WolfeNotes.com

“This goes against – 100% – the grain of the intent of the bill.” ~~~ Senator Ruiz, Senate Majority Leader

Senator Ruiz – Source: NJ Spotlight screenshot

NJ Legislators are shocked – just shocked! – that the highly touted “historic” environmental justice law is riddled with loopholes, large enough to drive a new fossil gas power plant in Newark through! (watch NJ Spotlight coverage).

And this goes for the prime co-sponsor of the law, Senior Ruiz, the Senate Majority leader.

So, given the strength of their publicly broadcast outrage over DEP’s approval of an “environmental justice review” – falsely purported to be “required” by the EJ law – of a proposed new fossil gas power plant in Newark, I thought I’d seek their support for legislation to close those loopholes.

See the letter to Senator Ruiz and Senate Leadership below. If Senator Ruiz, as Senate Majority leader, were to back legislative amendments, a bill might have a chance of passage. Democrats hold a majority in both houses and the Governorship.

I am not holding my breath for a reply or for support from the NJ environmental justice “leaders” who supported the flawed loophole riddled environmental justice law and declared victory for justice.

Or critical coverage by the NJ press corps, who have cheerled and misled the public about this law.

From: Bill WOLFE <b>

To: “senruiz@njleg.org” <senruiz@njleg.org>

Cc: senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “sengill@njleg.org” <sengill@njleg.org>, “senmckeon@njleg.org” <senmckeon@njleg.org>, “ferencem@njspotlightnews.org” <ferencem@njspotlightnews.org>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, “shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov” <shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov>, “senscutari@njleg.org” <senscutari@njleg.org>

Date: 08/02/2024 7:42 AM EDT

Subject: Bill to close EJ law loopholes

Dear Senator Ruiz:

I am writing to request that you sponsor legislation to close loopholes in the environmental justice law. I am copying friendly members of the Senate Environment Committee and Senate leadership to urge their support as well.

I noted your comments broadcast by NJ Spotlight news on 7/25/24 regarding your criticism of the DEP’s approval of an environmental justice review of the proposed PVSC fossil power plant in Newark. You said:

“This goes against – 100% – the grain of the intent of the bill.”

As prime co-sponsor of that bill, perhaps the lack of application of the law to this facility was an oversight. As you know, the proposed facility was planned long before the drafting and consideration of the bill by the Legislature, so that was a considerable oversight indeed. And this is not the only loophole.

I would be glad to work with you and OLS staff in drafting the necessary amendments to assure that the law actually achieves its stated intent.

Additionally, for your information, I filed an ethics charge (see below) in order to get clarity on these issues. Misleading statements by government officials frustrate an informed citizenry, which is necessary for democracy.

Had the public known of these loopholes at the time the bill was under consideration, perhaps public pressure would have been brought to bear and we would have had a better bill.

I look forward to your timely and favorable reply.

Bill Wolfe

Ethics Violation Involves Repeated False and Misleading Public Statements On The Effect Of NJ Environmental Justice Law On Pending PVSC Power Plant Air Pollution Permit

Shawn LaTourette, NJ DEP Commissioner

On July 19, 2024, NJ Spotlight reported on the Murphy DEP’s approval of an “environmental justice” review and approval of the pending Title V Operating air pollution control permit for the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission’s proposed new fossil power plant in Newark.

That story made significant errors regarding the applicability of NJ’s environmental justice law on the pending PVSC air permit and included false and misleading statements – upon which the highly misleading story was based – by DEP Commissioner LaTourette.

Specifically, LaTourette created the false impressions that the EJ law applied to the pending air permit application and that his toothless Administrative Order on EJ could establish binding regulatory requirements as conditions in the final DEP issued air permit.

This was not the first time that LaTourette had made false and misleading statements in this matter.

I am so sick of the lies. If LaTourette said that in a Court, he would be disciplined for it. The same standard should apply in the “court of public opinion”. And the same standard should apply in a regulatory proceeding (i.e. the DEP permit process).

I immediately emailed Commissioner LaTourette and requested, if he was quoted accurately, that he publicly correct the record by issuing a public statement. I gave him a week to respond. He has not done so. I warned that if he failed to do so, that I was prepared to file ethics complaints, including to the NJ Courts who supervise NJ’s ethics code for lawyers.

Today, I filed the following “ethics grievance” to the NJ Supreme Court’s Office Of Attorney Ethics:

Dear Office Of Attorney Ethics – see attached form as a PDF.

The text of the complaint follows. Please be advised that this is purely a matter of law and ethics, not merely a policy dispute:

“Shawn LaTourette, Esq. currently serves as the Commissioner of the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In that capacity, he has made knowingly false and misleading public statements regarding the applicability, binding regulatory effect, and DEP enforcement powers of the NJ Environmental Justice Law (P.L. 2020, C.92), DEP’s implementing regulations (NJAC 7:1C), the DEP “Technical Guidance” (‘”EJ map”), and the DEP ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2021-25 with respect to a pending “Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit Modification” sought by permit applicant Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissions (PVSC), Project ID # 07329, BOP 190004.

The DEP’s permit review process constitutes an “adjudicative proceeding” and “tribunal” pursuant to RPC 3.6(a) (“Trial Publicity”) and RPC 3.3(a)(1) (“Candor towards the Tribunal”), respectfully. This complaint alleges violation of these provisions of the RPC.

Specifically: 1) the EJ Law and DEP implementing regulations do not apply to the subject PVSC permit application; 2) The DEP’s Technical Guidance does not apply to the subject PVSC permit application and furthermore is guidance and therefore not enforceable even if it did; and 3) the subject DEP Administrative Order, issued by LaTourette, is not binding and enforceable as a matter of law and regulation, in terms of mandating technical permit requirements with respect to the subject PVSC permit application.

Yet despite these legal facts, DEP Commissioner LaTourette has repeatedly made false and misleading public statements that: 1) the EJ law and DEP regulations apply to the subject permit application; 2) the technical Guidance provides the substantive basis for DEP regulatory review and approval of the subject permit application; and 3) the DEP Administrative Order applies and provides the regulatory basis for DEP to issue mandatory and enforceable technical conditions in the final permit for the subject permit application.

Among the many examples of these false and misleading statements is provided in a NJ Spotlight news story on 7/19/24. That story stated, in pertinent part (emphases mine):

“DEP’s approval was made with conditions that significantly restrict how the sewerage commission would be able to use its proposed power plant. … “This is a precedent-setting action,” LaTourette said. “There are always opportunities to reduce a facilities (sic) overall pollution, and the environmental justice law requires this analysis and that that effort be made.” The newly released environmental justice approval is a key part of the DEP’s consideration of an air pollution permit application the sewerage commission first submitted for the project in 2020. That permit is required for PVSC to operate the power plant. This sort of environmental justice review, which examines how proposals for pollution impact communities and considers the cumulative impact of that proposed pollution when combined with existing pollution sources, is required under New Jersey’s landmark environmental justice law.”

There have been many other examples I could cite and reserve my right to do so.

Commissioner LaTourette is the final decision-maker in issuing final agency action with respect to the subject pending permit application.

As a lawyer and DEP Commissioner, LaTourette is fully aware of the legal and regulatory applicability of EJ law, regulation, Guidance, and Administrative Orders regarding the subject pending permit application.

In conclusion, it is unethical behavior for an attorney to knowingly mislead the public regarding the regulatory applicability and binding legal effect of NJ laws, DEP regulations, DEP Guidance documents, and DEP Administrative Orders with respect to a pending permit application that has enormous potential impacts on public health and the environment.

I am available to provide clarification or additional documentation.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Wolfe

Don’t Believe It – They Are Lying Again

For once, the Democrats and media actually made aggressively framed substantive policy arguments to expose the radical right wing Christian Nationalist agenda of the Trump people.

But they left out most of the pro-corporate and anti-environmental agenda, including an insane plan to maximize fossil production, abandon all climate programs and politicize science.

They were just beginning to focus and get the word out to the American people.

The political outrage of the American public when they started to learn about what was in Project 2025 forced the Trump campaign to backpedal (and wait until people and the media find out about the ideas driving ideology and politics of JD Vance)

Read Project 2025 https://project2025.org/policy/ There are 30 chapters, almost all of which were written by people appointed by or connected to Trump. Trump Executive Orders, regulations, and policies are cited hundreds of times. There is a video of Trump congratulating Heritage for their work on the project.

The next shoe to drop in exposing the radical anti-democratic and expressly pro Dictator ideas of the Trump/Vance ticket are the financial and ideological links to Peter Thiel, Curtis Yarvin, & the “Dark Enlightenment”. Google them!

Don’t believe them. They lie. See:

• The Right Wing’s New Long Game Plan – “Project 2025″

• Trump’s Project 2025 Attack On The Department Of Interior Might Be Worse Than EPA Dismantling

• What “Project 2025” Would Do To US EPA, Climate, And Environmental Protection Programs

Climate Is Driving Wildfires, Not Excessive Fuel Load

Prescribed Burns And Logging Won’t Work

Northern Cascades, Washington State

Caption: Pasayten Wilderness, the Diamond Creek fire (taken on 7/27/17, Bill Wolfe)

Once again, major wildfires are burning in western forests.

And once again, forest managers and proponents of the current flawed forest management approach are using wildfires to justify and expand their status quo flawed management approach: i.e. “prescribed burns” and “thinning” (actually logging).

The false assumption (myth) being used to justify these flawed forest management programs is that excessive “fuel load” created by fire suppression is the primary source of the problem.

But the best available science finds that the primary causal factors are high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds, exacerbated by climate change.

The NY Times coverage illustrates both the myth and the scientific reality, see:

• How Did the Park Fire Get So Big, So Fast?

Here’s the myth: (from the mouth of a former US Forest Service manager)

What’s more, there’s not only dry fuel, but a lot of it. The blaze has spread across parts of the state that haven’t experienced fire in decades. Fire suppression practices have allowed vegetation to build up over long periods, in contrast to the frequent burns that were a common forest management tool of Indigenous tribes in California pre-1850, said Hugh Safford, a research ecologist at the University of California, Davis, and a former ecologist for the United States Forest Service in California. Those policies mean the rapid spread of the Park fire was “absolutely not surprising at any level,” he said.

But here’s the science:

Extreme heat in June and July was the most likely cause of the fire’s rapid growth, said Park Williams, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It’s the record-breaking hot and dry weather that’s singed the fuels and made them as ready to burn as they could possibly be,” Dr. Williams said.

Heat has been breaking records all summer, and Dr. Williams said records will probably continue to fall over the next several years as the burning of fossil fuels continues to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The NJ Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) climate, land use, and forest management policies and management programs share this flawed US Forest Service (timber industry) analysis based on myth, not science.

So, I again urged Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette to change course:

Dear Commissioner LaTourette – The Department has taken a strong interest in wildfires and the climate emergency, but unfortunately misdiagnosed the driving causal factors, prescribed a flawed forest management approach, and failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The best available science finds that the driving causal factors of wildfires are high temperatures, low humidity, and strong wind, not fuel load. Climate change makes all these factors worse.

Yet the Department’s forest management approach (e.g. prescribed burn and “thinning” (logging)) is based on a false assumption that excessive fuel loads drive wildfire and seeks to reduce fuel load. The Department’s failure to more strictly regulate land use in the Department’s mapped high wildfire hazardareas invites risks to public safety. Similarly, the Department is failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is instead approving major new fossil fuel sources.

The Department’s flawed forest management programs do not work to reduce wildfire frequency and intensity, while they exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions, worsen NJ’s unhealthy air pollution, and destroy forest ecosystems.

Failure to restrict and better manage development increases wildfire hazards to public safety and property.

Permitting new GHG emission sources and failure to regulate and reduce current emissions worsens the climate emergency.

The current Park Fire in California is another illustration of the Department’s mismanagement – from today’s NY Times:

“Extreme heat in June and July was the most likely cause of the fire’s rapid growth, said Park Williams, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It’s the record-breaking hot and dry weather that’s singed the fuels and made them as ready to burn as they could possibly be,” Dr. Williams said.

Heat has been breaking records all summer, and Dr. Williams said records will probably continue to fall over the next several years as the burning of fossil fuels continues to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/climate/park-fire-california-heat.html

I again strongly urge you to: 1) abandon the Department’s forest management approach, 2) impose a moratorium on logging and burning NJ’s forests and permitting new sources of GHG emissions, 3) regulate all major sources of and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 4) develop a far more aggressive integrated climate and forest management and regulatory strategy based on the best available science.

Should you not commit to major changes, perhaps Senator Smith will consider legislative policy mandates to force revision of the Department’s current forest management and climate programs.

Bill Wolfe

Big Pharma Praised For Voluntary industry Standards In Lieu Of Strict Regulation

NJ Spotlight Reporting Normalizes Radical Trump Policies 

NJ Spotlight ran another story today on the horseshoe crab, see:

• Horseshoe crabs get help by way of new drug standards

I’ve previously criticized their excessive coverage of this horseshoe crab – red knot dynamic, while ignoring virtually all other ecosystem collapse issues (other than reporting the “good news” on bald eagle recovery).

But this time, Spotlight casually reports on and praises what are actually radical anti-environmental policies that exactly mirror Trump’s Project 2025 radical right wing corporate anti-regulatory policies. Ironically, these policies are widely being denounced by media, democrats, and environmental groups.

In the opening paragraphs of the story, NJ Spotlight praises and normalizes the following Project 2025 radical policies:

• support for corporations setting private voluntary industry standards

• reliance on markets and supply and demand to manage public natural resources

• conservation groups have abandoned calls for regulatory standards to protect important ecosystems and species

Here it is (emphases mine):

Protection of Delaware Bay’s horseshoe crabs took a step forward when a standards-setting group for the pharmaceutical industry moved away from its longtime endorsement of horseshoe crab blood in drug-testing.

The standards body approved the use of two synthetic chemicals for detecting toxins in medical products rather than a substance based on horseshoe crab blood, which is commonly used now.

Pharmaceutical companies are not required to switch to the new standards, but conservationists hope demand for horseshoe crabs will drop as a result of the change, improving survival prospects for the crabs and imperiled species that depend on them, notably the red knot shorebird.

Did you get that? Let’s break it down:

1. A Big Pharma controlled private industry standards setting group adopted voluntary standards that directly impact an important public natural resource management issue (endangered red knot).

2. Those Big Pharma standards are praised as “a step forward” in “protecting” horseshoe crabs (and thus red knot).

3. The private Big Pharma corporate standards are voluntary. The public had no involvement in the development and adoption of those private standards.

4. Conservationist are “hoping” that market demand will improve survival of the red knot.

5. Omitted from the passage is the fact that conservation groups are not making demands for strict regulation to protect horseshoe crabs and red knot from commercial exploitation by Big Pharma and extinction.

Each of these radical policies being praised by conservationists and NJ Spotlight virtually mimic identical radical policies in Project 2025, for example, see:

• Trump’s Project 2025 Attack On The Department Of Interior Might Be Worse Than EPA Dismantling

Here is my note to NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle and his editors:

Jon – Do realize that the sentence below from your story today is an incredibly revealing statement and an indictment of the conservationists? Allowing Big Pharma (privatization) to set standards and then relying on market demand to determine the management of a species, while not even calling for regulation is shameful:

“Pharmaceutical companies are not required to switch to the new standards, but conservationists hope demand for horseshoe crabs will drop as a result of the change, improving survival prospects for the crabs and imperiled species that depend on them, notably the red knot shorebird.”

Do NJ Spotlight and PBS realize that they are reporting on policies that exactly comply with the radical anti-regulatory and pro-market policies of Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025?

Have you even read Project 2025? Because it calls for market solutions, privatization, and deregulation – which are exactly the policies controlling horseshoe crab.

Wolfe