The passage and lecture are both mainly about the necessity to enforce a stricter regulation for handling and storing coal ash. The representatives of power companies give three reasons to oppose it, while the speaker in the lecture suggests that they are not justified.
To begin with, the passage maintain that the new, strcter regulations are not of vital importance, since effective environmental regulations already exist. These regulations require companies that dispse of coal ash must add liner in new pond or landfill to prevent coal ash components from contaminate the environment. On the contrary, the lecture argues that these companies do not use liner in their old pond and landfill and allow the coal ash directly leak into the soil from the latter. Thus, a stricter regulation to constrict the using of liner for all the pond and landfill is verifiable and necessary.
Meanwhile, the passage indicates that the supposed stricter regulations may leave a bad impression on the costomers and render them be reluctant to buy the recycling coal ash products. On the other hand, the passage use mercury as an example to illustrates that this concern is not sufficient; mercury recycling has adopted the strict regulation about 50 years, while the recycling products still maintain a good sale. Hence, the stricter regulation is reasonable for both companies and costomers.
Besides, the passage also point out that the price may increase and eventually hurt thte general public if they adopt the new regulation, but this suggestion is also challenged by the lecture. It estaminated that the expenses towards the stricter regulaiton would like only increase 1 percent in the profits of the companies. So, the latter is not necessarily significantly increase the price of electricity.