Should States Decide How to Handle Their Coal Ash? (H.R. 1734)

What is H.R. 1734?

(Updated January 3, 2018)

This bill aims to increase state autonomy, by giving them the power choose their own programs for disposing of coal ash — the byproduct of burning coal for electricity.

If the bill is passed, state governors would have six months to decide if they’re going to set up a coal ash program. If they do, they then have 24 months to get their program certified. Applications for certification would have to include:

• A list of the state agencies that would be involved in running the program;
  
• A plan for how the program is going to meet current compliance, enforcement, and public participation regulations;
  
• A plan for coal ash spills;
  
• And a plan for working with other states.

Though much of the bill links these coal ash programs with the federal laws to which they have to comply, it does allow states to come up with their own alternatives to federal regulations. Specifically, it allows states to come up with their own standards on groundwater protection, when it’s necessary to take action on leaks, and the operation of unlined storage facilities.

The bill also comes with standards on how to deal with inactive storage sites.

Argument in favor

This bill helps states have some autonomy from the EPA when dealing with the byproducts of their coal plants. That makes sense: it’s their mess, they should decide how to deal with it. This is some Adulthood 101.

Argument opposed

States should be able to deal with their coal ash properly, but so far they haven’t. That’s part of why the Federal government exists: to step in when states can’t get the job done. This bill would give them even more chances to screw up.

Impact

People that live near coal ash storage sites, U.S. air and water quality, people and organizations that use groundwater, state access to electricity, state governments, energy companies, and the coal industry.

Cost of H.R. 1734

A CBO cost estimate found that this bill would cost taxpayers $2 million over the 2016-2020 period — assuming that funds are available.

Additional Info

In Depth: This bill has bipartisan support, though most of its backers are Republicans. Of these, a good chunk are from Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Sponsoring Rep. David McKinley’s West Virginia — coal country. But Rep. Peter King (R-NY), whose district is in southern Long Island — not coal country — is also a sponsor, so support for the bill can’t totally be reduced to provincial politics.

Of Note: What are coal combustion residuals? Basically what they sound like: the stuff that’s left over after coal is burned at a power plant (hence their other, more wieldy name, coal ash). Power plants make a whole lot of this stuff. 470 plants tracked by the EPA in 2012 produced some 110 million tons of it. Bad stuff can happen when coal ash gets out of storage facilities. In 2008, a coal ash spill occurred at a Tennessee facility, creating a “tidal wave of water and ash” that destroyed homes, caused a gas leak and went on to clog up rivers and kill fish. 

Since then, the EPA has been working with power plants to ensure that their coal ash is stored safely and securely, issuing a final ruling on storage regulations in 2014. Sponsoring Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) isn’t too happy about it. In his release for this bill, he claims that the EPA’s regulations, which give a whole mess of technical requirements on how this ash has to be stored, will put more than 300,000 jobs at risk. His bill, he explains, gives states the opportunity to deal with coal ash safely and on their own terms.

Media:

• Sponsoring Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) Press Release
  
• CBO Cost Estimate
  
• Energy and Commerce Committee Press Release
  
• Law360
  
• The Ripon Advance
  
• EPA
  
• WUNC