WolfeNotes.com

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 Updates 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.

[Update #2 – 3/15/25 – I just watched NJ Spotlight’s coverage of the PVSC protest. It was very good. But they reported that the PVSC Board took no action, and speculated that the Board was “not ready” to support the project. I found that strange so went to the PVSC website to find out what went on.

Curiously, the power plant project was NOT on the agenda   and the meeting was held on line, not at the protest site.Was the whole thing a stunt?~~~ end update]

I read that Spotlight teaser 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:

• Will The Trump EPA Kill The “Woke” DEP “Environmental Justice” Clean Air Act Permit For Newark Power Plant?

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 EDT

Subject: Re: EPA Title V Review, NJ DEP

Dear 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 #1: 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.

Sewer Line Break Forces Declaration Of Emergency

Days Later, Trump EPA Brags About “Proactive Approach” To “Upgrading Local Sewer Infrastructure” And “Safer Water”

[Update below]

This one is too rich. Egg, meet face.

In what could be the worst case of clueless timing ever, yesterday (Wednesday March 12), the Trump EPA issued an over the top press release, touting their assistance in helping municipalities in meeting environmental goals, see:

• EPA Helps NJ and NY Businesses and Municipalities Meet Environmental Goals

New York, N.Y. – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regional office helps businesses and municipalities across New York and New Jersey protect human health, improve local infrastructure and foster strong economic growth by offering direct technical assistance. From helping businesses navigate complex environmental regulations to supporting local governments in critical infrastructure upgrades, EPA’s proactive approach is making a tangible difference across the region – preventing costly violations and delivering cleaner air and safer water.

Among the examples of success EPA cited was in Phillipsburg, NJ:

Town of Phillipsburg, NJ – Upgrading Sewer Infrastructure for Environmental Protection

EPA worked with the Town of Phillipsburg, NJ, to resolve aging sewer infrastructure that caused overflows during heavy rainstorms. With EPA’s guidance, the town is investing $10 million to upgrade its sewer system, including moving a pump station out of a flood zone. Local officials praised EPA’s role in ensuring the project moved forward smoothly.

“Town of Phillipsburg express our appreciation for the time EPA took to attend our Sewer Utility meeting and to answer questions from the Town Council,” said Council President Peter Marino. “EPA was able to explain the commitment and need to invest in the Town’s sewer system. This is helpful as we plan and make decisions on how to best fund and invest in the Town’s sewer infrastructure.”

You can’t make this stuff up, but it just so happens that just 5 day prior, on Friday March 7, the Mayor of Phillipburg was forced to declare an emergency due to catastrophic failure of the ancient sewer system:

• Phillipsburg declares state of emergency over sewer line breakdown

The Town of Phillipsburg declared a state of emergency for some of its residents over the weekend.

A sewer line breakdown in the neighborhood of No. 1 to 5 Fairview Heights and 36 to 43 Washington Streets required immediate repair. The break affected some of the town’s historic terracotta pipelines. […]

“This incident serves as a reminder that our sewer system, along with other underground utilities, need the upgrades and replacements that we have been witnessing throughout the streets of Phillipsburg,” Mayor Randy Piazza Jr. said. […]

Town administration did not comment on whether a similar incident was likely to occur. The town said it’s taking an piecemeal approach to replacing its century-old sewer system throughout the rest of Phillipsburg. Recent emergencies are unlikely to change its strategy.

Unfortunately, the local news coverage does not report about public health risks and water quality impacts on the Delaware River.

Was EPA Region 2 so clueless that they didn’t know of this emergency before they  issued their press release 7 days later?

And is the town’s seriously flawed “piecemeal approach” to replacing the sewer system based on that highly touted EPA technical assistance mentioned in the press release? You know, the spin about “Upgrading Sewer Infrastructure for Environmental Protection” and helping:

local governments in critical infrastructure upgrades, [and] EPA’s proactive approach … [to] safer water”

Wow.

How incompetent and ill informed can you get?

[Update: A reader just sent me an email asking if I wanted to pay more in taxes and if the State should fix local sewer lines. The reader asked for solutions. Here’s my reply:

President Regan killed the Clean Water Act’s construction grants program that federally funded wastewater and drinking water infrastructure. We need to restore that federal funding approach. The State Revolving Funds don’t come close to this level of financing.

The DEP role is to enforce clean water act standards. If a local sewer line breaks and pollutes the Delaware River (or people’s basements), DEP should issue enforcement fines and mandate corrective action.

DEP also operates the environmental infrastructure bank that provides low and no interest loans for this work.

The Biden infrastructure funding programs Trump impounded billions of dollars from also could finance some of this work.

Here are 4 solutions, NONE of which are getting done or even discussed by media or advocated by environmental groups.

Additionally, at the State level, Senator Smith has talked about a water tax for 20 years and done nothing.

An Activist’s Activist Discusses Lessons Lost In The Environmental Mist

A Must Watch Story

(Caption: Jeff Tittel (R) and Bill Wolfe (L) – Hopewell/Merrill Lynch/BMS/ELSA battle, circa late 1990’s)

My good friend and former Sierra Club colleague Jeff Tittel was interviewed by Alan Steinberg.

All I can say is watch it.

Jeff traces his incredible personal background and professional and activist development through the evolution of the environmental movement. There are many lessons to be learned -all of which can be encapsulated in his telling of the back story of the amazing fight to preserve Sterling Forest.

Alan is a former US EPA Region 2 Administrator and Executive Director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission.

Here is Alan’s intro of Jeff:

In our latest episode, we welcome Jeff Tittel as our guest. He is recognized as one of the greatest champions for the environment. For 23 years, Jeff worked as the Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, retiring in 2021. In this episode, Jeff shares how he became involved in civic engagement at a young age and that his passion for the environment grew from that early start. In addition, he spoke about some of the legislation he helped to get passed in New Jersey, including the indoor smoking ban. We also discuss the current environmental issues with him, especially with President Trump in the Oval Office. Jeff also shared his critique of the various governors in office while leading the New Jersey Sierra Club.

I met Jeff around 1998. At the time, I was Acting Director of the Sierra Club NJ Chapter. The prior year, I had worked as Policy Director and was serving as Acting Director until Jeff took the helm. Jeff replaced Tim Dillingham.

Tim was not well liked by several Sierra Board members because he did not work well with the volunteers and local activists and preferred the inside Trenton top down political compromise game.

Jeff was hired to restore grassroots activism at NJ Sierra and increase membership, media visibility, and the political influence and effectiveness of the Club. He did all of that and much more.

At the outset, I sensed that Jeff didn’t completely trust me, primarily because I had been hired by former Director Dillingham, had spent the prior 10 years of my career as a DEP policy, planning, and regulatory wonk, and had little local political activist experience, aside from being elected as a School Board member in North Hanover. My work was more on the pollution or dirty side, while Jeff was more focused on land use and the green side.

Similarly, at the outset, I didn’t know Jeff at all, but sensed he was very politically oriented and a science and policy lightweight.

But it did not take long for us to get past our false assumptions about each other and become close friends. We worked as a powerful team. I did most of the issue and policy work and writing, while Jeff did the lobbying, media, fundraising, and activist support. We shared the strategy work.

Jeff is a genius when it comes to not just pithy sound bites (“dirty dirt” and “Viagara falls” come to mind), but understanding what’s really going on and communicating and advocating for regular people and the natural environment.

I’ve travelled extensively with him and he has an incredible recall and encyclopedic mind on local issues, history, and places –  from awesome hikes, to politics, to good pubs – and not just in New Jersey but across the country.

Jeff has no use for the current crop of “environmental leaders” – he tags them as “Foundation driven” and with another famous sound bite as “Zoom – Chair Warriors” that just want to go to the meetings where they get screwed! (Ouch!)

His allusion to Trump as “Agent Orange” was another classic. And his warnings about the dangers of Trump was on the mark.

Jeff’s scathing criticisms of the Murphy DEP was on point as well, and something you will not hear from any NJ environmental group (around time 35:00).

Finally, he gives an informed assessment of the Gubernatorial candidates and the current political climate that will shape their politics.

Listen closely to what he has to say. There is much wisdom there.

DEP Might As Well Pave The Logging Road In Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area

Private Logging Contractors Can Not Be Trusted To Comply With Unenforceable Terms Of A Contract

No DEP Regulations – No DEP Permits To Enforce Gross Violations

Take a look at these photos: (provided courtesy of NJ Forest Watch, the first taken on 3/11/25 and the second on 3/12/25):

The first photo shows deep rutting, but at least the natural soils and vegetation are present, as the old unused logging road is recovering and will at some future point in time be converted to forest.

The second photo shows gravel. The soils and vegetation are destroyed, the vegetation will not grow back, and it invites and provides access to illegal off road four wheelers and illegal dumping (violations I documented long ago, see:

• Take A Look At DEP & Audubon “Forest Stewardship” On Sparta Mountain

I’ll track down the specific document and language (no pun intended), but I recall reading either a DEP contract or the DEP Forest Management Plan. It casually mentioned that the contractor would conduct a very limited application of gravel at the point where the existing paved road cul de sacs and meets the old long abandoned forest road.

The objective and very limited use of gravel was to avoid rutting and off site tracking of soils from logging trucks at the intersection of the old abandoned road and the paved road.

The use of gravel depicted in the photo is an obvious violation of this limited use.

But there is no permit for DEP to enforce.

There are no regulations for DEP to enforce.

The rutting must be repaired, the gravel must all be removed, damaged vegetation replanted, and the site fully restored to initial conditions

But the only thing DEP has is a logging contract! Good luck with “enforcing” that! (and probably no performance bond or escrow account to fund damages).

This is another example of how the DEP is mismanaging NJ’s forest. 

This is another example of why stronger laws and regulations and permits must be mandated for any destructive activity in NJ’s forests and why logging forests is totally inappropriate.

Bill Would Do Nothing To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Supporters Are Misleading The Public

I was busy Monday, so didn’t listen to the Assembly committee hearing on the proposed Climate Superfund Act. The bill was released by the Committee.

The Senate version is buried in the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, the place where all good environmental bills go to die under Senator Sarlo’s dirty thumb. As I wrote on Sarlo and climate: (4/28/11)

Last week, Sarlo publicly stood with the Koch Brother’s billionaire funded TeaBaggers (Americans for Prosperity)and assorted global warming deniers in attacking the ten northeastern states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

Today the Bergen Record reported the story: Many turn out at rally to end NJ’s participation in regional cap and trade agreement

Sarlo sought to kill RGGI (~~~$75 million/year) – which is chump change compared to this bill (NY law is $3 BILLION/year)!

The bill’s supporters are like crickets on Sarlo. Will they take him on publicly? Or continue the Kabuki?

I note that the Assembly bill was similarly Referred to Assembly Commerce, Economic Development and Agriculture Committee. I don’t know the Assembly Chair – likely a Sarlo wanna be – but the bill likely will suffer a similar fate.

I wrote about my problems with that bill last Sunday, see:

• Assembly Committee To Consider Flawed Climate And Warehouse Bills Tomorrow

In just now Googling for press coverage, I found just one “article” – actually, it is a press release by the bill’s supporters – at Insider NJ:

• NJ Climate Superfund Act Clears Key Assembly Committee

I was pleased to see that activists were rallying in Trenton.

But, once again, I need to go on the record to call out the bill’s supporters, not only for strategic errors but for misleading the public. And they are intentionally using nuanced language to create this deception, by conflating emissions reduction (mitigation) and climate impacts (cause) with adaptation (effect).

This conflation is not some minor error in logic or sloppy use of language. It is essential and suggests manipulation and abdication of efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

And the analogy to the federal Superfund law is not apt and misleading as well.

Congress passed the Superfund law in 1980.That law funded the cleanup of toxic waste sites.

But 4 years prior to passage of Superfund, Congress passed the Resource Conservation And Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976. RCRA regulates and prohibits the discharge of hazardous substances and toxic wastes.

Superfund was part of a previously enacted broader program that prohibited and regulated toxic waste and hazardous substances, designed to prevent the creation of more Superfund sites and more Superfund cleanup expenses.

The Climate Superfund bill is NOT part of a previously enacted program that prohibits and regulates greenhouse gas emissions to prevent additional climate damages and the need for more money to adapt to impacts from the climate emergency. The NJ Global Warming Response Act is toothless and DEP does NOT regulate GHG emissions to meet the goals of the Act.

The DEP CO2 regulations are adopted under the NJ Air Pollution Control Act, are NOT tied to GHG emission reduction goals, do NOT apply to fossil infrastructure (e.g. pipelines), do NOT apply to buildings or transportation, and apply to only a tiny tiny fraction of total GHG emissions, from power plants that produce electricity for the grid.

So, the Superfund analogy also is misleading.

I’ll highlight just 2 quotes as examples of that deception:

This bill ensures those that have benefited the most and reaped billions from emitting the pollutants causing the damage pay more of their fair share of the costs and needed mitigation,” said Senate co-sponsor and Legislative Oversight Chair Andrew Zwicker, Ph.D. (D-South Brunswick).

Senator Zwicker is being disingenuous by his use of the term “mitigation”.

He has a PhD and has been involved in climate science and policy for a long time, so I can only assume that it is intentional deception.

The bill (Climate Superfund Act,) DOES NOT USE THE WORD “MITIGATION” and is limited to “ADAPTATION”.

In contrast, a similar federal bill includes adaptation and other related programs that COULD reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The recently reintroduced proposed federal Polluter Pays Climate Fund  – which has ZERO chance of passage in the current Republican Congress and Trump fascist regime – is similarly focused on adaptation, but it has broader uses of the funds, which include projects that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including energy efficiency, distributed energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and public health. Why isn’t the NJ bill at LEAST as broad as the federal bill?

Accordingly, the NJ bill does NOTHING to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In climate policy, the word “mitigation” refers to emissions reductions. The word “adaptation” refers to efforts to address the damages from climate. Sen. Zwicker and climate activist are misleading the public.

We are in a climate emergency and are losing the battle to reduce GHG emissions. Yes, polluters must pay, but they also must reduce and phase out GHG emissions.

Sen. Zwicker can start by backing legislation to ban new fossil infrastructure and mandate GHG emissions reduction (i.e put teeth in NJ Global Warming Response Act). This bill misses the mark.

Sen. Zwicker also could use his Committee to hold oversight hearings on DEP’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lack of effective regulation and enforcement.

Here’s another example – the reader can only interpret this to mean that passage of this bill would alleviate air pollution in Newark. This is a false impression:

Isn’t it about time the largest corporate polluters pay for some of the damage to our lungs and property instead of sticking it to taxpayers, ratepayers and consumers?” said Kim Gaddy, Executive Director of South Ward Environmental Alliance. “The Legislature needs to pass the Climate Superfund Act before more extreme weather and bad air arrives this summer.”

Newark will continue to suffer from air pollution and extreme weather.

Perhaps Ms. Gaddy should focus on weak DEP regulations, lax DEP enforcement, and new legislation with teeth that would actually reduce existing pollution (instead of grandfathering it all, like the fatally flawed NJ ENvironmental Justice law and DEP regulations she also supported do).