Podcasts about Cary Coglianese

On this episode of A Hard Look, we're discussing the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright; the case that overruled the infamous Chevron Doctrine. Since last summer, there has been meaningful legal developments within lower circuits. Professor of Law and legal scholar, Cary Coglianese, joins us to discuss what—if any—indications these decisions mean for a post-Loper Bright landscape.(*)* Editorial Note: At the time of recording, this episode referred to the article Professor Coglianese wrote with Professor Daniel E. Walters, “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright,” as “forthcoming.” This article has since been published and is now available online at the adminstrativelawreview.org.The transcript of the episode can be found here or on our website. Show Notes:Listen to our pre-Loper Bright episode, where we interviewed Daniel M. Sullivan to discuss the critiques and weaknesses of Chevron doctrine, potential constitutional problems with judicial review of agency decisions, and what administrative law may look like after the decision. Read more:Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on SCOTUS BlogLoper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the Future of Agency Interpretations of Law by Congressional Research Service (Dec. 31, 2024)The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright by Cary Coglianese & Daniel E. Walters

Administrative law judges who rule on immigration proceedings they work for the Justice Department. Justice, under attorney general Pam Bondi, has decided that rules protecting administrative law judges from removal are unconstitutional. This as immigration court backlogs stretch out for decades. Analysis now from University of Pennsylvania law professor Cary Coglianese. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Administrative law judges who rule on immigration proceedings they work for the Justice Department. Justice, under attorney general Pam Bondi, has decided that rules protecting administrative law judges from removal are unconstitutional. This as immigration court backlogs stretch out for decades. Analysis now from University of Pennsylvania law professor Cary Coglianese. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In episode 32, Thibault Schrepel and Teodora Groza speak with Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. They talk about Cary's research on the use of AI in public enforcement. Subscribe to our newsletter at https://law.stanford.edu/computationalantitrust for regular updateson the Stanford Computational Antitrust project.References:- Leashes, Not Guardrails: A Management-Based Approach to Artificial Intelligence Risk Regulation https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5137081- Antitrust by Algorithm https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3985553- Regulating Multifunctionality https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5059426- From Negative to Positive Algorithm Rights https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4225887

The Supreme Court's latest term was one of its most significant for administrative law. The Court ended Chevron deference, declared a right to a jury trial in securities fraud adjudications at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expanded the statute of limitations to challenge agency decisions. Other leading cases included a challenge to a major Trump-era rulemaking on guns and a challenge to a significant federal environmental implementation plan. The Court's opinions have raised important questions about the separation of powers, the role of Congress, and the future of regulatory governance in America. Now that the Court has issued its rulings, the panel considers: What comes next for the regulated public, Congress, executive branch agencies, and the States?FeaturingHon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCProf. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolHon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Judge, United States District Court, Middle District of FloridaModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Cary Coglianese, director of the Penn Program on Regulation, explores AI's potential to help regulators keep pace with energy sector growth and climate-tech innovation. --- The ongoing transition to a cleaner energy system has positive implications for climate, energy security and equity. Yet the same transition poses myriad challenges for regulators, who are faced with an energy system that is more complex and distributed than ever, and where rapid innovation threatens to outpace their ability to tailor rules and effectively monitor compliance among a growing number of regulated entities. Cary Coglianese, director of the Penn Program on Regulation, discusses the role that AI can play in optimizing regulation for an increasingly dynamic and innovative energy sector. Coglianese explores the role that AI might play in the development of rules and in measuring regulatory effectiveness. He also examines challenges related to AI energy consumption and bias that must be addressed if the technology's potential as a regulatory tool is to be realized. Cary Coglianese is director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania. Related Content Gender Baseline Assessment of Energy Compacts https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/gender-baseline-assessment-of-energy-compacts/ How Effective Are Vehicle Exhaust Standards? https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/how-effective-are-vehicle-exhaust-standards/   Energy Policy Now is produced by The Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. For all things energy policy, visit kleinmanenergy.upenn.eduSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lots of people are worried about the effects of artificial intelligence. Misused AI can cause harm. Federal Drive Host Tom Temin talk with someone who said federal contracts can provide a line of defense against improper use of AI: University of Pennsylvania law professor and federal regulation expert Cary Coglianese. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Lots of people are worried about the effects of artificial intelligence. Misused AI can cause harm. Federal Drive Host Tom Temin talk with someone who said federal contracts can provide a line of defense against improper use of AI: University of Pennsylvania law professor and federal regulation expert Cary Coglianese. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

AI is increasingly a part of our lives: it can beneficial, like using a smart speaker - and risky, like deep fakes becoming more difficult to distinguish from reality. The University of Pennsylvania's Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science, and and Michael Kearns, Professor and National Center Chair of the Department of Computer and Information Science, help us understand what artificial intelligence is, where it came from, and where it is going. Then, Lauri Maple Hayes – some call her “Tree Lady” or “Tree Queen” – Director of Urban Forestry with Philadelphia Parks and Recreation, is retiring after a 42-year-career in Fairmount Park. The longtime tree tender and curator describes how she's ready for the next chapter in her growing season. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Administrative law has a racial blind spot, argues Daniel E. Ho of Stanford Law School. Judges have long set aside agency actions when government officials have failed to consider the differential impacts of their policy decisions on subgroups of business owners, park visitors, and even animals — but not when they have failed to consider differential impacts based on race or ethnicity. In this episode, Professor Ho traces how civil rights and administrative law have diverged over the past fifty years, as U.S. court decisions have removed issues of racial discrimination from administrative law's purview. He concludes by discussing reforms that could better address racial inequities in the administrative state.Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people.  The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments or questions to podcast@pennreg.org. 

The racial wealth gap in the United States is driven in part by a lack of access to credit among communities of color. But as Brian D. Feinstein of the Wharton School relays in this episode, new empirical research indicates that increasing the level of diversity on regional Federal Reserve Bank boards improves credit access for underbanked minority communities. He draws out the major implications of this research not only for narrowing the racial wealth gap, but for understanding the role that diversity in institutional leadership, including on corporate boards, can play in advancing racial equity more broadly.Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Racial disparities have occurred in COVID-19's health effects and fatalities. They have persisted through the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines too, which saw a greater uptake in socioeconomically privileged segments of the population. These outcomes did not have to occur.  Olatunde Johnson of Columbia Law School discusses how regulators could have made different policy design choices to promote greater equity in the vaccine rollout — and she draws key lessons not only for the next public health emergency but also for improving racial equity more generally.Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people.  The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments or questions to podcast@pennreg.org. 

We first discuss the practicalities and potential impact of implementing Director Chopra's call in a recent blog post for simplification of consumer finance regulations and simple bright-line rules. We then examine the role and objectives of regulation such as predictability and responsiveness to stakeholder input and consider whether the CFPB's current approach to regulation, including its abandonment of official staff commentary updates, furthers those objectives. We also discuss the recent SCOTUS decision in EPA v. West Virginia and consider its implications for future challenges to CFPB actions.  Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel, hosts the conversation.

Formal citizenship requirements for political participation excludes not only noncitizens, but also many individuals from racial communities perpetually seen as foreigners. Ming Hsu Chen of the University of California Hastings College of Law looks at regulatory barriers, such as voter ID laws, that inhibit both racial minorities and non-citizens from participating equally in the American political process. She offers proposals for regulatory changes that would create a more equitable political order. Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments and/or questions to podcast@pennreg.org. 

As mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, clinical trials for new pharmaceuticals enroll healthy people as paid research participants to test for drug safety and tolerability. But the social injustices from these trials are too often overlooked. Drawing on her award-winning book, Adverse Events, Jill Fisher of UNC-Chapel Hill's Center for Bioethics explains how clinical drug trials attract disproportionate participation by racial and ethnic minorities who then disproportionately assume risks of participating in these trials, often just to stay financially afloat.Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments and/or questions to podcast@pennreg.org.

In this episode, Anita Allen, an internationally renowned expert on the philosophical dimensions of privacy and data protection law, reveals how race-neutral privacy laws in the U.S. have failed to address the unequal burdens faced online by Black Americans, whose personal data are used in racially discriminatory ways. Professor Allen articulates what she terms an African American Online Equity Agenda to guide the development of race-conscious privacy regulations that can better promote racial justice in the modern digital economy.Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments and/or questions to podcast@pennreg.org.

Throughout American history, racial inequality and political inequality have gone hand-in-hand. Building a truly representative democracy today and in the future will depend on ending racial discrimination in voting. In this episode, election law expert Guy-Uriel Charles of Harvard Law School argues that voting cannot be made a universal and fundamental right for all without nationalizing American election law and blocking states from adopting rules for redistricting and voting that exclude and disenfranchise minority voters.Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments and/or questions to podcast@pennreg.org.

Drawing on her latest book, Torn Apart: How the Child Welfare System Destroys Black Families—And How Abolition Can Build a Safer World, law and sociology expert Dorothy Roberts examines the fundamental racism of the child welfare system, which she argues regulates families in ways that disproportionately and negatively affect people of color. She explains why this system of family regulation should be dismantled and replaced with one that better protects children.Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments and/or questions to podcast@pennreg.org.

Racial segregation in American cities is no accident. Building on research from her award-winning book, Segregation by Design, political scientist Jessica Trounstine of UC-Merced examines how local land use regulations aimed at protecting the property values of white homeowners have generated segregation across racial and class lines that persists today—and how that segregation brings serious inequities in access to quality schools and public amenities. But just as segregation resulted from policy choices, Trounstine shows how desegregation can be a purposeful choice, too, with the right regulatory decisions.Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments and/or questions to podcast@pennreg.org.

For generations, regardless of which party has controlled the White House, Black leaders have been virtually absent across the federal government's financial regulatory bodies—a state of affairs that has severely limited the representation of Black communities and their interests in financial policy decisions and reinforced the racial wealth gap in the United States. Chris Brummer of Georgetown Law discusses why longstanding racial disparities in financial regulatory leadership continue even today—and what changes might be required to overcome them.Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments and/or questions to podcast@pennreg.org.

Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments and/or questions to podcast@pennreg.org.

The Penn Program on Regulation's podcast, Race and Regulation, focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. Over the 10-episode podcast series, listen as leading scholars uncover how government regulations across a wide range of areas—including voting rights, child welfare, banking, land use, and more—have contributed to racial inequities, as well as how regulatory changes could help build a more just society. Each podcast is hosted by Cary Coglianese, Director of the Penn Program on Regulation, and produced by Patty McMahon. Music featured is by Philadelphia-based artist, Joy Ike.Send comments and/or questions to podcast@pennreg.org.

In this episode 8, Thibault Schrepel discusses Stanford Computational Antitrust's newest article, “Antitrust by Algorithm” with Cary Coglianese (Penn) // Read the article at https://law.stanford.edu/computationalantitrust

President Biden will rely upon regulatory agencies like the EPA to push his ambitious clean energy and climate agenda. Yet increasingly conservative courts could stand in the way of Biden’s plans.---President Joe Biden has set an ambitious clean energy and environmental agenda that includes a $2 trillion infrastructure and climate plan, and a renewed commitment to the Paris Climate agreement. To achieve his climate goals, Biden is likely to rely on regulatory agencies, such as the EPA, to craft rules to limit the climate impact of the country’s energy, transportation and related industries.  Yet Biden’s need for new, climate-focused rules arguably couldn’t come at a more inopportune time.  New regulations often face legal challenge in the nation’s courts. The most prominent of those courts, the Supreme Court, has turned increasingly conservative, and many legal experts expect it to be generally less supportive of environmental regulations argued before it.  On the podcast, Cary Coglianese, Director of the Penn Program on Regulation at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, explores the challenge that a conservative Supreme Court may pose for President Biden’s clean energy and climate agenda. Coglianese also looks at how the legal philosophies of the court’s newest conservative members might guide their decisions on climate-related issues.  Cary Coglianese is the Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation.Related Content Have We Reached Peak Carbon Emissions? https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/have-we-reached-peak-carbon-emissions/ Balancing Renewable Energy Goals With Community Interests  https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/balancing-renewable-energy-goals-with-community-interests/

Governments make rules. But governments often grant exemptions from those rules, either when the rules are written or in the ways they are enforced. And those exemptions are the subject of a new article: “ Unrules” by Cary Coglianese, Gabriel Scheffler, and Daniel Walters. Professors Coglianese and Walters are our guests today. They describe the two main categories of unrules (“dispensations” and... Source

Governments make rules. But governments often grant exemptions from those rules, either when the rules are written or in the ways they are enforced. And those exemptions are the subject of a new article: “Unrules” by Cary Coglianese, Gabriel Scheffler, and Daniel Walters.   Professors Coglianese and Walters are our guests today. They describe the […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/arbitrary-capricious/the-unrule-of-law-as-the-law-of-unrules-with-cary-coglianese-and-daniel-walters/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Arbitrary & Capricious in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

The Trump Administration has blamed the decline in America’s coal industry on a regulatory “war on coal.” Yet investor reaction to regulatory announcements doesn’t support that view. --- The U.S. coal industry has declined dramatically over the past decade, with output from the nation’s coal mines falling 35% from their peak. Today, coal-fired power plants generate just over a quarter of the nation’s electricity and have been surpassed by natural gas plants as the top source for electric power. A variety of narratives have been put forth to explain coal’s decline. None has been more politically charged than the “war on coal” narrative, advanced by the Trump Administration, that places blame on a set of Obama-era federal policies to reduce the environmental impact of coal.Guests Cary Coglianese, director of the Penn Program on Regulation and Dan Walters, Assistant Professor of Law at Penn State University, discuss new research that takes a close look at the impact of federal environmental regulation on the coal industry. The research focuses on the reaction of investors to major regulatory announcements, and the extent to which federal energy and environmental policies have colored investors’ view of the future viability of the coal industry. Coglianese and Walter's report, Whither the Regulatory War on Coal? Scapegoats, Saviors and Stock Market Reactions, is available on the website of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy.Cary Coglianese is director of the Penn Program on Regulation at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Dan Walters is an Assistant Professor of Law at Penn State University whose work focuses on energy and environmental law. Previously Dan was a Regulation Fellow at the Penn Program on Regulation.Related Content Betting on Climate Solutions: Why We Should Spread Our Chips https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/paper/betting-climate-solutionsTeeming with Carbon Taxes https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/blog/2019/08/12/teeming-carbon-taxesAs Clean Energy Surpasses Coal, U.S. Energy Transition Locks Into Place https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/blog/2019/07/08/clean-energy-surpasses-coal-us-energy-transition-locks-place

Distinguished Policy Fellow Richard Cordray, the Inaugural Director of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), sat down with Penn Law's Cary Coglianese, the Edward B. Shils Professor of Law, to discuss consumer protection.

Much attention has been given to Donald Trump’s call for deregulation, a priority based on the notion that regulation impedes business growth. According to data from the Penn Wharton B-School for Public Policy seminar “Achieving Regulatory Excellence” by Professor Cary Coglianese, the number of cumulative pages in the code of Federal regulations has more than doubled from 75,000 to over 180,000 between 1975 and 2016. But regulatory excellence is more complicated than the raw number of regulations and needs to incorporate not only concern for the success of businesses, but also, and perhaps more importantly, the protection of citizens. Cary Coglianese, the Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Political Science and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation has researched and written extensively on “Achieving Regulatory Excellence”. He joins Dan Loney, host of Knowledge@Wharton Radio to discuss the topic. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Many federal government decisions that affect Americans’ day-to-day lives are made by agencies. Agency decisions, therefore, should maximize net benefits to society. For over 37 years, every president has directed executive agencies to do that through a cost-benefit decisional rule. However, regulatory agencies have sometimes interpreted their authorizing statutes to limit or prohibit this approach, and they may enjoy deference from courts when doing so. Many regulatory experts, including the current Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, have expressed concern over agencies’ failure to ensure that their decisions do more good than harm.How do we guarantee that all executive and independent agencies are accountable for their actions, while preserving needed insulation from overbearing political pressure? Does the answer change depending on the mission of the particular agency? Are there problems with the cost-benefit analysis model that create opportunities for agencies to manipulate and justify their actions?Hon. Steven G. Bradubury, General Counsel, United States Department of TransportationDr. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, University of Pennsylvania Law SchoolProf. Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington UniversityProf. Catherine M. Sharkey, Crystal Eastman Professor of Law, New York University LawModerator: Hon. Michael B. Brennan, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Many federal government decisions that affect Americans’ day-to-day lives are made by agencies. Agency decisions, therefore, should maximize net benefits to society. For over 37 years, every president has directed executive agencies to do that through a cost-benefit decisional rule. However, regulatory agencies have sometimes interpreted their authorizing statutes to limit or prohibit this approach, and they may enjoy deference from courts when doing so. Many regulatory experts, including the current Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, have expressed concern over agencies’ failure to ensure that their decisions do more good than harm.How do we guarantee that all executive and independent agencies are accountable for their actions, while preserving needed insulation from overbearing political pressure? Does the answer change depending on the mission of the particular agency? Are there problems with the cost-benefit analysis model that create opportunities for agencies to manipulate and justify their actions?Hon. Steven G. Bradubury, General Counsel, United States Department of TransportationDr. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, University of Pennsylvania Law SchoolProf. Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington UniversityProf. Catherine M. Sharkey, Crystal Eastman Professor of Law, New York University LawModerator: Hon. Michael B. Brennan, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at The University of Pennsylvania, joins host Dan Loney to discuss his recent B-School Seminar presented to congressional staffers that focuses on striving for regulatory excellence - as the code of federal regulations increases each year with new laws passed by US Congress. Cary is also the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation.This seminar is part of the Penn Wharton B-School for Public Policy, a new monthly series of faculty-led seminars for policymakers on Knowledge@Wharton. For more information about how to get involved with Penn Wharton B-School for Public Policy, visit: publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/b-school/…involved/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What might the EPA look like without current Administrator Scott Pruitt? Two regulatory experts discuss the future direction of the agency. --- EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has come under bipartisan fire for an array of ethical missteps that range from lavish spending on travel to the granting of illegal pay raises for select EPA staffers. Over the past week, staunch Pruitt supporters such as Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso have questioned the transparency with which Pruitt has run his office, and legislators from both sides of the aisle have suggested that Pruitt may not be fit to lead the agency. Could Pruitt’s tenure at the EPA be coming to an end? And if so, what direction might the embattled agency take under new leadership, such as that of recently confirmed Deputy EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler? In this special episode of Energy Policy Now, Penn Law energy and environment legal experts Cary Coglianese and Daniel Walters discuss the swirl of possible ethical violations that have led to the Pruitt controversy. They explore what Pruitt's departure could mean for his efforts—and those of the Trump administration—to deprioritize environmental protection at the EPA and roll back environmental regulations. Cary Coglianese is the Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, and the founding director of the Penn Program on Regulation at Penn Law. Daniel Walters is a Regulation Fellow with the Penn Program on Regulation at Penn Law. Related Content: The Future of the EPA and Clean Power https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/energy-policy-now/future-epa-and-clean-power The Many Fronts of Trump’s Environmental Deregulation Effort https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/energy-policy-now/many-fronts-trumps-environmental-deregulation-effort Hot Topics on Climate Change https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/policy-digests/hot-topics-climate-change

How far can the states go in implementing climate regulations against Washington’s will? Two regulatory experts discuss the legal limits to local climate action. --- Over the past 15 months the Trump administration has moved to eliminate or water down a host of environmental regulations tied to energy use. The administration has rejected the Clean Power Plan, sought to relax rules that limit methane emissions from oil and gas wells, and announced that it will lower national car and truck fuel economy standards. Simultaneously, the federal government has been working to counter state and municipal efforts to strengthen local environmental rules. And recently, concern has been raised that the Environmental Protection Agency, under Secretary Scott Pruitt, might try rescind the waiver that allows California to set its own automotive emissions standards. Cary Coglianese of the Penn Program on Regulation, and Shana Starobin of Bowdoin College, discuss the legal limits to state and municipal efforts to take climate action, and at the tools Washington can use to rein in local regulations. Cary Coglianese is a professor of law and political science at the Penn Law, and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation. Shana Starobin is an assistant professor of government and environmental studies at Bowdoin College and a former fellow at the Penn Program on Regulation at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Related Content: A City Blazes its Clean Energy Trail: https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/energy-policy-now/city-blazes-its-clean-energy-trail

n this special installment of the Case in Point podcast,Cary Coglianese and Gabe Scheffler highlight findings from their recent study, “What Congress's Repeal Efforts Can Teach Us About Regulatory Reform”. For more information and for additional viewing/listening options, go to www.caseinpoint.org. Case in Point podcast provides smart, informative conversations about the law, society, and culture. By bringing together top scholars with experts on politics, business, health, education, and science, Case in Point gives an in-depth look at how the law touches every part of our lives. Guests Cary Coglianese James G. Dinan University Professor, University of Pennsylvania Gabe Scheffler Regulation Fellow Host Steve Barnes Penn Law

In this special installment of the Case in Point podcast,Cary Coglianese and Gabe Scheffler highlight findings from their recent study, "What Congress's Repeal Efforts Can Teach Us About Regulatory Reform".  For more information and for additional viewing/listening options, go to www.caseinpoint.org. Case in Point podcast provides smart, informative conversations about the law, society, and culture. By bringing together top scholars with experts on politics, business, health, education, and science, Case in Point gives an in-depth look at how the law touches every part of our lives.     Guests Cary Coglianese  Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation Gabe Scheffler Regulation Fellow   Host Steve Barnes Penn Law

The Trump Administration has framed regulation as a drag on the economy and jobs. Yet how much do we really understand about the true benefits and costs of protecting the environment? Two legal and regulatory experts weigh in. --- Early in his administration, President Trump vowed to focus on rolling back regulatory oversight of the energy industry and to lift the regulatory burden on business. Conspicuously absent from two of Trump’s early executive orders targeting environmental oversight, however, was any mention of the benefits that regulation has brought in the areas of environment and health. Regulatory experts Alan Krupnick, Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future, and Cary Coglianese, Director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Program on Regulation, take a look at the benefit-cost equation underlying the development of regulations, and at the actual benefits, and costs, of key policies. Alan Krupnick’s work at Resources for the Future focuses on analyzing energy and environmental issues, in particular the design of pollution and energy strategies. He was a senior economist on the President’s Council of Economic Advisors during the Clinton Administration, and president of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. Cary Coglianese is the Edward B. Shils Professor of Law, and Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. He specializes in the study of regulation and regulatory processes and has served as an advisor to the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. He is the founder of the Regulatory Review, the flagship publication of the Penn Program on Regulation.

The Trump administration is leveraging an array of legal and political tools to roll back environmental protections. A U. Penn environmental law expert takes a look a Trump’s strategy, pitfalls that await, and the potential for protections to endure. -- The Trump administration is doing its best to fulfill its campaign promise to reduce environmental protections related to the energy industry and wider economy. Rollback efforts are taking place through a variety of means, including the issuance of an executive order that notably targets the Clean Power Plan, the defunding of government agencies with environmental oversight, and the use of an obscure rule that allows Congress to overturn standards issued in the final months the Obama administration. Yet the success of rollbacks isn’t assured. In some cases environmental protections exist due to legal requirement, and where rollbacks create a regulatory vacuum, new rules must take their place. University of Pennsylvania law professor Cary Coglianese explores the administration’s options to pare environmental rules and the challenges each approach is likely to face. Coglianese also takes a look at possible routes to defend protections. Cary Coglianese is professor of law and political science at the University of Pennsylvania and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation. He specializes in the study of regulation and regulatory processes and has served as an advisor to the U.S. Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency. He is the founder of The Regulatory Review, the flagship publication of the Penn Program on Regulation.

Penn Law Prof. Cary Coglianese speaks with Steven Croley, Penn Law Model Government & Public Affairs Initiative Fellow; Professor of Law, University of Michigan; Former General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Energy.

In this Case in Point podcast, Penn Law's Cary Coglianese and Bloomberg Law's Dean Scott discuss where the environmental regulatory process may be headed under the Trump administration.

In this Case in Point podcast, Penn Law’s Cary Coglianese and Bloomberg Law’s Dean Scott discuss where the environmental regulatory process may be headed under the Trump administration. Produced by Penn Law in collaboration with Bloomberg Law. For more information and for additional viewing/listening options, go to www.caseinpoint.org. Case in Point podcast provides smart, informative conversations about the law, society, and culture. By bringing together top scholars with experts on politics, business, health, education, and science, Case in Point gives an in-depth look at how the law touches every part of our lives.   Experts Cary Coglianese Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, Penn Law Dean Scott Senior Climate Change and Capitol Hill Environment Reporter Bloomberg BNA   Host Steve Barnes Penn Law  

Penn Law’s Cary Coglianese and Bloomberg Law’s Dean Scott discuss where the environmental regulatory process may be headed under the Trump administration.   Experts Cary Coglianese Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, Penn Law Dean Scott Senior Climate Change and Capitol Hill Environment Reporter Bloomberg BNA   Host Steve Barnes Penn Law

Feb 1, 2010. David Zaring of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania discusses Import Safety. What can governments, businesses and consumers do to eliminate dangerous products from the world marketplace? Zaring is co-editor, along with Cary Coglianese, Adam M. Finkel, of Import Safety: Regulatory Governance in the Global Economy