generaon and a robust recycling industry inthe United States. This translates into higherelectricity rates and less jobs in an alreadystruggling economy.Reclassicaon will risk sgmazing thenumerous benecial uses of CCRs, whichcontributes to more than $2 billion in economicacvity.In addion to threatening the CCRrecycling trade, regulang any aspect of coalash as hazardous waste could create enormouscompliance costs and force power plantrerements. A 2010 report by the CongressionalWestern Caucus states: the rule “would have theeect of treang coal ash like nuclear waste andmake it nearly impossible to operate a powerplant with coal due to the costly requirementsthat would go along with such a designaon.”Subtle C compliance costs for electric ulieswould be in the conservave range of atleast $55 billion to $77 billion. The EPA itself esmates the average regulatory cost, for thenext 50 years, to be almost $1.5 billion a year.Other esmates have found that the price tagcould run up to $20 billion annually. BryanHannegan, Vice President of the environmentalsector for the Electric Power Research Instute,sees a risk that “250 to 350 coal units could beshut down, in an extreme scenario, and driveup the cost of electricity.”
WHY IS THIS UNNECESSARY?
In its own studies over the years, the EPA foundthat it was inappropriate to designate coal ashas a hazardous waste. By doing so now, andwithout the science or cost-benet analysesto back up the change, the EPA is taking aconthat will cost billions of dollars and potenallyreduce electricity reliability for no jusablereason. If, as is stated in numerous governmentand private studies, coal ash does not havehigh levels of toxicity, then this rule will be allcost and no benet.Groups including the U.S. Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administraon, theDepartment of Agriculture, the Electric PowerResearch Instute, a variety of state agencies,and the EPA itself have studied CCRs over thelast several decades, and all have found that thetoxicity levels in CCRs are far below criteria thatwould require a hazardous designaon.In addion, the EPA stated in a 2005 studythat “the regulatory infrastructure is generallyin place at the state level to ensure adequatemanagement of these wastes” and that statesshould connue to be the principal regulatoryauthority for regulang CCRs as they arebest suited to develop and implement CCRregulatory programs tailored to specic climateand geological condions designed to protecthuman health and the environment.
•Introduce ALEC model legislaon thataddresses the Coal Ash Rule:•Resoluon opposing EPA’s RegulatoryTrain Wreck•State Regulatory Responsibility Act•Resoluon to Retain State Authorityover Coal Ash as Non-Hazardous Waste•Write focused, joint leers to members of Congress•Write an op-ed or pursue other pressopportunies highlighng the impact of thisregulaon.For more informaon about the EPA’s Coal AshRule, contact Todd Wynn, Director of ALEC’sEnergy, Environment and Agriculture TaskForce, at 202.742.8542 or firstname.lastname@example.org
REGULATION OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUES (CCRS)