One of the issues that can complicate a clean up is if multiple environmental regulatory programs apply to the site.  Even the same type of contamination may be required to be addressed under different programs and different processes.

A prime example of this issue in Ohio is the disconnect between Ohio’s Voluntary Action Program (VAP) and the Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulation (BUSTR) which applies to petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs).  Until recent legislation, a BUSTR regulated UST was totally ineligible for clean up under the VAP.

As a practical matter, the ineligibility of BUSTR tanks can cause significant delays on a clean up project.  Why?  Because the property owner typically wants to eliminate the BUSTR eligibility issue first by investigating and cleaning up USTs under BUSTR regulations before proceeding with the VAP. 

If you don’t front load the BUSTR clean up and proceed with the VAP, you can be left with what is called a "Swiss Cheese" covenant upon completing the VAP- you get a legal release (covenant not to sue- CNS) from Ohio EPA that excludes all areas failing to complete a BUSTR required clean up.

In order to avoid the "Swiss Cheese" CNS, property owners complete their BUSTR Tier 1 investigations and Tier 2 clean up, if needed, under BUSTR regulations first before completing the VAP.  This often prolongs a clean up by months or even up to a year.  It also adds costs to the project.

Does this really make sense when both VAP  and BUSTR clean up standards have been determined to be protective of human health and the environment?

New Legislation Creates BUSTR Class C

In an attempt to partially remedy the delays caused by the conflict between BUSTR and VAP, House Bill 152 amended the law on June 30, 2011.  The new law is effective as of September 28th.

The law states that certain BUSTR USTs- Class C tanks- can be cleaned up under the VAP without completing a BUSTR clean up first. The tank has to be removed in accordance with BUSTR regulations, but the soil assessment and clean up can be performed under the VAP.

A Class C release is defined as a release of petroleum subject to BUSTR laws, where the responsible person for the release is determined by BUSTR to not be a viable person capable of undertaking or completing the required assessment and clean up.  In other words, the responsible party has no money to perform the BUSTR clean up.

BUSTR can determine a UST is a Class C if the following apply:

  • responsible party is deceased or bankrupt
  • a review of financial records demonstrates the responsible party is financially unable to assess and clean up the release

Based upon an Ohio EPA fact sheet on the BUSTR Class C designation, 121 sites have Class C releases already determined (as of July 12, 2011).  

For more information here is a link to Ohio EPA’s web page discussing the Class C designation.

Class C Designation Doesn’t Go Far Enough

As discussed above, the fact BUSTR clean up regulations can apply to a VAP clean up can result in significant delays, added costs and additional complexities.  Both clean up programs are protective of the environment.  So, why not allow all BUSTR regulated tanks to be closed and cleaned up pursuant to the VAP?

I suppose the State’s answer is, in part, if a viable party responsible for the tanks exists they shouldn’t be allowed off the hook for their BUSTR clean up obligations.  This would be rewarding a tank owner who ignored its legal obligations.

The only problem with that argument  is that the ineligibility of BUSTR tanks for the VAP really hurts the volunteer more than it does the responsible party.  The volunteer wants an expedited and cost effective clean up. The volunteer often doesn’t want to chase down the responsible party before completing its clean up.  Forcing the volunteer to address the outstanding BUSTR obligations first before proceeding with the VAP results in both delays and added costs to the detriment of the volunteer.

Why not at least allow a volunteer to address BUSTR tanks under the VAP without having to demonstrate the tank’s responsible party is not viable?  You could still exclude the responsible owner from using the VAP.  This would at least not reward the UST responsible party, but would greatly assist the volunteer.

(Photo:  South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control)

The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) has entered into a settlement with U.S. EPA to fix its combined sewer overflow issues (CSOs).  Included in the settlement is a provision which requires NEORSD to spend $42 million in eight years to eliminate 44 million gallons of storm water from entering its sewer system.  This portion of the settlement is known as the "Green Infrastructure" component.  

At the same time NEORSD entered its settlement with U.S. EPA on CSOs, it has enacted its regional stormwater fee which will begin charging businesses a fee for stormwater that it sends to its collection system.  The fee is meant to create a strong incentive for businesses to implement stormwater projects that will reduce flow to the system.

The Sewer District is performing a large feasibility study to determine areas best targeted for green infrastructure projects.  The District is looking at using the many vacant lots (estimated around 6,000) to possibly perform projects. (See, "Turning huge vacant lots into stormwater areas and neighborhood centerpieces" from GreenCityBlueLake)

Hopefully the District will also see this as an opportunity to partner with businesses who will soon be experiencing the pain of another fee (tax) on their business.  Using the money not just on vacant lots, but with area businesses can help soften the blow of the fee.

If a businesses is going to qualify for a portion of the $42 million in funding available for the NEORSD Green Infrastructure program you must:

  • Be in an area the District is targeting for reducing stormwater flow into its collection system;
  • Eliminate flow that is currently getting into the collection system; and/or
  • For new development projects- go beyond the stormwater controls currently planned
  • Must also agree to provide NEORSD access to the project area if its on your property.

In working on brownfield redevelopment projects, I find that addressing old underground storage tanks (USTs) or hazardous waste (RCRA) units can be one of the trickiest issues to address.

Why are these two issues tricky? Because they complicate the clean up process under Ohio’s Voluntary Action Program (VAP). 

Due to the flexibility under the VAP and the fact it provides for more cost effective clean up options than other regulatory  programs, the VAP program is a common way to address environmental liabilities at brownfield sites.  In addition, Ohio’s premier brownfield grant program- Clean Ohio– requires the grantee to complete a VAP clean up as part of the grant agreement. 

How do USTs and RCRA issues complicate the VAP and Clean Ohio process?

  • Areas where USTs or RCRA units are located are ineligible for a VAP clean up until they are certified closed by the proper regulator
  • Clean Ohio grant programs will not pay for clean up of USTs regulated by the State Fire Marshal Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulation (BUSTR)
  • Clean Ohio grant programs significantly restrict the ability to uses funds to pay for hazardous waste unit (RCRA) closures

Understanding a Projects UST and RCRA Risks

Due to these limitations, property developers and companies need to front load in their analysis of a site’s redevelopment potential the property’s BUSTR and RCRA issues.  It is essential that a full blown examination of any outstanding UST and RCRA closure be performed as part of the Phase I/Phase II environmental assessment process. 

Key questions relatives to USTs include:

  1. Are there BUSTR regulated USTs remaining on site?
  2. Were BUSTR regulated USTs that were removed from the site properly closed in accordance with applicable regulations (i.e. did BUSTR issue a "No Further Action" letter)?
  3. If "No Further Action" (NFAs) letters do not exist for tanks removed, what does BUSTR consider is needed to properly issue such a certification?
  4. What will the costs be associated with receiving a NFA for each tank?
  5. How will the process to obtain an NFA impact the timing of your redevelopment project?

Key question for RCRA units on-site can include:

  1. What is the closure status of the RCRA unit?
  2. What is the size of the unit?
  3. What type of sampling is needed to determine the clean up requirements for the unit?
  4. What will Ohio EPA require in terms of clean up for that unit?

USTs and RCRA issue do not impose a total barrier to development.  However, it is absolutely essential that in industrial property transactions and brownfield redevelopment projects that you gain a thorough understanding of the outstanding RCRA and UST obligations.

(Photo: Missouri Department of Natural Resources)

Ohio State Senator Kris Jordan (R-Powell)  introduced Senate Bill 216 which would repeal Ohio’s renewable portfolio standard ("RPS").  The RPS requires  that the state’s electric utilities provide 25% of their retail energy supply from advanced and renewable energy sources such as clean coal, wind, and solar energy by 2025.  

Ohio enacted the RPS in 2009.  Each year the percentage of electricity to come from renewable or advanced energy sources gradually  increases until you reach the maximum of 25%. 

The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Tom Patton (R-Strongsville) and Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati). The Senators argue that the RPS requirement is driving up electricity prices during a tough economy which is bad for economic development. 

The proposal comes as Governor Kasich is hosting a two-day energy summit to discuss Ohio’s energy policy.

Short Term Job Gains

When Ohio enacted the RPS, the proponents argued that it would lead to job growth.  First, jobs would be added as projects were developed to meet the RPS requirements.  Second, manufacturers of renewable energy parts and equipment are more likely to locate in a state that shows support for its industry through passage of an RPS.

A recent study discussed in a prior post suggests those arguments have validity. 

  • Ohio ranks 6th in the country in total clean energy related jobs with a total of 105,306.
  • Ohio also ranked 12th in total clean energy jobs added between 2003-2010.

Long Term an Over-Reliance on Coal Hurts Ohio

Ohio still gets approximately 90% of its power generation from coal-fired power plants.  There is no argument that coal power has been subject to a flood of new and proposed regulations.  Those regulations include the following:

  • Mercury limits
  • Greenhouse gas regulations
  • NOx SIP Call- cap and trade for power plants
  • Cross-State Air Pollution Rule- greater reductions from power plant emissions enacted this year

This is just a partial list of the regulations facing coal power.  With all these regulations forcing more controls the cost of coal power is going to continue to rise.  It is not too difficult to see Ohio would be very wise to diversify its power portfolio or face future price shocks from these new regulations.

Not to overly simplify, but any good stock broker tells its customers to diversify their portfolio to reduce risk.  In particular, a broker will advise their client to reduce their investment in companies/stocks that are facing "head winds" or challenges in the future.

This is exactly the position the state is in when it relies almost exclusively on coal power.  The RPS serves as a tool to diversify its energy portfolio prior to experiencing these future price shocks.

 

The Obama Administration had already delayed issuance of a revised ozone standard three times.  EPA had said repeatedly that it would it would finally promulgate the new standard by this  August.  Then last week, President Obama shocked many by announcing that EPA would not issue a new ozone standard until 2013.

A Little History on Ozone

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review the ozone standard every five years.   In 2008, the Bush Administration set the new ozone limit at 75 parts per billion (ppb). That was tighter than the existing regulations, but considerably weaker than the 60 to 70 ppb recommended  by the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC- a science advisory panel which advises EPA in settings National Ambient Air Quality Standards).

Litigation ensued over the Bush standard.  However, a cease fire was called when the Obama Administration took office and called the 75 ppb indefensible.  The EPA promised to revisit the standard and set it somewhere between the 60 to 70 ppb recommended by CASAC.

Since EPA made its early pronouncements, the economy has not improved causing the EPA to delay issuance of a new standard on three different occasions.  The final arbitrary deadline was set for this August to finally announce the new standard.  But on the eve of the announcement, the Obama Administration issued a statement that it would wait until 2013 to review the standard.

Internet Blisters with Commentary

The media and internet has been awash in debate regarding the delay in the ozone standard.   Time wrote a piece titled "Is President Obama Bad for the Environment."  The backlash from environmental groups and clean air advocates has been dramatic. Industry has heralded the decision.  Here is a sampling from the various perspectives:

  • MoveOn.org said they don’t know how they can support the President’s re-election after such an announcement. 
  • Sierra Club- "Had the EPA smog pollution regulations come into effect as anticipated, it would have prevented 12,000 deaths, 5,300 heart attacks, and tens of thousands of asthma attacks.  Its time we stop pitting the false promise of jobs from a desperate-albeit wealthy and powerful-industry against the best interests of the American People."
  • National Petrochemical & Refiners Association– "President Obama acted in the best interests of the American people last Friday when he blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing unrealistic, unjustified and unneeded new ozone standards on our nation. The president should now follow up by stopping EPA from imposing other extreme regulations that will cost our economy billions of dollars and wipe out millions of American jobs, without providing any significant environmental benefits."
  • Business Roundtable–  Calls the ozone standard the single most expensive environmental regulation in U.S. History.  In an op-ed piece, Governor Engler says that 85% of U.S. counties would be in "nonattainment" with the new standard triggering a cascade of federal and state controls.  EPA estimates the new standards could cost between $20 to $90 billion annually.

For some additional perspectives on both sides of the debate I would recommend reviewing the National Law Journal’s Energy & Environment Blog- "Sizing Up Obama’s Ozone Standard Delay"

Implications for Ohio

In my former role as Director of Ohio EPA, I got to see first hand how the state’s dealt with meeting new federal air quality standards, including the ozone standard.  From that experience I concur with the business groups who were concerned with the new standard’s impacts on a struggling economy.  This is particularly true for states like Ohio with high population, heavy reliance on manufacturing and where coal is the main source of power generation.

A "nonattainment" designation for a metropolitan area is a massive impediment to economic development.  Particularly metropolitan areas that rely on a growing manufacturing base to attract new jobs.   Air permitting requirements under nonattainment New Source Review places these areas at a competitive disadvantage to areas that meet the standard. 

Even more importantly, I learned that the states, in reality, have far less ability to institute regulations that reduce smog then the federal EPA.  This is because much of the nonattainment problem is attributable to interstate pollution.  Also, much of it comes from vehicles for which there is very little ability to reduce emissions through state regulation. The last decade has demonstrated that federal regulations directed at vehicles and interstate pollution are much more effective in reducing ozone levels than negligible benefits achieved through state regulation.

Existing Federal Regulations Will Continue to Reap Clean Air Benefits

While new state air pollution regulations have little impact in improving air quality, federal regulations have resulted in dramatic improvements.  Areas that five years ago were thought never to reach attainment with the old 1997 ozone standard (like Cleveland) have been able to reach attainment.

Here is a chart of exceedences of the ozone standard in Ohio going back to 2000.  Recently, there are no exceedences of the old 1-hr standard (.0125 ppm) and very few of the 1997 8-hr standard. Over the last five years the major benefits of the federal air regulations discussed above have been realized.

However, what is not shown is the number of exceedences that would occur under a 8-hr standard within the CASAC range of .070 to .060 ppm.  It would be pretty dramatic.

These existing federal regulations will continue to improve air quality because they are phased in over time.  These regulations include:

All of these federal air regulations will continue to be phased in greatly reducing the precursors that lead to the creation of ozone (smog). The full benefit of some of these major regulations won’t be seen for another 20 years as the vehicle fleet turns over.  In addition,  CSAPR is just on the books and will dramatically reduce power plant pollution.

Bottomline- Air Quality Improves While States Get Some Breathing Room

Even though the ozone standard will not be revised until 2013, air quality will continue to  improve as a result of these major federal air quality regulations.  Meanwhile, the states will not be saddled with non-attainment designations under a new standard during a tough economic period. 

When the ozone standard is revised, the States will have benefited from the greater reductions achieved from these federal regulations. These air quality benefits will make it much more realistic that the states can achieve the new standard. 

 

 For over three years, U.S. EPA had been moving toward a seismic shift in how it regulated stormwater run-off from construction sites.  For the first time, U.S. EPA tried to impose a numeric permit limit on the turbidity of water (sediment mixed with water) that leaves construction sites following rain events.   EPA ‘s efforts are the result of a 2004 lawsuit by environmental group who obtained a Court order requiring development of a numeric standard.

Adjacent is a picture which shows bottles containing various amounts of sediment mixed with water.  The more dirt the higher the NTUs.  The picture is a good graphic illustration of EPA’s proposed numeric standards.

Historically, U.S. EPA has never tried to impose a numeric limit to control stormwater discharges.   Rather, U.S. EPA  required the use of  "best management practices" (BMPs) as part of NPDES construction stormwater permits.  BMPs were engineering controls that were designed to collect or limit run-off to reduce sediment loading on streams and lakes.

In November 2008, U.S. EPA issued proposed effluent guidelines that contained a numeric turbidity standards of 13 NTUs.  EPA received a flood of comments questioning the data and assumptions behind that proposed standard.

On December 1, 2009, U.S. EPA issued its final effluent guidelines raising the propose numeric turbidity standard to 280 NTUs.  The standard would apply to construction sites 10 acres and larger.  It also included the requirement to take samples throughout the day.  The average of the samples would be compared to the 280 NTU standard for purposes of determining compliance.

Despite the dramatic increase from the proposed effluent guidelines, industry still was deeply concerned with the cost of compliance and questioned the benefits of such a standard.  Two petitions for reconsideration were submitted challenging the 280 NTU standard.  After raising the technical issues raised in those petitions, EPA decided to stay implementation of the provision.

The EPA submitted a proposed rule to revise the turbidity limit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in December 2010. On August 17th, EPA announced it had withdrawn its most proposal from OMB. , EPA decided to seek additional treatment performance data from construction and development sites before proposing a revised numeric turbidity limit. Next step, EPA will publish a Federal Register notice soliciting data in the near future.

The battle over numeric limits is hardly over.  First, EPA still faces a court order to develop a numeric limit,  Second, on November 10, 2010, EPA issued memo that signaled its intention to shift toward numeric limits for most stormwater permits, not just construction sites.  Therefore, numeric limits are only a matter of time. 

 

 

 

One of Governor Kasich’s top priorities is to restructure the Ohio Department of Development shifting some of its core functions to the private sector. The General Assembly passed the JohsOhio Bill which launched an evaluation of the current Department.

The bill allowed for the creation of a non-profit corporation which would assume some of the duties and responsibilities of the existing Department. The bill also required the Director of the Ohio Department of Development to evaluate all powers, functions, and duties of the existing Department and submit a report to the General Assembly that includes recommendations in the following areas:

  • Improve the functions and efficiency of the Department
  • Transfer specified powers, functions, and duties to other existing state agencies or to JobsOhio (private sector entity);
  • Eliminate specified powers, functions, or duties of the Department.

On August 18th, the Administration released its report with the results of its review and proposal for restructuring the Ohio Department of Development to the Ohio General Assembly. In the report, the Administration makes the recommendation to transfer core duties to the non-profit corporation. The Department will also undergo a restructuring relative to those duties and responsibilities that remain with the Department.

JobsOhio Duties

The following functions will be moved to the non-profit corporation:

·        Office of Business Development– responsible for jobs retention, expansion and location. This includes incentive packages to attract or retain companies.

·        Office of Grants and Tax Incentives– responsible for grants and tax incentives associated with business attraction and development.

·        Office of Loans and Services– loan origination and servicing

·        Ohio Tourism– marketing of the tourism in the State

Ohio Development Services Agency

The old Ohio Department of Development will be renamed the Ohio Development Services Agency. It will have three key divisions that will retain a large portion of the remaining functions of the current Department.  The new organization of the Agency will consist of three divisions:

·        Business Services

·        Community Services

·        Operations

Impact on Environmental Grant Programs (Clean Ohio)

The Clean Ohio and Jobs Ready Site programs are the two largest grant programs available for redevelopment of brownfields. These programs will remain government functions and be housed under the Community Services Division of the newly formed Ohio Development Services Agency.

The report includes additional recommendations from stakeholders and staff about changes to the urban development functions including the Clean Ohio program. One possibility apparently not seriously discussed was moving these functions over to Ohio EPA’s brownfield program.  Other improvements suggested including reducing public notice periods and expediting grant administration.

It appears that the Clean Ohio program will largely be untouched by the major transformation at the Ohio Department of Development. The only possibility could be staff reductions. The report contains the following chart showing significant staff reductions. However, the report notes that most of those reductions will be through attrition (i.e. as people leave they won’t be replaced). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The contractual language appearing in purchase or lease agreements for industrial property is critical.  I have seen a number of contracts that were fraught with vague terms or even silent on liability allocation.  Those contracts now define the company’s liability exposure.   Protections the company thought they may have are either non-existent or in question.  

That is why it is so important to pay very careful attention to the environmental provisions in the contract for sale or lease of property.  Particularly important are the representations, indemnity and release provisions.  On an industrial property with a legacy of environmental issues, these provisions can often be the most difficult to negotiate because they shape liability risks for years to come. 

A recent federal court ruling provides further proof of the importance of paying careful attention to contract provisions allocating environmental liability.   The Court in United States v. ARG Corporation, Case No. 10-3111 (N.D. Ind. 2011) dismissed a complaint filed by the seller which sought to recover $841,000 in response costs incurred by U.S. EPA in performing clean up activities at the former industrial site.  In dismissing the complaint, the Court found that the purchase contract contained a clear allocation of environmental liability.  In essence, the purchaser avoided nearly $1 million in clean up costs based on the contractual provisions it negotiated prior to purchase.

The contract language at issue stated as follows:

The Seller shall remain solely financially responsible for the Remediation Activities arising from the Seller’s ownership, use or operation of the property prior to the Closing Date, provided however, that the Purchaser covenants not to execute against the Seller’s assets to satisfy the Seller’s financial responsibilities for remediation of pre-closing environmental damage except for the proceeds of recoveries under the general liability policies issued to the seller prior to closing.

The Purchaser shall be solely financially responsible for the Remediation Activities arising from the Purchaser’s ownership, use or operation of the property after the Closing Date.

"Remediation Activities" shall mean investigation and remediation activities, including but not limited to installing, operating, and maintaining all monitoring wells; collecting soil and/or groundwater samples; measuring groundwater levels in measuring wells; soil removal; groundwater treatment; and performing other related assessment activities, necessary to investigate and remediate environmental damage caused by the release of hazardous substances in accordance with any environmental laws.

The Court held that

"this language unambiguously states that ARG is solely responsible for remediating hazardous substances on the property arising from ARG’s ownership, use, or operation prior to the closing…South Bend is solely responsible for remediating hazardous substances on the property arising from South Bend’s ownership, use, or operation after the closing date.

The Court also held that if South Bend believes ARG is responsible for cleaning up pre-closing hazardous substances, it will only seek recovery from ARG’s insurance policies.  The court found the contract did not indicate South Bend would indemnify ARG if ARG was forced to pay the Government for remediating hazardous substances.

This case is a good example of the benefits of clear contractual language when allocating environmental liabilities.  Due to the high costs involved with clean up, there is a strong incentive for the party on the losing end to put forth creative interpretations of the language in an attempt to pass on or mitigate their liability.   Clear and unambiguous terms can be your best defense in such an instance.

It is no secret that EPA and its wave of recent and forthcoming regulations have stirred up much angst among Republicans in Congress. Many industry groups argue that EPA’s rulemaking, especially its anticipated announcement of a much stricter ozone standard, will have a devastating impact on our fragile economy.

While plenty of bills have been floated since the start of the Obama Administration to try and stop EPA from enacting rules, in particular climate change related regulations, those efforts have been unsuccessful. So long as there is a power split between the House and Senate, any proposal to rein in EPA is a non-starter

The best the Republican controlled House has been able to do is call in EPA to testify before House Subcommittees to put pressure on EPA directly. Those efforts have had little success as the regulations continue to emerge from the Agency.

Now comes the debt deal and its initial $1 trillion in budget cuts. Due to political wrangling the cuts come almost entirely from discretionary spending which makes up approximately one-fifth of the total federal budget. Republicans see the cuts an opportunity to push forward their anti-regulatory agenda through significant funding reductions that will effectively prevent EPA from being able to act.

EPA and Renewable Energy Programs on the Chopping Block

Both Republican and Democrat lawmakers have indicated that funding for EPA and other federal agency programs that benefit the environment and renewable energy are surely to get hit and get hit hard.  EPA staffing cuts in programs implementing climate regulations, air programs and water infrastructure will result from the first round of the $917 billion in cuts called for in the debt-ceiling deal.  The Department of Energy will likely see less funding for grants, loans and other programs for renewable energy.

Time Magazine said the hidden Republican agenda in the debt-deal battle was to "gut the EPA."

It was lost in the endless drama of the debt-ceiling negotiations, but last week, the Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives launched an unprecedented attack on the U.S.’s environmental protections. GOP Representatives added rider after rider to the 2012 spending bill for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department, tacking on amendments that would essentially prevent those agencies — charged with protecting America’s air, water and wildlife — from doing their jobs.

While the riders were unsuccessful, the dramatic budget cuts seem inevitable.  This from Politico discussing likely cuts to EPA and renewable energy programs:

“These guys are looking at 20 percent real cuts in the next two or three or four years,” said GOP strategist Mike McKenna said. “That’s a big, big hit for an agency to take.”

 Lawmaker Says Cuts will Mean More Lawsuits

While the EPA will have less staff to implement its programs and develop new regulations, EPA still faces statutory mandates to enact rules.  EPA routinely is sued by environmental groups trying to enforce these statutory deadlines.  One such example is the ozone standard which EPA is under a Court order to act.  

Jim Moran, D-Va., ranking Democrat on the House Interior-Environment spending subcommittee predicted an avalanche of new suits seeking to compel EPA to act.

"The irony is that the law isn’t going to change, it’s just that the people whose job it is to implement the law won’t be able to do that, so the environmental issues will play out in the courts instead of administratively or over a negotiating table," Moran told National Journal. "It’s more costly, it’s more time-consuming, and usually it’s less satisfying." 

While reducing funding can slow down EPA’s ability to act, its a much messier then changing the law.  As long as the law remains the same, the regulatory environment really won’t change for industry.