PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 22, 2015
Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) This bill amends subtitle D (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to establish a permit program for coal combustion residuals (coal ash) that states may elect to administer. The program outlines the criteria that a state must use if it chooses to adopt and enforce a permit program regulating the management and disposal of coal ash generated by electric utilities and independent power producers. The program applies to the disposal of coal ash into landfills or surface impoundments, sand or gravel pits, quarries, or lateral expansions of the structures. The structural criteria concern: (1) design, location, and integrity; (2) financial assurance; (3) groundwater and surface water protections; (4) closure procedures; and (5) air quality with respect to fugitive dust.
In order to adopt or implement a permit program, the lead state implementing agency must maintain a program for control of hazardous waste disposal in open dumps or an authorized state hazardous waste program under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The implementing agency must ensure that certain information concerning the program is publicly available.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
A state that chooses to adopt a coal ash program is given sole enforcement authority. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must implement a program for a state if: (1) a state's program fails to meet those criteria, or (2) a state does not implement a program. A coal ash permit program implemented by the EPA shall not apply to the utilization, placement, and storage of coal ash at surface or underground coal mining and reclamation operations.
Certain uses of coal ash are not considered as receipt of such material for purposes of this bill. These include uses for engineered structural fill, storage in a manner consistent with the management of raw materials, and such beneficial uses as substitution for virgin material (in which case the use must be shown to not result in environmental releases greater than those from a material or product that would be used instead of the coal ash or exceed relevant benchmarks for human and ecological receptors).
The bill revises implementation of the EPA rule governing the disposal of coal ash, entitled "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities." The rule may be implemented only through the permit program established by the bill.
People & committees
Rep. McKinley, David B. [R-WV-1] · R–WV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 258 - 166 (Roll no. 458).
House roll call 458 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 258 - 166 (Roll no. 458).
House roll call 458 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 184 - 240 (Roll no. 457). (consideration: CR H5379-5380)
House roll call 457 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H5379)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Foster motion to recommit with instructions pending a reservation of a point of order. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to require an agency implementing any coal ash permit ensure that all disposal sites meet criteria for design, construction, operation, and maintenance sufficient to prevent contamination of groundwater and sources of drinking water, including the Great Lakes. Subsequently, the reservation was removed.
Mr. Foster moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (consideration: H5378-5380; text: CR H5378)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H5378)
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1734.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Butterfield amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Butterfield demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 369, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Butterfield amendment No. 6.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Adams amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Adams demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 369, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Adams amendment No. 5.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Connolly amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Connolly demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 369, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Connolly amendment No. 4.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 369, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Castor (FL) amendment No. 3.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Pallone amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Pallone demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 369, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Pallone amendment No. 2.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 369, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Shimkus amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 1734.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 369 and Rule XVIII.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Randy Hultgren to act as Chairman of the Committee.
Resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 1599 and H.R. 1734.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 369. (consideration: H5358-5380; text as reported CR H5365-5370)
Rule H. Res. 369 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 369 Reported to House. Resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 1599 and H.R. 1734.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 103.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-143.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-143.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 32 - 19.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1734 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1734 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1734 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1734 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.