### This comment letter response contains two parts:

(1) The original submittal from the commenter.

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

Notes about the response letters:

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

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

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

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

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA

‐ assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.

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

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

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

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

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

appropriately addressed.

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

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

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

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

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

construction requirements).

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

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

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

commenter was given a unique response.

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

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

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

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

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.

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

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

### October 15, 2009 4653 Table Mtn, Drive

Golden, Colorado 80403-1636



### Water Docket

U.S. EPA, Mail Code: 4101T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Washington, DC 20460

RE: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control Program for

Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells; Notice of Data Availability and

Request for Comment, 74. Fed. Reg. 44802 (August 31, 2009)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Xcel Energy Inc. ("Xcel Energy") submits these comments on the Environmental

Protection Agency’s Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for the proposed regulations

for the injection and geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) under the authority of the

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) underground injection control (UIC) program, 74 Fed.

Reg. 44802 (August 31, 2009) (proposed rule).

Xcel Energy is one of the largest combination natural gas and electricity company

in the nation as measured by the number of customers served. Xcel Energy has regulated

operations in 8 Western and Midwestern states. We provide services to 3.4 million

electricity customers and 1.9 million natural gas customers. Xcel Energy’s generating

units are capable of producing over 16,400 megawatts of electricity, using a variety of

fuel sources including coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar and hydropower. Xcel

Energy provided oral and written testimony at EPA’s October 2, 2008, public hearing on

the proposed rule. In addition, Xcel Energy provided written comments on the proposed

rule in December 2008. The testimony from the public hearing and submitted comments

are incorporated by reference herein.

As a company, ~ve are committed to developing cleaner sources of electricity

generation. The EPA recently recognized Xcel Energy with a 2009 ENERGY STAR

partner of the year award for contributions to energy efficiency and reducing gn’eenhouse

gas emissions. For three consecutive years, the American Wind Energy Association hasXcel Energy Comments

NODA for Proposed Regulations for Geological Storage of CO2

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

October 15, 2009

Page 2 of 3



### nanaed Xcel Energy the nation’s No. 1 wind energy provider. Also, Xcel Energy ranks

No. 5 among U.S. utilities for solar capacity, according to the Solar Electric Power

Association. With over 3,600 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy capacity on our

system, we have plans to reach nearly 9,000 MW of renewable generation by 2020. In

the past, we embarked on an ambitious effort to investigate the feasibility of developing a

coal-fueled integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant in Colorado that would

include carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). We recognize how important coal is as

an energy resource to our state, region, and nation, and therefore how important it is to

develop cleaner ways to generate electricity from coal.

Xcel Energy commends the EPA in its reconsideration of the originally proposed

prohibition of CO2 injection into zones between and above the lowermost underground

sources of drinking water (USDW). Out’ prior comments included discussion concerning

the need for the EPA to avoid prohibitions that might stifle development of CO2

geological storage by implementing a "one size fits all" regulatory approach. As it was

originally written, the prohibition would have excluded many parts of the countt2¢ from

CCS using geological storage.

Xcel Energy believes that geological storage done on a case-by-case basis with a

permitting process based on clear and appropriate parameters identified in the ~ales and

that demonstrates the presence of suitable geologic characteristics that protect USDWs

would be the preferred option. However, Xcel Energy recognizes that the proposed

waiver process may provide a reasonable flexible compromise between the competing

interests.

As proposed, the waiver applicant would be required to submit additional site

specific information prior to completing a Class VI permit application. The waiver

process should not include requirements that are redundant to the permitting process. In

addition, the waiver process needs to have clear guidelines for decision makers that

review the waiver applications to ensure a transparent and predictable process for

applicants and interested parties.Xce! Energy Comments

NODA for Proposed Regulations for Geological Storage of CO2

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

October 15, 2009

Page 3 of 3



### Xcel Energy supports EPA’s continued collaborative effort with states in the

development of the Class VI application and approval process. Permitting decisions are

best made at the state level where there is kno~vledge of local geologic conditions and

awareness of public concerus. Xcel Energy supports the concept that states should have

the ability to obtain only Class VI delegation authority.

Both the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group USWAG) and Edison Electric

Institute (EEI) are providing comments on the NODA with more detail, Xcel Energy

supports the comments submitted by USWAG and EEL

Xcel Energy believes that the NODA is a significant step in drafting a final rule

that does not unduly hinder progress towards commercial deployment of geological

storage while protecting against potential environmental risks. Thank you for the

opportunity to provide comments on the NODA. Please fell free to contact me if you

have any questions at 720-497-2015.

Sincerely,

Olon Plunk

Vice President, Environmental Services

Xcel Energy Inc.Letter ID: 0344

Commenter: Olon Plunk

Organization: Xcel Energy, Inc.

Letter ID: 0344 Comment ID: 27874 Letter Lines: 68 to 81

Comment Code: 3210 3.2.1. Comments Generally in Support of the Approach

Comment: Xcel Energy commends the EPA in its reconsideration of the originally proposed

prohibition of CO2 injection into zones between and above the lowermost

underground sources of drinking water (USDW). Our prior comments included

discussion concerning the need for the EPA to avoid prohibitions that might

stifle development of CO2 geological storage by implementing a "one size fits

all" regulatory approach. As it was originally written, the prohibition would

have excluded many parts of the country from CCS using geological storage.

Xcel Energy believes that geological storage done on a case

‐ by

‐ case basis with a

permitting process based on clear and appropriate parameters identified in the

rules and that demonstrates the presence of suitable geologic characteristics

that protect USDWs would be the preferred option. However, Xcel Energy

recognizes that the proposed waiver process may provide a reasonable flexible

compromise between the competing interests.

Individual Response: The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners and operators

can seek a waiver of the Class VI injection depth requirements. EPA agrees that a flexible, site

‐ specific

approach to waiver determinations (and all Class VI permitting decisions) is appropriate. Site

‐ specific

demonstrations of injection zone integrity along with proper well construction, operation, monitoring,

and post closure site care are the best way to ensure USDW safety while allowing flexibility for GS above

or between USDWs. EPA believes that the additional requirements that apply to owners or operators of

Class VI wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements will provide additional

considerations for the owner or operator and Director when permitting such wells to ensure protection

of all USDWs.

The Agency believes the waiver approach: 1) responds to concerns about local and regional geologic

storage capacity limitations imposed by the proposed injection depth requirements; 2) allows for a more

site

‐ specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into different

formation types; 4) allows for injection of CO2 for GS into non

‐ USDWs above and/or between USDWs

when appropriate and where it can be demonstrated that USDWs will be protected; and 5) responds to

concerns about the use of aquifer exemptions for GS. Finally, EPA's approach to addressing injectiondepth variability through a waiver process responds to concerns about future drinking water resource

availability and the need to ensure that high quality water remains available in sufficient quantities to

supply drinking water needs.

Letter ID: 0344 Comment ID: 27875 Letter Lines: 83 to 88

Comment Code: 3240 3.2.4. Comments that the Approach Requests Too Much Data (seeking comment)

Comment: As proposed, the waiver applicant would be required to submit additional site

specific information prior to completing a Class VI permit application. The

waiver process should not include requirements that are redundant to the

permitting process. In addition, the waiver process needs to have clear

guidelines for decision makers that review the waiver applications to ensure a

transparent and predictable process for applicants and interested parties.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the information required to obtain a waiver is necessary to

ensure that the owner or operator collects information and demonstrates to the Director that the

injection zone is suitable for GS, is confined by confining units above and below the injection zone, and

that well construction, operation, and monitoring are tailored for the site and take into consideration

the presence of USDWs above and below the injection zone. Because USDW protection is the priority of

the GS rule, owners or operators seeking waivers must provide a supplemental report (the GS Class VI

injection depth waiver application report), referenced at §146.82(d) and outlined at §146.95(a), with

their Class VI permit applications. This report, suggested by commenters, is designed to ensure that all

waiver information is discrete (from the permit application) and can be made available to the Director,

PWSS Directors, and the public when the waiver is publicly noticed with the draft Class VI permit

application. The Agency believes that this report and requirements at §146.95 are complementary and

not redundant of the Class VI permit application requirements. Furthermore, to eliminate concerns

about duplication or redundancy, the requirements at §146.82(d) clarify that the supplemental report is

not part of the permit application.

The final GS rule also contains a clear and transparent review process. Section 146.95(b) establishes

considerations that the UIC Director must assess when evaluating a waiver application to ensure that

USDW protection, site

‐ specific drinking water resource issues, and the use and impact of GS

technologies are considered and documented. Section 146.95(c) requires the Director to give public

notice, as part of the permit application process, including notice that a waiver application has been

submitted. If the permitting authority receives comments on the injection depth waiver during the

public comment period for both the waiver and the permit application, the Director in consultation with

the Regional Administrator, must evaluate comments prior to providing a recommendation to the

Regional Administrator regarding a waiver and issuing the Class VI permit.EPA is developing guidance on the injection depth waiver process. The guidance describes the

recommended approach an owner or operator may follow when submitting a waiver application,

processing waiver applications by the UIC and PWSS Program Directors, and additional considerations

that may apply to projects that have been issued waivers. This guidance will be available on EPA’s

website at water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0344 Comment ID: 27876 Letter Lines: 90 to 95

Comment Code: 3390 3.3.9. Comments Regarding State Discretion to Adopt the Waiver Approach

Comment: Xcel Energy supports EPA's continued collaborative effort with states in the

development of the Class VI application and approval process. Permitting

decisions are best made at the state level where there is knowledge of local

geologic conditions and awareness of public concerns. Xcel Energy supports the

concept that states should have the ability to obtain only Class VI delegation

authority.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that adoption of the waiver process remains at the discretion of

individual UIC programs. Therefore, States, Territories, and Tribes seeking primacy for Class VI wells are

not required to provide for injection depth waivers in their UIC regulations and may choose not to make

this process available to Class VI wells under their jurisdiction. Although some commenters asked EPA to

require that waivers be applied nationally, the Agency believes that the decision about whether a waiver

program is appropriate in a specific State, Tribe, or Territory should be made by each program. This

approach allows flexibility for individual program Directors to determine the appropriateness of allowing

for waivers based on regional or state

‐ specific conditions, such as the predominant geologic settings

anticipated to be used for GS or other land uses in the state while ensuring maximum protection of

USDWs. The final approach for injection depth waivers represents minimum Federal requirements. UIC

program Directors may adopt GS requirements that do not allow injection above or between USDWs if

they determine this to be appropriate (for conditions in their State, Territory, Tribe, or Region) and

protective.