No Need To Speculate: Project 2025 Transition Report, Executive Orders, Deregulation, Defunding, And Dismantling Are Well Underway
Presumably in honor of Earth Day, NJ Spotlight has an unusual and important but flawed story today.
Don’t let the cowardly headline dissuade you – they just couldn’t manage to name the man in the White House – read the whole thing:
After you scroll through the first 3 vague responses, be sure to read the response of NJ Highlands Council Executive Director Ben Spinelli.
He was one of just 4 of 20 selected “experts” who responded to the survey question used for the story. That low response rate tells me that those “experts” are cowards and afraid of Trump retaliation, or the news outlet selected the wrong “experts”. By all means, please print the names of the 16 “experts” who failed to respond!!!!
But Spinelli’s comments are excellent and some must read harsh truth telling (with an important exception, which I discuss below).
Further evidence of cowardice is illustrated by the response of Dan Van Abs, a former NJ DEP manager – who although retired is still afraid of his shadow. Van Abs proceeded to equivocate, speculate, and downplay what he must know about the details and implications of Trump’s programs to “dismantle the administrative state”.
Come on Dan, haven’t you read Project 2025, Trump’s Executive Orders, and EPA statements, press releases, and Federal Register Notices yet???
Don’t worry Dan, Trump won’t revoke your Social Security checks or send masked men in a black van in the dark of night to kidnap and rendition you to an El Salvadoran gulag. They don’t do that to bourgeois white men who use direct deposit.
It’s too bad that NJ Spotlight limited the scope of the “Trump Effect” to the Delaware Watershed. The impacts are global, but as a NJ State outlet they at least should have reported on Statewide concerns. Perhaps they will in followup and more specific coverage.
As I noted, Ben Spinelli’s comments were on point and outstanding, but I think he got a crucial issue very wrong when he wrote this about regulations (boldface mine):
New Jersey in particular is not overly reliant on either federal funding or federal regulation (although there is a great deal of cross-referencing [with] the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act in state regulations).
This implies that there is no impact in cases where an NJ DEP regulation incorporates or cross references a federal regulation and EPA eliminates or rolls back that regulation.
I wish that this were the case, but my understanding (and I am not a lawyer, but do have lots of regulatory experience) is that when the federal regulation is rolled back, then so is the state regulation. And this is true for far more than specific regulations, but includes data, technical methods, standards, and review processes.
This is why I’ve been urging DEP Commissioner LaTourette and Senate Environment Committee Chair Bob Smith to develop a coordinated legislative and regulatory strategy to defend NJ’s environmental regulations and programs from federal rollbacks.
Those appeals have been ignored.
NJ has many State environmental laws and regulations that are broader in scope and/or more technically stringent than the minimum federal laws and programs. But these broader and/or more stringent NJ State program requirements build on and incorporate to various degree the base federal programs. And some major NJ DEP programs are federally delegated and or funded by EPA. We’ve already seen how Trump uses federal funding as leverage to force policy changes.
So, these issues are highly complex legally and technically and demand a well thought out State response.
If it’s as straight forward as Spinelli suggests, then maybe they can produce a formal Attorney General’s opinion to allay my concerns and avoid a whole lot of regulatory uncertainty and likely litigation.
So, I wrote the following note to Spinelli – who does NOT ignore my communications:
Ben – thanks for those excellent comments, particularly the questioning whether NJ state officials can be relied on. I almost had to stop reading after VanAbs’ equivocation (that’s the nicest thing I could say).
I’m not so sure you are correct in this, however:
“New Jersey in particular is not overly reliant on either federal funding or federal regulation(although there is a great deal of cross-referencing [with] the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act in state regulations).”
The base federal programs, even for State primary programs like Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (which is an expansion of federal Clean Air Act Section 112(r) ARP program), define the core technical requirements (e.g. data, methods, standards, technical specifications, etc).
(and NJ DEP never sought or received delegation for the federal EPA RCRA Corrective Action (Superfund like cleanup) program created by the 1984 HSWA amendments)
There also is a huge vulnerability in data and methods. Lots of NJ regulation is based on federal technical Guidance too.
The 2 best examples I have are the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) and the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). While SCC is NOT the basis for any DEP or BPU regulations, that future potential policy tool is now GONE, unless DEP or BPU revive and incorporate it in State law, regulation, Technical Manuals, Guidance, or policy.
Similarly, all DEP risk assessment work is based on IRIS data and methods. If and when EPA repeals or revises it, NJ DEP must follow the new watered down version.
When the federal regulations are eliminated or rolled back, the cross referencing in NJ State regulations are rolled back as well.
This is why I’ve been writing to Commissioner LaTourette and Chairman Smith for months to urge them to adopt current cross referenced federal requirements in DEP regulation or codify them in statute.
Much of the federal stuff is not specifically cross referenced in DEP regulations, but is implicit and merely treated as the base federal program. For examples: “reasonable potential analysis” for setting NJPDES effluent limits or the EPA Technical Guidance and models for setting Water Quality Based Effluent Limits or the numerous EPA Clean Air Act Technology review documents and models.)
Thoughts on how to get these issues addressed?
W