prot ection Agency (EPA), is a summation of costs

to owners and operators of GS wells and to the permitting authorities for complying with and

implementing the GS Rule requirements. To develop this estimate, EPA calculated the

incremental cost for GS Rule components that expand current GS operating practices to mitigate

the risks to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) that ar e particular to injection of

CO 2 

# for the purposes of long-term storage. The GS Rule defines a new class of injection well

(Class VI), along with technica l criteria that tailor the ex isting UIC Program regulatory

framework to address the unique nature of CO 2 

# injection for long-term st orage in anticipation of

the eventual use of GS to reduce CO 2 

# emissions to the atmosphere. Technical components of the

GS Rule include geologic site characterizati on; area of review (AoR ) and corrective action;

injection well construction; injection well opera tion; mechanical integrity testing (MIT);

monitoring; well plugging, post-injection site care (PISC) and site closure; financial

responsibility; and emergenc y and remedial response.

Although the national costs estimated in this Co st Analysis are representative of costs

that EPA expects owners and operators and pe rmitting authorities to incur under the GS Rule,

assumptions were made to facilitate development of a reasonably simple, transparent model. The

cost model elements and assumptions therefore may not correspond directly with all rule

requirements; for example, the cost analysis makes assumptions about the number of monitoring

wells to be constructed although, in reality, the ow ners and operators and Director will determine

this requirement on a site specific basis. Th e GS Rule language for some components provides

for discretion on the part of the UIC Program Dir ector and for site specifi c variability, therefore

EPA has predicted how the Directors will apply this latitude for the purpose of estimating costs.

EPA considered the various hydroge ologic conditions that might pr evail in baseline projects and

the level of stringency in protective measures that Directors would perc eive as necessary for

measures that are less than prescriptive in the GS Rule.

The detailed descriptions and analyses presented in this chapter focus on the selected

regulatory alternative (Regulat ory Alternative 3, or RA3); how ever, assumptions and cost

estimates for the baseline (RA 0) and the othe r three RAs considered (RAs 1, 2, and 4) are

presented in the exhibits in this chapter. Increm ental costs with respect to the baseline are shown

for the selected RA as well as the other al ternatives considered during the regulatory

development process. In addition, some exhibits in clude cost elements that apply to at least one

alternative but not to the selected alternative, RA3. Furthermore, so me exhibits include costs that

correspond to activities that th e owners and operators will undertake under any regulatory

scenario (i.e., lease of land or pore space) but are outside the authority of the Safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA) and therefore are not attributable to the GS Rule; these are included in

estimates of total costs but not in the incremental rule costs.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-2 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Owner and operator costs are estimated based on the scale of CO 2 

# injection into the

subsurface and the type of formation serving as a reservoir. At the time of this rulemaking, EPA

anticipates the following types of GS projects will predominate in the near and predictable

future: pilot-scale projects in saline reservoirs and large-scale projects in saline and oil and gas

reservoirs. Permitting authority costs include a va riety of implementation and oversight activities

such as training, data system updates, primacy applications, permit reviews and approvals

(including waiver application revi ew), consultations, and report reviews (i.e., monitoring results),

as well as all associ ated recordkeeping.

EPA estimated owner and operator costs fo r the technical rule components using

equipment price lists and quotes, wage rates fr om government sources (e.g., Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS)) and industry sources, stakehol der input, and information developed for similar

analyses (e.g., the UIC Program Information Co llection Request (ICR)). The national costs are

estimated using a spreadsheet model specifically developed for the GS Rule. The main advantage

to this modeling approach is that it effectively captures point estimates of all cost information

and presents them in a transparent manner. This information forms the basis for examining

impacts of the GS Rule on owners and operators of GS wells.

The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows:

 Section 5.2 describes the general costing me thodology and compliance assumptions

used to estimate national costs for the GS Rule.

 Section 5.3 describes the methodology for projec ting costs over a 50-year period

according to the GS Rule compliance schedul e, estimating the present value of each

cost, and annualizing each cost over this period.

 Section 5.4 describes the methodology for developi ng costs for all rule components.

 Section 5.5 presents consumer cost estimates.

 Section 5.6 presents the total annualized costs for the GS Rule and compares them to

estimates for the other regulatory alternatives considered.

 Section 5.7 qualitatively compares the estimated costs for the GS Rule to the

anticipated benefits.

 Section 5.8 discusses other economic measures.

 Section 5.9 presents a discussion of non-quantified costs and uncertainties in cost.



# 5.2 General Cost Assump tions and Methodology

The GS Rule Cost Model incorporates severa l data elements, including unit costs for each

compliance activity, the baseline number of pr ojects deploying or in operation during each year

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-3 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# of the 50-year period of analysis, labor rate s (discussed in Section 5.2.1), and general and

administrative (G&A) costs (Section 5.2.2).

The cost model comprises the following compon ents: characteristic profiles for the five

types of projects that represent the 29 1 

# projects of the cost analys is baseline; unit costs for each

compliance activity; a site selection factor to account for the cost of geologic site

characterization of sites th at turn out to be unusable 2 

# ; an ER Applicability factor to account for

how costs apply differently to tr ansitioning GS projects (project s converting from existing Class

II enhanced recovery (ER) operations to long- term storage operations ) compared to saline

projects; an application factor 3 

# and a schedule specific to each RA for each compliance activity;

calculation of the costs for each compliance ac tivity in nondiscounted, present value, and

annualized dollars; and summation of these costs by rule component and by cost type (one-time,

capital, and operations and main tenance (O&M) expenditures).

The five project type profiles contain char acteristics that define each project type

represented in the 29 baseline projects, included in Appendix A to this Cost Analysis. Some of

these characteristics vary by reservoir formation: the depth of the inj ection zone (IZ) and the

primary containment formation are deepest in sa line formations, and shallower in oil and gas

reservoirs. Additionally, limited projects with an approved waiver to inje ct between USDWs are

likely to be shallower than those with inje ction zones below the lowermost USDW. Other

characteristics vary by the GS pr oject scale: the injection period for all pilot-scale projects is

assumed to be 4 years, and for large-scale saline projects is 40 years. The injection period for

existing Class II ER projects that plans to transi tion to a Class VI project for the primary purpose

of long-term storage is 10 years (after 20 y ears of Class II ER). The assumptions used in

developing the GS Rule baseline are described in Chapter 3 (B aseline Analysis) of the Cost

Analysis.

The model is based on an algorithm for each compliance activity, which multiplies the

unit cost by certain variables from the project ty pe profiles and by the f actors appropriate for a

given project type (RA applicati on factor, site selection factor, oil and gas reserv oir application

factor) to produce a project leve l cost (as opposed to a rule level cost) for each compliance

activity. Descriptions of the unit costs, application factors, an d algorithms developed in this

analysis are provided in Appendix B, and the detailed derivation a nd sources of the unit costs are

presented in the Geologic CO 2 

# Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis (EPA, 2010a).

The model then multiplies the project level cost for each compliance activity by the

corresponding schedule of incurrence to produce an annual rule cost for each compliance activity

1 

# This number does not represent 29 specific projects, but rather a modeled probability of projects that in total adds

up to 29. Due to the fractional probability of certain types of projects occurring at certain times, fractions of projects

will be referred to thought this chapter.

2 

# The site selection factor applies to only the geologic s ite characterization costs. For saline projects, the factor is

25%. This multiplies the geologic site characterization unit costs by four to account for the assumption that one out

of four sites that are geologically characterized is determin ed to be suitable for GS. Put another way, an operator will

on average have to characterize four sites to find one suitabl e one. For ER projects, the s ite selection factor is 100%

(all sites chosen for GS using ER sites are assumed to be suitable sites).

3 

# The application factor is a percentage between 0 and 100 percent that is EPA’s best estimate of the percentage of

owners and operators, or the extent to which all owners and operators, will engage in a given compliance activity; it

takes into account those aspects of the rule that allow fo r Director discretion and site specific variability, as well as

general trends in the methods or equipment used by the GS industry.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-4 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# in each of the 50 years in the analysis period. The model calculates thes e annual estimates in

nondiscounted dollars and in pres ent value and annualiz ed dollars discounted at both 3 percent

and 7 percent. The model then summarizes the GS Rule costs for these activities for the 50-year

period of analysis by rule component and furt her by cost type: one-time, capital, and O&M

expenditures.

Lastly, the model compares the baseline regul atory scenario (RA0) to each of the RAs

(RA1 – RA4) to derive the incremental costs attr ibuted to the GS Rule. The regulatory baseline,

for the purpose of this analysis, consists of EPA estimates of the decision s regarding GS projects

that permitting authorities as we ll as owners and operators woul d have made under current UIC

Program regulations. EPA assumes that, absent a GS Rule, permitting authorities would issue

permits with conditions that are similar in st ringency to those for Cl ass I industrial waste

disposal wells. A review of permits issued to early pilot-scale proj ects indicates that this is the

case. Current permits require that these proj ects have siting, cons truction, operating (i.e.,

injection below the lowermost USDW), and mon itoring and testing requirements that match

Class I requirements. Consistent with UIC Program Guidance # 83 (EPA, 2007)

, some of these

wells are classified as Class V experimental technology wells; however they have permit

conditions that meet the requireme nts of Class I non-hazardous wells.

5.2.1 Labor Rates

For costing purposes, EPA estimated the la bor needs and hourly labor rates for two

occupations: geoscientists and mining and geolog ical engineers (see Exhibit 5.1). EPA obtained

the rates for geoscientists from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists’ (AAPG’s)

2008-2009 annual salary survey. Assuming 15-19 year s of experience, the hourly rate is $67.02

(based on an annual salary of $139,400). 4 

# EPA obtained rates for mining and geological

engineers from the Society for Petroleum Engineers (SPE) annual survey. For a reservoir

engineer with 11-15 years of experience, the hourl y rate is $69.14 (based on an annual salary of

$143,800). 5 

# EPA multiplied these rates by a loading factor of 1.6, as suggested by EPA’s 2005

ICR Handbook , to account for overhead and benefits. Thus, the loaded labor rate for

geoscientists is $107.23, and the ra te for engineers is $110.62.

For this analysis, EPA assumed that the average hourly labor rate for a State employee is

$30.90, based on the BLS average hourly wage for workers in the life, physical, and social

science occupations in 2008. 6 

# This rate was multiplied by 1.6 to get a loaded rate of $49.44. The

base hourly labor rate for EPA Regions directly implementing the Class VI program in States

without primacy is $31.34. This rate is based on Fe deral employee pay scales issued by the U.S.

Office of Personnel and Management 7 

# (OPM) and was multiplied by 1.6 for a loaded rate of

$50.14.

4 

# http://www. aapg. org/expl orer/salarysurvey. cfm

5 

# Society for Petroleum Engineers Annu al Membership Salary Survey High light Report. Prepared by Western

Management Group. September 2008. p. 12

http://www. spe. org/spe-site/s pe/spe/career/salary_survey/08S alarySurveyHighlights. pdf

6 

# Occupational Employment and Wages, 2008. Table 1. Nati onal employment and wage data from the Occupational

Employment Statistics survey by occupation, May 2008. http://www. bls. gov/news. release/pdf/ocwage. pdf

7 

# Salary Table 2008-GS, Incorporating the 2. 5 Percent Ge neral Schedule Increase, Eff ective 2008. Hourly/Overtime

Rates by Grade and Step. Grade 12, Step 5. http://www. opm. gov/oca/08tables/html/gs_h. asp

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-5 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# In developing the permitting authority costs, EPA estimated that 32 of the 57, or 56%, of

States, Territories, and Tribes, that currently participate in the UIC Program will have primacy

for Class VI wells. EPA based this estimate on the number of states with existing Class II

programs because of the likelihood that oil and gas reservoirs will be used for the primary

purpose of long-term storage once oil and gas pr oduction has ceased plus additional States for

which GS projects are already planned or ope rating. Federal and Primacy Agency costs are

provided in Section 5.4.11.

Exhibit 5.1 Loaded Labor Rates by Stan dard Occupational Classification (SOC)

and Government Schedule Codes- 2008$

Source Occupation Mean Hourly Labor Rate

AAPG Geoscientist $107.23

SPE Mining & Geological Engineers $110.62

OPM Federal Employee, GS 12 - Step 5 $50.14

BLS State employee, life, physical, and

social sciences $49.44

Source: GS Cost Model



# 5.2.2 General and Administrative Costs

There are G&A costs that will be required durin g the life of the project that are incurred

in day to day operations for all owners and operators, such as the costs for computers,

telephones, lighting, office supplies, and maintena nce and periodic replacement of such items.

EPA estimates that G&A costs for the elec tric power generation, mining, and petroleum

industries are 20% on average for a ll costs; therefore, the cost model multiplies the subtotal for

each rule component by 1.20 to derive a total that includes G&A. The annualized costs for

owners and operators summarized by rule compone nt and by cost type include G&A costs.

Permitting authority costs associated with G&A ar e included in Agency and State labor rates;

thus, the annualized State/Agency totals also include G&A.



# 5.3 Projecting and Discounting National Costs

Cost estimates must be expressed in common units across the period of analysis so they

can be summed and annualized. For the GS Rule and each RA considered, some activities occur

once, such as the initial charac terization of the geologic formati ons of the project site. Other

activities, such as inj ectate analysis reports, will occur peri odically throughout each year, and

still others, such as mechanical integrity tests of the well or AoR reevaluations, are assumed to

occur annually or less frequently (dep ending on the RA) during operations.

Project level costs are projected over a 50-ye ar instead of a 25-y ear time period, as is

normally performed for EPA drinking water regula tions. EPA elected to increase the analysis

period to better reflect the lifecycl e costs of GS projects. These costs are present value (PV) costs

calculated using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent as recommended by Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) guidance. 8 

# However, to make the analysis results more comparable to the

8 

# The choice of an appropriate discount rate is a complex and controversial issue among economists and policy

makers. Therefore, EPA compares streams of future national level costs using two alternative discount rates, 3 and 7

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-6 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# majority of other SDWA rulemakings, the PV cost s for the 50-year analys is are then annualized

over just the first 25 years of that period. 9



# A summary of these adjustments is as follows:

 Project all nondiscounted project costs ove r a 50-year time horizon based on the

schedule for each compliance activity.

 Calculate total present valu e rule costs using 3 and 7 percent discount rates.

 Annualize the rule costs over 25 years using the same discount rates.

Appendix C contains results from each step a bove for the selected alternative (RA3) and

for RAs 0, 1, 2, and 4.



# 5.4 Derivation of Costs for Owners and Operators of GS Wells and the

Permitting Authority

This section presents the methodology and unit co sts used to derive pr oject and rule level

costs for owners and operators of GS wells and UIC Program Directors to perform the activities

required by the GS Rule, and a brief summary of the compliance activities comprising each rule

component. This section includes an administrative subsection (5.4.1) in addition to the technical

components introduced in Chapters 1, 2, and 4 of this Cost Analysis, shown below in subsections

5.4.2 – 5.4.11. A detailed summary of the GS Rule (Class VI) regulato ry requirements is

provided in Chapter 2 by rule component.

5.4.1 Rule Implementation and Annual Administration

5.4.2 Geologic Site Characterization

5.4.3 Area of Review and Corrective Action

5.4.4 Injection Well Construction

5.4.5 Injection Well Operation

5.4.6 Mechanical Integrity Testing

5.4.7 Monitoring

5.4.8 Well Plugging and Post-Injection Site Care

5.4.9 Financial Responsibility

5.4.10 Emergency and Remedial Response Plans

5.4.11 Permitting Authority Costs

percent. The underlying logic for each discount rate can be found in Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses

(EPA, 2000).

9 

# Annualizing 50 years of costs over just 25 years has the effect of making costs appear greater, but in this case most

costs are actually incurred over the fi rst 25 years so annualizing over that period avoids making costs appear

artificially low.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-7 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# This chapter uses information presented in Ch apter 3 as a starting point for analysis of

owners and operators of GS wells that are su bject to each rule com ponent and associated

compliance activities. Exhibit 5.2 presents data from the characteristic profile s of the five project

types, which are referenced thr oughout this section, and summari zes the operating variables that

drive costs for the baseline projects. For example, the cost associated with permit issuance is

uniform for all formation types, but costs related to storage capaci ty, depth of injection interval,

and storage efficiency are affected by the geolog y of the reservoir and containment formations.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-8 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.2 Project Characteristics By Formation Type and Size

Pilot Large Large

Waivered

Depth to Top of Injection

Interval (ft) 7,900 7,900 4,400 5,700 3,312

Depth to Bottom of

Injection Interval (ft) 8,500 8,500 5,000 5,800 3,412

Metric tonnes capacity at

100% storage efficiency 30,022,272 737,154,000 737,154,000 32,574,981 29,860,399

Storage efficiency 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 49.4% 49.4%

Injection Area (mi 2 

# ) 4 

# 0.9 23.3 23.8 8.4 8.2

Total Number of wells in

AoR 5 116 119 167 165

Injection Wells Required

(total) 3 4 4 17 16

Tubing Diameter (inches) 6 6 6 4 4

Depth of Stratigraphic

Tests (ft.) 2,400 9,350 5,500 6,380 6,380

Number of Monitoring

Wells above Injection

Zone 1 

# 1 6 9 23

Number of Monitoring

Wells into Injection Zone 1 

# 1 6 9 23

Depth of Monitoring

Wells 2 

# (feet) 5,783 5,783 4,783 4,192 3,266

Long-string Casing of

Monitoring Wells (diam.

inches) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

Injection Period (years) 3 

# 4 40 40 10 10

Source: Appendix A

Notes:

(5) Projects that receive approval of a waiver of the requirement to inject below the lowermost

USDW have reduced depth and a higher number of monitoring wells; this information is provided

in the pro forma sheets presented in Appendix A of this Cost Analysis. (3) GS projects in oil and gas reservoirs are assumed to operate for 30 years: 20 years under the

existing UIC class II well regulations while the site is still used primarily for oil/gas production,

and for the remaining 10 years under class VI for the primary purpose of long-term storage. This

cost analysis includes costs for ER projects beginning with their transition from production to GS,

i.e., 20 years into the 30 year injection period.

(4) The Injection Area is the size of the area estimated to encompass the plume throughout the

project lifecycle. 

# Type of Project

Saline

ER Characteristic

(1) The number of monitoring wells per site varies according to the RA and the size of the project

area assumed for a representative project. Shown are the required number of wells in the pro

forma of each project type for the selected RA (RA3).

(2) Well depths shown represent the typical (mean) monitoring well depth. Shown are the figures

for RA3. Under RA3 and RA4, one third of the monitoring wells would be drilled to the bottom of

the injection zone, while the other monitoring wells for RA3 and RA4, and all monitoring wells for

RA1 and RA2, would be drilled to a depth halfway between the bottom of the lowest USDW and

the top of the containment formation. Depth of monitoring wells for waivered projects reflects

borehole drilled below the IZ, which will include monitoring equipment in the same well for

monitoring both above and below IZ. 

# ER

Waivered

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-9 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Sections 5.4.1 – 5.4.10 give a brief overview and unit costs of the activities that comprise

each rule component. Section 5.4.11 provides a de scription of the compliance activities and

associated costs for permitting authorities. An im portant distinction to note about the figures

presented in Section 5.4 is that th ey provide both total and increm ental costs incurred by owners

and operators and the permitting authority during GS projects. The incremental, or rule, costs are

those costs incurred to comply with regulator y requirements beyond those currently practiced by

owners and operators of GS wells under exis ting UIC regulations fo r Class I non-hazardous

wells.

5.4.1 Rule Implementation and Annual Administration

All owners and operators of GS wells subjec t to the GS Rule will incur one-time costs

that include time for staff to become familiar wi th GS Rule provisions and to train employees on

these activities. Owners and operators of all 29 projects subject to the GS Rule will perform

implementation activities. The labor rates pr esented in Section 5.2.1 are used along with

estimates of labor hours to generate implementa tion costs for all owners and operators. Based on

previous experience with rule implementation, EP A estimates that each owner and operator will

require a total of 80 hours to read and understa nd the rule, and a total of 16 hours to train

personnel. These costs are included in the cost for filing a permit application, included in this

analysis in Injection Well Construction costs (s ee Section 5.4.4). Costs for enforcement of the

GS Rule are not included in this analysis but are understood to be the same for the rule as in the

baseline regulatory scenario, resulting in no additional incremental cost for the GS Rule.

5.4.2 Geologic Site Characterization

The primary purpose of geologic site characteri zation is to determine whether a site is

suitable and safe for injecti on and sequestration. The characte rization process includes site

evaluation and tests to support perm it applications. It also involve s the development of a baseline

for the conditions (pressure, temperature, CO 2 

# flux, etc.) in the AoR to allow long-term

monitoring to be successful. Geologic site charac terization is designed to provide the geologic

and hydrologic data needed to design the subs urface infrastructure, develop reservoir models,

and design a monitoring program.

Under the GS Rule, all owners and operators of GS wells subject to the GS Rule will

perform geologic site characterization in Year 1 of the project (not all projects will start at the

same time). It is assumed that not all sites charac terized will be suitable for GS; therefore a site

selection success factor has been applied to th e geologic site characte rization unit costs to

account for this extra cost. For saline projects, the analysis assumes th at one in four sites

characterized will be suitable for deployment. For sites transitioning from existing Class II

(primary purpose is ER) to Class VI (primary purpose is long-term storage), which are already

characterized as suitable for ER in advance of any effort for the purpose of GS, this analysis

assumes that all sites characteri zed for GS will be suitable. Exhibit 5.3 presents the owner and

operator burden and costs for the baseline, the GS Rule, and each RA considered for Geologic

Site Characterization unit cost s. The detailed calculations used to develop unit costs are

presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-10 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.3 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Geologic

Site Characterization (2008$)

Compliance Activity Labor

Cost

($/hour) Labor

Burden

(hours) Labor

Cost ($) Nonlabor

unit

Cost 1 

# Regulatory

Alternative Project Cost

Pilot Project

- Saline Project Cost

Large

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Project - ER Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project - ER

A B C = B* A D EFGH I J

RA0 25,736 $ 25,736 $ 51,471 $ - $ - $

RA1 6,434 $ 6,434 $ 12,868 $ - $ - $

RA2 12,868 $ 12,868 $ 25,736 $ - $ - $

RA3 25,736 $ 25,736 $ 51,471 $ - $ - $

RA4 25,736 $ 25,736 $ 51,471 $ - $ - $

RA0 197,177 $ 4,841,401 $ 9,910,969 $ 108,559 $ 214,071 $

RA1 98,589 $ 2,420,701 $ 4,955,485 $ 54,279 $ 107,036 $

RA2 197,177 $ 4,841,401 $ 9,910,969 $ 108,559 $ 214,071 $

RA3 295,766 $ 7,262,102 $ 14,866,454 $ 162,838 $ 321,107 $

RA4 394,354 $ 9,682,802 $ 19,821,939 $ 217,118 $ 428,143 $

RA0 19,302 $ 19,302 $ 38,604 $ - $ - $

RA1 6,434 $ 6,434 $ 12,868 $ - $ - $

RA2 12,868 $ 12,868 $ 25,736 $ - $ - $

RA3 25,736 $ 25,736 $ 51,471 $ - $ - $

RA4 25,736 $ 25,736 $ 51,471 $ - $ - $

RA0 11,660 $ 67,257 $ 137,246 $ 752 $ 1,490 $

RA1 11,660 $ 67,257 $ 137,246 $ 752 $ 1,490 $

RA2 11,660 $ 67,257 $ 137,246 $ 752 $ 1,490 $

RA3 11,660 $ 67,257 $ 137,246 $ 752 $ 1,490 $

RA4 11,660 $ 67,257 $ 137,246 $ 752 $ 1,490 $

RA0 10,294 $ 10,294 $ 20,589 $ 1,287 $ 2,574 $

RA1 10,294 $ 10,294 $ 20,589 $ 1,287 $ 2,574 $

RA2 10,294 $ 10,294 $ 20,589 $ 1,287 $ 2,574 $

RA3 10,294 $ 10,294 $ 20,589 $ 1,287 $ 2,574 $

RA4 10,294 $ 10,294 $ 20,589 $ 1,287 $ 2,574 $

RA0 25,736 $ 25,736 $ 51,471 $ 643 $ 1,287 $

RA1 25,736 $ 25,736 $ 51,471 $ 643 $ 1,287 $

RA2 25,736 $ 25,736 $ 51,471 $ 643 $ 1,287 $

RA3 38,604 $ 38,604 $ 77,207 $ 965 $ 1,930 $

RA4 51,471 $ 51,471 $ 102,943 $ 1,287 $ 2,574 $

RA0 205,800 $ 747,900 $ 895,200 $ 129,060 $ 258,120 $

RA1 205,800 $ 747,900 $ 895,200 $ 129,060 $ 258,120 $

RA2 205,800 $ 747,900 $ 895,200 $ 129,060 $ 258,120 $

RA3 411,600 $ 1,495,800 $ 1,790,400 $ 258,120 $ 516,240 $

RA4 823

, 200 $ 2

, 991

, 600 $ 3

, 580

, 800 $ 516

, 240 $ 1

, 032

, 480 $

RA0 10,294 $ 10,294 $ 20,589 $ 257 $ 515 $

RA1 10,294 $ 10,294 $ 20,589 $ 257 $ 515 $

RA2 10,294 $ 10,294 $ 20,589 $ 257 $ 515 $

RA3 10,294 $ 10,294 $ 20,589 $ 257 $ 515 $

RA4 10,294 $ 10,294 $ 20,589 $ 257 $ 515 $

RA0 12,868 $ 12,868 $ 51,471 $ 1,608 $ 6,434 $

RA1 6,434 $ 6,434 $ 25,736 $ 804 $ 3,217 $

RA2 6,434 $ 6,434 $ 25,736 $ 804 $ 3,217 $

RA3 25,736 $ 25,736 $ 102,943 $ 3,217 $ 12,868 $

RA4 25,736 $ 25,736 $ 102,943 $ 3,217 $ 12,868 $

RA0 36,036 $ 36,036 $ 108,107 $ 9,009 $ 27,027 $

RA1 36,036 $ 36,036 $ 108,107 $ 9,009 $ 27,027 $

RA2 72,071 $ 72,071 $ 216,214 $ 18,018 $ 54,054 $

RA3 72,071 $ 72,071 $ 216,214 $ 18,018 $ 54,054 $

RA4 144,143 $ 144,143 $ 432,428 $ 36,036 $ 108,107 $

RA0 4,879 $ 119,805 $ 245,255 $ 1,075 $ 2,119 $

RA1 4,879 $ 119,805 $ 245,255 $ 1,075 $ 2,119 $

RA2 4,879 $ 119,805 $ 245,255 $ 1,075 $ 2,119 $

RA3 4,879 $ 119,805 $ 245,255 $ 1,075 $ 2,119 $

RA4 4,879 $ 119,805 $ 245,255 $ 1,075 $ 2,119 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 4,879 $ 119,805 $ 245,255 $ 1,075 $ 2,119 $

RA4 4,879 $ 119,805 $ 245,255 $ 1,075 $ 2,119 $

RA0 3,659 $ 89,853 $ 183,941 $ 806 $ 1,589 $

RA1 3,659 $ 89,853 $ 183,941 $ 806 $ 1,589 $

RA2 3,659 $ 89,853 $ 183,941 $ 806 $ 1,589 $

RA3 3,659 $ 89,853 $ 183,941 $ 806 $ 1,589 $

RA4 14,638 $ 359,414 $ 735,766 $ 3,224 $ 6,357 $

RA0 102,943 $ 102,943 $ 257,357 $ 25,736 $ 64,339 $

RA1 102,943 $ 102,943 $ 257,357 $ 25,736 $ 64,339 $

RA2 102,943 $ 102,943 $ 257,357 $ 25,736 $ 64,339 $

RA3 102,943 $ 102,943 $ 257,357 $ 25,736 $ 64,339 $

RA4 102,943 $ 102,943 $ 257,357 $ 25,736 $ 64,339 $

Source: GS Cost Model

Notes:

(1) Some cost components include labor burden that is not explicitly shown here.

Sources:

(A) Owner and operator labor cost from Exhibit 5.1.

(B), (D) Owner and operator burden and non-labor unit cost estimates reflect EPA's best professional judgment.

(F)-(J) Nondiscounted Project level cost estimates from final GS Rule cost model, which are also presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis. 

# N/A N/A $6,434

Conduct 3D seismic survey to

identify faults and fractures in primary

and secondary containment units.

N/A $100,000

/ square

mile Develop maps and cross sections of

local geologic structure.

$107.23 60 N/A

N/A

60

Obtain data on area, thickness,

capacity, porosity and permeability of

receiving formations and confining

systems.

$12,868 24

$107.23

N/A

$107.23 $2,574

12 hours/

square

mile

N/A N/A Obtain and analyze seismic

(earthquake) history.

Remote (aerial) survey of land, land

uses, structures etc. $107.23

N/A $400/squ

are mile

$3,000/si

te $6,434

Obtain geomechanical information on

fractures, stress, rock strength, in

situ fluid pressures (from existing

data and literature). 120

$6,434

(E) As described in Section 5.2, application factors represent the Agency's best estimate of the percentage of projects to whic h a given activity is expected to apply, or the extent to

which each project under a given alternative is expected to engage in the activity (see Section 5.2). 

# $25,736Provide information on water-rockCO2 geochemistry and mineral

reactions. $107.23

Develop list of penetrations into

injection zone within AoR (from well

history data bases). $25,736 $10,000/

site

12 hours/

square

mile $107.23 N/A

N/A

N/A $2,574 N/A

N/A $75/ foot

(depth)

$3,000/c

ore

240 60 Provide geochemical information and

maps/cross section on subsurface

aquifers. $107.23 List names and depth of all

potentially affected Underground

Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs). N/A

$107.23 Obtain geomechanical information on

fractures, stress, rock strength, in

situ fluid pressures (new cores and

tests). N/A

24

N/A $1,287/

square

mile $1,287/

square

mile

N/A $3,860/

square

mile N/A

Develop list of penetrations into

containment systems within AoR

(from well history data bases). $107.23

Prepare geologic characterization

report demonstrating: suitability of

receiving zone, storage capacity and

injectivity, trapping mechanism free of

nonsealing faults, competent

confining system, etc. $107.23 240 Develop list of water wells within AoR

(from public data). $107.23 36 hours/

square

mile

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-11 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 5.4.2.1 Annualized Costs for Geolog ic Site Characterization

Annualized costs for owners and operators unde r the geologic site characterization rule

component for the baseline and RAs 1- 4 are presented in Exhibit 5.4.

Exhibit 5.4 Owner and Operator Cost Estimates for Geologic Site

Characterization – Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate

($Millions, 2008$)

3% 7%

Baseline 3.69 $ 4.59 $

RA1 2.48 $ 3.06 $

Incremental RA1 (1.21) $ (1.53) $

RA2 4.10 $ 5.09 $

Incremental RA2 0.41 $ 0.50 $

RA3 6.34 $ 7.87 $

Incremental RA3 2.65 $ 3.28 $

RA4 8.40 $ 10.39 $

Incremental RA4 4.71 $ 5.80 $ Regulatory

Alternative Discount Rate

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.67/C.68



# 5.4.3 Area of Review and Corrective Action

Owners and operators of GS wells will use computational models to determine, in three

dimensions, the extent of the AoR. The mode ls will account for the physical and chemical

properties of all phases of the injected CO 2 

# and the associated pressure front and will be based on

information collected on site during geologic si te characterization and during development of

estimates for operating conditions.

Owners and operators must identify all wells within the AoR that penetrate the injection

zone or confining zone and determine which need to be addressed through appropriate corrective

action. Old wells may provide condu its for the escape of injected CO 2 

# or formation fluids into

overlying units or USDWs. In the case of salin e formations, there may be few if any existing

wellbores; however, in oil and gas reservoirs there will likely be many existing wellbores.

Corrective action on wells in the AoR may i nvolve the removal of existing plugs and

casing strings, and recompleting the we ll. This may involve the use of CO 2 

# resistant cements in

portions of the well.

It is assumed that each well owner and operato r will need to remediate 10 percent of old

wells within the AoR. AoR costs will be incurred in Year 1 of each project, before the injection

wells are put online, and at re curring intervals as the AoR is re-evaluated and potentially

expanded or where phased corrective action is al lowed. (The recurring cost for updating the AoR

using computational models of CO 2 

# fluid flows is included in th e ongoing costs for monitoring in

Section 5.4.7). Exhibit 5.5 presents the owner and operator burden and costs for the baseline, the

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-12 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# GS Rule, and each RA considered for AoR and Corrective Action unit costs. The detailed

calculations used to develop un it costs are presented in Appe ndix C of the Cost Analysis.

Exhibit 5.5 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for AoR and

Corrective Action (2008$)

Compliance Activity Labor Cost

($/hour) Labor

Burden

(hours) Labor Cost

($) Non-labor

unit Cost 1 

# Regulatory

Alternative Project Cost

Pilot Project

- Saline Project Cost

Large

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Project - ER Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project - ER

A B C = B* A D EFGH I J

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 3,982 $ 4,646 $ 4,646 $ 13,275 $ 12,611 $

RA2 3,982 $ 4,646 $ 4,646 $ 13,275 $ 12,611 $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 27,877 $ 30,532 $ 30,532 $ 65,047 $ 62,392 $

RA1 13,939 $ 15,266 $ 15,266 $ 32,523 $ 31,196 $

RA2 13,939 $ 15,266 $ 15,266 $ 32,523 $ 31,196 $

RA3 27,877 $ 30,532 $ 30,532 $ 65,047 $ 62,392 $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 31,860 $ 35,842 $ 35,842 $ 87,614 $ 83,632 $

RA0 4,435 $ 78,285 $ 80,099 $ 2,892 $ 2,853 $

RA1 4,435 $ 78,285 $ 80,099 $ 2,892 $ 2,853 $

RA2 4,435 $ 78,285 $ 80,099 $ 2,892 $ 2,853 $

RA3 4,435 $ 78,285 $ 80,099 $ 2,892 $ 2,853 $

RA4 17,742 $ 313,141 $ 320,397 $ 11,568 $ 11,413 $

RA0 3,203 $ 18,023 $ 18,387 $ 9,126 $ 9,001 $

RA1 3,203 $ 18,023 $ 18,387 $ 9,126 $ 9,001 $

RA2 3,203 $ 18,023 $ 18,387 $ 9,126 $ 9,001 $

RA3 3,203 $ 18,023 $ 18,387 $ 9,126 $ 9,001 $

RA4 3,203 $ 18,023 $ 18,387 $ 9,126 $ 9,001 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 2,517 $ 61,797 $ 63,253 $ 2,217 $ 2,186 $

RA0 19,879 $ 488,097 $ 499,599 $ 877,823 $ 865,507 $

RA1 19,879 $ 488,097 $ 499,599 $ 877,823 $ 865,507 $

RA2 19,879 $ 488,097 $ 499,599 $ 877,823 $ 865,507 $

RA3 19,879 $ 488,097 $ 499,599 $ 877,823 $ 865,507 $

RA4 19,879 $ 488,097 $ 499,599 $ 877,823 $ 865,507 $

RA0 7,455 $ 183,036 $ 374,699 $ 329,184 $ 649,130 $

RA1 7,455 $ 183,036 $ 374,699 $ 329,184 $ 649,130 $

RA2 7,455 $ 183,036 $ 374,699 $ 329,184 $ 649,130 $

RA3 14,909 $ 366,073 $ 749,398 $ 658,367 $ 1,298,260 $

RA4 14,909 $ 366,073 $ 749,398 $ 658,367 $ 1,298,260 $

Source: GS Cost Model

Notes:

(1) Some cost components include labor burden that is not explicitly shown here.

Sources:

(A) Owner and operator labor cost from Exhibit 5.1.

(B), (D) Owner and operator burden and non-labor unit cost estimates reflect EPA's best professional judgment.

(F)-(J) N ondiscounted Project level cost estimates from final GS Rule cost model, which are also presented in Appendix C of the Cost Ana lysis. 

# N/A N/A

$54,000/oil

or gas well

$20,000/wa

ter well N/A

N/A $664/ well

N/A N/A

N/A $110.62 N/A

N/A $5,000/site

$12,800/sq

are mile $19,912/

site +

$3,982/

injection

well 180

hours/site

36

hours/inject

ion well

N/A $54,000/oil

or gas well

$20,000/wa

ter well Evaluate integrity of construction and

record of completion and/or plugging

of existing shallow wells that pose a

threat to USDWs. Evaluate integrity of construction and

record of completion and/or plugging

of existing wells that penetrate

containment system.

Remediate old wells in AoR that

pose a risk to USDWs. Use two

cement plugs: one in producing

formation and one for surface to

bottom of USDWs, fill the remainder

of the borehole with mud.

Remediate old wells in AoR that lack

high quality cementing information.

Use two cement plugs: one in

producing formation and one for

surface to bottom of USDWs, fill the

remainder of the borehole with mud. 24

hours/site

6 hours/well $110.62 $2,655/ site

+ $664/

well Aerial search for old wells (artificial

penetrations). This includes

helicopter magnetic survey and follow

up ground survey.

(E) As described in Section 5.2, application factors represent the Agency's best estimate of the percentage of projects to whic h a given activity is expected to apply, or the extent to which each

project under a given alternative is expected to engage in the activity (see Section 5.2). 

# 36

hours/site

12

hours/inject

ion well N/A

$19,912/

site +

$2,655/

injection

well N/A

6 hours/well

N/A N/A $3,982/ site

+ $1,327/

injection

well

180

hours/site

24

hours/inject

ion well

Complex modeling of CO2 fluid flows

and migration (reservoir simulations)

over 10,000 years. $110.62 Complex modeling of CO2 fluid flows

and migration (reservoir simulations)

over 100 years. $110.62 Simple fluid flow calculations to

predict CO2 fluid flow.

$110.62



# 5.4.3.1 Annualized Costs for Area of Review and Corrective Action

Annualized costs for owners and operators under the AoR and Corrective Action rule

component for the baseline and RAs 1- 4 are presented in Exhibit 5.6.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-13 July 2010

Final GS Rule



# Exhibit 5.6 Owner and Operator Cost Estimates for AoR and Corrective Action –

Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$)

3% 7%

Baseline 1.09 $ 0.98 $

RA1 1.14 $ 1.04 $

Incremental RA1 0.06 $ 0.05 $

RA2 1.14 $ 1.04 $

Incremental RA2 0.06 $ 0.05 $

RA3 1.45 $ 1.31 $

Incremental RA3 0.37 $ 0.33 $

RA4 1.54 $ 1.45 $

Incremental RA4 0.46 $ 0.47 $ Re g ulator y Alternative Discount Rate

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.67/C.68



# 5.4.4 Injection Well Construction

The technologies for drilling and equipping oil and gas wells and injection wells are well

established. Advanced technologies are being developed and used across the country to enhance

the production of oil and gas. These include hor izontal drilling and multi-stage fracturing in

shale formations, high tech stimulation and co mpletion methods in tight gas reservoirs, and

directional and deepwater wells offshore. Many ER projects using CO 2 

# are now active,

especially in the Permian Basin of West Texa s, and technologies have been developed to

complete, produce, and maintain injection a nd production wells using this medium for long

periods of time.

The design of a GS injection well is similar to that of a conventiona l gas injection well or

a gas storage well, with the ex ception that much of the down-hol e equipment must be upgraded

for high pressure and corrosion resistance (IP CC, 2005). Upgrades include special casing and

tubing, safety valves, cements, and blowout prev enters. GS well owners and operators must

construct their injection wells using materials and cements that are compatible with the CO 2 

# stream and/or other fluids with which they may come into contact. EPA assumes in this analysis

that under RA1 and RA2 owners a nd operators would inject belo w the lowermost USDW, except

for in limited cases when a waiver of this requirement was approved, as discussed further in

Chapter 4, Section 4.2.4 with regard to RA3. Capital costs of injection well construction will be

incurred by GS well owners and operators in Year 1 of each project, before injection begins.

Owners and operators of GS wells will need to obtain the right of way for surface use for

injection and monitoring wells, and for subsurf ace or pore space use. While subsurface and pore

space rights are an expense that is outside the au thority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

and therefore are not attributable to the GS Rule, they are included in the analysis because they

are part of the total cost of a GS project, but in incremental (bas eline minus RA), they are zero.

These one-time costs will be incurred by GS well owners and operators prior to commencing the

project, in Year 1 of the project.

Each owner and operator will have to apply for a UIC Program permit for their well. The

permit application is complex and often include s several volumes of ge ologic data, maps and

cross sections, schematics, monitoring and testin g plans, and plans for well plugging, PISC, and

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-14 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# emergency and remedial response. The Geologic CO 2 

# Sequestration Technology and Cost

Analysis (EPA, 2010a) describes all of the documenta tion included in the permit application.

Facility construction permits will also be neces sary for air emissions and water use incurred

during construction. Also in cluded in this item is the develo pment of a corrosion control program

for the well. Owners and operators are assumed to in cur this cost in Year 1 of the project, before

well construction begins.

Owners and operators will need to install m onitoring equipment on each injection well to

monitor injected volume, pressure, flow rate, and annulus pressure. Owners and operators will

incur the costs of installing the monitoring equipm ent during Year 1 of the project, as wells are

being constructed.

To meet the GS Rule requirements, owners and operators will be required to monitor

ground water quality above the confining zone to veri fy isolation of the injection fluid. To this

end, owners and operators will be required to construct one monitoring well above the injection

zone per two square miles of AOR; for monitori ng wells into the injection zone, the Agency

assumes one monitoring well per four square mi les. EPA assumes monitoring wells into the

injection zone will also be used to sample a bove the injection zone. (see Exhibit 5.2 for the

numbers for RA3). As is the case with injec tion wells, costs for monitoring wells are well

established in the industry. Capital costs for mon itoring wells will be incurred in Year 1 of each

project, as the wells are being constructed.

Owners and operators will also need to build onsite pipelines to conduct the CO 2 

# from the

distribution piping to the injecti on well. The basis for these cost s is well understood because they

are used in the oil and gas indus try. It is estimated that the av erage saline formation GS project

site will need to install 48 inch-miles of pipelin e, and the average oil a nd gas reservoir project

will need to install 105 in ch-miles of pipeline. CO 2 

# pipeline costs are predominantly capital costs

and will be incurred in Year 1 of each project. As with lease costs, the pipeline costs are outside

the scope of the SDWA and are not attributable to the GS Rule; th ey are included in total project

costs for completeness, but on an incremental (rule) basis they are zero.

Exhibit 5.7 presents the owner and operator burden and costs for the baseline, the GS

Rule, and each RA considered for Injection Well Construction unit costs. The detailed

calculations used to develop un it costs are presented in Appendi x C of the Cost Analysis.

# Exhibit 5.7 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Injection

Well Construction (2008$)

Labor

Cost

($/hour) Labor

Burden

(hours) Labor

Cost ($) Non-labor

unit Cost 1 

# Regulatory

Alternative Project Cost

Pilot Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large Project

-

Saline P ro j ect C ost

Large

Waivered

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large Project

-

ER Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project - ER

A B C = B* A D EFGH I J

RA0 337,410 $ 380,880 $ 380,880 $ 945,990 $ 902,520 $

RA1 337,410 $ 380,880 $ 380,880 $ 945,990 $ 902,520 $

RA2 337,410 $ 380,880 $ 380,880 $ 945,990 $ 902,520 $

RA3 337,410 $ 380,880 $ 380,880 $ 945,990 $ 902,520 $

RA4 337,410 $ 380,880 $ 380,880 $ 945,990 $ 902,520 $

RA0 62,100 $ 82,800 $ 82,800 $ 175,950 $ 165,600 $

RA1 62,100 $ 82,800 $ 82,800 $ 175,950 $ 165,600 $

RA2 62,100 $ 82,800 $ 82,800 $ 175,950 $ 165,600 $

RA3 62,100 $ 82,800 $ 82,800 $ 175,950 $ 165,600 $

RA4 62,100 $ 82,800 $ 82,800 $ 175,950 $ 165,600 $

RA0 31,548 $ 774,624 $ 792,878 $ 208,433 $ 205,508 $

RA1 31,548 $ 774,624 $ 792,878 $ 208,433 $ 205,508 $

RA2 31,548 $ 774,624 $ 792,878 $ 208,433 $ 205,508 $

RA3 31,548 $ 774,624 $ 792,878 $ 208,433 $ 205,508 $

RA4 31,548 $ 774,624 $ 792,878 $ 208,433 $ 205,508 $

RA0 123,023 $ 585,213 $ 596,566 $ 276,259 $ 273,834 $

RA1 123,023 $ 585,213 $ 596,566 $ 276,259 $ 273,834 $

RA2 123,023 $ 585,213 $ 596,566 $ 276,259 $ 273,834 $

RA3 123,023 $ 585,213 $ 596,566 $ 276,259 $ 273,834 $

RA4 123,023 $ 585,213 $ 596,566 $ 276,259 $ 273,834 $

RA0 28,400 $ 34,400 $ 103,200 $ 64,400 $ 187,200 $

RA1 28,400 $ 34,400 $ 103,200 $ 64,400 $ 187,200 $

RA2 28,400 $ 34,400 $ 103,200 $ 64,400 $ 187,200 $

RA3 28,400 $ 34,400 $ 103,200 $ 64,400 $ 187,200 $

RA4 28,400 $ 34,400 $ 103,200 $ 64,400 $ 187,200 $

RA0 7,189,653 $ 9,586,205 $ 4,647,171 $ 2,406,404 $ 1,332,265 $

RA1 7,189,653 $ 9,586,205 $ 4,647,171 $ 2,406,404 $ 1,332,265 $

RA2 7,189,653 $ 9,586,205 $ 4,647,171 $ 2,406,404 $ 1,332,265 $

RA3 7,189,653 $ 9,586,205 $ 4,647,171 $ 2,406,404 $ 1,332,265 $

RA4 7,189,653 $ 9,586,205 $ 4,647,171 $ 2,406,404 $ 1,332,265 $

RA0 175,950 $ 234,600 $ 138,000 $ 453,560 $ 251,106 $

RA1 43,988 $ 58,650 $ 34,500 $ 113,390 $ 62,776 $

RA2 175,950 $ 234,600 $ 138,000 $ 453,560 $ 251,106 $

RA3 175,950 $ 234,600 $ 138,000 $ 453,560 $ 251,106 $

RA4 175,950 $ 234,600 $ 138,000 $ 453,560 $ 251,106 $

RA0

- $

- $

- $

- $

- $

RA1

- $

- $

- $

- $

- $

RA2 481,913 $ 642,550 $ 814,500 $

- $

- $

RA3 481,913 $ 642,550 $ 814,500 $

- $

- $

RA4 718,875 $ 958,500 $ 1,215,000 $

- $

- $

RA0 27,900 $ 37,200 $ 120,000 $

- $

- $

RA1 27,900 $ 37,200 $ 120,000 $

- $

- $

RA2 27,900 $ 37,200 $ 120,000 $

- $

- $

RA3 111,600 $ 148,800 $ 480,000 $

- $

- $

RA4 111,600 $ 148,800 $ 480,000 $

- $

- $

RA0 6,975 $ 9,300 $ 30,000 $

- $

- $

RA1 6,975 $ 9,300 $ 30,000 $

- $

- $

RA2 27,900 $ 37,200 $ 120,000 $

- $

- $

RA3 27,900 $ 37,200 $ 120,000 $

- $

- $

RA4 27,900 $ 37,200 $ 120,000 $

- $

- $

RA0

- $

- $

- $

- $

- $

RA1

- $

- $

- $

- $

- $

RA2

- $

- $

- $

- $

- $

RA3

- $

- $

- $

- $

- $

RA4

- $

- $

- $

- $

- $

RA0 512,071 $ 1,187,640 $ 1,187,640 $ 1,316,124 $ 1,215,072 $

RA1 512,071 $ 1,187,640 $ 1,187,640 $ 1,316,124 $ 1,215,072 $

RA2 512,071 $ 1,187,640 $ 1,187,640 $ 1,316,124 $ 1,215,072 $

RA3 512,071 $ 1,187,640 $ 1,187,640 $ 1,316,124 $ 1,215,072 $

RA4 512,071 $ 1,187,640 $ 1,187,640 $ 1,316,124 $ 1,215,072 $

RA0 86,508 $ 166,379 $ 166,379 $ 273,515 $ 253,383 $

RA1 86,508 $ 166,379 $ 166,379 $ 273,515 $ 253,383 $

RA2 86,508 $ 166,379 $ 166,379 $ 273,515 $ 253,383 $

RA3 86,508 $ 166,379 $ 166,379 $ 273,515 $ 253,383 $

RA4 86,508 $ 166,379 $ 166,379 $ 273,515 $ 253,383 $ N/ A

N/

A

N/

A

N/

A N/

A

N/

A N/

A

N/

A

N/

A N/A N/ A

N/

A $50/acre

$10,000/sit

e

$6,000/inje

ction well

$210-

$280/foot

(depth)

down to

9,000 feet

N/A

N/A UIC permit filing, including

preparation of attachments (see

T&C Document for detail )

.

N/A N/A

Injection pressure limited to 90%

of fracture pressure of injection

formation. N/A N/A

$500*(maxi

mum tons

per day

in j ected/we $20,000/w

ell site

$1,500/HP

of p um p

N/

A

Wellhead and Control E q ui p ment. N/A N/A Land use, air emissions, water

dischar g e p ermits.

$1.10/foot

(length)-

inch(diame

ter ) $100,000/s

ite

$20,000/sq

. mile N/A N/ A

N/

A N/A

N/A

Pum p s. N/A N/A N/A N/A

Standard injection well cost (from

look u p table )

. Lease rights for subsurface (pore

space) use. Additional injection

fees are included under O&M

costs. N/A N/A

N/A Com p liance Activit y

Conduct front-end engineering and

design (general and injection

wells), pre-op logging, sampling,

and testing. Includes baseline

p ressure fall-off test. $200,000/s

ite

$40,000/inj

ection well

Obtain rights-of-way for surface

uses (equipment, injection wells).

Pipeline rights-of-way are included

in pipeline costs. Half of cost is

legal fees for developer, other half

is p a y ment to landowner. N/A N/A $20,000/inj

ection well

N/A N/A Corrosion resistant tubin g . N / A

Cement well from surface through

base of lowermost USDW and

throu g hout in j ection zone. N/A Corrosion resistant casing: low

alloy for RA2 and RA3, high alloy

for RA4. RA 2 & 3:

$1.75/foot

(length) -

inch

( diameter )

adds 25%

to total

cementing

cost $1.15/foot

(length) -

inch

( diameter )

Use CO2-resistant cement. N/A



# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-15 July 2010

Final GS Rule

# Labor

Cost

($/hour) Labor

Burden

(hours) Labor

Cost ($) Non-labor

unit Cost 1 

# Regulatory

Alternative Project Cost

Pilot Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large Project

-

Saline P ro j ect C ost

Large

Waivered

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large Project

-

ER Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project - ER

A B C = B* A D EFGH I J

RA0 671,497 $ 4,004,349 $ 4,051,254 $ 4,929,421 $ 4,763,220 $

RA1 671,497 $ 4,004,349 $ 4,051,254 $ 4,929,421 $ 4,763,220 $

RA2 671,497 $ 4,004,349 $ 4,051,254 $ 4,929,421 $ 4,763,220 $

RA3 671,497 $ 4,004,349 $ 4,051,254 $ 4,929,421 $ 4,763,220 $

RA4 671,497 $ 4,004,349 $ 4,051,254 $ 4,929,421 $ 4,763,220 $

Notes:

(1) Some cost components include labor burden that is not explicitly shown here.

Sources:

(A) Owner and operator labor cost from Exhibit 5.1.

(B), (D) Owner and operator burden and non-labor unit cost estimates reflect EPA's best professional judgment.

(F)-(J) Nondiscounted Project level cost estimates from final GS Ru le cost model, which are also presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis. (E) As described in Section 5.2, application factors represent t he Agency's best estimate of the percentage of projects to whic h a given activity is expected to apply, or the extent to which each project

under a given alternative is expected to engage in the activity (see Section 5.2). 

# N/A N/A N/ A $80,000/in

ch

(diameter)

-

mile

( len g th ) All elements of p i p eline costs. Com p liance Activit y

Source: GS Cost Model



# 5.4.4.1 Annualized Costs for Injection Well Construction

Annualized costs for owners and operato rs under the injectio n well construction

component for the baseline and RAs 1- 4 are presented in Exhibit 5.8.

Exhibit 5.8 Owner and Operator Cost Es timates for Injection Well Construction –

Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$)

3% 7%

Baseline 16.16 $ 17.03 $

RA1 16.51 $ 17.43 $

Incremental RA1 0.36 $ 0.40 $

RA2 17.27 $ 18.28 $

Incremental RA2 1.11 $ 1.25 $

RA3 17.35 $ 18.39 $

Incremental RA3 1.20 $ 1.35 $

RA4 16.88 $ 17.94 $

Incremental RA4 0.72 $ 0.91 $ Re g ulator y Alternative Discount Rate

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.67/C.68



# 5.4.5 Injection Well Operation

Owners and operators will incur annual cost s for operating the inje ction and monitoring

wells beginning in Year 2 of th e project and will continue to in cur these costs th roughout the life

of the injection period. Throughout injection, owners and operators will need to monitor

injection rates, pressures, and volumes to assu re that the well is ope rating within permitted

parameters and does not fracture the injecti on zone. Other operating costs include regular

maintenance of the well, electric costs for the pu mps, land leases, insurance, providing reports to

regulators, and contributions to a long-term monitoring, insura nce, and remediation fund in

proportion to the amount of CO 2 

# injected. EPA assumes that under RA1, RA2, and RA3, owners

and operators would inject below the lowerm ost USDW, except for in limited cases when a

waiver of this requirement was approved. This is discussed further in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.4.

Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-16 July 2010

Final GS Rule

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-17 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# At the director’s discretion, owners and operators must al so install down-hole devices

(automatic shut-offs, check valves, or other, the se lection of which is site specific and subject to

the Director’s discretion) that allow the well to be shut-in or injecti on stopped if conditions

become unsafe or well integrity fails. Down- hole devices are required for all offshore wells

located in State Territorial waters. Most dow n-hole monitoring costs will be capital costs and

will be incurred in Year 1 of each project. This equipment, which is co-installed with monitoring

devices, is accounted for under Section 5.4.7, Monitoring.

Exhibit 5.9 presents the owner and operator burden and costs for the baseline, the GS

Rule, and each RA considered for Injection We ll Operation unit costs. The detailed calculations

used to develop unit costs are presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-18 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.9 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Well

Operation (2008$)

Compliance Activity Labor Cost

($/hour) Labor

Burden

(hours) Labor Cost

($) Non-labor

unit Cost 1 

# Regulatory

Alternative Project Cost

Pilot Project

- Saline Project Cost

Large

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Project - ER Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project - ER

A B C = B* A D EFGHI J

RA0 664 $ 664 $ 664 $ 664 $ 664 $

RA1 664 $ 664 $ 664 $ 664 $ 664 $

RA2 1,327 $ 1,327 $ 1,327 $ 1,327 $ 1,327 $

RA3 2,655 $ 2,655 $ 2,655 $ 2,655 $ 2,655 $

RA4 2,655 $ 2,655 $ 2,655 $ 2,655 $ 2,655 $

RA0 1,417 $ 1,889 $ 1,889 $ 8,027 $ 7,555 $

RA1 1,417 $ 1,889 $ 1,889 $ 8,027 $ 7,555 $

RA2 2,833 $ 3,777 $ 3,777 $ 16,054 $ 15,110 $

RA3 5,666 $ 7,555 $ 7,555 $ 32,109 $ 30,220 $

RA4 5,666 $ 7,555 $ 7,555 $ 32,109 $ 30,220 $

RA0 46,500 $ 62,000 $ 62,000 $ 263,500 $ 248,000 $

RA1 46,500 $ 62,000 $ 62,000 $ 263,500 $ 248,000 $

RA2 46,500 $ 62,000 $ 62,000 $ 263,500 $ 248,000 $

RA3 46,500 $ 62,000 $ 62,000 $ 263,500 $ 248,000 $

RA4 46,500 $ 62,000 $ 62,000 $ 263,500 $ 248,000 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 7,800 $ 10,400 $ 10,400 $ 44,200 $ 41,600 $

RA3 7,800 $ 10,400 $ 10,400 $ 44,200 $ 41,600 $

RA4 15,600 $ 20,800 $ 20,800 $ 88,400 $ 83,200 $

RA0 142,666 $ 350,296 $ 350,296 $ 305,713 $ 280,236 $

RA1 142,666 $ 350,296 $ 350,296 $ 305,713 $ 280,236 $

RA2 142,666 $ 350,296 $ 350,296 $ 305,713 $ 280,236 $

RA3 142,666 $ 350,296 $ 350,296 $ 305,713 $ 280,236 $

RA4 142,666 $ 350,296 $ 350,296 $ 305,713 $ 280,236 $

RA0 311,550 $ 415,400 $ 372,000 $ 1,623,160 $ 1,409,224 $

RA1 311,550 $ 415,400 $ 372,000 $ 1,623,160 $ 1,409,224 $

RA2 311,550 $ 415,400 $ 372,000 $ 1,623,160 $ 1,409,224 $

RA3 311,550 $ 415,400 $ 372,000 $ 1,623,160 $ 1,409,224 $

RA4 311,550 $ 415,400 $ 372,000 $ 1,623,160 $ 1,409,224 $

RA0 3,155 $ 77,462 $ 79,288 $ 27,791 $ 27,401 $

RA1 3,155 $ 77,462 $ 79,288 $ 27,791 $ 27,401 $

RA2 3,155 $ 77,462 $ 79,288 $ 27,791 $ 27,401 $

RA3 3,155 $ 77,462 $ 79,288 $ 27,791 $ 27,401 $

RA4 3,155 $ 77,462 $ 79,288 $ 27,791 $ 27,401 $

RA0 270,200 $ 663,439 $ 663,439 $ 579,001 $ 530,751 $

RA1 270,200 $ 663,439 $ 663,439 $ 579,001 $ 530,751 $

RA2 270,200 $ 663,439 $ 663,439 $ 579,001 $ 530,751 $

RA3 270,200 $ 663,439 $ 663,439 $ 579,001 $ 530,751 $

RA4 270,200 $ 663,439 $ 663,439 $ 579,001 $ 530,751 $

RA0 265,328 $ 502,925 $ 384,826 $ 296,935 $ 253,846 $

RA1 265,174 $ 541,926 $ 454,403 $ 294,084 $ 259,864 $

RA2 284,452 $ 567,630 $ 485,012 $ 305,856 $ 266,988 $

RA3 328,058 $ 765,830 $ 638,672 $ 347,748 $ 306,313 $

RA4 335,824 $ 777,616 $ 652,994 $ 350,045 $ 308,521 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 9,382 $ 23,036 $ 23,036 $ 20,104 $ 18,429 $

RA3 9,382 $ 23,036 $ 23,036 $ 20,104 $ 18,429 $

RA4 18,764 $ 46,072 $ 46,072 $ 40,208 $ 36,858 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 88,443 $ 167,642 $ 128,275 $ 98,978 $ 84,615 $

RA1 88,391 $ 180,642 $ 151,468 $ 98,028 $ 86,621 $

RA2 94,817 $ 189,210 $ 161,671 $ 101,952 $ 88,996 $

RA3 109,353 $ 255,277 $ 212,891 $ 115,916 $ 102,104 $

RA4 111,941 $ 259,205 $ 217,665 $ 116,682 $ 102,840 $

RA0 132,664 $ 251,462 $ 192,413 $ 148,467 $ 126,923 $

RA1 132,587 $ 270,963 $ 227,201 $ 147,042 $ 129,932 $

RA2 135,114 $ 269,624 $ 230,381 $ 145,281 $ 126,820 $

RA3 131,223 $ 306,332 $ 255,469 $ 139,099 $ 122,525 $

RA4 125,934 $ 291,606 $ 244,873 $ 131,267 $ 115,695 $

Source: GS Cost Model

Notes:

(1) Some cost components include labor burden that is not explicitly shown here.

Sources:

(A) Owner and operator labor cost from Exhibit 5.1.

(B), (D) Owner and operator burden and non-labor unit cost estimates reflect EPA's best professional judgment.

(F)-(J) Nondiscounted Project level cost estimates from final GS Rule cost model, which are also presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis. 

# Equipment to add tracers.

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A Electricity cost for pumps and

equipment.

N/A N/A $5/acre Injection well O&M.

Pay rent for land use and rights-ofway. $664 6 hours/

well

$0.03/$1

CAPEX

N/A $0.05/ton

of CO2

injected N/A N/A $10,000/wel

l

$0.064/KW

h

N/A

N/A

$0.10/unit

CO2

injected Develop a corrosion monitoring and

prevention program.

N/A N/A $15,000/wel

l Corrosion monitoring: analysis of

injectate stream and measurement

of corrosion of well material

coupons.

Continuous measurement /

monitoring equipment: injected

volumes, pressure, flow rates and

annulus pressure. $110.62 $2,655

N/A

1.5% of

total capital

costs $110.62 24 N/A

$25/ well

$300/sampl

e

$ ,

injection

well

$3/foot

(depth)/

injection

1% of

initial well

and

equipment

cost N/A $0.35/metri

c ton

N/A N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

(E) As described in Section 5.2, application factors represent the Agency's best estimate of the percentage of projects to whic h a given activity is expected to apply, or the extent to which

each project under a given alternative is expected to engage in the activity (see Section 5.2). 

# Pore space use costs.

General failure of containment at

site: cost to remove and relocate

the CO2. Tracers in injected fluid.

Repair and replace wells and

equipment. Property Taxes & Insurance.

N/A N/A N/A Contribution to Long-term

Monitoring, Insurance, and

Remediation Fund.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-19 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 5.4.5.1 Annualized Costs for Injection Well Operation

Annualized costs for owners and operators under the well operation rule component for

the baseline and RA 1- 4 ar e presented in Exhibit 5.10.

Exhibit 5.10 Owner and Operator Cost Estimates for Well Operation – Annualized

Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$)

3% 7%

Baseline 45.63 $ 30.93 $

RA1 48.87 $ 33.18 $

Incremental RA1 3.25 $ 2.25 $

RA2 50.10 $ 34.03 $

Incremental RA2 4.47 $ 3.10 $

RA3 54.96 $ 37.49 $

Incremental RA3 9.33 $ 6.56 $

RA4 52.78 $ 36.02 $

Incremental RA4 7.15 $ 5.09 $ Re g ulator y Alternative Discount Rate

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.67/C.68



# 5.4.6 Mechanical Integrity Testing

Under the GS Rule, owners and operators must demonstrate internal mechanical integrity

by continuously monitoring injection pressure, fl ow rate, injected volumes, and pressure on the

annulus between the tubing and the long string ca sing. GS owners and operators will need to

install monitoring equipment on each well to mon itor these parameters. Costs for installing the

monitoring equipment are accounted for under the injection well construc tion rule component,

but because this equipment is used to monitor both well operation and integrity, equipment costs

are accounted for under the monitoring ru le component (see Section 5.4.7).

Owners and operators will demonstrate external mech anical integrity at least once per year using

a tracer survey of the bottom-hole cement (using a CO 2 

# -soluble tracer or a suitable alternative

method (e.g., Oxygen Activation Log (OAL)), a temper ature or noise logs or other tests suitable

to wells injecting liquid/super critical CO 2 

# fluids as approved by the permitting authority), or if

required by the director a casi ng inspection log; or, another suitable method required and/or

approved by the Director. Owners and operators will perform an initial external MIT after

completion of well construction and prior to begi nning operation in Year 2, and at least once per

year throughout the life of the well. Exhibit 5.11 presents the owner and operator burden and

costs for the baseline, the GS Rule, and each RA considered for MIT unit costs. The detailed

calculations used to develop un it costs are presented in Appendi x C of the Cost Analysis.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-20 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.11 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Conducting

MIT (2008$)

Compliance Activity Labor

Cost

($/hour) Labor

Burden

(hours) Labor

Cost ($) Nonlabor unit

Cost 1 

# Regulatory

Alternative Project Cost

Pilot Project

- Saline Project Cost

Large

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Project - ER Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project - ER

A B C = B* A D EFGH I J

RA0 6,210 $ 8,280 $ 8,280 $ 35,190 $ 33,120 $

RA1 6,210 $ 8,280 $ 8,280 $ 35,190 $ 33,120 $

RA2 6,210 $ 8,280 $ 8,280 $ 35,190 $ 33,120 $

RA3 6,210 $ 8,280 $ 8,280 $ 35,190 $ 33,120 $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ 259,661 $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ 259,661 $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ 259,661 $

RA3 28,009 $ 37,345 $ 22,820 $ 111,095 $ 259,661 $

RA4 112,035 $ 149,380 $ 91,280 $ 444,380 $ 259,661 $

RA0 3,900 $ 5,200 $ 7,800 $ 22,100 $ 31,200 $

RA1 3,900 $ 5,200 $ 7,800 $ 22,100 $ 31,200 $

RA2 3,900 $ 5,200 $ 7,800 $ 22,100 $ 31,200 $

RA3 7,800 $ 10,400 $ 15,600 $ 44,200 $ 62,400 $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 7,800 $ 10,400 $ 15,600 $ 44,200 $ 62,400 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 56,018 $ 74,690 $ 68,460 $ 222,190 $ 194,746 $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 56,018 $ 74,690 $ 68,460 $ 222,190 $ 194,746 $

RA0 3,105 $ 4,140 $ 6,210 $ 17,595 $ 24,840 $

RA1 3,105 $ 4,140 $ 6,210 $ 17,595 $ 24,840 $

RA2 3,105 $ 4,140 $ 6,210 $ 17,595 $ 24,840 $

RA3 6,210 $ 8,280 $ 12,420 $ 35,190 $ 49,680 $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 6,210 $ 8,280 $ 8,280 $ 35,190 $ 33,120 $

Source: GS Cost Model

Notes:

(1) Some cost components include labor burden that is not explicitly shown here.

Sources:

(A) Owner and operator labor cost from Exhibit 5.1.

(B), (D) Owner and operator burden and non-labor unit cost estimates reflect EPA's best professional judgment.

(F)-(J) Nondisc ounted Project level cost estimates from final GS Rule cost model, which are also presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis. 

# $2,000/

injectionwe

ll

$4/foot

(depth) External mechanical integrity

tests to detect flow adjacent

to well using temperature or

noise log at least every 6

months. External mechanical integrity

tests to detect flow adjacent

to well using temperature or

noise log at least annually. $5,000/

injection

well

N/A N/A $2,000/

injection

well

$4/foot

(depth) Conduct a tracer survey of the

bottom-hole cement using a

CO2-soluble isotope. N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A

$2,000/

injection

well Conduct pressure fall-off test.

Conduct pressure fall-off test. N/A $2,000/

injection

well N/A N/A Internal Mechanical integrity

pressure test.

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A Casing inspection log every.

Conduct a tracer survey of the

bottom-hole cement using a

CO2-soluble isotope.

(E) As described in Section 5.2, application factors represent the Agency's best estimate of the percentage of projects to whic h a given activity is expected to apply, or the extent

to which each project under a given alternative is expected to engage in the activity (see Section 5.2). 

# $2,000/

injection

well

N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A $2,000/

injection

well

$4/foot

(depth)

N/A $5,000/

injection

well



# 5.4.6.1 Annualized Costs for M echanical Integrity Testing

Annualized costs for owners and operators under the MIT rule co mponent for under the

baseline regulatory scenario and under RAs 1- 4 are presented in Exhibit 5.12.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-21 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.12 Owner and Operator Cost Estimates for MIT – Annualized Values

Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$)

3% 7%

Baseline 0.15 $ 0.09 $

RA1 0.22 $ 0.13 $

Incremental RA1 0.07 $ 0.04 $

RA2 0.22 $ 0.13 $

Incremental RA2 0.07 $ 0.04 $

RA3 2.73 $ 1.71 $

Incremental RA3 2.57 $ 1.62 $

RA4 8.87 $ 5.64 $

Incremental RA4 8.72 $ 5.54 $ Re g ulator y Alternative Discount Rate

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.67/C.68



# 5.4.7 Monitoring

To ensure that the CO 2 

# remains safely sequestered in the injection zone and will not

endanger USDWs, owners and operators will impl ement an extensive monitoring program. The

monitoring program will be necessary to: supply the information that provides for an ongoing

assessment of risk to USDWs, provide real ti me feedback for assessing parameters of the

injection process, provide early warni ngs of failure, and verify that the CO 2 

# plume is behaving as

expected.

Under the GS Rule, owners and operators must monitor the nature of the injectate and

continuously monitor injection pr essure, rates, and volumes, as well as the pressure on the

annulus. Owners and operators must also monitor th e well materials for signs of corrosion; this is

addressed in Section 5.4. 5 (Well Operation).

Owners and operators of GS wells must also track the position of the CO 2 

# plume and

pressure front; this can be done by monitoring pr essure changes above and within the confining

zone, and, if appropriate, by using geophysical tec hniques (e.g., seismic, electrical, gravity, or

electromagnetic surveys and/or other down-hole CO 2 

# detection tools). Owners and operators

must also conduct a pressure fall-off test at l east once every five years for RA0– RA3, and every

six months for RA4 (the cost of this test is included with MIT costs in Section 5.4.6).

The GS Rule requires owners and operat ors to monitor ground water quality and

geochemical changes above the confining zone us ing a network of monito ring wells and to track

changes relative to baseline geoc hemical data. For oil and gas re servoirs, owners and operators

will need to install U-tu be sensors to detect oil movement in the bottom of the formation. Costs

for installing the monitoring equipment and costs for the monitoring equipment itself are

accounted for under this monitori ng component. For the purposes of this analysis, monitoring

equipment has been categorized into subsurf ace equipment (installed in wells) and surface

equipment. Monitoring wells may have permanen tly installed down-hole equipment to measure

pressure, temperature, resistivit y, salinity, pH, pressure, and temper ature. This equipment is used

to monitor well operation and integrity. An additiona l cost for ER projects only is the installation

and maintenance of a U-tube for sensing moveme nt of oil away from the injection formation.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-22 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Some surface monitoring technologies require specific equipment to be installed. Most

surface monitoring costs will be non-equipment or labor costs to conduct the surveys and analyze

the data. Seismic monitoring and monitoring of CO 2 

# flux from the surface will require

installation of monitoring equi pment. Surface or near-surface monitoring equipment installation

costs (if this monitoring is required by the Directo r) will be incurred in Year 1 of each project.

Additionally, the GS Rule re quires that owners and opera tors update the AoR using

computational (complex) modeling of the CO 2 

# fluid flow at minimum every 5 years. EPA also

assumes that owners and opera tors under RA0-RA3 would deve lop a 100-year forecast and

under the more stringent RA4 would develop a 1 0,000-year forecast. Owners and operators will

also need to review and possibl y revise their correctiv e action plans, monitoring and testing, well

plugging, PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial response plans as needed based on

changes in the AoR.

Exhibit 5.13 presents the owner and operator burden and costs for the baseline, the GS

Rule, and each RA considered for monitoring un it costs. The detailed calculations used to

develop unit costs are presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-23 July 2010

Final GS Rule



# Exhibit 5.13 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Monitoring

(2008$)

Compliance Activity Labor Cost

($/hour) Labor

Burden

(hours) Labor Cost

($) Non-labor

unit Cost 1 

# Regulatory

Alternative Project Cost

Pilot Project

- Saline Project Cost

Large

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Project - ER Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project - ER

A B C = B* A D EFGH I J

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 2,625 $ 13,125 $ 13,125 $ 5,250 $ 5,250 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 24,647 $ 605,175 $ 619,436 $ 217,118 $ 214,071 $

RA3 24,647 $ 605,175 $ 619,436 $ 217,118 $ 214,071 $

RA4 49,294 $ 1,210,350 $ 1,238,871 $ 434,235 $ 428,143 $

RA0 10,288 $ 12,058 $ 18,087 $ 35,068 $ 49,947 $

RA1 10,288 $ 12,058 $ 18,087 $ 35,068 $ 49,947 $

RA2 10,288 $ 12,058 $ 18,087 $ 35,068 $ 49,947 $

RA3 41,152 $ 48,232 $ 72,348 $ 140,271 $ 199,787 $

RA4 47,790 $ 57,082 $ 85,623 $ 177,883 $ 252,886 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 4,867 $ 4,867 $ 4,867 $ 4,867 $ 4,867 $

RA2 4,867 $ 4,867 $ 4,867 $ 4,867 $ 4,867 $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 1,079 $ 1,079 $ 1,079 $ 1,079 $ 1,079 $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 3,651 $ 3,651 $ 3,651 $ 3,651 $ 3,651 $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 1,217 $ 1,217 $ 1,217 $ 1,217 $ 1,217 $

Source: GS Cost Model

Notes:

(1) Some cost components include labor burden that is not explicitly shown here.

Sources:

(A) Owner and operator labor cost from Exhibit 5.1.

(B), (D) Owner and operator burden and non-labor unit cost estimates reflect EPA's best professional judgment.

(F)-(J) Nondiscounted Project level cost estimates from final GS Rule cost model, which are also presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis. 

# N/A

N/A N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A

N/A

Complex modeling of fluid

flows and migration (reservoir

simulations) over 100 years

(RA0-3) or 10,000 years

(RA4). Includes AoR and Annual cost of air and soil

surveys: LIDAR airborne

survey to detect surface

leaks. Works best where

vegetation is sparse.

Annual cost of air and soil

surveys: vadose zone

monitoring wells to sample

gas above water table.

Periodic seismic surveys:

3D. Annual cost of air and soil

surveys: soil zone

monitoring.

Annual cost of air and soil

surveys: monitoring wells for

gas samples from water

table.

44 N/A N/A

$110.62

Semi-Annual (RA3) or

quarterly (RA0) reports to

regulators and recordkeeping

for all data gathering

activities. Annual reports to regulators

and recordkeeping for all data

gathering activities. Annual cost of passive

seismic equipment.

180 hours/

project site +

64 or 84

hours/well $5,000/ site

$6,250/

square mile

N/A N/A N/A

$19,911.60

per project

site + $9,292

per well $300/sample

$1,200/sampl

e

$10,000/

station $300/sample N/A N/A

N/A

$1,217 $100,000/

square mile

N/A

N/A N/A

(E) As described in Section 5.2, application factors represent the Agency's best estimate of the percentage of projects to whic h a given activity is expected to apply, or the extent to which

each project under a given alternative is expected to engage in the activity (see Section 5.2). 

# $4,867

$3,651 N/A

$110.62 11 Monthly reports to regulators

and recordkeeping for all data

gathering activities and

recordkeeping. $110.62 33 $110.62



# 5.4.7.1 Annualized Costs for Monitoring

Annualized costs for owners and operators under the monitoring rule component for the

baseline and RAs 1- 4 are presented in Exhibit 5.14.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-24 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.14 Owner and Operator Cost Estimates for Monitoring – Annualized

Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$)

3% 7%

Baseline 3.67 $ 3.09 $

RA1 7.07 $ 6.08 $

Incremental RA1 3.39 $ 2.99 $

RA2 9.51 $ 7.73 $

Incremental RA2 5.83 $ 4.64 $

RA3 20.01 $ 17.41 $

Incremental RA3 16.34 $ 14.32 $

RA4 20.78 $ 17.71 $

Incremental RA4 17.11 $ 14.62 $ Regulatory Alternative Discount Rate

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.67/C.68



# 5.4.8 Well Plugging and Post-injection Site Care

Following cessation of injection, owners and operators must plug injection wells to

ensure that they do not become conduits for fl uid movement. To do this , owners and operators

will flush the well with a buffer fluid, perform a final external mechanical integrity test, and plug

the well in a manner that will prevent the move ment of fluid that may endanger USDWs. EPA

assumes that injection wells will be plugged 1 y ear after completion of the injection phase.

Following injection, owners and operators must perform PISC for at least 10 years for

RAs 0-2, 50 years for RA3, and 100 years for RA4 (unless the Director approves a shorter time

frame) to show the position of the CO 2 

# plume and pressure front and ensure that they will no

longer pose an endangerment to USDWs. However, this cost analysis co nsiders only the costs

that are incurred in the 50-year period of analysis from 2011 to 2060. PISC costs that are

incurred in this period may include monitori ng well O&M, seismic surv eys, and air and soil

tests, along with an updated de monstration of the financial capacity to plug the well.

PISC monitoring costs are generally assumed to be incurred at 5-year intervals from the

year the injection is stopped unt il the end of the post-injectio n monitoring period (50 years for

RA3), a portion of which is captured in the 50 year period of this Cost Analysis.

At the end of the PISC monitoring period, owners and operators must perform a nonendangerment demonstration showing that the CO 2 

# plume and pressure front have stabilized and

that no additional monitoring is needed to assure that the project does not pose an endangerment

to USDWs. If, based on this demonstration, the Di rector authorizes closur e of the site, closure

activities would include pluggi ng the monitoring wells, removing surface equipment, and

restoring the land.

Exhibit 5.15 presents the owner and operato r burden and costs for the baseline, the GS

Rule, and each RA considered for Well Plugging and PISC unit costs. Detailed calculations used

to develop unit costs are presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-25 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.15 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Well

Plugging and PISC (2008$)

Compliance Activity Labor

Cost

($/hour) Labor

Burden

(hours) Labor

Cost ($) Non-labor unit

Cost 1 

# Regulator

y

Alternativ

e Project Cost

Pilot

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Project - ER Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project - ER

A B C = B* A D EF G H I J

RA0 1,292 $ 1,723 $ 1,425 $ 6,345 $ 5,160 $

RA1 1,292 $ 1,723 $ 1,425 $ 6,345 $ 5,160 $

RA2 2,584 $ 3,445 $ 2,850 $ 12,691 $ 10,320 $

RA3 5,168 $ 6,890 $ 5,700 $ 25,381 $ 20,640 $

RA4 5,168 $ 6,890 $ 5,700 $ 25,381 $ 20,640 $

RA0 56,025 $ 74,700 $ 74,700 $ 317,475 $ 298,800 $

RA1 56,025 $ 74,700 $ 74,700 $ 317,475 $ 298,800 $

RA2 56,025 $ 74,700 $ 74,700 $ 317,475 $ 298,800 $

RA3 74,700 $ 99,600 $ 99,600 $ 423,300 $ 398,400 $

RA4 74,700 $ 99,600 $ 99,600 $ 423,300 $ 398,400 $

RA0 28,009 $ 37,345 $ 22,820 $ 111,095 $ 64,915 $

RA1 28,009 $ 37,345 $ 22,820 $ 111,095 $ 64,915 $

RA2 56,018 $ 74,690 $ 45,640 $ 222,190 $ 129,831 $

RA3 112,035 $ 149,380 $ 91,280 $ 444,380 $ 259,661 $

RA4 112,035 $ 149,380 $ 91,280 $ 444,380 $ 259,661 $

RA0 3,100 $ 36,078 $ 54,117 $ 12,944 $ 19,415 $

RA1 6,200 $ 72,155 $ 108,233 $ 25,887 $ 38,831 $

RA2 6,200 $ 72,155 $ 108,233 $ 25,887 $ 38,831 $

RA3 12,400 $ 72,155 $ 108,233 $ 25,887 $ 38,831 $

RA4 12,400 $ 72,155 $ 108,233 $ 25,887 $ 38,831 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 12,400 $ 72,155 $ 108,233 $ 25,887 $ 38,831 $

RA4 12,400 $ 72,155 $ 108,233 $ 25,887 $ 38,831 $

RA0 77,700 $ 103,600 $ 103,600 $ 440,300 $ 414,400 $

RA1 77,700 $ 103,600 $ 103,600 $ 440,300 $ 414,400 $

RA2 77,700 $ 103,600 $ 103,600 $ 440,300 $ 414,400 $

RA3 77,700 $ 103,600 $ 103,600 $ 440,300 $ 414,400 $

RA4 77,700 $ 103,600 $ 103,600 $ 440,300 $ 414,400 $

RA0 2,600 $ 30,259 $ 45,388 $ 10,856 $ 16,284 $

RA1 5,200 $ 60,518 $ 90,776 $ 21,712 $ 32,568 $

RA2 5,200 $ 60,518 $ 90,776 $ 21,712 $ 32,568 $

RA3 10,400 $ 60,518 $ 90,776 $ 21,712 $ 32,568 $

RA4 10,400 $ 60,518 $ 90,776 $ 21,712 $ 32,568 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 10,400 $ 60,518 $ 90,776 $ 21,712 $ 32,568 $

RA4 10,400 $ 60,518 $ 90,776 $ 21,712 $ 32,568 $

RA0 6,637 $ 6,637 $ 6,637 $ 6,637 $ 6,637 $

RA1 6,637 $ 6,637 $ 6,637 $ 6,637 $ 6,637 $

RA2 6,637 $ 6,637 $ 6,637 $ 6,637 $ 6,637 $

RA3 13,275 $ 13,275 $ 13,275 $ 13,275 $ 13,275 $

$13,275 RA4 13,275 $ 13,275 $ 13,275 $ 13,275 $ 13,275 $

RA0 9,963 $ 115,943 $ 177,297 $ 38,037 $ 56,114 $

RA1 19,925 $ 231,887 $ 354,595 $ 76,075 $ 112,228 $

RA2 19,925 $ 231,887 $ 354,595 $ 76,075 $ 112,228 $

RA3 39,850 $ 231,887 $ 354,595 $ 76,075 $ 112,228 $

RA4 39,850 $ 231,887 $ 354,595 $ 76,075 $ 112,228 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 51,785 $ 301,336 $ 357,301 $ 91,445 $ 113,984 $

RA4 51,785 $ 301,336 $ 357,301 $ 91,445 $ 113,984 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA4 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Post-closure O&M for

monitoring wells drilling into

injection zone.

Post-injection air and soil

surveys. Document plugging and

closure process (well plugging,

post-injection plans,

notification of intent to close,

and post closure report). Perform a mechanical integrity

test prior to plugging to

evaluate integrity of casing and

cement to remain in ground.

Plug monitoring wells stopping

above injection zone. Use one

cement plug from the surface

to the bottom of UDSWs, fill

the remainder of the borehole

with mud.

Remove surface equipment and

structures; restore vegetation

(injection wells).

Post-closure O&M for

monitoring wells stopping

above injection zone. N/A N/A $1,000/

injection well

$0.85/foot

(depth) N/A Flush wells with a buffer fluid

before plugging.

$10,000/

monitoring well

$5,000/

monitoring

station

$110.62 Remove surface equipment and

structures; restore vegetation

(monitoring well stopping above

injection zone).

N/A Remove surface equipment and

structures; restore vegetation

(monitoring wells drilling into

injection zone). N/A

N/A Plug monitoring wells drilling

into injection zone. Use one

cement plug from the surface

to the bottom of UDSWs, fill

the remainder of the borehole

with mud.

$25,000/

monitoring well

$3/foot (depth)/

monitoring well

$25,000/

injection well N/A

N/A

$25,000/

monitoring well

$3/foot (depth)/

monitoring well N/A N/A

N/A $10,000/

monitoring well

N/A Plug injection wells. Use two

cement plugs: one in producing

formation and one for surface

to bottom of USDWs, fill the

remainder of the borehole with

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

120

N/A N/A $12,000/

monitoring well

$24,000/

injection well

$2,000/ injection

well

$4/foot (depth)

$12,000/

monitoring well N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A $10,000/ station

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-26 July 2010

Final GS Rule Compliance Activity Labor

Cost

($/hour) Labor

Burden

(hours) Labor

Cost ($) Non-labor unit

Cost 1 

# Regulator

y

Alternative Project Cost

Pilot Project

-

Saline Project Cost

Large

Project -

Saline P ro j ec t C os t

Large

Waivered

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Project - ER Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project - ER

A B C = B*A D EF G H I J

RA0

- $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA3 24,647 $ 605,175 $ 619,436 $ 217,118 $ 214,071 $

RA4 49,294 $ 1,210,350 $ 1,238,871 $ 434,235 $ 428,143 $

RA0

- $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 4,425 $ 4,425 $ 4,425 $ 4,425 $ 4,425 $

RA3 4,425 $ 4,425 $ 4,425 $ 4,425 $ 4,425 $

$4,425 RA4 4,425 $ 4,425 $ 4,425 $ 4,425 $ 4,425 $

Source: GS Cost Model

Notes:

(1) Some cost components include labor burden that is not explicitly shown here.

Sources:

(A) Owner and operator labor cost from Exhibit 5.1.

(B), (D) Owner and operator burden and non-labor unit cost estimates reflect EPA's best professional judgment.

(F)-(J) Nondiscounted Project level cost estimates from final GS Rule cost model, which are also presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis. (E) As described in Section 5.2, application factors represent t he Agency's best estimate of the percentage of projects to whic h a given activity is expected to apply, or the extent to

which each project under a given alternative is expected to engage in the activity (see Section 5.2). 

# N/A $110.62 40 N/A N/A $100,000/

s q uare mile

Periodic post-injection

monitoring reports to regulators

(conducted for 50 yrs for RA3,

100 years for RA4, 10 years for

all others )

. N/A Post-injection seismic survey

(conducted for 10 years for RA0-

2, 50 years for RA3 and 100

y ears for RA4 )

.



# 5.4.8.1 Annualized Costs for Well Plu gging and PISC

Annualized costs for owners and operators under the well-plugging and PISC component

of the GS Rule for the baseline and RA 1- 4 are presented in Exhibit 5.16.

Exhibit 5.16 Owner and Operator Cost Estimates for Well Plugging and PISC –

Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$)

3% 7%

Baseline 0.59 $ 0.24 $

RA1 0.86 $ 0.33 $

Incremental RA1 0.27 $ 0.09 $

RA2 0.91 $ 0.35 $

Incremental RA2 0.33 $ 0.12 $

RA3 2.02 $ 0.77 $

Incremental RA3 1.43 $ 0.54 $

RA4 2.13 $ 0.80 $

Incremental RA4 1.54 $ 0.57 $ Re g ulator y Alternative Discount Rate

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.67/C.68



# 5.4.9 Financial Responsibility

Under RA1 owners and opera tors have no requirement to demonstrate financial

responsibility; under RA2 and the baseline (RA0) the owner and operator would provide

financial assurance through a pe rformance bond, or other appropria te means, of the resources

necessary to plug the well.

RA3 and RA4 require the owners and operators to demonstr ate and maintain financial

responsibility for not only plugging the injection well, but also for all needed corrective action,

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-27 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# emergency and remedial response, and PISC and closure (accounting for inflation). EPA

assumes that owners and operato rs will post a performance bond and periodically re-evaluate the

costs during the injection and PISC phases of the project. Financia l responsibility following the

injection phase is assumed to be demonstrated by posting a second bond when the wells are

plugged in addition to the first bond posted prio r to deployment. All GS well owners and

operators are required to demons trate financial responsibility. Exhibit 5.15 presents the owner

and operator burden and costs for the baseline , the GS Rule, and each RA considered for

Financial Responsibility unit costs.

Exhibit 5.17 Owner and Operator Burden and Unit Cost Estimates for Financial

Responsibility (2008$)

Compliance Activity Labor

Cost

($/hour) Labor

Burden

(hours) Labor

Cost ($) Nonlabor

unit

Cost 1 

# Regulatory

Alternative Project Cost

Pilot

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project -

Saline Project Cost

Large

Project - ER Project Cost

Large

Waivered

Project - ER

A B C = B* A D EFGHI J

RA0 885 $ 885 $ 885 $ 885 $ 885 $

RA1 885 $ 885 $ 885 $ 885 $ 885 $

RA2 885 $ 885 $ 885 $ 885 $ 885 $

RA3 885 $ 885 $ 885 $ 885 $ 885 $

RA4 885 $ 885 $ 885 $ 885 $ 885 $

RA0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA1 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

RA2 442 $ 442 $ 442 $ 442 $ 442 $

RA3 442 $ 442 $ 442 $ 442 $ 442 $

RA4 442 $ 442 $ 442 $ 442 $ 442 $

Source: GS Cost Model

Notes:

(1) Some cost components include labor burden that is not explicitly shown here.

Sources:

(A) Owner and operator labor cost from Exhibit 5.1.

(B), (D) Owner and operator burden and non-labor unit cost estimates reflect EPA's best professional judgment.

(F)-(J) Nondiscounted Project level cost estimates from final GS Rule cost model, which are also presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis. (E) As described in Section 5.2, application factors represent the Agency's best estimate of the percentage of projects to whic h a given activity is expected to apply, or the extent

to which each project under a given alternative is expected to engage in the activity (see Section 5.2). 

# $110.62 8 N/A

Performance bond or demonstrate

financial ability (accounting for

inflation) for post-injection monitoring

and remediation. $110.62 4 N/A Performance bond or demonstrate

financial ability (accounting for

inflation) to close site.

$442 $885



# 5.4.9.1 Annualized Costs for Financial Responsibility

Annualized costs for owners and operators under the financial responsibility rule

component for the baseline and RA 1- 4 are presented in Exhibit 5.18 (unlike the other

annualized cost tables, Exhibit 5.18 is in 2008 dollars, not millions of 2008 dollars).

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-28 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.18 Owner and Operator Cost Estimates for Financial Responsibility –

Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate (2008$)

3% 7%

Baseline 549 $ 257 $

RA1 574 $ 267 $

Incremental RA1 26 $ 9 $

RA2 1,118 $ 809 $

Incremental RA2 569 $ 552 $

RA3 1,118 $ 809 $

Incremental RA3 569 $ 552 $

RA4 1,066 $ 775 $

Incremental RA4 518 $ 518 $ Regulatory Alternative Discount Rate

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.67/C.68



# 5.4.10 Emergency and Remedial Response Plans

GS well owners and operators must develop and implement an emergency and remedial

response plan that describes actions to be taken to address movement of injection or formation

fluids that may endanger USDWs. If there is evidence of potential enda ngerment of USDWs, the

owner and operator will be required to cease inje ction, investigate and identify the release, and

implement the emergency and remedial response plan. Some incidents could require replacement

of well equipment, or remedi ation or removal of the CO 2 

# . A percentage of the capital costs for

well operation for each project is as sumed to be contributed annually to a fund to account for the

possible need for well remediation during operation.

Emergency and remedial response plans must be submitted as an attachment to the UIC

Program permit application; as such these cost s are included along with the permit application

fee, as described in Section 5.4.4. Implementation of the plan is included in the cost items

associated with well remediation, presente d in Section 5.4.5. In a ddition, emergency and

remedial response plans must be re viewed at least every five year s, usually in association with

AoR reevaluation. Costs for any necessary plan revision are included in the costs for AoR

modeling in Section 5.4.3.

Annualized costs for owners and operators under the emergency and remedial response

rule component for the baseline and RAs 1- 4 are included in the costs presented in Exhibits 5.6,

5.8, and 5.10.

5.4.11 Permitting Authority Costs

The following subsections provide a descrip tion of the permitting authority’s oversight

responsibilities for the GS Rule, organized by ru le component. Exhibits 5.19 and 5.20 at the end

of this section provide project level and annualized cost estimates for the permitting authority,

respectively.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-29 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 5.4.11.1 Rule Implementation and Annual Administration

The permitting authority will incur administra tive costs while implementing the GS Rule.

These implementation costs are not directly requir ed by specific provisions of GS Rule RAs but

will be necessary for the permitting authority to ensure that the provisions of the GS Rule are

properly carried out. The permitting authority will n eed to allocate time for their staff to establish

and then maintain the programs necessary to comply with the GS Rule, including developing

and/or modifying data management systems to tr ack new required owner and operator reports to

the permitting authority. Permitting authority staff at the state level will need to prepare primacy

applications, which will be reviewed and approved by EPA. To manage data submitted by

owners and operators, the permitting authority wi ll also need to modify or develop data

management systems. Finally, th e permitting authority will need to provide technical assistance

when owners and operators request help in implementing the GS Rule.

In addition to these one-time costs, the perm itting authority will need to expend resources

for ongoing administrative activities. On an annua l basis, the permitting authority will provide

technical assistance to well owne rs and operators and to their own staff as needed. Exhibit 5.19

lists these annual activities with their respective costs and burden.

5.4.11.2 Geologic Site Characterization

The permitting authority will incur costs associated with reviewing geological data

submitted by owners and operators to determine whether a proposed site is suitable for injection

of large volumes of CO 2 

# , such as maps and cross sections, geomechanical data, structural data,

and seismic data. The permitting authority will review the owners and operators’ site data

beginning in Year 1 of the project.

5.4.11.3 Area of Review and Corrective Action

The permitting authority costs associated with AoR and Corrective Action requirements

include review of the owner a nd operator’s proposed AoR and corrective action, which will be

submitted in compliance with §146.84. The permitting authority will review one plan per GS site

as they are received from owners and operators during the compliance period. The permitting

authority will also review owner- and operator-sub mitted AoR modeling results and the status of

corrective action in Year 1 and the AoR reeval uations and modified AoR and corrective action

plans that owners and operators periodically subm it over the course of th e injection project.

5.4.11.4 Injection Well Construction

Permitting authority activities associated w ith the well construction requirements of the

GS Rule include review of owner- and operator-submitted construction schematics and

procedures to assure that the injection well is pr operly designed to with stand injection of large

volumes of CO 2



# .

As they review information on the geology of the site, the AoR, and construction

procedures described above, the permitting author ity will also review the other components of

the permit application, including proposed monitoring plans, c ontingency plans, well plugging

and PISC and site closure plans, and financial responsibility information. Additionally, in limited

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-30 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# cases, the permitting authority will also need to review applications for waivers that allow a

project to inject above the lowe rmost USDW. In the case of stat es with primacy, such waivers

will be reviewed at both the State and Federal level.

This cost analysis assumes that the permitti ng authority will review permit applications

and associated materials in Year 1 of the proj ect, and for some cost items (e.g., AoR evaluations

and financial responsibility determ inations) will review updates to the material periodically, or in

specific project phases such as prior to plugging of the well for updated PISC and site closure

plans.

5.4.11.5 Injection Well Operation

The permitting authority will not incur any cost or burden associated with operation of

injection wells.

5.4.11.6 Mechanical Integrity Testing

At the Director’s discretion, permitting authoriti es may visit the project site and witness

the MITs. (The burden associated with review ing MIT reports is captured under monitoring,

below).

5.4.11.7 Monitoring

EPA assumes that the permitting authority wi ll incur burden associated with reviewing

the annual, semi-annual, quarterly, or monthly monitoring reports submitted by well owners and

operators, including inject ate monitoring results, plume track ing data, ground water monitoring,

MIT results, or other testing pe rformed since the last report. Although reports may occur at

different frequencies, the cost of reviewing them is considered on an annual basis. The

permitting authority will review monitoring report s beginning in Year 2 of each project.

5.4.11.8 Well Plugging and PISC

Permitting authority costs related to well plugg ing and PISC requirements include review

and approval of the initial plans submitted with pe rmit applications (which are estimated to occur

in Year 1) and reviewing periodic updates to plans (which will occur periodically throughout the

injection phase).

Permitting authorities will also review owners and operators’ notification of intent to plug

their wells and final updates to the closure plan; and reports documenting the well plugging

process. The permitting authority may, at its di scretion, witness the well plugging process or

post-plugging MITs. This Cost Analysis does not include costs for this discretionary item.

During the PISC period, the permitting authority will incur costs rela ted to review of

post-injection monitoring reports. Permitting au thorities will also review non-endangerment

demonstrations following post-injection monitoring; this analysis includes such costs only as

incurred within the 50-y ear period of analysis.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-31 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 5.4.11.9 Financial Responsibility

The permitting authority must review the fina ncial assurance demonstrations provided by

GS well owners and operators with their pe rmit applications and any updated estimates

submitted.

5.4.11.10 Emergency and Remedial Response Plans

The permitting authority will re view emergency and remedial response plans submitted

by owners and operators along w ith other attachments to the permit application, which is

included in the costs for reviewing permit applic ations. In addition, the permitting authority may

need to respond to incidences where there is evidence of CO 2 

# leakage or other endangerment to

USDWs; this cost incurrence is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and is not included in this

analysis.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-32 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.19 Permitting Authority Bu rden and Unit Cost Estimates (2008$)

State

Labor

Cost

($/hour) Federal

Labor

Cost

($/hour) Regulatory

Alternative One-time

labor

burden (hrs) State Cost Federal

Cost Weighted

Project

Cost 2



# A B C D E=A*C*0.56 F=B*C*0.44 G=E+F

RA0 0 - $ - $ - $

RA1 12 593 $ - $ 593 $

RA2 12 593 $ - $ 593 $

RA3 12 593 $ - $ 593 $

RA4 12 593 $ - $ 593 $

RA0 4160 - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $

RA1 4160 - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $

RA2 4160 - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $

RA3 4160 - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $

RA4 4160 - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $

RA0 40 1,110 $ 880 $ 1,990 $

RA1 40 1,110 $ 880 $ 1,990 $

RA2 40 1,110 $ 880 $ 1,990 $

RA3 40 1,110 $ 880 $ 1,990 $

RA4 40 1,110 $ 880 $ 1,990 $

RA0 0 - $ - $ - $

RA1 80 2,220 $ 1,759 $ 3,980 $

RA2 80 2,220 $ 1,759 $ 3,980 $

RA3 80 2,220 $ 1,759 $ 3,980 $

RA4 0 - $ - $ - $

RA0 0 - $ - $ - $

RA1 80 - $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $

RA2 80 - $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $

RA3 80 - $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $

RA4 0 - $ - $ - $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 0 - $ - $ - $

RA1 0 - $ - $ - $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 0 - $ - $ - $

RA1 0 - $ - $ - $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $ $49.44 Review financial assurance of capacity to

provide post-closure care. $49.44

$49.44 $49.44 $50.14

Review proposed remedial response plan

required by §146.94(b). Second review of proposed post-closure care

plan required by §146.93(a). Compliance Activity

Second review of proposed closure plan required

by §146.92(b). $50.14

$50.14 $50.14

Federal Systems Updates. $49.44

Review financial assurance of capacity to

properly close, plug, and abandon well. Administration (Staff Training, Rule

Implementation). $49.44

Review information required in general UIC

permit (Includes initial review of closure and post

closure plans). $49.44

Permitting Authority: review waiver applications. $49.44

$49.44

Review emergency response plan required by

§146.94(a). $49.44 $50.14 $50.14

$50.14

Review information required in § 146.82(b)1 prior

to issuing permit. $50.14 $49.44 $50.14 $50.14 Federal level: review waiver applications for

those originally reviewed by State/Tribe/Territory

having primacy.

$50.14

$49.44 $50.14

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-33 July 2010

Final GS Rule RA0 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA1 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA1 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA1 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA2 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA3 3 83 $ 66 $ 149 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA1 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA2 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA3 3 83 $ 66 $ 149 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 12 333 $ 264 $ 597 $

RA1 12 333 $ 264 $ 597 $

RA2 12 333 $ 264 $ 597 $

RA3 24 666 $ 528 $ 1,194 $

RA4 24 666 $ 528 $ 1,194 $

RA0 0 - $ - $ - $

RA1 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA2 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA3 0 - $ - $ - $

RA4 0 - $ - $ - $

RA0 4 97 $ 77 $ 174 $

RA1 0 - $ - $ - $

RA2 0 - $ - $ - $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 0 - $ - $ - $ Review of each project's annual reports

submitted by all operators of Class VI wells

[§ 146.91]1 and recordkeeping. Review proposed injection procedure.

Review plans (including maps) for meeting

monitoring requirements.

Analyze the pressure decay and the transient

pressures recorded by owner/operator pursuant

to §146.90(e) and determine whether the

injection activity has conformed with predicted

values[§ 146.92(e)(1)].5 $49.44

$49.44

Review the corrective action proposed to be

taken under §146.84 for wells within the area of

review which penetrate the injection zone but

are not properly completed or plugged.

Review of the information described in

§ 146.82(c) prior to granting approval for

plugging and abandonment of a well.1

$50.14 Review construction procedures.

Review of each project's semi-annual (RA3) or

quarterly (RA0) reports submitted by all

operators of Class VI wells [§ 146.91]2 and

recordkeeping. $49.44 Review information required under § 146.86(b)(1)

to determine and specify casing and cementing

requirements.2

$49.44 $50.14 Review information required under § 146.86(c)(2)

to determine and specify tubing and packer

requirements.3

Review schematics of proposed wells. $49.44 $50.14 $49.44 $50.14 $50.14

$49.44

$50.14

$49.44 $49.44 $50.14 Evaluate mechanical integrity based on

monitoring tests conducted since the last such

evaluation and other mechanical integrity data. $49.44 $50.14

Witness logging and testing. $49.44

$50.14 Review contingency plans.

$49.44 $50.14 $50.14

$49.44 $50.14 $49.44 $50.14

$50.14

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-34 July 2010

Final GS Rule RA0 0 - $ - $ - $

RA1 0 - $ - $ - $

RA2 0 - $ - $ - $

RA3 0 - $ - $ - $

RA4 12 338 $ 268 $ 605 $

RA0 0 - $ - $ - $

RA1 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA2 1 28 $ 22 $ 50 $

RA3 0 - $ - $ - $

RA4 0 - $ - $ - $

RA0 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA1 2 56 $ 44 $ 99 $

RA2 2 56 $ 44 $ 99 $

RA3 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA4 4 111 $ 88 $ 199 $

RA0 0 / 0 - $ - $ - $

RA1 1040 / 90 51,418 $ 4,513 $ 55,931 $

RA2 1040 / 90 51,418 $ 4,513 $ 55,931 $

RA3 1040 / 90 51,418 $ 4,513 $ 55,931 $

RA4 1040 / 90 51,418 $ 4,513 $ 55,931 $

Source: GS Cost Model

Notes:

Sources:

(A), (B) Permitting authority labor rate from Section 5.2.1.

(C) Burden and unit cost estimates reflect EPA's best professional judgment.

(E), (F) Nondiscounted Project level cost estimates from GS Rule Cost Model. (D) Alternatives having the same application factor are grouped together. As described in Section 5.2, application factors rep resent the Agency's best

estimate of the percentage of projects to which a given activity is expected to apply, or the extent to which each project unde r a given alternative is expected

to engage in the activity (see Section 5.2). (1) The project cost is independent of the project siting or size and constant across the various project types. 

# Prepare / Review primacy applications. $49.44 $50.14

(3) Preparation of primacy applications is estimated to require 1040 hours by states, and 90 hours for EPA regional and headqua rters offices to review. (2) Weighted permitting authority cost based on assumption of 56% of states currently active in the UIC program obtaining prima cy for proposed Class VI

wells (Section 5.2.1). 

# Review AoR modeling update (complex model). $49.44 Review AoR modeling update (simple model).

$50.14 $49.44 $50.14 Review of each project's monthly reports

submitted by all operators of Class VI wells

[§ 146.91]3 and recordkeeping. $49.44 $50.14



# Exhibit 5.20 Permitting Authority Cost Estimates – Annualized Values Using a 3%

and 7% Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$)

State Federal Total State Federal Total

Baseline $0.01 $0.33 $0.33 $0.00 $0.27 $0.27

RA1 $0.10 $0.34 $0.44 $0.15 $0.28 $0.43

Incremental RA1 $0.10 $0.01 $0.11 $0.14 $0.01 $0.16

RA2 $0.10 $0.34 $0.44 $0.15 $0.28 $0.43

Incremental RA2 $0.10 $0.01 $0.11 $0.14 $0.01 $0.16

RA3 $0.11 $0.34 $0.45 $0.15 $0.28 $0.43

Incremental RA3 $0.10 $0.02 $0.11 $0.14 $0.01 $0.16

RA4 $0.11 $0.34 $0.45 $0.15 $0.29 $0.44

Incremental RA4 $0.10 $0.02 $0.12 $0.15 $0.02 $0.17

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.67/C.68 

# Regulatory

Alternative 3% 7%



# 5.5 Estimated Costs to Households

EPA assumes that the increased costs for ope ration of GS wells under the GS Rule will

be passed on, in whole or in part, to consum ers. However, the impact on any individual

household is expected to be very minor. Quantif ication of exact househol d costs is not possible

due to the representative nature of the costi ng estimates. The representative project estimates

used in this cost analysis are not connected to specific industry prof iles that would include

numbers and distributions of customers that co uld be used in househol d cost calculations.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-35 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# However, assumptions about the broader industr y profile (i.e., types a nd characteristics of

projects) can be used to qualitative ly evaluate costs. In particular, the 29 proj ects estimated to be

subject to the requirements of the GS Rule as pa rt of this Cost Analysis are assumed to be

sponsored by the energy sector. Because of th e current government focus on the energy sector,

there are many factors that will work to mitig ate costs that are passed on to consumers.

As the major producers of CO 2 

# , it is expected that large energy producers such as coal

fired power plants will sponsor th e majority of GS projects and th erefore incur most of the costs

of sequestration. Because of thei r roles as energy suppliers, thes e types of producers would be

able to spread any cost increases across very large numbers of consumers. This is the major

factor that works to minimize individual househol d cost increases. These potential increases may

be further minimized depending on the regional or local regulatory stru ctures in place. Energy

prices are capped or subsidized in some areas based on the level of deregulation and resulting

policies that are in place. In a ddition, many of the projects esti mated as part of the project

baseline are pilot-scale and as such may be subject to significant subsidies under various

government programs to promote climate change mitigation technologies . The actual funding of

these and other government programs (i.e., pric e limits or supports) will still be borne by

consumers but most likely as part of a much la rger tax base, especially for national programs.

Overall, these considerations imply that any hous ehold costs resulting from the GS Rule will be

minimal.



# 5.6 Comparison of Annualized Incrementa l Costs for All Regula tory Alternatives

Considered

Exhibit 5.21 below summarizes the incremen tal costs of the GS Rule for each RA

considered during the rule development proces s. Estimates represent those costs that EPA

expects owners and operators and permitting author ities to incur for the 29 estimated baseline

projects during the 50-ye ar period of analysis

.

Relative to the baseline regulatory scenario 10 

# , Alternatives 1 through 4 have increasing

incremental costs that range from $6.3 m illion to $40.5 million in annualized 2008$ (using a 3

percent discount rate). The in cremental cost for the GS Ru le (RA3) is approximately $34.0

million (using a 3 percent discount rate).

Exhibit 5.21 Incremental Rule Costs fo r All Regulatory Alternatives Considered –

Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$)

3% 7%

RA1 6.3 $ 4.5 $

RA2 12.4 $ 9.8 $

RA3 34.0 $ 28.2 $

RA4 40.5 $ 33.2 $

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.74/C.75 

# Regulatory Alternative Discount Rate

10 

# As explained in the introductory paragraph of Chapter 4 of this Cost Analysis, the baseline regulatory scenario

consists of Class I regulations for non-hazardous wells.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-36 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 5.6.1 Costs Summed by Type of Expenditure

As shown in Exhibit 5.22, operations and maintenance expenditures represent

approximately 69% of the total incremental cost of the GS Rule, and capital expenditures are

approximately 18% (at 3% discounting). One-time costs, such as initial mapping of the project

site geology and identification of existing penetr ations in the projecte d AoR, represent the

smallest portion of total cost at approximately 13%.

As Exhibit 5.22 shows, sometimes costs annua lized at 3% are highe r than those at 7%,

and vice versa. EPA notes that when calculating annualized costs, there is an inflection point

where the annualization step can compensate for th e difference in present va lues after the initial

discounting step. The capital costs occur predominantly early in the analysis period; as a result,

the discounting step for several of these cost items is only di scounting at an average of 5-10

years, while the annualization is applied over 25 years. Whereas the values discounted using a 3

percent discount rate are higher than the same cost stream di scounted using 7 percent, the

annualization step moves the resu lts in the other direction, i.e ., towards the condition of the 7-

percent discounted values bei ng greater than the 3-percent values. In some cases the

annualization step can more than compensate for the original difference in favor of a larger 3

percent present value and result in 7 percent an nualized estimates greater than those using 3

percent. For O&M costs, which occur throughout the period of an alysis and therefore are not

subject to as great an annualiza tion effect, the reverse generally can be seen; the annualized

estimates are mostly greater based on a 3% discount rate as compared to a 7% discount rate.

Exhibit 5.22 Incremental Rule Costs – Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7%

Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$)

3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7%

RA1 (0.7) $ (1.1) $ 1.2 $ 1.5 $ 5.7 $ 4.1 $ 6.3 $ 4.5 $

RA2 1.0 $ 1.0 $ 2.0 $ 2.3 $ 9.4 $ 6.6 $ 12.4 $ 9.8 $

RA3 4.4 $ 4.4 $ 6.0 $ 7.0 $ 23.6 $ 16.7 $ 34.0 $ 28.2 $

RA4 6.4 $ 7.0 $ 5.4 $ 6.4 $ 28.8 $ 19.8 $ 40.5 $ 33.2 $

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.74/C.75 

# Discount Rate

Regulatory

Alternative Discount Rate Discount Rate One-Time Capital O&M Total

Discount Rate



# 5.6.2 Costs Summed by Rule Component

Exhibit 5.23 provides a summary by rule compone nt of the annualized costs (at discount

rates of 3 and 7 percent) for each RA considered during the rule development process. It includes

estimates of total and incremental costs that EPA expects owners and operators and permitting

authorities to incur for the 29 estimated baseline projects over the 50-year period of analysis.

For RA 1 - 4, the most significant incremental rule costs (i.e., afte r subtracting baseline

costs) are associated with mon itoring. For RA 1 - 4, well operation is the second most significant

rule cost. Monitoring represents a range from 42% to 54% of total incremen tal rule costs at three

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-37 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# percent discounting. Well operation costs represent a range from 18% to 51% at 3 percent

discounting.

The estimated cost for the GS Rule is th e incremental cost for RA3 (approximately $34.0

million at 3% discount rate), which lies between the least costly and most costly RAs. The

selection of RA3 for the final Rule is consistent with the results of the comparison of incremental

costs and anticipated benefits of the rule, as discussed in Section 5.7, which also discusses these

incremental costs as they relate to mitiga tion of the risk to USDWs related to GS.

Exhibit 5.23 Total and Incremental Rule Costs by Regulatory Al ternative and Rule

Component – Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7% Discount Rate ($Millions,

2008$)

Regulatory

Alternative/

Discount Rate Geologic Site

Characterization Monitoring Injection Well

Construction Area of Review Well Operation MIT Well Plugging

& Post

Injection Site

Care Financial

Responsibility Permitting

Authority

Costs TOTAL

Baseline

3% 3.7 $ 3.7 $ 16.2 $ 1.1 $ 45.6 $ 0.2 $ 0.6 $ 0.0 $ 0.3 $ 71.3 $

7% 4.6 $ 3.1 $ 17.0 $ 1.0 $ 30.9 $ 0.1 $ 0.2 $ 0.0 $ 0.3 $ 57.2 $

RA1

3% 2.5 $ 7.1 $ 16.5 $ 1.1 $ 48.9 $ 0.2 $ 0.9 $ 0.0 $ 0.4 $ 77.6 $

7% 3.1 $ 6.1 $ 17.4 $ 1.0 $ 33.2 $ 0.1 $ 0.3 $ 0.0 $ 0.4 $ 61.7 $

Incremental RA1

3% (1.2) $ 3.4 $ 0.4 $ 0.1 $ 3.2 $ 0.1 $ 0.3 $ 0.0 $ 0.1 $ 6.3 $

7% (1.5) $ 3.0 $ 0.4 $ 0.1 $ 2.2 $ 0.0 $ 0.1 $ 0.0 $ 0.2 $ 4.5 $

RA2

3% 4.1 $ 9.5 $ 17.3 $ 1.1 $ 50.1 $ 0.2 $ 0.9 $ 0.0 $ 0.4 $ 83.7 $

7% 5.1 $ 7.7 $ 18.3 $ 1.0 $ 34.0 $ 0.1 $ 0.4 $ 0.0 $ 0.4 $ 67.1 $

Incremental RA2

3% 0.4 $ 5.8 $ 1.1 $ 0.1 $ 4.5 $ 0.1 $ 0.3 $ 0.0 $ 0.1 $ 12.4 $

7% 0.5 $ 4.6 $ 1.2 $ 0.1 $ 3.1 $ 0.0 $ 0.1 $ 0.0 $ 0.2 $ 9.8 $

RA3

3% 6.3 $ 20.0 $ 17.4 $ 1.5 $ 55.0 $ 2.7 $ 2.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.4 $ 105.3 $

7% 7.9 $ 17.4 $ 18.4 $ 1.3 $ 37.5 $ 1.7 $ 0.8 $ 0.0 $ 0.4 $ 85.4 $

Incremental RA3

3% 2.7 $ 16.3 $ 1.2 $ 0.4 $ 9.3 $ 2.6 $ 1.4 $ 0.0 $ 0.1 $ 34.0 $

7% 3.3 $ 14.3 $ 1.4 $ 0.3 $ 6.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.5 $ 0.0 $ 0.2 $ 28.2 $

RA4

3% 8.4 $ 20.8 $ 16.9 $ 1.5 $ 52.8 $ 8.9 $ 2.1 $ 0.0 $ 0.5 $ 111.8 $

7% 10.4 $ 17.7 $ 17.9 $ 1.4 $ 36.0 $ 5.6 $ 0.8 $ 0.0 $ 0.4 $ 90.4 $

Incremental RA4

3% 4.7 $ 17.1 $ 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 7.1 $ 8.7 $ 1.5 $ 0.0 $ 0.1 $ 40.5 $

7% 5.8 $ 14.6 $ 0.9 $ 0.5 $ 5.1 $ 5.5 $ 0.6 $ 0.0 $ 0.2 $ 33.2 $



# 5.7 Comparison of Costs and Benefits

EPA is limited by the purpose, quality, and quantity of data available in developing

meaningful benefits analyses. In the absence of additional statistical analyses, only general

observations of the data can be made with quali fiers. A quantitative comparison of risk between

the alternatives considered for the final Rule would require robust data that would support: 1)

direct comparisons of the overall baseline conditi ons with the overall conditions under each of

the alternatives, or 2) comparisons of speci fic regulatory component s (i.e., geologic site

characterization) that could be used to compare the baseline and all alternatives. Currently, the

risk of contamination of USDW s from GS activities has not b een directly measured for any

injection parameters or site characteristics. Thus , costs can only be compared to the qualitative

relative risks discussed in Ch. 4.

Compared to the baseline condition of the cu rrent UIC Program regulations, RA3 offers

significantly greater protection to USDWs because that RA (the final Rule) is tailored

specifically to GS and includes requirements necessa ry to prevent endangerment via migration of

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-38 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# fluids into USDWs; existing well classes I – V do not specifically addre ss the unique nature of

injection of CO 2 

# for the purposes of GS. RA4 has more stringent standards and greater costs

compared to the final Rule, but EPA believe s that RA4 requirements are beyond what is

necessary to provide adequate risk reduction to USDWs. RA1 a nd RA2 provide lower costs than

RA3 but at increased levels of risk to USDW s. Although RA4 has more stringent requirements,

EPA does not believe that the in creased requirements and the incr eased costs are necessary to

provide protection to USDWs. Therefore EPA be lieves that RA3 is the best alternative.



# 5.8 Other Economic Measures

The lack of a quantitative risk assessment prevents the us e of other economic measures,

specifically, a break-even analysis and measures of cost effectiveness based on the value of

changes in health conditions.



# 5.9 Non-quantified Costs and Uncertainties in Cost Estimates

5.9.1 Non-quantified Costs

The purpose of the GS Rule is to mitigate any risk introduced by GS activities to the

quality, and indirectly volume, of current and potential future USDWs. The requirements of the

GS Rule are specifically designed to mitigate such risks and to provide some redundancy in these

protections. However, should there be an inst ance of failure to protect a USDW through

inappropriate implementation of the GS Rule or GS deployment in a way not consistent with the

GS Rule; the cost to society would be either the cost of returning the wate r to usable quality or

the cost of developing an alternative source of dr inking water in some cases. There is most likely

a very low probability of such a failure being attri butable to the GS Rule itself; this would entail

the GS Rule being non-implementable or not readily comprehensible for proper implementation,

and then either of these circumstances resulti ng in activity that caus es contamination of a

USDW.

Should the GS Rule somehow impede GS depl oyment, then the opportunity costs of not

capturing the benefits associated with GS could be attributed to the GS Rule; however, EPA has

tried to develop a rule that balances risk w ith practicability and econom ic considerations and

believes the probability of such impedance is ve ry low. The GS Rule should serve to bolster

public confidence in GS by establishing requirements that manage risks to human health and the

environment through protection of USDWs. EP A expects the GS Rule to enhance public

acceptance of GS technology and provide national consistency and regulatory certainty to

owners and operators of GS wells. Thus, EPA be lieves the GS Rule will not impede deployment

of GS projects.

5.9.2 Uncertainties in Cost Estimates

As described in the Geologic CO 2 

# Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis (EPA,

2010a) developed in support of this Cost Analys is, many assumptions in the model include

uncertainty; the general areas of uncertainty include the project characteristics of the five pro

forma projects, the unit costs of technology, the frequency of each compliance activity

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-39 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# appropriate for each given project site, estimates of labor burden and hourly wage rates, and

changes in costs over time (caused by market forces or improved tec hnology, for example).

EPA considered in particular the uncertainty in three basic assumptions used in the Cost

Analysis: 1) the estimated number of projects that will be affected by the GS Rule; 2) the labor

rates applied; and 3) the estimat ed number of monitoring wells to be constructed per project to

adequately monitor in a given geologic setting.

The current baseline assumption is that 29 projects will de ploy in the 50-year period, as

described in Chapter 3 of this Cost Analysis. If limits on emissions of greenhouse gases were

imposed, GS would allow the United St ates to continue to use fossil fuels to a larger extent than

otherwise possible; with the widespread occurren ce of saline formations across the United States,

GS could be deployed nationwide under such a scen ario. Therefore, the number of projects that

will deploy from 2011 through 2060 may be significan tly underestimated in this analysis if

legislation that provides an incentive for GS s hould be enacted. Altern atively, should the public

have a negative perception to GS deploymen t, then the number of projects could be

overestimated.

Second, this analysis considered how the Cost Analysis results would change if the labor

rates used for Geoscientists and Mining and Geol ogical Engineers (present ed in Section 5.2.1 of

this Cost Analysis) were signifi cantly underestimated. If a rapid in crease in demand for this labor

occurred under future climate change legisla tion and outpaced the deve lopment of an equal

supply of such labor, some period of increased la bor costs would be expected. However, a rapid

wide scale increase in deployment is not expected, according to the Joint Global Change

Research Institute (Dooley, 2010), therefore the uncer tainty in labor costs is not considered to

contribute significantly to the uncerta inty in this cost analysis.

Third, EPA assumes that the number of monitori ng wells per project is correlated to the

size of the site, which is the AoR. As shown in Exhibit 5.2, the representati ve pilot-scale saline

project site is assumed to be approximately one square mile and under the selected alternative

(RA3) is assumed to have two monitoring wells, one that is drilled into the injection zone (IZ)

and one above the IZ. For the representative large- scale saline project, the site is assumed to be

approximately 23 square miles w ith 12 monitoring wells, six that are drilled into the injection

zone and six above the IZ. For the representative transitioning Class II ER project, the site is

assumed to be approximately 8 square miles with four monitoring wells, tw o that are drilled into

the IZ and two above the IZ. In the limited ci rcumstances where injection depth waivers are

approved, sites are assumed to have 50% more m onitoring wells than those estimated above. For

the purpose of estimating national costs, how ever, EPA recognizes th at more or fewer

monitoring wells may be appropriate depending on project site characteristics. Because the

monitoring wells and associated costs represent a significant component of the Cost Analysis,

EPA acknowledges that this factor may be signifi cant in the overall uncer tainty of the Cost

Analysis.

Additional uncertainties correspond more dire ctly to specific assumptions made in

constructing the cost model. If the assumptions for such items are incorrect, there may be

significant cost implications outsi de of the general price level un certainties discussed above. The

most prominent examples of these are:

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-40 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

#  It is assumed that all projects have access to an existing fluid flow model that can be

customized for the project by updating input parameters. If GS well owners and

operators have to develop such a model fo r new projects from scratch, modeling costs

may increase by four to five times.

 It is assumed that partially corrosion resist ant cement can be used for injection well

construction. If GS well owners and opera tors have to utili ze corrosion resistant

alloys, construction costs can increase significantly.

 Assumptions made for several cost co mponents and subcomponents are based on

industry averages. However, the actual cost s of several cost components such as

finding wells in AoR, land use and rights, a nd remediation of failu res can vary widely

based on site specific characte ristics. To the degree that EPA’s assumptions about the

“representative” projects differs from cost factors of those that eventually deploy,

costs for such rule components could be significantly over- or underestimated.

 As detailed in Section 5.0 of the Geologic CO 2 

# Sequestration Technology and Cost

Analysis (EPA, 2010a), underlying trends in equipments costs will have an impact on

costs incurred by owners and operators after the GS Rule is promulgated. Generally

speaking, the unit costs for which there is greater certainty are those directly or

indirectly related to conv entional drilling and completi on practices and geophysical

techniques used in exploration and deve lopment for oil and gas. Some equipment

costs, i.e., pipeline, are we ll known in the industry but vary based on market forces

affecting supply and demand for materials and labor.

 Owners and operators would, if directed, de velop and implement a plan for surface

air monitoring and/or soil gas moni toring to detect leakage of CO 2 

# to ensure that CO 2 

# and any other contaminants moving with the CO 2 

# have not migrated through USDWs.

Costs associated with air monitoring are accounted for under the Mandatory

Reporting Rule of Greenhouse Gases - Subpart RR (MRR). However, in the event

that additional air monitoring is needed for GS wells (beyond what is required under

MRR), the GS Rule monitoring co sts could be under-estimated.

Based on the considerations discussed above , EPA conducted sensitivity analyses to

evaluate the potential impacts of changes in certain key assumpti ons in the cost analysis. These

analyses include:

1) An increase and decrease of 50% in the number of projects exp ected to deploy;

2) An increase of 50% in indus try labor rates used; and

3) A 25% increase and decrease in m onitoring wells per project site.

In calculating a 50% increase a nd decrease in the number of projects to deploy under the

GS Rule, EPA assumed that the change in number of projects would be di stributed across project

formation type, scale, and over the 50-year period of analysis in the same proportions as the

original 29 projects. As shown in Exhibit 5.24, the increase and d ecrease results in annualized

incremental rule costs that are approx imately $51.0 million and $17.0 million per year,

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-41 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# respectively, based on a 3 percent discount rate. Consider ation of an increase in projects based

on climate change legislation could result in a significant increas e in rule costs.

In considering the sensitivity of analysis results to changes in labor rates, EPA found that

a 50% increase in industry labor rates results in annualized incremental rule costs of $34.6

million based on a 3 percent discount rate, or approximately a 2% increase in costs from the

primary analysis. An important caveat to this anal ysis is that it captures the increase for only

those project costs for which a distinct labor com ponent has been defined; for those that have a

labor component embedded in the cost, that cost has not been increased by this sensitivity

analysis. Therefore, to the degree that labor cost s are embedded in project costs, this sensitivity

analysis underestimates the extent of increase that a 50% labor incr ease would induce. The

Geologic CO 2 

# Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis (EPA, 2010a) provides detail on how

individual compliance and business-as-usual (b aseline) activities are defined for costing

purposes, and a brief text description accompanies each unit cost algorithm in the matrix

presented in Appendix B to this Cost Analysis.

In this Cost Analysis EPA assumes that ow ners and operators under the GS Rule (RA3)

will construct and operate a certain ratio of m onitoring wells per project site area depending on

project type (see Exhibit 5.2 for th e pro forma types used in this analysis) to conduct necessary

monitoring of the injected CO 2 

# and its plume. Because the actual number that will be necessary

for a given project site is uncertain, EPA tested th e sensitivity of cost estimates to the number of

monitoring wells by applying a 25 percent decrease and increase of monito ring wells per project

site area to the original assumptions for each pr oject type. This change results in annualized

incremental rule costs of approximately $28.7 million and $29.3 million, or a 16 percent

decrease or increase from the primary analysis results of $34.0 million (as shown in Exhibit

5.26).

An additional analysis EPA performed was a calculation of the rule costs for the baseline

29 projects on the basis of form ation type and project scale. To be commensurate with the

treatment (annualization) of costs, the injected volumes are disc ounted, that is, put in present

value terms for the amount injected over 50 years, and then annualized over the first 25 years of

the analysis period (see Section 5.3 for further ex planation of the annualiz ation.) The results

indicate that the pilot-scale saline projects, which must adhere to the same level of pr otectiveness

as the large-scale projects, don’t achieve the same economies of scale as the large-scale projects:

pilot-scale saline projects cost significantly more per ton CO 2 

# sequestered (75% more with 3%

discounting and 89% more with 7% discounti ng) than large-scal e saline projects.

The results for each sensitivity analysis calc ulated using 3 and 7 percent discount rates

are presented in Appendix C of the Cost Analysis.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-42 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.24 Total and Incremental Ru le Costs After Increasing/Decreasing the

Baseline Number of Projects by 50% - Annualized Values Using a 3% and 7%

Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$)

3% 7% % Change 3% 7% % Change 3% 7% % Change 3% 7% % Change

Inc -$1.0 -$1.7 50% $1.8 $2.2 50% $8.6 $6.2 50% $9.4 $6.7 50%

Dec -$0.3 -$0.6 -50% $0.6 $0.7 -50% $2.9 $2.1 -50% $3.1 $2.2 -50%

Inc $1.5 $1.4 50% $3.0 $3.5 50% $14.1 $9.8 50% $18.6 $14.8 50%

Dec $0.5 $0.5 -50% $1.0 $1.2 -50% $4.7 $3.3 -50% $6.2 $4.9 -50%

Inc $6.6 $6.7 50% $9.0 $10.5 50% $35.4 $25.0 50% $51.0 $42.2 50%

Dec $2.2 $2.2 -50% $3.0 $3.5 -50% $11.8 $8.3 -50% $17.0 $14.1 -50%

Inc $9.6 $10.5 50% $8.1 $9.6 50% $43.1 $29.7 50% $60.8 $49.7 50%

Dec $3.2 $3.5 -50% $2.7 $3.2 -50% $14.4 $9.9 -50% $20.3 $16.6 -50%

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.81

Note: Assumes that additional projects occur in same years in the same relative ratios across formations and scale as current basel ine. RA1

RA2

RA3

RA4 O&M Total Regulatory

Alternative Increase/

Decrease One-Time Capital



# Exhibit 5.25 Total and Incremental Rule Costs Based on 50% Increased Labor

Rate - Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount Rate ($Millions, 2008$)

Regulatory

Alternative One-Time

Costs %

Change Capital

Costs %

Change O&M

Costs %

Change Total %

Change

RA0 7.1 $ 3% 15.5 $ 0% 49.0 $ 0% 71.7 $ 1%

RA1 6.4 $ 3% 16.7 $ 0% 54.8 $ 0% 78.0 $ 0%

RA1 Incremental (0.7) $ 1% 1.2 $ 0% 5.8 $ 0% 6.3 $ 0%

RA2 8.1 $ 3% 17.5 $ 0% 58.6 $ 1% 84.2 $ 1%

RA2 Incremental 1.0 $ 1% 2.0 $ 0% 9.5 $ 1% 12.5 $ 1%

RA3 11.6 $ 2% 21.5 $ 0% 73.1 $ 1% 106.2 $ 1%

RA3 Incremental 4.5 $ 2% 6.0 $ 0% 24.0 $ 2% 34.6 $ 2%

RA4 13.7 $ 3% 20.9 $ 0% 78.3 $ 1% 112.9 $ 1%

RA4 Incremental 6.6 $ 3% 5.4 $ 0% 29.3 $ 2% 41.2 $ 2%

% change shows difference between primary analysis and model run using 50% increased labor rate.

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.82



# Exhibit 5.26 Total and Incremental Rule Costs, Change in Cost from Primary

Analysis Resulting from 25% Increase/De crease in Monitoring Wells - Annualized

Values Using a 3% Discount Ra te ($Millions, 2008$)

OneTime

Costs %

Change Capital

Costs %

Change O&M

Costs %

Change Total %

Change

RA0 6.9 $ 0% 15.5 $ 0% 48.9 $ 0% 71.3 $ 0%

RA3 11.4 $ 0% 21.5 $ 0% 72.4 $ 0% 105.3 $ 0%

RA3 Incremental 4.4 $ 0% 6.0 $ 0% 23.6 $ 0% 34.0 $ 0%

RA0 6.9 $ -1% 15.3 $ -1% 48.0 $ -2% 70.2 $ -2%

RA3 11.1 $ -2% 20.1 $ -6% 67.6 $ -7% 98.9 $ -6%

RA3 Incremental 4.2 $ -4% 4.8 $ -20% 19.7 $ -17% 28.7 $ -16%

RA0 7.0 $ 1% 15.7 $ 1% 49.8 $ 2% 72.4 $ 2%

RA3 11.6 $ 2% 22.9 $ 6% 77.2 $ 7% 111.7 $ 6%

RA3 Incremental 4.6 $ 4% 7.2 $ 20% 27.5 $ 17% 39.3 $ 16%

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.84 Regulatory Alternative

Primary

Analysis

Assumption

25%

decrease

25%

increase

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 5-43 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 5.27 Annualized Rule Costs By Project Type Per Metric Tonne and Per

Project (2008$)

3 % 7 % 3 % 7 % 3 % 7 %

Pilot Saline 340,555 2.0 0.6 $ 0.6 $ 1.90 $ 1.83 $ 0.3 $ 0.3 $

Large Saline 21,070,998 9.4 23.0 $ 20.4 $ 1.09 $ 0.97 $ 2.4 $ 2.2 $

Large Saline Waivered 1,170,611 0.5 4.3 $ 3.9 $ 3.65 $ 3.32 $ 8.2 $ 7.4 $

E R 6,204,497 13.7 4.7 $ 2.5 $ 0.77 $ 0.41 $ 0.3 $ 0.2 $

ER Waivered 315,970 0.8 1.4 $ 0.8 $ 4.39 $ 2.44 $ 1.8 $ 1.0 $

All Formations 29,102,631 26.4 34.0 $ 28.2 $ 1.17 $ 0.97 $ 1.3 $ 1.1 $

Source: Appendix C, Exhibit C.77

Note: The large saline and ER project categories above include a small amount of waivered projects: 5% in each category

are assumed to have waivers of the requirement to inject below the lowermost USDW approved. Project Type 

# Tonnes of

CO2 Projects

Deployed Annualized Annualized Annualized

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 6-1 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 6. Economic Impact Analysis

6.1 Introduction

As part of the rulemaking process, Unite d States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) is required to address the direct and in direct burdens that the Federal Requirements under

the Underground Injection Control (UIC ) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 

# ) Geologic

Sequestration (GS) Wells (GS Rule) may place on certain types of governments, business, and

populations. This chapter presents the analys es performed by EPA in accordance with the

following 12 Federal mandates:

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulator y Planning and Review.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (a separate Information Collection Request (ICR)

document contains the complete analysis).

3. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fa irness Act (SBREFA) of 1996.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995.

5. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism).

6. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordina tion with Indian Tribal Governments).

7. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks).

8. Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Re gulations That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use).

9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995.

10. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to A ddress Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations).

Many of the requirements and EOs listed above call for an explanation of why the rule is

necessary, the statutory authority for the rule, and the primary object ives that the rule is intended

to achieve (refer to Chapter 2 for more informati on regarding the objectives of the rule). Others

are designed to assess the financial and health effects of the rule on ce rtain subpopulations such

as low-income, minority, and tribal populations.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 6-2 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 6.2 Executive Order 12866: Regu latory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a

"significant regulatory action” b ecause it is anticipated to raise novel legal and policy issues, as it

is creating a new class of UIC wells to regulate CO 2 

# injection for a new purpose. Accordingly,

EPA submitted this action to the Office of Mana gement and Budget (OMB) for review under EO

12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in

the docket for this action.



# 6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule will be submitted for approval to the

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The information

collection requirements are not enfo rceable until OMB approves them.

The information collected as a result of th is rule will allow EPA and State permitting

authorities to review geologic information about a proposed injection project to evaluate its

suitability for safe and effective GS. It also a llows the Agency to fulfill the requirements of the

UIC Program to verify throughout the life of the injection project that protective requirements

are in place and that Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs) are protected. The

collection requirements are manda tory under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). (42 U.S.C.

300h et seq. ).

For the first three year s after publication of the final ru le in the Federal Register, the

major information requirements apply to a to tal of 38 respondents, for an average of 12.6

respondents per year. The total incremental burden (for owners and operators, permitting

authorities, and the Agency) associated with the change in moving from the information

requirements of the UIC Program for Class I non- hazardous wells (baselin e) to the selected

alternative under the GS Rule over the three years covered by the ICR is 53,622 hours, for an

average of 17,874 hours per year. The total incremen tal cost over the three-year clearance period

is $30.2 million, for an average of $10.1 million per year (simple average over three years). The

average burden hours per response (i.e., the amount of time needed for each activity that requires

a collection of information) is 422 hours; the average cost per response is $238,195. The

collection requirements are manda tory under SDWA (42 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Details on the

calculation of the rule information collection bu rden and costs can be found in the ICR (USEPA,

2010c) and Chapter 5 of the Cost Analysis (USE PA, 2010). A summary of the burden and costs

of the collection is presented in Exhib it V-1. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 6-3 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Exhibit 6-1 Average Annual Net Change Burden and Costs for the GS ICR

A nnual Labor

Cost Annual

Capital Cost Annual O&M

Cost Total Annual

Cost

Owners or

Operators 1.0 1,510 $ 199,388 $ 5,827,027 $ 3,238,389 $ 9,264,805 6. 9

Permitting

Authorities 10.7 11,241 $ 555,763 $ - $ - $ 555,763 23.6

Agency 1.0 5,123 $ 256,880 $ - $ - $ 256,880 11.7

Total 12.6 17,874 $ 1,012,032 $ 5,827,027 $ 3,238,389 $ 10,077,448 42.3

Source:

Information Collection Request for the Ge ologic Sequestration Rule (USEPA, 2010c).

Notes:

1) Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding.

2) “Annual Burden Hours” reflects an annual average for all project types over the 3-year ICR period. 

# Annual

Responses Respondent

Type Annual

Respondents Annual

Burden

Hours Cost



# An agency may not conduct or sponsor, a nd a person is not required to respond to, a

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB

control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR ar e listed in 40 CFR part 9. In addition, EPA is

amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of curre ntly approved OMB contro l numbers for various

regulations to list the regulatory citations for th e information requirements contained in this final

rule.



# 6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare regulatory

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agen cy certifies that the rule will

not have a significant economic impact on a substa ntial number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small organizati ons, and small governmental jurisdictions.

The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity. Small entities are

defined under the RFA as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business

Administration’s (SBA) regula tions at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a sm all governmental jurisdiction

that is a government of a city, c ounty, town, school distri ct or special district with a population of

less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any "not-f or-profit enterprise which is

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”

For the purpose of assessing the impacts of the GS Rule on small entities, would include

the following (1) For electric power plants under North American Industry Classification

System (NAICS) codes 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122, a firm that is

primarily engaged in the generati on, transmission, and/or distributi on of electric energy for sale

and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours;

(2) For petroleum refineries under NAIC S code 324110, as specified for government

procurement purposes, a firm must have fe wer than 1,500 employees and less than 125,000

barrels per calendar day in tota l Operable Atmospheric Crude O il Distillation capacity. Capacity

would include owned or leased facilities as well as facilities under a proc essing agreement or an

arrangement such as an exchange agreem ent or a throughput. See 73 FR 43492 (July 2008).

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 6-4 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# However, GS is a voluntary action that woul d only be undertaken by a small entity if GS

were in its interest compared to other alterna tives it may have. The purpose of the GS regulation

is to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conduc ted in a manner that protects USDWs from

endangerment. GS is a technologically complex activity, the cost of which is anticipated to be

prohibitive to small entities. Therefore, it is e xpected that small entities would not elect to

sequester CO 2 

# via injection wells, and t hus the rule will not have any impact on them. In

summary, EPA certifies that the GS Rule will no t generate a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.



# 6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or th e private sector in any

one year. The total annual increm ental costs estimated for the imp lementation of this rule are

well under $100 million, resulting in expenditure s for the entity groupings required under an

UMRA analysis that also fall far below the $100 m illion per year threshold. Thus, this rule is not

subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the requi rements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might signi ficantly or uniquely affect small governments.

Government responsibilities for ove rsight and implementation of this rule reside with State or

Federal agencies and not with small governments.



# 6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Under section 6(b) of EO 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), EPA may not issue an

action that has federalism implicat ions, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that

is not required by statute, unless the Federal gov ernment provides the funds necessary to pay the

direct compliance costs incurred by State and loca l governments, or EPA consults with State and

local officials early in the process of devel oping the proposed action. In addition, under section

6(c) of EO 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications and that

preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process

of developing the proposed action.

EPA has concluded that this action may have federalism implications. It will change the

UIC Program, and increase the stri ngency of regulation of GS projects (which would otherwise

have been permitted under UIC as Class I wells). This rule will not impose substantial direct

compliance costs on State or Local governments, nor does EPA anticipate that it will preempt

State law. Thus, the requirements of sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the EO do not apply to this action.

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless c onsulted with representatives of State and

local governments early in the process of devel oping the proposed action to permit them to have

meaningful and timely input into its developm ent. Representatives included the National

Governors’ Association, the Na tional Conference of State Legi slatures, the Council of State

Governments, the National League of Cities, the US Conference of Mayors, the National

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 6-5 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Association of Counties, the International City/C ounty Management Association, the National

Association of Towns and Townships, a nd the County Executives of America.



# 6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

Subject to the EO 13175 (65 FR 67249, N ovember 9, 2000) EPA may not issue a

regulation that has Tribal implications, that impos es substantial direct compliance costs, and that

is not required by statute, unless the Federal gov ernment provides the funds necessary to pay the

direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or EPA c onsults with Tribal officials

early in the process of developi ng the proposed regulation and deve lops a tribal summary impact

statement.

EPA has concluded that this action may have tr ibal implications. However, it will neither

impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. Indian

Tribes may voluntarily apply for primary enfo rcement responsibility to regulate the UIC

Program in lands under their jurisdiction (See se ction II.G of the Preamble for more details on

Primacy). Currently, two Tribes have received primacy for the UIC Program under section 1425

of SDWA since the publication of the proposed rule. EPA is responsible for implementing the

UIC Program in the event that States or Tribes do not seek primary enforcement responsibility.

EPA clarifies that regardless of whether Tribes have UIC Program primacy, the rule protects

USDWs from contamination and th erefore protects all populations from adverse health effects

related to potential USDW contamination.

EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developi ng this regulation to

permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. A summary of the tribal

consultation calls are included in the docket for the GS rule making. See section II of the

Preamble for more information on the details of the tribal consultation process.

As required by section 7(a), EPA’s Tribal C onsultation Official has certified that the

requirements of the (EO) have been met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of the

certification is included in the docket for this action.



# 6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because the

Agency does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action

present a disproportionate risk to children. Today’s rule does not re quire or provide incentive for

firms to engage in GS, however, it does prot ect USDWs from potential negative impacts from

GS of CO 2 

# should a firm decide to undertake such a pr oject. Health and risk assessments related

to GS of CO 2 

# and its effects on humans and the environment are presented in the Vulnerability

Evaluation Framework for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide (USEPA, 2010d).

Additionally, EPA notes that it is funding and monitoring research related to the potential for

USDW contamination associated with GS projects. Much of this research focuses on potential

exceedances of drinking water standards (as sugg ested), which were developed by EPA and take

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 6-6 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# into account impacts on children. Please see secti on II of the Preamble for more details on this

research.



# 6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions th at Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This rule is not a “significant energy ac tion” as defined in EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a signif icant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,

or use of energy. In absence of climate change legislation, baseline assu mptions developed with

the Department of Energy (DOE) for this rulema king indicate that only approximately 1% of the

existing CO 2 

# emissions will be sequestered (approximately 900 million metric tons) over the

period of analysis. Furthermore, the higher degr ee of regulatory certain ty and clarity in the

permitting process may, in fact, have a positive effect on the energy sector.

Specifically, if climate change legisl ation that imposes caps or taxes on CO 2 

# emissions is

passed in the future, energy generation firms and other CO 2 

# producing industries will have an

economic incentive to reduce emissions, and this rule will provide regu latory certainty in

determining how to maximize operations (for ex ample, by increasing pr oduction while staying

within the emissions cap or avoiding some carbon taxes). The rule may allow some firms to

extend the life of their existing capital investme nt in plant machinery or plant processes.



# 6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical . Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling

procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when

the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This rulemaking involves environmental monito ring or measurement. Consistent with the

Agency’s Performance Based Measurement System (“PBMS”), EPA has decided not to require

the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods . Rather, the rule will allow the use of any

method that meets the prescribed performance crit eria. The PBMS approach is intended to be

more flexible and cost-effective for the regulat ed community; it is also intended to encourage

innovation in analytical technol ogy and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding the use of

any method, whether it constitute s a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the

performance criteria specified.



# 6.11 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Addre ss Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations an d Low-Income Populations

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on

environmental justice. Its main provision dir ects Federal agencies, to the greatest extent

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 6-7 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disp roportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs, policie s, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects on mi nority or low-income populations because it

increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations.

Existing electric power generati on plants that burn fossil fuel s may be more prevalent in

areas with higher percentages of people who are minorities or have lower incomes on average,

but it is hard to predict where new plants with Carbon Capture and Stor age (CCS) will be built.

EPA is developing guidance for UI C Directors that places emphasi s on considering the potential

impact of any GS permits on communities (suc h as minority and low income populations) when

evaluating Class VI injection well permit applica tions, as well as provide s suggestions and tools

for targeted outreach to ensure more meaningful public input and partic ipation from the most

affected communities during the permit evaluation and approval process.

This rule does not require that GS be undert aken; but does require th at if it is undertaken,

owners and operators will conduc t the activity in such a way as to protect USDWs from

endangerment caused by CO 2 

# . Additionally, this rule will ensure that all areas of the United

States are subject to the same minimum Federa l requirements for protection of USDWs from

endangerment from GS. Additional detail regarding the potential risk of the rule is presented in

the Vulnerability Evaluation Framework for Ge ologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

(USEPA, 2010d).

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 7-1 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# 7. References

Arizona, Arizona Climate Change Advisory Group. 2005. Executive Order 2005-02.

http://www.governor.sta te.az.us/eo/2005_02.pdf

Arizona. 2006. Executive Order 2006-13. http://www.governor.state.az.us/

Battelle Memorial Institute, for the Global Energy Technology Strategy Program, April 2006.

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage.

Benson, S. M., R. Hepple, J. Apps, C. F. Ts ang, and M. Lippmann. 2002. Lessons Learned From

Natural and Industrial Analogues for Storag e of Carbon Dioxide in Deep Geological

Formations. LBNL-51170. Lawrence Berk eley National Labo ratory: Berkeley,

California.

Benson, S. M., Lawrence Berkeley National La boratory. 2004. Monitoring Protocols and LifeCycle Costs for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide. Proceedings, Carbon Sequestration

Leadership Forum: Melbourne, Australia.

Benson, S. M., E. Gasperikova, and G. M. Hoversten. 2004. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Program

Report: Overview of Monitoring Technique s and Protocols for Geological Storage

Projects.

Benson, S. M., M. Hoversten, E. Gasperikova, and M. Haines, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory, and IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. 2005. M onitoring Protocols and

Life-Cycle Costs for Geologic Storage of Ca rbon Dioxide. Proceedings, 7th International

Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technol ogies (GHGT-7): Vancouver, Canada. v.

II, 1259-1266.

Benson, S. M., Earth Sciences Division, La wrence Berkeley Nati onal Laboratory. 2006.

Monitoring Carbon Dioxide Seque stration in Deep Geological Formations for Inventory

Verification and Carbon Credits, Pape r SPE102833. Proceedings, SPE ATCE: San

Antonio, Texas.

Benson, S .M. and L. Myer. 2007. Monitoring to Ensure Safe and Effective Geological

Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide. Lawrence Be rkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley,

California.

Bliss, Kevin. 2005. Carbon Capture and Storag e: A Regulatory Fram ework for States –

Summary of Recommendations. Intersta te Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Cha nge. 2007. Report to John M. Huntsman, Jr.

http://www.deq.utah.gov/

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 7-2 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Bock, B. R., R. Rhudy, H. Herzog, M. Klett, J. Da vison, D. De la Torre Ugarte, and D. Simbeck.

2003. Economic Evaluation of CO2 Storage and Sink Options. DOE Research Report

DE-FC26-00NT40937.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Em ployment and Wages. 2006. http://www.bls.gov/.

Data extracted April 2008.

California Energy Commission. 2006. Ca lifornia Senate Bill No 1368.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/em ission_standards/index.html

California Energy Commission. 2007. Docket 06-OI R-1. Notice of Availability of 15-Day

Language and Notice of Availability of New Documents Added to the Rulemaking

Record (SB 1368). http://energyarchi ve.ca.gov/ghgstandards/notices/2007-08-

10_NOTICE_15-DAY_LANGUAGE.PDF

Carlsen, I. M., S. Mjaaland, and F. Nyhavn. 2001. SACS – 2, Work Package 4, Monitoring Well

Scenarios. SINTEF Petroleum Research: Trondheim, Norway.

Chalifoux G. V. and R. M. Taylor, Petros pec Engineering Ltd. 2007. Reservoir Monitoring

Methods and Installation Practices. CADE eNews.

http://media.cade.ca.s3.amazonaws.com/2007_02_CADE_eNews.pdf

Congressional Budget Office. 2007. The Potential for Carbon Sequestration in the United States.

http://www.cbo.gov/

Damen, K., A. Faaij, and W. Turkenburg. 2006. H ealth, Safety, and Environmental Risks of

Underground CO2 Storage – Overview of Mechanisms and Current Knowledge. Climate

Change . 74: 289-318.

Dasgupta, S. N. 2005. Monitoring of Sequestered CO2: Meeting the Challenge with Emerging

Geophysical Technologies. Saudi Aramco.

Dooley, J. J., R. T. Dahowski, C. L. Davidson, M. A. Wise, N. Gupta, S. H. Kim, and E. L.

Malone. 2006. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage: A Technology Report

from the Second Phase of the Globa l Energy Technology Strategy Program.

Dooley, James J. Selected Issues with resp ect to the Potential Large Scale Deployment of

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage - Presen tation for the Federal Interagency Task

Force on Carbon Capture, PNNL-SA-71910. Join t Global Change Research Institute,

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, April 6, 2010.

Florida Executive Orders related to climate change:

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/climatechange/eo.htm

Florida Governor’s Action Team on Energy and Climate Change.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/climatechange/team/default.htm

Folger, P. Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), report RL33801. Congressional Research

Service, Washington, D.C., April 2010.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 7-3 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# FutureGen Alliance. 2006. Mattoon Site Environmental Information Volume.

www.futuregenalliance.org

Gasda, S.E., S. Bachu, and M. A. Celia. 2004. The Potential for CO2 Leakage from Storage Sites

in Geological Media: Analysis of Well Di stribution in Mature Sedimentary Basins.

Environmental Geology. 46(6–7), 707–720.

GEO-SEQ Project Team, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2004. GEO-SEQ Best

Practices Manual: Geologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration: Site Evaluation to

Implementation. LBNL-56623. Lawrence Berkel ey National Laboratory: Berkeley,

California.

Gibbs, J. F., J. H. Healy, C. B. Raleigh, and J. Coakley. 1973. Seismicity in the Rangeley,

Colorado Area: 1962-1970. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America . 63: 1557-

1570.

Gunter, W. D., R. J. Chalaturnyk, and J. D. Scott. 1999. Monitoring of Aquifer Disposal of CO2:

Experience from Underground Gas Storag e and Enhanced Oil Recovery. Alberta

Research Council: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Harrington, J. F. and S.T Horseman. 1999. Gas Tran sport Properties of Clays and Mudrocks,

Muds and Mudstones: Physical and Fluid Flow Properties. In: Geol. Sci. Special

Publication . A. C. Aplin et al., (eds.). 158, 107-124.

Hawaii. 2007. Act 234. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/

Healy, J. H., W. W. Ruby, D. T. Griggs, a nd C. B. Raleigh. 1968. The Denver Earthquakes.

Science . 161: 1301-1310.

Heddle, G., H. Herzog, and M. Klett. 2003. Th e Economics of CO2 Storage. Massachusetts

Institute of Technology Laboratory fo r Energy and the Environment: Boston,

Massachusetts.

Heinrich, J. J., H. J. Herzog, and D. M. Re iner. 2003. Environmental Assessment of Geologic

Storage of CO2. MIT LFEE 2003-002. Massachuse tts Institute of Technology Laboratory

for Energy and the Environment: Boston, Massachusetts.

Hoversten, G. M. and E. Gasperikova. 2003. Final Report No. 822176. Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory: Berkeley, California.

Idaho. 2007. Executive Order No. 2007-05.

http://gov.idaho.gov/mediacenter/execorders/eo07/eo_2007_05.html

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme and BP. 2004. Report on Monitoring Workshop: Santa

Cruz, California. http://www.ieaghg.org/doc s/IEAGHGMonitoringReportSantaCruz.pdf

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. 2004. IEA GHG Weyburn CO2 Monitoring and Storage

Project Summary Report 2000-2004.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 7-4 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Illinois. 2006. Executive Order on Climat e Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction.

http://www.illinois.gov/gov/execorders/2006_11.htm

Illinois Climate Change Advisory Group. 2007. Final Recommendations to the Governor.

http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/climatecha nge/documents/final-recommendations.html

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group III, 2005. Carbon Dioxide

Capture and Storage.

Iowa. 2007. Senate File 485. http://www. iowadnr.gov/air/prof/ghg/files/SF485.pdf

Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council. 2008. Interim Report. http://www.iaclimatechange.us/

Jaffe, P. R. and S. Wang. 2003. Potential Effect of CO2-releases from Deep Reservoirs on the

Quality of Fresh-water Aquifers. Proceedings, 6th International Conference on

Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Gale, J. and E. Kaya, (eds.). Oct 2003. Kyoto,

Japan, 1657-1660.

Kolak, J. J. and R.C. Burruss. 2003. An Orga nic Geochemical Assessment of CO2-coal

Interactions during Sequestration. Proceed ings, Second Annual Conference on Carbon

Sequestration: Alexandria, VA.

Kolak, J. J. and R.C. Burruss. 2004. A Geochemical Investigation into the Effect of Coal Rank

on the Potential Environmental Impacts of CO2 Sequestration in Deep Coal Beds.

Proceedings, Third Annual Conference on Carbon Sequestration: Alexandria, VA.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Earth Sciences Division, GE O-SEQ Project Team.

2004. GEO-SEQ Best Practices Manual, Geol ogic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration: Site

Evaluation to Implementation. Lawrence Be rkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley,

California.

Lewicki, L.L., J. Birkholzer, and C-F. Ts ang. 2006. Natural and Industrial Analogues for

Leakage of CO2 from Storage Reservoirs: Identification of Features, Events, and

Processes, and Lessons Learned. LBNL-59784. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:

Berkeley, California. http ://repositories.cdlib.org/

Massachusetts DEP. 2006. Final Regulati ons: 310 CMR 7.29 & 310 CMR 7.00: Appendix

B Final Greenhouse Gas Emission Implemen tation Amendments. http://www.mass.gov/

Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Bo ard. 2000. Final Decision, Docket #: EFSB 99-4.

Mirant Kendall. http://www.mass.gov/

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2007. The Future of Coal, Options for a Carbonconstrained World, An Inte rdisciplinary MIT Study.

McCallum, S.D., D.E. Reistenberg, D.R. Cole, B. M. Freifeld, R.C. Trautz, S.D. Hovorka, and

T.J. Phelps. 2005. Monitoring Geologically Se questered CO2 during the Frio Brine Pilot

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 7-5 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Test using Perfluorocarbon Tracers. Pro ceedings, Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon

Capture and Sequestration, DOE/NETL.

Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2005. IPCC, 2005: IPCC

Special Report on Carbon Dioxi de Capture and Storage. Metz, B., O. Davidson, H.C. de

Coninck, M. Loos, and L.A. Meyer, (eds.). New York, New York: Cambridge University

Press, 442.

Meyer, J.P. 2007. Summary of Ca rbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2EOR) Injection

Well Technology. Contek Solutions.

Michigan Executive Order No. 2007-42. http://www.michigan.gov/

Midwestern Governors Associat ion. 2007. Energy Security and C limate Stewardship Platform

for the Midwest 2007. Midwestern Energy S ecurity and Climate Stewardship Summit.

http://www.midwesterngovernors.org/ Publications/EnergyPlatform.pdf

Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord. 2007. http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/

Montana. House Bill No. 25. http://www.pewclimate.org/

Myer, L. R., G. M. Hoversten, and E. Gasperi kova, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

2002. Sensitivity and Cost of Monitoring Geologic Sequestration Using Geophysics.

Proceedings of the 6th Internationa l Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control

Technologies (GHGT-6). Gale, J. and Y. Kaya (eds.). Pergamon Press. 1: 377-382.

Nance, H.S., Texas Bureau of Economic Geology. 2005 Surface Environmental Monitoring at

the Frio CO2 Sequestration Test Site, Texa s. Proceedings, DOE/NETL Conference on

Carbon Capture and Storage: Austin, Texas.

New Jersey. A3301. 2006. http://www.njle g.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A3500/3301_I1.HTM

New Mexico. Executive Order 2006-69, Ne w Mexico Climate Change Action,

http://www.governor.state .nm.us/press/2006/dec/122806_01.pdf

New Mexico Energy, Minerals, Natural Resour ces Department, Oil Conservation Division.

Carbon Dioxide Sequestration: Interim Report on Identified Statutory and Regulatory

Issues. http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/

Nicot, J., S. Hovorka, and S. Lakshminaras imhan. 2006. Impact of Carbon Storage on Shallow

Groundwater and Pressure-contr olled Regional Capacity for Brine Aquifers, Abstract.

Proceedings, AGU Fall Meeting: San Francisco, CA.

Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003.

Oil and Gas Journal. April 17, 2006.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 7-6 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Oldenburg, C.M., A.J.A. Unger, R.P. Hepple, and P.D. Jordan. 2002. On Leakage and Seepage

from Geologic Carbon Sequestration Site s. LBNL-51130. Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory: Berkeley, California.

Omre, H., K. Solna, N. Dahl, and B. Torudbakke n. 1994. Impact of Fault Heterogeneity in Fault

Zones on Fluid Flow. In: North S ea Oil and Gas Reservoirs III. Aasen, J. O., E. Berg, A.

T. Buller, O. Hjelmeland, R. M. Holt, J. Kl eppe, and O. Torsaeter, (eds.). Dordrecht:

Kluwer, 185-200.

Oregon. House Bill 3543. 2007.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ 07reg/measpdf/hb3500.dir/hb3543.en.pdf

Pearce, J., A. Chadwick, M. Bentham, S. Holloway, and G. Kirby. 2005. Technology Status

Review – Monitoring Technologies for the Geological Storage of CO2, Report No.

COAL R285 DTI/Pub URN 05/1033. British Ge ological Survey: Keyworth, Nottingham,

UK.

Raschi, A. 1997. Plant Responses to Elevated CO2: Evidence from Natural Springs. Raschi, A.,

F. Miglietta, R. Tognetti, P.R. van Gardingen, (eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Raleigh, C.B., J.D. Healy, and J.D. Bredehoeft . 1976. An Experiment in Earthquake Control of

Rangeley, Colorado. Science , 191:1230-1237.

Reynen, B., M. Wilson, N. Riley, T. Manai, O. M. Mathiassen, and S. Holloway. 2005. Carbon

Sequestration Leadership Forum: Discussion Pa per: Identifying Gaps in CO2 Monitoring

and Verification of Storage. Paper No. CSLF-T-2005-3.

RGGI. 2007a. Overview of RGGI CO2Budget Trading Program.

http://www.rggi.org/docs/program_summary_10_07.pdf

RGGI. 2007b. Updated Model Rule. http: //www.rggi.org/about/h istory/model_rule

Rice, S. A. 2003. Health Effects of Acute and Prolonged CO2 Exposure in Normal and Sensitive

Populations. Proceedings: Second Annual Conference on Carbon Sequestration.

Rice, S. A. and R. Rhudy. 2004. Health & Ecol ogical Risk Assessment. Proceedings Risk

Assessment Workshop: London, UK.

Ritter, B. 2007. Colorado Climate Action Pl an: A Strategy to Address Global Warming.

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ic/ coloradoclimat eactionplan.pdf

S.F. No 145, 2nd Engrossment - 85th Legisla tive Session. http://www.re visor.leg.state.mn.us

Sminchak, J., N. Gupta, C. Byrer, and P. Bergman. 2002. Issues Related to Seismic Activity

Induced by the Injection of CO 2 in Deep Saline Aquifers. Journal of Energy &

Environmental Research , 2: 32-46.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 7-7 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# Soloman, S. 2007. Geological Security and Enviro nmental Issues – Case Study on the Sleipner

Field, Norway. Bellona Foundati on Carbon Dioxide Storage.

Spangler L. H.. DATE UNKNOWN. Measuremen t, Monitoring, and Verification. Proceedings:

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum. Zero Emission Research and Technology

Center.

Streit, J., A. Siggins, and B. Evans. 2005. Pred icting and Monitoring Geom echanical Effects of

CO2 Injection. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in Deep Geologic Formations –

Results from the CO2 Capture Project, v. 2: Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide with

Monitoring and Verification. S.M. Benson (e d.). London, UK: Elsevier Science, 751-766.

Tsang, C-F, J. Birkholzer, and J. Rutqvist. 2008. A Comparative Review of Hydrologic Issues

Involved in Geologic Storag e of CO2 and Injection Di sposal of Liquid Waste. Journal of

Environmental Geology , in press.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Foss il Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory.

2006. Project Factsheets: Optimal Geological En vironments for Carbon Dioxide Disposal

in Saline Aquifers.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/ carbon_seq/core_rd/geologic/40417.html

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Foss il Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory.

2007. Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadma p and Program Plan 2007, Ensuring the

Future of Fossil Energy Systems through th e Successful Deployment of Carbon Capture

and Storage Technologies.

U.S. Department of Energy. 2007a. Futu reGen EIS. http://www.netl.doe.gov/

U.S. Department of Energy. 2007b. National Energy Technology Laboratory: Carbon

Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada.

U.S. Department of Energy. 2007c. National En ergy Technology Laborator y: Regional Carbon

Sequestration Partnerships Annua l Project Review Meeting.

U.S. Department of Energy. 2008. National En ergy Technology Laboratory: Technologies

(NATCARB). http://www.netl.doe.gov/tec hnologies/carbon_seq/ natcarb/index.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005a. The Safe Drinking Water Information System –

Federal Version (SDWIS/FED) Violation data. Available online:

http://epa.gov/enviro/html/sdwis/ [14 Apr 2009].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. UIC Program Guidance # 83: Using the Class V

Experimental Technology Well Classificati on for Pilot Carbon Geologic Sequestration

Projects . http://www.epa.gov/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. Geologic CO 2 

# Sequestration Technology and

Cost Analysis , EPA 816-R-10-008.

# Draft Cost Analysis for the 7-8 July 2010

Final GS Rule 

# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010c. Information Collection Request for the National

Underground Injection Control Regulations : Federal Requirements for Class VI

Injection Wells for the Geologic Se questration of Carbon Dioxide, EPA 816-R-10-012.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010d. Vulnerability Ev aluation Framework for

Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide, EPA 430-R-08-009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency webs ite on Climate Change – Climate Economics.

Information extracted December 2007.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ec onomics/economicanalyses.html.

Vu-Hoang, D., L. Jammes, O. Faivre, and T. S. Ramakrishnan. 2006. Measuring and Modeling

for Site Characterization: A Global A pproach. Schlumberger Carbon Services.

Wang, S. and P.R. Jaffe. 2004. Dissolution of a Mine ral Phase in Potable Aquifers Due to CO2

Releases from Deep Formations: Effect of Dissolution Kinetics. Journal of Energy

Conversion and Management. 45(18-19), 2833-2848.

Washington. 2009. Senate Bill 6001. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2007. Carbon Dioxide Mi tigation Program for FossilFueled Thermal Electric Generating Facilities. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/

Washington State Department of Ecology. Cu rrent Rule-making Activity, Chapter 173-407

WAC and Chapter 173-218 WAC. http ://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/wac173407.html

Western Climate Initiative website. http ://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/

Western Climate Initiative. 2007. Statement of Regional Goal.

http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/ component/remository/func-startdown/255/

Wilkens, S.J. and S.J. Naruk. 2007. Quantitati ve Analysis of Slip -induced Dilation with

Application of Fault Seal. AAPG Bulletin, 91, 97-113.

Wo, S., J-T. Liang, and L.R. Meyer. 2005. CO2 St orage in Coalbeds: Risk Assessment of CO2

and Methane Leakage. Carbon Dioxide Ca pture and Storage in Deep Geologic

Formations – Results from the CO2 Captur e Project, v. 2: Geologic Storage of Carbon

Dioxide with Monitoring and Verification. S. M. Benson (ed.). Elsevier Science: London,

UK, 1263-1292.

# Appendix A

Proforma Projects

# A.1 Proforma Pilot Saline Project

MW Power Plant 112

90% Capture (CO

2 

# metric tonnes/day) 2,419

Capacity Utilization 0.85

Metric tonnes per Year 750,557

Storage facility injection life in years 4

Metric tonnes for facility 3,002,227

Post injection monitoring period in years

Success Rate for Finding Site 25%

Injection Zone Depth, Pressure, and Temperature

Depth to Top of Injection Interval (ft) 7,900

Depth to Bottom of Injection Interval (ft) 8,500

Hydrostatic pressure (psi) 3,683

Temperature (°F) @1.5°F/100 ft 182.5

Hydrostatic pressure (Mpa) 25.4

Temperature (°C) 83.6

CO

2 

# density (kg/m 3 

# ) 668.6

Volumetrics and Capacity

Gross thickness (ft) 600

Net thickness (ft) 300

Porosity (%) 20%

Area (mi 2 

# ) 0.9

Area (ft 2 

# ) 26,427,794

Pore space volume (ft 3 

# ) 1,585,667,625

Pore space volume (m 3 

# ) 44,901,107

Metric tonnes capacity at 100% storage efficiency 30,022,272

Storage efficiency 10.0%

Effective metric tonnes capacity 3,002,227

Old Wells in Area In AoR Known to

Require

Remediation A dditional Wells

w/o Good

Cement Logs

Deep Artificial Penetrations (exclude any to be used as injectors) 0.95 0.09 0.14

Shallow Artificial Penetrations (Excluding Water Wells) 1.90 0.19 0.28

Water Wells Artificial Penetrations 1.90 0.19 0.28

Injectivity (Metric Tonnes per Day per Well) 2001

Injection Wells Required (total) 3

Injection Wells New Drills 3

Horizontal Laterals (ft/well) 0

Hydraulic Fracture (lbs of proppant/well) 0

Number of Old Wells Converted to Injection Wells 0

Cost of Converted Wells as % of New 15%

Tubing Size (inches) 6.0

Number of Stratigraphic Tests (if required) 0

Depth of Stratographic Tests (ft) (Decreased from 9,350 b/c for pilot scale

strat. well will not be drilled separately, but core samples will be taken as

injection borehole drilled and will slow down process.) 2,400

Cores per Stratigraphic Tests 6

Number of Monitoring Wells Above Injection Zone (if required) 1.0

Number of Monitoring Wells Into Injection Zone (if required) 1.0

Depth of Monitoring Wells Above Injection Zone (ft) 4,500

Depth of Monitoring Wells Into Injection Zone (ft) 8,350

Long-string Casing of Monitoring Wells Above Inj. Zone (diam. inches) 5.5

Long-string Casing of Monitoring Wells Into Inj. Zone (diam. inches) 5.5

Air Sampling Stations Eddy Covariance (if required) 0

Soil Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 1

Vadose Zone (above water table) Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 1

Phreatic Zone (below water table) Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 1

Passive seismic arrays (inside monitoring wells if required) 1

Deepest USDW (ft) 2,000

Second Containment System Depth to Top (ft) 5,800

Second Containment System Depth to Bottom (ft) 6,100

First Containment System Depth to Top (ft) 7,000

First Containment System Depth to Bottom (ft) 7,400

Miles Diameter

(inches)

Distribution Pipeline 1 1.0 6

Distribution Pipeline 2 0.6 4

Total inch-miles 8.1

Pump Horsepowe r 290.3

Draft Cost Analysis for the

Final GS Rule A-1

July 2010

# A.2 Proforma Large Saline Non-waivered Project

MW Power Plant 275

90% Capture (CO

2 

# metric tonnes/day) 5,940

Capacity Utilization 0.85

Metric tonnes per Year 1,842,885

Storage facility injection life in years 40

Metric tonnes for facility 73,715,400

Post injection monitoring period in years

Success Rate for Finding Site 25%

Injection Zone Depth, Pressure, and Temperature

Depth to Top of Injection Interval (ft) 7,900

Depth to Bottom of Injection Interval (ft) 8,500

Hydrostatic pressure (psi) 3,683

Temperature (°F) @1.5°F/100 ft 182.5

Hydrostatic pressure (Mpa) 25.4

Temperature (°C) 83.6

CO

2 

# density (kg/m 3 

# ) 668.6

Volumetrics and Capacity

Gross thickness (ft) 600

Net thickness (ft) 300

Porosity (%) 20%

Area (mi 2 

# ) 23.3

Area (ft 2 

# ) 648,896,722

Pore space volume (ft 3 

# ) 38,933,803,297

Pore space volume (m 3 

# ) 1,102,482,535

Metric tonnes capacity at 100% storage efficiency 737,154,000

Storage efficiency 10.0%

Effective metric tonnes capacity 73,715,400

Old Wells in Area In AoR Known to

Require

Remediation A dditional Wells

w/o Good

Cement Logs

Deep Artificial Penetrations (exclude any to be used as injectors) 23.3 2.33 3.49

Shallow Artificial Penetrations (Excluding Water Wells) 46.6 4.66 6.98

Water Wells Artificial Penetrations 46.6 4.66 6.98

Injectivity (Metric Tonnes per Day per Well) 2001

Injection Wells Required (total) 4

Injection Wells New Drills 4

Horizontal Laterals (ft/well) 0

Hydraulic Fracture (lbs of proppant/well) 0

Number of Old Wells Converted to Injection Wells 0

Cost of Converted Wells as % of New 15%

Tubing Size (inches) 6.0

Number of Stratigraphic Tests (if required) 1

Depth of Stratigraphic Tests (ft) 9,350

Cores per Stratigraphic Tests 6

Number of Monitoring Wells Above Injection Zone (if required) 5.8

Number of Monitoring Wells Into Injection Zone (if required) 5.8

Depth of Monitoring Wells Above Injection Zone (ft) 4,500

Depth of Monitoring Wells Into Injection Zone (ft) 8,350

Long-string Casing of Monitoring Wells Above Inj. Zone (diam. inches) 5.5

Long-string Casing of Monitoring Wells Into Inj. Zone (diam. inches) 5.5

Air Sampling Stations Eddy Covariance (if required) 12

Soil Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 24

Vadose Zone (above water table) Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 23

Phreatic Zone (below water table) Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 23

Passive seismic arrays (inside monitoring wells if required) 5

Deepest USDW (ft) 2,000

Second Containment System Depth to Top (ft) 5,800

Second Containment System Depth to Bottom (ft) 6,100

First Containment System Depth to Top (ft) 7,000

First Containment System Depth to Bottom (ft) 7,400

Miles Diameter

(inches)

Distribution Pipeline 1 4.8 6

Distribution Pipeline 2 4.8 4

Total inch-miles 48.2

Pump Horsepowe r 712.8

Draft Cost Analysis for the

Final GS Rule A-2

July 2010

# A.3 Proforma Large Saline Waivered Project

MW Power Plant 275

90% Capture (CO

2 

# metric tonnes/day) 5,940

Capacity Utilization 0.85

Metric tonnes per Year 1,842,885

Storage facility injection life in years 40

Metric tonnes for facility 73,715,400

Post injection monitoring period in years

Success Rate for Finding Site 25%

Injection Zone Depth, Pressure, and Temperature

Depth to Top of Injection Interval (ft) 4,400

Depth to Bottom of Injection Interval (ft) 5,000

Hydrostatic pressure (psi) 2,167

Temperature (°F) @1.5°F/100 ft 130.0

Hydrostatic pressure (Mpa) 14.9

Temperature (°C) 54.4

CO

2 

# density (kg/m 3 

# ) 653.2

Volumetrics and Capacity

Gross thickness (ft) 600

Net thickness (ft) 300

Porosity (%) 20%

Area (mi 2 

# ) 23.8

Area (ft 2 

# ) 664,187,423

Pore space volume (ft 3 

# ) 39,851,245,384

Pore space volume (m 3 

# ) 1,128,461,602

Metric tonnes capacity at 100% storage efficiency 737,154,000

Storage efficiency 10.0%

Effective metric tonnes capacity 73,715,400

Old Wells in Area In AoR Known to

Require

Remediation A dditional Wells

w/o Good

Cement Logs

Deep Artificial Penetrations (exclude any to be used as injectors) 23.8 2.38 3.57

Shallow Artificial Penetrations (Excluding Water Wells) 47.6 4.76 7.15

Water Wells Artificial Penetrations 47.6 4.76 7.15

Injectivity (Metric Tonnes per Day per Well) 2001

Injection Wells Required (total) 4

Injection Wells New Drills 4

Horizontal Laterals (ft/well) 0

Hydraulic Fracture (lbs of proppant/well) 0

Number of Old Wells Converted to Injection Wells 0

Cost of Converted Wells as % of New 15%

Tubing Size (inches) 6.0

Number of Stratigraphic Tests (if required) 1

Depth of Stratigraphic Tests (ft) 5,500

Cores per Stratigraphic Tests 6

Number of Monitoring Wells Above Injection Zone (if required) 8.7

Number of Monitoring Wells Into Injection Zone (if required) 8.7

Depth of Monitoring Wells Above Injection Zone (ft) 4,750

Depth of Monitoring Wells Into Injection Zone (ft) 4,850

Long-string Casing of Monitoring Wells Above Inj. Zone (diam. inches) 5.5

Long-string Casing of Monitoring Wells Into Inj. Zone (diam. inches) 5.5

Air Sampling Stations Eddy Covariance (if required) 12

Soil Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 24

Vadose Zone (above water table) Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 24

Phreatic Zone (below water table) Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 24

Passive seismic arrays (inside monitoring wells if required) 5

Deepest USDW (ft) 6,000

Second Containment System Depth to Top (ft) 2,300

Second Containment System Depth to Bottom (ft) 2,600

First Containment System Depth to Top (ft) 3,500

First Containment System Depth to Bottom (ft) 3,900

Miles Diameter

(inches)

Distribution Pipeline 1 4.9 6

Distribution Pipeline 2 4.9 4

Total inch-miles 48.8

Pump Horsepowe r 712.8

Draft Cost Analysis for the

Final GS Rule A-3

July 2010

# A.4 Proforma Enhanced Recovery Non-waivered Project

MW Power Plant 240

90% Capture (CO

2 

# metric tonnes/day) 5,184

Capacity Utilization 0.85

Metric tonnes per Year 1,608,336

Storage facility injection life in years (20 years of ER and 10 years of GS) 10

Metric tonnes for facility 16,083,360

Post injection monitoring period in years

Success Rate for finding site 100%

Injection Zone Depth, Pressure, and Temperature

Depth to Top of Injection Interval (ft) 5,700

Depth to Bottom of Injection Interval (ft) 5,800

Hydrostatic pressure (psi) 2,513

Temperature (°F) @1.5°F/100 ft 142.0

Hydrostatic pressure (Mpa) 17.3

Temperature (°C) 61.1

CO

2 

# density (kg/m 3 

# ) 658.9

Volumetrics and Capacity

Gross thickness (ft) 100

Net thickness (ft) 50

Porosity (%) 15%

Area (mi 2 

# ) 8.4

Area (ft 2 

# ) 232,803,493

Pore space volume (ft 3 

# ) 1,746,026,200

Pore space volume (m 3 

# ) 49,441,956

Metric tonnes capacity at 100% storage efficiency 32,574,981

Storage efficiency 49.4%

Effective metric tonnes capacity 16,083,360

Old Wells in Area In AoR Known to

Require

Remediation A dditional Wells

w/o Good

Cement Logs

Deep Artificial Penetrations (exclude any to be used as injectors) 134 13.36 20.04

Shallow Artificial Penetrations (Excluding Water Wells) 17 1.67 2.51

Water Wells Artificial Penetrations 17 1.67 2.51

Injectivity (Metric Tonnes per Day per Well) 334

Injection Wells Required (total) 17

Injection Wells New Drills 0

Horizontal Laterals (ft/well) 0

Hydraulic Fracture (lbs of proppant/well) 0

Number of Old Wells Converted to Injection Wells 17

Cost of Converted Wells as % of New 15%

Tubing Size (inches) 4.0

Number of Stratigraphic Tests (if required) 0

Depth of Stratographic Tests (ft) (Decreased from 6,380 b/c for ER strat.

well will not be drilled separately, but core samples will be taken as

injection borehole drilled and will slow down process.) 6,380

Cores per Stratigraphic Tests 6

Number of Monitoring Wells Above Injection Zone (if required) 2.1

Number of Monitoring Wells Into Injection Zone (if required) 2.1

Depth of Monitoring Wells Above Injection Zone (ft) 3,400

Depth of Monitoring Wells Into Injection Zone (ft) 5,775

Long-string Casing of Monitoring Wells Above Inj. Zone (diam. inches) 5.5

Long-string Casing of Monitoring Wells Into Inj. Zone (diam. inches) 5.5

Air Sampling Stations Eddy Covariance (if required) 4

Soil Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 9

Vadose Zone (above water table) Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 8

Phreatic Zone (below water table) Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 8

Passive seismic arrays (inside monitoring wells if required) 2

Deepest USDW (ft) 2,000

Second Containment System Depth to Top (ft) 3,600

Second Containment System Depth to Bottom (ft) 3,900

First Containment System Depth to Top (ft) 4,800

First Containment System Depth to Bottom (ft) 5,200

Miles Diameter

(inches)

Distribution Pipeline 1 2.9 6

Distribution Pipeline 2 10.5 4

Total inch-miles 59.4

Pump Horsepowe r 622.1

Draft Cost Analysis for the

Final GS Rule A-4

July 2010

# A.5 Proforma Enhanced Recovery Waivered Project

MW Power Plant 220

90% Capture (CO

2 

# metric tonnes/day) 4,752

Capacity Utilization 0.85

Metric tonnes per Year 1,474,308

Storage facility injection life in years (10 years of ER and 30 years of GS) 10

Metric tonnes for facility 14,743,080

Post injection monitoring period in years

Success Rate for finding site 100%

Injection Zone Depth, Pressure, and Temperature

Depth to Top of Injection Interval (ft) 3,312

Depth to Bottom of Injection Interval (ft) 3,412

Hydrostatic pressure (psi) 1,478

Temperature (°F) @1.5°F/100 ft 106.2

Hydrostatic pressure (Mpa) 10.2

Temperature (°C) 41.2

CO

2 

# density (kg/m 3 

# ) 612.5

Volumetrics and Capacity

Gross thickness (ft) 100

Net thickness (ft) 50

Porosity (%) 15%

Area (mi 2 

# ) 8.2

Area (ft 2 

# ) 229,537,094

Pore space volume (ft 3 

# ) 1,721,528,203

Pore space volume (m 3 

# ) 48,748,250

Metric tonnes capacity at 100% storage efficiency 29,860,399

Storage efficiency 49.4%

Effective metric tonnes capacity 14,743,080

Old Wells in Area In AoR Known to

Require

Remediation A dditional Wells

w/o Good

Cement Logs

Deep Artificial Penetrations (exclude any to be used as injectors) 132 13.17 19.76

Shallow Artificial Penetrations (Excluding Water Wells) 16 1.65 2.47

Water Wells Artificial Penetrations 16 1.65 2.47

Injectivity (Metric Tonnes per Day per Well) 334

Injection Wells Required (total) 16

Injection Wells New Drills 0

Horizontal Laterals (ft/well) 0

Hydraulic Fracture (lbs of proppant/well) 0

Number of Old Wells Converted to Injection Wells 16

Cost of Converted Wells as % of New 15%

Tubing Size (inches) 4.0

Number of Stratigraphic Tests (if required) 0

Depth of Stratographic Tests (ft) (Decreased from 6,380 b/c for ER strat.

well will not be drilled separately, but core samples will be taken as

injection borehole drilled and will slow down process.) 6,380

Cores per Stratigraphic Tests 6

Number of Monitoring Wells Above Injection Zone (if required) 3.1

Number of Monitoring Wells Into Injection Zone (if required) 3.1

Depth of Monitoring Wells Above Injection Zone (ft) 3,206

Depth of Monitoring Wells Into Injection Zone (ft) 3,387

Long-string Casing of Monitoring Wells Above Inj. Zone (diam. inches) 5.5

Long-string Casing of Monitoring Wells Into Inj. Zone (diam. inches) 5.5

Air Sampling Stations Eddy Covariance (if required) 4

Soil Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 9

Vadose Zone (above water table) Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 8

Phreatic Zone (below water table) Gas Sampling Stations (if required) 8

Passive seismic arrays (inside monitoring wells if required) 2

Deepest USDW (ft) 4,000

Second Containment System Depth to Top (ft) 1,212

Second Containment System Depth to Bottom (ft) 1,512

First Containment System Depth to Top (ft) 2,412

First Containment System Depth to Bottom (ft) 2,812

Miles Diameter

(inches)

Distribution Pipeline 1 2.9 6

Distribution Pipeline 2 10.0 4

Total inch-miles 57.4

Pump Horsepowe r 570.2

Draft Cost Analysis for the

Final GS Rule A-5

July 2010

# Appendix B

Project Algorithms

# RA0 RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4

Geologic Site

Characterization A-1 Develop maps and cross

sections of local geologic

structure. once 60 hours of geologist

labor @$107.23 per hour

= $6,433.80 per site. 100% 25% 50% 100% 100% 0% 1 200%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-2 Conduct 3D seismic survey

to identify faults and

fractures in primary and

secondary containment

units. once $104,000 per square mile

for good resolution. 50% 25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 1 200%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-3 Obtain and analyze seismic

(earthquake) history. once 60 hours of geologist

labor @$107.23 per hour

= $6,433.80 per site. 75% 25% 50% 100% 100% 0% 1 200%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-4 Remote (aerial) survey of

land, land uses, structures

etc. once $3,100 per site. $415 per

square mile surveyed.

Assume survey covers

twice project's actual

footprint. 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 10% 1 200%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-5 Obtain data on area,

thickness, capacity, porosity

and permeability of receiving

formations and confining

systems. once 24 hours of geologist

labor @$107.23 per hour

= $2,573.52 per site. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 1 200%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-6 Obtain geomechanical

information on fractures,

stress, rock strength, in situ

fluid pressures ( from

existing data and

literature )

. once 120 hours of geologist

labor @$107.23 per hour

= $12,867.60 per site. 50% 50% 50% 75% 100% 10% 1 200%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-7 Obtain geomechanical

information on fractures,

stress, rock strength, in situ

fluid pressures ( new cores

and tests ). once

(assume 1

stratigraphic

well per site) $78 per foot for

stratigraphic test well.

$3,100 per core. 25% 25% 25% 50% 100% 100% 1 200%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-8 List names and depth of all

potentially affected

Underground Sources of

Drinking Water (USDWs). once 24 hours of geologist

labor @$107.23 per hour

= $2,573.52 per site. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10% 1 200%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-9 Provide geochemical

information and maps/cross

section on subsurface

aquifers. once 60 hours of geologist

labor @$107.23 per hour

= $6,433.80 per site. 50% 25% 25% 100% 100% 50% 1 400%

240 hours of geologist Tracking

Number Application Factors* Regulatory

Matrix Heading ER applicability

assumption

(relative to

saline) Compliance Activity Waiver

Multiplier Periodicity

of Cost

Item Schedule

Code Cost Algorithm ($2008)

Geologic Site

Characterization A-10 Provide information on water

rock-CO 2 

# geochemistry and

mineral reactions. once labor @$107.23 per hour

= $25,735.20 per site +

$10,300 lab fees =

$36,035 per site. 25% 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 1 300%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-11 Develop list of penetrations

into injection zone within

AoR ( from well history

data bases ). once 12 hours of geologist

labor @ 107.23 per hour =

$1,286.76 per square

mile. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10% 1 200%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-12 Develop list of penetrations

into containment systems

within AoR ( from well

history data bases ). once 12 hours of geologist

labor @ 107.23 per hour =

$1,286.76 per square

mile. 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 10% 1 200%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-13 Develop list of water wells

within AoR ( from public

data ). once 36 hours of geologist

labor @ 107.23 per hour =

$3,860.28 per square

mile. 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 10% 1 200%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-14 Prepare geologic

characterization report

demonstrating: suitability of

receiving zone, storage

capacity and injectivity,

trapping mechanism free of

nonsealing faults, competent

confining system, etc. once 240 hours of geologist

labor @$107.23 per hour

= $25,735.20 per site. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 250%

Geologic Site

Characterization A-15 G&A Annual 20% of annual costs. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-1 Develop geochemical

baseline for injection zones

and confining zone.

Assumes 4 samples per

injection well. once $207 per sample * 4

samples per injection well

= $828 per injection well. 25% 25% 50% 100% 100% 100% 1 150%

Monitoring B-2 Develop baseline of surface

air CO 2 

# flux for leakage

monitoring. once $36,200 per station. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 100%

Monitoring B-3a Conduct front-end

engineering and design for

monitoring wells stopping

above the confining zone. once $20,700 per site. $5,200

per shallow monitoring

well. 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

D raft Cost Analysis for the

F inal GS Rule B-1 July 2010

# RA0 RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 Tracking

Number Application Factors* Regulatory

Matrix Heading ER applicability

assumption

(relative to

saline) Compliance Activity Waiver

Multiplier Periodicity

of Cost

Item Schedule

Code Cost Algorithm ($2008)

Monitoring B-3b Conduct front-end

engineering and design for

monitoring wells drilling into

the injection zone. once $5,200 per deep

monitoring well. 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-4a Obtain rights-of-way for

surface uses (monitoring

wells stopping above

confining zone). once $10,400 per monitoring

well. 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-4b Obtain rights-of-way for

surface uses (monitoring

wells drilling into injection

zone). once $10,400 per monitoring

well. 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-5 Obtain rights-of-way for

surface uses (monitoring

sites). once $5,200 per air monitoring

station site (microseismic

sensing uses a monitoring

well). 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 100%

Monitoring B-6 Check valve (Director

discretion to require downhole shut-off valve, but

expected to be check valves

in all but the most

exceptional cases). once $500 per downhole check

valve (one per injection

well). 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-7 Standard monitoring well

stopping above the confining

zone (used look up table).

Standard monitoring wells

for ER projects stop below

the injection zone. once $155 to $207 per foot

depth typical for slim-hole

design down to 9,000 feet. 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-8 Standard monitoring well

drilled into the injection zone

(used look up table; applies

to RA3-4 only). once $155 to $207 per foot

depth typical for slim-hole

design down to 9,000 feet. 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-9a Pressure, temperature, and

resistivity gauges and

related equipment for

monitoring wells stopping

above the injection zone. once

(application

factor

reflects

intensity) $10,400 per well. 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 1 200%

Monitoring B-9b Pressure, temperature, and

resistivity gauges and

related equipment for

monitoring wells drilling into once

(application

factor

reflects $10,400 per well. 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

monitoring wells drilling into

the in j ection zone. reflects

intensit y)

Monitoring B-10a Salinity, CO 2 

# , tracer, etc.

monitoring equipment for

wells stopping above the

injection zone (portion of

equipment may be at

surface such as for periodic

in situ sampling using Utubes). once

(application

factor

reflects

intensity) $10,400 per well. 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 1 200%

Monitoring B-10b Salinity, CO 2 

# , tracer, etc.

monitoring equipment for

wells drilling into the injection

zone (portion of equipment

may be at surface such as

for periodic in situ sampling

using U-tubes). once

(application

factor

reflects

intensity) $10,400 per well. 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-10c ER only. U-tube for sensing

oil movement away from

bottom of formation. Applies

to 1 of every 4 monitoring

wells drilled into the injection

zone. once $16 per foot depth +

$30,000 per well. 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 1 200%

Monitoring B-11a Develop plan and implement

Eddy Covariance air

monitoring. once 40 hours of geologist

labor @$107.23 per hour

= $4,289.20 per site.

$75,000 per air sampling

station. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 100%

Monitoring B-11b Develop plan and implement

Digital Color Infrared

Orthoimagery (CIR) or

Hyperspectral Imaging to

detect changes to

vegetation. Costs are for

planning and quality

assurance (no construction

costs). once $10,000 per square mile. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1 100%

D raft Cost Analysis for the

F inal GS Rule B-2 July 2010

# RA0 RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 Tracking

Number Application Factors* Regulatory

Matrix Heading ER applicability

assumption

(relative to

saline) Compliance Activity Waiver

Multiplier Periodicity

of Cost

Item Schedule

Code Cost Algorithm ($2008)

Monitoring B-11c Develop plan and implement

LIDAR airborne survey to

detect surface leaks. Works

best where vegetation is

sparse. Costs are for

planning and quality

assurance (no construction

costs). once $10,000 per square mile. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-11d Develop plan and implement

soil zone monitoring. once 40 hours of geologist

labor @$107.23 per hour

= $4,289.20. Total cost =

$4,289.20 + $6,000 =

$10,289.2 per site. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-11e Develop plan and implement

vadose zone monitoring

wells to sample gas above

water table. once 40 hours of geologist

labor @$107.23 per hour

= $4,289.20. Total cost =

$4,289.20 + $8,000 =

$12,289.2 per site. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-11f Develop plan and implement

monitoring wells for ground

water quality and

geochemistry. once 40 hours of geologist

labor @$107.23 per hour

= $4,289.20. Total cost =

$4,289.20 + $80,000 =

$84,289.20 per site. 25% 25% 50% 100% 100% 100% 1 150%

Monitoring B-12 Conduct periodic monitoring

of groundwater quality and

geochemistry. Monthly ($200 per sample + 0.5

hours engineer labor

@$110.62 per hour per

sample) * 4 samples per

monitoring well =

$1,021.24 per monitoring

well per month. 25% 25% 50% 100% 100% 100% 4 150%

Monitoring B-13 Surface microseismic

detection equipment:

geophone arrays in

monitoring wells. once $52,000 per geophone

array (1 per 5 square

miles with a minimum of 1

per site). 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 100% 1 100%

Monitoring B-14a Monitoring well O&M for

wells stopping above the

injection zone. annual Annual O&M costs are

$25,900 per well + $3.10

per foot depth. 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 2 100%

Monitoring B-14b Monitoring well O&M for

wells drilling into the injection

zone. annual Annual O&M costs are

$25,900 per well + $3.10

per foot depth. 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 2 100%

$10,000 per year base

Monitoring B-14c ER only. U-tube O&M for 1

of 4 monitoring wells drilled

into the injection zone. annual p y

O&M costs plus monthly

sampling. Cost of monthly

sampling = 12 samples

annually per well * (8

hours per sample of

engineer labor @$110.62

per hour + $200

(chromatograph cost) per

sample) = $13,019. Total

cost = $10,000 + $13,019

= $23,019 per site. 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 2 200%

Monitoring B-15a Annual cost of air and soil

surveys: Eddy Covariance. annual $10,000 per air sampling

station. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 100%

Monitoring B-15b Annual cost of air and soil

surveys: Digital Color

Infrared Orthoimagery (CIR)

or Hyperspectral Imaging to

detect changes to

vegetation. annual Airborne survey costs of

$6,250 per square mile

plus mobilization costs of

$5,000 per site. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 2 100%

Monitoring B-15c Annual cost of air and soil

surveys: LIDAR airborne

survey to detect surface

leaks. Works best where

vegetation is sparse. annual Airborne survey costs of

$6,250 per square mile

plus mobilization costs of

$5,000 per site. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 2 100%

Monitoring B-15d Annual cost of air and soil

surveys: soil zone

monitoring. annual $200 lab fee + $100 to

collect per sample = $300

per sample. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 100%

Monitoring B-15e Annual cost of air and soil

surveys: vadose zone

monitoring wells to sample

gas above water table. annual $200 lab fee + $100 to

collect per sample = $300

per sample. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 100%

Monitoring B-15f Annual cost of air and soil

surveys: monitoring wells for

gas samples from water

table. annual $200 lab fee + $1,000 to

collect per sample =

$1,200 per sample. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 100%

Monitoring B-16 Annual cost of passive

seismic equipment. annual $10,500 per geophone

array. 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 100% 2 100%

Monitoring B-17 Periodic seismic surveys:

3D. every 5

years $104,000 per square mile

for good resolution. 0% 0% 25% 25% 50% 100% 3 100%

D raft Cost Analysis for the

F inal GS Rule B-3 July 2010

# RA0 RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 Tracking

Number Application Factors* Regulatory

Matrix Heading ER applicability

assumption

(relative to

saline) Compliance Activity Waiver

Multiplier Periodicity

of Cost

Item Schedule

Code Cost Algorithm ($2008)

Monitoring B-18 Complex modeling of fluid

flows and migration

(reservoir simulations) over

100 years (RA0-3) or 10,000

years (RA4). Includes AoR

and corrective action

reevaluation and updating

well plugging and

monitoring/testing plans. 5 years 180 hours of engineer

labor @$110.62 per hour

= $19,911.60 per site. 64

hours of engineer labor

@$110.62 per hour =

$7079.68 per injection well

for RA3; or 84 hours of

engineer labor @$110.62

per hour = $9,292.08 per

injection well for RA4. 25% 25% 25% 100% 100% 100% 3 150%

Monitoring B-19 Annual r eports to regulators

and recordkeeping for all

data gathering activities. annual 20 hours per report of

engineer labor @$110.62

per hour = $1,659 per

report. 24 hours a nnually

of engineer labor

@$110.62 per hour =

$2,654.88 for

recordkeeping. 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 2 100%

Monitoring B-20 Semi-Annual (RA3) or

quarterly (RA0) reports to

regulators and

recordkeeping for all data

gathering activities. semi-annual

(RA3) or

quarterly

(RA0) 15 hours per report of

engineer labor @$110.62

per hour = $1,659.30 per

report. 36 hours of

engineer labor @$110.62

per hour annually for

recordkeeping =

$3,982.32 for RA3; or 18

hours annually of engineer

labor @$110.62 per hour

= $1,991.16 for

recordkeeping for RA0. 50% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 5 100%

Monitoring B-21 Monthly reports to regulators

and recordkeeping for all

data gathering activities and

recordkeeping. monthly 8 hours of engineer labor

@$110.62 per hour =

$884.96 per report. 36

hours annually =$3, 982.32

for recordkeeping. 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 4 100%

Monitoring B-22 G&A annual 20% of annual costs. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Injection Well C-1 Conduct front-end

engineering and design

(general and injection wells),

pre op logging sampling once $2,070 per injection well

for the baseline pressure

fall-off test. $207,000 per

site and $41 400 per 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100% j

Construction C

- 1 pre

- op logging

, sampling

, and testing. Includes

baseline pressure fall-off

test. once site and $41

, 400 per

injection well for other

front-end engineering and

desi g n. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-2 Obtain rights-of-way for

surface uses (equipment,

injection wells). Pipeline

rights-of-way are included in

pipeline costs. Half of cost is

legal fees for developer,

other half is payment to

landowner. once $20,700 per injection well. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-3 Lease rights for subsurface

(pore space) use. Additional

injection fees are included

under O&M costs. once Upfront payment of

$52.00 per acre. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-4 Land use, air emissions,

water discharge permits. once $103,400 per site.

$20,700 per square mile. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-5 UIC permit filing, including

preparation of attachments

(see T&C Document for

detail). once $10,400 per site. $6,000

per injection well for the

first 5 injection wells at a

site; $2000 per injection

well for subsequent

injection wells. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 300%

Injection Well

Construction C-6 Standard injection well cost

(from look up table). once $220 to $290 per foot

depth typically down to

9,000 feet. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-7 Corrosion resistant tubing. once Additional $1.15 per foot

length-inch diameter for

glass reinforced epoxy

(GRE) lining. 100% 25% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-8 Corrosion resistant casing:

low alloy for RA2 and RA3,

high alloy for RA4. once Additional $1.81 per foot

length-inch diameter for

RA2 and RA3; or $2.70

per foot length-inch

diameter for RA4. 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-9 Cement well from surface

through base of lowermost

USDW and throughout

injection zone. once $1.20 per foot length-inch

diameter. 25% 25% 25% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-10 Use CO 2 

# -resistant cement. once Adds 25% to total

cementing costs. 25% 25% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

D raft Cost Analysis for the

F inal GS Rule B-4 July 2010

# RA0 RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 Tracking

Number Application Factors* Regulatory

Matrix Heading ER applicability

assumption

(relative to

saline) Compliance Activity Waiver

Multiplier Periodicity

of Cost

Item Schedule

Code Cost Algorithm ($2008)

Injection Well

Construction C-13 Injection pressure limited to

90% of fracture pressure of

injection formation. once Affects maximum flow of

well, number of wells

needed. 50% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-14 Pumps. once $1550 per horsepower of

pump. Installation of

electrical service adds

$20,700 per injection well. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-15 Wellhead and Control

Equipment. once Cost per well is

$520*(maximum metric

tonnes per day injected

p er in j ection well ) ^ 0.6



# . 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-16 All elements of pipeline

costs. once $83,000 per mile lengthinch diameter. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Injection Well

Construction C-17 G&A annual 20% of annual costs. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

AoR Study &

Corrective Action D-1 Simple fluid flow calculations

to predict CO 2 

# fluid flow. once 36 hours of engineer labor

@$110.62 per hour =

$3,982.32 per site. 12

hours of engineer labor

@$110.62= $1,327.44 per

injection well. 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 1 100%

AoR Study &

Corrective Action D-2 Complex modeling of CO 2 

# fluid flows and migration

(reservoir simulations) over

100 years. once 180 hours of engineer

labor @$110.62 per hour

= $19,911.60 per site. 24

hours of engineer labor

@$110.62 = $2,654.88

per injection well. 100% 50% 50% 100% 0% 100% 1 100%

AoR Study &

Corrective Action D-3 Complex modeling of CO 2 

# fluid flows and migration

(reservoir simulations) over

10,000 years. once 180 hours of engineer

labor @$110.62 per hour

= $19,911.60 per site. 36

hours of engineer labor

@$110.62 = $3,982.32

per injection well. 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 1 100%

AoR Study &

Corrective Action D-4 Aerial search for old wells

(artificial penetrations). This

includes helicopter magnetic

survey and follow-up ground

survey. once Helicopter magnetic

survey requires about 9

hours per square mile

@$1,240 per hour. Cost =

$5,200 for mobilization +

9*$1240 per square mile

+ $2,070 (follow-up 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 10% 1 100%

y ( p

ground surveys) per

square mile.

AoR Study &

Corrective Action D-5 Evaluate integrity of

construction and record of

completion and/or plugging

of existing wells that

penetrate containment

system. once 24 hours per site of

geologist labor @107.23

per hour + 6 hours per

well of engineer labor

@110.62 per hour =

$2,574 per site + $664 per

well. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10% 1 100%

AoR Study &

Corrective Action D-6 Evaluate integrity of

construction and record of

completion and/or plugging

of existing shallow wells that

pose a threat to USDWs. once 6 hours per well of

engineer labor @ $110.62

per hour = $663.72 per

well. 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 10% 1 100%

AoR Study &

Corrective Action D-7 Remediate old wells in AoR

that pose a risk to USDWs.

Use two cement plugs: one

in producing formation and

one for surface to bottom of

USDWs, fill the remainder of

the borehole with mud. once $31,200 for clean out,

$13,500 to replug and

$11,400 to log. Water well

remediation costs

$20,700. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

AoR Study &

Corrective Action D-8 Remediate old wells in AoR

that lack high quality

cementing information. Use

two cement plugs: one in

producing formation and one

for surface to bottom of

USDWs, fill the remainder of

the borehole with mud. once $31,200 for clean out,

$13,500 to replug and

$11,400 to log. Water well

remediation costs

$20,700. 25% 25% 25% 50% 50% 100% 1 200%

AoR Study &

Corrective Action D-9 G&A annual 20% of annual operating

costs. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Well operation E-1 Develop a corrosion

monitoring and prevention

program. once 24 hours of engineer labor

@$110.62 per hour =

$2,654.88 per site. 25% 25% 50% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

D raft Cost Analysis for the

F inal GS Rule B-5 July 2010

# RA0 RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 Tracking

Number Application Factors* Regulatory

Matrix Heading ER applicability

assumption

(relative to

saline) Compliance Activity Waiver

Multiplier Periodicity

of Cost

Item Schedule

Code Cost Algorithm ($2008)

Well operation E-2 Corrosion monitoring:

analysis of injectate stream

and measurement of

corrosion of well material

coupons. quarterly 6 hours of engineer labor

@$110.62 per hour =

$663.72 per injection well.

Sampling cost = $25 per

injection well + ($300 per

sample * 4 samples per

injection well) = $1,225.

Total cost = $663.72 +

$1,225 = $1,888.72 per

injection well. (Note, $300

per sample = $200 per

sample for analysis costs

+ $100 per sample for

collection costs.) 25% 25% 50% 100% 100% 100% 6 100%

Well operation E-3 Continuous measurement /

monitoring equipment:

injected volumes, pressure,

flow rates and annulus

pressure. once $15,500 per injection well. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Well operation E-4 Equipment to add tracers. once $10,400 per injection well. 0% 0% 25% 25% 50% 100% 1 100%

Well operation E-5 Electricity cost for pumps

and equipment. annual $0. 066 per kWh. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 100%

Well operation E-6 Injection well O&M. a nnual Annual O&M costs are

$77,500 per injection well

+ $3.10 per foot depth. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 100%

Well operation E-7 Pay rent for land use and

rights-of-way. annual $5.20 per acre. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 100%

Well operation E-8 Pore space use costs. a nnual $0.36 per metric tonne. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 100%

Well operation E-9 Property Taxes & Insurance. a nnual $0.03 per $1 of Capital

Expenditure (CAPEX). 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 100%

Well operation E-10 Tracers in injected fluid. a nnual $0.05 per metric tonne of

CO2 injected. 0% 0% 25% 25% 50% 100% 2 100%

Well operation E-11 Contribution to Long-term

Monitoring, Insurance, and

Remediation Fund. annual $0.10 per metric tonne

CO2 injected. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 100%

Well operation E-12 Repair and replace wells

and equipment. annual Assume 1% per year of

initial well and equipment

cost. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 100%

Well operation E-13 General failure of

containment at site: cost to

remove and relocate the

CO 2



# . annual Assume a 1% chance of

failure, then 1.5% of total

capital costs would cover

such a contingency. 100% 100% 95% 80% 75% 100% 2 100%

Well operation E-14 G&A a nnual 20% of annual costs. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Mechanical

Integrity Tests F-1 Internal Mechanical integrity

pressure test. every 5

years for

RA0-3 $2,070 per test (one test

per injection well). 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 3 100%

Mechanical

Integrity Tests F-2 Casing inspection log every. every 5

years (RA3)

or annually

(RA4). For

waivered

projects,

annual for

RA0 - RA4. $2,070 per test (one test

per injection well) + $4.15

per foot depth (required at

Director's discretion). 0% 0% 0% 25% 100% 100% 3 100%

Mechanical

Integrity Tests F-3 Conduct a tracer survey of

the bottom-hole cement

using a CO 2 

# -soluble isotope. biannual for

RA0-2;

annual for

RA3 $5,200 per test (one test

per injection well). 25% 25% 25% 50% 0% 100% 2 150%

Mechanical

Integrity Tests F-4 Conduct a tracer survey of

the bottom-hole cement

using a CO 2 

# -soluble isotope. semi-annual $5,200 per test (one test

per injection well). 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 100% 5 150%

Mechanical

Integrity Tests F-5 External mechanical integrity

tests to detect flow adjacent

to well using temperature or

noise log at least annually. annual $2,070 per test (one test

per injection well) plus

$4.15 per foot depth. 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 100% 2 150%

Mechanical

Integrity Tests F-6 External mechanical integrity

tests to detect flow adjacent

to well using temperature or

noise log at least every 6

months. semi-annual $2,070 per test (one test

per injection well) plus

$4.15 per foot depth. 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 100% 5 150%

Mechanical

Integrity Tests F-7 Conduct pressure fall-off

test. every 5

years $2,070 per test (one test

per injection well). 50% 50% 50% 100% 0% 100% 3 150%

Mechanical

Integrity Tests F-8 Conduct pressure fall-off

test. semi-annual $2,070 per test (one test

per injection well). 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 5 100%

D raft Cost Analysis for the

F inal GS Rule B-6 July 2010

# RA0 RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 Tracking

Number Application Factors* Regulatory

Matrix Heading ER applicability

assumption

(relative to

saline) Compliance Activity Waiver

Multiplier Periodicity

of Cost

Item Schedule

Code Cost Algorithm ($2008)

Mechanical

Integrity Tests F-9 G&A annual 20% of annual costs. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-1 Flush wells with a buffer fluid

before plugging. once $1,000 per injection well +

$0.085 per foot depth. 25% 25% 50% 100% 100% 100% 8 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-2 Plug injection wells. Use two

cement plugs: one in

producing formation and one

for surface to bottom of

USDWs, fill the remainder of

the borehole with mud. once $13,500 to plug and

$11,400 to log. 75% 75% 75% 100% 100% 100% 8 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-3 Perform a mechanical

integrity test prior to

plugging to evaluate integrity

of casing and cement to

remain in ground. once $2,070 per injection well

plus $4.15 per foot depth. 25% 25% 50% 100% 100% 100% 8 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-4a Plug monitoring wells

stopping above injection

zone. Use one cement plug

from the surface to the

bottom of UDSWs, fill the

remainder of the borehole

with mud. once $6,700 to plug and $5,700

to log. 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 10 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-4b Plug monitoring wells drilling

into injection zone. Use one

cement plug from the

surface to the bottom of

UDSWs, fill the remainder of

the borehole with mud. once $6,700 to plug and $5,700

to log. 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 10 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-5 Remove surface equipment

and structures; restore

vegetation (injection wells). once $25,900 per injection well. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 8 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-6a Remove surface equipment

and structures; restore

vegetation (monitoring well

stopping above injection

zone). once $10,400 per monitoring

well. $5,200 for monitoring

stations. 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 10 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-6b Remove surface equipment

and structures; restore

vegetation (monitoring wells

drilling into injection zone) once $10,400 per monitoring

well. 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 10 100%

drilling into injection zone)

.

Closure and PostInjection Care G-7 Document plugging and

closure process (well

plugging, post-injection

plans, notification of intent to

close, and post closure

report). once 120 hours of engineer

labor @$110.62 per hour

= $13,274.40 per site. 50% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-8a Post-closure O&M for

monitoring wells stopping

above injection zone. following inj.

period,

annual for 10

years for

RA0-2, 50

years for

RA3 and

100 years

for RA4 Annual O&M costs are

$25,900 per well + $3.10

per foot depth. 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 9 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-8b Post-closure O&M for

monitoring wells drilling into

injection zone. following inj.

period,

annual for 10

years for

RA0-2, 50

years for

RA3 and

100 years

for RA4 Annual O&M costs are

$25,900 per well + $3.10

per foot depth. 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 9 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-9 Post-injection air and soil

surveys. every 5

years $10,400 per station. 0% 0% 0% 25% 100% 100% 11 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-10 Post-injection seismic

survey (conducted for 10

years for RA0-2, 50 years

for RA3 and 100 years for

RA4). every five

years for 10

years for

RA0-2, 50

years for

RA3 and

100 years

for RA4 $104,000 per square mile

for good resolution (cost

increase to model). 0% 0% 0% 25% 50% 100% 11 100%

D raft Cost Analysis for the

F inal GS Rule B-7 July 2010

# RA0 RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 Tracking

Number Application Factors* Regulatory

Matrix Heading ER applicability

assumption

(relative to

saline) Compliance Activity Waiver

Multiplier Periodicity

of Cost

Item Schedule

Code Cost Algorithm ($2008)

Closure and PostInjection Care G-11 Periodic post-injection

monitoring reports to

regulators (conducted for 50

yrs for RA3, 100 years for

RA4, 10 years for all others). every five

years for 10

years for

RA0-2, 50

years for

RA3 and

100 years

for RA4 40 hours of engineer labor

@$110.62 per hour =

$4,424.80 for site. 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11 100%

Closure and PostInjection Care G-12 G&A annual 20% of annual costs. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Financial

Responsibility H-1 Performance bond or

demonstrate financial ability

(accounting for inflation) to

close site. once 8 hours of engineer labor

@$110.62 per hour =

$884.96 per financial

re p ort. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 8 100%

Financial

Responsibility H-2 Performance bond or

demonstrate financial ability

(accounting for inflation) for

post-injection monitoring and

remediation. once 4 hours of engineer labor

@$110.62 per hours =

$442.48. 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Financial

Responsibility H-3 G&A annual 20% of annual costs. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 100%

Permitting

Authority I-1a Administration (Staff

Training, Rule

Implementation). once State burden 56% of total;

12 hours of State labor

@$49.44 per hour =

$593.28. 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-1b Federal Systems Updates. a nnual Federal burden only;

4,160 hours a nnually, or 2

Full Time Employees

(FTEs). Cost = 4,160

hours of Federal labor

@$50.14 per hour =

$208,582.40. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2

Permitting

Authority I-2a Review information required

in general UIC permit

(Includes initial review of

closure and post-closure

plans). once State burden 56% of total;

40 hours burden per

project for associated

wells' permit applications. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-2b Permitting Authority: review

waiver applications. once State burden 56% of total;

80 hours burden per

project (twice the review

time as for a non

0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 1

time as for a non

waivered project).

Permitting

Authority I-2c Federal level: review waiver

applications for those

originally reviewed by

State/Tribe/Territory having

primacy. once Federal-only burden;

applies to just those

waiver applications

reviewed initially by

State/Tribe/Territory

rather than federal

permitting authority.

Consists of 80 hours of

Federal labor burden per

project (twice the review

time as for a nonwaivered project). Cost =

80 hours of Federal labor

@50.14 per hour =

$4,011.20. 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-3 Review financial assurance

of capacity to properly close,

plug, and abandon well. once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-4 Review financial assurance

of capacity to provide postclosure care. once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-5 Second review of proposed

closure plan required by

§146.92(b). once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per project

incurred in year prior to

closure. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-6 Second review of proposed

post-closure care plan

required by §146.93(a). once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per project

incurred in year prior to

closure. 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-7 Review emergency

response plan required by

§146.94(a). once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-8 Review proposed remedial

response plan required by

§146.94(b). once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-9 Review information required

in § 146.82(b) 1 

# prior to

issuin g p ermit. once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

D raft Cost Analysis for the

F inal GS Rule B-8 July 2010

# RA0 RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 Tracking

Number Application Factors* Regulatory

Matrix Heading ER applicability

assumption

(relative to

saline) Compliance Activity Waiver

Multiplier Periodicity

of Cost

Item Schedule

Code Cost Algorithm ($2008)

Permitting

Authority I-10 Review information required

under § 146.86(b)(1) to

determine and specify

casing and cementing

requirements. 2 

# once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 25% 25% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-11 Review information required

under § 146.86(c)(2) to

determine and specify tubing

and packer requirements. 3 

# once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 25% 25% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-12 Evaluate mechanical

integrity based on monitoring

tests conducted since the

last such evaluation and

other mechanical integrity

data. once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden incurred

per project every 5th year

throughout period of

injection (assumes all

wells' data for a project

are reviewed together). 25% 25% 25% 75% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-13 Witness logging and testing. once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 25% 25% 25% 75% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-14 Review construction

procedures. once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-15 Review proposed injection

procedure. once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-16 Review schematics of

proposed wells. once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-17 Review contingency plans. once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-18 Review plans (including

maps) for meeting

monitoring requirements. once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

Permitting

Authority I-19 Review the corrective action

proposed to be taken under

§146.84 for wells within the

area of review which

penetrate the injection zone

but are not properly

ltd l d once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per

project. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

completed or plugged.

Permitting

Authority I-20 Review of the information

described in § 146.82(c)

prior to granting approval for

plugging and abandonment

of a well. 1 

# once State burden 56% of total;

4 hours burden per project

incurred in closing year. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 8

Permitting

Authority I-21 Analyze the pressure decay

and the transient pressures

recorded by owner/operator

pursuant to §146.90(e) and

determine whether the

injection activity has

conformed with predicted

values[§ 146.92(e)(1)]. 5 

# once State burden 56% of total;

24 hours burden per

project incurred every 5th

year throughout period of

injection. 50% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 3

Permitting

Authority I-22 Review of each project's

annual r eports submitted by

all operators of Class VI

wells [§ 146.91] 1 

# and

recordkeeping. annual State burden 56% of total;

RA1 and RA2 only.

Includes 2 hours for

review and 2 hours for

recordkeeping one-time

annual burden. 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 2

Permitting

Authority I-23 Review of each project's

semi-annual (RA3) or

quarterly (RA0) reports

submitted by all operators of

Class VI wells [§ 146.91] 2



# and recordkeeping. annual State burden 56% of total;

3 hours review per project

report = 6 hours for review

for RA3; or 12 hours for

RA0; 2 additional hours

recordkeeping burden for

RA3 or RA0. 50% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 2

Permitting

Authority I-24 Review of each project's

monthly reports submitted

by all operators of Class VI

wells [§ 146.91] 3 

# and

recordkeeping. annual State burden 56% of total;

RA4 only. Includes 1 hour

review per project report =

12 hours; 2 additional

hours for recordkeeping. 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 2

D raft Cost Analysis for the

F inal GS Rule B-9 July 2010

# RA0 RA1 RA2 RA3 RA4 Tracking

Number Application Factors* Regulatory

Matrix Heading ER applicability

assumption

(relative to

saline) Compliance Activity Waiver

Multiplier Periodicity

of Cost

Item Schedule

Code Cost Algorithm ($2008)

Permitting

Authority I-25 Review AoR modeling

update (simple model). 5 years State burden 56% of total;

assumes 50% of projects

under RA1 and RA2 will

perform simple modeling.

Permitting authority will

incur 2 hours for review. 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 3

Permitting

Authority I-26 Review AoR modeling

update (complex model). 5 years State burden 56% of total;

assumes all projects

under RA0, RA3, and RA4

and 50% of projects under

RA1 and RA2 will perform

complex modeling.

Permitting authority will

incur 4 hours for review. 100% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 3

Permitting

Authority I-27 Prepare / Review primacy

applications. once Burden applies under RA1

- RA4. Assumes 90 hours

for federal agency review

per primacy application,

and 1,040 hours of

preparation time for a

state to prepare an

application. 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1

2 

# Sub-section 146.86(b)(1) requires review of the following information: Depth to the injection zone; injection pressure, extern al pressure, internal pressure and axial loading; hole size;

size and grade of all casing strings (well thickness, diameter, nominal weight, length, joint specification and construction ma terial); Corrosiveness of the carbon dioxide stream, formation

fluids and temperature; Lithology of injection and confining zones; Type or grade of cement; and Quantity and chemical composit ion of the carbon dioxide stream.

3 

# Sub-section 146.86(c)(3) requires review of the following information: depth of setting; characteristics of the carbon dioxid e stream (chemical content, corrosiveness, temperature and

density); injection pressure; annular pressure; rate, temperature, and volume of the carbon dioxide stream; Size of casing; and Tubing tensile, burst, and collapse strengths.

4 

# Sub-section 146.92(b) requires the following information be submitted by the owner operator and reviewed by the permitting au thority: The type and number of plugs to be used; The

placement of each plug including the elevation of the top and bottom; The type and grade and quantity of cement to be used; and The method for placement of the plugs. Notes:

* The Application Factor is a percentage between 0% and 100% that represents the Agency's best estimate of the number of operat ors, or the extent to which all operators, would

engage in a given compliance activity; it takes into account those aspects of the rule that allow for operator and Director dis cretion and general trends in the CO 2 

# GS industry in terms of

th d i t d 1 

# Sub-section 146.82(c) includes the following information: All available logging and testing program data on the well; A demon stration of mechanical integrity pursuant to §146.89; the

anticipated maximum injection pressure and flow rate; the results of the formation testing program; the actual injection proced ure; the compatibility of the carbon dioxide stream with

fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection zone and the primary confining system and secondary containment system; the status of corrective action on deficient wells

in the area of review.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. Geologic CO2 Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis,

EPA 816-R-10-008. 5 

# Tests are performed every 5 years. It is assumed the state or agency will review the data in the ensuing periodic report, unl ess a problem is detected.

6 

# Certain events require the owner or operator to notify the state within 24 hours. These are associated with triggers indicating potential endangerment to USDWs and for modeling

purposes are included under B-20 and I-23.

D raft Cost Analysis for the

F inal GS Rule B-10 July 2010

# Appendix C

Summary of Rule CostsC.1 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Unadjusted ValuesGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 208,599$ 208,599$20126,268,269$ 1,589,226$ 17,527,763$ 818,721$ 64,293$ -$ 6,810$ -$ 212,129$ 26,487,212$20136,268,269$ 1,765,619$ 17,527,763$ 818,721$ 2,563,814$ 5,335$ 6,810$ -$ 212,278$ 29,168,611$201412,536,538$ 3,531,238$ 35,055,527$ 1,637,442$ 5,127,628$ 5,335$ 13,620$ -$ 215,958$ 58,123,287$2015-$ 705,574$ -$ -$ 9,998,085$ 16,006$ -$ -$ 209,195$ 10,928,859$201612,536,538$ 3,884,025$ 35,055,527$ 1,637,442$ 10,126,671$ 5,335$ 13,620$ -$ 216,255$ 63,475,414$201732,940,668$ 9,395,985$ 109,846,103$ 4,244,443$ 15,431,785$ 39,419$ 49,980$ -$ 236,126$ 172,184,509$2018-$ 2,032,742$ -$ -$ 30,421,945$ 54,114$ -$ -$ 211,308$ 32,720,109$2019-$ 2,045,114$ -$ -$ 30,421,945$ 52,162$ -$ -$ 212,031$ 32,731,251$2020-$ 2,020,370$ -$ -$ 30,421,945$ 41,371$ -$ -$ 210,585$ 32,694,271$2021-$ 2,045,114$ -$ -$ 30,421,945$ 52,162$ -$ -$ 212,031$ 32,731,251$2023-$ 1,952,701$ -$ -$ 27,494,733$ 39,419$ 23,910$ -$ 210,960$ 29,721,723$2024-$ 1,965,072$ -$ -$ 27,494,733$ 57,497$ 23,910$ -$ 211,683$ 29,752,895$2025-$ 1,940,329$ -$ -$ 27,494,733$ 26,676$ 23,910$ -$ 210,237$ 29,695,885$2026-$ 1,965,072$ -$ -$ 27,494,733$ 57,497$ 23,910$ -$ 211,683$ 29,752,895$2027-$ 2,014,558$ -$ -$ 27,494,733$ 103,134$ 23,910$ -$ 214,575$ 29,850,910$2028-$ 1,952,701$ -$ -$ 27,494,733$ 44,754$ 23,910$ -$ 210,960$ 29,727,058$2029286,041$ 2,266,017$ 11,337,358$ 1,317,457$ 27,765,765$ 52,162$ 30,720$ -$ 215,213$ 43,270,733$2030-$ 2,014,685$ -$ -$ 30,687,803$ 54,686$ 23,910$ -$ 210,386$ 32,991,469$2031286,041$ 2,340,373$ 11,337,358$ 1,317,457$ 30,958,835$ 52,162$ 30,720$ -$ 215,362$ 46,538,307$20321,144,163$ 3,367,049$ 45,349,430$ 5,269,829$ 34,965,000$ 153,818$ 40,920$ -$ 228,995$ 90,519,203$2033858,122$ 3,301,671$ 34,012,073$ 3,952,372$ 47,466,245$ 130,117$ 20,430$ -$ 222,444$ 89,963,474$2034286,041$ 2,971,202$ 11,337,358$ 1,317,457$ 56,503,388$ 225,027$ 6,810$ -$ 217,276$ 72,864,560$2035572,082$ 3,285,780$ 22,674,715$ 2,634,914$ 59,967,490$ 140,049$ 13,620$ -$ 218,786$ 89,507,436$Total73,982,773$ 62,366,776$ 351,060,973$ 24,966,255$ 645,777,714$ 1,516,706$ 816,602$ 2,124$ 5,370,426$ 1,165,860,348$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-1July 2010C.2 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 208,599$ 208,599$20126,085,698$ 1,542,938$ 17,017,246$ 794,875$ 62,420$ -$ 6,612$ -$ 205,951$ 25,715,740$20135,908,445$ 1,664,265$ 16,521,598$ 771,723$ 2,416,641$ 5,029$ 6,419$ -$ 200,093$ 27,494,213$201411,472,709$ 3,231,583$ 32,080,773$ 1,498,492$ 4,692,506$ 4,882$ 12,464$ -$ 197,632$ 53,191,041$2015-$ 626,894$ -$ -$ 8,883,169$ 14,221$ -$ -$ 185,867$ 9,710,150$201610,814,128$ 3,350,395$ 30,239,205$ 1,412,472$ 8,735,355$ 4,602$ 11,749$ -$ 186,544$ 54,754,450$201727,587,291$ 7,868,990$ 91,994,382$ 3,554,654$ 12,923,877$ 33,013$ 41,857$ -$ 197,752$ 144,201,816$2018-$ 1,652,805$ -$ -$ 24,735,825$ 44,000$ -$ -$ 171,813$ 26,604,443$2019-$ 1,614,432$ -$ -$ 24,015,364$ 41,177$ -$ -$ 167,379$ 25,838,352$2020-$ 1,548,446$ -$ -$ 23,315,887$ 31,708$ -$ -$ 161,396$ 25,057,437$2021-$ 1,521,757$ -$ -$ 22,636,784$ 38,813$ -$ -$ 157,771$ 24,355,125$2022-$ 1,455,360$ -$ -$ 19,862,780$ 78,360$ 299,929$ 1,534$ 155,589$ 21,853,552$2023-$ 1,369,585$ -$ -$ 19,284,253$ 27,648$ 16,770$ -$ 147,963$ 20,846,218$2024-$ 1,338,119$ -$ -$ 18,722,576$ 39,153$ 16,282$ -$ 144,146$ 20,260,274$2025-$ 1,282,786$ -$ -$ 18,177,258$ 17,636$ 15,807$ -$ 138,991$ 19,632,478$2026-$ 1,261,305$ -$ -$ 17,647,823$ 36,905$ 15,347$ -$ 135,871$ 19,097,251$2027-$ 1,255,406$ -$ -$ 17,133,809$ 64,269$ 14,900$ -$ 133,716$ 18,602,100$2028-$ 1,181,416$ -$ -$ 16,634,766$ 27,077$ 14,466$ -$ 127,634$ 17,985,359$2029168,019$ 1,331,046$ 6,659,503$ 773,867$ 16,309,461$ 30,640$ 18,045$ -$ 125,498$ 25,416,078$2030-$ 1,148,947$ -$ -$ 17,500,825$ 31,187$ 13,636$ -$ 119,942$ 18,814,536$2031158,374$ 1,295,808$ 6,277,220$ 729,444$ 17,141,156$ 28,881$ 17,009$ -$ 118,340$ 25,766,232$2032615,044$ 1,809,955$ 24,377,553$ 2,832,793$ 18,795,410$ 82,685$ 21,997$ -$ 119,669$ 48,655,105$2033447,848$ 1,723,118$ 17,750,646$ 2,062,713$ 24,772,277$ 67,907$ 10,662$ -$ 113,442$ 46,948,613$2034144,935$ 1,505,484$ 5,744,546$ 667,545$ 28,629,801$ 114,020$ 3,451$ -$ 108,839$ 36,918,618$2035281,426$ 1,616,386$ 11,154,457$ 1,296,203$ 29,500,031$ 68,895$ 6,700$ -$ 105,769$ 44,029,868$Total PV63,683,916$ 44,197,222$ 259,817,128$ 16,394,780$ 412,530,055$ 932,706$ 564,100$ 1,534$ 3,836,206$ 801,957,648$Annualized3,657,232$ 2,538,152$ 14,920,745$ 941,517$ 23,690,723$ 53,563$ 32,395$ 88$ 220,305$ 46,054,720$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-2July 2010C.3 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 208,599$ 208,599$20125,858,196$ 1,485,258$ 16,381,087$ 765,160$ 60,087$ -$ 6,364$ -$ 198,308$ 24,754,460$20135,474,949$ 1,542,160$ 15,309,427$ 715,103$ 2,239,335$ 4,660$ 5,948$ -$ 185,525$ 25,477,107$201410,233,550$ 2,882,542$ 28,615,752$ 1,336,641$ 4,185,672$ 4,355$ 11,118$ -$ 176,607$ 47,446,237$2015-$ 538,279$ -$ -$ 7,627,491$ 12,211$ -$ -$ 159,627$ 8,337,607$20168,938,379$ 2,769,256$ 24,994,106$ 1,167,474$ 7,220,176$ 3,804$ 9,711$ -$ 154,694$ 45,257,599$201721,949,758$ 6,260,942$ 73,195,097$ 2,828,251$ 10,282,850$ 26,266$ 33,304$ -$ 159,423$ 114,735,891$2018-$ 1,265,890$ -$ -$ 18,945,258$ 33,700$ -$ -$ 131,820$ 20,376,667$2019-$ 1,190,275$ -$ -$ 17,705,849$ 30,359$ -$ -$ 123,719$ 19,050,201$2020-$ 1,098,948$ -$ -$ 16,547,522$ 22,503$ -$ -$ 114,740$ 17,783,713$2021-$ 1,039,632$ -$ -$ 15,464,974$ 26,516$ -$ -$ 108,144$ 16,639,266$2022-$ 957,102$ -$ -$ 13,062,550$ 51,533$ 197,245$ 1,009$ 103,062$ 14,372,500$2023-$ 867,022$ -$ -$ 12,207,990$ 17,502$ 10,616$ -$ 93,937$ 13,197,069$2024-$ 815,435$ -$ -$ 11,409,337$ 23,859$ 9,922$ -$ 88,203$ 12,346,756$2025-$ 752,493$ -$ -$ 10,662,932$ 10,345$ 9,273$ -$ 81,731$ 11,516,774$2026-$ 712,233$ -$ -$ 9,965,357$ 20,840$ 8,666$ -$ 77,105$ 10,784,199$2027-$ 682,401$ -$ -$ 9,313,417$ 34,935$ 8,099$ -$ 73,436$ 10,112,288$2028-$ 618,175$ -$ -$ 8,704,128$ 14,168$ 7,569$ -$ 67,085$ 9,411,126$202984,629$ 670,433$ 3,354,315$ 389,788$ 8,214,888$ 15,433$ 9,089$ -$ 64,071$ 12,802,646$2030-$ 557,077$ -$ -$ 8,485,433$ 15,121$ 6,611$ -$ 58,386$ 9,122,629$203173,918$ 604,797$ 2,929,789$ 340,456$ 8,000,351$ 13,480$ 7,939$ -$ 56,056$ 12,026,785$2032276,330$ 813,186$ 10,952,481$ 1,272,733$ 8,444,505$ 37,149$ 9,883$ -$ 56,087$ 21,862,354$2033193,690$ 745,231$ 7,676,973$ 892,102$ 10,713,756$ 29,369$ 4,611$ -$ 50,518$ 20,306,250$203460,339$ 626,766$ 2,391,580$ 277,913$ 11,919,214$ 47,469$ 1,437$ -$ 46,237$ 15,370,955$2035112,784$ 647,780$ 4,470,243$ 519,464$ 11,822,388$ 27,610$ 2,685$ -$ 43,346$ 17,646,302$Total PV53,256,522$ 30,143,313$ 190,270,849$ 10,505,085$ 243,205,461$ 523,187$ 360,090$ 1,009$ 2,680,466$ 530,945,982$Annualized4,569,970$ 2,586,613$ 16,327,240$ 901,447$ 20,869,586$ 44,895$ 30,900$ 87$ 230,012$ 45,560,749$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-3July 2010C.4 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Unadjusted ValuesGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036858,122$ 3,796,160$ 34,012,073$ 3,952,372$ 66,624,660$ 270,377$ 20,430$ -$ 235,864$ 109,770,057$2037286,041$ 3,574,764$ 11,337,358$ 1,317,457$ 75,661,804$ 501,160$ 6,810$ -$ 236,162$ 92,921,555$2038-$ 3,250,339$ -$ -$ 78,583,841$ 388,623$ -$ -$ 222,423$ 82,445,226$2039-$ 3,226,731$ -$ -$ 78,583,841$ 341,873$ -$ -$ 222,423$ 82,374,868$2040-$ 3,127,632$ -$ -$ 75,390,772$ 299,048$ 936,997$ 908$ 219,913$ 79,975,270$2041-$ 3,224,334$ -$ -$ 75,390,772$ 450,188$ 39,026$ -$ 225,018$ 79,329,338$2042-$ 3,235,443$ -$ -$ 72,197,702$ 515,303$ 976,023$ 908$ 232,631$ 77,158,012$2043-$ 2,804,202$ -$ -$ 59,425,426$ 292,590$ 3,826,041$ 3,632$ 223,359$ 66,575,249$2044-$ 2,521,545$ -$ -$ 49,846,218$ 179,678$ 3,045,149$ 2,724$ 220,339$ 55,815,653$2045-$ 2,458,426$ -$ -$ 46,653,149$ 203,015$ 1,288,234$ 908$ 217,234$ 50,820,964$2046-$ 2,370,436$ -$ -$ 40,267,010$ 242,644$ 2,264,257$ 1,816$ 221,657$ 45,367,820$2048-$ 1,952,701$ -$ -$ 27,494,733$ 44,754$ 1,522,392$ 908$ 214,001$ 31,229,489$2049-$ 1,965,072$ -$ -$ 27,494,733$ 52,162$ 624,421$ -$ 214,767$ 30,351,155$2050-$ 1,940,329$ -$ -$ 27,494,733$ 32,011$ 609,813$ -$ 211,874$ 30,288,761$2051-$ 1,965,072$ -$ -$ 27,494,733$ 52,162$ 585,395$ -$ 214,767$ 30,312,129$2052-$ 2,014,558$ -$ -$ 27,494,733$ 108,469$ 570,786$ -$ 220,551$ 30,409,098$2053-$ 1,776,307$ -$ -$ 24,995,212$ 34,084$ 829,913$ 908$ 213,703$ 27,850,127$2054-$ 1,612,285$ -$ -$ 22,495,691$ 52,162$ 807,374$ 908$ 214,852$ 25,183,271$2055-$ 1,234,755$ -$ -$ 17,496,648$ 10,670$ 1,180,446$ 1,816$ 212,044$ 20,136,380$2056-$ 1,259,498$ -$ -$ 17,496,648$ 52,162$ 680,773$ -$ 213,576$ 19,702,657$2057-$ 943,825$ -$ -$ 12,497,606$ 63,715$ 1,272,067$ 1,816$ 218,680$ 14,997,709$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,448,051$ 4,540$ 212,002$ 2,664,593$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,308,537$ -$ 208,599$ 1,517,136$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,308,537$ -$ 208,599$ 1,517,136$Total1,144,163$ 52,379,307$ 45,349,430$ 5,269,829$ 981,768,469$ 4,344,140$ 29,430,780$ 24,516$ 5,479,375$ 1,125,190,009$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-4July 2010C.5 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036409,844$ 1,813,067$ 16,244,355$ 1,887,675$ 31,820,309$ 129,133$ 9,758$ -$ 112,650$ 52,426,791$2037132,636$ 1,657,599$ 5,257,073$ 610,898$ 35,083,979$ 232,385$ 3,158$ -$ 110,039$ 43,087,767$2038-$ 1,463,267$ -$ -$ 35,377,585$ 174,954$ -$ -$ 102,664$ 37,118,469$2039-$ 1,410,329$ -$ -$ 34,347,170$ 149,425$ -$ -$ 99,813$ 36,006,737$2040-$ 1,327,199$ -$ -$ 31,991,800$ 126,900$ 397,611$ 385$ 96,040$ 33,939,936$2041-$ 1,328,383$ -$ -$ 31,060,000$ 185,472$ 16,078$ -$ 94,680$ 32,684,612$2042-$ 1,294,136$ -$ -$ 28,878,153$ 206,115$ 390,397$ 363$ 94,133$ 30,863,296$2043-$ 1,088,975$ -$ -$ 23,077,094$ 113,623$ 1,485,793$ 1,410$ 88,761$ 25,855,657$2044-$ 950,689$ -$ -$ 18,793,332$ 67,743$ 1,148,101$ 1,027$ 85,661$ 21,046,554$2045-$ 899,894$ -$ -$ 17,077,147$ 74,312$ 471,551$ 332$ 82,298$ 18,605,536$2046-$ 842,414$ -$ -$ 14,310,227$ 86,232$ 804,679$ 645$ 81,005$ 16,125,202$2047-$ 733,157$ -$ -$ 10,588,287$ 54,270$ 1,131,467$ 940$ 79,603$ 12,587,725$2048-$ 654,121$ -$ -$ 9,210,267$ 14,992$ 509,975$ 304$ 74,817$ 10,464,476$2049-$ 639,093$ -$ -$ 8,942,006$ 16,964$ 203,078$ -$ 72,881$ 9,874,023$2050-$ 612,666$ -$ -$ 8,681,560$ 10,108$ 192,551$ -$ 70,047$ 9,566,930$2051-$ 602,406$ -$ -$ 8,428,699$ 15,991$ 179,457$ -$ 68,697$ 9,295,250$2052-$ 599,589$ -$ -$ 8,183,203$ 32,283$ 169,882$ -$ 68,038$ 9,052,994$2053-$ 513,280$ -$ -$ 7,222,597$ 9,849$ 239,811$ 262$ 64,515$ 8,050,314$2054-$ 452,315$ -$ -$ 6,311,007$ 14,634$ 226,503$ 255$ 62,886$ 7,067,600$2055-$ 336,312$ -$ -$ 4,765,593$ 2,906$ 321,520$ 495$ 60,459$ 5,487,286$2056-$ 333,060$ -$ -$ 4,626,790$ 13,794$ 180,023$ -$ 59,014$ 5,212,680$2057-$ 242,314$ -$ -$ 3,208,592$ 16,358$ 326,586$ 466$ 58,316$ 3,852,632$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 610,198$ 1,132$ 55,320$ 666,650$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 316,664$ -$ 53,068$ 369,732$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 307,441$ -$ 51,522$ 358,963$Total PV542,480$ 19,794,266$ 21,501,428$ 2,498,573$ 381,985,395$ 1,748,443$ 9,642,284$ 8,017$ 1,946,927$ 439,667,813$Annualized31,153$ 1,136,743$ 1,234,781$ 143,488$ 21,936,608$ 100,409$ 553,736$ 460$ 111,808$ 25,249,186$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-5July 2010C.6 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036158,108$ 699,439$ 6,266,696$ 728,221$ 12,275,539$ 49,817$ 3,764$ -$ 43,458$ 20,225,043$203749,255$ 615,558$ 1,952,242$ 226,860$ 13,028,622$ 86,297$ 1,173$ -$ 41,436$ 16,001,443$2038-$ 523,078$ -$ -$ 12,646,526$ 62,541$ -$ -$ 36,096$ 13,268,242$2039-$ 485,307$ -$ -$ 11,819,184$ 51,419$ -$ -$ 33,844$ 12,389,753$2040-$ 439,629$ -$ -$ 10,597,139$ 42,035$ 131,707$ 128$ 31,117$ 11,241,755$2041-$ 423,571$ -$ -$ 9,903,868$ 59,140$ 5,127$ -$ 29,942$ 10,421,649$2042-$ 397,225$ -$ -$ 8,863,929$ 63,265$ 119,829$ 111$ 29,293$ 9,473,653$2043-$ 321,757$ -$ -$ 6,818,540$ 33,572$ 439,004$ 417$ 25,914$ 7,639,205$2044-$ 270,397$ -$ -$ 5,345,244$ 19,268$ 326,546$ 292$ 23,996$ 5,985,743$2045-$ 246,382$ -$ -$ 4,675,548$ 20,346$ 129,106$ 91$ 21,963$ 5,093,436$2046-$ 222,022$ -$ -$ 3,771,527$ 22,727$ 212,077$ 170$ 21,118$ 4,249,640$2047-$ 186,004$ -$ -$ 2,686,271$ 13,769$ 287,056$ 238$ 20,318$ 3,193,655$2048-$ 159,748$ -$ -$ 2,249,312$ 3,661$ 124,545$ 74$ 17,771$ 2,555,112$2049-$ 150,243$ -$ -$ 2,102,161$ 3,988$ 47,741$ -$ 16,760$ 2,320,893$2050-$ 138,646$ -$ -$ 1,964,636$ 2,287$ 43,574$ -$ 15,316$ 2,164,460$2051-$ 131,228$ -$ -$ 1,836,109$ 3,483$ 39,093$ -$ 14,669$ 2,024,582$2052-$ 125,732$ -$ -$ 1,715,990$ 6,770$ 35,624$ -$ 14,386$ 1,898,501$2053-$ 103,609$ -$ -$ 1,457,935$ 1,988$ 48,408$ 53$ 12,725$ 1,624,718$2054-$ 87,890$ -$ -$ 1,226,300$ 2,843$ 44,012$ 49$ 12,025$ 1,373,120$2055-$ 62,906$ -$ -$ 891,392$ 544$ 60,140$ 93$ 10,972$ 1,026,045$2056-$ 59,969$ -$ -$ 833,076$ 2,484$ 32,414$ -$ 10,408$ 938,351$2057-$ 41,999$ -$ -$ 556,126$ 2,835$ 56,605$ 81$ 10,204$ 667,850$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 101,808$ 189$ 8,973$ 110,970$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,859$ -$ 8,108$ 58,966$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 47,531$ -$ 7,577$ 55,109$Total PV207,363$ 5,892,342$ 8,218,938$ 955,081$ 117,264,974$ 555,079$ 2,387,742$ 1,986$ 518,389$ 136,001,895$Annualized17,794$ 505,625$ 705,271$ 81,956$ 10,062,568$ 47,632$ 204,893$ 170$ 44,483$ 11,670,393$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-6July 2010Geologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$20124,139,846$ 3,441,911$ 18,042,255$ 864,409$ 67,865$ -$ 7,188$ -$ 212,527$ 26,776,000$20134,139,846$ 3,776,567$ 18,042,255$ 864,409$ 2,772,169$ 5,780$ 7,188$ -$ 212,707$ 29,820,921$20148,279,692$ 7,553,135$ 36,084,510$ 1,728,817$ 5,544,339$ 5,780$ 14,377$ -$ 216,814$ 59,427,463$2015-$ 1,338,628$ -$ -$ 10,817,218$ 17,339$ -$ -$ 209,317$ 12,382,502$20168,279,692$ 8,222,449$ 36,084,510$ 1,728,817$ 10,952,947$ 5,780$ 14,377$ -$ 217,174$ 65,505,745$201721,969,290$ 19,936,182$ 112,101,851$ 4,448,986$ 16,678,344$ 42,468$ 51,872$ -$ 238,294$ 175,467,285$2018-$ 3,768,837$ -$ -$ 32,673,882$ 57,608$ -$ -$ 211,691$ 36,712,018$2019-$ 3,782,240$ -$ -$ 32,673,882$ 56,037$ -$ -$ 212,409$ 36,724,568$2020-$ 3,755,435$ -$ -$ 32,673,882$ 44,039$ -$ -$ 210,973$ 36,684,328$2021-$ 3,782,240$ -$ -$ 32,673,882$ 56,037$ -$ -$ 212,409$ 36,724,568$2023-$ 3,694,629$ -$ -$ 29,747,349$ 42,468$ 47,820$ -$ 211,293$ 33,743,559$2024-$ 3,708,032$ -$ -$ 29,747,349$ 61,817$ 47,820$ -$ 212,011$ 33,777,028$2025-$ 3,681,227$ -$ -$ 29,747,349$ 28,899$ 47,820$ -$ 210,575$ 33,715,869$2026-$ 3,708,032$ -$ -$ 29,747,349$ 61,817$ 47,820$ -$ 212,011$ 33,777,028$2027-$ 3,761,642$ -$ -$ 29,747,349$ 110,312$ 47,820$ -$ 214,885$ 33,882,007$2028-$ 3,694,629$ -$ -$ 29,747,349$ 48,248$ 47,820$ -$ 211,293$ 33,749,339$2029256,276$ 4,330,683$ 11,521,942$ 1,387,215$ 30,032,555$ 56,037$ 55,008$ -$ 215,939$ 47,855,655$2030-$ 3,796,049$ -$ -$ 33,092,048$ 73,932$ 47,820$ -$ 210,754$ 37,220,604$2031256,276$ 4,445,506$ 11,521,942$ 1,387,215$ 33,377,254$ 70,837$ 55,008$ -$ 216,119$ 51,330,157$20321,025,103$ 6,481,893$ 46,087,767$ 5,548,861$ 37,577,570$ 194,599$ 56,113$ -$ 230,956$ 97,202,863$2033768,827$ 6,251,519$ 34,565,825$ 4,161,645$ 50,671,161$ 229,084$ 21,565$ -$ 224,155$ 96,893,781$2034256,276$ 5,402,913$ 11,521,942$ 1,387,215$ 60,134,846$ 374,749$ 7,188$ -$ 218,274$ 79,303,402$2035512,552$ 6,074,755$ 23,043,883$ 2,774,430$ 63,764,751$ 299,171$ 14,377$ -$ 220,227$ 96,704,145$Total49,883,674$ 122,150,774$ 358,618,680$ 26,282,020$ 694,410,034$ 2,058,928$ 1,078,083$ 2,124$ 7,195,849$ 1,261,680,166$C.7 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Unadjusted ValuesYearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-7July 2010C.8 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$20124,019,268$ 3,341,661$ 17,516,752$ 839,232$ 65,888$ -$ 6,979$ -$ 206,108$ 25,995,888$20133,902,202$ 3,559,777$ 17,006,556$ 814,788$ 2,613,035$ 5,448$ 6,776$ -$ 200,271$ 28,108,852$20147,577,091$ 6,912,188$ 33,022,438$ 1,582,113$ 5,073,855$ 5,289$ 13,157$ -$ 197,977$ 54,384,109$2015-$ 1,189,354$ -$ -$ 9,610,958$ 15,406$ -$ -$ 185,961$ 11,001,678$20167,142,135$ 7,092,757$ 31,126,815$ 1,491,293$ 9,448,109$ 4,986$ 12,401$ -$ 186,915$ 56,505,410$201718,398,934$ 16,696,238$ 93,883,535$ 3,725,956$ 13,967,850$ 35,566$ 43,442$ -$ 198,546$ 146,950,068$2018-$ 3,064,409$ -$ -$ 26,566,856$ 46,840$ -$ -$ 172,073$ 29,850,179$2019-$ 2,985,735$ -$ -$ 25,793,064$ 44,236$ -$ -$ 167,615$ 28,990,650$2020-$ 2,878,228$ -$ -$ 25,041,810$ 33,752$ -$ -$ 161,658$ 28,115,448$2021-$ 2,814,341$ -$ -$ 24,312,437$ 41,697$ -$ -$ 157,993$ 27,326,468$2022-$ 2,717,490$ -$ -$ 21,490,118$ 83,867$ 317,202$ 1,534$ 155,707$ 24,765,918$2023-$ 2,591,339$ -$ -$ 20,864,192$ 29,786$ 33,540$ -$ 148,153$ 23,667,009$2024-$ 2,524,989$ -$ -$ 20,256,497$ 42,094$ 32,563$ -$ 144,315$ 23,000,459$2025-$ 2,433,725$ -$ -$ 19,666,502$ 19,106$ 31,615$ -$ 139,184$ 22,290,131$2026-$ 2,380,044$ -$ -$ 19,093,691$ 39,678$ 30,694$ -$ 136,031$ 21,680,138$2027-$ 2,344,131$ -$ -$ 18,537,564$ 68,743$ 29,800$ -$ 133,818$ 21,114,056$2028-$ 2,235,311$ -$ -$ 17,997,635$ 29,191$ 28,932$ -$ 127,798$ 20,418,867$2029150,535$ 2,543,820$ 6,767,926$ 814,843$ 17,640,961$ 32,916$ 32,312$ -$ 125,740$ 28,109,052$2030-$ 2,164,834$ -$ -$ 18,871,932$ 42,163$ 27,271$ -$ 120,119$ 21,226,319$2031141,894$ 2,461,369$ 6,379,420$ 768,067$ 18,480,176$ 39,221$ 30,457$ -$ 118,577$ 28,419,181$2032551,043$ 3,484,337$ 24,774,446$ 2,982,786$ 20,199,796$ 104,607$ 30,164$ -$ 120,124$ 52,247,302$2033401,245$ 3,262,621$ 18,039,645$ 2,171,932$ 26,444,899$ 119,557$ 11,255$ -$ 113,891$ 50,565,044$2034129,853$ 2,737,611$ 5,838,073$ 702,890$ 30,469,830$ 189,882$ 3,642$ -$ 109,124$ 40,180,906$2035252,141$ 2,988,377$ 11,336,064$ 1,364,836$ 31,368,032$ 147,172$ 7,072$ -$ 106,156$ 47,569,851$Total PV42,666,341$ 87,404,687$ 265,691,669$ 17,258,736$ 443,875,687$ 1,221,202$ 729,272$ 1,534$ 5,651,217$ 864,500,345$Annualized2,450,237$ 5,019,465$ 15,258,107$ 991,132$ 25,490,836$ 70,131$ 41,881$ 88$ 324,537$ 49,646,414$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-8July 2010C.9 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$20123,869,015$ 3,216,739$ 16,861,920$ 807,859$ 63,425$ -$ 6,718$ -$ 198,680$ 25,024,356$20133,615,902$ 3,298,600$ 15,758,804$ 755,008$ 2,421,320$ 5,048$ 6,279$ -$ 185,899$ 26,046,860$20146,758,695$ 6,165,608$ 29,455,709$ 1,411,230$ 4,525,832$ 4,718$ 11,736$ -$ 177,308$ 48,510,835$2015-$ 1,021,233$ -$ -$ 8,252,404$ 13,228$ -$ -$ 159,725$ 9,446,590$20165,903,306$ 5,862,492$ 25,727,757$ 1,232,623$ 7,809,300$ 4,121$ 10,250$ -$ 155,354$ 46,705,203$201714,639,066$ 13,284,320$ 74,698,197$ 2,964,547$ 11,113,485$ 28,298$ 34,564$ -$ 160,874$ 116,923,350$2018-$ 2,347,042$ -$ -$ 20,347,652$ 35,875$ -$ -$ 132,079$ 22,862,648$2019-$ 2,201,298$ -$ -$ 19,016,497$ 32,614$ -$ -$ 123,957$ 21,374,366$2020-$ 2,042,708$ -$ -$ 17,772,427$ 23,954$ -$ -$ 114,978$ 19,954,067$2021-$ 1,922,699$ -$ -$ 16,609,745$ 28,486$ -$ -$ 108,356$ 18,669,286$2022-$ 1,787,129$ -$ -$ 14,132,751$ 55,154$ 208,604$ 1,009$ 103,207$ 16,287,854$2023-$ 1,640,460$ -$ -$ 13,208,179$ 18,856$ 21,233$ -$ 94,107$ 14,982,834$2024-$ 1,538,701$ -$ -$ 12,344,092$ 25,652$ 19,844$ -$ 88,357$ 14,016,646$2025-$ 1,427,643$ -$ -$ 11,536,535$ 11,208$ 18,545$ -$ 81,891$ 13,075,821$2026-$ 1,343,961$ -$ -$ 10,781,808$ 22,405$ 17,332$ -$ 77,242$ 12,242,749$2027-$ 1,274,198$ -$ -$ 10,076,456$ 37,367$ 16,198$ -$ 73,538$ 11,477,757$2028-$ 1,169,625$ -$ -$ 9,417,249$ 15,274$ 15,139$ -$ 67,215$ 10,684,502$202975,823$ 1,281,293$ 3,408,927$ 410,427$ 8,885,549$ 16,579$ 16,275$ -$ 64,305$ 14,159,178$2030-$ 1,049,639$ -$ -$ 9,150,227$ 20,443$ 13,223$ -$ 58,518$ 10,292,050$203166,227$ 1,148,803$ 2,977,489$ 358,483$ 8,625,317$ 18,306$ 14,215$ -$ 56,271$ 13,265,110$2032247,576$ 1,565,462$ 11,130,799$ 1,340,122$ 9,075,475$ 46,998$ 13,552$ -$ 56,558$ 23,476,543$2033173,534$ 1,411,050$ 7,801,962$ 939,338$ 11,437,148$ 51,707$ 4,868$ -$ 50,929$ 21,870,536$203454,061$ 1,139,728$ 2,430,518$ 292,629$ 12,685,258$ 79,052$ 1,516$ -$ 46,467$ 16,729,228$2035101,048$ 1,197,617$ 4,543,024$ 546,970$ 12,571,005$ 58,981$ 2,834$ -$ 43,661$ 19,065,139$Total PV35,504,250$ 60,338,049$ 194,795,104$ 11,059,236$ 261,859,134$ 654,325$ 452,925$ 1,009$ 4,496,839$ 569,160,871$Annualized3,046,638$ 5,177,639$ 16,715,469$ 948,999$ 22,470,268$ 56,148$ 38,866$ 87$ 385,876$ 48,839,989$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-9July 2010Geologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036768,827$ 6,998,784$ 34,565,825$ 4,161,645$ 70,744,522$ 468,057$ 21,565$ -$ 252,572$ 117,981,798$2037256,276$ 6,263,971$ 11,521,942$ 1,387,215$ 80,204,763$ 757,791$ 7,188$ -$ 241,745$ 100,640,891$2038-$ 5,648,269$ -$ -$ 83,262,533$ 653,066$ -$ -$ 223,231$ 89,787,100$2039-$ 5,620,812$ -$ -$ 83,260,811$ 603,394$ -$ -$ 223,231$ 89,708,248$2040-$ 5,481,218$ -$ -$ 79,917,834$ 542,782$ 1,027,067$ 958$ 220,849$ 87,190,709$2041-$ 5,583,642$ -$ -$ 79,916,112$ 703,516$ 84,450$ -$ 225,613$ 86,513,332$2042-$ 5,555,156$ -$ -$ 76,566,245$ 757,325$ 1,111,517$ 958$ 232,759$ 84,223,960$2043-$ 4,953,233$ -$ -$ 63,189,172$ 460,670$ 4,277,168$ 3,834$ 223,912$ 73,107,988$2044-$ 4,548,582$ -$ -$ 53,158,520$ 296,241$ 3,587,899$ 2,875$ 220,849$ 61,814,967$2045-$ 4,443,748$ -$ -$ 49,812,098$ 305,984$ 1,787,113$ 958$ 217,787$ 56,567,689$2046-$ 4,277,701$ -$ -$ 43,120,977$ 317,856$ 2,898,630$ 1,917$ 221,870$ 50,838,951$2048-$ 3,694,629$ -$ -$ 29,747,349$ 48,248$ 2,293,811$ 958$ 214,384$ 35,999,379$2049-$ 3,708,032$ -$ -$ 29,747,349$ 56,037$ 1,351,193$ -$ 215,064$ 35,077,675$2050-$ 3,681,227$ -$ -$ 29,747,349$ 34,679$ 1,319,650$ -$ 212,342$ 34,995,246$2051-$ 3,708,032$ -$ -$ 29,747,349$ 56,037$ 1,266,744$ -$ 215,064$ 34,993,225$2052-$ 3,761,642$ -$ -$ 29,747,349$ 116,092$ 1,235,200$ -$ 220,509$ 35,080,791$2053-$ 3,359,972$ -$ -$ 27,043,044$ 36,688$ 1,548,812$ 958$ 214,044$ 32,203,519$2054-$ 3,038,718$ -$ -$ 24,338,740$ 56,037$ 1,500,685$ 958$ 215,064$ 29,150,202$2055-$ 2,342,599$ -$ -$ 18,930,131$ 11,560$ 2,061,243$ 1,917$ 212,342$ 23,559,791$2056-$ 2,369,404$ -$ -$ 18,930,131$ 56,037$ 1,476,122$ -$ 213,703$ 23,045,397$2057-$ 1,740,297$ -$ -$ 13,521,522$ 67,844$ 2,261,063$ 1,917$ 218,467$ 17,811,111$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,065,132$ 4,792$ 212,002$ 4,281,926$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,839,406$ -$ 208,599$ 3,048,005$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,839,406$ -$ 208,599$ 3,048,005$Total1,025,103$ 94,692,924$ 46,087,767$ 5,548,861$ 1,047,744,225$ 6,588,513$ 44,955,658$ 25,878$ 5,508,855$ 1,252,177,784$C.10 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Unadjusted ValuesYearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-10July 2010C.11 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036367,196$ 3,342,658$ 16,508,830$ 1,987,625$ 33,787,978$ 223,547$ 10,300$ -$ 120,630$ 56,348,764$2037118,834$ 2,904,570$ 5,342,664$ 643,244$ 37,190,526$ 351,384$ 3,333$ -$ 115,870$ 46,670,424$2038-$ 2,542,789$ -$ -$ 37,483,881$ 294,003$ -$ -$ 107,651$ 40,428,325$2039-$ 2,456,726$ -$ -$ 36,391,365$ 263,729$ -$ -$ 104,647$ 39,216,468$2040-$ 2,325,935$ -$ -$ 33,912,842$ 230,328$ 435,832$ 407$ 100,780$ 37,006,124$2041-$ 2,300,387$ -$ -$ 32,924,380$ 289,839$ 34,792$ -$ 99,188$ 35,648,585$2042-$ 2,221,991$ -$ -$ 30,625,514$ 302,920$ 444,592$ 383$ 98,375$ 33,693,775$2043-$ 1,923,524$ -$ -$ 24,538,695$ 178,895$ 1,660,983$ 1,489$ 93,008$ 28,396,594$2044-$ 1,714,935$ -$ -$ 20,042,157$ 111,691$ 1,352,732$ 1,084$ 89,769$ 23,312,367$2045-$ 1,626,611$ -$ -$ 18,233,464$ 112,004$ 654,164$ 351$ 86,308$ 20,712,902$2046-$ 1,520,224$ -$ -$ 15,324,479$ 112,961$ 1,030,125$ 681$ 84,818$ 18,073,288$2047-$ 1,350,201$ -$ -$ 11,417,235$ 62,994$ 1,412,768$ 992$ 83,221$ 14,327,411$2048-$ 1,237,638$ -$ -$ 9,964,854$ 16,162$ 768,387$ 321$ 78,449$ 12,065,812$2049-$ 1,205,949$ -$ -$ 9,674,616$ 18,225$ 439,443$ -$ 76,385$ 11,414,618$2050-$ 1,162,360$ -$ -$ 9,392,831$ 10,950$ 416,684$ -$ 73,491$ 11,056,316$2051-$ 1,136,722$ -$ -$ 9,119,253$ 17,178$ 388,329$ -$ 72,001$ 10,733,484$2052-$ 1,119,570$ -$ -$ 8,853,644$ 34,552$ 367,630$ -$ 71,166$ 10,446,562$2053-$ 970,895$ -$ -$ 7,814,337$ 10,601$ 447,544$ 277$ 67,638$ 9,311,292$2054-$ 852,491$ -$ -$ 6,828,062$ 15,721$ 421,007$ 269$ 65,891$ 8,183,439$2055-$ 638,058$ -$ -$ 5,156,034$ 3,149$ 561,424$ 522$ 63,394$ 6,422,580$2056-$ 626,562$ -$ -$ 5,005,858$ 14,818$ 390,344$ -$ 61,828$ 6,099,410$2057-$ 446,798$ -$ -$ 3,471,469$ 17,418$ 580,497$ 492$ 60,980$ 4,577,654$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,013,270$ 1,195$ 57,948$ 1,072,413$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 687,133$ -$ 55,619$ 742,752$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 667,119$ -$ 53,999$ 721,118$Total PV486,030$ 35,627,593$ 21,851,494$ 2,630,869$ 407,153,474$ 2,693,069$ 14,188,433$ 8,463$ 2,043,053$ 486,682,478$Annualized27,912$ 2,046,017$ 1,254,885$ 151,085$ 23,381,957$ 154,657$ 814,811$ 486$ 117,328$ 27,949,139$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-11July 2010C.12 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036141,656$ 1,289,520$ 6,368,725$ 766,780$ 13,034,620$ 86,239$ 3,973$ -$ 46,536$ 21,738,049$203744,130$ 1,078,628$ 1,984,026$ 238,872$ 13,810,899$ 130,488$ 1,238$ -$ 42,395$ 17,330,675$2038-$ 908,978$ -$ -$ 13,399,470$ 105,098$ -$ -$ 36,251$ 14,449,797$2039-$ 845,382$ -$ -$ 12,522,610$ 90,752$ -$ -$ 33,984$ 13,492,729$2040-$ 770,455$ -$ -$ 11,233,476$ 76,295$ 144,367$ 135$ 31,278$ 12,256,006$2041-$ 733,507$ -$ -$ 10,498,349$ 92,419$ 11,094$ -$ 30,039$ 11,365,408$2042-$ 682,023$ -$ -$ 9,400,268$ 92,979$ 136,464$ 118$ 29,306$ 10,341,159$2043-$ 568,340$ -$ -$ 7,250,397$ 52,858$ 490,767$ 440$ 26,001$ 8,388,802$2044-$ 487,766$ -$ -$ 5,700,438$ 31,767$ 384,747$ 308$ 24,068$ 6,629,095$2045-$ 445,350$ -$ -$ 4,992,136$ 30,666$ 179,103$ 96$ 22,046$ 5,669,397$2046-$ 400,662$ -$ -$ 4,038,837$ 29,771$ 271,494$ 180$ 21,155$ 4,762,100$2047-$ 342,549$ -$ -$ 2,896,577$ 15,982$ 358,422$ 252$ 20,308$ 3,634,089$2048-$ 302,253$ -$ -$ 2,433,596$ 3,947$ 187,654$ 78$ 17,824$ 2,945,353$2049-$ 283,504$ -$ -$ 2,274,389$ 4,284$ 103,308$ -$ 16,799$ 2,682,284$2050-$ 263,042$ -$ -$ 2,125,597$ 2,478$ 94,296$ -$ 15,375$ 2,500,788$2051-$ 247,624$ -$ -$ 1,986,539$ 3,742$ 84,594$ -$ 14,705$ 2,337,204$2052-$ 234,770$ -$ -$ 1,856,579$ 7,245$ 77,091$ -$ 14,382$ 2,190,067$2053-$ 195,982$ -$ -$ 1,577,382$ 2,140$ 90,340$ 56$ 12,762$ 1,878,663$2054-$ 165,649$ -$ -$ 1,326,770$ 3,055$ 81,806$ 52$ 12,047$ 1,589,379$2055-$ 119,347$ -$ -$ 964,423$ 589$ 105,013$ 98$ 11,001$ 1,200,471$2056-$ 112,816$ -$ -$ 901,330$ 2,668$ 70,283$ -$ 10,420$ 1,097,516$2057-$ 77,441$ -$ -$ 601,689$ 3,019$ 100,614$ 85$ 10,184$ 793,032$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 169,059$ 199$ 8,973$ 178,231$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 110,359$ -$ 8,108$ 118,466$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 103,139$ -$ 7,577$ 110,716$Total PV185,785$ 10,555,588$ 8,352,751$ 1,005,652$ 124,826,370$ 868,482$ 3,359,226$ 2,097$ 523,524$ 149,679,474$Annualized15,942$ 905,780$ 716,754$ 86,296$ 10,711,415$ 74,525$ 288,257$ 180$ 44,924$ 12,844,073$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-12July 2010Geologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$20126,963,751$ 3,466,253$ 18,968,117$ 864,409$ 79,847$ -$ 7,188$ 479$ 212,976$ 30,563,020$20136,963,751$ 3,845,602$ 18,968,117$ 864,409$ 2,853,578$ 5,780$ 7,188$ 479$ 213,156$ 33,722,060$201413,927,502$ 7,691,203$ 37,936,235$ 1,728,817$ 5,707,157$ 5,780$ 14,377$ 958$ 217,712$ 67,229,742$2015-$ 1,517,396$ -$ -$ 11,094,926$ 17,339$ -$ -$ 209,317$ 12,838,979$201613,927,502$ 8,449,901$ 37,936,235$ 1,728,817$ 11,254,620$ 5,780$ 14,377$ 958$ 218,071$ 73,536,262$201736,442,798$ 21,034,326$ 118,254,683$ 4,448,986$ 17,175,129$ 42,468$ 51,872$ 3,458$ 241,533$ 197,695,254$2018-$ 4,931,373$ -$ -$ 33,541,451$ 57,608$ -$ -$ 211,691$ 38,742,123$2019-$ 5,600,993$ -$ -$ 33,541,451$ 56,037$ -$ -$ 212,409$ 39,410,891$2020-$ 4,261,753$ -$ -$ 33,541,451$ 44,039$ -$ -$ 210,973$ 38,058,216$2021-$ 5,600,993$ -$ -$ 33,541,451$ 56,037$ -$ -$ 212,409$ 39,410,891$2022-$ 8,190,559$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 116,092$ 509,403$ 2,124$ 216,079$ 39,545,303$2023-$ 4,842,459$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 42,468$ 47,820$ -$ 211,293$ 35,655,087$2024-$ 5,512,079$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 61,817$ 47,820$ -$ 212,011$ 36,344,774$2025-$ 4,172,839$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 28,899$ 47,820$ -$ 210,575$ 34,971,179$2026-$ 5,512,079$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 61,817$ 58,440$ -$ 212,011$ 36,355,393$2027-$ 8,190,559$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 110,312$ 47,820$ -$ 214,885$ 39,074,623$2028-$ 4,842,459$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 48,248$ 47,820$ -$ 211,293$ 35,660,866$2029328,851$ 6,162,046$ 11,881,691$ 1,387,215$ 30,844,692$ 56,037$ 55,008$ 479$ 216,388$ 50,932,408$2030-$ 4,305,963$ -$ -$ 33,926,751$ 73,932$ 47,820$ -$ 210,754$ 38,565,221$2031328,851$ 6,295,171$ 11,881,691$ 1,387,215$ 34,260,396$ 70,837$ 65,628$ 479$ 216,568$ 54,506,836$20321,315,405$ 11,056,676$ 47,526,763$ 5,548,861$ 38,677,035$ 194,599$ 56,113$ 1,917$ 232,752$ 104,610,122$2033986,553$ 7,591,106$ 35,645,073$ 4,161,645$ 52,006,207$ 229,084$ 21,565$ 1,438$ 225,502$ 100,868,173$2034328,851$ 7,633,955$ 11,881,691$ 1,387,215$ 61,586,030$ 374,749$ 7,188$ 479$ 218,723$ 83,418,882$2035657,702$ 6,804,016$ 23,763,382$ 2,774,430$ 65,335,379$ 299,171$ 14,377$ 958$ 221,125$ 99,870,539$Total82,171,519$ 157,511,762$ 374,643,677$ 26,282,020$ 712,544,878$ 2,058,928$ 1,169,645$ 14,208$ 7,207,569$ 1,363,604,206$C.13 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Unadjusted ValuesYearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-13July 2010C.14 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$20126,760,924$ 3,365,294$ 18,415,648$ 839,232$ 77,521$ -$ 6,979$ 465$ 206,534$ 29,672,597$20136,564,003$ 3,624,848$ 17,879,270$ 814,788$ 2,689,771$ 5,448$ 6,776$ 452$ 200,684$ 31,786,040$201412,745,638$ 7,038,541$ 34,717,029$ 1,582,113$ 5,222,857$ 5,289$ 13,157$ 877$ 198,780$ 61,524,280$2015-$ 1,348,187$ -$ -$ 9,857,698$ 15,406$ -$ -$ 185,961$ 11,407,252$201612,013,986$ 7,288,959$ 32,724,129$ 1,491,293$ 9,708,334$ 4,986$ 12,401$ 827$ 187,672$ 63,432,587$201730,520,270$ 17,615,917$ 99,036,435$ 3,725,956$ 14,383,900$ 35,566$ 43,442$ 2,896$ 201,216$ 165,565,598$2018-$ 4,009,658$ -$ -$ 27,272,269$ 46,840$ -$ -$ 172,073$ 31,500,840$2019-$ 4,421,476$ -$ -$ 26,477,932$ 44,236$ -$ -$ 167,615$ 31,111,258$2020-$ 3,266,279$ -$ -$ 25,706,730$ 33,752$ -$ -$ 161,658$ 29,168,418$2021-$ 4,167,665$ -$ -$ 24,957,990$ 41,697$ -$ -$ 157,993$ 29,325,345$2022-$ 5,917,034$ -$ -$ 22,041,829$ 83,867$ 368,004$ 1,534$ 155,994$ 28,568,263$2023-$ 3,396,403$ -$ -$ 21,399,834$ 29,786$ 33,540$ -$ 148,153$ 25,007,716$2024-$ 3,753,458$ -$ -$ 20,776,538$ 42,094$ 32,563$ -$ 144,315$ 24,748,968$2025-$ 2,758,738$ -$ -$ 20,171,396$ 19,106$ 31,615$ -$ 139,184$ 23,120,039$2026-$ 3,537,994$ -$ -$ 19,583,880$ 39,678$ 37,510$ -$ 136,031$ 23,335,093$2027-$ 5,104,086$ -$ -$ 19,013,475$ 68,743$ 29,800$ -$ 133,818$ 24,349,922$2028-$ 2,929,767$ -$ -$ 18,459,685$ 29,191$ 28,932$ -$ 127,798$ 21,575,373$2029193,165$ 3,619,553$ 6,979,241$ 814,843$ 18,118,006$ 32,916$ 32,312$ 281$ 125,887$ 29,916,203$2030-$ 2,455,631$ -$ -$ 19,347,952$ 42,163$ 27,271$ -$ 120,119$ 21,993,135$2031182,077$ 3,485,483$ 6,578,604$ 768,067$ 18,969,151$ 39,221$ 36,337$ 265$ 118,716$ 30,177,921$2032707,095$ 5,943,508$ 25,547,977$ 2,982,786$ 20,790,812$ 104,607$ 30,164$ 1,030$ 120,663$ 56,228,642$2033514,875$ 3,961,741$ 18,602,896$ 2,171,932$ 27,141,650$ 119,557$ 11,255$ 750$ 114,283$ 52,638,939$2034166,626$ 3,868,062$ 6,020,355$ 702,890$ 31,205,133$ 189,882$ 3,642$ 243$ 109,251$ 42,266,085$2035323,546$ 3,347,125$ 11,690,009$ 1,364,836$ 32,140,677$ 147,172$ 7,072$ 471$ 106,403$ 49,127,312$Total PV70,692,204$ 110,225,408$ 278,191,593$ 17,258,736$ 455,515,020$ 1,221,202$ 792,770$ 10,093$ 5,658,163$ 939,565,189$Annualized4,059,703$ 6,330,010$ 15,975,951$ 991,132$ 26,159,258$ 70,131$ 45,527$ 580$ 324,936$ 53,957,228$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-14July 2010C.15 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$20126,508,179$ 3,239,489$ 17,727,212$ 807,859$ 74,623$ -$ 6,718$ 448$ 199,107$ 28,563,634$20136,082,410$ 3,358,897$ 16,567,488$ 755,008$ 2,492,426$ 5,048$ 6,279$ 419$ 186,305$ 29,454,280$201411,368,991$ 6,278,313$ 30,967,268$ 1,411,230$ 4,658,740$ 4,718$ 11,736$ 782$ 178,079$ 54,879,856$2015-$ 1,157,614$ -$ -$ 8,464,266$ 13,228$ -$ -$ 159,725$ 9,794,833$20169,930,117$ 6,024,663$ 27,048,011$ 1,232,623$ 8,024,388$ 4,121$ 10,250$ 683$ 156,050$ 52,430,907$201724,283,375$ 14,016,060$ 78,798,088$ 2,964,547$ 11,444,514$ 28,298$ 34,564$ 2,304$ 163,269$ 131,735,020$2018-$ 3,071,011$ -$ -$ 20,887,930$ 35,875$ -$ -$ 132,079$ 24,126,895$2019-$ 3,259,829$ -$ -$ 19,521,430$ 32,614$ -$ -$ 123,957$ 22,937,830$2020-$ 2,318,111$ -$ -$ 18,244,327$ 23,954$ -$ -$ 114,978$ 20,701,371$2021-$ 2,847,261$ -$ -$ 17,050,773$ 28,486$ -$ -$ 108,356$ 20,034,877$2022-$ 3,891,276$ -$ -$ 14,495,578$ 55,154$ 242,014$ 1,009$ 103,439$ 18,788,470$2023-$ 2,150,110$ -$ -$ 13,547,270$ 18,856$ 21,233$ -$ 94,107$ 15,831,575$2024-$ 2,287,317$ -$ -$ 12,661,000$ 25,652$ 19,844$ -$ 88,357$ 15,082,169$2025-$ 1,618,299$ -$ -$ 11,832,710$ 11,208$ 18,545$ -$ 81,891$ 13,562,652$2026-$ 1,997,831$ -$ -$ 11,058,607$ 22,405$ 21,181$ -$ 77,242$ 13,177,267$2027-$ 2,774,426$ -$ -$ 10,335,147$ 37,367$ 16,198$ -$ 73,538$ 13,236,675$2028-$ 1,532,999$ -$ -$ 9,659,016$ 15,274$ 15,139$ -$ 67,215$ 11,289,642$202997,295$ 1,823,127$ 3,515,364$ 410,427$ 9,125,831$ 16,579$ 16,275$ 142$ 64,438$ 15,069,478$2030-$ 1,190,635$ -$ -$ 9,381,029$ 20,443$ 13,223$ -$ 58,518$ 10,663,848$203184,981$ 1,626,792$ 3,070,455$ 358,483$ 8,853,537$ 18,306$ 16,960$ 124$ 56,387$ 14,086,024$2032317,687$ 2,670,332$ 11,478,335$ 1,340,122$ 9,341,010$ 46,998$ 13,552$ 463$ 56,992$ 25,265,493$2033222,678$ 1,713,413$ 8,045,562$ 939,338$ 11,738,486$ 51,707$ 4,868$ 325$ 51,233$ 22,767,609$203469,370$ 1,610,359$ 2,506,406$ 292,629$ 12,991,381$ 79,052$ 1,516$ 101$ 46,562$ 17,597,376$2035129,664$ 1,341,389$ 4,684,870$ 546,970$ 12,880,649$ 58,981$ 2,834$ 189$ 43,838$ 19,689,383$Total PV59,094,747$ 73,799,551$ 204,409,059$ 11,059,236$ 268,764,670$ 654,325$ 492,928$ 6,989$ 4,503,024$ 622,784,528$Annualized5,070,951$ 6,332,778$ 17,540,447$ 948,999$ 23,062,835$ 56,148$ 42,298$ 600$ 386,407$ 53,441,462$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-15July 2010Geologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036986,553$ 9,345,464$ 35,645,073$ 4,161,645$ 72,510,768$ 468,057$ 21,565$ 1,438$ 255,124$ 123,395,687$2037328,851$ 11,936,621$ 11,881,691$ 1,387,215$ 82,083,700$ 757,791$ 7,188$ 479$ 242,596$ 108,626,133$2038-$ 7,793,820$ -$ -$ 85,162,314$ 653,066$ -$ -$ 223,231$ 93,832,432$2039-$ 8,185,582$ -$ -$ 85,158,869$ 603,394$ -$ -$ 223,231$ 94,171,076$2040-$ 6,717,285$ -$ -$ 81,746,610$ 542,782$ 1,151,555$ 958$ 221,189$ 90,380,380$2041-$ 8,600,040$ -$ -$ 81,743,165$ 703,516$ 84,450$ -$ 225,613$ 91,356,783$2042-$ 11,406,986$ -$ -$ 78,317,126$ 757,325$ 1,236,005$ 958$ 233,099$ 91,951,499$2043-$ 6,982,874$ -$ -$ 64,657,754$ 460,670$ 4,775,120$ 3,834$ 225,273$ 77,105,524$2044-$ 6,713,673$ -$ -$ 54,417,531$ 296,241$ 3,965,903$ 2,875$ 221,870$ 65,618,093$2045-$ 5,511,033$ -$ -$ 50,998,382$ 305,984$ 1,911,601$ 958$ 218,127$ 58,946,086$2046-$ 6,853,749$ -$ -$ 44,163,528$ 317,856$ 3,152,398$ 1,917$ 222,551$ 54,711,998$2047-$ 8,593,408$ -$ -$ 33,923,306$ 182,574$ 4,487,229$ 2,875$ 225,273$ 47,414,665$2048-$ 4,842,459$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 48,248$ 2,432,675$ 958$ 214,724$ 38,050,111$2049-$ 5,512,079$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 56,037$ 1,360,525$ -$ 215,064$ 37,654,752$2050-$ 4,172,839$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 34,679$ 1,329,234$ -$ 212,342$ 36,260,141$2051-$ 5,512,079$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 56,037$ 1,285,913$ -$ 215,064$ 37,580,139$2052-$ 8,190,559$ -$ -$ 30,511,047$ 116,092$ 1,259,161$ -$ 220,509$ 40,297,368$2053-$ 4,463,110$ -$ -$ 27,737,315$ 36,688$ 1,604,654$ 958$ 214,384$ 34,057,110$2054-$ 4,753,381$ -$ -$ 24,963,584$ 56,037$ 1,546,690$ 958$ 215,405$ 31,536,055$2055-$ 2,655,443$ -$ -$ 19,416,121$ 11,560$ 2,153,758$ 1,917$ 213,023$ 24,451,821$2056-$ 3,994,683$ -$ -$ 19,416,121$ 56,037$ 1,490,498$ -$ 213,703$ 25,171,042$2057-$ 5,244,845$ -$ -$ 13,868,658$ 67,844$ 2,353,578$ 1,917$ 219,148$ 21,755,989$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,277,251$ 4,792$ 213,703$ 4,495,746$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,848,738$ -$ 208,599$ 3,057,337$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,839,406$ -$ 208,599$ 3,048,005$Total1,315,405$ 147,982,012$ 47,526,763$ 5,548,861$ 1,072,840,082$ 6,588,513$ 47,575,095$ 27,795$ 5,521,445$ 1,334,925,972$C.16 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Unadjusted ValuesYearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-16July 2010C.17 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036471,183$ 4,463,445$ 17,024,285$ 1,987,625$ 34,631,547$ 223,547$ 10,300$ 687$ 121,849$ 58,934,467$2037152,487$ 5,534,948$ 5,509,477$ 643,244$ 38,061,779$ 351,384$ 3,333$ 222$ 116,613$ 50,373,488$2038-$ 3,508,693$ -$ -$ 38,339,142$ 294,003$ -$ -$ 108,159$ 42,249,997$2039-$ 3,577,728$ -$ -$ 37,220,962$ 263,729$ -$ -$ 105,140$ 41,167,559$2040-$ 2,850,455$ -$ -$ 34,688,877$ 230,328$ 488,658$ 407$ 101,339$ 38,360,064$2041-$ 3,543,103$ -$ -$ 33,677,102$ 289,839$ 34,792$ -$ 99,652$ 37,644,488$2042-$ 4,562,648$ -$ -$ 31,325,843$ 302,920$ 494,386$ 383$ 98,902$ 36,785,083$2043-$ 2,711,709$ -$ -$ 25,109,000$ 178,895$ 1,854,356$ 1,489$ 93,741$ 29,949,190$2044-$ 2,531,231$ -$ -$ 20,516,838$ 111,691$ 1,495,249$ 1,084$ 90,409$ 24,746,501$2045-$ 2,017,285$ -$ -$ 18,667,698$ 112,004$ 699,732$ 351$ 86,791$ 21,583,860$2046-$ 2,435,708$ -$ -$ 15,694,985$ 112,961$ 1,120,310$ 681$ 85,354$ 19,449,999$2047-$ 2,965,004$ -$ -$ 11,704,640$ 62,994$ 1,548,240$ 992$ 83,807$ 16,365,677$2048-$ 1,622,141$ -$ -$ 10,220,680$ 16,162$ 814,905$ 321$ 78,891$ 12,753,100$2049-$ 1,792,672$ -$ -$ 9,922,990$ 18,225$ 442,478$ -$ 76,752$ 12,253,118$2050-$ 1,317,589$ -$ -$ 9,633,971$ 10,950$ 419,710$ -$ 73,847$ 11,456,068$2051-$ 1,689,766$ -$ -$ 9,353,370$ 17,178$ 394,205$ -$ 72,346$ 11,526,866$2052-$ 2,437,740$ -$ -$ 9,080,942$ 34,552$ 374,762$ -$ 71,502$ 11,999,497$2053-$ 1,289,657$ -$ -$ 8,014,953$ 10,601$ 463,680$ 277$ 68,040$ 9,847,208$2054-$ 1,333,528$ -$ -$ 7,003,357$ 15,721$ 433,913$ 269$ 66,282$ 8,853,069$2055-$ 723,268$ -$ -$ 5,288,403$ 3,149$ 586,623$ 522$ 63,846$ 6,665,810$2056-$ 1,056,349$ -$ -$ 5,134,372$ 14,818$ 394,145$ -$ 62,126$ 6,661,811$2057-$ 1,346,543$ -$ -$ 3,560,591$ 17,418$ 604,249$ 492$ 61,406$ 5,590,700$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,066,142$ 1,195$ 58,560$ 1,125,897$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 689,391$ -$ 55,892$ 745,283$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 667,119$ -$ 54,264$ 721,383$Total PV623,670$ 55,311,209$ 22,533,763$ 2,630,869$ 416,852,041$ 2,693,069$ 15,100,679$ 9,372$ 2,055,511$ 517,810,182$Annualized35,816$ 3,176,405$ 1,294,066$ 151,085$ 23,938,925$ 154,657$ 867,200$ 538$ 118,044$ 29,736,736$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-17July 2010C.18 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036181,772$ 1,721,894$ 6,567,575$ 766,780$ 13,360,049$ 86,239$ 3,973$ 265$ 47,006$ 22,735,554$203756,627$ 2,055,432$ 2,045,974$ 238,872$ 14,134,443$ 130,488$ 1,238$ 83$ 42,541$ 18,705,698$2038-$ 1,254,262$ -$ -$ 13,705,203$ 105,098$ -$ -$ 36,251$ 15,100,814$2039-$ 1,231,130$ -$ -$ 12,808,082$ 90,752$ -$ -$ 33,984$ 14,163,948$2040-$ 944,200$ -$ -$ 11,490,534$ 76,295$ 161,866$ 135$ 31,326$ 12,704,355$2041-$ 1,129,762$ -$ -$ 10,738,364$ 92,419$ 11,094$ -$ 30,039$ 12,001,678$2042-$ 1,400,470$ -$ -$ 9,615,229$ 92,979$ 151,748$ 118$ 29,348$ 11,289,892$2043-$ 801,223$ -$ -$ 7,418,904$ 52,858$ 547,903$ 440$ 26,157$ 8,847,483$2044-$ 719,939$ -$ -$ 5,835,448$ 31,767$ 425,282$ 308$ 24,178$ 7,036,922$2045-$ 552,312$ -$ -$ 5,111,024$ 30,666$ 191,579$ 96$ 22,080$ 5,907,758$2046-$ 641,942$ -$ -$ 4,136,486$ 29,771$ 295,263$ 180$ 21,219$ 5,124,861$2047-$ 752,228$ -$ -$ 2,969,492$ 15,982$ 392,792$ 252$ 20,397$ 4,151,142$2048-$ 396,156$ -$ -$ 2,496,073$ 3,947$ 199,014$ 78$ 17,852$ 3,113,121$2049-$ 421,436$ -$ -$ 2,332,779$ 4,284$ 104,021$ -$ 16,799$ 2,879,320$2050-$ 298,170$ -$ -$ 2,180,167$ 2,478$ 94,980$ -$ 15,375$ 2,591,171$2051-$ 368,099$ -$ -$ 2,037,539$ 3,742$ 85,874$ -$ 14,705$ 2,509,959$2052-$ 511,186$ -$ -$ 1,904,242$ 7,245$ 78,586$ -$ 14,382$ 2,515,641$2053-$ 260,327$ -$ -$ 1,617,878$ 2,140$ 93,597$ 56$ 12,800$ 1,986,797$2054-$ 259,120$ -$ -$ 1,360,832$ 3,055$ 84,314$ 52$ 12,082$ 1,719,455$2055-$ 135,285$ -$ -$ 989,182$ 589$ 109,726$ 98$ 11,069$ 1,245,950$2056-$ 190,201$ -$ -$ 924,469$ 2,668$ 70,968$ -$ 10,420$ 1,198,726$2057-$ 233,388$ -$ -$ 617,136$ 3,019$ 104,731$ 85$ 10,247$ 968,606$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 177,880$ 199$ 9,122$ 187,201$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 110,721$ -$ 8,108$ 118,829$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 103,139$ -$ 7,577$ 110,716$Total PV238,398$ 16,278,163$ 8,613,549$ 1,005,652$ 127,783,555$ 868,482$ 3,600,291$ 2,444$ 525,063$ 158,915,596$Annualized20,457$ 1,396,838$ 739,133$ 86,296$ 10,965,173$ 74,525$ 308,943$ 210$ 45,056$ 13,636,630$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-18July 2010Geologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$201210,753,336$ 10,562,204$ 19,103,139$ 1,085,063$ 81,285$ -$ 14,377$ 479$ 213,066$ 41,812,948$201310,753,336$ 11,322,399$ 19,103,139$ 1,085,063$ 3,193,288$ 93,395$ 14,377$ 479$ 213,245$ 45,778,721$201421,506,672$ 22,644,798$ 38,206,278$ 2,170,127$ 6,386,576$ 186,789$ 28,753$ 958$ 217,892$ 91,348,843$2015-$ 3,040,781$ -$ -$ 12,448,015$ 373,578$ -$ -$ 209,317$ 16,071,691$201621,506,672$ 24,165,188$ 38,206,278$ 2,170,127$ 12,610,584$ 373,578$ 28,753$ 958$ 218,251$ 99,280,389$201756,271,937$ 62,312,098$ 119,130,671$ 5,594,045$ 19,215,137$ 616,853$ 103,743$ 3,458$ 242,855$ 263,490,796$2018-$ 9,368,245$ -$ -$ 37,419,843$ 1,236,988$ -$ -$ 212,364$ 48,237,440$2019-$ 10,078,073$ -$ -$ 37,419,843$ 1,293,474$ -$ -$ 213,756$ 49,005,146$2020-$ 8,658,418$ -$ -$ 37,419,843$ 1,180,502$ -$ -$ 210,973$ 47,469,735$2021-$ 10,078,073$ -$ -$ 37,419,843$ 1,293,474$ -$ -$ 213,756$ 49,005,146$2023-$ 9,071,974$ -$ -$ 34,232,040$ 1,083,826$ 219,924$ -$ 211,966$ 44,819,731$2024-$ 9,781,802$ -$ -$ 34,232,040$ 1,140,312$ 219,924$ -$ 213,358$ 45,587,437$2025-$ 8,362,147$ -$ -$ 34,232,040$ 1,027,340$ 219,924$ -$ 210,575$ 44,052,025$2026-$ 9,781,802$ -$ -$ 34,232,040$ 1,140,312$ 289,697$ -$ 213,358$ 45,657,210$2027-$ 12,621,112$ -$ -$ 34,232,040$ 1,366,258$ 219,924$ -$ 218,926$ 48,658,260$2028-$ 9,071,974$ -$ -$ 34,232,040$ 1,083,826$ 219,924$ -$ 211,966$ 44,819,731$2029542,387$ 12,018,379$ 11,881,691$ 1,782,766$ 34,567,123$ 1,140,312$ 234,301$ 479$ 217,825$ 62,385,263$2030-$ 8,631,117$ -$ -$ 37,770,785$ 1,330,114$ 219,924$ -$ 210,754$ 48,162,694$2031542,387$ 12,287,349$ 11,881,691$ 1,782,766$ 38,105,868$ 1,443,087$ 304,074$ 479$ 218,005$ 66,565,705$20322,169,547$ 22,105,361$ 47,526,763$ 7,131,065$ 42,649,862$ 1,971,806$ 277,431$ 1,917$ 237,152$ 124,070,904$20331,627,160$ 17,395,526$ 35,645,073$ 5,348,299$ 56,469,760$ 2,900,471$ 263,054$ 1,438$ 226,444$ 119,877,224$2034542,387$ 14,829,379$ 11,881,691$ 1,782,766$ 66,415,830$ 4,056,193$ 234,301$ 479$ 220,833$ 99,963,859$20351,084,774$ 15,525,001$ 23,763,382$ 3,565,533$ 70,289,658$ 4,055,081$ 248,677$ 958$ 221,304$ 118,754,367$Total127,300,594$ 346,334,311$ 376,329,794$ 33,497,621$ 789,507,422$ 31,753,826$ 4,228,052$ 14,208$ 7,235,425$ 1,716,201,252$C.19 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Unadjusted ValuesYearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-19July 2010C.20 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$201210,440,132$ 10,254,567$ 18,546,737$ 1,053,459$ 78,917$ -$ 13,958$ 465$ 206,619$ 40,594,854$201310,136,050$ 10,672,447$ 18,006,541$ 1,022,776$ 3,009,980$ 88,033$ 13,551$ 452$ 200,767$ 43,150,597$201419,681,651$ 20,723,198$ 34,964,156$ 1,985,973$ 5,844,622$ 170,938$ 26,313$ 877$ 198,940$ 83,596,670$2015-$ 2,701,694$ -$ -$ 11,059,900$ 331,919$ -$ -$ 185,961$ 14,279,474$201618,551,844$ 20,845,104$ 32,957,071$ 1,871,970$ 10,878,000$ 322,252$ 24,803$ 827$ 187,823$ 85,639,693$201747,126,861$ 52,185,401$ 99,770,061$ 4,684,924$ 16,092,374$ 516,605$ 86,883$ 2,896$ 202,301$ 220,668,307$2018-$ 7,617,241$ -$ -$ 30,425,757$ 1,005,784$ -$ -$ 172,608$ 39,221,390$2019-$ 7,955,724$ -$ -$ 29,539,570$ 1,021,081$ -$ -$ 168,654$ 38,685,027$2020-$ 6,635,956$ -$ -$ 28,679,194$ 904,756$ -$ -$ 161,658$ 36,381,564$2021-$ 7,499,033$ -$ -$ 27,843,877$ 962,466$ -$ -$ 158,972$ 36,464,349$2022-$ 9,117,760$ -$ -$ 24,729,954$ 987,014$ 626,318$ 1,534$ 158,846$ 35,621,425$2023-$ 6,362,900$ -$ -$ 24,009,664$ 760,174$ 154,250$ -$ 148,614$ 31,435,603$2024-$ 6,660,931$ -$ -$ 23,310,354$ 776,497$ 149,758$ -$ 145,211$ 31,042,751$2025-$ 5,528,364$ -$ -$ 22,631,411$ 679,192$ 145,396$ -$ 139,184$ 29,123,548$2026-$ 6,278,566$ -$ -$ 21,972,244$ 731,923$ 185,945$ -$ 136,875$ 29,305,554$2027-$ 7,865,060$ -$ -$ 21,332,276$ 851,407$ 137,049$ -$ 136,277$ 30,322,069$2028-$ 5,488,694$ -$ -$ 20,710,947$ 655,733$ 133,058$ -$ 128,196$ 27,116,627$2029318,595$ 7,059,531$ 6,979,241$ 1,047,187$ 20,304,542$ 669,813$ 137,627$ 281$ 126,689$ 36,643,507$2030-$ 4,922,205$ -$ -$ 21,540,151$ 758,545$ 125,420$ -$ 120,119$ 27,466,440$2031300,306$ 6,803,207$ 6,578,604$ 987,075$ 21,098,295$ 799,002$ 168,358$ 265$ 119,472$ 36,854,585$20321,166,238$ 11,882,721$ 25,547,977$ 3,833,299$ 22,926,402$ 1,059,943$ 149,133$ 1,030$ 122,892$ 66,689,636$2033849,203$ 9,078,595$ 18,602,896$ 2,791,237$ 29,471,144$ 1,513,734$ 137,286$ 750$ 114,705$ 62,559,550$2034274,823$ 7,513,924$ 6,020,355$ 903,313$ 33,652,353$ 2,055,239$ 118,718$ 243$ 110,134$ 50,649,102$2035533,637$ 7,637,272$ 11,690,009$ 1,754,006$ 34,577,854$ 1,994,831$ 122,333$ 471$ 106,452$ 58,416,865$Total PV109,379,342$ 249,290,093$ 279,663,648$ 21,935,220$ 505,719,782$ 19,616,883$ 2,656,157$ 10,093$ 5,675,331$ 1,193,946,550$Annualized6,281,423$ 14,316,199$ 16,060,488$ 1,259,693$ 29,042,410$ 1,126,556$ 152,537$ 580$ 325,922$ 68,565,809$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-20July 2010C.21 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$201210,049,847$ 9,871,218$ 17,853,401$ 1,014,078$ 75,967$ -$ 13,436$ 448$ 199,192$ 39,077,586$20139,392,380$ 9,889,422$ 16,685,421$ 947,736$ 2,789,142$ 81,574$ 12,557$ 419$ 186,386$ 39,985,037$201417,555,851$ 18,484,900$ 31,187,703$ 1,771,470$ 5,213,349$ 152,475$ 23,471$ 782$ 178,233$ 74,568,235$2015-$ 2,319,797$ -$ -$ 9,496,531$ 285,001$ -$ -$ 159,725$ 12,261,054$201615,333,960$ 17,229,445$ 27,240,548$ 1,547,270$ 8,991,172$ 266,356$ 20,501$ 683$ 156,190$ 70,786,125$201737,496,368$ 41,521,182$ 79,381,796$ 3,727,548$ 12,803,857$ 411,035$ 69,128$ 2,304$ 164,245$ 175,577,464$2018-$ 5,834,072$ -$ -$ 23,303,198$ 770,334$ -$ -$ 132,552$ 30,040,155$2019-$ 5,865,530$ -$ -$ 21,778,689$ 752,814$ -$ -$ 124,858$ 28,521,891$2020-$ 4,709,606$ -$ -$ 20,353,915$ 642,115$ -$ -$ 114,978$ 25,820,614$2021-$ 5,123,181$ -$ -$ 19,022,351$ 657,537$ -$ -$ 109,174$ 24,912,243$2022-$ 5,996,199$ -$ -$ 16,263,396$ 649,099$ 411,891$ 1,009$ 105,777$ 23,427,372$2023-$ 4,028,065$ -$ -$ 15,199,435$ 481,232$ 97,649$ -$ 94,479$ 19,900,860$2024-$ 4,059,100$ -$ -$ 14,205,080$ 473,189$ 91,261$ -$ 89,066$ 18,917,696$2025-$ 3,242,985$ -$ -$ 13,275,775$ 398,420$ 85,290$ -$ 81,891$ 17,084,361$2026-$ 3,545,375$ -$ -$ 12,407,267$ 413,302$ 105,000$ -$ 77,888$ 16,548,831$2027-$ 4,275,207$ -$ -$ 11,595,576$ 462,799$ 74,496$ -$ 75,388$ 16,483,466$2028-$ 2,871,955$ -$ -$ 10,836,987$ 343,112$ 69,622$ -$ 67,510$ 14,189,186$2029160,473$ 3,555,805$ 3,515,364$ 527,456$ 10,227,164$ 337,377$ 69,321$ 142$ 65,028$ 18,458,129$2030-$ 2,386,576$ -$ -$ 10,443,937$ 367,788$ 60,811$ -$ 58,518$ 13,317,629$2031140,163$ 3,175,285$ 3,070,455$ 460,701$ 9,847,280$ 372,921$ 78,578$ 124$ 56,925$ 17,202,432$2032523,974$ 5,338,734$ 11,478,335$ 1,722,246$ 10,300,500$ 476,217$ 67,003$ 463$ 58,556$ 29,966,027$2033367,272$ 3,926,399$ 8,045,562$ 1,207,182$ 12,745,968$ 654,674$ 59,375$ 325$ 51,529$ 27,058,285$2034114,415$ 3,128,211$ 2,506,406$ 376,069$ 14,010,212$ 855,641$ 49,425$ 101$ 47,174$ 21,087,654$2035213,859$ 3,060,701$ 4,684,870$ 702,933$ 13,857,368$ 799,445$ 49,026$ 189$ 43,873$ 23,412,266$Total PV91,348,560$ 173,438,951$ 205,649,861$ 14,004,688$ 299,044,116$ 11,104,457$ 1,507,842$ 6,989$ 4,516,495$ 800,621,960$Annualized7,838,667$ 14,882,886$ 17,646,921$ 1,201,750$ 25,661,130$ 952,879$ 129,389$ 600$ 387,563$ 68,701,784$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-21July 2010Geologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL20361,627,160$ 20,130,379$ 35,645,073$ 5,348,299$ 77,722,901$ 4,964,515$ 332,827$ 1,438$ 259,463$ 146,032,055$2037542,387$ 20,460,300$ 11,881,691$ 1,782,766$ 87,655,191$ 6,671,522$ 234,301$ 479$ 255,527$ 129,484,164$2038-$ 14,546,306$ -$ -$ 90,851,963$ 6,500,951$ 219,924$ -$ 228,335$ 112,347,480$2039-$ 14,858,884$ -$ -$ 90,845,073$ 6,366,525$ 219,924$ -$ 228,335$ 112,518,741$2040-$ 13,177,238$ -$ -$ 87,313,218$ 5,950,778$ 1,835,028$ 958$ 223,742$ 108,500,962$2041-$ 15,370,456$ -$ -$ 87,306,328$ 6,445,576$ 474,466$ -$ 233,269$ 109,830,096$2042-$ 18,310,131$ -$ -$ 83,746,912$ 6,559,661$ 2,019,798$ 958$ 247,136$ 110,884,596$2043-$ 12,911,551$ -$ -$ 69,598,822$ 4,684,306$ 7,049,881$ 3,834$ 230,377$ 94,478,770$2044-$ 12,047,884$ -$ -$ 58,996,366$ 3,450,644$ 6,401,156$ 2,875$ 225,698$ 81,124,624$2045-$ 10,742,551$ -$ -$ 55,450,731$ 3,225,810$ 3,497,952$ 958$ 220,679$ 73,138,683$2046-$ 12,007,559$ -$ -$ 48,366,351$ 2,924,148$ 5,607,356$ 1,917$ 228,931$ 69,136,261$2048-$ 9,071,974$ -$ -$ 34,232,040$ 1,083,826$ 5,325,839$ 958$ 216,000$ 49,930,638$2049-$ 9,781,802$ -$ -$ 34,232,040$ 1,140,312$ 3,643,293$ -$ 217,617$ 49,015,064$2050-$ 8,362,147$ -$ -$ 34,232,040$ 1,027,340$ 3,470,978$ -$ 212,342$ 47,304,847$2051-$ 9,781,802$ -$ -$ 34,232,040$ 1,140,312$ 4,020,265$ -$ 217,617$ 49,392,036$2052-$ 12,621,112$ -$ -$ 34,232,040$ 1,366,258$ 4,005,479$ -$ 228,165$ 52,453,055$2053-$ 8,311,779$ -$ -$ 31,120,037$ 990,431$ 3,760,480$ 958$ 215,660$ 44,399,345$2054-$ 8,261,412$ -$ -$ 28,008,033$ 953,523$ 3,541,626$ 958$ 217,957$ 40,983,509$2055-$ 5,321,366$ -$ -$ 21,784,026$ 653,762$ 4,930,567$ 1,917$ 213,023$ 32,904,660$2056-$ 6,741,021$ -$ -$ 21,784,026$ 766,734$ 4,338,463$ -$ 216,255$ 33,846,499$2057-$ 7,350,113$ -$ -$ 15,560,018$ 749,405$ 6,562,332$ 1,917$ 225,528$ 30,449,313$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,994,154$ 4,792$ 213,703$ 10,212,649$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,473,320$ -$ 208,599$ 8,681,919$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,163,755$ -$ 208,599$ 7,372,354$Total2,169,547$ 263,441,141$ 47,526,763$ 7,131,065$ 1,165,034,092$ 69,476,285$ 105,364,660$ 27,795$ 5,626,763$ 1,665,798,112$C.22 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Unadjusted ValuesYearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-22July 2010C.23 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036777,141$ 9,614,381$ 17,024,285$ 2,554,377$ 37,120,890$ 2,371,080$ 158,960$ 687$ 123,921$ 69,745,723$2037251,502$ 9,487,333$ 5,509,477$ 826,659$ 40,645,250$ 3,093,550$ 108,644$ 222$ 121,371$ 60,044,008$2038-$ 6,548,588$ -$ -$ 40,900,560$ 2,926,657$ 99,007$ -$ 110,178$ 50,584,989$2039-$ 6,494,473$ -$ -$ 39,706,270$ 2,782,660$ 96,124$ -$ 107,223$ 49,186,749$2040-$ 5,591,713$ -$ -$ 37,051,047$ 2,525,191$ 778,688$ 407$ 102,518$ 46,049,563$2041-$ 6,332,424$ -$ -$ 35,969,051$ 2,655,492$ 195,474$ -$ 102,202$ 45,254,644$2042-$ 7,323,817$ -$ -$ 33,497,688$ 2,623,780$ 807,893$ 383$ 103,253$ 44,356,815$2043-$ 5,014,033$ -$ -$ 27,027,800$ 1,819,090$ 2,737,730$ 1,489$ 95,482$ 36,695,624$2044-$ 4,542,368$ -$ -$ 22,243,179$ 1,300,983$ 2,413,404$ 1,084$ 91,937$ 30,592,955$2045-$ 3,932,256$ -$ -$ 20,297,457$ 1,180,791$ 1,280,408$ 351$ 87,807$ 26,779,071$2046-$ 4,267,287$ -$ -$ 17,188,598$ 1,039,194$ 1,992,761$ 681$ 87,300$ 24,575,821$2047-$ 4,579,744$ -$ -$ 13,029,768$ 641,741$ 2,843,584$ 992$ 86,578$ 21,182,408$2048-$ 3,038,957$ -$ -$ 11,467,149$ 363,063$ 1,784,065$ 321$ 79,677$ 16,733,233$2049-$ 3,181,298$ -$ -$ 11,133,155$ 370,859$ 1,184,894$ -$ 77,839$ 15,948,045$2050-$ 2,640,378$ -$ -$ 10,808,888$ 324,386$ 1,095,974$ -$ 74,275$ 14,943,900$2051-$ 2,998,678$ -$ -$ 10,494,066$ 349,571$ 1,232,440$ -$ 73,371$ 15,148,126$2052-$ 3,756,396$ -$ -$ 10,188,414$ 406,637$ 1,192,143$ -$ 73,680$ 15,617,269$2053-$ 2,401,765$ -$ -$ 8,992,422$ 286,194$ 1,086,625$ 277$ 68,719$ 12,836,002$2054-$ 2,317,681$ -$ -$ 7,857,456$ 267,504$ 993,578$ 269$ 67,219$ 11,503,707$2055-$ 1,449,390$ -$ -$ 5,933,354$ 178,066$ 1,342,947$ 522$ 64,215$ 8,968,494$2056-$ 1,782,586$ -$ -$ 5,760,538$ 202,754$ 1,147,257$ -$ 63,010$ 8,956,145$2057-$ 1,887,043$ -$ -$ 3,994,825$ 192,400$ 1,684,790$ 492$ 63,029$ 7,822,579$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,491,130$ 1,195$ 58,898$ 2,551,222$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,050,533$ -$ 56,220$ 2,106,753$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,683,126$ -$ 54,582$ 1,737,709$Total PV1,028,643$ 99,182,590$ 22,533,763$ 3,381,037$ 451,307,824$ 27,901,643$ 32,482,180$ 9,372$ 2,094,504$ 639,921,554$Annualized59,073$ 5,695,845$ 1,294,066$ 194,166$ 25,917,648$ 1,602,332$ 1,865,382$ 538$ 120,283$ 36,749,332$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-23July 2010C.24 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036299,803$ 3,709,006$ 6,567,575$ 985,420$ 14,320,381$ 914,708$ 61,323$ 265$ 47,806$ 26,906,286$203793,397$ 3,523,171$ 2,045,974$ 306,984$ 15,093,829$ 1,148,806$ 40,346$ 83$ 45,261$ 22,297,850$2038-$ 2,340,942$ -$ -$ 14,620,840$ 1,046,200$ 35,392$ -$ 37,154$ 18,080,529$2039-$ 2,234,809$ -$ -$ 13,663,300$ 957,539$ 33,077$ -$ 34,914$ 16,923,639$2040-$ 1,852,230$ -$ -$ 12,272,992$ 836,458$ 257,937$ 135$ 31,685$ 15,251,435$2041-$ 2,019,172$ -$ -$ 11,469,181$ 846,737$ 62,329$ -$ 31,203$ 14,428,622$2042-$ 2,247,990$ -$ -$ 10,281,860$ 805,349$ 247,977$ 118$ 31,541$ 13,614,834$2043-$ 1,481,486$ -$ -$ 7,985,847$ 537,483$ 808,911$ 440$ 26,820$ 10,840,986$2044-$ 1,291,951$ -$ -$ 6,326,458$ 370,029$ 686,426$ 308$ 24,740$ 8,699,912$2045-$ 1,076,611$ -$ -$ 5,557,236$ 323,289$ 350,563$ 96$ 22,336$ 7,330,131$2046-$ 1,124,663$ -$ -$ 4,530,135$ 273,884$ 525,201$ 180$ 21,964$ 6,476,027$2047-$ 1,161,891$ -$ -$ 3,305,680$ 162,811$ 721,423$ 252$ 21,615$ 5,373,672$2048-$ 742,168$ -$ -$ 2,800,483$ 88,667$ 435,701$ 78$ 18,028$ 4,085,125$2049-$ 747,886$ -$ -$ 2,617,274$ 87,185$ 278,555$ -$ 17,134$ 3,748,034$2050-$ 597,517$ -$ -$ 2,446,051$ 73,409$ 248,019$ -$ 15,375$ 3,380,370$2051-$ 653,232$ -$ -$ 2,286,029$ 76,150$ 268,475$ -$ 15,010$ 3,298,897$2052-$ 787,703$ -$ -$ 2,136,475$ 85,270$ 249,988$ -$ 15,257$ 3,274,695$2053-$ 484,814$ -$ -$ 1,815,187$ 57,770$ 219,343$ 56$ 12,939$ 2,590,110$2054-$ 450,352$ -$ -$ 1,526,793$ 51,979$ 193,064$ 52$ 12,349$ 2,234,589$2055-$ 271,105$ -$ -$ 1,109,818$ 33,307$ 251,195$ 98$ 11,069$ 1,676,592$2056-$ 320,964$ -$ -$ 1,037,213$ 36,507$ 206,569$ -$ 10,664$ 1,611,917$2057-$ 327,070$ -$ -$ 692,399$ 33,347$ 292,014$ 85$ 10,830$ 1,355,746$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 415,632$ 199$ 9,122$ 424,952$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 329,331$ -$ 8,108$ 337,438$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 260,217$ -$ 7,577$ 267,794$Total PV393,200$ 29,446,734$ 8,613,549$ 1,292,404$ 137,895,461$ 8,846,884$ 7,479,007$ 2,444$ 540,500$ 194,510,183$Annualized33,741$ 2,526,839$ 739,133$ 110,902$ 11,832,881$ 759,156$ 641,777$ 210$ 46,381$ 16,691,019$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-24July 2010Geologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$201214,094,198$ 10,058,802$ 18,654,311$ 1,316,330$ 87,677$ -$ 13,620$ 454$ 212,682$ 44,438,075$201314,094,198$ 10,780,669$ 18,654,311$ 1,316,330$ 3,074,686$ 344,859$ 13,620$ 454$ 213,200$ 48,492,327$201428,188,395$ 21,561,338$ 37,308,623$ 2,632,661$ 6,149,373$ 689,718$ 27,240$ 908$ 217,801$ 96,776,056$2015-$ 2,887,467$ -$ -$ 11,948,038$ 1,379,436$ -$ -$ 210,669$ 16,425,611$201628,188,395$ 23,005,071$ 37,308,623$ 2,632,661$ 12,123,392$ 1,379,436$ 27,240$ 908$ 218,836$ 104,884,562$201774,430,900$ 60,189,577$ 117,455,243$ 6,797,913$ 18,515,853$ 2,069,155$ 99,960$ 3,332$ 243,034$ 279,804,967$2018-$ 9,561,014$ -$ -$ 36,079,583$ 4,398,466$ -$ -$ 216,863$ 50,255,927$2019-$ 10,861,400$ -$ -$ 36,079,583$ 4,398,466$ -$ -$ 218,224$ 51,557,674$2020-$ 8,260,628$ -$ -$ 36,079,583$ 4,398,466$ -$ -$ 215,502$ 48,954,180$2021-$ 10,861,400$ -$ -$ 36,079,583$ 4,398,466$ -$ -$ 218,224$ 51,557,674$2022-$ 15,742,848$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 866,970$ 2,124$ 223,652$ 53,486,149$2023-$ 9,240,920$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 219,924$ -$ 215,653$ 46,327,052$2024-$ 10,541,306$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 219,924$ -$ 217,014$ 47,628,798$2025-$ 7,940,535$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 219,924$ -$ 214,292$ 45,025,305$2026-$ 10,541,306$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 348,850$ -$ 217,014$ 47,757,725$2027-$ 15,742,848$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 219,924$ -$ 222,458$ 52,835,785$2028-$ 9,240,920$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 219,924$ -$ 215,653$ 46,327,052$2029828,292$ 12,684,959$ 11,337,358$ 1,689,530$ 33,220,878$ 3,793,450$ 233,544$ 454$ 221,097$ 64,009,562$2030-$ 8,202,510$ -$ -$ 36,245,265$ 4,868,226$ 219,924$ -$ 214,809$ 49,750,734$2031828,292$ 12,946,934$ 11,337,358$ 1,689,530$ 36,609,038$ 4,868,226$ 362,470$ 454$ 221,615$ 68,863,917$20323,313,167$ 24,841,411$ 45,349,430$ 6,758,120$ 41,088,519$ 5,943,002$ 274,404$ 1,816$ 239,827$ 127,809,697$20332,484,875$ 17,243,730$ 34,012,073$ 5,068,590$ 54,277,389$ 10,242,107$ 260,784$ 1,362$ 231,008$ 123,821,917$2034828,292$ 15,670,767$ 11,337,358$ 1,689,530$ 63,714,324$ 13,466,435$ 233,544$ 454$ 227,116$ 107,167,819$20351,656,584$ 14,847,590$ 22,674,715$ 3,379,060$ 67,466,258$ 14,541,211$ 247,164$ 908$ 227,634$ 125,041,123$Total168,935,587$ 353,455,951$ 365,429,401$ 34,970,254$ 758,838,752$ 107,733,280$ 4,328,955$ 13,628$ 7,311,240$ 1,801,017,048$C.25 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Unadjusted ValuesYearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-25July 2010C.26 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$201213,683,687$ 9,765,827$ 18,110,982$ 1,277,991$ 85,123$ -$ 13,223$ 441$ 206,488$ 43,143,762$201313,285,133$ 10,161,814$ 17,583,478$ 1,240,768$ 2,898,187$ 325,063$ 12,838$ 428$ 200,961$ 45,708,669$201425,796,375$ 19,731,678$ 34,142,675$ 2,409,257$ 5,627,547$ 631,190$ 24,929$ 831$ 199,319$ 88,563,800$2015-$ 2,565,477$ -$ -$ 10,615,677$ 1,225,611$ -$ -$ 187,177$ 14,593,942$201624,315,557$ 19,844,377$ 32,182,746$ 2,270,956$ 10,457,744$ 1,189,914$ 23,498$ 783$ 188,770$ 90,474,344$201762,334,707$ 50,407,823$ 98,366,917$ 5,693,145$ 15,506,735$ 1,732,885$ 83,715$ 2,790$ 203,537$ 234,332,255$2018-$ 7,773,979$ -$ -$ 29,336,003$ 3,576,356$ -$ -$ 176,330$ 40,862,668$2019-$ 8,574,089$ -$ -$ 28,481,556$ 3,472,190$ -$ -$ 172,268$ 40,700,104$2020-$ 6,331,084$ -$ -$ 27,651,996$ 3,371,058$ -$ -$ 165,165$ 37,519,303$2021-$ 8,081,901$ -$ -$ 26,846,598$ 3,272,872$ -$ -$ 162,380$ 38,363,751$2022-$ 11,372,968$ -$ -$ 23,736,671$ 2,740,469$ 626,318$ 1,534$ 161,571$ 38,639,532$2023-$ 6,481,396$ -$ -$ 23,045,312$ 2,660,650$ 154,250$ -$ 151,255$ 32,492,862$2024-$ 7,178,116$ -$ -$ 22,374,089$ 2,583,155$ 149,758$ -$ 147,776$ 32,432,894$2025-$ 5,249,629$ -$ -$ 21,722,417$ 2,507,918$ 145,396$ -$ 141,672$ 29,767,031$2026-$ 6,766,063$ -$ -$ 21,089,725$ 2,434,871$ 223,914$ -$ 139,293$ 30,653,866$2027-$ 9,810,422$ -$ -$ 20,475,461$ 2,363,953$ 137,049$ -$ 138,629$ 32,925,514$2028-$ 5,590,909$ -$ -$ 19,879,088$ 2,295,100$ 133,058$ -$ 130,473$ 28,028,628$2029486,534$ 7,451,077$ 6,659,503$ 992,421$ 19,513,764$ 2,228,252$ 137,183$ 267$ 128,811$ 37,597,811$2030-$ 4,677,777$ -$ -$ 20,670,168$ 2,776,281$ 125,420$ -$ 122,372$ 28,372,018$2031458,605$ 7,168,404$ 6,277,220$ 935,452$ 20,269,537$ 2,695,419$ 200,691$ 251$ 121,577$ 38,127,155$20321,780,991$ 13,353,483$ 24,377,553$ 3,632,822$ 22,087,104$ 3,194,657$ 147,506$ 976$ 124,791$ 68,699,883$20331,296,838$ 8,999,373$ 17,750,646$ 2,645,259$ 28,326,962$ 5,345,279$ 136,101$ 711$ 117,019$ 64,618,187$2034419,689$ 7,940,248$ 5,744,546$ 856,071$ 32,283,522$ 6,823,331$ 118,335$ 230$ 112,815$ 54,298,787$2035814,929$ 7,304,031$ 11,154,457$ 1,662,274$ 33,188,928$ 7,153,312$ 121,588$ 447$ 109,079$ 61,509,045$Total PV144,673,045$ 252,581,946$ 272,350,721$ 23,616,415$ 486,169,917$ 66,599,785$ 2,714,767$ 9,690$ 5,726,888$ 1,254,443,174$Annualized8,308,265$ 14,505,243$ 15,640,522$ 1,356,240$ 27,919,703$ 3,824,684$ 155,903$ 556$ 328,883$ 72,040,001$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-26July 2010C.27 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2012-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,017,362$ 2,017,362$201313,172,147$ 9,400,750$ 17,433,936$ 1,230,215$ 81,941$ -$ 12,729$ 424$ 198,834$ 41,530,976$201412,310,418$ 9,416,254$ 16,293,398$ 1,149,734$ 2,685,550$ 301,213$ 11,896$ 397$ 186,358$ 42,355,217$201523,010,127$ 17,600,474$ 30,454,949$ 2,149,035$ 5,019,720$ 563,016$ 22,236$ 741$ 178,192$ 78,998,491$2016-$ 2,202,835$ -$ -$ 9,115,101$ 1,052,365$ -$ -$ 160,833$ 12,531,135$201720,097,936$ 16,402,298$ 26,600,532$ 1,877,051$ 8,643,811$ 983,519$ 19,422$ 647$ 156,704$ 74,781,920$201849,596,452$ 40,106,857$ 78,265,388$ 4,529,736$ 12,337,895$ 1,378,765$ 66,607$ 2,220$ 164,549$ 186,448,469$2019-$ 5,954,119$ -$ -$ 22,468,551$ 2,739,144$ -$ -$ 135,747$ 31,297,561$2020-$ 6,321,433$ -$ -$ 20,998,646$ 2,559,947$ -$ -$ 127,891$ 30,007,918$2021-$ 4,493,235$ -$ -$ 19,624,903$ 2,392,474$ -$ -$ 117,898$ 26,628,510$2022-$ 5,521,385$ -$ -$ 18,341,031$ 2,235,957$ -$ -$ 111,937$ 26,210,310$2023-$ 7,479,314$ -$ -$ 15,610,174$ 1,802,241$ 411,891$ 1,009$ 107,902$ 25,412,530$2024-$ 4,103,079$ -$ -$ 14,588,947$ 1,684,337$ 97,649$ -$ 96,555$ 20,570,568$2025-$ 4,374,267$ -$ -$ 13,634,530$ 1,574,147$ 91,261$ -$ 91,043$ 19,765,248$2026-$ 3,079,476$ -$ -$ 12,742,552$ 1,471,165$ 85,290$ -$ 83,794$ 17,462,277$2027-$ 3,820,654$ -$ -$ 11,908,927$ 1,374,921$ 126,439$ -$ 79,695$ 17,310,637$2028-$ 5,332,647$ -$ -$ 11,129,838$ 1,284,973$ 74,496$ -$ 77,097$ 17,899,051$2029-$ 2,925,439$ -$ -$ 10,401,718$ 1,200,909$ 69,622$ -$ 69,170$ 14,666,858$2030245,062$ 3,753,022$ 3,354,315$ 499,871$ 9,828,859$ 1,122,345$ 69,097$ 134$ 66,499$ 18,939,204$2031-$ 2,268,062$ -$ -$ 10,022,118$ 1,346,105$ 60,811$ -$ 60,136$ 13,757,232$2032214,046$ 3,345,734$ 2,929,789$ 436,607$ 9,460,471$ 1,258,042$ 93,669$ 117$ 58,368$ 17,796,843$2033800,173$ 5,999,526$ 10,952,481$ 1,632,174$ 9,923,415$ 1,435,313$ 66,272$ 439$ 59,735$ 30,869,528$2034560,869$ 3,892,137$ 7,676,973$ 1,144,047$ 12,251,121$ 2,311,778$ 58,862$ 307$ 53,065$ 27,949,160$2035174,726$ 3,305,699$ 2,391,580$ 356,401$ 13,440,338$ 2,840,702$ 49,265$ 96$ 49,010$ 22,607,818$2036326,590$ 2,927,152$ 4,470,243$ 666,170$ 13,300,745$ 2,866,751$ 48,728$ 179$ 45,619$ 24,652,177$Total PV120,508,546$ 174,025,848$ 200,823,584$ 15,671,042$ 287,560,900$ 37,780,132$ 1,536,244$ 6,711$ 4,553,993$ 842,466,999$Annualized10,340,901$ 14,933,248$ 17,232,776$ 1,344,740$ 24,675,750$ 3,241,933$ 131,826$ 576$ 390,780$ 72,292,529$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-27July 2010Geologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL20362,484,875$ 20,743,998$ 34,012,073$ 5,068,590$ 74,606,353$ 16,690,763$ 389,710$ 1,362$ 259,967$ 154,257,691$2037828,292$ 24,328,259$ 11,337,358$ 1,689,530$ 84,043,288$ 19,915,091$ 233,544$ 454$ 269,198$ 142,645,013$2038-$ 15,316,619$ -$ -$ 87,067,675$ 20,989,867$ 219,924$ -$ 247,434$ 123,841,519$2039-$ 15,988,971$ -$ -$ 87,067,675$ 20,989,867$ 219,924$ -$ 247,434$ 124,513,871$2040-$ 13,126,225$ -$ -$ 83,679,515$ 19,915,091$ 1,759,828$ 908$ 241,975$ 118,723,541$2041-$ 16,983,064$ -$ -$ 83,679,515$ 19,915,091$ 520,725$ -$ 251,843$ 121,350,238$2042-$ 22,550,664$ -$ -$ 80,291,354$ 18,840,315$ 1,931,703$ 908$ 265,440$ 123,880,384$2043-$ 13,744,770$ -$ -$ 66,738,711$ 14,541,211$ 6,723,289$ 3,632$ 245,307$ 101,996,920$2044-$ 13,003,164$ -$ -$ 56,574,229$ 11,316,883$ 6,320,952$ 2,724$ 238,459$ 87,456,410$2045-$ 10,768,451$ -$ -$ 53,186,068$ 10,242,107$ 3,306,705$ 908$ 232,660$ 77,736,900$2046-$ 13,473,306$ -$ -$ 46,409,747$ 8,092,554$ 5,597,476$ 1,816$ 239,777$ 73,814,677$2047-$ 16,632,857$ -$ -$ 36,245,265$ 4,868,226$ 8,702,400$ 2,724$ 243,138$ 66,694,609$2048-$ 9,240,920$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 5,688,153$ 908$ 223,727$ 51,804,263$2049-$ 10,541,306$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 3,870,059$ -$ 225,429$ 51,287,349$2050-$ 7,940,535$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 3,698,184$ -$ 219,984$ 48,509,258$2051-$ 10,541,306$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 4,727,241$ -$ 225,429$ 52,144,530$2052-$ 15,742,848$ -$ -$ 32,857,104$ 3,793,450$ 4,876,505$ -$ 236,318$ 57,506,225$2053-$ 8,519,054$ -$ -$ 29,870,095$ 3,448,591$ 4,204,776$ 908$ 222,692$ 46,266,116$2054-$ 9,097,572$ -$ -$ 26,883,085$ 3,103,732$ 3,786,172$ 908$ 224,380$ 43,095,849$2055-$ 5,053,068$ -$ -$ 20,909,066$ 2,414,014$ 5,077,287$ 1,816$ 217,886$ 33,673,137$2056-$ 7,653,839$ -$ -$ 20,909,066$ 2,414,014$ 5,024,961$ -$ 221,289$ 36,223,169$2057-$ 10,111,262$ -$ -$ 14,935,047$ 1,724,296$ 7,908,640$ 1,816$ 229,427$ 34,910,488$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,678,519$ 4,540$ 213,703$ 10,896,762$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,630,732$ -$ 208,599$ 9,839,331$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,138,013$ -$ 208,599$ 7,346,612$Total3,313,167$ 291,102,058$ 45,349,430$ 6,758,120$ 1,117,381,277$ 218,388,963$ 112,235,423$ 26,332$ 5,860,093$ 1,800,414,863$C.28 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Unadjusted ValuesYearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-28July 2010C.29 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL20361,186,790$ 9,907,449$ 16,244,355$ 2,420,787$ 35,632,410$ 7,971,601$ 186,128$ 651$ 124,162$ 73,674,332$2037384,075$ 11,280,885$ 5,257,073$ 783,426$ 38,970,430$ 9,234,523$ 108,293$ 211$ 124,049$ 66,142,964$2038-$ 6,895,374$ -$ -$ 39,196,915$ 9,449,408$ 99,007$ -$ 113,616$ 55,754,320$2039-$ 6,988,408$ -$ -$ 38,055,257$ 9,174,183$ 96,124$ -$ 110,569$ 54,424,540$2040-$ 5,570,066$ -$ -$ 35,509,098$ 8,450,896$ 746,776$ 385$ 105,546$ 50,382,768$2041-$ 6,996,797$ -$ -$ 34,474,852$ 8,204,754$ 214,532$ -$ 105,236$ 49,996,171$2042-$ 9,019,976$ -$ -$ 32,115,509$ 7,535,884$ 772,656$ 363$ 106,168$ 49,550,556$2043-$ 5,337,603$ -$ -$ 25,917,113$ 5,646,891$ 2,610,902$ 1,410$ 97,545$ 39,611,465$2044-$ 4,902,534$ -$ -$ 21,329,969$ 4,266,762$ 2,383,165$ 1,027$ 93,490$ 32,976,947$2045-$ 3,941,737$ -$ -$ 19,468,489$ 3,749,071$ 1,210,403$ 332$ 89,142$ 28,459,174$2046-$ 4,788,189$ -$ -$ 16,493,254$ 2,875,960$ 1,989,250$ 645$ 88,385$ 26,235,683$2047-$ 5,738,875$ -$ -$ 12,505,792$ 1,679,696$ 3,002,610$ 940$ 87,288$ 23,015,200$2048-$ 3,095,551$ -$ -$ 11,006,569$ 1,270,741$ 1,905,434$ 304$ 80,110$ 17,358,710$2049-$ 3,428,308$ -$ -$ 10,685,990$ 1,233,729$ 1,258,645$ -$ 78,281$ 16,684,953$2050-$ 2,507,252$ -$ -$ 10,374,747$ 1,197,795$ 1,167,715$ -$ 74,662$ 15,322,171$2051-$ 3,231,509$ -$ -$ 10,072,570$ 1,162,908$ 1,449,168$ -$ 73,788$ 15,989,943$2052-$ 4,685,512$ -$ -$ 9,779,194$ 1,129,037$ 1,451,384$ -$ 74,163$ 17,119,291$2053-$ 2,461,659$ -$ -$ 8,631,239$ 996,502$ 1,215,009$ 262$ 68,936$ 13,373,608$2054-$ 2,552,260$ -$ -$ 7,541,860$ 870,730$ 1,062,184$ 255$ 67,297$ 12,094,585$2055-$ 1,376,313$ -$ -$ 5,695,040$ 657,509$ 1,382,910$ 495$ 63,959$ 9,176,225$2056-$ 2,023,971$ -$ -$ 5,529,165$ 638,358$ 1,328,794$ -$ 62,797$ 9,583,085$2057-$ 2,595,930$ -$ -$ 3,834,372$ 442,690$ 2,030,437$ 466$ 62,595$ 8,966,491$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,661,714$ 1,132$ 57,719$ 2,720,565$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,330,626$ -$ 55,076$ 2,385,702$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,677,078$ -$ 53,472$ 1,730,550$Total PV1,570,865$ 109,326,159$ 21,501,428$ 3,204,213$ 432,819,832$ 87,839,629$ 34,340,944$ 8,878$ 2,118,050$ 692,729,999$Annualized90,211$ 6,278,369$ 1,234,781$ 184,011$ 24,855,922$ 5,044,443$ 1,972,127$ 510$ 121,635$ 39,782,009$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-29July 2010C.30 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTAL2036457,836$ 3,822,065$ 6,266,696$ 933,884$ 13,746,159$ 3,075,259$ 71,804$ 251$ 47,899$ 28,421,853$2037142,628$ 4,189,217$ 1,952,242$ 290,929$ 14,471,875$ 3,429,289$ 40,215$ 78$ 48,141$ 24,564,614$2038-$ 2,464,909$ -$ -$ 14,011,833$ 3,377,907$ 35,392$ -$ 40,722$ 19,930,763$2039-$ 2,404,777$ -$ -$ 13,095,171$ 3,156,922$ 33,077$ -$ 38,281$ 18,728,228$2040-$ 1,845,059$ -$ -$ 11,762,228$ 2,799,321$ 247,366$ 128$ 34,727$ 16,688,829$2041-$ 2,231,016$ -$ -$ 10,992,737$ 2,616,188$ 68,406$ -$ 34,128$ 15,942,475$2042-$ 2,768,613$ -$ -$ 9,857,611$ 2,313,082$ 237,161$ 111$ 34,287$ 15,210,866$2043-$ 1,577,090$ -$ -$ 7,657,675$ 1,668,475$ 771,438$ 417$ 29,000$ 11,704,095$2044-$ 1,394,390$ -$ -$ 6,066,720$ 1,213,562$ 677,825$ 292$ 26,575$ 9,379,365$2045-$ 1,079,207$ -$ -$ 5,330,273$ 1,026,457$ 331,396$ 91$ 23,986$ 7,791,410$2046-$ 1,261,949$ -$ -$ 4,346,873$ 757,972$ 524,276$ 170$ 23,432$ 6,914,673$2047-$ 1,455,965$ -$ -$ 3,172,746$ 426,142$ 761,769$ 238$ 22,861$ 5,839,721$2048-$ 755,989$ -$ -$ 2,688,002$ 310,338$ 465,341$ 74$ 19,092$ 4,238,836$2049-$ 805,955$ -$ -$ 2,512,151$ 290,035$ 295,893$ -$ 18,161$ 3,922,195$2050-$ 567,391$ -$ -$ 2,347,805$ 271,061$ 264,254$ -$ 16,334$ 3,466,844$2051-$ 703,952$ -$ -$ 2,194,210$ 253,328$ 315,687$ -$ 15,946$ 3,483,124$2052-$ 982,536$ -$ -$ 2,050,663$ 236,755$ 304,350$ -$ 16,190$ 3,590,495$2053-$ 496,904$ -$ -$ 1,742,280$ 201,151$ 245,259$ 53$ 13,708$ 2,699,355$2054-$ 495,933$ -$ -$ 1,465,469$ 169,193$ 206,394$ 49$ 13,020$ 2,350,059$2055-$ 257,436$ -$ -$ 1,065,242$ 122,985$ 258,670$ 93$ 11,555$ 1,715,981$2056-$ 364,426$ -$ -$ 995,554$ 114,940$ 239,256$ -$ 11,145$ 1,725,320$2057-$ 449,937$ -$ -$ 664,589$ 76,729$ 351,923$ 81$ 11,186$ 1,554,445$2058-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 444,093$ 189$ 9,122$ 453,403$2059-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 374,316$ -$ 8,108$ 382,423$2060-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 259,282$ -$ 7,577$ 266,859$Total PV600,464$ 32,374,717$ 8,218,938$ 1,224,813$ 132,237,866$ 27,907,094$ 7,824,842$ 2,315$ 575,181$ 210,966,230$Annualized51,526$ 2,778,091$ 705,271$ 105,102$ 11,347,400$ 2,394,722$ 671,454$ 199$ 49,357$ 18,103,121$YearRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-30July 2010C.31 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Unadjusted ValuesGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $208,5992012$ 6,268,269 $ 61,956 $ 1,588,519 $ 818,721 $ 568 $ 5,675$ - $ 3,530 $ 8,747,238 $ 1,262,398 $ 15,939,244 $53,010 $ 17,254,653 $ 264,871 $ 10,716 $ - $ 1,135 $208,599 $ 485,320 $ 26,487,2122013$ 6,268,269 $ 61,956 $ 1,588,519 $ 818,721 $ 568 $ 5,675$ - $ 3,530 $ 8,747,238 $ 1,262,398 $ 15,939,244 $53,010 $ 17,254,653 $ 441,264 $ 2,510,237 $ 5,335 $ 1,135 $ 208,748 $ 3,166,719 $ 29,168,6112014$ 12,536,538 $ 123,913 $ 3,177,038 $ 1,637,442 $ 1,135 $ 11,350 $- $ 7,061 $ 17,494,477 $ 2,524,797 $ 31,878,489 $ 106,020$ 34,509,306 $ 882,529 $ 5,020,473 $ 5,335 $ 2,270 $ 208,897 $6,119,504 $ 58,123,2872015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 705,574 $9,998,085 $ 16,006 $ - $ 209,195 $ 10,928,859 $ 10,928,8592016$ 12,536,538 $ 123,913 $ 3,177,038 $ 1,637,442 $ 1,135 $ 11,350 $- $ 7,061 $ 17,494,477 $ 2,524,797 $ 31,878,489 $ 106,020$ 34,509,306 $ 1,235,316 $ 10,019,516 $ 5,335 $ 2,270 $ 209,195 $11,471,632 $ 63,475,4142017$ 32,940,668 $ 371,318 $ 9,107,556 $ 4,244,443 $ 4,165 $ 41,650 $- $ 25,910 $ 46,735,711 $ 6,566,393 $ 100,738,547 $ 358,050 $107,662,989 $ 2,458,275 $ 15,069,570 $ 39,419 $ 8,330 $ 210,215 $17,785,810 $ 172,184,5092018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,032,742 $ 30,421,945 $ 54,114 $ - $ 211,308 $ 32,720,109 $ 32,720,1092019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,045,114 $ 30,421,945 $ 52,162 $ - $ 212,031 $ 32,731,251 $ 32,731,2512020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,020,370 $ 30,421,945 $ 41,371 $ - $ 210,585 $ 32,694,271 $ 32,694,2712021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,045,114 $ 30,421,945 $ 52,162 $ - $ 212,031 $ 32,731,251 $ 32,731,2512022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 345,976 $ 2,124 $ 796 $ 348,896 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,014,558 $ 27,494,733 $108,469 $ 69,195 $ 214,575 $ 29,901,531 $ 30,250,4272023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 19,925 $ - $ - $ 19,925 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,952,701 $ 27,494,733 $39,419 $ 3,985 $ 210,960 $ 29,701,798 $ 29,721,7232024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 19,925 $ - $ - $ 19,925 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,965,072 $ 27,494,733 $57,497 $ 3,985 $ 211,683 $ 29,732,970 $ 29,752,8952025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 19,925 $ - $ - $ 19,925 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,940,329 $ 27,494,733 $26,676 $ 3,985 $ 210,237 $ 29,675,960 $ 29,695,8852026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 19,925 $ - $ - $ 19,925 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,965,072 $ 27,494,733 $57,497 $ 3,985 $ 211,683 $ 29,732,970 $ 29,752,8952027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 19,925 $ - $ - $ 19,925 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 2,014,558 $ 27,494,733 $103,134 $ 3,985 $ 214,575 $ 29,830,985 $ 29,850,9102028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 19,925 $ - $ - $ 19,925 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,952,701 $ 27,494,733 $44,754 $ 3,985 $ 210,960 $ 29,707,133 $ 29,727,0582029$ 286,041 $ 39,373 $ 1,428,732 $ 1,317,457 $ 568 $ 25,600$ - $ 3,530 $ 3,101,301 $ 211,414 $ 9,908,625 $ 225,293 $ 10,345,332 $ 2,015,230 $ 27,539,905 $ 52,162 $ 5,120 $ 211,683$ 29,824,100 $ 43,270,7332030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 19,925 $ - $ - $ 19,925 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 2,014,685 $ 30,687,803 $54,686 $ 3,985 $ 210,386 $ 32,971,544 $ 32,991,4692031$ 286,041 $ 39,373 $ 1,428,732 $ 1,317,457 $ 568 $ 25,600$ - $ 3,530 $ 3,101,301 $ 211,414 $ 9,908,625 $ 225,293 $ 10,345,332 $ 2,089,586 $ 30,732,975 $ 52,162 $ 5,120 $ 211,832$ 33,091,674 $ 46,538,3072032$ 1,144,163 $ 157,491 $ 5,714,929 $ 5,269,829 $ 2,270 $ 34,100 $- $ 14,122 $ 12,336,904 $ 845,657 $ 39,634,501 $ 901,170$ 41,381,328 $ 2,363,900 $ 34,061,560 $ 153,818 $ 6,820 $ 214,873 $36,800,971 $ 90,519,2032033$ 858,122 $ 118,119 $ 4,286,197 $ 3,952,372 $ 1,703 $ 17,025 $- $ 10,591 $ 9,244,128 $ 634,243 $ 29,725,876 $ 675,878 $ 31,035,996 $ 2,549,310 $ 46,788,665 $ 130,117 $ 3,405 $ 211,853 $49,683,350 $ 89,963,4742034$ 286,041 $ 39,373 $ 1,428,732 $ 1,317,457 $ 568 $ 5,675$ - $ 3,530 $ 3,081,376 $ 211,414 $ 9,908,625 $225,293 $ 10,345,332 $ 2,720,415 $ 56,277,528 $ 225,027 $ 1,135 $ 213,746$ 59,437,852 $ 72,864,5602035$ 572,082 $ 78,746 $ 2,857,465 $ 2,634,914 $ 1,135 $ 11,350$ - $ 7,061 $ 6,162,752 $ 422,828 $ 19,817,251 $ 450,585 $ 20,690,664 $ 2,784,206 $ 59,515,770 $ 140,049 $ 2,270 $ 211,725 $62,654,020 $ 89,507,436Total$ 73,982,773 $ 1,215,530 $ 35,783,456 $ 24,966,255 $ 14,380 $ 680,501 $2,124 $ 90,254 $ 136,735,274 $ 16,677,754 $ 315,277,517 $ 3,379,620 $ 335,334,890 $ 44,473,493 $ 642,383,714 $ 1,516,706 $ 136,100 $ 5,280,172 $ 693,790,184 $1,165,860,348One -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MTOTALYearDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-31July 2010C.32 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $208,5992012$ 6,085,698 $ 60,152 $ 1,542,251 $ 794,875 $ 551 $ 5,510$ - $ 3,428 $ 8,492,464 $ 1,225,630 $ 15,474,995 $51,466 $ 16,752,090 $ 257,156 $ 10,403 $ - $ 1,102 $202,523 $ 471,185 $ 25,715,7402013$ 5,908,445 $ 58,400 $ 1,497,331 $ 771,723 $ 535 $ 5,349$ - $ 3,328 $ 8,245,111 $ 1,189,932 $ 15,024,267 $49,967 $ 16,264,165 $ 415,934 $ 2,366,139 $ 5,029 $ 1,070 $ 196,765 $ 2,984,937 $ 27,494,2132014$ 11,472,709 $ 113,397 $ 2,907,439 $ 1,498,492 $ 1,039 $ 10,387 $- $ 6,462 $ 16,009,924 $ 2,310,547 $ 29,173,333 $ 97,023$ 31,580,903 $ 807,639 $ 4,594,444 $ 4,882 $ 2,077 $ 191,170 $5,600,213 $ 53,191,0412015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 626,894 $8,883,169 $ 14,221 $ - $ 185,867 $ 9,710,150 $ 9,710,1502016$ 10,814,128 $ 106,888 $ 2,740,541 $ 1,412,472 $ 979 $ 9,791 $- $ 6,091 $ 15,090,889 $ 2,177,912 $ 27,498,665 $ 91,454 $ 29,768,030 $ 1,065,595 $ 8,642,922 $ 4,602 $ 1,958 $ 180,453 $9,895,530 $ 54,754,4502017$ 27,587,291 $ 310,973 $ 7,627,435 $ 3,554,654 $ 3,488 $ 34,881 $- $ 21,700 $ 39,140,422 $ 5,499,250 $ 84,366,947 $ 299,861$ 90,166,058 $ 2,058,767 $ 12,620,528 $ 33,013 $ 6,976 $ 176,052 $14,895,335 $ 144,201,8162018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,652,805 $ 24,735,825 $ 44,000 $ - $ 171,813 $ 26,604,443 $ 26,604,4432019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,614,432 $ 24,015,364 $ 41,177 $ - $ 167,379 $ 25,838,352 $ 25,838,3522020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,548,446 $ 23,315,887 $ 31,708 $ - $ 161,396 $ 25,057,437 $ 25,057,4372021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,521,757 $ 22,636,784 $ 38,813 $ - $ 157,771 $ 24,355,125 $ 24,355,1252022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 249,941 $ 1,534 $ 575 $ 252,050 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,455,360 $ 19,862,780 $78,360 $ 49,988 $ 155,014 $ 21,601,502 $ 21,853,5522023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 13,975 $ - $ - $ 13,975 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,369,585 $ 19,284,253 $27,648 $ 2,795 $ 147,963 $ 20,832,243 $ 20,846,2182024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 13,568 $ - $ - $ 13,568 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,338,119 $ 18,722,576 $39,153 $ 2,714 $ 144,146 $ 20,246,706 $ 20,260,2742025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 13,173 $ - $ - $ 13,173 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,282,786 $ 18,177,258 $17,636 $ 2,635 $ 138,991 $ 19,619,306 $ 19,632,4782026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 12,789 $ - $ - $ 12,789 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,261,305 $ 17,647,823 $36,905 $ 2,558 $ 135,871 $ 19,084,462 $ 19,097,2512027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 12,417 $ - $ - $ 12,417 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,255,406 $ 17,133,809 $64,269 $ 2,483 $ 133,716 $ 18,589,684 $ 18,602,1002028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 12,055 $ - $ - $ 12,055 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,181,416 $ 16,634,766 $27,077 $ 2,411 $ 127,634 $ 17,973,304 $ 17,985,3592029$ 168,019 $ 23,127 $ 839,230 $ 773,867 $ 333 $ 15,037 $ - $ 1,157 $ 1,820,771 $ 124,184 $ 5,820,273 $132,336 $ 6,076,792 $ 1,183,735 $ 16,176,792 $ 30,640 $ 3,007 $ 124,341 $ 17,518,515 $ 25,416,0782030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 11,363 $ - $ - $ 11,363 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,148,947 $ 17,500,825 $31,187 $ 2,273 $ 119,942 $ 18,803,173 $ 18,814,5362031$ 158,374 $ 21,800 $ 791,054 $ 729,444 $ 314 $ 14,174 $ - $ 1,091 $ 1,716,251 $ 117,055 $ 5,486,166 $124,739 $ 5,727,959 $ 1,156,953 $ 17,016,103 $ 28,881 $ 2,835 $ 117,250 $ 18,322,021 $ 25,766,2322032$ 615,044 $ 84,659 $ 3,072,056 $ 2,832,793 $ 1,220 $ 18,330$ - $ 4,235 $ 6,628,338 $ 454,582 $ 21,305,497 $ 484,423 $ 22,244,503 $ 1,270,713 $ 18,309,767 $ 82,685 $ 3,666 $ 115,434 $19,782,265 $ 48,655,1052033$ 447,848 $ 61,645 $ 2,236,934 $ 2,062,713 $ 889 $ 8,885$ - $ 3,084 $ 4,821,998 $ 331,006 $ 15,513,712 $ 352,735 $ 16,197,453 $ 1,330,466 $ 24,418,653 $ 67,907 $ 1,777 $ 110,358$ 25,929,162 $ 46,948,6132034$ 144,935 $ 19,950 $ 723,927 $ 667,545 $ 288 $ 2,875 $ - $ 998 $ 1,560,517 $ 107,122 $ 5,020,619 $114,154 $ 5,241,894 $ 1,378,412 $ 28,515,359 $ 114,020 $ 575 $ 107,841 $ 30,116,207 $ 36,918,6182035$ 281,426 $ 38,738 $ 1,405,683 $ 1,296,203 $ 558 $ 5,583$ - $ 1,938 $ 3,030,130 $ 208,004 $ 9,748,774 $221,658 $ 10,178,436 $ 1,369,645 $ 29,277,815 $ 68,895 $ 1,117 $ 103,831$ 30,821,302 $ 44,029,868Total PV$ 63,683,916 $ 899,729 $ 25,383,882 $ 16,394,780 $ 10,194 $ 470,084 $1,534 $ 54,085 $ 106,898,205 $ 13,745,223 $ 234,433,246 $ 2,019,816 $ 250,198,286 $ 29,552,270 $ 410,500,044 $ 932,706 $ 94,017 $ 3,782,121 $ 444,861,158 $801,957,648Annualized Value$ 3,657,232 $ 51,670 $ 1,457,742 $ 941,517 $ 585 $ 26,996$ 88 $ 3,106 $ 6,138,936 $ 789,359 $ 13,463,002 $ 115,994 $ 14,368,355 $ 1,697,124 $ 23,574,144 $ 53,563 $ 5,399 $ 217,199 $25,547,429 $ 46,054,720YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-32July 2010C.33 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $208,5992012$ 5,858,196 $ 57,903 $ 1,484,597 $ 765,160 $ 530 $ 5,304$ - $ 3,356 $ 8,175,046 $ 1,179,812 $ 14,896,490 $49,542 $ 16,125,844 $ 247,543 $ 10,014 $ - $ 1,061 $194,952 $ 453,571 $ 24,754,4602013$ 5,474,949 $ 54,115 $ 1,387,474 $ 715,103 $ 496 $ 4,957$ - $ 3,192 $ 7,640,285 $ 1,102,628 $ 13,921,953 $46,301 $ 15,070,882 $ 385,417 $ 2,192,538 $ 4,660 $ 991 $ 182,333 $ 2,765,940 $ 25,477,1072014$ 10,233,550 $ 101,150 $ 2,593,409 $ 1,336,641 $ 926 $ 9,265 $- $ 6,072 $ 14,281,013 $ 2,060,986 $ 26,022,343 $ 86,544 $ 28,169,873 $ 720,407 $ 4,098,202 $ 4,355 $ 1,853 $ 170,535$ 4,995,351 $ 47,446,2372015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 538,279 $7,627,491 $ 12,211 $ - $ 159,627 $ 8,337,607 $ 8,337,6072016$ 8,938,379 $ 88,348 $ 2,265,184 $ 1,167,474 $ 809 $ 8,092$ - $ 5,501 $ 12,473,787 $ 1,800,145 $ 22,728,922 $ 75,591 $ 24,604,658 $ 880,763 $ 7,143,776 $ 3,804 $ 1,618 $ 149,192$ 8,179,154 $ 45,257,5992017$ 21,949,758 $ 247,425 $ 6,068,749 $ 2,828,251 $ 2,775 $ 27,753 $- $ 19,226 $ 31,143,938 $ 4,375,465 $ 67,126,347 $ 238,584$ 71,740,396 $ 1,638,052 $ 10,041,491 $ 26,266 $ 5,551 $ 140,198 $11,851,558 $ 114,735,8912018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,265,890 $ 18,945,258 $ 33,700 $ - $ 131,820 $ 20,376,667 $ 20,376,6672019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,190,275 $ 17,705,849 $ 30,359 $ - $ 123,719 $ 19,050,201 $ 19,050,2012020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,098,948 $ 16,547,522 $ 22,503 $ - $ 114,740 $ 17,783,713 $ 17,783,7132021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,039,632 $ 15,464,974 $ 26,516 $ - $ 108,144 $ 16,639,266 $ 16,639,2662022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 164,371 $ 1,009 $ 465 $ 165,845 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 957,102 $ 13,062,550 $51,533 $ 32,874 $ 102,597 $ 14,206,655 $ 14,372,5002023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 8,847 $ - $ - $ 8,847 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 867,022 $ 12,207,990$ 17,502 $ 1,769 $ 93,937 $ 13,188,222 $ 13,197,0692024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 8,268 $ - $ - $ 8,268 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 815,435 $ 11,409,337$ 23,859 $ 1,654 $ 88,203 $ 12,338,488 $ 12,346,7562025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 7,727 $ - $ - $ 7,727 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 752,493 $ 10,662,932$ 10,345 $ 1,545 $ 81,731 $ 11,509,047 $ 11,516,7742026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 7,222 $ - $ - $ 7,222 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 712,233 $ 9,965,357 $ 20,840 $ 1,444 $ 77,105 $ 10,776,978 $ 10,784,1992027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 6,749 $ - $ - $ 6,749 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 682,401 $ 9,313,417 $ 34,935 $ 1,350 $ 73,436 $ 10,105,538 $ 10,112,2882028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 6,308 $ - $ - $ 6,308 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 618,175 $ 8,704,128 $ 14,168 $ 1,262 $ 67,085 $ 9,404,819 $ 9,411,1262029$ 84,629 $ 11,649 $ 422,710 $ 389,788 $ 168 $ 7,574 $ - $ 1,045 $ 917,563 $ 62,550 $ 2,931,605 $66,656 $ 3,060,810 $ 596,234 $ 8,148,064 $ 15,433 $ 1,515 $63,027 $ 8,824,272 $ 12,802,6462030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 5,509 $ - $ - $ 5,509 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 557,077 $ 8,485,433 $ 15,121 $ 1,102 $ 58,386 $ 9,117,119 $ 9,122,6292031$ 73,918 $ 10,175 $ 369,212 $ 340,456 $ 147 $ 6,616 $ - $ 912 $ 801,435 $ 54,633 $ 2,560,577 $58,220 $ 2,673,430 $ 539,989 $ 7,941,985 $ 13,480 $ 1,323 $55,144 $ 8,551,920 $ 12,026,7852032$ 276,330 $ 38,036 $ 1,380,230 $ 1,272,733 $ 548 $ 8,236$ - $ 3,411 $ 2,979,524 $ 204,237 $ 9,572,251 $217,644 $ 9,994,132 $ 570,913 $ 8,226,312 $ 37,149 $ 1,647 $ 52,677 $ 8,888,698 $ 21,862,3542033$ 193,690 $ 26,661 $ 967,451 $ 892,102 $ 384 $ 3,843 $ - $ 2,391 $ 2,086,521 $ 143,157 $ 6,709,522 $152,554 $ 7,005,233 $ 575,413 $ 10,560,818 $ 29,369 $ 769 $48,127 $ 11,214,495 $ 20,306,2502034$ 60,339 $ 8,306 $ 301,387 $ 277,913 $ 120 $ 1,197 $ - $ 745 $ 650,007 $ 44,597 $ 2,090,194 $47,525 $ 2,182,316 $ 573,863 $ 11,871,569 $ 47,469 $ 239 $45,492 $ 12,538,633 $ 15,370,9552035$ 112,784 $ 15,524 $ 563,339 $ 519,464 $ 224 $ 2,238 $ - $ 1,392 $ 1,214,966 $ 83,359 $ 3,906,904 $88,831 $ 4,079,094 $ 548,897 $ 11,733,333 $ 27,610 $ 448 $41,954 $ 12,352,242 $ 17,646,302Total PV$ 53,256,522 $ 659,291 $ 17,803,742 $ 10,505,085 $ 7,128 $ 300,075 $1,009 $ 47,707 $ 82,580,559 $ 11,111,569 $ 172,467,107 $ 1,127,992 $ 184,706,669 $ 18,372,452 $ 242,070,341 $ 523,187 $ 60,015 $ 2,632,759 $ 263,658,754 $530,945,982Annualized Value$ 4,569,970 $ 56,574 $ 1,527,748 $ 901,447 $ 612 $ 25,750$ 87 $ 4,094 $ 7,086,280 $ 953,490 $ 14,799,492 $ 96,794 $ 15,849,775 $ 1,576,550 $ 20,772,181 $ 44,895 $ 5,150 $ 225,918 $22,624,694 $ 45,560,749YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-33July 2010C.34 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Unadjusted ValuesGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation Plugging Financial ResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL2011$ 858,122 $ 118,119 $ 4,286,197 $ 3,952,372 $ 1,703 $17,025 $ - $ 16,078 $ 9,249,615 $ 634,243 $ 29,725,876 $ 675,878 $ 31,035,996 $ 3,043,799 $ 65,947,080 $ 270,377 $ 3,405 $ 219,786 $ 69,484,446 $ 109,770,0572012$ 286,041 $ 39,373 $ 1,428,732 $ 1,317,457 $ 568 $5,675 $ - $ 5,359 $ 3,083,205 $ 211,414 $9,908,625 $ 225,293 $ 10,345,332 $ 3,323,977 $ 75,435,944 $ 501,160 $1,135 $ 230,802 $ 79,493,018 $ 92,921,5552013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,250,339 $ 78,583,841 $ 388,623 $ - $ 222,423 $ 82,445,226 $ 82,445,2262014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,226,731 $ 78,583,841 $ 341,873 $ - $ 222,423 $ 82,374,868 $ 82,374,8682015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 780,831 $ 908 $ 681 $ 782,420$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,127,632 $ 75,390,772 $ 299,048 $ 156,166 $ 219,233 $ 79,192,850 $ 79,975,2702016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 32,522 $ - $ - $32,522 $ - $ - $ - $ - $3,224,334 $ 75,390,772 $ 450,188 $ 6,504 $ 225,018 $ 79,296,816 $79,329,3382017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 813,353 $ 908 $ 681 $ 814,941$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,235,443 $ 72,197,702 $ 515,303 $ 162,671 $ 231,951 $ 76,343,070 $ 77,158,0122018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,188,368 $ 3,632 $ 2,722 $ 3,194,722 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,804,202 $ 59,425,426 $ 292,590 $ 637,674 $ 220,637 $ 63,380,527 $ 66,575,2492019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,537,624 $ 2,724 $ 2,042 $ 2,542,390 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,521,545 $ 49,846,218 $ 179,678 $ 507,525 $ 218,297 $ 53,273,263 $ 55,815,6532020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,073,528 $ 908 $ 681 $ 1,075,117 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,458,426 $ 46,653,149 $ 203,015 $ 214,706 $ 216,553 $ 49,745,848 $ 50,820,9642021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,886,881 $ 1,816 $ 1,361 $ 1,890,058 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,370,436 $ 40,267,010 $ 242,644 $ 377,376 $ 220,296 $ 43,477,762 $ 45,367,8202022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,732,756 $ 2,724 $ 2,042 $ 2,737,522 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,124,894 $ 30,687,803 $ 157,291 $ 546,551 $ 222,295 $ 33,738,834 $ 36,476,3562023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,268,660 $ 908 $ 681 $ 1,270,248 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,952,701 $ 27,494,733 $ 44,754 $ 253,732 $ 213,320 $ 29,959,241 $ 31,229,4892024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 520,351 $ - $ - $ 520,351 $ - $ - $ - $ - $1,965,072 $ 27,494,733 $ 52,162 $ 104,070 $ 214,767 $ 29,830,804 $30,351,1552025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 508,177 $ - $ - $ 508,177 $ - $ - $ - $ - $1,940,329 $ 27,494,733 $ 32,011 $ 101,635 $ 211,874 $ 29,780,583 $30,288,7612026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 487,829 $ - $ - $ 487,829 $ - $ - $ - $ - $1,965,072 $ 27,494,733 $ 52,162 $ 97,566 $ 214,767 $ 29,824,300 $30,312,1292027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 475,655 $ - $ - $ 475,655 $ - $ - $ - $ - $2,014,558 $ 27,494,733 $ 108,469 $ 95,131 $ 220,551 $ 29,933,443 $30,409,0982028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 691,594 $ 908 $ 681 $ 693,183$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,776,307 $ 24,995,212 $ 34,084 $ 138,319 $ 213,023 $ 27,156,944 $ 27,850,1272029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 672,811 $ 908 $ 681 $ 674,400$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,612,285 $ 22,495,691 $ 52,162 $ 134,562 $ 214,171 $ 24,508,871 $ 25,183,2712030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 983,705 $ 1,816 $ 1,361 $ 986,882 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,234,755 $ 17,496,648 $ 10,670 $ 196,741 $ 210,683 $ 19,149,498 $ 20,136,3802031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 567,311 $ - $ - $ 567,311 $ - $ - $ - $ - $1,259,498 $ 17,496,648 $ 52,162 $ 113,462 $ 213,576 $ 19,135,346 $19,702,6572032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,060,056 $ 1,816 $ 1,361 $ 1,063,233 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 943,825 $ 12,497,606 $ 63,715 $ 212,011 $ 217,319 $ 13,934,476 $ 14,997,7092033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,040,042 $ 4,540 $ 3,403 $ 2,047,985 $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 408,008 $ 208,599 $ 616,608 $ 2,664,5932034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,090,448 $ - $ - $ 1,090,448 $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 218,090 $ 208,599 $426,689 $ 1,517,1362035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,090,448 $ - $ - $ 1,090,448 $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 218,090 $ 208,599 $426,689 $ 1,517,136Total$ 1,144,163 $ 157,491 $ 5,714,929 $ 5,269,829 $ 2,270 $ 24,525,650 $ 24,516 $ 39,813 $ 36,878,661 $ 845,657 $ 39,634,501 $901,170 $ 41,381,328 $ 51,376,159 $ 980,865,029 $ 4,344,140 $ 4,905,130 $ 5,439,562 $ 1,046,930,019 $ 1,125,190,009TOTALYearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-34July 2010C.35 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation Plugging Financial ResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL2011$ 409,844 $ 56,414 $ 2,047,111 $ 1,887,675 $ 813 $8,131 $ - $ 7,679 $ 4,417,668 $ 302,918 $14,197,244 $ 322,803 $ 14,822,964 $ 1,453,735 $ 31,496,693 $ 129,133 $1,626 $ 104,971 $ 33,186,158 $ 52,426,7912012$ 132,636 $ 18,257 $ 662,496 $ 610,898 $ 263 $2,631 $ - $ 4,682 $ 1,431,863 $ 98,032 $4,594,577 $ 104,467 $ 4,797,076 $ 1,541,311 $ 34,979,249 $ 232,385 $526 $ 105,356 $ 36,858,828 $ 43,087,7672013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,200 $3,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $1,463,267 $ 35,377,585 $ 174,954 $ - $ 99,464 $ 37,115,270$ 37,118,4692014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,107 $3,107 $ - $ - $ - $ - $1,410,329 $ 34,347,170 $ 149,425 $ - $ 96,706 $ 36,003,630$ 36,006,7372015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 331,343 $ 385 $ 3,177 $ 334,905 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,327,199 $ 31,991,800 $ 126,900 $ 66,269 $ 92,863 $ 33,605,030 $ 33,939,9362016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 13,399 $ - $ 2,928 $ 16,327 $ - $ - $ - $ - $1,328,383 $ 31,060,000 $ 185,472 $ 2,680 $ 91,751 $ 32,668,285 $32,684,6122017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 325,331 $ 363 $ 2,995 $ 328,689 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,294,136 $ 28,878,153 $ 206,115 $ 65,066 $ 91,138 $ 30,534,607 $ 30,863,2962018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,238,161 $ 1,410 $ 3,350 $ 1,242,922 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,088,975 $ 23,077,094 $ 113,623 $ 247,632 $ 85,411 $ 24,612,736 $ 25,855,6572019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 956,751 $ 1,027 $ 3,109 $ 960,887 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 950,689 $ 18,793,332 $ 67,743 $ 191,350 $ 82,552 $ 20,085,667 $ 21,046,5542020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 392,960 $ 332 $ 2,741 $ 396,033 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 899,894 $ 17,077,147 $ 74,312 $ 78,592 $ 79,557 $ 18,209,503 $ 18,605,5362021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 670,566 $ 645 $ 2,796 $ 674,008 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 842,414 $ 14,310,227 $ 86,232 $ 134,113 $ 78,209 $ 15,451,195 $ 16,125,2022022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 942,889 $ 940 $ 2,845 $ 946,675 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 733,157 $ 10,588,287 $ 54,270 $ 188,578 $ 76,758 $ 11,641,050 $ 12,587,7252023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 424,979 $ 304 $ 2,508 $ 427,792 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 654,121 $ 9,210,267 $ 14,992 $ 84,996 $ 72,309 $ 10,036,685 $ 10,464,4762024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 169,232 $ - $ 2,312 $ 171,543$ - $ - $ - $ - $639,093 $ 8,942,006 $ 16,964 $ 33,846 $ 70,569 $ 9,702,479 $9,874,0232025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 160,459 $ - $ 2,244 $ 162,703$ - $ - $ - $ - $612,666 $ 8,681,560 $ 10,108 $ 32,092 $ 67,803 $ 9,404,227 $9,566,9302026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 149,547 $ - $ 2,179 $ 151,726$ - $ - $ - $ - $602,406 $ 8,428,699 $ 15,991 $ 29,909 $ 66,518 $ 9,143,523 $9,295,2502027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 141,568 $ - $ 2,116 $ 143,684$ - $ - $ - $ - $599,589 $ 8,183,203 $ 32,283 $ 28,314 $ 65,922 $ 8,909,311 $9,052,9942028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 199,842 $ 262 $ 2,207 $ 202,312 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 513,280 $ 7,222,597 $ 9,849 $ 39,968 $ 62,307 $ 7,848,002 $8,050,3142029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 188,752 $ 255 $ 2,143 $ 191,150 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 452,315 $ 6,311,007 $ 14,634 $ 37,750 $ 60,744 $ 6,876,450 $7,067,6002030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 267,933 $ 495 $ 2,225 $ 270,653 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 336,312 $ 4,765,593 $ 2,906 $ 53,587 $ 58,234 $ 5,216,633 $5,487,2862031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 150,019 $ - $ 1,880 $ 151,899$ - $ - $ - $ - $333,060 $ 4,626,790 $ 13,794 $ 30,004 $ 57,134 $ 5,060,781 $5,212,6802032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 272,155 $ 466 $ 2,097 $ 274,718 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 242,314 $ 3,208,592 $ 16,358 $ 54,431 $ 56,218 $ 3,577,914 $3,852,6322033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 508,498 $ 1,132 $ 2,432 $ 512,062 $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 101,700 $ 52,888 $ 154,588 $ 666,6502034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 263,887 $ - $ 1,720 $ 265,607$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 52,777 $ 51,348 $104,125 $ 369,7322035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 256,201 $ - $ 1,670 $ 257,871$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 51,240 $ 49,852 $101,092 $ 358,963Total PV$ 542,480 $ 74,671 $ 2,709,607 $ 2,498,573 $ 1,076 $ 8,035,236 $ 8,017 $ 70,343 $ 13,940,003 $ 400,949 $ 18,791,821$ 427,270 $ 19,620,040 $ 19,318,646 $ 381,557,049 $ 1,748,443 $ 1,607,047 $ 1,876,584 $ 406,107,769 $ 439,667,813AnnualizedValue$ 31,153 $ 4,288 $ 155,607 $ 143,488 $ 62 $461,447 $ 460 $ 4,040 $ 800,545 $ 23,026 $1,079,174 $ 24,537 $ 1,126,737 $ 1,109,429 $ 21,912,009 $ 100,409 $92,289 $ 107,768 $ 23,321,905 $ 25,249,186YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MTOTALDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-35July 2010C.36 Baseline Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation Plugging Financial ResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ 158,108 $ 21,763 $ 789,728 $ 728,221 $ 314 $3,137 $ - $ 2,962 $ 1,704,234 $ 116,859 $5,476,968 $ 124,530 $ 5,718,357 $ 560,817 $ 12,150,695 $ 49,817 $627 $ 40,495 $ 12,802,452 $ 20,225,0432012$ 49,255 $ 6,780 $ 246,021 $ 226,860 $ 98 $977 $ - $ 923 $ 530,914 $ 36,405 $ 1,706,221 $ 38,794 $ 1,781,420 $ 572,374 $ 12,989,730 $ 86,297 $ 195 $ 40,513 $ 13,689,110 $ 16,001,4432013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ 523,078 $ 12,646,526 $ 62,541 $ - $ 36,096 $13,268,242 $ 13,268,2422014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ 485,307 $ 11,819,184 $ 51,419 $ - $ 33,844 $12,389,753 $ 12,389,7532015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 109,756 $ 128 $ 96 $ 109,979$ - $ - $ - $ - $439,629 $ 10,597,139 $ 42,035 $ 21,951 $ 31,021 $ 11,131,775 $ 11,241,7552016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 4,272 $ - $ - $4,272 $ - $ - $ - $ - $423,571 $ 9,903,868 $ 59,140 $ 854 $ 29,942 $ 10,417,377$ 10,421,6492017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 99,858 $ 111 $ 84 $ 100,053$ - $ - $ - $ - $397,225 $ 8,863,929 $ 63,265 $ 19,972 $ 29,210 $ 9,373,601 $9,473,6532018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 365,837 $ 417 $ 312 $ 366,566$ - $ - $ - $ - $321,757 $ 6,818,540 $ 33,572 $ 73,167 $ 25,602 $ 7,272,639 $7,639,2052019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 272,121 $ 292 $ 219 $ 272,632$ - $ - $ - $ - $270,397 $ 5,345,244 $ 19,268 $ 54,424 $ 23,777 $ 5,713,110 $5,985,7432020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 107,588 $ 91 $ 68 $ 107,747$ - $ - $ - $ - $246,382 $ 4,675,548 $ 20,346 $ 21,518 $ 21,895 $ 4,985,689 $5,093,4362021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 176,731 $ 170 $ 127 $ 177,028$ - $ - $ - $ - $222,022 $ 3,771,527 $ 22,727 $ 35,346 $ 20,990 $ 4,072,612 $4,249,6402022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 239,213 $ 238 $ 179 $ 239,630$ - $ - $ - $ - $186,004 $ 2,686,271 $ 13,769 $ 47,843 $ 20,139 $ 2,954,025 $3,193,6552023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 103,788 $ 74 $ 56 $ 103,918$ - $ - $ - $ - $159,748 $ 2,249,312 $ 3,661 $ 20,758 $ 17,716 $ 2,451,195 $2,555,1122024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,784 $ - $ - $39,784 $ - $ - $ - $ - $150,243 $ 2,102,161 $ 3,988 $ 7,957 $ 16,760 $ 2,281,109$ 2,320,8932025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 36,312 $ - $ - $36,312 $ - $ - $ - $ - $138,646 $ 1,964,636 $ 2,287 $ 7,262 $ 15,316 $ 2,128,149$ 2,164,4602026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 32,577 $ - $ - $32,577 $ - $ - $ - $ - $131,228 $ 1,836,109 $ 3,483 $ 6,515 $ 14,669 $ 1,992,005$ 2,024,5822027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 29,686 $ - $ - $29,686 $ - $ - $ - $ - $125,732 $ 1,715,990 $ 6,770 $ 5,937 $ 14,386 $ 1,868,815$ 1,898,5012028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 40,340 $ 53 $ 74 $ 40,467 $ - $ - $ - $ - $103,609 $ 1,457,935 $ 1,988 $ 8,068 $ 12,651 $ 1,584,251 $1,624,7182029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 36,677 $ 49 $ 71 $ 36,797 $ - $ - $ - $ - $87,890 $ 1,226,300 $ 2,843 $ 7,335 $ 11,953 $ 1,336,323 $1,373,1202030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 50,116 $ 93 $ 136 $ 50,345 $ - $ - $ - $ - $62,906 $ 891,392 $ 544 $ 10,023 $ 10,836 $ 975,701 $1,026,0452031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 27,012 $ - $ - $27,012 $ - $ - $ - $ - $59,969 $ 833,076 $ 2,484 $ 5,402 $ 10,408 $ 911,339 $ 938,3512032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 47,171 $ 81 $ 124 $ 47,376 $ - $ - $ - $ - $41,999 $ 556,126 $ 2,835 $ 9,434 $ 10,079 $ 620,474 $667,8502033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 84,840 $ 189 $ 298 $ 85,327$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 16,968 $ 8,675 $25,643 $ 110,9702034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 42,382 $ - $ - $42,382 $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 8,476 $ 8,108 $16,584 $ 58,9662035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,610 $ - $ - $39,610 $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 7,922 $ 7,577 $15,499 $ 55,109Total PV$ 207,363 $ 28,543 $ 1,035,749 $ 955,081 $ 411 $ 1,989,785 $ 1,986 $ 5,729 $ 4,224,650 $ 153,263 $ 7,183,189 $ 163,324 $ 7,499,776 $ 5,710,535 $ 117,101,238 $ 555,079 $ 397,957 $512,659 $ 124,277,469 $ 136,001,895AnnualizedValue$ 17,794 $ 2,449 $ 88,878 $ 81,956 $ 35 $170,744 $ 170 $ 492 $ 362,519 $ 13,152$ 616,393 $ 14,015 $ 643,560 $ 490,024 $ 10,048,518 $ 47,632$ 34,149 $ 43,992 $ 10,664,314 $ 11,670,393YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-36July 2010C.37 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Unadjusted ValuesGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $ 2,017,3622012$ 4,139,846 $ 113,708 $ 1,681,444 $ 864,409 $ 599 $ 5,990$ - $ 3,928 $ 6,809,924 $ 2,754,551 $ 16,360,811 $ 55,955 $ 19,171,317 $ 573,652 $ 11,311 $ - $ 1,198 $ 208,599 $794,760 $ 26,776,0002013$ 4,139,846 $ 113,708 $ 1,681,444 $ 864,409 $ 599 $ 5,990$ - $ 3,928 $ 6,809,924 $ 2,754,551 $ 16,360,811 $ 55,955 $ 19,171,317 $ 908,309 $ 2,715,615 $ 5,780 $ 1,198 $ 208,779 $3,839,680 $ 29,820,9212014$ 8,279,692 $ 227,415 $ 3,362,888 $ 1,728,817 $ 1,198 $ 11,981 $- $ 7,856 $ 13,619,847 $ 5,509,102 $ 32,721,621 $ 111,910 $38,342,634 $ 1,816,617 $ 5,431,230 $ 5,780 $ 2,396 $ 208,958 $7,464,982 $ 59,427,4632015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,338,628 $ 10,817,218 $ 17,339 $ - $ 209,317 $ 12,382,502 $ 12,382,5022016$ 8,279,692 $ 227,415 $ 3,362,888 $ 1,728,817 $ 1,198 $ 11,981 $- $ 7,856 $ 13,619,847 $ 5,509,102 $ 32,721,621 $ 111,910 $38,342,634 $ 2,485,931 $ 10,839,839 $ 5,780 $ 2,396 $ 209,317 $ 13,543,264 $ 65,505,7452017$ 21,969,290 $ 648,224 $ 9,572,183 $ 4,448,986 $ 4,323 $ 43,226 $- $ 27,899 $ 36,714,131 $ 14,280,807 $ 102,529,668 $ 372,775 $117,183,249 $ 5,007,151 $ 16,301,246 $ 42,468 $ 8,645 $ 210,395 $ 21,569,905 $ 175,467,2852018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,768,837 $ 32,673,882 $ 57,608 $ - $ 211,691 $ 36,712,018 $ 36,712,0182019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,782,240 $ 32,673,882 $ 56,037 $ - $ 212,409 $ 36,724,568 $ 36,724,5682020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,755,435 $ 32,673,882 $ 44,039 $ - $ 210,973 $ 36,684,328 $ 36,684,3282021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,782,240 $ 32,673,882 $ 56,037 $ - $ 212,409 $ 36,724,568 $ 36,724,5682022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 365,901 $ 2,124 $ 796 $ 368,821 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,761,642 $ 29,747,349 $ 116,092 $ 73,180 $ 214,885 $ 33,913,147 $ 34,281,9692023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,694,629 $ 29,747,349$ 42,468 $ 7,970 $ 211,293 $ 33,703,709 $ 33,743,5592024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,708,032 $ 29,747,349$ 61,817 $ 7,970 $ 212,011 $ 33,737,178 $ 33,777,0282025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,681,227 $ 29,747,349$ 28,899 $ 7,970 $ 210,575 $ 33,676,019 $ 33,715,8692026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,708,032 $ 29,747,349$ 61,817 $ 7,970 $ 212,011 $ 33,737,178 $ 33,777,0282027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,761,642 $ 29,747,349$ 110,312 $ 7,970 $ 214,885 $ 33,842,157 $ 33,882,0072028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,694,629 $ 29,747,349$ 48,248 $ 7,970 $ 211,293 $ 33,709,489 $ 33,749,3392029$ 256,276 $ 62,270 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,387,215 $ 599 $ 45,840$ - $ 3,928 $ 3,267,257 $ 456,607 $ 10,010,813 $ 237,073 $ 10,704,492 $ 3,811,807 $ 29,794,883 $ 56,037 $ 9,168 $ 212,011 $33,883,906 $ 47,855,6552030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,796,049 $ 33,092,048$ 73,932 $ 7,970 $ 210,754 $ 37,180,754 $ 37,220,6042031$ 256,276 $ 62,270 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,387,215 $ 599 $ 45,840$ - $ 3,928 $ 3,267,257 $ 456,607 $ 10,010,813 $ 237,073 $ 10,704,492 $ 3,926,630 $ 33,139,582 $ 70,837 $ 9,168 $ 212,191 $37,358,408 $ 51,330,1572032$ 1,025,103 $ 249,078 $ 6,044,515 $ 5,548,861 $ 2,396 $ 46,761 $- $ 15,712 $ 12,932,426 $ 1,826,427 $ 40,043,252 $ 948,290 $42,817,969 $ 4,406,388 $ 36,626,884 $ 194,599 $ 9,352 $ 215,244 $ 41,452,467 $ 97,202,8632033$ 768,827 $ 186,809 $ 4,533,386 $ 4,161,645 $ 1,797 $ 17,971 $- $ 11,784 $ 9,682,220 $ 1,369,820 $ 30,032,439 $ 711,218$ 32,113,477 $ 4,694,890 $ 49,958,146 $ 229,084 $ 3,594 $ 212,370 $ 55,098,085 $ 96,893,7812034$ 256,276 $ 62,270 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,387,215 $ 599 $ 5,990$ - $ 3,928 $ 3,227,407 $ 456,607 $ 10,010,813 $ 237,073 $ 10,704,492 $ 4,884,036 $ 59,897,174 $ 374,749 $ 1,198 $ 214,346 $65,371,504 $ 79,303,4022035$ 512,552 $ 124,539 $ 3,022,257 $ 2,774,430 $ 1,198 $ 11,981 $- $ 7,856 $ 6,454,813 $ 913,214 $ 20,021,626 $ 474,145$ 21,408,984 $ 5,037,002 $ 63,289,408 $ 299,171 $ 2,396 $ 212,370 $ 68,840,348 $ 96,704,145Total$ 49,883,674 $ 2,077,705 $ 37,794,393 $ 26,282,020 $ 15,105 $ 898,403 $2,124 $ 1,908,162 $ 118,861,586 $ 36,287,395 $ 320,824,287 $ 3,553,375 $ 360,665,057 $ 83,785,674 $ 690,841,554 $ 2,058,928 $ 179,681 $ 5,287,687 $ 782,153,523 $ 1,261,680,166One -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MTOTALYearDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-37July 2010C.38 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 227,584 $ 227,584 $ 2,036,3472012$ 4,019,268 $ 110,396 $ 1,632,470 $ 839,232 $ 582 $ 5,816$ - $ 3,585 $ 6,611,348 $ 2,674,322 $ 15,884,282 $ 54,325 $ 18,612,929 $ 556,943 $ 10,981 $ - $ 1,163 $ 202,523 $771,611 $ 25,995,8882013$ 3,902,202 $ 107,180 $ 1,584,922 $ 814,788 $ 565 $ 5,646$ - $ 3,481 $ 6,418,784 $ 2,596,429 $ 15,421,633 $ 52,743 $ 18,070,805 $ 856,168 $ 2,559,728 $ 5,448 $ 1,129 $ 196,790 $3,619,263 $ 28,108,8522014$ 7,577,091 $ 208,117 $ 3,077,519 $ 1,582,113 $ 1,096 $ 10,964 $- $ 6,758 $ 12,463,659 $ 5,041,609 $ 29,944,919 $ 102,414 $35,088,942 $ 1,662,462 $ 4,970,345 $ 5,289 $ 2,193 $ 191,219 $6,831,508 $ 54,384,1092015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,189,354 $ 9,610,958 $ 15,406 $ - $ 185,961 $ 11,001,678 $ 11,001,6782016$ 7,142,135 $ 196,170 $ 2,900,857 $ 1,491,293 $ 1,033 $ 10,335 $- $ 6,371 $ 11,748,194 $ 4,752,200 $ 28,225,958 $ 96,535$ 33,074,693 $ 2,144,386 $ 9,350,541 $ 4,986 $ 2,067 $ 180,545 $ 11,682,524 $ 56,505,4102017$ 18,398,934 $ 542,878 $ 8,016,553 $ 3,725,956 $ 3,620 $ 36,201 $- $ 22,379 $ 30,746,521 $ 11,959,951 $ 85,866,982 $ 312,193 $98,139,126 $ 4,193,410 $ 13,652,037 $ 35,566 $ 7,240 $ 176,167 $ 18,064,421 $ 146,950,0682018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,064,409 $ 26,566,856 $ 46,840 $ - $ 172,073 $ 29,850,179 $ 29,850,1792019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,985,735 $ 25,793,064 $ 44,236 $ - $ 167,615 $ 28,990,650 $ 28,990,6502020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,878,228 $ 25,041,810 $ 33,752 $ - $ 161,658 $ 28,115,448 $ 28,115,4482021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,814,341 $ 24,312,437 $ 41,697 $ - $ 157,993 $ 27,326,468 $ 27,326,4682022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 264,335 $ 1,534 $ 575 $ 266,444 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,717,490 $ 21,490,118 $83,867 $ 52,867 $ 155,132 $ 24,499,474 $ 24,765,9182023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 27,950 $ - $ - $ 27,950 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,591,339 $ 20,864,192$ 29,786 $ 5,590 $ 148,153 $ 23,639,059 $ 23,667,0092024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 27,136 $ - $ - $ 27,136 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,524,989 $ 20,256,497$ 42,094 $ 5,427 $ 144,315 $ 22,973,323 $ 23,000,4592025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 26,346 $ - $ - $ 26,346 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,433,725 $ 19,666,502$ 19,106 $ 5,269 $ 139,184 $ 22,263,785 $ 22,290,1312026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 25,578 $ - $ - $ 25,578 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,380,044 $ 19,093,691$ 39,678 $ 5,116 $ 136,031 $ 21,654,560 $ 21,680,1382027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 24,833 $ - $ - $ 24,833 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,344,131 $ 18,537,564$ 68,743 $ 4,967 $ 133,818 $ 21,089,222 $ 21,114,0562028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 24,110 $ - $ - $ 24,110 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,235,311 $ 17,997,635$ 29,191 $ 4,822 $ 127,798 $ 20,394,757 $ 20,418,8672029$ 150,535 $ 36,577 $ 887,629 $ 814,843 $ 352 $ 26,926$ - $ 1,252 $ 1,918,114 $ 268,208 $ 5,880,298 $ 139,255 $ 6,287,761 $ 2,239,035 $ 17,501,354 $ 32,916 $ 5,385 $ 124,488 $19,903,177 $ 28,109,0522030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 22,726 $ - $ - $ 22,726 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,164,834 $ 18,871,932$ 42,163 $ 4,545 $ 120,119 $ 21,203,593 $ 21,226,3192031$ 141,894 $ 34,477 $ 836,675 $ 768,067 $ 332 $ 25,381$ - $ 1,180 $ 1,808,006 $ 252,812 $ 5,542,744 $ 131,261 $ 5,926,818 $ 2,174,080 $ 18,348,583 $ 39,221 $ 5,076 $ 117,397 $20,684,357 $ 28,419,1812032$ 551,043 $ 133,892 $ 3,249,225 $ 2,982,786 $ 1,288 $ 25,136 $- $ 4,584 $ 6,947,954 $ 981,795 $ 21,525,221 $ 509,753$ 23,016,768 $ 2,368,651 $ 19,688,755 $ 104,607 $ 5,027 $ 115,540 $ 22,282,580 $ 52,247,3022033$ 401,245 $ 97,494 $ 2,365,940 $ 2,171,932 $ 938 $ 9,379$ - $ 3,338 $ 5,050,266 $ 714,899 $ 15,673,705 $ 371,179 $ 16,759,783 $ 2,450,228 $ 26,072,782 $ 119,557 $ 1,876 $ 110,553 $28,754,996 $ 50,565,0442034$ 129,853 $ 31,551 $ 765,676 $ 702,890 $ 304 $ 3,035 $ - $ 1,080 $ 1,634,390 $ 231,359 $ 5,072,396 $ 120,123 $ 5,423,878 $ 2,474,701 $ 30,349,404 $ 189,882 $ 607 $ 108,044 $33,122,638 $ 40,180,9062035$ 252,141 $ 61,265 $ 1,486,750 $ 1,364,836 $ 589 $ 5,894$ - $ 2,097 $ 3,173,573 $ 449,241 $ 9,849,313 $ 233,248 $ 10,531,802 $ 2,477,871 $ 31,134,195 $ 147,172 $ 1,179 $ 104,059 $33,864,476 $ 47,569,851Total PV$ 42,666,341 $ 1,559,998 $ 26,804,217 $ 17,258,736 $ 10,699 $ 607,727 $1,534 $ 1,865,443 $ 90,774,694 $ 29,922,823 $ 238,887,452 $ 2,123,028 $ 270,933,304 $ 55,921,866 $ 441,741,961 $ 1,221,202 $ 121,545 $ 3,785,774 $ 502,792,347 $ 864,500,345AnnualizedValue$ 2,450,237 $ 89,587 $ 1,539,309 $ 991,132 $ 614 $ 34,900$ 88 $ 107,128 $ 5,212,997 $ 1,718,404 $ 13,718,798 $ 121,921 $15,559,123 $ 3,211,474 $ 25,368,300 $ 70,131 $ 6,980 $ 217,409 $ 28,874,294 $ 49,646,414YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-38July 2010C.39 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 227,584 $ 227,584 $ 2,036,3472012$ 3,869,015 $ 106,269 $ 1,571,443 $ 807,859 $ 560 $ 5,598$ - $ 3,728 $ 6,364,471 $ 2,574,347 $ 15,290,477 $ 52,294 $ 17,917,119 $ 536,123 $ 10,571 $ - $ 1,120 $ 194,952 $742,766 $ 25,024,3562013$ 3,615,902 $ 99,317 $ 1,468,638 $ 755,008 $ 523 $ 5,232$ - $ 3,539 $ 5,948,159 $ 2,405,932 $ 14,290,166 $ 48,873 $ 16,744,971 $ 793,352 $ 2,371,924 $ 5,048 $ 1,046 $ 182,361 $3,353,731 $ 26,046,8602014$ 6,758,695 $ 185,638 $ 2,745,119 $ 1,411,230 $ 978 $ 9,780 $- $ 6,721 $ 11,118,161 $ 4,497,069 $ 26,710,590 $ 91,352$ 31,299,011 $ 1,482,901 $ 4,433,502 $ 4,718 $ 1,956 $ 170,587 $6,093,664 $ 48,510,8352015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,021,233 $ 8,252,404 $ 13,228 $ - $ 159,725 $ 9,446,590 $ 9,446,5902016$ 5,903,306 $ 162,144 $ 2,397,693 $ 1,232,623 $ 854 $ 8,542 $- $ 6,068 $ 9,711,230 $ 3,927,914 $ 23,330,064 $ 79,790 $ 27,337,768 $ 1,772,435 $ 7,728,656 $ 4,121 $ 1,708 $ 149,285 $9,656,205 $ 46,705,2032017$ 14,639,066 $ 431,939 $ 6,378,350 $ 2,964,547 $ 2,880 $ 28,804 $- $ 20,550 $ 24,466,136 $ 9,515,904 $ 68,319,847 $ 248,396 $78,084,147 $ 3,336,476 $ 10,862,209 $ 28,298 $ 5,761 $ 140,324 $ 14,373,067 $ 116,923,3502018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,347,042 $ 20,347,652 $ 35,875 $ - $ 132,079 $ 22,862,648 $ 22,862,6482019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,201,298 $ 19,016,497 $ 32,614 $ - $ 123,957 $ 21,374,366 $ 21,374,3662020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,042,708 $ 17,772,427 $ 23,954 $ - $ 114,978 $ 19,954,067 $ 19,954,0672021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,922,699 $ 16,609,745 $ 28,486 $ - $ 108,356 $ 18,669,286 $ 18,669,2862022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 173,837 $ 1,009 $ 465 $ 175,311 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,787,129 $ 14,132,751 $55,154 $ 34,767 $ 102,741 $ 16,112,543 $ 16,287,8542023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 17,694 $ - $ - $ 17,694 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640,460 $ 13,208,179$ 18,856 $ 3,539 $ 94,107 $ 14,965,140 $ 14,982,8342024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 16,536 $ - $ - $ 16,536 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,538,701 $ 12,344,092$ 25,652 $ 3,307 $ 88,357 $ 14,000,110 $ 14,016,6462025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 15,455 $ - $ - $ 15,455 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,427,643 $ 11,536,535$ 11,208 $ 3,091 $ 81,891 $ 13,060,367 $ 13,075,8212026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 14,443 $ - $ - $ 14,443 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,343,961 $ 10,781,808$ 22,405 $ 2,889 $ 77,242 $ 12,228,305 $ 12,242,7492027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 13,499 $ - $ - $ 13,499 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,274,198 $ 10,076,456$ 37,367 $ 2,700 $ 73,538 $ 11,464,258 $ 11,477,7572028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 12,615 $ - $ - $ 12,615 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,169,625 $ 9,417,249$ 15,274 $ 2,523 $ 67,215 $ 10,671,886 $ 10,684,5022029$ 75,823 $ 18,423 $ 447,088 $ 410,427 $ 177 $ 13,562 $ - $ 1,162 $ 966,663 $ 135,093 $ 2,961,838 $70,141 $ 3,167,073 $ 1,127,776 $ 8,815,231 $ 16,579 $ 2,712 $ 63,143 $10,025,442 $ 14,159,1782030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 11,019 $ - $ - $ 11,019 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,049,639 $ 9,150,227$ 20,443 $ 2,204 $ 58,518 $ 10,281,031 $ 10,292,0502031$ 66,227 $ 16,092 $ 390,504 $ 358,483 $ 155 $ 11,846 $ - $ 1,015 $ 844,321 $ 117,996 $ 2,586,984 $61,264 $ 2,766,244 $ 1,014,716 $ 8,563,898 $ 18,306 $ 2,369 $ 55,256 $9,654,544 $ 13,265,1102032$ 247,576 $ 60,156 $ 1,459,829 $ 1,340,122 $ 579 $ 11,293$ - $ 3,795 $ 3,123,350 $ 441,106 $ 9,670,969 $ 229,024 $ 10,341,100 $ 1,064,200 $ 8,845,872 $ 46,998 $ 2,259 $ 52,764 $10,012,093 $ 23,476,5432033$ 173,534 $ 42,165 $ 1,023,245 $ 939,338 $ 406 $ 4,056$ - $ 2,660 $ 2,185,404 $ 309,186 $ 6,778,717 $ 160,531 $ 7,248,434 $ 1,059,699 $ 11,276,211 $ 51,707 $ 811 $ 48,269 $12,436,697 $ 21,870,5362034$ 54,061 $ 13,136 $ 318,768 $ 292,629 $ 126 $ 1,264 $ - $ 829 $ 680,811 $ 96,320 $ 2,111,750 $50,010 $ 2,258,079 $ 1,030,272 $ 12,635,122 $ 79,052 $ 253 $ 45,638$ 13,790,338 $ 16,729,2282035$ 101,048 $ 24,552 $ 595,828 $ 546,970 $ 236 $ 2,362 $ - $ 1,549 $ 1,272,545 $ 180,037 $ 3,947,196 $93,476 $ 4,220,709 $ 993,028 $ 12,477,293 $ 58,981 $ 472 $ 42,112 $13,571,886 $ 19,065,139Total PV$ 35,504,250 $ 1,159,831 $ 18,796,506 $ 11,059,236 $ 7,474 $ 377,438 $1,009 $ 1,860,844 $ 68,766,588 $ 24,200,904 $ 175,998,598 $ 1,185,152 $ 201,384,654 $ 34,977,314 $ 260,666,508 $ 654,325 $ 75,488 $ 2,635,995 $ 299,009,629 $ 569,160,871AnnualizedValue$ 3,046,638 $ 99,526 $ 1,612,938 $ 948,999 $ 641 $ 32,388$ 87 $ 159,680 $ 5,900,896 $ 2,076,692 $ 15,102,531 $ 101,699 $17,280,921 $ 3,001,421 $ 22,367,928 $ 56,148 $ 6,478 $ 226,196 $ 25,658,171 $ 48,839,989YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-39July 2010C.40 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Unadjusted ValuesGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL2011$ 768,827 $ 186,809 $ 4,533,386 $ 4,161,645 $ 1,797 $ 17,971 $- $ 32,063 $ 9,702,499 $ 1,369,820 $ 30,032,439 $ 711,218 $32,113,477 $ 5,442,155 $ 70,031,508 $ 468,057 $ 3,594 $ 220,509 $ 76,165,823 $ 117,981,7982012$ 256,276 $ 62,270 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,387,215 $ 599 $ 5,990 $- $ 10,688 $ 3,234,166 $ 456,607 $ 10,010,813 $ 237,073$ 10,704,492 $ 5,745,094 $ 79,967,091 $ 757,791 $ 1,198 $ 231,058 $86,702,232 $ 100,640,8912013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,648,269 $ 83,262,533 $ 653,066 $ - $ 223,231 $ 89,787,100 $ 89,787,1002014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,620,812 $ 83,260,811 $ 603,394 $ - $ 223,231 $ 89,708,248 $ 89,708,2482015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 855,889 $ 958 $ 681 $ 857,528 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,481,218 $ 79,917,834 $ 542,782 $ 171,178 $ 220,169 $ 86,333,181 $ 87,190,7092016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 70,375 $ - $ - $ 70,375 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 5,583,642 $ 79,916,112 $703,516 $ 14,075 $ 225,613 $ 86,442,958 $ 86,513,3322017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 926,264 $ 958 $ 681 $ 927,903 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,555,156 $ 76,566,245 $ 757,325 $ 185,253 $ 232,078 $ 83,296,057 $ 84,223,9602018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,564,306 $ 3,834 $ 2,722 $ 3,570,862 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,953,233 $ 63,189,172 $ 460,670$ 712,861 $ 221,189 $ 69,537,126 $ 73,107,9882019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,989,916 $ 2,875 $ 2,042 $ 2,994,833 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,548,582 $ 53,158,520 $ 296,241$ 597,983 $ 218,807 $ 58,820,134 $ 61,814,9672020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,489,261 $ 958 $ 681 $ 1,490,900 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,443,748 $ 49,812,098 $ 305,984$ 297,852 $ 217,106 $ 55,076,789 $ 56,567,6892021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,415,525 $ 1,917 $ 1,361 $ 2,418,803 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,277,701 $ 43,120,977 $ 317,856$ 483,105 $ 220,509 $ 48,420,148 $ 50,838,9512022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,412,164 $ 2,875 $ 2,042 $ 3,417,081 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,913,257 $ 33,090,325 $ 182,574$ 682,433 $ 222,210 $ 38,090,799 $ 41,507,8802023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,911,509 $ 958 $ 681 $ 1,913,148 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,694,629 $ 29,747,349 $ 48,248 $ 382,302 $ 213,703 $ 34,086,231 $ 35,999,3792024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,125,994 $ - $ - $ 1,125,994 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,708,032 $ 29,747,349 $56,037 $ 225,199 $ 215,064 $ 33,951,680 $ 35,077,6752025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,099,708 $ - $ - $ 1,099,708 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,681,227 $ 29,747,349 $34,679 $ 219,942 $ 212,342 $ 33,895,538 $ 34,995,2462026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,055,620 $ - $ - $ 1,055,620 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,708,032 $ 29,747,349 $56,037 $ 211,124 $ 215,064 $ 33,937,606 $ 34,993,2252027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,029,333 $ - $ - $ 1,029,333 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,761,642 $ 29,747,349 $ 116,092 $ 205,867 $ 220,509 $ 34,051,458 $ 35,080,7912028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,290,677 $ 958 $ 681 $ 1,292,316 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,359,972 $ 27,043,044 $ 36,688 $ 258,135 $ 213,363 $ 30,911,203 $ 32,203,5192029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,250,571 $ 958 $ 681 $ 1,252,210 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,038,718 $ 24,338,740 $ 56,037 $ 250,114 $ 214,384 $ 27,897,992 $ 29,150,2022030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,717,702 $ 1,917 $ 1,361 $ 1,720,980 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,342,599 $ 18,930,131 $ 11,560$ 343,540 $ 210,981 $ 21,838,811 $ 23,559,7912031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,230,101 $ - $ - $ 1,230,101 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,369,404 $ 18,930,131 $56,037 $ 246,020 $ 213,703 $ 21,815,295 $ 23,045,3972032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,884,219 $ 1,917 $ 1,361 $ 1,887,497 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,740,297 $ 13,521,522 $ 67,844$ 376,844 $ 217,106 $ 15,923,614 $ 17,811,1112033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,387,610 $ 4,792 $ 3,403 $ 3,395,805 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 677,522 $ 208,599 $ 886,121 $ 4,281,9262034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,366,171 $ - $ - $ 2,366,171 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 473,234 $ 208,599 $ 681,833 $ 3,048,0052035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,366,171 $ - $ - $ 2,366,171 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 473,234 $ 208,599 $ 681,833 $ 3,048,005Total$ 1,025,103 $ 249,078 $ 6,044,515 $ 5,548,861 $ 2,396 $ 37,463,049 $25,878 $ 61,126 $ 50,420,006 $ 1,826,427 $ 40,043,252 $ 948,290 $ 42,817,969 $ 92,617,418 $ 1,046,793,539 $ 6,588,513 $ 7,492,610 $ 5,447,729 $ 1,158,939,809 $ 1,252,177,784One -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MTOTALYearDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-40July 2010C.41 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ 367,196 $ 89,221 $ 2,165,170 $ 1,987,625 $ 858 $ 8,583 $- $ 15,314 $ 4,633,968 $ 654,234 $ 14,343,660 $ 339,681$ 15,337,575 $ 2,599,203 $ 33,447,438 $ 223,547 $ 1,717 $ 105,316 $36,377,221 $ 56,348,7642012$ 118,834 $ 28,874 $ 700,702 $ 643,244 $ 278 $ 2,778 $- $ 10,334 $ 1,505,044 $ 211,726 $ 4,641,961 $ 109,929 $ 4,963,617 $ 2,663,970 $ 37,080,319 $ 351,384 $ 556 $ 105,536 $40,201,764 $ 46,670,4242013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 7,832 $ 7,832 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 2,542,789 $ 37,483,881 $294,003 $ - $ 99,819 $ 40,420,492 $ 40,428,3252014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 7,604 $ 7,604 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 2,456,726 $ 36,391,365 $263,729 $ - $ 97,043 $ 39,208,864 $ 39,216,4682015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 363,193 $ 407 $ 7,544 $ 371,144 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,325,935 $ 33,912,842 $ 230,328 $ 72,639 $ 93,236 $ 36,634,980 $ 37,006,1242016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 28,993 $ - $ 7,168 $ 36,161 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,300,387 $ 32,924,380 $ 289,839 $ 5,799 $ 92,020 $ 35,612,424 $ 35,648,5852017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 370,494 $ 383 $ 7,111 $ 377,988 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,221,991 $ 30,625,514 $ 302,920 $ 74,099 $ 91,264 $ 33,315,788 $ 33,693,7752018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,384,152 $ 1,489 $ 7,346 $ 1,392,987 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,923,524 $ 24,538,695 $ 178,895$ 276,830 $ 85,662 $ 27,003,608 $ 28,396,5942019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,127,277 $ 1,084 $ 6,989 $ 1,135,350 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,714,935 $ 20,042,157 $ 111,691$ 225,455 $ 82,780 $ 22,177,018 $ 23,312,3672020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 545,136 $ 351 $ 6,507 $ 551,994 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,626,611 $ 18,233,464 $ 112,004 $ 109,027 $ 79,801 $ 20,160,908 $ 20,712,9022021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 858,437 $ 681 $ 6,453 $ 865,571 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,520,224 $ 15,324,479 $ 112,961 $ 171,687 $ 78,365 $ 17,207,717 $ 18,073,2882022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,177,307 $ 992 $ 6,396 $ 1,184,695 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,350,201 $ 11,417,235 $ 62,994$ 235,461 $ 76,825 $ 13,142,717 $ 14,327,4112023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 640,323 $ 321 $ 5,955 $ 646,599 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,237,638 $ 9,964,854 $ 16,162 $ 128,065 $ 72,494 $ 11,419,213 $ 12,065,8122024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 366,203 $ - $ 5,658 $ 371,861 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,205,949 $ 9,674,616 $18,225 $ 73,241 $ 70,727 $ 11,042,757 $ 11,414,6182025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 347,237 $ - $ 5,493 $ 352,730 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,162,360 $ 9,392,831 $10,950 $ 69,447 $ 67,998 $ 10,703,586 $ 11,056,3162026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 323,607 $ - $ 5,333 $ 328,941 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,136,722 $ 9,119,253 $17,178 $ 64,721 $ 66,667 $ 10,404,543 $ 10,733,4842027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 306,358 $ - $ 5,178 $ 311,536 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,119,570 $ 8,853,644 $34,552 $ 61,272 $ 65,988 $ 10,135,026 $ 10,446,5622028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 372,953 $ 277 $ 5,180 $ 378,410 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 970,895 $ 7,814,337 $ 10,601 $ 74,591 $ 62,457 $ 8,932,881 $ 9,311,2922029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 350,839 $ 269 $ 5,029 $ 356,137 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 852,491 $ 6,828,062 $ 15,721 $ 70,168 $ 60,861 $ 7,827,302 $ 8,183,4392030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 467,854 $ 522 $ 5,027 $ 473,403 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 638,058 $ 5,156,034 $3,149 $ 93,571 $ 58,367 $ 5,949,177 $ 6,422,5802031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 325,286 $ - $ 4,601 $ 329,887 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 626,562 $ 5,005,858 $14,818 $ 65,057 $ 57,227 $ 5,769,523 $ 6,099,4102032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 483,748 $ 492 $ 4,739 $ 488,979 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 446,798 $ 3,471,469 $ 17,418 $ 96,750 $ 56,241 $ 4,088,675 $ 4,577,6542033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 844,392 $ 1,195 $ 4,997 $ 850,583 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ -$ - $ 168,878 $ 52,951 $ 221,830 $ 1,072,4132034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 572,611 $ - $ 4,210 $ 576,821 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 114,522 $ 51,409 $ 165,931 $ 742,7522035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 555,933 $ - $ 4,088 $ 560,020 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 111,187 $ 49,912 $ 161,098 $ 721,118Total PV$ 486,030 $ 118,095 $ 2,865,873 $ 2,630,869 $ 1,136 $ 11,823,694 $8,463 $ 162,085 $ 18,096,245 $ 865,960 $ 18,985,621 $ 449,611 $ 20,301,192 $ 34,643,538 $ 406,702,727 $ 2,693,069 $ 2,364,739 $ 1,880,968 $ 448,285,042 $ 486,682,478AnnualizedValue$ 27,912 $ 6,782 $ 164,581 $ 151,085 $ 65 $ 679,010$ 486 $ 9,308 $ 1,039,229 $ 49,730 $ 1,090,304 $ 25,820 $ 1,165,854 $ 1,989,505 $ 23,356,072 $ 154,657 $ 135,802 $ 108,020 $25,744,056 $ 27,949,139YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-41July 2010C.42 Regulatory Alternative 1 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ 141,656 $ 34,419 $ 835,273 $ 766,780 $ 331 $ 3,311 $- $ 5,908 $ 1,787,677 $ 252,388 $ 5,533,452 $ 131,041 $ 5,916,882 $ 1,002,713 $ 12,903,248 $ 86,239 $ 662 $ 40,629 $14,033,490 $ 21,738,0492012$ 44,130 $ 10,723 $ 260,210 $ 238,872 $ 103 $ 1,032$ - $ 1,840 $ 556,909 $ 78,626 $ 1,723,817 $40,823 $ 1,843,265 $ 989,279 $ 13,769,973 $ 130,488 $ 206 $ 40,554$ 14,930,501 $ 17,330,6752013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 908,978 $ 13,399,470 $ 105,098 $ - $ 36,251 $ 14,449,797 $ 14,449,7972014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 845,382 $ 12,522,610 $ 90,752 $ - $ 33,984 $ 13,492,729 $ 13,492,7292015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 120,306 $ 135 $ 96 $ 120,537 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 770,455 $ 11,233,476 $ 76,295 $ 24,061 $ 31,182 $ 12,135,470 $ 12,256,0062016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 9,245 $ - $ - $ 9,245 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 733,507 $ 10,498,349 $92,419 $ 1,849 $ 30,039 $ 11,356,163 $ 11,365,4082017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 113,720 $ 118 $ 84 $ 113,921 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 682,023 $ 9,400,268 $92,979 $ 22,744 $ 29,223 $ 10,227,237 $ 10,341,1592018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 408,973 $ 440 $ 312 $ 409,725 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 568,340 $ 7,250,397 $ 52,858 $ 81,795 $ 25,688 $ 7,979,077 $ 8,388,8022019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 320,623 $ 308 $ 219 $ 321,150 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 487,766 $ 5,700,438 $ 31,767 $ 64,125 $ 23,849 $ 6,307,945 $ 6,629,0952020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 149,253 $ 96 $ 68 $ 149,417 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 445,350 $ 4,992,136 $30,666 $ 29,851 $ 21,978 $ 5,519,980 $ 5,669,3972021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 226,245 $ 180 $ 127 $ 226,552 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 400,662 $ 4,038,837 $ 29,771 $ 45,249 $ 21,028 $ 4,535,547 $ 4,762,1002022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 298,685 $ 252 $ 179 $ 299,116 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 342,549 $ 2,896,577 $ 15,982 $ 59,737 $ 20,129 $ 3,334,973 $ 3,634,0892023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 156,378 $ 78 $ 56 $ 156,512 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 302,253 $ 2,433,596 $3,947 $ 31,276 $ 17,768 $ 2,788,841 $ 2,945,3532024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 86,090 $ - $ - $ 86,090 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 283,504 $ 2,274,389 $4,284 $ 17,218 $ 16,799 $ 2,596,194 $ 2,682,2842025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 78,580 $ - $ - $ 78,580 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 263,042 $ 2,125,597 $2,478 $ 15,716 $ 15,375 $ 2,422,208 $ 2,500,7882026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 70,495 $ - $ - $ 70,495 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 247,624 $ 1,986,539 $3,742 $ 14,099 $ 14,705 $ 2,266,709 $ 2,337,2042027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 64,242 $ - $ - $ 64,242 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 234,770 $ 1,856,579 $7,245 $ 12,848 $ 14,382 $ 2,125,824 $ 2,190,0672028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 75,283 $ 56 $ 74 $ 75,414 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 195,982 $ 1,577,382 $2,140 $ 15,057 $ 12,688 $ 1,803,249 $ 1,878,6632029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 68,172 $ 52 $ 71 $ 68,295 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 165,649 $ 1,326,770 $3,055 $ 13,634 $ 11,976 $ 1,521,083 $ 1,589,3792030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 87,511 $ 98 $ 136 $ 87,744 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 119,347 $ 964,423 $589 $ 17,502 $ 10,865 $ 1,112,726 $ 1,200,4712031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 58,569 $ - $ - $ 58,569 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 112,816 $ 901,330 $2,668 $ 11,714 $ 10,420 $ 1,038,947 $ 1,097,5162032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 83,845 $ 85 $ 124 $ 84,055 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 77,441 $ 601,689 $3,019 $ 16,769 $ 10,060 $ 708,977 $ 793,0322033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 140,882 $ 199 $ 298 $ 141,379 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ -$ - $ 28,176 $ 8,675 $ 36,852 $ 178,2312034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 91,965 $ - $ - $ 91,965 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 18,393 $ 8,108 $ 26,501 $ 118,4662035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 85,949 $ - $ - $ 85,949 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 17,190 $ 7,577 $ 24,767 $ 110,716Total PV$ 185,785 $ 45,142 $ 1,095,482 $ 1,005,652 $ 434 $ 2,799,355 $2,097 $ 9,592 $ 5,143,539 $ 331,014 $ 7,257,269 $ 171,864 $7,760,147 $ 10,179,432 $ 124,654,071 $ 868,482 $ 559,871 $ 513,932 $ 136,775,788 $ 149,679,474AnnualizedValue$ 15,942 $ 3,874 $ 94,004 $ 86,296 $ 37 $ 240,214$ 180 $ 823 $ 441,370 $ 28,404 $ 622,750 $14,748 $ 665,902 $ 873,502 $ 10,696,630 $ 74,525 $ 48,043 $ 44,101$ 11,736,801 $ 12,844,073YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-42July 2010C.43 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Unadjusted ValuesGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $ 2,017,3622012$ 6,963,751 $ 133,993 $ 1,681,444 $ 864,409 $ 1,198 $ 5,990 $479 $ 4,377 $ 9,655,641 $ 2,754,551 $ 17,286,673 $ 65,341$ 20,106,565 $ 577,709 $ 13,308 $ - $ 1,198 $ 208,599 $800,814 $ 30,563,0202013$ 6,963,751 $ 133,993 $ 1,681,444 $ 864,409 $ 1,198 $ 5,990 $479 $ 4,377 $ 9,655,641 $ 2,754,551 $ 17,286,673 $ 65,341$ 20,106,565 $ 957,058 $ 2,787,039 $ 5,780 $ 1,198 $ 208,779 $3,959,854 $ 33,722,0602014$ 13,927,502 $ 267,985 $ 3,362,888 $ 1,728,817 $ 2,396 $ 11,981 $958 $ 8,754 $ 19,311,283 $ 5,509,102 $ 34,573,346 $ 130,682 $40,213,131 $ 1,914,116 $ 5,574,079 $ 5,780 $ 2,396 $ 208,958 $ 7,705,328 $ 67,229,7422015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,517,396 $ 11,094,926 $ 17,339 $ - $ 209,317 $ 12,838,979 $ 12,838,9792016$ 13,927,502 $ 267,985 $ 3,362,888 $ 1,728,817 $ 2,396 $ 11,981 $958 $ 8,754 $ 19,311,283 $ 5,509,102 $ 34,573,346 $ 130,682 $40,213,131 $ 2,672,814 $ 11,121,542 $ 5,780 $ 2,396 $ 209,317 $ 14,011,849 $ 73,536,2622017$ 36,442,798 $ 793,037 $ 9,572,183 $ 4,448,986 $ 8,645 $ 43,226 $3,458 $ 31,138 $ 51,343,473 $ 14,280,807 $ 108,682,500 $ 435,305 $123,398,611 $ 5,960,483 $ 16,731,179 $ 42,468 $ 8,645 $ 210,395 $ 22,953,170$ 197,695,2542018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,931,373 $ 33,541,451 $ 57,608 $ - $ 211,691 $ 38,742,123 $ 38,742,1232019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,600,993 $ 33,541,451 $ 56,037 $ - $ 212,409 $ 39,410,891 $ 39,410,8912020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,261,753 $ 33,541,451 $ 44,039 $ - $ 210,973 $ 38,058,216 $ 38,058,2162021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,600,993 $ 33,541,451 $ 56,037 $ - $ 212,409 $ 39,410,891 $ 39,410,8912022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 424,503 $ 2,124 $ 1,194 $ 427,820 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 8,190,559 $ 30,511,047 $ 116,092 $ 84,901 $ 214,885 $ 39,117,483 $ 39,545,3032023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,842,459 $ 30,511,047$ 42,468 $ 7,970 $ 211,293 $ 35,615,237 $ 35,655,0872024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,512,079 $ 30,511,047$ 61,817 $ 7,970 $ 212,011 $ 36,304,924 $ 36,344,7742025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,172,839 $ 30,511,047$ 28,899 $ 7,970 $ 210,575 $ 34,931,329 $ 34,971,1792026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,512,079 $ 30,511,047$ 61,817 $ 18,590 $ 212,011 $ 36,315,543 $ 36,355,3932027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 8,190,559 $ 30,511,047$ 110,312 $ 7,970 $ 214,885 $ 39,034,773 $ 39,074,6232028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,842,459 $ 30,511,047$ 48,248 $ 7,970 $ 211,293 $ 35,621,016 $ 35,660,8662029$ 328,851 $ 85,033 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,387,215 $ 1,198 $ 45,840 $479 $ 4,377 $ 3,364,122 $ 456,607 $ 10,370,562 $ 276,840$ 11,104,008 $ 5,620,407 $ 30,566,654 $ 56,037 $ 9,168 $ 212,011 $36,464,277 $ 50,932,4082030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 39,850 $ - $ - $ 39,850 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,305,963 $ 33,926,751$ 73,932 $ 7,970 $ 210,754 $ 38,525,371 $ 38,565,2212031$ 328,851 $ 85,033 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,387,215 $ 1,198 $ 45,840 $479 $ 4,377 $ 3,364,122 $ 456,607 $ 10,370,562 $ 276,840$ 11,104,008 $ 5,753,531 $ 33,982,358 $ 70,837 $ 19,788 $ 212,191 $ 40,038,706 $ 54,506,8362032$ 1,315,405 $ 340,130 $ 6,044,515 $ 5,548,861 $ 4,792 $ 46,761 $1,917 $ 17,508 $ 13,319,889 $ 1,826,427 $ 41,482,249 $ 1,107,358 $44,416,034 $ 8,890,119 $ 37,564,885 $ 194,599 $ 9,352 $ 215,244 $ 46,874,200 $ 104,610,1222033$ 986,553 $ 255,098 $ 4,533,386 $ 4,161,645 $ 3,594 $ 17,971 $1,438 $ 13,131 $ 9,972,816 $ 1,369,820 $ 31,111,686 $ 830,519 $33,312,025 $ 5,966,188 $ 51,172,094 $ 229,084 $ 3,594 $ 212,370 $ 57,583,331 $ 100,868,1732034$ 328,851 $ 85,033 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,387,215 $ 1,198 $ 5,990$ 479 $ 4,377 $ 3,324,272 $ 456,607 $ 10,370,562 $ 276,840$ 11,104,008 $ 7,092,316 $ 61,307,992 $ 374,749 $ 1,198 $ 214,346 $68,990,601 $ 83,418,8822035$ 657,702 $ 170,065 $ 3,022,257 $ 2,774,430 $ 2,396 $ 11,981 $958 $ 8,754 $ 6,648,544 $ 913,214 $ 20,741,124 $ 553,679 $22,208,017 $ 5,720,737 $ 64,779,304 $ 299,171 $ 2,396 $ 212,370 $ 71,013,978 $ 99,870,539Total$ 82,171,519 $ 2,617,384 $ 37,794,393 $ 26,282,020 $ 30,210 $ 957,004 $14,208 $ 1,919,882 $ 151,786,621 $ 36,287,395 $ 336,849,284 $ 4,149,425 $ 377,286,104 $ 118,606,983 $ 708,365,243 $ 2,058,928 $ 212,641 $ 5,287,687 $ 834,531,481 $ 1,363,604,206One -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MTOTALYearDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-43July 2010C.44 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 227,584 $ 227,584 $ 2,036,3472012$ 6,760,924 $ 130,090 $ 1,632,470 $ 839,232 $ 1,163 $ 5,816 $465 $ 4,011 $ 9,374,170 $ 2,674,322 $ 16,783,178 $ 63,438$ 19,520,937 $ 560,882 $ 12,920 $ - $ 1,163 $ 202,523 $777,489 $ 29,672,5972013$ 6,564,003 $ 126,301 $ 1,584,922 $ 814,788 $ 1,129 $ 5,646 $452 $ 3,894 $ 9,101,136 $ 2,596,429 $ 16,294,347 $ 61,590$ 18,952,366 $ 902,119 $ 2,627,052 $ 5,448 $ 1,129 $ 196,790 $3,732,538 $ 31,786,0402014$ 12,745,638 $ 245,245 $ 3,077,519 $ 1,582,113 $ 2,193 $ 10,964 $877 $ 7,561 $ 17,672,109 $ 5,041,609 $ 31,639,509 $ 119,593 $36,800,711 $ 1,751,687 $ 5,101,072 $ 5,289 $ 2,193 $ 191,219 $ 7,051,459 $ 61,524,2802015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,348,187 $ 9,857,698 $ 15,406 $ - $ 185,961 $ 11,407,252 $ 11,407,2522016$ 12,013,986 $ 231,167 $ 2,900,857 $ 1,491,293 $ 2,067 $ 10,335 $827 $ 7,127 $ 16,657,658 $ 4,752,200 $ 29,823,272 $ 112,727 $34,688,200 $ 2,305,593 $ 9,593,540 $ 4,986 $ 2,067 $ 180,545 $ 12,086,729 $ 63,432,5872017$ 30,520,270 $ 664,156 $ 8,016,553 $ 3,725,956 $ 7,240 $ 36,201 $2,896 $ 25,048 $ 42,998,320 $ 11,959,951 $ 91,019,882 $ 364,561 $103,344,394 $ 4,991,811 $ 14,012,099 $ 35,566 $ 7,240 $ 176,167 $ 19,222,884 $ 165,565,5982018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,009,658 $ 27,272,269 $ 46,840 $ - $ 172,073 $ 31,500,840 $ 31,500,8402019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,421,476 $ 26,477,932 $ 44,236 $ - $ 167,615 $ 31,111,258 $ 31,111,2582020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,266,279 $ 25,706,730 $ 33,752 $ - $ 161,658 $ 29,168,418 $ 29,168,4182021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,167,665 $ 24,957,990 $ 41,697 $ - $ 157,993 $ 29,325,345 $ 29,325,3452022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 306,670 $ 1,534 $ 863 $ 309,067 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,917,034 $ 22,041,829 $83,867 $ 61,334 $ 155,132 $ 28,259,196 $ 28,568,2632023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 27,950 $ - $ - $ 27,950 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,396,403 $ 21,399,834$ 29,786 $ 5,590 $ 148,153 $ 24,979,766 $ 25,007,7162024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 27,136 $ - $ - $ 27,136 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,753,458 $ 20,776,538$ 42,094 $ 5,427 $ 144,315 $ 24,721,832 $ 24,748,9682025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 26,346 $ - $ - $ 26,346 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,758,738 $ 20,171,396$ 19,106 $ 5,269 $ 139,184 $ 23,093,693 $ 23,120,0392026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 25,578 $ - $ - $ 25,578 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,537,994 $ 19,583,880$ 39,678 $ 11,932 $ 136,031 $ 23,309,514 $ 23,335,0932027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 24,833 $ - $ - $ 24,833 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,104,086 $ 19,013,475$ 68,743 $ 4,967 $ 133,818 $ 24,325,089 $ 24,349,9222028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 24,110 $ - $ - $ 24,110 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,929,767 $ 18,459,685$ 29,191 $ 4,822 $ 127,798 $ 21,551,263 $ 21,575,3732029$ 193,165 $ 49,948 $ 887,629 $ 814,843 $ 704 $ 26,926$ 281 $ 1,399 $ 1,974,896 $ 268,208 $ 6,091,612 $ 162,614 $ 6,522,435 $ 3,301,397 $ 17,954,688 $ 32,916 $ 5,385 $ 124,488 $21,418,873 $ 29,916,2032030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 22,726 $ - $ - $ 22,726 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,455,631 $ 19,347,952$ 42,163 $ 4,545 $ 120,119 $ 21,970,409 $ 21,993,1352031$ 182,077 $ 47,080 $ 836,675 $ 768,067 $ 663 $ 25,381$ 265 $ 1,319 $ 1,861,528 $ 252,812 $ 5,741,929 $ 153,279 $ 6,148,020 $ 3,185,591 $ 18,815,208 $ 39,221 $ 10,956 $ 117,397 $22,168,373 $ 30,177,9212032$ 707,095 $ 182,837 $ 3,249,225 $ 2,982,786 $ 2,576 $ 25,136 $1,030 $ 5,123 $ 7,155,808 $ 981,795 $ 22,298,753 $ 595,259 $23,875,807 $ 4,778,877 $ 20,192,977 $ 104,607 $ 5,027 $ 115,540 $ 25,197,028 $ 56,228,6422033$ 514,875 $ 133,134 $ 2,365,940 $ 2,171,932 $ 1,876 $ 9,379 $750 $ 3,730 $ 5,201,615 $ 714,899 $ 16,236,956 $ 433,441$ 17,385,296 $ 3,113,709 $ 26,706,332 $ 119,557 $ 1,876 $ 110,553 $ 30,052,027 $ 52,638,9392034$ 166,626 $ 43,085 $ 765,676 $ 702,890 $ 607 $ 3,035 $ 243 $ 1,207 $ 1,683,371 $ 231,359 $ 5,254,678 $ 140,272 $ 5,626,309 $ 3,593,618 $ 31,064,254 $ 189,882 $ 607 $ 108,044 $34,956,405 $ 42,266,0852035$ 323,546 $ 83,661 $ 1,486,750 $ 1,364,836 $ 1,179 $ 5,894$ 471 $ 2,344 $ 3,268,681 $ 449,241 $ 10,203,259 $ 272,373$ 10,924,873 $ 2,814,223 $ 31,867,125 $ 147,172 $ 1,179 $ 104,059 $34,933,758 $ 49,127,312Total PV$ 70,692,204 $ 1,936,703 $ 26,804,217 $ 17,258,736 $ 21,397 $ 650,062 $10,093 $ 1,872,389 $ 119,245,801 $ 29,922,823 $ 251,387,376 $ 2,479,149 $ 283,789,348 $ 78,365,881 $ 453,014,474 $ 1,221,202 $ 142,709 $ 3,785,774 $ 536,530,040 $ 939,565,189AnnualizedValue$ 4,059,703 $ 111,221 $ 1,539,309 $ 991,132 $ 1,229 $ 37,332 $580 $ 107,527 $ 6,848,032 $ 1,718,404 $ 14,436,642 $ 142,372 $16,297,418 $ 4,500,386 $ 26,015,657 $ 70,131 $ 8,195 $ 217,409 $ 30,811,778 $ 53,957,228YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-44July 2010C.45 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 227,584 $ 227,584 $ 2,036,3472012$ 6,508,179 $ 125,227 $ 1,571,443 $ 807,859 $ 1,120 $ 5,598 $448 $ 4,154 $ 9,024,027 $ 2,574,347 $ 16,155,769 $ 61,066$ 18,791,183 $ 539,915 $ 12,437 $ - $ 1,120 $ 194,952 $748,424 $ 28,563,6342013$ 6,082,410 $ 117,034 $ 1,468,638 $ 755,008 $ 1,046 $ 5,232 $419 $ 3,944 $ 8,433,732 $ 2,405,932 $ 15,098,850 $ 57,071$ 17,561,853 $ 835,931 $ 2,434,308 $ 5,048 $ 1,046 $ 182,361 $3,458,695 $ 29,454,2802014$ 11,368,991 $ 218,756 $ 2,745,119 $ 1,411,230 $ 1,956 $ 9,780 $782 $ 7,492 $ 15,764,105 $ 4,497,069 $ 28,222,149 $ 106,675 $32,825,893 $ 1,562,489 $ 4,550,109 $ 4,718 $ 1,956 $ 170,587 $6,289,858 $ 54,879,8562015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,157,614 $ 8,464,266 $ 13,228 $ - $ 159,725 $ 9,794,833 $ 9,794,8332016$ 9,930,117 $ 191,070 $ 2,397,693 $ 1,232,623 $ 1,708 $ 8,542 $683 $ 6,765 $ 13,769,201 $ 3,927,914 $ 24,650,318 $ 93,174 $28,671,406 $ 1,905,679 $ 7,929,505 $ 4,121 $ 1,708 $ 149,285 $9,990,299 $ 52,430,9072017$ 24,283,375 $ 528,434 $ 6,378,350 $ 2,964,547 $ 5,761 $ 28,804 $2,304 $ 22,945 $ 34,214,520 $ 9,515,904 $ 72,419,738 $ 290,062 $82,225,705 $ 3,971,721 $ 11,148,691 $ 28,298 $ 5,761 $ 140,324 $ 15,294,795 $ 131,735,0202018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,071,011 $ 20,887,930 $ 35,875 $ - $ 132,079 $ 24,126,895 $ 24,126,8952019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,259,829 $ 19,521,430 $ 32,614 $ - $ 123,957 $ 22,937,830 $ 22,937,8302020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,318,111 $ 18,244,327 $ 23,954 $ - $ 114,978 $ 20,701,371 $ 20,701,3712021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,847,261 $ 17,050,773 $ 28,486 $ - $ 108,356 $ 20,034,877 $ 20,034,8772022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 201,678 $ 1,009 $ 698 $ 203,385 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,891,276 $ 14,495,578 $55,154 $ 40,336 $ 102,741 $ 18,585,085 $ 18,788,4702023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 17,694 $ - $ - $ 17,694 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,150,110 $ 13,547,270$ 18,856 $ 3,539 $ 94,107 $ 15,813,881 $ 15,831,5752024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 16,536 $ - $ - $ 16,536 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,287,317 $ 12,661,000$ 25,652 $ 3,307 $ 88,357 $ 15,065,633 $ 15,082,1692025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 15,455 $ - $ - $ 15,455 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,618,299 $ 11,832,710$ 11,208 $ 3,091 $ 81,891 $ 13,547,198 $ 13,562,6522026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 14,443 $ - $ - $ 14,443 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,997,831 $ 11,058,607$ 22,405 $ 6,738 $ 77,242 $ 13,162,823 $ 13,177,2672027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 13,499 $ - $ - $ 13,499 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,774,426 $ 10,335,147$ 37,367 $ 2,700 $ 73,538 $ 13,223,177 $ 13,236,6752028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 12,615 $ - $ - $ 12,615 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,532,999 $ 9,659,016$ 15,274 $ 2,523 $ 67,215 $ 11,277,027 $ 11,289,6422029$ 97,295 $ 25,158 $ 447,088 $ 410,427 $ 354 $ 13,562 $ 142 $ 1,295 $ 995,322 $ 135,093 $ 3,068,275 $ 81,907 $ 3,285,275 $ 1,662,876 $ 9,043,570 $ 16,579 $ 2,712 $ 63,143 $10,788,880 $ 15,069,4782030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 11,019 $ - $ - $ 11,019 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,190,635 $ 9,381,029$ 20,443 $ 2,204 $ 58,518 $ 10,652,829 $ 10,663,8482031$ 84,981 $ 21,974 $ 390,504 $ 358,483 $ 310 $ 11,846 $ 124 $ 1,131 $ 869,353 $ 117,996 $ 2,679,950 $ 71,541 $ 2,869,487 $ 1,486,822 $ 8,781,687 $ 18,306 $ 5,114 $ 55,256 $10,347,184 $ 14,086,0242032$ 317,687 $ 82,146 $ 1,459,829 $ 1,340,122 $ 1,157 $ 11,293 $463 $ 4,228 $ 3,216,927 $ 441,106 $ 10,018,506 $ 267,441$ 10,727,053 $ 2,147,080 $ 9,072,411 $ 46,998 $ 2,259 $ 52,764 $11,321,512 $ 25,265,4932033$ 222,678 $ 57,579 $ 1,023,245 $ 939,338 $ 811 $ 4,056$ 325 $ 2,964 $ 2,250,996 $ 309,186 $ 7,022,317 $ 187,459 $ 7,518,963 $ 1,346,647 $ 11,550,215 $ 51,707 $ 811 $ 48,269 $12,997,650 $ 22,767,6092034$ 69,370 $ 17,937 $ 318,768 $ 292,629 $ 253 $ 1,264 $ 101 $ 923 $ 701,245 $ 96,320 $ 2,187,638 $58,398 $ 2,342,356 $ 1,496,102 $ 12,932,730 $ 79,052 $ 253 $ 45,638$ 14,553,775 $ 17,597,3762035$ 129,664 $ 33,528 $ 595,828 $ 546,970 $ 472 $ 2,362 $ 189 $ 1,726 $ 1,310,738 $ 180,037 $ 4,089,043 $ 109,156 $ 4,378,235 $ 1,127,824 $ 12,771,021 $ 58,981 $ 472 $ 42,112 $14,000,410 $ 19,689,383Total PV$ 59,094,747 $ 1,418,843 $ 18,796,506 $ 11,059,236 $ 14,949 $ 405,279 $6,989 $ 1,867,028 $ 92,663,577 $ 24,200,904 $ 185,612,554 $ 1,383,952 $ 211,197,410 $ 48,179,804 $ 267,365,769 $ 654,325 $ 87,649 $ 2,635,995 $ 318,923,542 $ 622,784,528AnnualizedValue$ 5,070,951 $ 121,752 $ 1,612,938 $ 948,999 $ 1,283 $ 34,777 $600 $ 160,211 $ 7,951,509 $ 2,076,692 $ 15,927,509 $ 118,758 $18,122,959 $ 4,134,334 $ 22,942,795 $ 56,148 $ 7,521 $ 226,196 $ 27,366,994 $ 53,441,462YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-45July 2010C.46 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008)- Period 2 (2036-2060) Unadjusted ValuesGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL2011$ 986,553 $ 255,098 $ 4,533,386 $ 4,161,645 $ 3,594 $ 17,971 $1,438 $ 34,615 $ 9,994,301 $ 1,369,820 $ 31,111,686 $ 830,519 $33,312,025 $ 7,720,546 $ 71,676,655 $ 468,057 $ 3,594 $ 220,509 $ 80,089,361 $ 123,395,6872012$ 328,851 $ 85,033 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,387,215 $ 1,198 $ 5,990$ 479 $ 11,538 $ 3,331,434 $ 456,607 $ 10,370,562 $ 276,840$ 11,104,008 $ 11,394,982 $ 81,805,663 $ 757,791 $ 1,198 $ 231,058 $94,190,691 $ 108,626,1332013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 7,793,820 $ 85,162,314 $ 653,066 $ - $ 223,231 $ 93,832,432 $ 93,832,4322014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 8,185,582 $ 85,158,869 $ 603,394 $ - $ 223,231 $ 94,171,076 $ 94,171,0762015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 959,629 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 961,609 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 6,717,285 $ 81,746,610 $ 542,782 $ 191,926 $ 220,169 $ 89,418,772 $ 90,380,3802016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 70,375 $ - $ - $ 70,375 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 8,600,040 $ 81,743,165$ 703,516 $ 14,075 $ 225,613 $ 91,286,409 $ 91,356,7832017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,030,004 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 1,031,983 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 11,406,986 $ 78,317,126 $ 757,325 $ 206,001 $ 232,078 $ 90,919,516 $ 91,951,4992018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,979,266 $ 3,834 $ 4,083 $ 3,987,183 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 6,982,874 $ 64,657,754 $ 460,670 $ 795,853 $ 221,189 $ 73,118,340 $ 77,105,5242019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,301,136 $ 2,875 $ 3,063 $ 3,307,073 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 6,713,673 $ 54,417,531 $ 296,241 $ 664,767 $ 218,807 $ 62,311,020 $ 65,618,0932020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,593,001 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 1,594,980 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,511,033 $ 50,998,382 $ 305,984 $ 318,600 $ 217,106 $ 57,351,105 $ 58,946,0862021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,623,005 $ 1,917 $ 2,042 $ 2,626,964 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 6,853,749 $ 44,163,528 $ 317,856 $ 529,393 $ 220,509 $ 52,085,035 $ 54,711,9982022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,723,383 $ 2,875 $ 3,063 $ 3,729,321 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 8,593,408 $ 33,923,306 $ 182,574 $ 763,846 $ 222,210 $ 43,685,343 $ 47,414,6652023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,015,249 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 2,017,228 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,842,459 $ 30,511,047 $ 48,248 $ 417,426 $ 213,703 $ 36,032,883 $ 38,050,1112024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,125,994 $ - $ - $ 1,125,994 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 5,512,079 $ 30,511,047 $56,037 $ 234,531 $ 215,064 $ 36,528,758 $ 37,654,7522025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,099,708 $ - $ - $ 1,099,708 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 4,172,839 $ 30,511,047 $34,679 $ 229,526 $ 212,342 $ 35,160,433 $ 36,260,1412026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,055,620 $ - $ - $ 1,055,620 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 5,512,079 $ 30,511,047 $56,037 $ 230,293 $ 215,064 $ 36,524,520 $ 37,580,1392027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,029,333 $ - $ - $ 1,029,333 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 8,190,559 $ 30,511,047 $116,092 $ 229,828 $ 220,509 $ 39,268,034 $ 40,297,3682028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,325,231 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 1,327,210 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,463,110 $ 27,737,315 $ 36,688 $ 279,423 $ 213,363 $ 32,729,899 $ 34,057,1102029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,285,125 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 1,287,105 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,753,381 $ 24,963,584 $ 56,037 $ 261,565 $ 214,384 $ 30,248,950 $ 31,536,0552030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,786,811 $ 1,917 $ 2,042 $ 1,790,770 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,655,443 $ 19,416,121 $ 11,560 $ 366,947 $ 210,981 $ 22,661,051 $ 24,451,8212031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,230,101 $ - $ - $ 1,230,101 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 3,994,683 $ 19,416,121 $56,037 $ 260,397 $ 213,703 $ 23,940,941 $ 25,171,0422032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,953,328 $ 1,917 $ 2,042 $ 1,957,286 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,244,845 $ 13,868,658 $ 67,844 $ 400,250 $ 217,106 $ 19,798,703 $ 21,755,9892033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,560,382 $ 4,792 $ 5,104 $ 3,570,278 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ -$ - $ 716,869 $ 208,599 $ 925,468 $ 4,495,7462034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,366,171 $ - $ - $ 2,366,171 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 482,567 $ 208,599 $ 691,166 $ 3,057,3372035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,366,171 $ - $ - $ 2,366,171 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 473,234 $ 208,599 $ 681,833 $ 3,048,005Total$ 1,315,405 $ 340,130 $ 6,044,515 $ 5,548,861 $ 4,792 $ 39,502,986 $27,795 $ 73,717 $ 52,858,200 $ 1,826,427 $ 41,482,249 $ 1,107,358 $44,416,034 $ 145,815,455 $ 1,071,727,932 $ 6,588,513 $ 8,072,109 $ 5,447,729 $ 1,237,651,738 $ 1,334,925,972One -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MTOTALYearDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-46July 2010C.47 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ 471,183 $ 121,836 $ 2,165,170 $ 1,987,625 $ 1,717 $ 8,583 $687 $ 16,533 $ 4,773,334 $ 654,234 $ 14,859,115 $ 396,660 $15,910,009 $ 3,687,376 $ 34,233,170 $ 223,547 $ 1,717 $ 105,316 $38,251,125 $ 58,934,4672012$ 152,487 $ 39,429 $ 700,702 $ 643,244 $ 556 $ 2,778 $ 222 $ 11,077 $ 1,550,495 $ 211,726 $ 4,808,775 $ 128,369 $ 5,148,870 $ 5,283,793 $ 37,932,854 $ 351,384 $ 556 $ 105,536 $43,674,123 $ 50,373,4882013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 8,340 $ 8,340 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,508,693 $ 38,339,142$ 294,003 $ - $ 99,819 $ 42,241,657 $ 42,249,9972014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 8,097 $ 8,097 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,577,728 $ 37,220,962$ 263,729 $ - $ 97,043 $ 41,159,462 $ 41,167,5592015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 407,215 $ 407 $ 8,103 $ 415,725 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,850,455 $ 34,688,877 $ 230,328 $ 81,443 $ 93,236 $ 37,944,339 $ 38,360,0642016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 28,993 $ - $ 7,632 $ 36,626 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 3,543,103 $ 33,677,102 $289,839 $ 5,799 $ 92,020 $ 37,607,862 $ 37,644,4882017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 411,988 $ 383 $ 7,638 $ 420,010 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,562,648 $ 31,325,843 $ 302,920 $ 82,398 $ 91,264 $ 36,365,073 $ 36,785,0832018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,545,296 $ 1,489 $ 8,079 $ 1,554,864 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,711,709 $ 25,109,000 $ 178,895 $ 309,059 $ 85,662 $ 28,394,326 $ 29,949,1902019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,244,615 $ 1,084 $ 7,629 $ 1,253,328 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,531,231 $ 20,516,838 $ 111,691 $ 250,635 $ 82,780 $ 23,493,174 $ 24,746,5012020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 583,110 $ 351 $ 6,990 $ 590,450 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,017,285 $ 18,667,698 $ 112,004 $ 116,622 $ 79,801 $ 20,993,410 $ 21,583,8602021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 932,172 $ 681 $ 6,989 $ 939,842 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,435,708 $ 15,694,985 $ 112,961 $ 188,138 $ 78,365 $ 18,510,157 $ 19,449,9992022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,284,688 $ 992 $ 6,982 $ 1,292,662 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,965,004 $ 11,704,640 $ 62,994 $ 263,552 $ 76,825 $ 15,073,016 $ 16,365,6772023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 675,074 $ 321 $ 6,397 $ 681,792 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,622,141 $ 10,220,680 $16,162 $ 139,831 $ 72,494 $ 12,071,308 $ 12,753,1002024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 366,203 $ - $ 6,025 $ 372,228 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,792,672 $ 9,922,990 $18,225 $ 76,276 $ 70,727 $ 11,880,890 $ 12,253,1182025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 347,237 $ - $ 5,850 $ 353,086 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,317,589 $ 9,633,971 $10,950 $ 72,474 $ 67,998 $ 11,102,981 $ 11,456,0682026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 323,607 $ - $ 5,679 $ 329,287 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,689,766 $ 9,353,370 $17,178 $ 70,598 $ 66,667 $ 11,197,579 $ 11,526,8662027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 306,358 $ - $ 5,514 $ 311,872 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 2,437,740 $ 9,080,942 $34,552 $ 68,403 $ 65,988 $ 11,687,625 $ 11,999,4972028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 382,938 $ 277 $ 5,583 $ 388,798 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,289,657 $ 8,014,953 $10,601 $ 80,742 $ 62,457 $ 9,458,410 $ 9,847,2082029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 360,533 $ 269 $ 5,420 $ 366,222 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,333,528 $ 7,003,357 $15,721 $ 73,380 $ 60,861 $ 8,486,847 $ 8,853,0692030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 486,677 $ 522 $ 5,479 $ 492,678 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 723,268 $ 5,288,403 $3,149 $ 99,946 $ 58,367 $ 6,173,132 $ 6,665,8102031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 325,286 $ - $ 4,899 $ 330,185 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,056,349 $ 5,134,372 $14,818 $ 68,859 $ 57,227 $ 6,331,625 $ 6,661,8112032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 501,491 $ 492 $ 5,165 $ 507,147 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,346,543 $ 3,560,591 $17,418 $ 102,759 $ 56,241 $ 5,083,552 $ 5,590,7002033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 887,456 $ 1,195 $ 5,609 $ 894,260 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 178,686 $ 52,951 $ 231,637 $ 1,125,8972034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 572,611 $ - $ 4,483 $ 577,094 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 116,781 $ 51,409 $ 168,190 $ 745,2832035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 555,933 $ - $ 4,353 $ 560,285 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 111,187 $ 49,912 $ 161,098 $ 721,383Total PV$ 623,670 $ 161,265 $ 2,865,873 $ 2,630,869 $ 2,272 $ 12,540,843 $9,372 $ 174,542 $ 19,008,706 $ 865,960 $ 19,667,890 $ 525,029 $21,058,879 $ 54,283,984 $ 416,324,740 $ 2,693,069 $ 2,559,836 $ 1,880,968 $ 477,742,597 $517,810,182AnnualizedValue$ 35,816 $ 9,261 $ 164,581 $ 151,085 $ 130 $ 720,194 $ 538 $ 10,024 $ 1,091,630 $ 49,730 $ 1,129,485 $ 30,151 $ 1,209,367 $ 3,117,414 $ 23,908,643 $ 154,657 $ 147,006 $ 108,020 $27,435,740 $ 29,736,736YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-47July 2010C.48 Regulatory Alternative 2 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ 181,772 $ 47,002 $ 835,273 $ 766,780 $ 662 $ 3,311 $ 265 $ 6,378 $ 1,841,442 $ 252,388 $ 5,732,303 $ 153,022 $ 6,137,713 $ 1,422,504 $ 13,206,365 $ 86,239 $ 662 $ 40,629 $14,756,399 $ 22,735,5542012$ 56,627 $ 14,642 $ 260,210 $ 238,872 $ 206 $ 1,032 $ 83 $ 1,987 $ 573,658 $ 78,626 $ 1,785,764 $47,671 $ 1,912,060 $ 1,962,165 $ 14,086,566 $ 130,488 $ 206 $ 40,554$ 16,219,980 $ 18,705,6982013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,254,262 $ 13,705,203 $ 105,098 $ - $ 36,251 $ 15,100,814 $ 15,100,8142014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,231,130 $ 12,808,082 $ 90,752 $ - $ 33,984 $ 14,163,948 $ 14,163,9482015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 134,888 $ 135 $ 143 $ 135,166 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 944,200 $ 11,490,534 $76,295 $ 26,978 $ 31,182 $ 12,569,189 $ 12,704,3552016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 9,245 $ - $ - $ 9,245 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 1,129,762 $ 10,738,364$ 92,419 $ 1,849 $ 30,039 $ 11,992,433 $ 12,001,6782017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 126,457 $ 118 $ 125 $ 126,700 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,400,470 $ 9,615,229 $92,979 $ 25,291 $ 29,223 $ 11,163,192 $ 11,289,8922018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 456,586 $ 440 $ 469 $ 457,494 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 801,223 $ 7,418,904 $52,858 $ 91,317 $ 25,688 $ 8,389,990 $ 8,847,4832019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 353,996 $ 308 $ 328 $ 354,633 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 719,939 $ 5,835,448 $31,767 $ 71,286 $ 23,849 $ 6,682,289 $ 7,036,9222020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 159,650 $ 96 $ 102 $ 159,848 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 552,312 $ 5,111,024 $30,666 $ 31,930 $ 21,978 $ 5,747,910 $ 5,907,7582021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 245,678 $ 180 $ 191 $ 246,049 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 641,942 $ 4,136,486 $29,771 $ 49,585 $ 21,028 $ 4,878,811 $ 5,124,8612022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 325,928 $ 252 $ 268 $ 326,448 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 752,228 $ 2,969,492 $15,982 $ 66,864 $ 20,129 $ 3,824,694 $ 4,151,1422023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 164,865 $ 78 $ 84 $ 165,027 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 396,156 $ 2,496,073 $3,947 $ 34,149 $ 17,768 $ 2,948,094 $ 3,113,1212024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 86,090 $ - $ - $ 86,090 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 421,436 $ 2,332,779$ 4,284 $ 17,932 $ 16,799 $ 2,793,230 $ 2,879,3202025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 78,580 $ - $ - $ 78,580 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 298,170 $ 2,180,167$ 2,478 $ 16,401 $ 15,375 $ 2,512,591 $ 2,591,1712026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 70,495 $ - $ - $ 70,495 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 368,099 $ 2,037,539$ 3,742 $ 15,379 $ 14,705 $ 2,439,464 $ 2,509,9592027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 64,242 $ - $ - $ 64,242 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 511,186 $ 1,904,242$ 7,245 $ 14,344 $ 14,382 $ 2,451,399 $ 2,515,6412028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 77,299 $ 56 $ 112 $ 77,466 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 260,327 $ 1,617,878 $2,140 $ 16,298 $ 12,688 $ 1,909,331 $ 1,986,7972029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 70,056 $ 52 $ 107 $ 70,215 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 259,120 $ 1,360,832 $3,055 $ 14,259 $ 11,976 $ 1,649,240 $ 1,719,4552030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 91,032 $ 98 $ 204 $ 91,333 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 135,285 $ 989,182 $589 $ 18,695 $ 10,865 $ 1,154,616 $ 1,245,9502031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 58,569 $ - $ - $ 58,569 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 190,201 $ 924,469 $ 2,668 $ 12,398 $ 10,420 $ 1,140,156 $ 1,198,7262032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 86,920 $ 85 $ 187 $ 87,192 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 233,388 $ 617,136 $3,019 $ 17,811 $ 10,060 $ 881,413 $ 968,6062033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 148,067 $ 199 $ 447 $ 148,713 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 29,813 $ 8,675 $ 38,488 $ 187,2012034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 91,965 $ - $ - $ 91,965 $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 18,756 $ 8,108 $ 26,863 $ 118,8292035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 85,949 $ - $ - $ 85,949 $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 17,190 $ 7,577 $ 24,767 $ 110,716Total PV$ 238,398 $ 61,644 $ 1,095,482 $ 1,005,652 $ 869 $ 2,990,900 $2,444 $ 11,131 $ 5,406,520 $ 331,014 $ 7,518,067 $ 200,693 $8,049,773 $ 15,885,505 $ 127,581,994 $ 868,482 $ 609,391 $ 513,932 $ 145,459,303 $ 158,915,596AnnualizedValue$ 20,457 $ 5,290 $ 94,004 $ 86,296 $ 75 $ 256,651 $ 210 $ 955 $ 463,936 $ 28,404 $ 645,129 $17,222 $ 690,755 $ 1,363,143 $ 10,947,877 $ 74,525 $ 52,292 $ 44,101 $ 12,481,938 $ 13,636,630YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-48July 2010C.49 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Unadjusted ValuesGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $ 2,017,3622012$ 10,753,336 $ 267,985 $ 1,681,444 $ 1,085,063 $ 2,396 $ 11,981 $479 $ 4,467 $ 13,807,152 $ 8,533,851 $ 17,421,695 $ 65,341 $26,020,887 $ 1,760,367 $ 13,547 $ - $ 2,396 $ 208,599 $1,984,910 $ 41,812,9482013$ 10,753,336 $ 267,985 $ 1,681,444 $ 1,085,063 $ 2,396 $ 11,981 $479 $ 4,467 $ 13,807,152 $ 8,533,851 $ 17,421,695 $ 65,341 $26,020,887 $ 2,520,562 $ 3,125,551 $ 93,395 $ 2,396 $ 208,779 $5,950,683 $ 45,778,7212014$ 21,506,672 $ 535,971 $ 3,362,888 $ 2,170,127 $ 4,792 $ 23,961 $958 $ 8,934 $ 27,614,303 $ 17,067,702 $ 34,843,389 $ 130,682 $52,041,773 $ 5,041,125 $ 6,251,102 $ 186,789 $ 4,792 $ 208,958 $ 11,692,767 $ 91,348,8432015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,040,781 $ 12,448,015 $ 373,578 $ - $ 209,317 $ 16,071,691 $ 16,071,6912016$ 21,506,672 $ 535,971 $ 3,362,888 $ 2,170,127 $ 4,792 $ 23,961 $958 $ 8,934 $ 27,614,303 $ 17,067,702 $ 34,843,389 $ 130,682 $52,041,773 $ 6,561,515 $ 12,475,109 $ 373,578 $ 4,792 $ 209,317 $ 19,624,312 $ 99,280,3892017$ 56,271,937 $ 1,617,274 $ 9,572,183 $ 5,594,045 $ 17,291 $ 86,453 $3,458 $ 31,786 $ 73,194,427 $ 45,916,975 $ 109,558,488 $ 435,305 $ 155,910,768 $ 14,777,848 $ 18,762,541 $ 616,853 $ 17,291 $ 211,068 $ 34,385,602$ 263,490,7962018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 9,368,245 $ 37,419,843 $ 1,236,988 $ - $ 212,364 $ 48,237,440 $ 48,237,4402019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 10,078,073 $ 37,419,843 $ 1,293,474 $ - $ 213,756 $ 49,005,146 $ 49,005,1462020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 8,658,418 $ 37,419,843 $ 1,180,502 $ - $ 210,973 $ 47,469,735 $ 47,469,7352021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 10,078,073 $ 37,419,843 $ 1,293,474 $ - $ 213,756 $ 49,005,146 $ 49,005,1462022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 722,475 $ 2,124 $ 1,194 $ 725,793 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 12,621,112 $ 34,232,040 $ 1,366,258 $ 144,495 $ 218,926 $ 48,582,831 $ 49,308,6242023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 9,071,974 $ 34,232,040 $1,083,826 $ 36,654 $ 211,966 $ 44,636,461 $ 44,819,7312024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 9,781,802 $ 34,232,040 $1,140,312 $ 36,654 $ 213,358 $ 45,404,167 $ 45,587,4372025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 8,362,147 $ 34,232,040 $1,027,340 $ 36,654 $ 210,575 $ 43,868,755 $ 44,052,0252026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 9,781,802 $ 34,232,040 $1,140,312 $ 106,427 $ 213,358 $ 45,473,940 $ 45,657,2102027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 12,621,112 $ 34,232,040 $1,366,258 $ 36,654 $ 218,926 $ 48,474,990 $ 48,658,2602028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 9,071,974 $ 34,232,040 $1,083,826 $ 36,654 $ 211,966 $ 44,636,461 $ 44,819,7312029$ 542,387 $ 170,065 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,782,766 $ 2,396 $ 195,251 $479 $ 4,467 $ 4,208,940 $ 1,693,749 $ 10,370,562 $ 276,840 $12,341,151 $ 10,154,565 $ 34,287,887 $ 1,140,312 $ 39,050 $ 213,358 $ 45,835,173 $ 62,385,2632030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 8,631,117 $ 37,770,785 $1,330,114 $ 36,654 $ 210,754 $ 47,979,424 $ 48,162,6942031$ 542,387 $ 170,065 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,782,766 $ 2,396 $ 195,251 $479 $ 4,467 $ 4,208,940 $ 1,693,749 $ 10,370,562 $ 276,840 $12,341,151 $ 10,423,535 $ 37,826,632 $ 1,443,087 $ 108,823 $ 213,538 $ 50,015,615 $ 66,565,7052032$ 2,169,547 $ 680,261 $ 6,044,515 $ 7,131,065 $ 9,584 $ 231,192 $1,917 $ 17,867 $ 16,285,949 $ 6,774,997 $ 41,482,249 $ 1,107,358 $49,364,604 $ 14,650,103 $ 41,532,919 $ 1,971,806 $ 46,238 $ 219,285 $ 58,420,352 $ 124,070,9042033$ 1,627,160 $ 510,195 $ 4,533,386 $ 5,348,299 $ 7,188 $ 219,212 $1,438 $ 13,400 $ 12,260,279 $ 5,081,248 $ 31,111,686 $ 830,519 $37,023,453 $ 11,804,083 $ 55,632,053 $ 2,900,471 $ 43,842 $ 213,044 $ 70,593,493 $ 119,877,2242034$ 542,387 $ 170,065 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,782,766 $ 2,396 $ 195,251 $479 $ 4,467 $ 4,208,940 $ 1,693,749 $ 10,370,562 $ 276,840 $12,341,151 $ 12,965,565 $ 66,136,594 $ 4,056,193 $ 39,050 $ 216,366 $ 83,413,768 $ 99,963,8592035$ 1,084,774 $ 340,130 $ 3,022,257 $ 3,565,533 $ 4,792 $ 207,231 $958 $ 8,934 $ 8,234,609 $ 3,387,498 $ 20,741,124 $ 553,679 $24,682,302 $ 11,797,372 $ 69,731,186 $ 4,055,081 $ 41,446 $ 212,370 $ 85,837,456 $ 118,754,367Total$ 127,300,594 $ 5,265,969 $ 37,794,393 $ 33,497,621 $ 60,421 $ 3,407,088 $14,208 $ 1,922,146 $ 209,262,439 $ 117,445,072 $ 338,535,402 $ 4,149,425 $ 460,129,899$ 223,623,270 $ 785,297,576 $ 31,753,826 $ 820,964 $ 5,313,279 $ 1,046,808,915 $ 1,716,201,252One -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MTOTALYearDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-49July 2010C.50 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 227,584 $ 227,584 $ 2,036,3472012$ 10,440,132 $ 260,180 $ 1,632,470 $ 1,053,459 $ 2,326 $ 11,632 $465 $ 4,096 $ 13,404,761 $ 8,285,292 $ 16,914,267 $ 63,438 $25,262,997 $ 1,709,094 $ 13,153 $ - $ 2,326 $ 202,523 $1,927,097 $ 40,594,8542013$ 10,136,050 $ 252,602 $ 1,584,922 $ 1,022,776 $ 2,259 $ 11,293 $452 $ 3,977 $ 13,014,331 $ 8,043,973 $ 16,421,618 $ 61,590 $24,527,181 $ 2,375,872 $ 2,946,132 $ 88,033 $ 2,259 $ 196,790 $5,609,085 $ 43,150,5972014$ 19,681,651 $ 490,489 $ 3,077,519 $ 1,985,973 $ 4,386 $ 21,928 $877 $ 7,722 $ 25,270,545 $ 15,619,365 $ 31,886,637 $ 119,593 $47,625,595 $ 4,613,343 $ 5,720,644 $ 170,938 $ 4,386 $ 191,219 $ 10,700,530 $ 83,596,6702015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,701,694 $ 11,059,900 $ 331,919 $ - $ 185,961 $ 14,279,474 $ 14,279,4742016$ 18,551,844 $ 462,333 $ 2,900,857 $ 1,871,970 $ 4,134 $ 20,669 $827 $ 7,278 $ 23,819,913 $ 14,722,750 $ 30,056,214 $ 112,727 $44,891,691 $ 5,660,021 $ 10,761,139 $ 322,252 $ 4,134 $ 180,545 $ 16,928,090 $ 85,639,6932017$ 47,126,861 $ 1,354,441 $ 8,016,553 $ 4,684,924 $ 14,481 $ 72,403 $2,896 $ 25,582 $ 61,298,141 $ 38,454,744 $ 91,753,509 $ 364,561 $ 130,572,814 $ 12,376,215 $ 15,713,333 $ 516,605 $ 14,481 $ 176,718 $ 28,797,352$ 220,668,3072018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 7,617,241 $ 30,425,757 $ 1,005,784 $ - $ 172,608 $ 39,221,390 $ 39,221,3902019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 7,955,724 $ 29,539,570 $ 1,021,081 $ - $ 168,654 $ 38,685,027 $ 38,685,0272020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 6,635,956 $ 28,679,194 $ 904,756 $ - $ 161,658 $ 36,381,564 $ 36,381,5642021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 7,499,033 $ 27,843,877 $ 962,466 $ - $ 158,972 $ 36,464,349 $ 36,464,3492022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 521,931 $ 1,534 $ 863 $ 524,328 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 9,117,760 $ 24,729,954 $987,014 $ 104,386 $ 157,983 $ 35,097,097 $ 35,621,4252023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 128,542 $ - $ - $ 128,542 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,362,900 $ 24,009,664 $760,174 $ 25,708 $ 148,614 $ 31,307,061 $ 31,435,6032024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 124,798 $ - $ - $ 124,798 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,660,931 $ 23,310,354 $776,497 $ 24,960 $ 145,211 $ 30,917,953 $ 31,042,7512025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 121,163 $ - $ - $ 121,163 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 5,528,364 $ 22,631,411 $679,192 $ 24,233 $ 139,184 $ 29,002,385 $ 29,123,5482026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 117,634 $ - $ - $ 117,634 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,278,566 $ 21,972,244 $731,923 $ 68,311 $ 136,875 $ 29,187,920 $ 29,305,5542027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 114,208 $ - $ - $ 114,208 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 7,865,060 $ 21,332,276 $851,407 $ 22,842 $ 136,277 $ 30,207,861 $ 30,322,0692028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 110,881 $ - $ - $ 110,881 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 5,488,694 $ 20,710,947 $655,733 $ 22,176 $ 128,196 $ 27,005,746 $ 27,116,6272029$ 318,595 $ 99,895 $ 887,629 $ 1,047,187 $ 1,407 $ 114,689 $281 $ 1,429 $ 2,471,114 $ 994,899 $ 6,091,612 $ 162,614$ 7,249,125 $ 5,964,737 $ 20,140,520 $ 669,813 $ 22,938 $ 125,260 $26,923,268 $ 36,643,5072030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 104,516 $ - $ - $ 104,516 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 4,922,205 $ 21,540,151 $758,545 $ 20,903 $ 120,119 $ 27,361,924 $ 27,466,4402031$ 300,306 $ 94,161 $ 836,675 $ 987,075 $ 1,327 $ 108,106$ 265 $ 1,347 $ 2,329,261 $ 937,788 $ 5,741,929 $ 153,279$ 6,832,996 $ 5,771,258 $ 20,943,689 $ 799,002 $ 60,253 $ 118,125 $27,692,328 $ 36,854,5852032$ 1,166,238 $ 365,674 $ 3,249,225 $ 3,833,299 $ 5,152 $ 124,277 $1,030 $ 5,230 $ 8,750,126 $ 3,641,895 $ 22,298,753 $ 595,259 $26,535,907 $ 7,875,152 $ 22,325,991 $ 1,059,943 $ 24,855 $ 117,662 $ 31,403,603 $ 66,689,6362033$ 849,203 $ 266,267 $ 2,365,940 $ 2,791,237 $ 3,752 $ 114,405 $750 $ 3,808 $ 6,395,363 $ 2,651,865 $ 16,236,956 $ 433,441 $19,322,262 $ 6,160,462 $ 29,033,951 $ 1,513,734 $ 22,881 $ 110,897 $ 36,841,925 $ 62,559,5502034$ 274,823 $ 86,171 $ 765,676 $ 903,313 $ 1,214 $ 98,932$ 243 $ 1,233 $ 2,131,604 $ 858,209 $ 5,254,678 $ 140,272 $ 6,253,159 $ 6,569,545 $ 33,510,867 $ 2,055,239 $ 19,786 $ 108,901 $42,264,338 $ 50,649,1022035$ 533,637 $ 167,322 $ 1,486,750 $ 1,754,006 $ 2,357 $ 101,944 $471 $ 2,393 $ 4,048,881 $ 1,666,425 $ 10,203,259 $ 272,373 $12,142,057 $ 5,803,525 $ 34,303,123 $ 1,994,831 $ 20,389 $ 104,059 $ 42,225,927 $ 58,416,865Total PV$ 109,379,342 $ 3,899,535 $ 26,804,217 $ 21,935,220 $ 42,794 $ 2,143,951 $10,093 $ 1,873,720 $ 166,088,873 $ 95,877,204 $ 252,859,431 $ 2,479,149 $ 351,215,784$ 149,513,354 $ 503,197,839 $ 19,616,883 $ 512,206 $ 3,801,611 $ 676,641,893 $ 1,193,946,550AnnualizedValue$ 6,281,423 $ 223,942 $ 1,539,309 $ 1,259,693 $ 2,458 $ 123,123 $580 $ 107,604 $ 9,538,130 $ 5,506,024 $ 14,521,179 $ 142,372 $20,169,575 $ 8,586,234 $ 28,897,581 $ 1,126,556 $ 29,415 $ 218,318 $ 38,858,103 $ 68,565,809YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-50July 2010C.51 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 227,584 $ 227,584 $ 2,036,3472012$ 10,049,847 $ 250,454 $ 1,571,443 $ 1,014,078 $ 2,239 $ 11,197 $448 $ 4,239 $ 12,903,945 $ 7,975,562 $ 16,281,958 $ 61,066 $24,318,586 $ 1,645,203 $ 12,661 $ - $ 2,239 $ 194,952 $1,855,056 $ 39,077,5862013$ 9,392,380 $ 234,069 $ 1,468,638 $ 947,736 $ 2,093 $ 10,464 $419 $ 4,025 $ 12,059,824 $ 7,453,796 $ 15,216,783 $ 57,071 $22,727,650 $ 2,201,557 $ 2,729,977 $ 81,574 $ 2,093 $ 182,361 $5,197,562 $ 39,985,0372014$ 17,555,851 $ 437,512 $ 2,745,119 $ 1,771,470 $ 3,912 $ 19,559 $782 $ 7,646 $ 22,541,850 $ 13,932,329 $ 28,442,585 $ 106,675 $42,481,589 $ 4,115,060 $ 5,102,761 $ 152,475 $ 3,912 $ 170,587 $9,544,795 $ 74,568,2352015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,319,797 $ 9,496,531 $ 285,001 $ - $ 159,725 $ 12,261,054 $ 12,261,0542016$ 15,333,960 $ 382,140 $ 2,397,693 $ 1,547,270 $ 3,417 $ 17,084 $683 $ 6,904 $ 19,689,151 $ 12,169,036 $ 24,842,855 $ 93,174 $37,105,065 $ 4,678,270 $ 8,894,581 $ 266,356 $ 3,417 $ 149,285 $ 13,991,909 $ 70,786,1252017$ 37,496,368 $ 1,077,658 $ 6,378,350 $ 3,727,548 $ 11,521 $ 57,607 $2,304 $ 23,424 $ 48,774,781 $ 30,596,419 $ 73,003,446 $ 290,062 $ 103,889,928 $ 9,847,104 $ 12,502,273 $ 411,035 $ 11,521 $ 140,821 $ 22,912,755 $ 175,577,4642018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,834,072 $ 23,303,198 $ 770,334 $ - $ 132,552 $ 30,040,155 $ 30,040,1552019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,865,530 $ 21,778,689 $ 752,814 $ - $ 124,858 $ 28,521,891 $ 28,521,8912020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,709,606 $ 20,353,915 $ 642,115 $ - $ 114,978 $ 25,820,614 $ 25,820,6142021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,123,181 $ 19,022,351 $ 657,537 $ - $ 109,174 $ 24,912,243 $ 24,912,2432022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 343,243 $ 1,009 $ 698 $ 344,950 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,996,199 $ 16,263,396 $649,099 $ 68,649 $ 105,080 $ 23,082,423 $ 23,427,3722023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 81,374 $ - $ - $ 81,374 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,028,065 $ 15,199,435$ 481,232 $ 16,275 $ 94,479 $ 19,819,485 $ 19,900,8602024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 76,051 $ - $ - $ 76,051 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,059,100 $ 14,205,080$ 473,189 $ 15,210 $ 89,066 $ 18,841,645 $ 18,917,6962025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 71,075 $ - $ - $ 71,075 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,242,985 $ 13,275,775$ 398,420 $ 14,215 $ 81,891 $ 17,013,286 $ 17,084,3612026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 66,425 $ - $ - $ 66,425 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,545,375 $ 12,407,267$ 413,302 $ 38,574 $ 77,888 $ 16,482,405 $ 16,548,8312027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 62,080 $ - $ - $ 62,080 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,275,207 $ 11,595,576$ 462,799 $ 12,416 $ 75,388 $ 16,421,386 $ 16,483,4662028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 58,019 $ - $ - $ 58,019 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,871,955 $ 10,836,987$ 343,112 $ 11,604 $ 67,510 $ 14,131,167 $ 14,189,1862029$ 160,473 $ 50,316 $ 447,088 $ 527,456 $ 709 $ 57,768$ 142 $ 1,322 $ 1,245,273 $ 501,119 $ 3,068,275 $ 81,907 $ 3,651,301 $ 3,004,369 $ 10,144,549 $ 337,377 $ 11,554 $ 63,706 $13,561,555 $ 18,458,1292030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 50,676 $ - $ - $ 50,676 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,386,576 $ 10,443,937$ 367,788 $ 10,135 $ 58,518 $ 13,266,954 $ 13,317,6292031$ 140,163 $ 43,948 $ 390,504 $ 460,701 $ 619 $ 50,456$ 124 $ 1,154 $ 1,087,670 $ 437,697 $ 2,679,950 $ 71,541 $ 3,189,188 $ 2,693,639 $ 9,775,121 $ 372,921 $ 28,122 $ 55,771 $12,925,574 $ 17,202,4322032$ 523,974 $ 164,292 $ 1,459,829 $ 1,722,246 $ 2,315 $ 55,836 $463 $ 4,315 $ 3,933,270 $ 1,636,250 $ 10,018,506 $ 267,441 $11,922,198 $ 3,538,192 $ 10,030,743 $ 476,217 $ 11,167 $ 54,240 $14,110,560 $ 29,966,0272033$ 367,272 $ 115,158 $ 1,023,245 $ 1,207,182 $ 1,623 $ 49,479 $325 $ 3,025 $ 2,767,306 $ 1,146,905 $ 7,022,317 $ 187,459 $8,356,681 $ 2,664,337 $ 12,556,887 $ 654,674 $ 9,896 $ 48,505 $15,934,298 $ 27,058,2852034$ 114,415 $ 35,875 $ 318,768 $ 376,069 $ 505 $ 41,188$ 101 $ 942 $ 887,863 $ 357,291 $ 2,187,638 $ 58,398 $ 2,603,327 $ 2,735,046 $ 13,951,308 $ 855,641 $ 8,238 $ 46,231 $17,596,464 $ 21,087,6542035$ 213,859 $ 67,056 $ 595,828 $ 702,933 $ 945 $ 40,855$ 189 $ 1,761 $ 1,623,425 $ 667,834 $ 4,089,043 $ 109,156 $ 4,866,032 $ 2,325,812 $ 13,747,268 $ 799,445 $ 8,171 $ 42,112 $16,922,808 $ 23,412,266Total PV$ 91,348,560 $ 2,858,476 $ 18,796,506 $ 14,004,688 $ 29,898 $ 1,220,435 $6,989 $ 1,868,219 $ 130,133,771 $ 76,874,238 $ 186,853,356 $ 1,383,952 $ 265,111,545 $ 93,706,237 $ 297,630,266 $ 11,104,457 $ 287,407 $ 2,648,277 $ 405,376,643 $ 800,621,960AnnualizedValue$ 7,838,667 $ 245,287 $ 1,612,938 $ 1,201,750 $ 2,566 $ 104,726 $600 $ 160,313 $ 11,166,846 $ 6,596,618 $ 16,033,983 $ 118,758 $22,749,359 $ 8,040,981 $ 25,539,807 $ 952,879 $ 24,663 $ 227,250 $ 34,785,579 $ 68,701,784YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-51July 2010C.52 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Unadjusted ValuesGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL2011$ 1,627,160 $ 510,195 $ 4,533,386 $ 5,348,299 $ 7,188 $ 219,212 $1,438 $ 35,126 $ 12,282,005 $ 5,081,248 $ 31,111,686 $ 830,519 $37,023,453 $ 14,538,936 $ 76,885,194 $ 4,964,515 $ 113,615 $ 224,337 $ 96,726,598 $ 146,032,0552012$ 542,387 $ 170,065 $ 1,511,129 $ 1,782,766 $ 2,396 $ 195,251 $479 $ 11,709 $ 4,216,182 $ 1,693,749 $ 10,370,562 $ 276,840 $12,341,151 $ 18,596,486 $ 87,375,955 $ 6,671,522 $ 39,050 $ 243,818 $ 112,926,831 $ 129,484,1642013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 14,546,306 $ 90,851,963 $6,500,951 $ 36,654 $ 228,335 $ 112,164,210 $ 112,347,4802014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 14,858,884 $ 90,845,073 $6,366,525 $ 36,654 $ 228,335 $ 112,335,471 $ 112,518,7412015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,529,190 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 1,531,170 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 13,177,238 $ 87,313,218 $ 5,950,778 $ 305,838 $ 222,721 $ 106,969,792 $ 108,500,9622016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 337,244 $ - $ - $ 337,244 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 15,370,456 $ 87,306,328 $6,445,576 $ 137,222 $ 233,269 $ 109,492,852 $ 109,830,0962017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,683,165 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 1,685,144 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 18,310,131 $ 83,746,912 $ 6,559,661 $ 336,633 $ 246,115 $ 109,199,452 $ 110,884,5962018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 5,874,900 $ 3,834 $ 4,083 $ 5,882,818 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 12,911,551 $ 69,598,822 $ 4,684,306 $ 1,174,980 $ 226,294 $ 88,595,952 $ 94,478,7702019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 5,144,878 $ 2,875 $ 3,063 $ 5,150,816 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 12,047,884 $ 58,996,366 $ 3,450,644 $ 1,256,278 $ 222,636 $ 75,973,808 $ 81,124,6242020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,914,960 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 2,916,940 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 10,742,551 $ 55,450,731 $ 3,225,810 $ 582,992 $ 219,658 $ 70,221,743 $ 73,138,6832021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 4,414,855 $ 1,917 $ 2,042 $ 4,418,814 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 12,007,559 $ 48,366,351 $ 2,924,148 $ 1,192,501 $ 226,889 $ 64,717,447 $ 69,136,2612022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 6,068,725 $ 2,875 $ 3,063 $ 6,074,662 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 13,273,374 $ 37,763,895 $ 1,859,945 $ 2,172,773 $ 231,143 $ 55,301,130 $ 61,375,7922023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,838,807 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 3,840,786 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 9,071,974 $ 34,232,040 $ 1,083,826 $ 1,487,032 $ 214,979 $ 46,089,852 $ 49,930,6382024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,646,861 $ - $ - $ 2,646,861 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 9,781,802 $ 34,232,040 $1,140,312 $ 996,432 $ 217,617 $ 46,368,203 $ 49,015,0642025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,492,887 $ - $ - $ 2,492,887 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 8,362,147 $ 34,232,040 $1,027,340 $ 978,091 $ 212,342 $ 44,811,960 $ 47,304,8472026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,492,887 $ - $ - $ 2,492,887 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 9,781,802 $ 34,232,040 $1,140,312 $ 1,527,378 $ 217,617 $ 46,899,149 $ 49,392,0362027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,338,912 $ - $ - $ 2,338,912 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 12,621,112 $ 34,232,040 $1,366,258 $ 1,666,567 $ 228,165 $ 50,114,142 $ 52,453,0552028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,534,341 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 2,536,320 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 8,311,779 $ 31,120,037 $ 990,431 $ 1,226,139 $ 214,639 $ 41,863,025 $ 44,399,3452029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,562,138 $ 958 $ 1,021 $ 2,564,118 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 8,261,412 $ 28,008,033 $ 953,523 $ 979,487 $ 216,936 $ 38,419,391 $ 40,983,5092030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,709,211 $ 1,917 $ 2,042 $ 3,713,170 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,321,366 $ 21,784,026 $ 653,762 $ 1,221,356 $ 210,981 $ 29,191,490 $ 32,904,6602031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,758,052 $ - $ - $ 2,758,052 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,741,021 $ 21,784,026 $766,734 $ 1,580,411 $ 216,255 $ 31,088,448 $ 33,846,4992032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,918,781 $ 1,917 $ 2,042 $ 3,922,740 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 7,350,113 $ 15,560,018 $ 749,405 $ 2,643,551 $ 223,486 $ 26,526,573 $ 30,449,3132033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 7,178,228 $ 4,792 $ 5,104 $ 7,188,124 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ -$ - $ 2,815,926 $ 208,599 $ 3,024,525 $ 10,212,6492034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 5,570,201 $ - $ - $ 5,570,201 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 2,903,119 $ 208,599 $ 3,111,718 $ 8,681,9192035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 5,570,201 $ - $ - $ 5,570,201 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 1,593,554 $ 208,599 $ 1,802,153 $ 7,372,354Total$ 2,169,547 $ 680,261 $ 6,044,515 $ 7,131,065 $ 9,584 $ 76,360,426 $27,795 $ 74,397 $ 92,497,591 $ 6,774,997 $ 41,482,249 $ 1,107,358 $49,364,604 $ 255,985,883 $ 1,163,917,150 $ 69,476,285 $ 29,004,234 $ 5,552,365 $ 1,523,935,917 $ 1,665,798,112One -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MTOTALYearDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-52July 2010C.53 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ 777,141 $ 243,672 $ 2,165,170 $ 2,554,377 $ 3,433 $ 104,697 $687 $ 16,776 $ 5,865,954 $ 2,426,832 $ 14,859,115 $ 396,660 $17,682,607 $ 6,943,877 $ 36,720,797 $ 2,371,080 $ 54,263 $ 107,145 $ 46,197,162 $ 69,745,7232012$ 251,502 $ 78,858 $ 700,702 $ 826,659 $ 1,111 $ 90,537$ 222 $ 11,226 $ 1,960,818 $ 785,383 $ 4,808,775 $ 128,369$ 5,722,527 $ 8,623,092 $ 40,515,770 $ 3,093,550 $ 18,107 $ 110,145 $52,360,664 $ 60,044,0082013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 82,506 $ - $ 8,442 $ 90,948 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,548,588 $ 40,900,560 $2,926,657 $ 16,501 $ 101,736 $ 50,494,042 $ 50,584,9892014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 80,103 $ - $ 8,196 $ 88,299 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,494,473 $ 39,706,270 $2,782,660 $ 16,021 $ 99,028 $ 49,098,450 $ 49,186,7492015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 648,906 $ 407 $ 8,199 $ 657,512 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,591,713 $ 37,051,047 $ 2,525,191 $ 129,781 $ 94,319 $ 45,392,051 $ 46,049,5632016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 138,940 $ - $ 7,725 $ 146,666 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,332,424 $ 35,969,051 $2,655,492 $ 56,534 $ 94,477 $ 45,107,978 $ 45,254,6442017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 673,244 $ 383 $ 7,728 $ 681,356 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 7,323,817 $ 33,497,688 $ 2,623,780 $ 134,649 $ 95,525 $ 43,675,459 $ 44,356,8152018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,281,441 $ 1,489 $ 8,167 $ 2,291,097 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,014,033 $ 27,027,800 $ 1,819,090 $ 456,288 $ 87,316 $ 34,404,527 $ 36,695,6242019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,939,754 $ 1,084 $ 7,714 $ 1,948,552 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,542,368 $ 22,243,179 $ 1,300,983 $ 473,650 $ 84,223 $ 28,644,403 $ 30,592,9552020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,067,006 $ 351 $ 7,072 $ 1,074,430 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,932,256 $ 20,297,457 $ 1,180,791 $ 213,401 $ 80,735 $ 25,704,641 $ 26,779,0712021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,568,966 $ 681 $ 7,069 $ 1,576,716 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,267,287 $ 17,188,598 $ 1,039,194 $ 423,795 $ 80,232 $ 22,999,105 $ 24,575,8212022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,093,907 $ 992 $ 7,059 $ 2,101,958 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,579,744 $ 13,029,768 $ 641,741 $ 749,677 $ 79,518 $ 19,080,449 $ 21,182,4082023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,285,935 $ 321 $ 6,472 $ 1,292,728 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,038,957 $ 11,467,149 $ 363,063 $ 498,130 $ 73,205 $ 15,440,505 $ 16,733,2332024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 860,828 $ - $ 6,098 $ 866,927 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 3,181,298 $ 11,133,155 $370,859 $ 324,066 $ 71,741 $ 15,081,118 $ 15,948,0452025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 787,138 $ - $ 5,921 $ 793,059 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 2,640,378 $ 10,808,888 $324,386 $ 308,836 $ 68,354 $ 14,150,842 $ 14,943,9002026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 764,211 $ - $ 5,748 $ 769,960 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 2,998,678 $ 10,494,066 $349,571 $ 468,228 $ 67,623 $ 14,378,166 $ 15,148,1262027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 696,126 $ - $ 5,581 $ 701,707 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 3,756,396 $ 10,188,414 $406,637 $ 496,017 $ 68,099 $ 14,915,562 $ 15,617,2692028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 732,321 $ 277 $ 5,648 $ 738,246 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,401,765 $ 8,992,422 $286,194 $ 354,304 $ 63,071 $ 12,097,756 $ 12,836,0022029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 718,790 $ 269 $ 5,484 $ 724,542 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,317,681 $ 7,857,456 $267,504 $ 274,788 $ 61,736 $ 10,779,164 $ 11,503,7072030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,010,284 $ 522 $ 5,541 $ 1,016,347 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,449,390 $ 5,933,354 $ 178,066 $ 332,663 $ 58,674 $ 7,952,147 $ 8,968,4942031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 729,335 $ - $ 4,959 $ 734,294 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 1,782,586 $ 5,760,538 $202,754 $ 417,922 $ 58,051 $ 8,221,852 $ 8,956,1452032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,006,094 $ 492 $ 5,222 $ 1,011,809 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,887,043 $ 3,994,825 $ 192,400 $ 678,696 $ 57,807 $ 6,810,770 $ 7,822,5792033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,789,236 $ 1,195 $ 5,665 $ 1,796,096 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ -$ - $ 701,894 $ 53,233 $ 755,127 $ 2,551,2222034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,347,982 $ - $ 4,538 $ 1,352,520 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 702,551 $ 51,682 $ 754,233 $ 2,106,7532035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,308,720 $ - $ 4,406 $ 1,313,126 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 374,406 $ 50,177 $ 424,583 $ 1,737,709Total PV$ 1,028,643 $ 322,530 $ 2,865,873 $ 3,381,037 $ 4,544 $ 23,807,010 $9,372 $ 176,655 $ 31,595,664 $ 3,212,215 $ 19,667,890 $ 525,029 $23,405,134 $ 95,647,845 $ 450,778,251 $ 27,901,643 $ 8,675,170 $ 1,917,849 $ 584,920,757 $639,921,554AnnualizedValue$ 59,073 $ 18,522 $ 164,581 $ 194,166 $ 261 $ 1,367,186$ 538 $ 10,145 $ 1,814,472 $ 184,471 $ 1,129,485 $ 30,151 $ 1,344,107 $ 5,492,852 $ 25,887,235 $ 1,602,332 $ 498,197 $ 110,138 $33,590,754 $ 36,749,332YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-53July 2010C.54 Regulatory Alternative 3 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ 299,803 $ 94,003 $ 835,273 $ 985,420 $ 1,324 $ 40,390$ 265 $ 6,472 $ 2,262,949 $ 936,216 $ 5,732,303 $ 153,022 $ 6,821,541 $ 2,678,787 $ 14,166,034 $ 914,708 $ 20,934 $ 41,334 $17,821,796 $ 26,906,2862012$ 93,397 $ 29,284 $ 260,210 $ 306,984 $ 413 $ 33,621 $ 83 $ 2,016 $ 726,007 $ 291,656 $ 1,785,764 $47,671 $ 2,125,091 $ 3,202,231 $ 15,045,746 $ 1,148,806 $ 6,724 $ 43,245 $19,446,752 $ 22,297,8502013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 29,494 $ - $ - $ 29,494 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,340,942 $ 14,620,840$ 1,046,200 $ 5,899 $ 37,154 $ 18,051,035 $ 18,080,5292014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 27,564 $ - $ - $ 27,564 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,234,809 $ 13,663,300$ 957,539 $ 5,513 $ 34,914 $ 16,896,075 $ 16,923,6392015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 214,947 $ 135 $ 143 $ 215,226 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,852,230 $ 12,272,992 $836,458 $ 42,989 $ 31,541 $ 15,036,210 $ 15,251,4352016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 44,303 $ - $ - $ 44,303 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,019,172 $ 11,469,181$ 846,737 $ 18,026 $ 31,203 $ 14,384,320 $ 14,428,6222017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 206,647 $ 118 $ 125 $ 206,890 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,247,990 $ 10,281,860 $805,349 $ 41,329 $ 31,415 $ 13,407,944 $ 13,614,8342018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 674,093 $ 440 $ 469 $ 675,001 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,481,486 $ 7,985,847 $537,483 $ 134,819 $ 26,351 $ 10,165,985 $ 10,840,9862019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 551,709 $ 308 $ 328 $ 552,346 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,291,951 $ 6,326,458 $370,029 $ 134,717 $ 24,412 $ 8,147,566 $ 8,699,9122020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 292,135 $ 96 $ 102 $ 292,334 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,076,611 $ 5,557,236 $323,289 $ 58,427 $ 22,234 $ 7,037,797 $ 7,330,1312021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 413,508 $ 180 $ 191 $ 413,879 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,124,663 $ 4,530,135 $273,884 $ 111,693 $ 21,773 $ 6,062,148 $ 6,476,0272022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 531,229 $ 252 $ 268 $ 531,748 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,161,891 $ 3,305,680 $162,811 $ 190,195 $ 21,347 $ 4,841,923 $ 5,373,6722023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 314,048 $ 78 $ 84 $ 314,210 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 742,168 $ 2,800,483 $88,667 $ 121,652 $ 17,944 $ 3,770,914 $ 4,085,1252024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 202,371 $ - $ - $ 202,371 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 747,886 $ 2,617,274$ 87,185 $ 76,184 $ 17,134 $ 3,545,663 $ 3,748,0342025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 178,129 $ - $ - $ 178,129 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 597,517 $ 2,446,051$ 73,409 $ 69,890 $ 15,375 $ 3,202,241 $ 3,380,3702026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 166,476 $ - $ - $ 166,476 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 653,232 $ 2,286,029$ 76,150 $ 101,999 $ 15,010 $ 3,132,421 $ 3,298,8972027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 145,975 $ - $ - $ 145,975 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 787,703 $ 2,136,475$ 85,270 $ 104,013 $ 15,257 $ 3,128,720 $ 3,274,6952028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 147,824 $ 56 $ 112 $ 147,992 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 484,814 $ 1,815,187 $57,770 $ 71,519 $ 12,827 $ 2,442,118 $ 2,590,1102029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 139,669 $ 52 $ 107 $ 139,828 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 450,352 $ 1,526,793 $51,979 $ 53,394 $ 12,242 $ 2,094,761 $ 2,234,5892030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 188,971 $ 98 $ 204 $ 189,273 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 271,105 $ 1,109,818 $33,307 $ 62,224 $ 10,865 $ 1,487,319 $ 1,676,5922031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 131,320 $ - $ - $ 131,320 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 320,964 $ 1,037,213$ 36,507 $ 75,249 $ 10,664 $ 1,480,596 $ 1,611,9172032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 174,380 $ 85 $ 187 $ 174,652 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 327,070 $ 692,399 $33,347 $ 117,634 $ 10,643 $ 1,181,093 $ 1,355,7462033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 298,524 $ 199 $ 447 $ 299,170 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 117,107 $ 8,675 $ 125,782 $ 424,9522034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 216,496 $ - $ - $ 216,496 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 112,835 $ 8,108 $ 120,942 $ 337,4382035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 202,333 $ - $ - $ 202,333 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 57,884 $ 7,577 $ 65,462 $ 267,794Total PV$ 393,200 $ 123,288 $ 1,095,482 $ 1,292,404 $ 1,737 $ 5,566,158 $2,444 $ 11,254 $ 8,485,967 $ 1,227,872 $ 7,518,067 $ 200,693 $8,946,631 $ 28,095,574 $ 137,693,031 $ 8,846,884 $ 1,912,850 $ 529,246 $ 177,077,585 $ 194,510,183AnnualizedValue$ 33,741 $ 10,579 $ 94,004 $ 110,902 $ 149 $ 477,635 $ 210 $ 966 $ 728,185 $ 105,364 $ 645,129 $17,222 $ 767,715 $ 2,410,896 $ 11,815,510 $ 759,156 $ 164,143 $ 45,415$ 15,195,119 $ 16,691,019YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-54July 2010Geologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 208,599 $ 208,599 $ 2,017,3622012$ 14,094,198 $ 247,825 $ 1,588,519 $ 1,316,330 $ 2,270 $ 11,350 $454 $ 4,083 $ 17,265,029 $ 8,134,510 $ 17,065,792 $ 70,794 $25,271,097 $ 1,676,467 $ 14,613 $ - $ 2,270 $ 208,599 $ 1,901,949 $ 44,438,0752013$ 14,094,198 $ 247,825 $ 1,588,519 $ 1,316,330 $ 2,270 $ 11,350 $454 $ 4,083 $ 17,265,029 $ 8,134,510 $ 17,065,792 $ 70,794 $25,271,097 $ 2,398,334 $ 3,001,622 $ 344,859 $ 2,270 $ 209,117$ 5,956,202 $ 48,492,3272014$ 28,188,395 $ 495,650 $ 3,177,038 $ 2,632,661 $ 4,540 $ 22,700 $908 $ 8,167 $ 34,530,058 $ 16,269,020 $ 34,131,585 $ 141,588 $50,542,193 $ 4,796,668 $ 6,003,245 $ 689,718 $ 4,540 $ 209,634 $11,703,805 $ 96,776,0562015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,887,467 $ 11,948,038 $ 1,379,436 $ - $ 210,669 $ 16,425,611 $ 16,425,6112016$ 28,188,395 $ 495,650 $ 3,177,038 $ 2,632,661 $ 4,540 $ 22,700 $908 $ 8,167 $ 34,530,058 $ 16,269,020 $ 34,131,585 $ 141,588 $50,542,193 $ 6,240,401 $ 11,977,264 $ 1,379,436 $ 4,540 $ 210,669 $19,812,310 $ 104,884,5622017$ 74,430,900 $ 1,516,472 $ 9,107,556 $ 6,797,913 $ 16,660 $ 83,300 $3,332 $ 29,969 $ 91,986,102 $ 43,948,521 $ 108,347,687 $ 478,170 $ 152,774,377 $ 14,724,585 $ 18,021,023 $ 2,069,155 $ 16,660 $ 213,065 $35,044,488 $ 279,804,9672018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 9,561,014 $ 36,079,583 $ 4,398,466 $ - $ 216,863 $ 50,255,927 $ 50,255,9272019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 10,861,400 $ 36,079,583 $ 4,398,466 $ - $ 218,224 $ 51,557,674 $ 51,557,6742020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 8,260,628 $ 36,079,583 $ 4,398,466 $ - $ 215,502 $ 48,954,180 $ 48,954,1802021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 10,861,400 $ 36,079,583 $ 4,398,466 $ - $ 218,224 $ 51,557,674 $ 51,557,6742022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 722,475 $ 2,124 $ 1,194 $ 725,793 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 15,742,848 $ 32,857,104 $3,793,450 $ 144,495 $ 222,458 $ 52,760,356 $ 53,486,1492023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 9,240,920 $ 32,857,104 $3,793,450 $ 36,654 $ 215,653 $ 46,143,782 $ 46,327,0522024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 10,541,306 $ 32,857,104 $3,793,450 $ 36,654 $ 217,014 $ 47,445,528 $ 47,628,7982025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 7,940,535 $ 32,857,104 $3,793,450 $ 36,654 $ 214,292 $ 44,842,035 $ 45,025,3052026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 10,541,306 $ 32,857,104 $3,793,450 $ 165,580 $ 217,014 $ 47,574,455 $ 47,757,7252027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 15,742,848 $ 32,857,104 $3,793,450 $ 36,654 $ 222,458 $ 52,652,515 $ 52,835,7852028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 9,240,920 $ 32,857,104 $3,793,450 $ 36,654 $ 215,653 $ 46,143,782 $ 46,327,0522029$ 828,292 $ 157,491 $ 1,428,732 $ 1,689,530 $ 2,270 $ 194,620 $454 $ 4,083 $ 4,305,473 $ 1,628,886 $ 9,908,625 $ 300,875 $11,838,386 $ 10,898,581 $ 32,917,733 $ 3,793,450 $ 38,924 $ 217,014 $47,865,703 $ 64,009,5622030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 8,202,510 $ 36,245,265 $4,868,226 $ 36,654 $ 214,809 $ 49,567,464 $ 49,750,7342031$ 828,292 $ 157,491 $ 1,428,732 $ 1,689,530 $ 2,270 $ 194,620 $454 $ 4,083 $ 4,305,473 $ 1,628,886 $ 9,908,625 $ 300,875 $11,838,386 $ 11,160,556 $ 36,305,894 $ 4,868,226 $ 167,850 $ 217,531 $52,720,058 $ 68,863,9172032$ 3,313,167 $ 629,966 $ 5,714,929 $ 6,758,120 $ 9,080 $ 228,670 $1,816 $ 16,334 $ 16,672,081 $ 6,515,545 $ 39,634,501 $ 1,203,498 $47,353,544 $ 17,695,900 $ 39,875,941 $ 5,943,002 $ 45,734 $ 223,493 $63,784,071 $ 127,809,6972033$ 2,484,875 $ 472,474 $ 4,286,197 $ 5,068,590 $ 6,810 $ 217,320 $1,362 $ 12,250 $ 12,549,879 $ 4,886,659 $ 29,725,876 $ 902,624 $35,515,158 $ 11,884,596 $ 53,367,955 $ 10,242,107 $ 43,464 $ 218,758 $75,756,880 $ 123,821,9172034$ 828,292 $ 157,491 $ 1,428,732 $ 1,689,530 $ 2,270 $ 194,620 $454 $ 4,083 $ 4,305,473 $ 1,628,886 $ 9,908,625 $ 300,875 $11,838,386 $ 13,884,389 $ 63,411,179 $ 13,466,435 $ 38,924 $ 223,033 $91,023,960 $ 107,167,8192035$ 1,656,584 $ 314,983 $ 2,857,465 $ 3,379,060 $ 4,540 $ 205,970 $908 $ 8,167 $ 8,427,676 $ 3,257,773 $ 19,817,251 $ 601,749 $23,676,772 $ 11,274,835 $ 66,859,969 $ 14,541,211 $ 41,194 $ 219,467 $92,936,675 $ 125,041,123Total$ 168,935,587 $ 4,893,319 $ 35,783,456 $ 34,970,254 $ 57,520 $ 3,392,585 $13,628 $ 1,913,426 $ 249,959,777 $ 112,302,217 $ 329,645,945 $ 4,513,428 $ 446,461,589$ 236,260,415 $ 754,267,804 $ 107,733,280 $ 936,369 $ 5,397,814 $ 1,104,595,682 $ 1,801,017,048TOTALC.55 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Unadjusted ValuesYearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-55July 2010C.56 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 227,584 $ 227,584 $ 2,036,3472012$ 13,683,687 $ 240,607 $ 1,542,251 $ 1,277,991 $ 2,204 $ 11,019 $441 $ 3,964 $ 16,762,164 $ 7,897,583 $ 16,568,731 $ 68,732 $24,535,045 $ 1,627,638 $ 14,187 $ - $ 2,204 $ 202,523 $ 1,846,552 $ 43,143,7622013$ 13,285,133 $ 233,599 $ 1,497,331 $ 1,240,768 $ 2,140 $ 10,698 $428 $ 3,849 $ 16,273,946 $ 7,667,556 $ 16,086,146 $ 66,730 $23,820,432 $ 2,260,660 $ 2,829,317 $ 325,063 $ 2,140 $ 197,112$ 5,614,291 $ 45,708,6692014$ 25,796,375 $ 453,590 $ 2,907,439 $ 2,409,257 $ 4,155 $ 20,774 $831 $ 7,474 $ 31,599,895 $ 14,888,458 $ 31,235,235 $ 129,573 $46,253,266 $ 4,389,630 $ 5,493,819 $ 631,190 $ 4,155 $ 191,845 $10,710,639 $ 88,563,8002015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,565,477 $ 10,615,677 $ 1,225,611 $ - $ 187,177 $ 14,593,942 $ 14,593,9422016$ 24,315,557 $ 427,552 $ 2,740,541 $ 2,270,956 $ 3,916 $ 19,581 $783 $ 7,045 $ 29,785,932 $ 14,033,800 $ 29,442,205 $ 122,135 $43,598,140 $ 5,383,025 $ 10,331,693 $ 1,189,914 $ 3,916 $ 181,725 $17,090,273 $ 90,474,3442017$ 62,334,707 $ 1,270,021 $ 7,627,435 $ 5,693,145 $ 13,952 $ 69,762 $2,790 $ 25,098 $ 77,036,912 $ 36,806,194 $ 90,739,482 $ 400,460 $ 127,946,136 $ 12,331,608 $ 15,092,323 $ 1,732,885 $ 13,952 $ 178,439 $29,349,207 $ 234,332,2552018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 7,773,979 $ 29,336,003 $ 3,576,356 $ - $ 176,330 $ 40,862,668 $ 40,862,6682019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 8,574,089 $ 28,481,556 $ 3,472,190 $ - $ 172,268 $ 40,700,104 $ 40,700,1042020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 6,331,084 $ 27,651,996 $ 3,371,058 $ - $ 165,165 $ 37,519,303 $ 37,519,3032021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 8,081,901 $ 26,846,598 $ 3,272,872 $ - $ 162,380 $ 38,363,751 $ 38,363,7512022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 521,931 $ 1,534 $ 863 $ 524,328 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 11,372,968 $ 23,736,671 $2,740,469 $ 104,386 $ 160,709 $ 38,115,204 $ 38,639,5322023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 128,542 $ - $ - $ 128,542 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,481,396 $ 23,045,312 $2,660,650 $ 25,708 $ 151,255 $ 32,364,320 $ 32,492,8622024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 124,798 $ - $ - $ 124,798 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 7,178,116 $ 22,374,089 $2,583,155 $ 24,960 $ 147,776 $ 32,308,096 $ 32,432,8942025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 121,163 $ - $ - $ 121,163 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 5,249,629 $ 21,722,417 $2,507,918 $ 24,233 $ 141,672 $ 29,645,868 $ 29,767,0312026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 117,634 $ - $ - $ 117,634 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,766,063 $ 21,089,725 $2,434,871 $ 106,280 $ 139,293 $ 30,536,232 $ 30,653,8662027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 114,208 $ - $ - $ 114,208 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 9,810,422 $ 20,475,461 $2,363,953 $ 22,842 $ 138,629 $ 32,811,307 $ 32,925,5142028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 110,881 $ - $ - $ 110,881 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 5,590,909 $ 19,879,088 $2,295,100 $ 22,176 $ 130,473 $ 27,917,747 $ 28,028,6282029$ 486,534 $ 92,510 $ 839,230 $ 992,421 $ 1,333 $ 114,319$ 267 $ 1,338 $ 2,527,951 $ 956,799 $ 5,820,273 $ 176,732$ 6,953,804 $ 6,401,768 $ 19,335,699 $ 2,228,252 $ 22,864 $ 127,473 $ 28,116,056 $ 37,597,8112030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 104,516 $ - $ - $ 104,516 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 4,677,777 $ 20,670,168 $2,776,281 $ 20,903 $ 122,372 $ 28,267,502 $ 28,372,0182031$ 458,605 $ 87,199 $ 791,054 $ 935,452 $ 1,257 $ 107,756$ 251 $ 1,261 $ 2,382,836 $ 901,875 $ 5,486,166 $ 166,587$ 6,554,627 $ 6,179,329 $ 20,101,693 $ 2,695,419 $ 92,935 $ 120,315 $ 29,189,691 $ 38,127,1552032$ 1,780,991 $ 338,638 $ 3,072,056 $ 3,632,822 $ 4,881 $ 122,921 $976 $ 4,899 $ 8,958,184 $ 3,502,427 $ 21,305,497 $ 646,939 $25,454,863 $ 9,512,418 $ 21,435,283 $ 3,194,657 $ 24,584 $ 119,893 $34,286,835 $ 68,699,8832033$ 1,296,838 $ 246,581 $ 2,236,934 $ 2,645,259 $ 3,554 $ 113,418 $711 $ 3,567 $ 6,546,861 $ 2,550,311 $ 15,513,712 $ 471,072 $18,535,095 $ 6,202,482 $ 27,852,336 $ 5,345,279 $ 22,684 $ 113,452 $39,536,231 $ 64,618,1872034$ 419,689 $ 79,800 $ 723,927 $ 856,071 $ 1,150 $ 98,612$ 230 $ 1,154 $ 2,180,633 $ 825,343 $ 5,020,619 $ 152,451 $ 5,998,413 $ 7,035,105 $ 32,129,921 $ 6,823,331 $ 19,722 $ 111,661 $ 46,119,741 $ 54,298,7872035$ 814,929 $ 154,951 $ 1,405,683 $ 1,662,274 $ 2,233 $ 101,324 $447 $ 2,241 $ 4,144,082 $ 1,602,608 $ 9,748,774 $ 296,021 $11,647,403 $ 5,546,472 $ 32,890,674 $ 7,153,312 $ 20,265 $ 106,838 $45,717,560 $ 61,509,045Total PV$ 144,673,045 $ 3,625,047 $ 25,383,882 $ 23,616,415 $ 40,776 $ 2,133,859 $9,690 $ 1,871,516 $ 201,354,230 $ 91,632,953 $ 246,966,839 $ 2,697,432 $ 341,297,225$ 157,323,946 $ 483,431,708 $ 66,599,785 $ 580,908 $ 3,855,372 $ 711,791,720 $1,254,443,174AnnualizedValue$ 8,308,265 $ 208,179 $ 1,457,742 $ 1,356,240 $ 2,342 $ 122,543 $556 $ 107,477 $ 11,563,345 $ 5,262,285 $ 14,182,780 $ 154,908 $19,599,973 $ 9,034,779 $ 27,762,454 $ 3,824,684 $ 33,360 $ 221,406 $40,876,683 $ 72,040,001YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-56July 2010C.57 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 1 (2011-2035) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,808,763 $ 1,808,763 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ 227,584 $ 227,584 $ 2,036,3472012$ 13,172,147 $ 231,612 $ 1,484,597 $ 1,230,215 $ 2,121 $ 10,607 $424 $ 3,882 $ 16,135,607 $ 7,602,346 $ 15,949,339 $ 66,163 $23,617,847 $ 1,566,792 $ 13,657 $ - $ 2,121 $ 194,952 $ 1,777,522 $ 41,530,9762013$ 12,310,418 $ 216,460 $ 1,387,474 $ 1,149,734 $ 1,983 $ 9,914 $397 $ 3,691 $ 15,080,070 $ 7,104,996 $ 14,905,924 $ 61,834 $22,072,754 $ 2,094,798 $ 2,621,733 $ 301,213 $ 1,983 $ 182,666$ 5,202,393 $ 42,355,2172014$ 23,010,127 $ 404,598 $ 2,593,409 $ 2,149,035 $ 3,706 $ 18,530 $741 $ 7,023 $ 28,187,170 $ 13,280,367 $ 27,861,540 $ 115,578 $41,257,485 $ 3,915,510 $ 4,900,436 $ 563,016 $ 3,706 $ 171,169 $9,553,836 $ 78,998,4912015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,202,835 $ 9,115,101 $ 1,052,365 $ - $ 160,833 $ 12,531,135 $ 12,531,1352016$ 20,097,936 $ 353,392 $ 2,265,184 $ 1,877,051 $ 3,237 $ 16,185 $647 $ 6,363 $ 24,619,994 $ 11,599,586 $ 24,335,348 $ 100,950 $36,035,885 $ 4,449,320 $ 8,539,623 $ 983,519 $ 3,237 $ 150,341 $14,126,040 $ 74,781,9202017$ 49,596,452 $ 1,010,489 $ 6,068,749 $ 4,529,736 $ 11,101 $ 55,506 $2,220 $ 22,237 $ 61,296,491 $ 29,284,755 $ 72,196,638 $ 318,625 $ 101,800,018 $ 9,811,613 $ 12,008,168 $ 1,378,765 $ 11,101 $ 142,312 $23,351,960 $ 186,448,4692018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,954,119 $ 22,468,551 $ 2,739,144 $ - $ 135,747 $ 31,297,561 $ 31,297,5612019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 6,321,433 $ 20,998,646 $ 2,559,947 $ - $ 127,891 $ 30,007,918 $ 30,007,9182020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,493,235 $ 19,624,903 $ 2,392,474 $ - $ 117,898 $ 26,628,510 $ 26,628,5102021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,521,385 $ 18,341,031 $ 2,235,957 $ - $ 111,937 $ 26,210,310 $ 26,210,3102022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 343,243 $ 1,009 $ 698 $ 344,950 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 7,479,314 $ 15,610,174 $1,802,241 $ 68,649 $ 107,204 $ 25,067,580 $ 25,412,5302023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 81,374 $ - $ - $ 81,374 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,103,079 $ 14,588,947$ 1,684,337 $ 16,275 $ 96,555 $ 20,489,194 $ 20,570,5682024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 76,051 $ - $ - $ 76,051 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 4,374,267 $ 13,634,530$ 1,574,147 $ 15,210 $ 91,043 $ 19,689,197 $ 19,765,2482025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 71,075 $ - $ - $ 71,075 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,079,476 $ 12,742,552$ 1,471,165 $ 14,215 $ 83,794 $ 17,391,202 $ 17,462,2772026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 66,425 $ - $ - $ 66,425 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 3,820,654 $ 11,908,927$ 1,374,921 $ 60,014 $ 79,695 $ 17,244,211 $ 17,310,6372027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 62,080 $ - $ - $ 62,080 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 5,332,647 $ 11,129,838$ 1,284,973 $ 12,416 $ 77,097 $ 17,836,971 $ 17,899,0512028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 58,019 $ - $ - $ 58,019 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,925,439 $ 10,401,718$ 1,200,909 $ 11,604 $ 69,170 $ 14,608,839 $ 14,666,8582029$ 245,062 $ 46,596 $ 422,710 $ 499,871 $ 672 $ 57,581$ 134 $ 1,208 $ 1,273,834 $ 481,929 $ 2,931,605 $ 89,018 $ 3,502,551 $ 3,224,497 $ 9,739,169 $ 1,122,345 $ 11,516 $65,291 $ 14,162,819 $ 18,939,2042030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 50,676 $ - $ - $ 50,676 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,268,062 $ 10,022,118$ 1,346,105 $ 10,135 $ 60,136 $ 13,706,556 $ 13,757,2322031$ 214,046 $ 40,699 $ 369,212 $ 436,607 $ 587 $ 50,294$ 117 $ 1,055 $ 1,112,616 $ 420,935 $ 2,560,577 $ 77,752 $ 3,059,264 $ 2,884,100 $ 9,382,133 $ 1,258,042 $ 43,376 $57,313 $ 13,624,963 $ 17,796,8432032$ 800,173 $ 152,145 $ 1,380,230 $ 1,632,174 $ 2,193 $ 55,227 $439 $ 3,945 $ 4,026,526 $ 1,573,589 $ 9,572,251 $ 290,661 $11,436,501 $ 4,273,791 $ 9,630,562 $ 1,435,313 $ 11,045 $ 55,790$ 15,406,502 $ 30,869,5282033$ 560,869 $ 106,644 $ 967,451 $ 1,144,047 $ 1,537 $ 49,052 $307 $ 2,765 $ 2,832,673 $ 1,102,983 $ 6,709,522 $ 203,734$ 8,016,239 $ 2,682,510 $ 12,045,850 $ 2,311,778 $ 9,810 $ 50,300 $ 17,100,249 $ 27,949,1602034$ 174,726 $ 33,222 $ 301,387 $ 356,401 $ 479 $ 41,054$ 96 $ 861 $ 908,226 $ 343,608 $ 2,090,194 $63,469 $ 2,497,271 $ 2,928,869 $ 13,376,391 $ 2,840,702 $ 8,211 $48,148 $ 19,202,321 $ 22,607,8182035$ 326,590 $ 62,098 $ 563,339 $ 666,170 $ 895 $ 40,606$ 179 $ 1,610 $ 1,661,488 $ 642,259 $ 3,906,904 $ 118,633 $ 4,667,796 $ 2,222,796 $ 13,181,217 $ 2,866,751 $ 8,121 $44,009 $ 18,322,893 $ 24,652,177Total PV$ 120,508,546 $ 2,657,955 $ 17,803,742 $ 15,671,042 $ 28,511 $ 1,213,498 $6,711 $ 1,864,102 $ 159,754,107 $ 73,437,354 $ 183,019,842 $ 1,506,415 $ 257,963,611$ 97,930,539 $ 286,025,974 $ 37,780,132 $ 322,745 $ 2,689,891 $ 424,749,281 $842,466,999AnnualizedValue$ 10,340,901 $ 228,080 $ 1,527,748 $ 1,344,740 $ 2,447 $ 104,131 $576 $ 159,960 $ 13,708,583 $ 6,301,697 $ 15,705,027 $ 129,266 $22,135,991 $ 8,403,470 $ 24,544,037 $ 3,241,933 $ 27,695 $ 230,821 $36,447,956 $ 72,292,529YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-57July 2010C.58 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type ($2008) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Unadjusted ValuesGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL2011$ 2,484,875 $ 472,474 $ 4,286,197 $ 5,068,590 $ 6,810 $ 217,320 $1,362 $ 19,396 $ 12,557,024 $ 4,886,659 $ 29,725,876 $ 902,624 $35,515,158 $ 15,384,865 $ 73,696,919 $ 16,690,763 $ 172,390 $ 240,571 $ 106,185,508 $ 154,257,6912012$ 828,292 $ 157,491 $ 1,428,732 $ 1,689,530 $ 2,270 $ 194,620 $454 $ 6,465 $ 4,307,855 $ 1,628,886 $ 9,908,625 $ 300,875 $11,838,386 $ 22,541,881 $ 83,740,143 $ 19,915,091 $ 38,924 $ 262,732 $ 126,498,772 $ 142,645,0132013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 15,316,619 $ 87,067,675 $20,989,867 $ 36,654 $ 247,434 $ 123,658,249 $ 123,841,5192014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 183,270 $ - $ - $ 183,270 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 15,988,971 $ 87,067,675 $20,989,867 $ 36,654 $ 247,434 $ 124,330,601 $ 124,513,8712015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,466,523 $ 908 $ 1,021 $ 1,468,452 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 13,126,225 $ 83,679,515 $ 19,915,091 $ 293,305 $ 240,954 $ 117,255,090 $ 118,723,5412016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 326,499 $ - $ - $ 326,499 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 16,983,064 $ 83,679,515 $19,915,091 $ 194,226 $ 251,843 $ 121,023,738 $ 121,350,2382017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,609,752 $ 908 $ 1,021 $ 1,611,681 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 22,550,664 $ 80,291,354 $ 18,840,315 $ 321,950 $ 264,419 $ 122,268,703 $ 123,880,3842018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 5,602,741 $ 3,632 $ 4,083 $ 5,610,457 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 13,744,770 $ 66,738,711 $ 14,541,211 $ 1,120,548 $ 241,224 $ 96,386,464 $ 101,996,9202019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 4,892,406 $ 2,724 $ 3,063 $ 4,898,192 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 13,003,164 $ 56,574,229 $ 11,316,883 $ 1,428,546 $ 235,396 $ 82,558,218 $ 87,456,4102020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,755,588 $ 908 $ 1,021 $ 2,757,517 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 10,768,451 $ 53,186,068 $ 10,242,107 $ 551,118 $ 231,639 $ 74,979,383 $ 77,736,9002021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 4,182,070 $ 1,816 $ 2,042 $ 4,185,928 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 13,473,306 $ 46,409,747 $ 8,092,554 $ 1,415,405 $ 237,736 $ 69,628,749 $ 73,814,6772022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 5,751,782 $ 2,724 $ 3,063 $ 5,757,569 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 16,632,857 $ 36,245,265 $ 4,868,226 $ 2,950,618 $ 240,075 $ 60,937,041 $ 66,694,6092023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,614,964 $ 908 $ 1,021 $ 3,616,893 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 9,240,920 $ 32,857,104 $ 3,793,450 $ 2,073,189 $ 222,707 $ 48,187,370 $ 51,804,2632024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,474,941 $ - $ - $ 2,474,941 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 10,541,306 $ 32,857,104 $3,793,450 $ 1,395,119 $ 225,429 $ 48,812,408 $ 51,287,3492025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,331,711 $ - $ - $ 2,331,711 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 7,940,535 $ 32,857,104 $3,793,450 $ 1,366,473 $ 219,984 $ 46,177,547 $ 48,509,2582026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,331,711 $ - $ - $ 2,331,711 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 10,541,306 $ 32,857,104 $3,793,450 $ 2,395,530 $ 225,429 $ 49,812,819 $ 52,144,5302027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,188,482 $ - $ - $ 2,188,482 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 15,742,848 $ 32,857,104 $3,793,450 $ 2,688,023 $ 236,318 $ 55,317,743 $ 57,506,2252028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,378,817 $ 908 $ 1,021 $ 2,380,746 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 8,519,054 $ 29,870,095 $ 3,448,591 $ 1,825,959 $ 221,672 $ 43,885,370 $ 46,266,1162029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,405,035 $ 908 $ 1,021 $ 2,406,963 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 9,097,572 $ 26,883,085 $ 3,103,732 $ 1,381,138 $ 223,359 $ 40,688,886 $ 43,095,8492030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,480,964 $ 1,816 $ 2,042 $ 3,484,822 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,053,068 $ 20,909,066 $ 2,414,014 $ 1,596,323 $ 215,844 $ 30,188,315 $ 33,673,1372031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,579,811 $ - $ - $ 2,579,811 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 7,653,839 $ 20,909,066 $2,414,014 $ 2,445,150 $ 221,289 $ 33,643,357 $ 36,223,1692032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 3,676,629 $ 1,816 $ 2,042 $ 3,680,486 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 10,111,262 $ 14,935,047 $ 1,724,296 $ 4,232,012 $ 227,385 $ 31,230,002 $ 34,910,4882033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 6,734,969 $ 4,540 $ 5,104 $ 6,744,614 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ -$ - $ 3,943,549 $ 208,599 $ 4,152,148 $ 10,896,7622034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 5,198,235 $ - $ - $ 5,198,235 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 4,432,496 $ 208,599 $ 4,641,095 $ 9,839,3312035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 5,198,235 $ - $ - $ 5,198,235 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 1,939,778 $ 208,599 $ 2,148,377 $ 7,346,612Total$ 3,313,167 $ 629,966 $ 5,714,929 $ 6,758,120 $ 9,080 $ 71,960,347 $26,332 $ 53,424 $ 88,465,365 $ 6,515,545 $ 39,634,501 $ 1,203,498 $47,353,544 $ 283,956,547 $ 1,116,168,699 $ 218,388,963 $ 40,275,076 $ 5,806,669 $ 1,664,595,954 $ 1,800,414,863One -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MTOTALYearDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-58July 2010C.59 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ 1,186,790 $ 225,656 $ 2,047,111 $ 2,420,787 $ 3,253 $ 103,793 $651 $ 9,264 $ 5,997,305 $ 2,333,896 $ 14,197,244 $ 431,098 $16,962,237 $ 7,347,897 $ 35,198,059 $ 7,971,601 $ 82,334 $ 114,898 $50,714,790 $ 73,674,3322012$ 384,075 $ 73,028 $ 662,496 $ 783,426 $ 1,053 $ 90,244$ 211 $ 5,649 $ 2,000,180 $ 755,306 $ 4,594,577 $ 139,514 $ 5,489,397 $ 10,452,551 $ 38,829,863 $ 9,234,523 $ 18,049 $ 118,401 $58,653,387 $ 66,142,9642013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 82,506 $ - $ 3,860 $ 86,366 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,895,374 $ 39,196,915 $9,449,408 $ 16,501 $ 109,755 $ 55,667,954 $ 55,754,3202014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 80,103 $ - $ 3,748 $ 83,851 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,988,408 $ 38,055,257 $9,174,183 $ 16,021 $ 106,822 $ 54,340,689 $ 54,424,5402015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 622,314 $ 385 $ 3,880 $ 626,579 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,570,066 $ 35,509,098 $8,450,896 $ 124,463 $ 101,666 $ 49,756,188 $ 50,382,7682016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 134,513 $ - $ 3,533 $ 138,046 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 6,996,797 $ 34,474,852 $8,204,754 $ 80,019 $ 101,703 $ 49,858,125 $ 49,996,1712017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 643,880 $ 363 $ 3,658 $ 647,901 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 9,019,976 $ 32,115,509 $7,535,884 $ 128,776 $ 102,510 $ 48,902,655 $ 49,550,5562018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 2,175,752 $ 1,410 $ 4,215 $ 2,181,377 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,337,603 $ 25,917,113 $ 5,646,891 $ 435,150 $ 93,330 $ 37,430,088 $ 39,611,4652019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,844,565 $ 1,027 $ 3,877 $ 1,849,469 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,902,534 $ 21,329,969 $ 4,266,762 $ 538,599 $ 89,613 $ 31,127,478 $ 32,976,9472020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,008,669 $ 332 $ 3,347 $ 1,012,348 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,941,737 $ 19,468,489 $ 3,749,071 $ 201,734 $ 85,795 $ 27,446,826 $ 28,459,1742021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,486,238 $ 645 $ 3,452 $ 1,490,336 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 4,788,189 $ 16,493,254 $ 2,875,960 $ 503,012 $ 84,933 $ 24,745,347 $ 26,235,6832022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,984,551 $ 940 $ 3,548 $ 1,989,039 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 5,738,875 $ 12,505,792 $ 1,679,696 $ 1,018,059 $ 83,740 $ 21,026,161 $ 23,015,2002023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,210,951 $ 304 $ 3,063 $ 1,214,319 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 3,095,551 $ 11,006,569 $ 1,270,741 $ 694,483 $ 77,047 $ 16,144,391 $ 17,358,7102024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 804,915 $ - $ 2,789 $ 807,704 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 3,428,308 $ 10,685,990 $1,233,729 $ 453,729 $ 75,492 $ 15,877,249 $ 16,684,9532025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 736,246 $ - $ 2,707 $ 738,954 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 2,507,252 $ 10,374,747 $1,197,795 $ 431,469 $ 71,955 $ 14,583,218 $ 15,322,1712026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 714,802 $ - $ 2,629 $ 717,431 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 3,231,509 $ 10,072,570 $1,162,908 $ 734,366 $ 71,159 $ 15,272,513 $ 15,989,9432027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 651,353 $ - $ 2,552 $ 653,906 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 4,685,512 $ 9,779,194 $1,129,037 $ 800,031 $ 71,611 $ 16,465,385 $ 17,119,2912028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 687,381 $ 262 $ 2,707 $ 690,351 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,461,659 $ 8,631,239 $996,502 $ 527,628 $ 66,228 $ 12,683,257 $ 13,373,6082029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 674,715 $ 255 $ 2,629 $ 677,599 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,552,260 $ 7,541,860 $870,730 $ 387,468 $ 64,668 $ 11,416,986 $ 12,094,5852030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 948,116 $ 495 $ 2,769 $ 951,380 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,376,313 $ 5,695,040 $657,509 $ 434,793 $ 61,190 $ 8,224,846 $ 9,176,2252031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 682,202 $ - $ 2,267 $ 684,469 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 2,023,971 $ 5,529,165 $638,358 $ 646,592 $ 60,529 $ 8,898,615 $ 9,583,0852032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 943,925 $ 466 $ 2,610 $ 947,001 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,595,930 $ 3,834,372 $442,690 $ 1,086,512 $ 59,986 $ 8,019,490 $ 8,966,4912033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,678,750 $ 1,132 $ 3,128 $ 1,683,010 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $ -$ - $ 982,964 $ 54,591 $ 1,037,555 $ 2,720,5652034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,257,967 $ - $ 2,075 $ 1,260,042 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 1,072,659 $ 53,001 $ 1,125,660 $ 2,385,7022035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 1,221,327 $ - $ 2,015 $ 1,223,342 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 455,751 $ 51,457 $ 507,209 $ 1,730,550Total PV$ 1,570,865 $ 298,684 $ 2,709,607 $ 3,204,213 $ 4,305 $ 22,469,782 $8,878 $ 85,970 $ 30,352,304 $ 3,089,202 $ 18,791,821 $ 570,612 $22,451,635 $ 105,938,273 $ 432,244,915 $ 87,839,629 $ 11,871,162 $ 2,032,081 $ 639,926,060 $692,729,999AnnualizedValue$ 90,211 $ 17,153 $ 155,607 $ 184,011 $ 247 $ 1,290,392$ 510 $ 4,937 $ 1,743,068 $ 177,406 $ 1,079,174 $ 32,769 $ 1,289,350 $ 6,083,810 $ 24,822,905 $ 5,044,443 $ 681,736 $ 116,698 $36,749,591 $ 39,782,009YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-59July 2010C.60 Regulatory Alternative 4 Total Rule Costs by Rule Component and Cost Type (2008$) - Period 2 (2036-2060) Present and Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation PluggingFinancialResponsibiltyPermittingAuthority OneTime CostsOne-Time CostsSUBTOTAL MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Well OperationCapital CostsSUBTOTAL Monitoring Well Operation MIT PluggingPermittingAuthorityPeriodic CostsO&M CostsSUBTOTAL TOTAL2011$ 457,836 $ 87,053 $ 789,728 $ 933,884 $ 1,255 $ 40,041$ 251 $ 3,574 $ 2,313,621 $ 900,363 $ 5,476,968 $ 166,308 $ 6,543,639 $ 2,834,649 $ 13,578,597 $ 3,075,259 $ 31,763 $ 44,325 $19,564,593 $ 28,421,8532012$ 142,628 $ 27,119 $ 246,021 $ 290,929 $ 391 $ 33,513$ 78 $ 1,113 $ 741,793 $ 280,487 $ 1,706,221 $ 51,809 $ 2,038,517 $ 3,881,610 $ 14,419,675 $ 3,429,289 $ 6,703 $ 47,027$ 21,784,304 $ 24,564,6142013$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 29,494 $ - $ - $ 29,494 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,464,909 $ 14,011,833$ 3,377,907 $ 5,899 $ 40,722 $ 19,901,269 $ 19,930,7632014$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 27,564 $ - $ - $ 27,564 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,404,777 $ 13,095,171$ 3,156,922 $ 5,513 $ 38,281 $ 18,700,664 $ 18,728,2282015$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 206,139 $ 128 $ 143 $ 206,410 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,845,059 $ 11,762,228 $2,799,321 $ 41,228 $ 34,583 $ 16,482,420 $ 16,688,8292016$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 42,891 $ - $ - $ 42,891 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 2,231,016 $ 10,992,737$ 2,616,188 $ 25,515 $ 34,128 $ 15,899,584 $ 15,942,4752017$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 197,634 $ 111 $ 125 $ 197,871 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 2,768,613 $ 9,857,611 $2,313,082 $ 39,527 $ 34,162 $ 15,012,995 $ 15,210,8662018$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 642,865 $ 417 $ 469 $ 643,750 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,577,090 $ 7,657,675 $1,668,475 $ 128,573 $ 28,531 $ 11,060,345 $ 11,704,0952019$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 524,636 $ 292 $ 328 $ 525,256 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,394,390 $ 6,066,720 $1,213,562 $ 153,190 $ 26,246 $ 8,854,109 $ 9,379,3652020$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 276,163 $ 91 $ 102 $ 276,357 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,079,207 $ 5,330,273 $1,026,457 $ 55,233 $ 23,884 $ 7,515,054 $ 7,791,4102021$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 391,705 $ 170 $ 191 $ 392,066 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,261,949 $ 4,346,873 $757,972 $ 132,571 $ 23,241 $ 6,522,607 $ 6,914,6732022$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 503,485 $ 238 $ 268 $ 503,991 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 1,455,965 $ 3,172,746 $426,142 $ 258,284 $ 22,593 $ 5,335,729 $ 5,839,7212023$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 295,736 $ 74 $ 84 $ 295,894 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 755,989 $ 2,688,002 $310,338 $ 169,605 $ 19,009 $ 3,942,942 $ 4,238,8362024$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 189,226 $ - $ - $ 189,226 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 805,955 $ 2,512,151$ 290,035 $ 106,666 $ 18,161 $ 3,732,969 $ 3,922,1952025$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 166,612 $ - $ - $ 166,612 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 567,391 $ 2,347,805$ 271,061 $ 97,641 $ 16,334 $ 3,300,232 $ 3,466,8442026$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 155,713 $ - $ - $ 155,713 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 703,952 $ 2,194,210$ 253,328 $ 159,974 $ 15,946 $ 3,327,411 $ 3,483,1242027$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 136,587 $ - $ - $ 136,587 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 982,536 $ 2,050,663$ 236,755 $ 167,764 $ 16,190 $ 3,453,908 $ 3,590,4952028$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 138,753 $ 53 $ 112 $ 138,918 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 496,904 $ 1,742,280 $201,151 $ 106,506 $ 13,596 $ 2,560,437 $ 2,699,3552029$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 131,105 $ 49 $ 107 $ 131,261 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 495,933 $ 1,465,469 $169,193 $ 75,290 $ 12,913 $ 2,218,798 $ 2,350,0592030$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 177,343 $ 93 $ 204 $ 177,639 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 257,436 $ 1,065,242 $122,985 $ 81,327 $ 11,351 $ 1,538,342 $ 1,715,9812031$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 122,834 $ - $ - $ 122,834 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ 364,426 $ 995,554$ 114,940 $ 116,422 $ 11,145 $ 1,602,486 $ 1,725,3202032$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 163,605 $ 81 $ 187 $ 163,872 $ - $- $ - $ - $ 449,937 $ 664,589 $76,729 $ 188,319 $ 11,000 $ 1,390,572 $ 1,554,4452033$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 280,090 $ 189 $ 447 $ 280,726 $ - $- $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 164,002 $ 8,675 $ 172,677 $ 453,4032034$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 202,039 $ - $ - $ 202,039 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 172,277 $ 8,108 $ 180,384 $ 382,4232035$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ 188,821 $ - $ - $ 188,821 $ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $- $ - $ 70,461 $ 7,577 $ 78,038 $ 266,859Total PV$ 600,464 $ 114,172 $ 1,035,749 $ 1,224,813 $ 1,646 $ 5,264,593 $2,315 $ 7,453 $ 8,251,206 $ 1,180,850 $ 7,183,189 $ 218,117 $8,582,155 $ 31,079,694 $ 132,018,103 $ 27,907,094 $ 2,560,250 $ 567,728 $ 194,132,869 $ 210,966,230AnnualizedValue$ 51,526 $ 9,797 $ 88,878 $ 105,102 $ 141 $ 451,757 $ 199 $ 640 $ 708,040 $ 101,329 $ 616,393 $18,717 $ 736,439 $ 2,666,965 $ 11,328,542 $ 2,394,722 $ 219,696 $ 48,717 $ 16,658,642 $ 18,103,121YearOne -Time CostsCapital CostsO & MDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-60July 2010C.61 Total and Incremental Rule Costs by Rule Component - Period 1 (2011-2035) Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Pluggingand PostInjection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermitting AuthorityAdmin TOTALRA0$ 3,657,232 $ 2,538,152 $ 14,920,745 $ 941,517 $ 23,690,723 $ 53,563 $32,395 $ 88 $ 220,305 $ 46,054,720RA1$ 2,450,237 $ 5,019,465 $ 15,258,107 $ 991,132 $ 25,490,836 $ 70,131 $41,881 $ 88 $ 324,537 $ 49,646,414RA1 Incremental$ (1,206,995) $ 2,481,313 $ 337,362 $ 49,615 $ 1,800,113 $ 16,568 $9,485 $ - $ 104,232 $ 3,591,694RA2$ 4,059,703 $ 6,330,010 $ 15,975,951 $ 991,132 $ 26,159,258 $ 70,131 $45,527 $ 580 $ 324,936 $ 53,957,228RA2 Incremental$ 402,471 $ 3,791,858 $ 1,055,206 $ 49,615 $ 2,468,535 $ 16,568 $13,132 $ 492 $ 104,631 $ 7,902,508RA3$ 6,281,423 $ 14,316,199 $ 16,060,488 $ 1,259,693 $ 29,042,410 $ 1,126,556 $152,537 $ 580 $ 325,922 $ 68,565,809RA3 Incremental$ 2,624,191 $ 11,778,047 $ 1,139,743 $ 318,176 $ 5,351,688 $ 1,072,993 $120,142 $ 492 $ 105,617 $ 22,511,088RA4$ 8,308,265 $ 14,505,243 $ 15,640,522 $ 1,356,240 $ 27,919,703 $ 3,824,684 $155,903 $ 556 $ 328,883 $ 72,040,001RA4 Incremental$ 4,651,033 $ 11,967,091 $ 719,778 $ 414,723 $ 4,228,980 $ 3,771,121 $123,508 $ 468 $ 108,578 $ 25,985,280RegulatoryAlternativeRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-61July 2010C.62 Total and Incremental Rule Costs by Rule Component - Period 1 (2011-2035) Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Pluggingand PostInjection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermitting AuthorityAdmin TOTALRA0$ 4,569,970 $ 2,586,613 $ 16,327,240 $ 901,447 $ 20,869,586 $ 44,895 $30,900 $ 87 $ 230,012 $ 45,560,749RA1$ 3,046,638 $ 5,177,639 $ 16,715,469 $ 948,999 $ 22,470,268 $ 56,148 $38,866 $ 87 $ 385,876 $ 48,839,989RA1 Incremental$ (1,523,332) $ 2,591,026 $ 388,229 $ 47,552 $ 1,600,681 $ 11,253 $7,966 $ - $ 155,864 $ 3,279,239RA2$ 5,070,951 $ 6,332,778 $ 17,540,447 $ 948,999 $ 23,062,835 $ 56,148 $42,298 $ 600 $ 386,407 $ 53,441,462RA2 Incremental$ 500,981 $ 3,746,164 $ 1,213,207 $ 47,552 $ 2,193,249 $ 11,253 $11,399 $ 513 $ 156,395 $ 7,880,713RA3$ 7,838,667 $ 14,882,886 $ 17,646,921 $ 1,201,750 $ 25,661,130 $ 952,879 $129,389 $ 600 $ 387,563 $ 68,701,784RA3 Incremental$ 3,268,697 $ 12,296,273 $ 1,319,681 $ 300,303 $ 4,791,544 $ 907,984 $98,489 $ 513 $ 157,551 $ 23,141,035RA4$ 10,340,901 $ 14,933,248 $ 17,232,776 $ 1,344,740 $ 24,675,750 $ 3,241,933 $131,826 $ 576 $ 390,780 $ 72,292,529RA4 Incremental$ 5,770,931 $ 12,346,635 $ 905,536 $ 443,293 $ 3,806,163 $ 3,197,038 $100,926 $ 489 $ 160,768 $ 26,731,780C.63 Annualized Rule Costs for Period 1 (2011-2035)3% 7%RA1$ 3,591,694 $ 3,279,239RA2$ 7,902,508 $ 7,880,713RA3$ 22,511,088 $ 23,141,035RA4$ 25,985,280 $ 26,731,780RegulatoryAlternativeRule ComponentRegulatoryAlternativeDiscount RateDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-62July 2010C.64 Total and Incremental Rule Costs by Rule Component - Period 2 (2036-2060) Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermitting AuthorityAdmin TOTALRA0$ 31,153 $ 1,136,743 $ 1,234,781 $ 143,488 $ 21,936,608 $ 100,409 $553,736 $ 460 $ 111,808 $ 25,249,186RA1$ 27,912 $ 2,046,017 $ 1,254,885 $ 151,085 $ 23,381,957 $ 154,657 $814,811 $ 486 $ 117,328 $ 27,949,139RA1 Incremental$ (3,242) $ 909,274 $ 20,104 $ 7,598 $ 1,445,349 $ 54,248 $ 261,076 $ 26 $ 5,520 $ 2,699,952RA2$ 35,816 $ 3,176,405 $ 1,294,066 $ 151,085 $ 23,938,925 $ 154,657 $867,200 $ 538 $ 118,044 $ 29,736,736RA2 Incremental$ 4,663 $ 2,039,662 $ 59,285 $ 7,598 $ 2,002,317 $ 54,248$ 313,464 $ 78 $ 6,236 $ 4,487,550RA3$ 59,073 $ 5,695,845 $ 1,294,066 $ 194,166 $ 25,917,648 $ 1,602,332 $1,865,382 $ 538 $ 120,283 $ 36,749,332RA3 Incremental$ 27,919 $ 4,559,102 $ 59,285 $ 50,678 $ 3,981,040 $ 1,501,923 $1,311,647 $ 78 $ 8,475 $ 11,500,146RA4$ 90,211 $ 6,278,369 $ 1,234,781 $ 184,011 $ 24,855,922 $ 5,044,443 $1,972,127 $ 510 $ 121,635 $ 39,782,009RA4 Incremental$ 59,058 $ 5,141,626 $ - $ 40,523 $ 2,919,314 $ 4,944,033 $ 1,418,391 $ 49 $ 9,827 $ 14,532,823RegulatoryAlternativeRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-63July 2010C.65 Total and Incremental Rule Costs by Rule Component - Period 2 (2036-2060) Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermitting AuthorityAdmin TOTALRA0$ 17,794 $ 505,625 $ 705,271 $ 81,956 $ 10,062,568 $ 47,632 $204,893 $ 170 $ 44,483 $ 11,670,393RA1$ 15,942 $ 905,780 $ 716,754 $ 86,296 $ 10,711,415 $ 74,525 $288,257 $ 180 $ 44,924 $ 12,844,073RA1 Incremental$ (1,852) $ 400,156 $ 11,483 $ 4,339 $ 648,847 $ 26,893 $ 83,363 $ 9 $ 441 $ 1,173,680RA2$ 20,457 $ 1,396,838 $ 739,133 $ 86,296 $ 10,965,173 $ 74,525 $308,943 $ 210 $ 45,056 $ 13,636,630RA2 Incremental$ 2,663 $ 891,213 $ 33,862 $ 4,339 $ 902,605 $ 26,893 $ 104,049 $ 39 $ 573 $ 1,966,237RA3$ 33,741 $ 2,526,839 $ 739,133 $ 110,902 $ 11,832,881 $ 759,156 $641,777 $ 210 $ 46,381 $ 16,691,019RA3 Incremental$ 15,947 $ 2,021,215 $ 33,862 $ 28,946 $ 1,770,313 $ 711,524 $436,884 $ 39 $ 1,897 $ 5,020,626RA4$ 51,526 $ 2,778,091 $ 705,271 $ 105,102 $ 11,347,400 $ 2,394,722 $671,454 $ 199 $ 49,357 $ 18,103,121RA4 Incremental$ 33,732 $ 2,272,466 $ - $ 23,146 $ 1,284,832 $ 2,347,091 $ 466,560 $ 28 $ 4,873 $ 6,432,728C.66 Annualized Rule Costs for Period 2 (2036-2060)3% 7%RA1$ 2,699,952 $ 1,173,680RA2$ 4,487,550 $ 1,966,237RA3$ 11,500,146 $ 5,020,626RA4$ 14,532,823 $ 6,432,728RegulatoryAlternativeRule ComponentRegulatoryAlternativeDiscount RateDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-64July 2010C.67 Total and Incremental Rule Costs by Rule Component - Periods 1 & 2 (2011-2060) Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTALRA0$ 3,688,385 $ 3,674,895 $ 16,155,526 $ 1,085,005 $ 45,627,331 $ 153,973 $ 586,131 $ 549 $ 332,113 $ 71,303,907RA1$ 2,478,149 $ 7,065,482 $ 16,512,992 $ 1,142,218 $ 48,872,793 $ 224,788 $ 856,692 $ 574 $ 441,866 $ 77,595,553RA1 Incremental$ (1,210,236) $ 3,390,587 $ 357,466 $ 57,213 $ 3,245,462 $ 70,816 $270,561 $ 26 $ 109,753 $ 6,291,646RA2$ 4,095,519 $ 9,506,415 $ 17,270,017 $ 1,142,218 $ 50,098,183 $ 224,788 $ 912,727 $ 1,118 $ 442,980 $ 83,693,965RA2 Incremental$ 407,134 $ 5,831,521 $ 1,114,491 $ 57,213 $ 4,470,852 $ 70,816 $326,596 $ 569 $ 110,867 $ 12,390,058RA3$ 6,340,495 $ 20,012,044 $ 17,354,554 $ 1,453,859 $ 54,960,058 $ 2,728,888 $ 2,017,920 $ 1,118 $ 446,205 $ 105,315,141RA3 Incremental$ 2,652,110 $ 16,337,149 $ 1,199,028 $ 368,854 $ 9,332,727 $ 2,574,915 $ 1,431,789 $ 569 $ 114,092 $ 34,011,234RA4$ 8,398,476 $ 20,783,612 $ 16,875,303 $ 1,540,252 $ 52,775,625 $ 8,869,127 $ 2,128,031 $ 1,066 $ 450,518 $ 111,822,010RA4 Incremental$ 4,710,091 $ 17,108,717 $ 719,778 $ 455,247 $ 7,148,294 $ 8,715,154 $ 1,541,900 $ 518 $ 118,405 $ 40,518,103RegulatoryAlternativeRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-65July 2010C.68 Total and Incremental Rule Costs by Rule Component - Periods 1 & 2 (2011-2060) Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstructionArea ofReview Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthority Admin TOTALRA0$ 4,587,764 $ 3,092,238 $ 17,032,511 $ 983,403 $ 30,932,154 $ 92,527 $235,793 $ 257 $ 274,495 $ 57,231,142RA1$ 3,062,580 $ 6,083,420 $ 17,432,223 $ 1,035,294 $ 33,181,683 $ 130,673 $ 327,123 $ 267 $ 430,800 $ 61,684,062RA1 Incremental$ (1,525,183) $ 2,991,182 $ 399,711 $ 51,891 $ 2,249,529 $ 38,146 $91,330 $ 9 $ 156,305 $ 4,452,920RA2$ 5,091,408 $ 7,729,615 $ 18,279,580 $ 1,035,294 $ 34,028,008 $ 130,673 $ 351,241 $ 809 $ 431,463 $ 67,078,092RA2 Incremental$ 503,644 $ 4,637,377 $ 1,247,069 $ 51,891 $ 3,095,854 $ 38,146 $115,448 $ 552 $ 156,967 $ 9,846,950RA3$ 7,872,408 $ 17,409,726 $ 18,386,054 $ 1,312,651 $ 37,494,011 $ 1,712,035 $ 771,166 $ 809 $ 433,943 $ 85,392,804RA3 Incremental$ 3,284,644 $ 14,317,487 $ 1,353,543 $ 329,249 $ 6,561,857 $ 1,619,508 $535,373 $ 552 $ 159,448 $ 28,161,662RA4$ 10,392,427 $ 17,711,339 $ 17,938,047 $ 1,449,842 $ 36,023,149 $ 5,636,655 $ 803,280 $ 775 $ 440,137 $ 90,395,650RA4 Incremental$ 5,804,663 $ 14,619,101 $ 905,536 $ 466,439 $ 5,090,995 $ 5,544,128 $567,487 $ 518 $ 165,642 $ 33,164,508C.69 Annualized Rule Costs for Periods 1 & 2 (2011-2060)3% 7%RA1$ 6,291,646 $ 4,452,920RA2$ 12,390,058 $ 9,846,950RA3$ 34,011,234 $ 28,161,662RA4$ 40,518,103 $ 33,164,508RegulatoryAlternativeDiscount RateRegulatoryAlternativeRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-66July 2010Regulatory AlternativeOne-Time Costs Capital Costs O&M Costs TotalRA06,138,936$ 14,368,355$ 25,547,429$ 46,054,720$RA15,212,997$ 15,559,123$ 28,874,294$ 49,646,414$RA1 Incremental(925,939)$ 1,190,768$ 3,326,865$ 3,591,694$RA26,848,032$ 16,297,418$ 30,811,778$ 53,957,228$RA2 Incremental709,096$ 1,929,063$ 5,264,349$ 7,902,508$RA39,538,130$ 20,169,575$ 38,858,103$ 68,565,809$RA3 Incremental3,399,194$ 5,801,220$ 13,310,674$ 22,511,088$RA411,563,345$ 19,599,973$ 40,876,683$ 72,040,001$RA4 Incremental5,424,408$ 5,231,618$ 15,329,254$ 25,985,280$Regulatory AlternativeOne-Time Costs Capital Costs O&M Costs TotalRA07,086,280$ 15,849,775$ 22,624,694$ 45,560,749$RA15,900,896$ 17,280,921$ 25,658,171$ 48,839,989$RA1 Incremental(1,185,384)$ 1,431,147$ 3,033,477$ 3,279,239$RA27,951,509$ 18,122,959$ 27,366,994$ 53,441,462$RA2 Incremental865,229$ 2,273,184$ 4,742,300$ 7,880,713$RA311,166,846$ 22,749,359$ 34,785,579$ 68,701,784$RA3 Incremental4,080,566$ 6,899,584$ 12,160,885$ 23,141,035$RA413,708,583$ 22,135,991$ 36,447,956$ 72,292,529$RA4 Incremental6,622,302$ 6,286,216$ 13,823,261$ 26,731,780$C.71 Rule Costs by Cost Type - Period 1 (2011-2035) Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateC.70 Rule Costs by Cost Type - Period 1 (2011-2035) Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-67July 2010Regulatory AlternativeOne-Time Costs Capital Costs O&M Costs TotalRA0800,545$ 1,126,737$ 23,321,905$ 25,249,186$RA11,039,229$ 1,165,854$ 25,744,056$ 27,949,139$RA1 Incremental238,684$ 39,117$ 2,422,151$ 2,699,952$RA21,091,630$ 1,209,367$ 27,435,740$ 29,736,736$RA2 Incremental291,085$ 82,629$ 4,113,836$ 4,487,550$RA31,814,472$ 1,344,107$ 33,590,754$ 36,749,332$RA3 Incremental1,013,927$ 217,370$ 10,268,849$ 11,500,146$RA41,743,068$ 1,289,350$ 36,749,591$ 39,782,009$RA4 Incremental942,523$ 162,612$ 13,427,687$ 14,532,823$Regulatory AlternativeOne-Time Costs Capital Costs O&M Costs TotalRA0362,519$ 643,560$ 10,664,314$ 11,670,393$RA1441,370$ 665,902$ 11,736,801$ 12,844,073$RA1 Incremental78,850$ 22,343$ 1,072,487$ 1,173,680$RA2463,936$ 690,755$ 12,481,938$ 13,636,630$RA2 Incremental101,417$ 47,196$ 1,817,624$ 1,966,237$RA3728,185$ 767,715$ 15,195,119$ 16,691,019$RA3 Incremental365,666$ 124,155$ 4,530,805$ 5,020,626$RA4708,040$ 736,439$ 16,658,642$ 18,103,121$RA4 Incremental345,521$ 92,880$ 5,994,328$ 6,432,728$C.73 Rule Costs by Cost Type - Period 2 (2036-2060) Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateC.72 Rule Costs by Cost Type - Period 2 (2036-2060) Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-68July 2010Regulatory AlternativeOne-Time Costs Capital Costs O&M Costs TotalRA06,939,481$ 15,495,092$ 48,869,334$ 71,303,907$RA16,252,226$ 16,724,977$ 54,618,350$ 77,595,553$RA1 Incremental(687,255)$ 1,229,885$ 5,749,016$ 6,291,646$RA27,939,662$ 17,506,785$ 58,247,518$ 83,693,965$RA2 Incremental1,000,181$ 2,011,693$ 9,378,184$ 12,390,058$RA311,352,602$ 21,513,682$ 72,448,857$ 105,315,141$RA3 Incremental4,413,121$ 6,018,590$ 23,579,523$ 34,011,234$RA413,306,413$ 20,889,323$ 77,626,274$ 111,822,010$RA4 Incremental6,366,932$ 5,394,231$ 28,756,941$ 40,518,103$Regulatory AlternativeOne-Time Costs Capital Costs O&M Costs TotalRA07,448,800$ 16,493,334$ 33,289,008$ 57,231,142$RA16,342,266$ 17,946,824$ 37,394,972$ 61,684,062$RA1 Incremental(1,106,534)$ 1,453,489$ 4,105,964$ 4,452,920$RA28,415,446$ 18,813,714$ 39,848,932$ 67,078,092$RA2 Incremental966,646$ 2,320,380$ 6,559,924$ 9,846,950$RA311,895,031$ 23,517,074$ 49,980,699$ 85,392,804$RA3 Incremental4,446,232$ 7,023,739$ 16,691,691$ 28,161,662$RA414,416,623$ 22,872,430$ 53,106,597$ 90,395,650$RA4 Incremental6,967,823$ 6,379,096$ 19,817,589$ 33,164,508$C.75 Total and Incremental Rule Costs - Periods 1 & 2 (2011-2060) Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateC.74 Total and Incremental Rule Costs - Periods 1 & 2 (2011-2060) Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-69July 2010C.76 Annualized Rule Costs by Regulatory Alternative Per Metric Ton and Per Project*3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7%RA027,616,050 25.1 71.30 57.23 2.58 2.07 2.84 2.28RA129,102,631 26.4 77.60 61.68 2.67 2.12 2.94 2.34RA1 Incremental1,486,581 1.3 6.29 4.45 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.06RA229,102,631 26.4 83.69 67.08 2.88 2.30 3.17 2.54RA2 Incremental1,486,581 1.3 12.39 9.85 0.29 0.23 0.33 0.26RA329,102,631 26.4 105.32 85.39 3.62 2.93 3.99 3.24RA3 Incremental1,486,581 1.3 34.01 28.16 1.04 0.86 1.15 0.96RA427,616,050 25.1 111.82 90.40 4.05 3.27 4.46 3.60RA4 Incremental0 0.0 40.52 33.16 1.47 1.20 1.62 1.32C.77 Annualized Rule Costs by Project Type Per Metric Ton and Per Project3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7%Pilot Saline340,555 2.0 0.6$ 0.6$ 1.90$ 1.83$ 0.3$ 0.3$Large Saline21,070,998 9.4 23.0$ 20.4$ 1.09$ 0.97$ 2.4$ 2.2$Large Saline Waivered1,170,611 0.5 4.3$ 3.9$ 3.65$ 3.32$ 8.2$ 7.4$ER6,204,497 13.7 4.7$ 2.5$ 0.77$ 0.41$ 0.3$ 0.2$ER Waivered315,970 0.8 1.4$ 0.8$ 4.39$ 2.44$ 1.8$ 1.0$All Formations29,102,631 26.4 34.0$ 28.2$ 1.2$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 1.1$Regulatory AlternativeMetric Tonnes ofCO2 Injected1Number ofProjectsDeployedAnnualized RuleCost ($MM)Annualized Rule Cost PerMetric Tonne ($)Annualized Rule Cost PerProject ($MM)Note: It is estimated that 25 - 26 of the 29 baseline projects (depending on the RA) will successfully deploy over the 50 yearperiod of analysis. Annualized rule cost per projectis based on the number of successfully deployed projects.1Injected volumes are discounted to the first year of the analysis and annualized over 25 years for comparability to annualizedcostsAnnualized Incremental RuleCost Per Metric Tonne ($)3Annualized Incremental RuleCost Per Project ($MM)Project TypeMetric Tonnes ofCO2 Injected1No. ofProjectsDeployed2Annualized Incremental Costby Project Type ($MM)Draft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-70July 2010

# 7.8%

48.0%

3.5%

1.1% 27.4% 7.6% 4.2% 0.34% 

# C.78 Rule Costs for RA3 by Rule Component

Geologic Site

Characterization

Monitoring

Injection Well

Construction

Area of Review

Well Operation

MIT

Well Plugging and PostInjection Site Care

Financial Responsibility

Permitting Authority

Admin 7.8%

48.0%

3.5%

1.1% 27.4% 7.6% 4.2% 0.34% 

# C.78 Rule Costs for RA3 by Rule Component

Geologic Site

Characterization

Monitoring

Injection Well

Construction

Area of Review

Well Operation

MIT

Well Plugging and PostInjection Site Care

Financial Responsibility

Permitting Authority

Admin



# D raft Cost Analysis for the

F inal GS Rule C-71 July 2010C.79 Total and Incremental Rule Costs After Increasing the Baseline Number of Projects by 50% - Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthorityAdmin TOTALRA0$ 5,532,578 $ 5,512,342 $ 24,233,289 $ 1,627,508 $ 68,440,996 $ 230,959 $879,196 $ 823 $ 498,170 $ 106,955,860RA1$ 3,717,223 $ 10,598,223 $ 24,769,488 $ 1,713,327 $ 73,309,189 $ 337,182 $1,285,038 $ 861 $ 662,798 $ 116,393,329RA1 Incremental$ (1,815,355) $ 5,085,880 $ 536,199 $ 85,819 $ 4,868,193 $ 106,223 $405,842 $ 38 $ 164,629 $ 9,437,469RA2$ 6,143,278 $ 14,259,623 $ 25,905,025 $ 1,713,327 $ 75,147,275 $ 337,182 $1,369,090 $ 1,677 $ 664,470 $ 125,540,947RA2 Incremental$ 610,700 $ 8,747,281 $ 1,671,737 $ 85,819 $ 6,706,278 $ 106,223 $489,894 $ 854 $ 166,300 $ 18,585,087RA3$ 9,510,743 $ 30,018,066 $ 26,031,831 $ 2,180,788 $ 82,440,087 $ 4,093,332 $3,026,880 $ 1,677 $ 669,308 $ 157,972,711RA3 Incremental$ 3,978,165 $ 24,505,724 $ 1,798,542 $ 553,281 $ 13,999,091 $ 3,862,373 $2,147,683 $ 854 $ 171,138 $ 51,016,851RA4$ 12,597,715 $ 31,175,418 $ 25,312,955 $ 2,310,377 $ 79,163,437 $ 13,303,690 $3,192,046 $ 1,599 $ 675,777 $ 167,733,015RA4 Incremental$ 7,065,137 $ 25,663,076 $ 1,079,666 $ 682,870 $ 10,722,441 $ 13,072,731 $2,312,850 $ 777 $ 177,608 $ 60,777,154Note: Assumes that projects occur in same years in the same relative ratios across formations and scale as current baseline.Regulatory AlternativeRule ComponentDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-72July 2010C.80 Total and Incremental Rule Costs After Increasing the Baseline Number of Projects by 50% - Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount RateGeologic SiteCharacterization MonitoringInjection WellConstruction Area of Review Well Operation MITWell Plugging andPost-Injection SiteCareFinancialResponsibilityPermittingAuthorityAdmin TOTALRA0$ 6,881,645 $ 4,638,357 $ 25,548,767 $ 1,475,104 $ 46,398,232 $ 138,790 $353,689 $ 386 $ 411,743 $ 85,846,713RA1$ 4,593,871 $ 9,125,129 $ 26,148,334 $ 1,552,941 $ 49,772,525 $ 196,009 $490,684 $ 400 $ 646,200 $ 92,526,093RA1 Incremental$ (2,287,775) $ 4,486,772 $ 599,567 $ 77,837 $ 3,374,293 $ 57,219$ 136,995 $ 14 $ 234,457 $ 6,679,379RA2$ 7,637,112 $ 11,594,423 $ 27,419,370 $ 1,552,941 $ 51,042,012 $ 196,009 $526,862 $ 1,214 $ 647,194 $ 100,617,138RA2 Incremental$ 755,466 $ 6,956,066 $ 1,870,603 $ 77,837 $ 4,643,781 $ 57,219$ 173,172 $ 829 $ 235,451 $ 14,770,425RA3$ 11,808,612 $ 26,114,588 $ 27,579,081 $ 1,968,977 $ 56,241,017 $ 2,568,052 $1,156,749 $ 1,214 $ 650,915 $ 128,089,206RA3 Incremental$ 4,926,966 $ 21,476,231 $ 2,030,314 $ 493,873 $ 9,842,785 $ 2,429,263 $803,060 $ 829 $ 239,172 $ 42,242,492RA4$ 15,588,640 $ 26,567,009 $ 26,907,070 $ 2,174,763 $ 54,034,724 $ 8,454,982 $1,204,919 $ 1,162 $ 660,206 $ 135,593,475RA4 Incremental$ 8,706,995 $ 21,928,652 $ 1,358,303 $ 699,659 $ 7,636,492 $ 8,316,192 $851,230 $ 776 $ 248,463 $ 49,746,762Note: Assumes that projects occur in same years in the same relative ratios across formations and scale as current baseline.C.81 Incremental Rule Costs by Cost Type After Increasing and Decreasing the Baseline Number of Projects by 50% - Annualized Values Using 3% and 7% Discount Rates3% 7% % Change3% 7% % Change3% 7% % Change3% 7% % ChangeInc-$1.0 -$1.7 50% $1.8 $2.2 50% $8.6 $6.2 50% $9.4 $6.7 50%Dec-$0.3 -$0.6 -50% $0.6 $0.7 -50% $2.9 $2.1 -50% $3.1 $2.2 -50%Inc$1.5 $1.4 50% $3.0 $3.5 50% $14.1 $9.8 50% $18.6 $14.8 50%Dec$0.5 $0.5 -50% $1.0 $1.2 -50% $4.7 $3.3 -50% $6.2 $4.9 -50%Inc$6.6 $6.7 50% $9.0 $10.5 50% $35.4 $25.0 50% $51.0 $42.2 50%Dec$2.2 $2.2 -50% $3.0 $3.5 -50% $11.8 $8.3 -50% $17.0 $14.1 -50%Inc$9.6 $10.5 50% $8.1 $9.6 50% $43.1 $29.7 50% $60.8 $49.7 50%Dec$3.2 $3.5 -50% $2.7 $3.2 -50% $14.4 $9.9 -50% $20.3 $16.6 -50%Note: Assumes that additional projects occur in same years in the same relative ratios across formations and scale as currentbaseline.Rule ComponentOne-Time Capital O&M TotalRA3RA4Regulatory AlternativeRegulatory AlternativeRA1RA2Increase/ DecreaseDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-73July 2010RegulatoryAlternativeOne-Time Costs % Change Capital Costs % Change O&M Costs % Change Total % ChangeRA07.1$ 3% 15.5$ 0% 49.0$ 0% 71.7$ 1%RA16.4$ 3% 16.7$ 0% 54.8$ 0% 78.0$ 0%RA1 Incremental(0.7)$ 1% 1.2$ 0% 5.8$ 0% 6.3$ 0%RA28.1$ 3% 17.5$ 0% 58.6$ 1% 84.2$ 1%RA2 Incremental1.0$ 1% 2.0$ 0% 9.5$ 1% 12.5$ 1%RA311.6$ 2% 21.5$ 0% 73.1$ 1% 106.2$ 1%RA3 Incremental4.5$ 2% 6.0$ 0% 24.0$ 2% 34.6$ 2%RA413.7$ 3% 20.9$ 0% 78.3$ 1% 112.9$ 1%RA4 Incremental6.6$ 3% 5.4$ 0% 29.3$ 2% 41.2$ 2%% change shows difference between primary analysis and model run using 50% increased labor rate.RegulatoryAlternativeOne-Time Costs % Change Capital Costs % Change O&M Costs % Change Total % ChangeRA07.7$ 3% 16.5$ 0% 33.4$ 0% 57.6$ 1%RA16.6$ 3% 17.9$ 0% 37.5$ 0% 62.0$ 1%RA1 Incremental(1.1)$ 0% 1.5$ 0% 4.1$ 0% 4.5$ 0%RA28.7$ 3% 18.8$ 0% 40.1$ 1% 67.5$ 1%RA2 Incremental1.0$ 2% 2.3$ 0% 6.7$ 1% 10.0$ 1%RA312.2$ 3% 23.5$ 0% 50.4$ 1% 86.1$ 1%RA3 Incremental4.6$ 2% 7.0$ 0% 17.0$ 2% 28.6$ 1%RA414.9$ 3% 22.9$ 0% 53.6$ 1% 91.3$ 1%RA4 Incremental7.2$ 3% 6.4$ 0% 20.1$ 2% 33.7$ 2%C.82 Total and Incremental Rule Costs Based on 100% Increased Labor Rate - Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount Rate ($MM)C.83 Total and Incremental Rule Costs Based on 100% Increased Labor Rate - Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount Rate ($MM)Draft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-74July 2010C.84 Total and Incremental Rule Costs, Change in Cost from Primary Analysis Resulting from 25% Increase/Decrease in Wells - Annualized Values Using a 3% Discount Rate ($MM)One-Time Costs % Change Capital Costs % Change O&M Costs % Change Total % ChangeRA06.9$ 15.5$ 48.9$ 71.3$RA311.4$ 21.5$ 72.4$ 105.3$RA3 Incremental4.4$ 6.0$ 23.6$ 34.0$RA06.9$ -1% 15.3$ -1% 48.0$ -2% 70.2$ -2%RA311.1$ -2% 20.1$ -6% 67.6$ -7% 98.9$ -6%RA3 Incremental4.2$ -4% 4.8$ -20% 19.7$ -17% 28.7$ -16%RA07.0$ 1% 15.7$ 1% 49.8$ 2% 72.4$ 2%RA311.6$ 2% 22.9$ 6% 77.2$ 7% 111.7$ 6%RA3 Incremental4.6$ 4% 7.2$ 20% 27.5$ 17% 39.3$ 16%C.85 Total and Incremental Rule Costs, Change in Cost from Primary Analysis Resulting from 25% Increase/Decrease in Wells - Annualized Values Using a 7% Discount Rate ($MM)One-Time Costs % Change Capital Costs % Change O&M Costs % Change Total % ChangeRA07.4$ 16.5$ 33.3$ 57.2$RA311.9$ 23.5$ 50.0$ 85.4$RA3 Incremental4.4$ 7.0$ 16.7$ 28.2$RA07.4$ 0% 16.3$ -1% 32.6$ -2% 56.3$ -2%RA311.8$ -1% 21.9$ -7% 46.4$ -7% 80.1$ -6%RA3 Incremental4.4$ -2% 5.6$ -20% 13.8$ -17% 23.8$ -16%RA07.5$ 0% 16.7$ 1% 33.9$ 2% 58.1$ 2%RA312.0$ 1% 25.1$ 7% 53.5$ 7% 90.7$ 6%RA3 Incremental4.5$ 2% 8.4$ 20% 19.6$ 17% 32.5$ 16%25% decrease25% increaseRegulatory AlternativePrimary Analysisassumption25% decrease25% increaseRegulatory AlternativePrimary AnalysisassumptionDraft Cost Analysis for theFinal GS RuleC-75July 2010