NJ Spotlight Crafts A False And Damaging Narrative On What [Allegedly] Killed The PennEast Pipeline
False Assertion Of DEP Permit Denials Damages Credibility Of All Involved
False Basis Diverts From Real Issues And Rewards Incompetent Opponents
The union guys knew exactly what to demand (401 WQC) and who to target (DEP). The Hunterdon County folks, driven by Rethink & Tom Gilbert? Not so much.
Last week, I filed an OPRA request to DEP for all communications they received and issued on the PennEast pipeline. My objective was to get the facts and report the real story, which was being falsely presented in NJ media circles. We will soon have the facts.
I copied NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle on that request as a way of urging him to rely on facts, not false assertions and false narratives (including to challenge fact free, speculative, and false claims he already had reported).
Curiously, today, instead of waiting a few days for the facts to emerge, Mr Hurdle and his editors at NJ Spotlight rushed to publish not only a premature but a false and misleading narrative, see:
NJ Spotlight is not some neutral and objective party to this dispute.
Their reputation and credibility are at risk, because, for years, despite being asked to do so, they failed to report on the alleged basis for cancelling the project: i.e. DEP Water Quality Certification (WQC) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Spotlight also falsely reported on alleged prior DEP permit denials.
The same criticism holds for “PennEast opponents”, who similarly failed to focus on and publicly pressure the Governor and DEP to deny the WQC and instead spent years and millions of Foundation grant and membership dollars in pursuit of a totally failed two pronged strategy: 1) FERC review and 2) eminent domain and land owner issues.
As we all know, FERC issued all approvals and provided an extension of them. Similarly, the US Supreme Court rejected the opponents legal arguments and granted PennEast eminent domain power.
For example, while “opponents” spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal work and technical consulting Reports on FERC and property issues – backed up by press releases, public events, Op-Ed’s, and legislative lobbying – I am not aware of any funding for a project or public campaign to appeal to the Governor and DEP to deny permits or WQC, e.g. a Technical Report by Princeton Hydro on how DEP could enforce WQC requirements under flawed DEP regulations.
NJ Spotlight also has financial issues as well as reputational issues at stake: because they are funded by the same Foundations and corporations that the “PennEast opponents” they selectively choose to quote as sources for their false and diversionary narrative. Imagine that: Foundations fund “opponents” to pursue a failed strategy; then they fund Spotlight to report on that same failed strategy by those incompetent opponents they funded. Then, they craft a false narrative and declare victory!
I loath these people:
But the nightmare is not over: those same incompetent and corrupt “opponents” use this “victory” as evidence of their effectiveness and pursue even more Foundation grant money to fuck things up even worse.
On top of all this, the false narrative does severe damage to DEP’s credibility and institutional integrity – as well as that of the legislature – for “politicizing” regulatory decision-making and evasive delay driven decision-making.
And I really resent how Spotlight has twisted this narrative, to hide their incompetence (and that of “opponents”) behind the skirts of legitimate citizen activism!
My resentment is compounded by the fact that I wrote extensively about and actually tried to educate and organize opponents and get them focused on the Gov. and the DEP WQC issues, but those efforts were undermined intentionally by diversions by these same “opponents” who now declare victory! (of course, Spotlight never focused on the WQC issue either).
We had a small success with this from the Chesterfield/Bordentown folks I worked with, but “Rethink NJ” (Tom Gilbert) and Patty Cronheim immediately undermined that work, see:
In case they all missed it, we’ve been following and urging a 401 WQC NJ campaign for YEARS: (regulatory arguments in red posts):
- Don’t Frack NY – Albany Protest Photos (September 2012)
- By The Time They File for State Permits, It’s TOO LATE!
- While PennEast Pipeline Foes Focus on FERC, Pennsylvania DEP Quietly Issues Water Quality Certificate
- Why Is NJ Media Keeping NY Gov. Cuomo’s Pipeline Kill A Secret?
- NY Environmentalists Call On Gov. Cuomo To Use Clean Water Act Power to Kill Gas Pipeline
- Continuing Misplaced Focus Diverts Pipeline Foes
- Lack of NY State Water Quality Permit Blocks Constitution Pipeline
- Strategic Advice To NJ Pipeline Foes: Build A Public Campaign To Pressure DEP To Deny Clean Water Act 401 Approval
- Advice for PennEast and All NJ Pipeline Opponents On Upcoming DEP Permit Hearings
- Citizen’s Guide To Using The Clean Water Act To Kill Pipelines
- Connecting the Dots Between Pipelines and Clean Water
- Christie DEP FERC PennEast Review Again Dodges The Only Hook That Could Kill The Pipeline
It really matters who and what killed JR – if the public and media are misled by the false narrative that substantively hollow, politically cowed, and technically misdirected advocacy can kill a major corporate initiative, then there will be very few in the future. Strategy and tactics matter:
(Keep in mind the context and the effect of this false narrative and incompetent advocacy on the several pending fossil infrastructure projects and delays in DEP climate PACT regulations).
When I receive DEP’s OPRA reply, I will tell the factually based story and destroy this false narrative.
In the meantime, all those issues are suggested in my letter to Senator Bateman just now – I will back it up with another very specific OPRA request to DEP today.
I’m guessing that Bateman refuses to provide his “letters” to DEP.
Dear Senator Bateman:
According to today’s NJ Spotlight:
“[Senator] Bateman said he wrote “at least twice” to the DEP, asking it to deny permits, and said many other lawmakers and officials also responded to public pressure.”
I am doing a forensic policy and regulatory analysis of the PennEast pipeline case, focusing on the alleged publicly asserted basis for the cancellation: DEP regulatory review, especially the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certificate.
I filed an OPRA request last week to DEP for all communications.
As DEP may assert an OPRA privilege on legislative communications, I was wondering if you would provide a copy of those letters to DEP, the ones you sent “at least twice”, which are now a matter of public record and have lost all OPRA and legislative privilege.
I’d also like your comment on the optics and institutional legitimacy issues the Spotlight narrative has created:, i.e that purely political pressure from land owners, public officials, and State legislators led to DEP – covertly and without formal regulatory action – somehow letting PennEast know that their permit application and WQC request would be denied (or created sufficient “regulatory uncertainty” and “delay” to achieve the same result).
I know of no technical analysis submitted to DEP by project opponents that would form the basis of denial of a WQC (e.g. a Report by Princeton Hydro). The DEP OPRA response will clarify that issue.
I am aware of multiple technical and legal analyses paid for and/or prepared by project opponents on FERC and related eminent domain and property issues, but none were related to DEP WQC or permits (as far as I know).
My concern is that this narrative effectively totally politicizes DEP regulatory review, and destroys the integrity and credibility of DEP as a regulatory agency.
It also reinforces the regulated community’s longtime attacks on both DEP permit review delays and “regulatory uncertainty”. This too is damaging to DEP as an institution.
Finally, I don’t recall any open legislative oversight hearings and development of a public record on DEP regulatory review issues. Again, this lack of transparency damages public confidence and trust in both the legislature and the DEP, in terms of “politicizing” public policy and regulatory decisions.
I appreciate your timely reply.
Bill Wolfe
[End Note – here’s my second OPRA and note to Mr. Hurdle (I sent first on 9/27/21, so DEP’s response is due this week):
Jon – I just filed this second OPRA, so the facts will out soon:
“According to today’s NJ Spotlight story:
“[Senator] Bateman said he wrote “at least twice” to the DEP, asking it to deny permits, and said many other lawmakers and officials also responded to public pressure.”
I therefore request the letters Senator Bateman sent to DEP regarding his opposition to the PennEast pipeline.
I also request copies of, specifically reiterating and clarifying my prior OPRA request, the letters from all NJ legislators, County officials, and local officials opposing the PennEast pipeline that are referenced in the NJ Spotlight story linked above.”
This is now about competence, credibility, and integrity.
The facts will out. We’ll see who opposed the pipeline and on what basis.
Wolfe