House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee debates coal ash rules, state primacy and ‘beneficial use’

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers and technical witnesses at a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment hearing debated how the federal government and states should regulate coal combustion residuals, commonly called coal ash, and whether expanded beneficial use of ash can be safe and practical.

“Today, the subcommittee will examine coal ash management practices and innovative ways people are utilizing coal waste,” Subcommittee Chairman Griffith said in opening remarks. The committee’s exchange focused on the 2015 EPA rule that first regulated coal ash, the 2016 WIN Act that allowed state permitting programs, and the 2024 “legacy” rule that extended federal requirements to old impoundments and previously excluded units.

Why it matters: Coal‑fired plants produce millions of tons of ash each year that are stored in ponds or landfills; when those disposal sites leak or fail they can contaminate groundwater and nearby surface waters. Witnesses differed sharply on the scale of that risk, the sufficiency of state oversight under the WIN Act, and the extent to which beneficial uses—such as incorporating fly ash into concrete—can reduce disposal needs while protecting public health.

Most important facts

• EPA history and current review: The EPA first issued criteria for coal combustion residuals in 2015; Congress in 2016 (WIN Act) authorized states to run EPA‑approved CCR permit programs. In 2024 EPA finalized a rule expanding federal obligations to include legacy impoundments and previously excluded disposal units. EPA has since announced a review of the 2024 rule and said it will prioritize working with states on permit approvals.

• Divergent views from witnesses: Michigan, Arizona and North Dakota utility, state and industry witnesses emphasized site‑specific regulation, the economic burden of the 2024 rule on ratepayers and rural co‑op members, and the growth of beneficial use markets. Environmental witnesses and advocates said coal ash contains hazardous constituents and that expanded federal enforcement and cleanup are necessary to protect communities.

• Examples and data cited at the hearing: Witnesses and members referenced industry and government figures—testimony cited that roughly 69% of U.S. coal ash was reportedly beneficially used in 2023 (American Coal Ash Association), industry filings and studies pointing to large potential reserves of rare earth elements in ash, and environmental analyses asserting that the majority of coal plants have shown groundwater contamination above federal benchmarks.

What witnesses told the committee

• Michelle Friarch, executive director of regulatory affairs and corporate services at Arizona Electric Power Cooperative (APCO), said APCO sells more than 90% of its fly ash for beneficial reuse and asked EPA to permit more site‑specific, risk‑based approaches and to delay legacy‑rule deadlines while EPA reconsiders the 2024 requirements. Friarch said the legacy rule’s “one size fits all approach will result in massive cost to the utility industry that will ultimately be borne by rural end consumers.”

• Dave Glatt, director of the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, described a multidecade state regulatory program that requires engineered landfills, groundwater monitoring, and financial assurance. Glatt testified that North Dakota has spent years pursuing EPA program approval and called the federal review “frustrating, unnecessarily long, time consuming, and at times not rooted in sound science and the law,” urging EPA to visit sites and respect state expertise.

• Lisa Evans, senior counsel at Earthjustice, urged strong federal standards and enforcement. She said coal ash “contains hazardous substances including arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead, lithium, radium, and more,” described health risks tied to exposure and groundwater contamination, and said recent agency science findings increased concerns about arsenic and radioactivity in some ash when used as unencapsulated fill.

• Thomas (Tom) Adams, executive director of the American Coal Ash Association, emphasized beneficial reuse as a large U.S. recycling activity that “conserves natural resources” and reduces greenhouse gas emissions in cement production. Adams said industry harvesting of previously disposed ash is growing and argued the 2024 rule’s risk assessment contains flaws that could constrain beneficial use.

Points of contention

• State primacy versus federal oversight: Supporters of state permitting said the WIN Act intended to allow states to manage coal ash programs that are at least as protective as federal standards; critics warned that state programs have at times approved inadequate monitoring and enforcement. Witnesses and members debated whether EPA’s conditional approvals and the speed of approvals are appropriate.

• Legacy sites and deadlines: Industry and co‑op witnesses urged delays to legacy‑rule deadlines and asked EPA to allow site‑specific risk evaluations before requiring duplicative monitoring or costly remedial actions at impoundments that have longstanding state oversight. Environmental advocates countered that legacy impoundments and dry disposal areas historically excluded from the 2015 rule were causing ongoing groundwater contamination and needed regulation.

• Beneficial use and health risks: Industry witnesses repeatedly said encapsulated uses such as fly ash in concrete and synthetic gypsum in wallboard are safe and reduce overall disposal; environmental witnesses warned against unencapsulated structural fills and uses where ash can contact people, groundwater or surface water. Lisa Evans said reuse that leaves ash in contact with soil or groundwater has produced documented contamination in a number of communities.

Selected quotations

“Today, the subcommittee will examine coal ash management practices and innovative ways people are utilizing coal waste.” — Chairman Griffith

“Coal ash contains hazardous substances including arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead, lithium, radium, and more.” — Lisa Evans, Earthjustice

“We believe coal ash can exhibit certain beneficial use characteristics and is not appropriate to regulate as a hazardous waste.” — Dave Glatt, North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality

“The best solution to coal ash disposal problems is to quit throwing it away.” — Thomas Adams, American Coal Ash Association

Clarifying details and figures referenced in testimony

• “Over 200 coal‑fired electric power plants” was cited as part of opening remarks describing the U.S. fleet.

• American Coal Ash Association data cited at the hearing: roughly 69% of coal ash produced in 2023 was reported as recycled or beneficially used.

• EPA and NGO figures were cited in different places: environmental testimony cited analyses finding groundwater contamination at a large share of coal plants; Earthjustice and ranking members referenced a claim that industry monitoring identified widespread contamination (testimony summarized as “91%” of plants with contamination in some witnesses’ remarks).

• North Dakota’s rules described in testimony include requirements for groundwater monitoring, 10‑year permit lengths, 30‑year post‑closure monitoring, and financial assurance for landfill closure.

Implications and next steps

EPA has announced it is reviewing the 2024 legacy rule and signaled it will prioritize working with states on permit program approvals. Lawmakers and witnesses asked for a mixture of policy responses: some urged quicker state program approvals and more site‑specific, risk‑based federal permitting consistent with the WIN Act; others urged stronger federal enforcement, closing of legacy impoundments that pose ongoing contamination risks, and prohibitions or restrictions on unencapsulated structural uses of ash.

The hearing produced no formal votes. Members and witnesses left contrasting views about how to balance disposal cleanup, prevention of human exposure, utility costs and grid reliability, and the potential for beneficial use and rare‑earth recovery. The EPA review and any subsequent rulemaking or guidance will determine which of those approaches becomes dominant.

Ending

Committee members placed multiple documents and filings into the hearing record and signaled follow‑up oversight, with members on both sides saying they will continue to press EPA for either faster approvals of state programs or firmer federal safeguards. The subcommittee adjourned after the question‑and‑answer period; members and witnesses were invited to submit additional written material for the record.