By Kevin Glass, March 20, 2015

...

"Let's make one thing clear: this proposed regulation does not provide certainty... the rule results in potentially conflicting federal and state requirements," Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), one of the sponsors of the new reform legislation, said at an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on January 22. "On page 18 of the rule, it says 'This rule defers a final determination until additional information is available.’" McKinley's proposed regulation reform would, he and other Republicans say, remove unneeded uncertainty from these coal ash regulations.

Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) protested the EPA’s rulemaking on coal ash since the regulations were announced late last year, citing an economic cost of over $22 billion and more than 60,000 lost jobs. They say that the states themselves have done a good job regulating coal ash and the EPA’s burdensome requirements aren’t necessary.

The other change that Rep. McKinley’s legislation makes is that it allows states to implement their own alternative rules to the national EPA mandates if they’re able to capably regulate themselves. Not weaker rules; the only way that states would be able to implement local regulatory regimes would be if they are as effective as the ones proposed at the federal level. But it would give the states, and the utility companies being regulated, additional flexibility.

...

--Read the full article here--