This Is How To Kill The PVSC Newark Power Plant
Trump Jiu-Jitsu:
Use Trump’s Insane Executive Orders And Tell The Truth About DEP Gaslighting and The Limitations Of NJ’s Environmental Justice Law
[Important Update below]
Today’s NJ Spotlight tells me the following:
Tomorrow environmental leaders, elected officials, and residents will gather to protest plans for a fourth fossil fuel power plant in Newark ahead of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission’s public board meeting.
I just read that and it was immediately after submitting my second round of comments to US EPA Region 2, urging them to kill the Clean Air Act Title V permit DEP issued to the PVSC. See this for my first round of comments:
Those so called NJ “environmental leaders” are knowingly missing the mark and diverting attention by focusing on the PVSC Board, while they ignore the real “decider”, which currently is the US EPA. (I will discuss their improper motives in a future post).
I just again wrote to some of those so called “leaders”:
I understand that these arguments are offensive to you, but this is how you kill the DEP’s PVSC Title V permit (see below comments to EPA Region 2. Comment period closes March 31).
Do you want to win? Or do you want to allow DEP to continue to gaslight the public under the charade of Commissioner LaTourette’s EJ Administrative Order and the loophole ridden EJ law and DEP regulations? Your efforts to target the PVSC Board are misguided.
Because they are knowingly not doing the right thing, I am bypassing the “leaders” and appealing to the activists and the people of Newark via this open letter.
Here is how you kill the PVSC permit – you have until March 31 to submit these kind of comments to US EPA Region 2 in New York.
Don’t worry. No one will think that you actually support these Trump Orders. You will not “legitimize” these Trump Orders. You will not create any damaging legal precedents at EPA or NJ DEP.
Just the opposite: truth-telling about flaws in the EJ law can help build public awareness and political pressure for reforms to strengthen that law and loopholes.
———- Original Message ———-From: Bill WOLFE <b>To: “Ruvo.Richard@epa.gov” <Ruvo.Richard@epa.gov>Cc: “chan.suilin@epa.gov” <chan.suilin@epa.gov>, “wieber.kirk@epa.gov” <wieber.kirk@epa.gov>Date: 03/13/2025 2:26 PM EDTSubject: Re: EPA Title V Review, NJ DEPDear EPA via Mr. Ruvo:
I am writing for two reasons:
1) to request that EPA confirm receipt and timely submission of my March 4, 2025 public comments below; and
2) to revise, extend, and supplement those comments.
I would like to supplement those March 4 comments in two ways:
1) to emphasize the serious procedural defects in the NJ DEP’s review and approval of this permit modification. EPA must not sign off on these serious flaws that violate due process and Administrative Procedure Act requirements.
EPA can not approve retroactive application of permit review requirements. In this case, the DEP retroactively applied “requirements” under an Administrative Order issued by NJ DEP Commissioner LaTourette. The AO was issued AFTER the subject permit application was submitted and deemed complete for review by the NJ DEP under applicable permit regulations.
EPA can not approve imposition of mandatory permit conditions and requirements (procedural and substantive) based solely on an Administrative Order of the DEP Commissioner, an AO that not only has no binding legal effect, but is not reinforced by regulatory requirements or regulatory authorization pursuant to applicable federal EPA or State DEP Title V permit regulations.
As I previously noted, DEP imposed additional procedural requirements (e.g. public meetings and DEP “environmental justice” review) and additional substantive requirements (e.g. permit conditions that mandate installation of solar panels and battery storage and severely limit operating hours).
If EPA approves this DEP permit, then all DEP permittees may be subject to similar additional permit conditions, requirements and procedural abuses.
As I previously noted, EPA would be making controversial national policy and precedent should Region 2 approve this DEP permit.
2) to include various relevant Executive Orders of President Trump, including but not limited to the following. I hereby incorporate the text of these EO’s in my comments:
- Regulatory Freeze Pending Review
- INITIAL RESCISSIONS OF HARMFUL EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND ACTIONS
- RESTORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO POLICY-INFLUENCING POSITIONS WITHIN THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE
- DECLARING A NATIONAL ENERGY EMERGENCY
- RESTORING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CAREER SENIOR EXECUTIVES
- UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENERGY
- ESTABLISHING AND IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT’S “DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY”
- UNLEASHING ALASKA’S EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCE POTENTIAL
- ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY
- REFORMING THE FEDERAL HIRING PROCESS AND RESTORING MERIT TO GOVERNMENT SERVICE
- UNLEASHING PROSPERITY THROUGH DEREGULATION
- ESTABLISHING THE NATIONAL ENERGY DOMINANCE COUNCIL
- COMMENCING THE REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY
- ENSURING LAWFUL GOVERNANCE AND IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT’S “DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY” DEREGULATORY INITIATIVE
- Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies
- IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT’S “DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY” COST EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE
I’d appreciate your timely and favorable reply.
Bill Wolfe
[Update: 5:40 pm
I got a rapid reply from EPA Region 2 – I was wrong about the EPA review procedure:
Mr. Wolfe:
Mr. Rick Ruvo requested that I reply to your email below. This is to let you know that we are in receipt of your March 4, 2025 and March 10, 2025 messages. As explained in my March 10, 2025 email to you, EPA is currently conducting its 45-day review of the permit that NJDEP proposed. We do not take public comment during our 45-day review of a state permit. As the website I included in my March 10, 2025 email indicates, the EPA 45-day review period ends on March 31, 2025. The 60-day EPA petition period commences on April 1, 2025 and ends on May 31, 2025.
Sincerely,
Suilin Chan
Supervisor | Permitting Section | Air and Radiation Division | US EPA Region 2 | Office: (212) 637-4019
I replied as follows:
Suilin: Thank you. I did not know this:
“We do not take public comment during our 45-day review of a state permit.”
I guess that means that I will be forced to file a formal petition, should EPA approve this permit (as well as pursue informal means with EPA HQ leadership and the Trump White House).
Why have an EPA State review process if there is no opportunity for the public to participate in EPA’s review? (regardless, I’ve raised all these issues on the administrative record during DEP permit review, so they are formally before EPA now even without my follow-up comments to you).
As a former NJ DEP regulator who worked in an EPA delegated NJ DEP program (RCRA) and served as a policy advisor to the DEP Commissioner (Brad Campbell), I find this procedure extraordinary and absurd and thus strongly object.
Wolfe
Wow.