The reading passage listed three arguments of companies to oppose new regulations. But the lecture fights against that by claiming the insufficiency existing in the current stipulate.

First, those representatives claim that valid laws already exist because they are required to use the liner when disposing off coal ash. The speaker, on the contrary, reasons that the liner is only used when companies are constructing new landfills. So the old ponds could still cause damages. Since the harmful chemical component would leak into the groundwater and contaminate the drinking water and thus lead to health problems and environmental damages.

What’s more, unlike described in the reading passage, the listening passage demonstrates that strict regulations won’t discourage consumers buying recycling of coal ash. Take mercury as an example, it has been subjected to the storage rules for a long time because of its toxicity. Yet consumers have used the recycling of mercury for 50 years without harm and concerns. Thus there is no need to worry that consumers will reject buying recycled coal ash products.

In the end, the speaker in the listening passage does admit the increase in the cost of electricity. But she indicates that the extra cost is worthwhile. Though the 15 billion dollars seems to be too much, there’s only a 1% increase per person. Thus it is not a fat price to pay for having a cleaner environment.