United States Environmental Protection Agency

Public Hearing

William Jefferson Clinton East Building, Room 1153

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Proposed Rule: Clean Power Plan for Existing Sources

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 

July 29, 2014, 2:10pm

Testimony of Elizabeth Glass Geltman, 

Associate Professor & Program Director, 

Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences, 

CUNY School of Public Health &

Hunter College School of Urban Public Health

2180 Third Avenue, Room 524, New York, NY 10035

Good afternoon. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss concerns about the public health issues of 

carbon and US EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan.

1

My name is Elizabeth Glass Geltman and I am an Associate Professor and Director of the 

Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Program at the City University of New York 

(CUNY) School of Public Health and the Urban School of Public Health at Hunter College. I am 

the author of 17 books on environmental and natural resources policy and an attorney with over 

30 years experience in environmental law and regulation.

Climate change is undoubtedly one of the most significant public health concerns facing 

mankind.2 The human perils of climate change are becoming increasingly apparent from sea 

level rise and storm damage.3 In New York City, we are still feeling the after affects of 

Hurricane Sandy.4

 1 78 Fed. Reg. 25267 (April 30, 2013).

2 IPCC. 2013: CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON 

CLIMATE CHANGE. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/; Shindell D, and others. 2012. Simultaneously 

mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security, 355 SCIENCE183-

189.

3 See, e.g., National Research Council, REDUCING COASTAL RISK ON TH EAST AND GULF COASTS (2014), 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18811

4 Id. See, e.g. Mitigation Assessment Team Report Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York, 

BUILDING PERFORMANCE OBSERVATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

2

I applaud efforts by US EPA to reduce carbon emissions.

I am, however, deeply concerned about several aspects of the US EPA plan. First, while I 

understand that focusing on carbon emissions from power plants is the presidential mandate,5

focusing on carbon emissions to the exclusion of methane emissions is problematic. Methane is 

also a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. 6

Focusing on carbon alone is like checking your car’s gas tank and ignoring the oil level when the 

check engine light is on. 

Clean Power must focus on both methane and carbon emissions. To the extent power plants use 

natural gas (and currently about 30% of our power plants already do)7 it is imperative that US 

EPA promulgate and enforce regulations to ensure that the best available control technologies 

are used to detect, prevent and control methane leakage from power plants and related 

infrastructure.

8

 

FEMA P-942 (November 2013), http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1386850803857-

025eb299df32c6782fdcbb6f69b35b13/Combined_Sandy_MAT_Report_508post.pdf; US Department of 

Housing & Urban Development, Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy (2013), 

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=hsrebuildingstrategy.pdf;

New York City, After Hurricane Sandy: Construction in Flood Zones (2013),

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/after_hurricane_sandy_AIA_presentation.pdf

5 Presidential Memorandum—Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards (June 25, 2013), 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change

6 Alvarez RA, Pacala SW, Winebrake JJ, Chameides WL, and Hamburg SP. 2012. Greater focus needed 

on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi 

10.1073/pnas.1202407109; Brandt AF, Heath GA, Kort EA, O’Sullivan FO, Pétron G, Jordaan SM, Tans 

P, Wilcox J., Gopstein AM, Arent D, Wofsy S, Brown NJ, Bradley R, Stucky GD, Eardley D, and Harriss 

R. 2014. Methane leaks from North American natural gas systems. Science 343: 733-735; Howarth RW. 

2014. A bridge to nowhere: Methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas. Energy 

Science & Engineering, doi 10.1002/ese3.35 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.35/full; 

Howarth, R. W., D. Shindell, R. Santoro, A. Ingraffea, N. Phillips, and A. Townsend-Small. 2012. 

Methane emissions from natural gas systems. Background paper prepared for the National Climate 

Assessment, Reference # 2011-003, Office of Science & Technology Policy Assessment, Washington, 

DC. http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/publications/Howarth_et_al_2012_National_Climate_Assessme

nt.pdf; Miller SM, Wofsy SC, Michalak AM, Kort EA, Andrews AE, Biraud SC, Dlugokencky EJ, 

Eluszkiewicz J, Fischer ML, Janssens-Maenhout G, Miller BR, Miller JB, Montzka SA, Nehrkorn T, and 

Sweeney C. 2013. Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, doi 10.1073/pnas.1314392110

7 R. J. Campbell, EPA’s Proposed Greenhouse Gas Regulations: Implications for the Electric Power 

Sector, Congressional Research Service (June 23, 2014)(38% of our power plants in the US are currently 

coal-fired), http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads//assets/crs/R43621.pdf

8 See Jackson, Robert B., et al. "Natural gas pipeline leaks across Washington, DC." Environmental 

science & technology 48.3 (2014): 2051-2058 (discussing methane leakage from infrastructure in 

Washington, DC), http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es404474x
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

3

Second, I am worried that components of US EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan Best System of 

Emission Reduction (BSER) encourages unsustainable practices that will neither reduce climate 

change nor best protect the environment and human health.

9 In particular, I am alarmed that US 

EPA’s emphasis on redispatch in block 2 of BSER is a bad idea. Redispatch encourages states to 

reduce carbon emissions by shifting from coal-fired power plants to power plants fueled with 

natural gas.10

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that most, if not all, natural gas will 

soon come from unconventional sources -- primarily shale gas drilled using hydraulic fracturing 

(what the public calls “fracked gas”).11

The science on fracked gas remains controversial. Whether the life cycle of fracked gas in fact 

causes less greenhouse gas emissions than those from other carbon based sources is unclear.

12

The extent to which fracked gas causes contamination of ground water and surface waters is 

unclear.

13 The extent to which fracked gas causes depletion of scarce water resources is 

 9 79 Fed. Reg. 34830 (June 18, 2014).

10 P. Parenteau & A. Barnes, A Bridge Too Far: Building Off-Ramps on the Shale Gas Superhighway, __ 

IDAHO L. REV. ___ at 4 (“The claim that a natural gas surge will ultimately provide a net benefit for the 

environment, however, rests on shaky ground.”), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2265866

11 US Energy Information Agency, Projected Shale Gas Production, http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/

12 See Howarth RW. 2014. A bridge to nowhere: Methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of 

natural gas. Energy Science & Engineering, doi 

10.1002/ese3.35 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.35/full; Howarth, R. W., D. Shindell, R. 

Santoro, A. Ingraffea, N. Phillips, and A. Townsend-Small. 2012. Methane emissions from natural gas 

systems. Background paper prepared for the National Climate Assessment, Reference # 2011-003, Office 

of Science & Technology Policy Assessment, Washington, 

DC. http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/publications/Howarth_et_al_2012_National_Climate_Assessme

nt.pdf But see Allen, David T., et al. "Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites 

in the United States." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.44 (2013): 17768-17773.

13 See, e.g., homas H. Darrah, Avner Vengosh, Robert B. Jackson, Nathaniel R. Warner and Robert J. Poreda. 

Noble Gases Identify the Mechanisms of Fugitive Gas Contamination in Drinking-Water Wells Overlying the 

Marcellus and Barnett Shales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014, 10.1073/pnas.1322107111

DOI (data suggests that where methane contamination in groundwater from shale gas extraction occurs, the 

groundwater contamination was caused by poor casing and cementing in the wells),; Vengosh, Avner, et al. A 

critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic 

fracturing in the United States. Environmental science & technology (2014), 

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es405118y; Warner, N. R., Jackson, R. B., Darrah, T. H., Osborn, S. 

G., Down, A., Zhao, K., ... & Vengosh, A. (2012). Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration 

of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow aquifers in Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences, 109(30), 11961-11966, http://www.fraw.org.uk/files/extreme/warner_2012.pdf; Haluszczak, 

L. O., Rose, A. W., & Kump, L. R. (2013). Geochemical evaluation of flowback brine from Marcellus 

gas wells in Pennsylvania, USA. Applied Geochemistry, 28, 55-61, 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292712002752; T. Myers, Potential Contaminant 

Pathways from Hydraulic Fractured Shale to Aquifers, 50 Groundwater 872 (2012); S. G. Osbron, et al, 

Methane contamination of drinking water and accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing,
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

4

unclear.

14 In short, both the health effects15 and environmental impacts of fracked gas are still 

very unclear.

The lack of clear and convincing scientific consensus that the practice of using hydraulic 

fracturing to extract shale gas is safe should cause the regulators to pause.

16 Before we invest 

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1100682108 (2011). See also Cuomo, Andrew M., and 

Corning Tower. Evidence linking water contamination to fracking–related activities is now indisputable. 

(2014); Jacksona, Robert B. The integrity of oil and gas wells. (2014). See generally N. SChroek & S. 

Karisny, Hydraulic Fracturing & Water Management in the Great Lakes, 63 CASE WESTERN L. REV.

1166 ( 2013); J. W. Burnett, Hydraulic Fracturing & US Water Policy, West Virginia University 

Discussion Paper 1309 (March 2013); American Water Works Association, Water & Hydraulic 

Fracturing (2013), http://www.awwa.org/fracturing; National Groundwater Association, Hydraulic 

Fracturing: Meeting the Nation’s Energy Needs While Protecting Groundwater Resources (Feb. 19, 

2014); H. Cooley & K. Donnelly, Hydraulic Fracturing & Water Resources: What Do We Know & Need 

to Know?, in the WORLD’S WATER Vol. 8 (20__), http://worldwater.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/22/2013/07/ww8-ch4-fracking.pdf; H. Cooley & K. Donnelly, Hydraulic Fracturing 

& Water Resources: Separating the Frack from the Fiction (Pacific Institute June 2012); Western 

Resource Advocates, http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/04/fracking-water-sources.pdf, 

Fracking Our Future: Measuring Water & Community Impacts from Hydraulic Fracturing, (June 2012), 

http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/frackwater/WRA_FrackingOurFuture_2012.pdf.

14 See M. Jiang et al, Life Cycle Consumption and Wasterwater Generation Impacts of a Marcellus Shale 

Gas Well, 48 Environ Sci. & Technol. 1911 (2013); M. Fry et al., Fracking & Faucets: Balancing Energy 

Needs and Water Sustainability at Urban Frontiers, 46 Environ Sci. & Technol. 7444 (2012); Gregory, K. 

B., Vidic, R. D., & Dzombak, D. A. (2011). Water management challenges associated with the production 

of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing. Elements, 7(3), 181-186., 

http://elements.geoscienceworld.org/content/7/3/181.abstract But see Nicot, J. P., & Scanlon, B. R. 

(2012). Water use for shale-gas production in Texas, US. 46 Environ Sci. & Technol.,3580-3586, 

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es204602t

15 See Vidic, R. D., et al. Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 340.6134 

(2013): 1235009, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/1235009.abstract See also Bamberger 

M, Oswald RE, Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health, New Solut. 2012;22(1):51-77. doi: 

10.2190/NS.22.1.e, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446060; E.L. Hill, Shale Gas Development 

and Infant Health: Evidence from Pennsylvania, Cornell University Charles H. Dyson School of Applied 

Economics & Management Working Paper 2012-12 (December 2013), 

http://dyson.cornell.edu/research/researchpdf/wp/2012/Cornell-Dyson-wp1212.pdf

16 See R. Rawlins, Planning for Fracking on the Barnett Shale: Urban Air Pollution, Improving Health 

Based Regulations, and the Role of Local Governments, 31 Virginia Envtl. L. Rev. 226 ((2103):

“There is no comprehensive cumulative risk assessment to consider the potential impact 

to public health in urban areas. Drilling operations are being conducted in residential 

areas. Residents living in close proximity to gas operations ..... voiced concerns for their 

health, which have yet to be comprehensively evaluated. Given the complexity of the 

science, and the dearth of clear, transparent, and enforceable standards, inadequate 

studies and limited statistical analysis have been allowed to proved potentially false 

assurances. The politically expedient bottom line dominates with little attention paid to 

the quality of the science or the adequacy of the standards.”
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

5

further in shifting our electrical power plants from relying on coal to fracked gas to power our 

lives and our economy, we must apply the precautionary principle and be sure of the health and 

environmental safety of shale gas extraction.

Congress recognized the uncertainties about water quality and quantity issues caused by fracking 

when it required US EPA to conduct a study.17 At a minimum, it is irresponsible for US EPA to 

encourage additional fracking infrastructure until US EPA concludes the Congressionally 

mandated drinking water study of the shale gas extraction life cycle.18 It is also necessary that 

US EPA completes the notice and comment process evaluating the promulgation of hydraulic 

fracturing chemical and mixture disclosure rules under the Toxic Substance Control Act

(TSCA)19 before encouraging the building of more gas fueled power plants.

The redispatch portion of the Clean Power Plan currently relies heavily on expanding drilling 

and further investing in fracked gas. 20 Once built, the fracked gas dependent infrastructure will 

be extremely difficult to undo.

Converting even more of our power plants from coal to fracked natural gas may lead to less 

carbon emissions and particulates from coal in the air, but the thirst for drilling fracked gas could 

lead to serious water quality and quantity issues. Regulators must very carefully weigh whether 

the massive investment in fracked gas that redispatch requires will reduce air emissions and 

climate change at the expense of sufficient drinkable water.

Currently about 30% of our national power plants rely on natural gas to generate electricity.21 If 

the 38% of coal-fired power plants are converted under the redispatch program, then 68% of our 

 

See also Ratner, M., & Tiemann, M. (2013). An overview of unconventional oil and natural gas:

resources and federal actions. Congressional Services Report. 

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/221258.pdf

17 EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0674 Request for Information To Inform Hydraulic Fracturing Research Related 

to Drinking Water Resources, 78 Fed. Reg. 25267 (April 30, 2013), 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0674

18 Id.

19 79 Fed. Reg. 28664 (May 19, 2014); 79 Fed. Reg. 40703 (July 14, 2014), 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-1019. See generally K. Hall,

Hydraulic Fracturing: Trade Secrets & the Mandatory Disclosure of Fracturing Water Composition, 49 

IDAHO L. REV. 434. (2013). Compare D. Cahoy et al, Fracking Patents: The Emergence of Patents as 

Information-Containment Tools in Shale Drilling, 19 MICHIGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS & TECH. L.

REV. 279 (2013); H. Wiseman, The Private Role in Public Fracturing Disclosure & Regulation, Harvard 

Business Review Online 51-53 (2013), http://ssrn.com.abstract=2192633; H. Wiseman, Trade Secrets, 

Disclosure, And Dissent in a Fracturing Energy Revolution, 111 COLUMBIA L. REV. 8-10 (2011).

20 79 Fed. Reg. 34830 (June 18, 2014). See also R. J. Campbell, EPA’s Proposed Greenhouse Gas 

Regulations: Implications for the Electric Power Sector, Congressional Research Service (June 23, 2014), 

http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads//assets/crs/R43621.pdf

21 R. J. Campbell, EPA’s Proposed Greenhouse Gas Regulations: Implications for the Electric Power 
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

6

power plants will rely of fracked gas.22 If 68% of the nation’s power is dependent on natural gas, 

then the process of fracking will be with us for a very long time – and natural gas will not be a 

bridge fuel.23

The Marcellus and Devonian Shales, the largest shale gas resources on the East coast if not the 

US,

24 sit on top of an aquifer that is the drinking water source for more than nine (9) million 

people.25 Imagine a drilling accident akin to the DeepWater Horizon spill in the drinking water 

aquifer for over nine (9) million people. Scary.

The health effects of cleaner air will be difficult to enjoy if there is no clean water to drink. The 

redispatch portion of the Clean Power Plant rule should be abandoned--- at least until US EPA 

concludes its water study and determines the practice will keep US surface and groundwater safe 

and until US EPA promulgates regulations under TSCA requiring disclosure of chemicals used 

in shale gas extraction that could contaminate water in the event of a spill or accident.

In short, I whole heartedly applaud the effort of US EPA to reduce carbon based greenhouse gas 

emissions and I support the efforts to begin with power plants. Reducing carbon emissions is an 

important goal. Three blocks of BSER are well drafted: efforts to make coal plants more 

efficient, encouraging low/zero emitting facilities by using renewables like wind and 

encouraging more demand side energy efficiency are laudable approaches. Reducing dependence 

on coal will help reduce green house gas emissions; however, moving from coal to natural gas as 

a bridge fuel before we take adequate precautions to protect human health and the environment

when we engage in shale gas extraction is a mistake.

I caution that encouraging redispatch of existing power plants to use fracked gas is highly 

problematic and should be approached with extreme care.

Thank you for your efforts to curb climate change. Let’s be sure the plan we use presents a safe 

path.

 

Sector, Congressional Research Service (June 23, 2014), http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads//assets/crs/R43621.pdfunconventional

22 Id.

23 P. Parenteau & A. Barnes, A Bridge Too Far: Building Off-Ramps on the Shale Gas Superhighway, __ 

IDAHO L. REV. 328 at 10 (“Central to the debate about climate benefits of natural gas as a bridge fuel is 

the rate of methane leakage from the life cycle of gas. Empirical data is sorely lacking, ant there is sharp 

disagreement among experts about how to interpret the little information available.”), 

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2265866

24 US Energy Information Agency, United States Shale Gas Maps, 

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/maps/maps.htm

25 USGS Groundwater Information Map, http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

7

Appendix 1

The$problem$with$Redispatch$

Clean$Power$

Plan$$

Block$2$

Redispatch$

Increased,$

Long$Term$

Investment$

in$Fracked$

Gas$

5"
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

8

Appendix 2

US EIA 

Most%Natural%Gas%Will%Be%“Fracked”%Gas%

Source:(US(EIA(
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

9

Appendix 3

US EIA

Current'Natural'Gas'Usage'

7" Source:"US"EIA"
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

10

Appendix 4: 

US EPA 

US#EPA#is#still#conducting#

Shale#Gas#Extraction#Drinking#Water#Study#

Mandated#by#Congress#

8( Source:(US(EPA(
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

11

Appendix 5:

Premature(Action?(

US(EPA((

Clean(Power(Plan(

Block(2:(Redispatch(

US(EPA(Shale(Gas(

Extraction((

Drinking(Water(Study(

9"
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

12

Appendix 6:

US EIA & USGS

Marcellus)&)Devonian)Shale)

sit)over)the)drinking)water)aquifer)for)9)million)people)

Shale&Gas& Aquifers&

10& Sources:&US&EIA;&USGS&&&
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

13

Appendix 7

What%are%the%risks?%

Redispatch

leads%to:%

Increased%Shale%

Gas%Extraction%

Water%

Contamination%

Methane%

Radon%

Chemicals%

Increased%

Water%Usage% Drought%

11"
Geltman	Testimony,	US	EPA	Clean	Power	Plan,	July	29,	2014,	2:10pm,	Washington,	DC

14

Appendix 8

Proceed'with'Caution!'

Best'System'of'Emission'Reduction'(BSER)'Block'2:'Redispatch

12#

Coal' Fracked'

Gas'

Water'Pollution'

Water'Stress'

GHG'

Methane'

GHG'

Carbon'