Podcasts about Lazard

Tonight, State of the Bay digs into San Francisco Mayor London Breed's new budget proposal. Retired Oakland librarian and public historian Dorothy Lazard joins us to discuss her new memoir "What You Don't Know Will Make a Whole New World."

Panthers Sweep, Lazard Racked, and More - Thursday Hour 1

Have you wondered how to build your expertise and advance your career? Do you want to get ahead and stand out? It's not enough to simply follow the crowd. Table stakes are showing up and hard work.  In this episode we're talking about the importance of building an expertise with Kim Tilley. Kim is a Director and Portfolio Manager on the Dynamic Portfolio Solutions platform and oversees Lazard's ETF investment strategies and due diligence. Prior to joining Lazard in 2002, Kim worked on the Institutional Equity Sales & Trading Desk at Wachovia Securities, Inc. She has a BS in Finance and a minor in Economics from Miami University and holds the Certified Investment Management Analyst (CIMAÒ) designation.  Kim is the former co-chair of the Lazard Women's Leadership Network steering committee and was a founding member of the Lazard Global Inclusion Task Force. Kim lives in Brooklyn, NY with her husband (who is a writer) and 2 children, Caroline  and Charlie. Kristine Delano guides the discussion on cultivating tools to build your expertise and share it. Listen on your favorite podcast platform. We Talk Careers Podcast. Follow on Instagram kristine.delano.writer  Visit www.womeninetfs.com to find additional support in the ETF industry.  Go to www.kristinedelano.com for your Thrive Guide: a compilation of the most requested and insightful advice from our guests on Leadership and Advancement. Book recommendation:  Invisible Child by Andrea Eliot

MONDAY KETCHUP: Exxon goes woke, AB Inbev's loses perfect LGBT rating, Meta's out $1.3bn, and Board Sabermetrics succession planning at Morgan Stanley and Lazard

Dorothy Lazard has held the history of Oakland in her hands for years as the legendary historian and archivist at the Oakland public library. She's now retired and telling her own story of growing up in Oakland and San Francisco in the late 60's and early 70's, which she writes was “the first best time to be a Black kid in America.” We talk to her about coming of age in the 1970's Bay Area, the books and the libraries that fed her eager young mind, and her memoir, What You Don't Know Will Make a Whole New World. Guests: Dorothy Lazard, author, What You Don't Know Will Make a Whole New World; former head librarian, the Oakland History Center

The Green Bay Packers took a swing on a big wide receiver from Iowa State in Allen Lazard after he was waived by the Jacksonville Jaguars, and even though he's moved on along with Aaron Rodgers to the New York Jets, his trajectory was a special one. This is our interview with Lazard from 2019 to look back on his journey with the team.  Follow & Subscribe on all Podcast platforms… 

Sigma USA; La Comer; Mercado Libre; Merama en Chile; importaciones en EUA; Lazard; de Suiza a Monterrey; Kenvue; Flexport y Shopify; Maserati y sus eléctricos; quarterbacks; bolsas fakePrueba Whitepaper 30 días gratis http://whitepaper.com.mx/30day

Today we had the exciting opportunity to host George Bilicic, Vice Chairman and Global Head of Power, Energy and Infrastructure at Lazard. George has had a long and distinguished career including his time as a Partner at Cravath, as President of Sempra, and 20 years at Lazard in the investment banking business. We were thrilled to visit with him in our office in Houston.   Our discussion centered around Lazard's recently released 2023 Levelized Cost of Energy, Storage and Hydrogen Analyses. As you will see, we picked a handful of what we thought were the key pages from the full report and asked George to walk us through them. We kicked off the broader discussion with George by getting more background on this now very well-known annual report, hit some of the key themes and predictions, and also discussed the process involved in gathering the data. One of the items we discussed was the analysis not just of the levelized cost of energy comparison but also the same analysis with the cost of “firming” added (to adjust for intermittency). George shares some of the feedback they've received about the report from around the globe and how the firm uses the work as a discussion piece with everyone from governments to investors to companies to university students. We also discuss his perspective on global attitudes around the IRA, Lazard's recent Climate and Energy Transition Conference, supply chain risks looking forward, the difficulties in calculating total value, and the potential for consolidation in the alternatives/renewables/power/utility space. Toward the end of the discussion, we touch on Lazard's recent formation of a Geopolitical Advisory Group and the rationale for the effort. We ended with asking George what an LCOE report might look like in ten years. As you will hear, he had a fun and interesting answer. Overall, we had a great visit with George and can't thank him enough for joining us today.   Mike Bradley started the show by relaying that commodity and equity markets are very volatile, and to the downside, given poor recent economic data and uneasiness heading into Wednesday's FOMC meeting. He highlighted several observations including an equity market (S&P 500) that's been directionless and stuck in a very tight trading range. He shared that unlike the S&P 500, which is trading at the upper end of its recent trading range, WTI price is testing the lower end of its 5-month trading range, mostly due to growing recessionary risk concerns. He also emphasized that this will be an extremely heavy earnings week dominated by E&Ps, Midstream and Refiners. He concluded by highlighting two main themes to expect from E&P calls, lower 2H'23 oil service cost inflation and return on capital programs leaning more heavily into share buybacks. Brett Rampal also joined today and offered his nuclear perspective in the discussion as well.   Thanks to you all. We hope you enjoy!

Welcome to the latest episode of the TacoCorp Fantasy Football League Podcast, where Nate and Terence discuss their last two weeks, including their favorite forgotten Nickelodeon shows that shouldn't be forgotten. They also cover the latest NFL free agency period and talk about Aaron Rodgers being traded from the Green Bay Packers to the New York Jets. In this episode, Terence asks Nate to admit that he is afraid of scary movies and has him say which one he would watch again even though he is scared. They also recap the rest of the NFL free agency period and talk about the running backs, wide receivers, and tight ends that have found themselves on new teams. Some of the running backs who have found new teams include MIles Sanders to the Panthers, Rashaad Penny to the Eagles, David Montgomery to the Lions, Damien Harris to the Bills, Devin Singletary to the Texans, James Robinson to the Patriots, Jamaal Williams to the Saints, D'onta Foreman to the Bears, and Samaje Perine to the Broncos. Meanwhile, the wide receivers who have found new teams include DJ Chark to the Panthers to the Bears, JuJu to the Patriots, Theilen to the Panthers, Robert Woods to the Texans, Jakobi Meyers to the Raiders, OBJ to the Ravens, Darius Slayton to the Saints, Lazard to the Jets, and Hardman to the Jets. Finally, the tight ends who have found new teams include Dalton Schultz to the Texans, Gesicki to the Patriots, Hayden Hurst to the Panthers, Austin Hooper to the Raiders, Robert Tonyan to the Bears, and O.J. Howard to the Raiders. They also talk about their winners and losers of the first three rounds of the 2023 NFL draft, discussing which teams made the most strategic decisions and which ones missed the mark. Additionally, they share their thoughts on which players were the biggest surprises and which ones were overhyped. Moving on to Australian Football League, Nate and Terence draft their top 5 teams based on their name, logo, and colors from an American perspective. They discuss which teams are the most visually appealing and why, while also sharing some fun facts about each team. The teams they selected are sure to be a hit with any sports fan, whether they are from the US or Australia. Finally, Nate takes shots at his friend Nick because Nick trash-talked in Madden, and Nate keeps beating him badly. Overall, it's an entertaining episode filled with plenty of sports news and fun banter between Nate and Terence. In conclusion, we hope you enjoy this episode of the TacoCorp Fantasy Football League Podcast, and we encourage you to leave your feedback and comments below. Don't forget to subscribe to our channel for more sports-related content! TacoCorp FFL YouTube⁠⁠ ⁠⁠TacoCorp FFL Twitter⁠⁠ ⁠⁠58 W. King Podcast - YouTube⁠⁠ ⁠⁠58 W. King Podcast - Apple⁠⁠ ⁠⁠58 W. King Podcast - Spotify⁠⁠ ⁠⁠58 W. King Twitter⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Whiskey Flick - Apple⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Whiskey Flick - Spotify⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Whiskey Flick - Twitter⁠⁠ Subscribe. Download. Listen. Rate. Review. Share. Love.

Scouting NFL Draft Prospects 61-70: Tillman the new Lazard? New Prospects: Tyrique Stevenson Joe Tippmann Derick Hall Tuli Tuipulotu Devon Achane Siaki Ika Daiyan Henley Matthew Bergeron Cedric Tillman Tucker Kraft Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Scouting NFL Draft Prospects 61-70: Tillman the new Lazard? New Prospects: Tyrique Stevenson Joe Tippmann Derick Hall Tuli Tuipulotu Devon Achane Siaki Ika Daiyan Henley Matthew Bergeron Cedric Tillman Tucker Kraft Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Various options are at play in the EPA's planned greenhouse gas standards for new and existing power plants. In this episode, Lissa Lynch of NRDC discusses the implications.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsA couple of weeks ago, the policy analysts at the Rhodium Group put out a new report showing that the Biden administration's legislative achievements are not quite enough to get it to its Paris climate goals. But those goals could be reached if the legislation is supplemented with smart executive action.Some of the most important upcoming executive actions are EPA's greenhouse gas standards for new and existing power plants. The Supreme Court famously struck down Obama's Clean Power Plan — his attempt to address existing power plants — judging it impermissibly expansive. So now EPA has to figure out what to ask of individual plants.The agency's decisions will help shape the future of the US power sector and determine whether the Biden administration gets on track for its climate goals. To talk through those decisions in more detail, I contacted Lissa Lynch, who runs the Federal Legal Group at the NRDC's Climate & Clean Energy Program. We discussed the options before the EPA, the viability of carbon capture and hydrogen as systems of pollution reduction, and whether Biden will have time to complete all the regulatory work that remains.Alright. With no further ado, Lissa Lynch from NRDC. Welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Lissa LynchThank you for having me.David RobertsThis is a subject that I used to spend a lot of time thinking about back in the day, and it's sort of receded for a while, and now it's back. So it's very exciting for a nerd like me. So I want to just quickly walk through some history with this and then sort of hand it off to you so you can tell us where things stand now, because I don't want to assume that listeners have been obsessively following this now nearly two decade long saga. So let me just run through some history really briefly. So listeners will recall in 2007, there's a big Supreme Court case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, in which the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is eligible to be listed as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act if EPA determines it is a threat to human health.And then shortly thereafter, Obama's EPA officially determined that it is a threat to human health via the endangerment finding. So this is one thing I'm not sure everybody understands, and I just want to get it on the table up front. So for context, the combination of those two things, Mass vs. EPA, plus the endangerment finding, means that EPA is lawfully obliged to regulate greenhouse gases. This is not a choice. This is not something it can do or not do, depending on how it feels or who's president. They have to do it. So then that triggers the obligation, three separate obligations.You have to regulate mobile sources, which Obama did with his new fuel economy regulations, which are still in place, as far as I know. Then you have to regulate new stationary sources of greenhouse gases, which Obama did. And as far as I know, we can come back to this in a second, but as far as I know, those new power plant regulations that Obama passed are still in effect. And then thirdly, you have to regulate existing stationary sources of greenhouse gases, which mainly means power plants. And so Obama's effort to regulate existing power plants is called the Clean Power Plan.People may remember the fuss and ado about the Clean Power Plan as it was under development. Lawsuits were immediately launched. Of course, the Supreme Court took the extremely unusual step of putting the law on hold, basically not letting it go into implementation until it had heard this case. And then it heard the case, rejected the Clean Power Plan on the basis of the newly dreamed up, rectally, extracted Major Questions Doctrine. So that's where we stand now is we've got the mobile regs in place, although Biden is updating those too. I think we've got the new power plant regs in place, although Biden is also updating those.But as for existing power plant regulations, there are basically none. It's been a legal mire and so Biden's got to do those too. So let's talk about what Supreme Court said about the Clean Power Plan in their ruling and how that constrains the sort of solution space that we're looking at now.Lissa LynchSo in West Virginia vs. EPA, that was the Supreme Court decision from last summer. The Supreme Court held that this section of the Clean Air Act that we're talking about here, section 111, does not clearly provide authority for the approach that EPA took in the Clean Power Plan. And what they did there we sort of refer to as generation shifting. In the Clean Power Plan, EPA looked at the power sector as a whole and they concluded that the best system for reducing fossil-fuel-fired power plant emissions was a combination of measures including shifting generation away from dirtier fossil power toward cleaner power.So essentially retiring dirtier power plants and replacing them with renewables.David RobertsRight. So the unit of analysis here was a state's whole power fleet, not the power plant individual, but the whole power fleet.Lissa LynchRight. And the reasoning for that in the Clean Power Plan context was supported by the companies themselves, the power companies themselves and the states who said, yes, this is the way that we are dealing with decarbonizing our fleets. We are looking out across our whole fleets, retiring the dirtiest sources and replacing them with cleaner generation. That's how the existing RGGI program in California cap-and-trade programs work. That's how many of the power companies that have emission reduction or clean energy targets are doing that.David RobertsAnd let's just say Republicans have been saying for decades that regulations are too restrictive and they're not flexible enough and states and power companies need flexibility. And this was perfectly flexible. This is absolutely as flexible as you could make a system. It just said to the state, do whatever you want to do to lower the average emissions of your power plant fleet. And then conservatives got what they wanted and hated it for other reasons.Lissa LynchOne of the things that's important about what is left on the table after this decision is there is still a considerable amount of flexibility on the compliance side. So what the Supreme Court was really dealing with was the method EPA uses for setting the level of the standard, basically setting the target that industry has to meet. So the Supreme Court explicitly took that generation shifting approach off the table for purposes of setting the level of the standard itself. And so after this decision, EPA can still set standards, in John Roberts words, "Based on the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly."David RobertsRight? So the idea here is EPA, by interpreting the Clean Air Act in such a way as to apply to the power plant fleet overall, and sort of telling states how they have to shape their overall power plant fleets. EPA was assuming too much authority, basically. Like doing something major, despite too major for the words in the Clean Air Act, which I don't want to dwell on this too long, but let's just pause here to acknowledge that. No one then in the ruling, now in the subsequent ruling, since then in all scholarship knows what the hell "major" means or when it is that an agency has crossed the line from proper regulatory interpretation into "Oops, too major."It really just kind of sounds like and seems that major means anything bigger than John Roberts is comfortable with.Lissa LynchRight? I mean, this is one of the really concerning things about the Major Questions Doctrine, just generally is that it is murky and it does have this sort of paralyzing effect on ...David RobertsYes, intentionally.Lissa LynchExactly. It is explicitly anti-regulatory and explicitly sort of intended to stop agencies in their tracks and make them question, oh, is this too major?David RobertsAnd there's no answer. Right. So naturally you're going to be cautious because there's no definition of major. It's just whatever irritates John Roberts when he wakes up one day. So this was the opening salvo, I think, in a longer Supreme Court effort basically to brow-beat agencies into being timid. So anyway, point being EPA can't use the overall power fleet as a sort of benchmark through which to set this standard. So what does that leave? What's the sort of range of motion that we think we still can act in here when we're talking about these new standards?Lissa LynchSo now that we have this Supreme Court decision in place. EPA's got some guidelines, and they can base the next round of standards on, as Justice Roberts put it, measures that make the plants operate more cleanly. So what they're looking for now is a rule that looks more like what traditional pollution regulations of the past looked like based on scrubbers, bag houses, the stuff that you can physically attach onto the plant or do at the plant itself to reduce that plant's emissions. When it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, the options are limited.David RobertsWell, let me pause there. Before we get into that, I just want to say one thing that I learned from your writing that I had not known, and I don't know that it's widely known. So there's been talk ever since Mass vs. EPA that bugged conservatives, and they would love to undo that, right? Because they would just love to moot this whole thing by undoing that ruling and saying that CO2 is outside the context of the Clean Air Act and have been muttering about doing that. So the Inflation Reduction Act statutorily locks into place that ruling.Right. It says explicitly CO2 qualifies under the Clean Air Act, and it instructs EPA to develop new standards. So there's no ambiguity about that. And it says EPA needs to set standards that are going to reduce emissions relative to baseline, where the new baseline is taking the Inflation Reduction Act itself and all its subsidies into account. So it's telling EPA calculate what all these subsidies are going to do, what the new sort of business as usual trajectory of emissions would be, and then develop regulations that reduce it further. I didn't know any of that.Lissa LynchYeah, no, this is huge. And I mean, obviously the Inflation Reduction Act is enormous. It is going to accelerate the clean energy progress that we've seen in the last decade or so by many fold. It is a huge, huge deal. And one of the provisions in this quite large law essentially reaffirms EPA's not only statutory authority, but its obligation to go ahead and set CO2 emission standards for fossil-fuel-fired power plants. And so that's a clear statement from Congress last year.David RobertsClear enough even for John Roberts.Lissa LynchRight. So we have always thought that that authority and obligation under the statute was quite clear, but now it's crystal clear, and they need to move.David RobertsAnd I think it's also important to absorb this new baseline idea, because the IRA itself and all the historical progress since the last round of these regs, the new expected baseline for power plant emissions is much lower now than it was when Oobama's EPA was calculating these things. Which commensurately means you're going to need tighter standards if you want to reduce further than that new baseline.Lissa LynchYeah. And it is kind of wild to look back on ten years ago. So it was ten years ago, 2013, that President Obama announced in his big climate change speech that he was directing his EPA to go ahead and set carbon pollution reduction standards under Section 111 for fossil-fuel-fired power plants. The first time that was being done. So much has changed in ten years in the power sector. And I think anyone listening to this podcast knows we are smack in the midst of a clean energy transition in the power industry. Industry itself says so.The Edison Electric Institute says we are, quote, "In the middle of a profound long term transformation in how energy is generated, transmitted and used." Lazard, the investment firm, estimates that wind costs have fallen by 46%, solar has fallen by 77% over the past decade. So we're just in a totally different world now than we were ten years ago. And so we passed the Clean Power Plan's 2030 emission reduction targets in 2019 without the Clean Power Plan ever having gone into effect.David RobertsWhich in retrospect makes all the Republican arguments about how this is an economy killing regulation and it's too strong and it's unrealistic and there's no way we can move that fast look utterly ludicrous, which we all said at the time, but we had to pretend that it was a real live argument. So they're saying it's too stringent, it's going to destroy the economy. And here we rocketed past it in 2019 without any regs.Lissa LynchRight? And that is part and parcel with each time. There are new ambitious pollution standards set ...David RobertsEvery time.Lissa LynchUnder the Clean Air Act, industry claims the sky is going to fall. This happened with the acid rain program back in the American Electric Power predicted that it was going to destroy the economy of the Midwest. Like the lights are going to go out, the sky is going to fall.Every time and we never learn. We never learn from those previous examples. It's crazy, right?And so the actual costs of complying with the acid rain program and reducing sulfur dioxide ended up being, I think, around a 10th of what industry had estimated. Sulfur scrubbers are now widely used. The program has been a great success. It is this great example of how we can set pollution standards and then innovate to meet them cost effectively and quicker than anyone expects. We do it over and over again.David RobertsOver and over again.Lissa LynchAnd we can do it in this context.David RobertsRight? One more thing. Before we get to what's available for the new standards, we should mention I should mention that when the clean power plant got shut down, the legal obligation to pass regulations on existing power plants then passed to the Trump administration, which did that sort of passed a ... what was it called? The clean America ...Lissa LynchThe Affordable, Clean Energy Plan.David RobertsYes, Affordable Clean Energy, the ACE Plan, which several analyses showed would on net have raised emissions in the power plant sector. So those got shut down in court, too. They were just completely a joke. Ludicrous so that's all the history. So here we are Biden's EPA has got to regulate existing power plants and new power plants. And it can't take this so called outside the fence line holistic approach that the clean power plant took. So it's got to set standards based on what you can do at the individual power plant level inside the fence line, as they say.So what are the options? Actually, I'm talking way too much, but let me get one more thing out of the way and then I'll let you talk. But one of the things that faced the reason I just want people to understand this too, the reason Obama took this approach, the reason Obama's EPA took this outside the fence line holistic approach, is that if you're just restricting yourself to the individual power plant, you're stuck with either marginal improvements, right? You get the boiler to work more efficiently, you tighten up efficiency, and you can sort of marginally 3% to 5%, reduce emissions.Or on the other side, there's carbon capture and sequestration, which especially ten years ago when Obama's EPA was contemplating it, was not very well tested, not very well proven, super expensive. So you either had sort of like a fly swatter or a nuke when it comes to the individual power plant, which is why they went with the holistic approach. So now the holistic approach is off the table. We're back to the fly swatter or nuke problem. So just tell us sort of like, what are the available options here?Lissa LynchYeah, so you kind of covered the two ends of the range, right? On one end, the very low ambition end, you can make minor improvements to the operating efficiency of the plant, the way the plant operates. That was the basis for the standards that the Trump administration issued. And as you noted, improving the efficiency of the plant makes it run better and it can be called upon to run more and therefore can end up increasing its overall emissions. That sort of rebound effect. That's a possibility. You can still reduce emissions through operating efficiency improvements. And I think there's more options that could achieve greater reductions than the ones that the Trump administration included in their rule.But still, we're talking the very low-end, single percentage reductions in the middle, there's this option of cofiring with a lower carbon fuel. So if you're talking about coal plants, you can co-fire that coal plant partially with gas. In a gas plant, you could co-fire partially with hydrogen and you're going to bring the emissions rate of the plant down somewhat. In some of our analysis, we've estimated that a 40% cofiring coal with gas. So cofiring a coal plant with 40% gas gets you about a 20% emission reduction. So it's not nothing, but it also involves additional fossil infrastructure to get gas to a coal plant or additional infrastructure to get hydrogen to a gas plant.And on top of several other issues with hydrogen that we can talk about a little later.David RobertsWell, a legal question, I guess all of this in some respect is arbitrary, but where is the line between forcing fuel-switching, which I think Supreme Court said was out of bounds, and too far, versus a rule that requires cofiring, which is like kind of like halfway to fuel switching? Is there a legal distinction there between those two?Lissa LynchThere's absolutely precedent for requiring cleaner fuels or fuel processes. What the Supreme Court mentioned, at least in dicta, was we don't want to see standards that would force a plant to stop existing. And so essentially, if EPA were to base the standard on total conversion from coal to gas, which some coal plants have undertaken with cheap gas prices, that I think, based on our reading of the decision anyway, would probably be too far. So full conversion probably off the table along with generation shifting. But partial cofiring is actually one of the technologies that the Obama administration considered for their Clean Power Plan, as was carbon capture.And as you noted, the approach that they took in the Clean Power Plan, they selected because it was the most cost effective. So they ruled out carbon capture and cofiring, not because they weren't adequately demonstrated or available, they were just more expensive than the approach that EPA ended up going with.David RobertsBut now we're forced back basically to that more expensive approach.Lissa LynchRight, as I mentioned before, but want to keep reiterating, this is all about setting the level of the standard, finding it's a math problem. EPA looks at the options, and so the options as we see them are efficiency improvements, getting very little cofiring, getting somewhere in the middle, or carbon capture and storage, getting the most amount of emission reductions. They look out at that and they select the best system. Then they apply it to the plant and essentially do a math problem and come out with a number, a numerical limit for the amount of CO2 emission reductions that the plants need to achieve.Then they hand the baton off to the states for existing sources and to the companies for new sources. So this is not a requirement to install that specific technology. It's a way to derive the level of the standard and then pass that off to the states and the companies to comply with.David RobertsRight. EPA sets the standard and then says to states and companies, do what you want.Lissa LynchRight, as long as you can meet this number. Be creative, innovate.David RobertsThe central question is what upon what technology is the number going to be based on exactly? This low-end, this something in the middle, and this high-end, which is carbon capture and sequestration. So here I want to talk about what the sort of arguments are around this. It says in the text of the Clean Air Act that EPA should set the standard based on the best available system. That has to be adequately demonstrated so I just want to dig in a little bit on the technical legal language here. Like what exactly or what have courts interpreted that language to mean exactly?What is required to be adequately demonstrated? A single demonstration plant somewhere? like some good charts and graphs in a lab? Or do you have to be commercial, or does price and, you know, financial viability come into that? Like, what is EPA thinking about when it thinks about what is adequately demonstrated or best?Lissa LynchYes. Okay, so I'm a Clean Air Act lawyer. This is my favorite part. I love the Clean Air Act, and I love to talk about the language of the statute because that's actually what we're really fighting over here. EPA is tasked with establishing the standard of performance, and so that definition is in the statute. They have to determine the degree of emission limitation that can be achieved through the application of the best system of emission reduction that is adequately demonstrated considering cost, energy factors and essentially other factors. And so there's this really defined set of criteria that EPA needs to go through as they're determining what's the best system of emission reduction.So we've been talking about adequately demonstrated that it can't be a made up technology, but it also doesn't have to be widely used by everyone. Already, the Clean Air Act is technology forcing it's forward looking.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchIt requires the regulated source to reduce its emissions commensurate with the best control systems that are available, not the ones that are already sort of out there in use, that plants are choosing to use of their own accord. So again, in a lot of ways, this is analogous to so SO2 scrubbers which were not in widely used, they were not widely produced in the 90s, and there were all these doom and gloom predictions of how much it's going to cost.We're not going to be able to do this. So right now, there's no limit at all on CO2 emissions from power plants. There's been no reason to innovate on carbon capture for power plants, and there is not a ton of projects out there in the world, but there are plenty to serve as an adequate demonstration for purposes of the Clean Air Act. There's essentially three parts here of carbon capture. There's capture, there's transport, and there's storage. And each part of that process is well established and has been in use for decades, especially the capture part. We've been capturing carbon for decades.And so there's plenty of demonstration in both pilot projects and at commercial scale to be applied in the power sector. It doesn't have to be something that's already widely out there.David RobertsSo it's sort of a holistic consideration. And EPA is sort of attempting to apply something like wisdom here. There's a balance of considerations. And I assume, and tell me if I'm wrong, that the usual suspects are arguing to EPA that that would be too strict, that a standard based on CCS would be too strict. And presumably the way they're making that argument is by saying CCS is not the best or adequately demonstrated. So what is their argument? Have you read, like, their briefs, or do they have a specific argument here?Lissa LynchThey do, and they're familiar. It's the same set of arguments that we've seen over and over. It's too costly, we can't do it yet. We're getting there. Just let us do this at our own pace. One of the concerning things is the argument that we need gas now, and we're okay with standards that are based on something we might do in the future. So set the standards only at a level that were ready for CCS, that were ready for hydrogen sometime in the future.David RobertsCCS ready.Lissa LynchCCS ready. Hydrogen ready.David RobertsI love that phrase.Lissa LynchIt's just kicking the can down the road.David RobertsLike your own David Hawkins once said, it's like saying, my driveway is Ferrari ready.Lissa LynchExactly. And I think what's at the heart of this industry estimates that CCS can achieve 90% capture and emissions data from the projects that have been built back that up. That is not to say that EPA needs to go ahead and require a 90% emission reduction from every single coal and gas plant in the country. Right. We think it makes the most sense for EPA to draw some distinctions based on the role that the plants perform on the grid. Right. So there's a big difference between ...David RobertsOh, really?Lissa LynchYes, there's a big difference between plants that are used for baseload power that are running constantly all the time, and those that are used intermittently for reliability as backup power during times of high demand.There does not need to be the exact identical standards on those two types of plants. So plants that are running full time are emitting the most, and they should be required to reduce their emissions to the greatest degree. So we think it makes sense to have a 90% capture based standard for plants that are going to serve as baseload, that are going to run all the time. And it's the most cost effective for those types of plants to install CCS, especially when you consider the tax credit. Plants that are operating intermittently as backup are already emitting less pollution simply by running less.And those plants can face a less stringent standard, stay on the grid as backup, and serve that really important reliability function without being required to install CCS, they can meet a lesser standard.David RobertsIs there a distinction between those two kinds of plants that is clean enough and clear enough to set legal limits around them because there are some fuzzy edge cases? And then, number two, are we sure that EPA like that's within EPA? Sort of. That's not major for EPA to be thinking to be sort of specifying which standards applied based on function based on operations.Lissa LynchYes. So this is the kind of detailed analytical and technical decision making that is well within the expert agency's wheelhouse. This is exactly the type of thing that the experts at the agency are normally tasked by the statute to do. They're the ones who run the numbers and figure out what's most appropriate for the specific type of plant that they're regulating. And in fact, the existing standards for new sources do include these sorts of subcategorization based on the use type of the plant. So this is not something complex and mysterious. This is based on true and visible distinctions between types of plants based on the way that they're used.And I think it really is yet another layer of the sort of flexibility that EPA can and should build into this program. Again, none of this is a particular mandate. And so the states and the companies then have that additional choice. Well, they can run a plant full steam and install controls, or they can run intermittently, keep that plant online and face a lesser limit, or they can retire it and make their own choices about what to replace it with. This is providing more and more levels of choices to the regulated industry to comply in the way that makes sense for them.David RobertsYeah. And something you mentioned in passing, I want to just highlight and put a pin in here, which is that a big argument here on your side is CCS is now being showered with subsidies. Like there are huge subsidies coming down from the Inflation Reduction Act for captured hydrogen, enough to make them economic in some cases or certainly a lot closer. So these are synergistic. I'm saying like the Biden administration's legislation is bolstering the case for these tighter standards because CCS is not just on its own now. Now it's explicitly being helped and shaped and stood up by government grants.Lissa LynchThat's right. And at the same time, the Inflation Reduction Act also contains a ton of money for renewables. And so that level of investment across these types of technologies really changes the overall cost of the regulations. And that's one of the things that EPA has to consider, is the overall cost of compliance to the system. And so again, when these standards are in place and states and companies are looking out across their fleet and saying, oh, what should we do? All of those incentives are going to come into that consideration for them. And it makes renewables really cheap to replace your older dirtier generation with.David RobertsI got one more question about the standard setting before I want to get into the politics a little bit, but some energy heads out there may be familiar with a company called NET Power, which has come up with a new, I guess it's a couple of years old now. They've built one demonstration plan, a new technology that without getting into the technological details, it's really fascinating. I might do a whole pod on it, but basically it burns natural gas. Emits no particulate pollution at all and captures 100% of the CO2 emissions as a purified stream of CO2.So you have in NET Power a natural gas power plant with zero particulate emissions and 100% carbon capture. They've built one, it's running and working. So has there been any talk about using that as a standard? Because that would be 100% carbon reduction. Has NET Power's tech come up in these discussions?Lissa LynchYeah, for sure. I mean, it's very cool, right? It was included, the EPA put out a white paper last year asking for input, sort of preregulatory input on the technologies that are available to reduce emissions, specifically from gas plants. And they took comment on the NET Power approach, which I cannot remember the name of. Allam something.David RobertsAllam Cycle, I think is right. I was trying to think of that.Lissa LynchAnd it is really cool and innovative and I hope that that is a direction that we're going to see any remaining fossil generation go in. And I think we may see that in the proposal. Again, all of what I'm talking about here is we have not seen a proposal from EPA. This is sort of NRDC's perspective on what is possible, justifiable achievable and legally defensible in court. And this is what we've been advocating for before the agency, and then we'll have to see what they come up with. We're expecting a proposal relatively soon, probably within a month or so.David RobertsWhat's really interesting to me about this, just from a political perspective, is it's a sort of weird inversion here of the typical roles. So you've got the power sector, which has been touting CCS for years, to sort of like defend the ongoing existence of fossil power plants. They sort of wave their hands at CCS and say, no, we can go clean too. So they've got Joe Manchin out up there saying, I want to go clean, but I want to do it with fossil. I literally think they've convinced him that they can eliminate their carbon emissions. And traditionally you've had sort of greens and climate people saying that's big and overly complicated and overly expensive and stupid and nobody's ever really going to do it and it's just going to make more sense to switch to clean generation.And so now we've got this odd political inversion where the power companies are saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, CCS is not really ready. We didn't mean "ready ready," we meant just over the horizon is what we meant. That's where they like it. They like CCS just over the horizon. And all of a sudden this is like calling their bluff. Like, oh, you've been talking about this for decades. Well, how about you use it? And then on the green side, on the climate side, you have a similar inversion where now greens and green groups like yours are arguing like CCS.Oh, it's great. Yeah, it's right there, it's ready to go, absolutely ready to serve. As the basis for a standard. It's just odd and funny and I just wonder if you have any comment on the politics of trying to herd the cats in the climate community around this message of like CCS is ready and viable, which I don't think comes naturally to a lot of factions, let's say, within the climate community.Lissa LynchWell, that's well phrased. We're walking a fine line. I think our vision for the power sector and the power industry is one of net zero. And in order to get to net zero, that means a heck of a lot of renewables and a heck of a lot less fossil.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchFor the purposes of setting pollution limits, we need a technological basis and by far and away CCS is the most effective of the options that we've got.David RobertsThat the Supreme Court left us.Lissa LynchExactly. And I think it is very important to have limits on the CO2 emissions from power plants. I think that is sort of the baseline, most important thing from our point of view.David RobertsRight, well, lots of, I mean, reports, we should just say lots of reports have been done saying the legislative progress is great, but it's not enough to reach Biden's stated goal. And to reach Biden's stated goal, you need a whole of administration approach, including these standards.Lissa LynchExactly. And just to put some actual numbers on that, if we want to meet our international and domestic greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for 2030, we need to get our power sector emissions down by 80% from the 2005 sort of peak emissions. We're already about a third of a reduction, 33% -ish reduction since 2005. Our analysis and RDCs of the Inflation Reduction Act puts us now on track to cut our power sector emissions by about 65% by 2030. So that is massive and also not enough.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchAnd our estimate there is somewhere in the middle there's a really wide range of modeling of the Inflation Reduction Act and a lot of work is going to need to be done in order to get those emission reductions that we're sort of showing in that modeling. It's not a foregone conclusion.David RobertsYeah, one of the wildest things going on right now is just the incredible range of projections about what the IRA will do. Right. Like the sort of government came up with, oh, that it's going to spend $370 on these tax credits and then Credit Suisse is like, actually it's more like a trillion. And then I think there was another one last week, it was like actually it's more like a trillion five. So the range of amounts of money that could come out of this bill are just huge. It's so opaque.Lissa LynchIt is. And a lot still remains to be written in all the guidance for these tax credits. But that sort of uncertainty aside, I think the Inflation Reduction Act is going to accelerate a bunch of clean energy and it's going to get us a bunch of emission reductions in the power sector. And at least based on our analysis, that's not quite enough. And we absolutely are going to need limits on the CO2 emissions in addition to investments in clean energy.David RobertsSo maybe the way to summarize is just to say endorsing CCS as the basis of a performance standard is different than endorsing CCS, full stop.Lissa LynchYeah, well put. And I think what we see in the modeling reflects what I've been saying about the decision making that comes once EPA sets the standard. So when we model standards that are based on CCS and we've included the Inflation Reduction Act in the baseline, we overall get to around between 70% and 77% CO2 emission reduction by 2030. And what we're seeing in the actual generation results, there is some CCS deployment and also a ton of clean energy.David RobertsThis is my next question, actually, and you're here answering it before I even ask it, but I just wanted to ask, as a matter of curiosity, has someone modeled what would happen if EPA sets the standards where you are endorsing and what does the modeling say about the decisions power companies are going to make? Like how many fossil fuel plants will shut down versus installing CCS? I don't know if there's like an easy answer to that.Lissa LynchWell, so we have done lots of modeling and we've been doing it for quite a while because even before this Supreme Court decision last summer, we were anticipating that EPA was going to be constrained and in this sort of inside the fence line way. And so we've really been looking for ways to get the most ambition and the most emission reductions out of these sort of source specific basis for the standards. That range that I gave you is based on CCS and partial CCS runs. So 70% to 77% overall emission reductions depending how much you crank the dial on the ambition.But still with some of those sort of flexibilities that I talked about in terms of the type of use of the plant and what we see in those runs is renewables and energy storage capacity tripling from now to 2030 and quadrupling by 2035. And I think that is in large part based on these new Inflation Reduction Act tax credits being just so much more cost effective. And we still do see some retrofits with carbon capture and storage and some new builds of gas with carbon capture, but not a massive amount. And so there is some uptake of the technology and there's also some reinvestment in clean energy and that kind of tracks with what you would expect, right?And that kind of goes back to that was essentially what EPA was counting on and basing their standards off of in the Clean Power Plan and that's why they did it that way. I think we can do it this way. And that carbon capture and storage based best system of emission reduction can be shown to be available to the plants that could use it. And not all plants are going to make that choice. It's going to be up to the states and the companies to look at their options and choose whether they want to keep that plant online, and that should work.David RobertsSo NRDC is recommending a CCS based standard for both existing-source regs and new-source regs. Is there any difference between those two that's worth sort of pulling out here?Lissa LynchYeah, so I think industry estimates that CCS can achieve 90% capture. And so given that that technology exists, we think it should be used to set the standard for at least the plants that are operating at full bore, both new and existing. When you're building a new plant, you have much greater options in terms of where you're sighting it, how you're building it. You should be required to use the latest and greatest technology on a brand new plant. So that's pretty straightforward for existing plants because they're all over the place. We rely on them already for power.There needs to be more flexibility, there needs to be more of a phase-in sort of glide path to compliance and some flexibility for how you're going to comply and some exemptions for those plants that are going to commit to retire. You don't want to make them retrofit right before they're expected to retire, you want to just let them plan to retire at the natural end-of-life of the plant. And so giving that flexibility on the existing source side is going to be really important and has long been part of the way that the section 111 standard setting has worked to differentiate between new and existing plants.David RobertsSo, CCS based standard in both cases, but maybe more flexibility and implementation for the existing plants.Lissa LynchExactly.David RobertsIf EPA does use CCS or hydrogen, something like that, as the basis for its performance standard, does it have any say at all in the details of sort of how CCS or hydrogen are used or measured? Because Volts listeners just got an hour and a half earful of discussion of the clean Hydrogen Tax Credits last week, and the details are many, and they make a big gifference in how clean hydrogen is used, how it's measured sort of how its carbon intensity is assessed, how much end users are allowed to claim reductions from using it, et cetera, et cetera. Does EPA get into any of that? Or is this purely just, we're using this tech as a way to set the numerical standard, but the details of how a power plant might implement this is somebody else's problem.Lissa LynchSo they absolutely have some authority over how it gets used to comply with this standard. So for purposes of standard setting, they're looking kind of broadly at what the technology is capable of achieving, how it's been used in the past, how it could apply to power plants that exist now in terms of compliance, though, they've got the authority over CO2 essentially in this rulemaking. And so if a plant is going to demonstrate compliance using carbon capture and storage or hydrogen, they can absolutely include the types of rigorous monitoring and verification requirements they would need to see in order for a plant to be demonstrating compliance using one of these technologies.David RobertsRight? So they can get into saying, here's what does and doesn't qualify as full CCS like measured every so often, or this kind of geographical storage. They can't get into that?Lissa LynchI absolutely think so. I think they have authority to say you need to have rigorous monitoring and verification from the point of capture to the point of sequestration. And that needs to be part of your demonstration of compliance for using carbon capture. For hydrogen ... It's a little trickier.David RobertsI'm very aware at the moment.Lissa LynchTo the extent that there is going to be a pathway for hydrogen to be used for compliance, it's got to take into account where that hydrogen comes from, how it's made in order to avoid net emissions increases. And I think they absolutely have that authority. Given that the purpose of this is for the best system of emission reduction, they've got to ensure that it is truly reducing emissions.David RobertsMaybe they can just borrow whatever treasury comes up with for the hydrogen.Lissa LynchAssuming it's good.David RobertsYes, true. If EPA doesn't go with CCS, doesn't go with the high end here, what do you think it will do? Will it fall back to something medium, something in the fuel blending sort of range? And just more broadly, do we have any sense at all of what EPA is thinking or which direction it's going or what to expect?Lissa LynchI think in terms of publicly facing tea leaves, what we've got to look at really is that white paper from last year where they had laid out the options and said, hey, give us some comments on what you think of these options for reducing CO2 emissions from combustion turbines. From everything that we have seen from this administration, we are hoping that they're going to be ambitious. They know that this is a critical moment. They know that this is an important wedge of emissions, that the power sector is still a really significant percentage of our emissions, roughly a quarter, and that we need standards on those CO2 emissions and they need to be strong.And it's not going to be worth all this work, honestly, if they don't make them strong. And so that has been our message to the administration, is, look, if you're going to go through the trouble of doing this all over again, let's make it worth it.David RobertsIs Manchin he's like the monster under my bed at this point. Is there some way Manchin could burst out of the closet and screw this up somehow? Or is he ...Lissa LynchI hesitate to even speculate.David RobertsCan I just not think about him in this respect, or does he have some way that he could theoretically muck this up, or is this something that's finally just sort of beyond his reach?Lissa LynchI think for now, the ball is in EPA's court to come out with a proposal and to take public comments and to consider them. And so for right now, this is an EPA project. Once it's finalized, it will presumably be subject to a Congressional Review Act resolution, and it will depend on who is in charge as to what happens there. And so that's when Congress gets to have its veto opportunity over regulations, which is unfortunate, but it is the world we're living in.David RobertsAnd does that just require a majority or a supermajority?Lissa LynchI believe it's just a majority, but it can be blocked by the President.David RobertsRight. And by the time there's a new president, it'll be too late. We're coming in under the deadline that the Congressional Review Act, if it's going to happen at all, would happen under Biden and thus would be vetoed. So that's not really ...Lissa LynchAnd so that takes place at the final rule. So we're only at the proposal stage. We've got a long way to go.David RobertsIs it going to get done under the Congressional Review Act just to just explain to listeners? Congressional Review Act says basically Congress can undo or veto a regulation basically within a certain window of it being finalized which is 60 ...Lissa Lynch60 working days, which does not equal the calendar days.David RobertsRight. So what you want to do is get your regulations on the books more than 60 working days prior to the next presidential election.Lissa LynchExactly.David RobertsJust so you're sure your guys in charge, if it happens.Lissa LynchThe date that we are looking at is next April, roughly a year from now, for all of these regulations. Right. Like it's not just ...David RobertsThere's a lot these are not the only ones. There's a lot of there's a big backlog.Lissa LynchIt is. And we are seeing the use of the Congressional Review Act right now as we speak in this Congress with attempts to invalidate the rules that the administration has recently finalized. It is a terrible tool. It is not a good thing.David RobertsIt's a Newt Gingrich special, isn't it? Am I right about the history? Of course, like so many malignant things in our government treat.Lissa LynchBut it is the world we're living in, and I think the administration is aware of the timeline that's facing them next year.David RobertsInteresting. So you think a proposed rule is going to show up in the next month or two?Lissa LynchYeah, we're expecting a proposed rule maybe by the end of April. And then when ... you know what happens, that gets published in the Federal Register. There's an opportunity for public comment. There's public hearings. And so there will be sort of a flurry of activity as everybody gets their comments in, and then the agency has to review those comments and address them in the final rule. That's part of the sort of Administrative Law 101. And then they have to issue the final rule and demonstrate yeah, we heard all your comments, and this is why we made the decisions that we made.David RobertsAnd that's when the lawsuits kick off.Lissa LynchAnd that's when the lawsuits start. Exactly. We do it all over again. It's the circle of life.David RobertsYes. And what do you think of the chances that this Supreme Court ends up hearing a case on this again? Do you think the conservatives can mount a legal case plausible enough to get it back into the Supreme Court?Lissa LynchI would never speculate about what this Supreme Court will do, because who knows, right? Our job is to make this thing as airtight as possible. And Chief Justice Roberts gave us some guidelines and a roadmap in the West Virginia decision. He told us what he's looking for, and it's this sort of traditional looking approach to pollution control. And so that's what we're operating under. And we are urging EPA to follow those guidelines and do the most that they can within those constraints, and we'll be there to defend it with them if it comes down to that.David RobertsAll right, awesome. Lissa Lynch of NRDC, thank you for coming and forecasting and explaining all this with us. Maybe we'll talk again in that distant future day when these things are actually on the books and the lawsuits have started. We'll talk again.Lissa LynchThank you so much for having me.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

From 'Curd & Long' (subscribe here): Ryan Horvat and Steve "Sparky" Fifer of 1250amthefan.com discuss whether there should be jealousy toward Rodgers working with Lazard this off-season like some Packers seem to have. 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

From 'Curd & Long' (subscribe here): Ryan Horvat and Steve "Sparky" Fifer of 1250amthefan.com discuss whether there should be jealousy toward Rodgers working with Lazard this off-season like some Packers seem to have. 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

From 'Curd & Long' (subscribe here): Ryan Horvat and Steve "Sparky" Fifer of 1250amthefan.com discuss whether there should be jealousy toward Rodgers working with Lazard this off-season like some Packers seem to have. 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

From 'Curd & Long' (subscribe here): Ryan Horvat and Steve "Sparky" Fifer of 1250amthefan.com discuss whether there should be jealousy toward Rodgers working with Lazard this off-season like some Packers seem to have. 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

TikTok's CEO to tell U.S. lawmakers the Chinese-owned app promises to shield user data from foreign access. First Republic Bank taps advisory firm Lazard to help review strategic options. Keith Collins hosts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Scott Mason talks with Playlikeajet.com film and draft analyst Luke Grant for an All-22 film breakdown of the Jets' newest WR, Allen Lazard! Luke discusses Lazard's strengths and weaknesses, what he does that complements the Jets' other receivers well, how he uses his size and ball tracking ability to his advantage, why he may be the redzone weapon Gang Green hasn't had in years, and much more! Check out the Play Like A Jet YouTube channel featuring Luke Grant's full film breakdown of Allen Lazard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30RyNTjhL8s&t=149s Check out the Play Like A Jet store and get your "Play Like A Jet" logo shirt RIGHT NOW! Hoodies, hats, mugs, etc.....also available! https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/19770068-play-like-a-jet-logo-shirt?store_id=717242 To advertise on Play Like A Jet, please contact: Justin@Brokencontrollermedia.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joe Kernen and Andrew Ross Sorkin digest the chaotic week that was: banks in crisis, markets in tumult, and the Fed under pressure. Lazard's Peter Orszag unpacks the instability in our financial ecosystem and the action it may prompt from the Federal Reserve in next week's FOMC meeting. ProPublica's Robert Faturechi discusses his latest investigation revealing never-before-seen IRS records that show CEOs are sometimes making multimillion-dollar stock bets—and doing so with some very lucky timing. Plus, Emmanuel Macron is making a big decision on retirement in France, much to the distress of his populace.  In this episode:Peter Orszag, @porszagRobert Faturechi, @RobertFaturechiJoe Kernen, @JoeSquawkAndrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkinKlaire Odumody, @klairemarie

Hour 1 of The Drive starts off with Aaron Rodgers making something that's simple so complicated on the Pat McAfee show. The Crossover absolutely crushes A-Rod and Coach Hackett. Zach details the meltdown of the Buffalo Bills in Free Agency! Allen Lazard for Jerry Jeudy? Did the Broncos tip their hand by speaking to Lazard? | The guys have fun with the #1 movie of 2022. DMac starts and it leads to the movie argument of the best sports movie of All-Time! The Broncos made an underrated move and DMac explains why! | Who parties harder: Derek or DMac? The guys discuss how much trouble one man can get into on the road! Does DMac have a secret crush? | Aaron Rodgers makes his stance clear on the Pat McAfee Show. The guys respond to how A-Rod worked his way to NY. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Off The Charts Football Podcast, Matt Manocherian (@mattmano) welcomes Alex Vigderman (@VigManOnCampus) and James Weaver (@J_Weaver97) of the SIS Research Team to the show to look at some of the recent free agent signings around the NFL. The guys use a recent article by Alex and James, "2023 NFL Free Agent Analysis & Projections", as the basis of the discussion that includes projections on players like Derek Carr (8:15), Jimmy Garoppolo (13:15), Orlando Brown Jr. (18:10), Jessie Bates (23:08), Allen Lazard (26:36), James Bradberry (29:13), JuJu Smith-Schuster (31:00), Samson Ebukam (33:45), and Patrick Peterson (34:48). Thank you for listening. Please check out The Edge, The Trenches Tool, the SIS NFL Draft Website and SportsInfoSolutions.com for all our latest content, and don't forget to check out the SIS Baseball Podcast, available wherever you get your podcasts.

Darren Waller is a New York Giant?! And Allen Lazard is now with the New York Jets?!  Is Jimmy Garrapolo anything more than a QB2 in Las Vegas? And will D.J. Moore, now in Chicago, be over-drafted yet again? Seth, Nate & guest Matt Ward (@PsychWardFF) of BrotoFantasy break down all the player movement! 00:00:00 Introduction 00:05:05 Front & Center: Major Free Agency Moves 00:40:38 Bare in Mind or BS: NFL Rumors + Minor Moves 01:05:43 Ring Of Fire: March Edition

Jake Ciely (@allinkid) of The Athletic is joined by our own Chris Meaney (@ChrisMeaney) and Lauren Carpenter (@StepmomLauren) of FTN Network talk about the busy start to free agency. They'll share their reactions, grades, and more! They breakdown Waller to the Giants, Penny to the Eagles, and David Montgomery to the Lions and they fantasy impact they'll have.Sign up for FTN Network! Use Promo Code "ALLIN" to get 20% off any package | Follow Jake on Twitter @allinkid | All In Football is presented by FTN Network, your one stop shop for all the Fantasy Football Tools, Guides, Content and Strategy you'll need to smash your leagues!

Bill spends the first hour of the show reacting to the latest in the Aaron Rodgers saga, Allen Lazard signing in New York, what Trey Wingo and Adam Schefter said about the situation, Jordan Love's backup QB and moreSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jerry starts with signings around the NFL including Allen Lazard and Darren Waller. The Knicks beat the Trailblazers in Portland last night. Boomer was loving the Knicks uniforms last night. The Nets lost to the Thunder in OKC last night. Hofstra beat Rutgers in the NIT last night. Mets Pitcher Jose Quintana is out until at least July as he has a lesion on his rib that needs to be removed. The Rangers beat the Capitals last night.

PFF's Sam Monson, Steve Palazzolo, and Brad Spielberger discuss the Best Remaining Free Agents, Favorite Signings so far + Winners & Losers. (2:30) - Darren Waller To The Giants (5:35) - Stephon Gilmore Traded To The Cowboys (8:50) - Cowboys To Release Ezekiel Elliott (18:45) - RB Value in the Draft? (23:00) - Eagles re-sign Bradberry and release Darius Slay (29:10) - Byron Murphy Signs With Vikings (31:20) - Team Fits For Darius Slay? (34:30) - Bills Sign Deonte Harty (41:35) - Panthers Sign Andy Dalton (46:25) - Breaking Down The Lions FA Moves (54:20) - Best Available Remaining FA (1:01:50) - What Teams are 'Losing' in FA? (1:12:45) - Jets, Lazard, and What Rodgers will decide

Robert Mays and Nate Tice break down day two of the NFL's legal tampering period. Pass catchers are on the move! Darren Waller is headed to the Giants, Allen Lazard is headed to the Jets, and Jakobi Meyers is going to the Raiders. The guys break down those moves and more. Sponsored by - BetterHelp - Visit betterhelp.com/Mays today to get 10% off your first month Atlassian Morgan & Morgan - For more information on Morgan & Morgan services, go to forthepeople.com/Mays or dial 1(800) POUND-LAW from your cell phone Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Maggie & Perri discuss the positive updates on Rashan Gary's rehab as well as Allen Lazard's future. There is no doubt he is playing on undervalued money right now and the girls want to see him get what he deserves, whether that is in Green Bay or otherwise. 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

On today's episode, Maggie & Perri discuss Brian Gutekunst's remarks on Aaron Rodgers, the impending restructuring of David Bakhtiari's contract, if there is a chance Allen Lazard returns to Green Bay and more. 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

Today's episode analyzes what Rodgers would have to do to make the Packers or any other team feel that it is worth paying him that amount he's owed, and also discuss the rumors surrounding the future of wide receiver Allen Lazard and why I think, despite the rumors, Lazard will not be back with the Packers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today's episode analyzes what Rodgers would have to do to make the Packers or any other team feel that it is worth paying him that amount he's owed, and also discuss the rumors surrounding the future of wide receiver Allen Lazard and why I think, despite the rumors, Lazard will not be back with the Packers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Ryan discusses the best practices for managing NFL salary caps with caller Daniel from California. Daniel shares five key tips and explains how the Green Bay Packers have strayed from these principles in recent years. Another caller, Omar, shares his thoughts on the Packers potentially resigning Lazard and suggests exploring other options in free agency. Finally, the conversation turns to Aaron Rodgers' future with the Packers, with Ryan and Omar weighing in on whether the team should stick with the Field General quarterback or move on to a system quarterback like Jordan Love. Tune in for a lively discussion on all things NFL. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Ryan discusses the best practices for managing NFL salary caps with caller Daniel from California. Daniel shares five key tips and explains how the Green Bay Packers have strayed from these principles in recent years. Another caller, Omar, shares his thoughts on the Packers potentially resigning Lazard and suggests exploring other options in free agency. Finally, the conversation turns to Aaron Rodgers' future with the Packers, with Ryan and Omar weighing in on whether the team should stick with the Field General quarterback or move on to a system quarterback like Jordan Love. Tune in for a lively discussion on all things NFL. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

All sorts of Packers new including good news in our franchise running back choosing to take a pay cut to stick with the team! Some alright news in that Allen Lazard may or may not be leaving? He seems to want to warm weather while also seeking a good place for him to grow as a player. Then Numac and Jordan discuss a bit of the draft prospects at their perceived positions of need ahead of the combine in Indianapolis next week. Be sure to subscribe to Talk of the Tundra wherever you get your podcasts, and follow Numac and Talk of the Tundra on Twitter! Visit GSPN.info to find links to all of our Bucks, Brewers, Packers, and pop culture podcasts, our GSPN YouTube channel and Substack, the form to gain entry to our Discord server, our Twitter links, and more! GSPN is proud to call Blue Wire's network of podcasts home. You can (and should) follow Rohan, Ti, Adam, Jordan, Andrew, Numac, Eugene, and the Gyro Step and the Win In 6 podcast on Twitter. Don't forget to leave a 5 star rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify to get us to read your review live at the end of an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Bill spends the final hour of the show talking about what Allen Lazard had to say on Sirius XM Radio about his free agency, whether the Packers will bring him back, age of successful QBs, whether age matters, Rodgers vs Brady, what we missed and moreSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our client Amit joined WSMM during the summer after freshman year because he was serious about getting into investment banking and wanted the most efficient and successful way of doing it. Prior to WSMM, he did a lot of research on the recruiting process and realised that it is extremely competitive. Coming from a semi-target school, he knew he had to step up his game to find a process where all his efforts will not go to waste. Hear how he became one of the top candidates and beat out target school students for multiple offers before ending up at Lazard. Book a Virtual Coffee Chat with an Upperclassmen Who Secured an Offer: wallstmastermind.com/apply?utm_source=podcastep249

On this episode, environmental peacemaker and mediator Olivia Lazard joins Nate to unpack the relationship between mineral deposits, conflict-vulnerable zones, and high biodiversity areas to create interlocking risks to geopolitical and climate stability. Much like Olivia's research, this conversation covers a wide variety of topics and is jam-packed with information. Will we have to plunder the planet in order to save it? Will we be able to transition to a multi-polar world order somewhat peacefully? And what can we learn from mediators and peacemakers, like Olivia, as we move into a more materially constrained future - where the whole pie is smaller? About Olivia Lazard: Olivia is an environmental peacemaking and mediation practitioner as well as a researcher and a fellow at Carnegie Europe. Her research focuses on the geopolitics of climate, the transition ushered by climate change, and the risks of conflict and fragility associated with climate change and environmental collapse. She has over twelve years of experience in the peacemaking sector at field and policy levels. In her fieldwork, her focus was to understand how globalization and the international political economy shaped patterns of violence and vulnerability patterns as well as formed new types of conflict systems that our international governance architecture has difficulty tackling with agility. For Show Notes and More visit: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/58-olivia-lazard To watch this video episode on Youtube → https://youtu.be/UNkzGKTjBWM

Our client Matthew went a top target school and had multiple relevant finance experiences on his resume. He considered joining WSMM freshman year but passed initially because he thought he could break into a top tier bank by himself. After failing the superdays for three different bulge bracket banks' sophomore programs, he decided to join WSMM to learn a more effective and efficient way of preparing for interviews. Hear how he turned things around to secure an offer from Lazard. Book a Virtual Coffee Chat with an Upperclassmen Who Secured an Offer: wallstmastermind.com/apply?utm_source=podcastep243

Welcome to “The Chopping Block!” – where crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, Robert Leshner, Tom Schmidt, and Tarun Chitra chop it up about the latest news. This week, they covered: why the markets were up so much recently how and why Genesis entered into bankruptcy why the hole in DCG's financials are potentially much bigger than previously reported the differences between the bankruptcies of FTX and Genesis whether 3AC founders Su Zhu and Kyle Davies will find success with their new exchange what will happen to GTBC now that a huge portion has already been liquidated whether Tarun is predicting "the start of a new supercycle" the large percentage of vested SOL held by the FTX estate how SBF is still trying to win the public  Hosts Haseeb Qureshi, managing partner at Dragonfly Capital Tarun Chitra, managing partner at Robot Ventures Robert Leshner, founder of Compound  Tom Schmidt, general partner at Dragonfly Capital Links Disclosures Genesis:  Bloomberg: FTX Bankruptcy Judge Backs Company Law Firm, Rejects Last Minute ‘Rumors' CoinDesk:  Crypto Lender Genesis Global Capital Is FTX's Largest Unsecured Creditor Crypto Trading Firm Cumberland DRW Disputes Genesis Exposure CNBC:  Crypto firms Genesis and Gemini charged by SEC with selling unregistered securities Crypto publication CoinDesk hires Lazard to explore sale as crisis deepens at parent company DCG Unchained:  Is Genesis's Prepackaged Bankruptcy The Ultimate Sacrifice?  Gemini Ends Its Earn Program and Calls for Barry Silbert's Ouster DCG Under Investigation by DOJ and SEC: Report Genesis CEO Says Firm Needs More Time to Find a Solution FTX: Unchained:  SBF Says Excel Spreadsheet Proves FTX US Is Solvent WSJ: New FTX Chief Says Crypto Exchange Could Restart The Block: FTX debtors identify $5.5 billion of liquid assets in 'Herculean effort' 3AC/GTX:  Unchained: 3AC Founders Are Raising $25M for ‘GTX' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ce mardi 24 janvier, les performances du Livret A et du LDDS ont été abordées par Jézabel Couppey-Soubeyran, maître de conférences de l'université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Christian Parisot, économiste, conseiller auprès d'Aurel BGC, et Natacha Valla, senior advisor chez Lazard, dans l'émission Les Experts, présentée par Nicolas Doze sur BFM Business. Retrouvez l'émission du lundi au vendredi et réécoutez la en podcast.

Ce mardi 24 janvier, Nicolas Doze a reçu Jézabel Couppey-Soubeyran, maître de conférences de l'université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Christian Parisot, économiste, conseiller auprès d'Aurel BGC, et Natacha Valla, senior advisor chez Lazard, dans l'émission Les Experts sur BFM Business. Retrouvez l'émission du lundi au vendredi et réécoutez la en podcast.

Ce mardi 24 janvier, le vrai fond des problèmes des banques centrales a été abordé par Jézabel Couppey-Soubeyran, maître de conférences de l'université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Christian Parisot, économiste, conseiller auprès d'Aurel BGC, et Natacha Valla, senior advisor chez Lazard, dans l'émission Les Experts, présentée par Nicolas Doze sur BFM Business. Retrouvez l'émission du lundi au vendredi et réécoutez la en podcast.

On this episode of Reporting as Eligible, Paul, Matt, and JR wrap up the Lions game, and the season by going over what went right, and the far longer list of what went wrong. Unsportsmanlike penalties, RPOs, Lazard jet sweeps, missed blitz pickups, and Aidan Hutchinson eating small offensive linemen all played a role in the untimely demise of the Green Bay Packers. JR also talks of the Lambeau experience itself, and just what the atmosphere was like. The guys also discuss nebulous concepts like who wanted it more, home field “advantage,” leadership, how everyone loves Jamaal Williams, and how much of the Joe Barry problem may actually be a Matt LaFleur problem, which may be more than is commonly understood. All of that, plus a fantastic bunch of listener questions, and what will happen in the future! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On this episode of Reporting as Eligible, Paul, Matt, and JR wrap up the Lions game, and the season by going over what went right, and the far longer list of what went wrong. Unsportsmanlike penalties, RPOs, Lazard jet sweeps, missed blitz pickups, and Aidan Hutchinson eating small offensive linemen all played a role in the untimely demise of the Green Bay Packers. JR also talks of the Lambeau experience itself, and just what the atmosphere was like. The guys also discuss nebulous concepts like who wanted it more, home field “advantage,” leadership, how everyone loves Jamaal Williams, and how much of the Joe Barry problem may actually be a Matt LaFleur problem, which may be more than is commonly understood. All of that, plus a fantastic bunch of listener questions! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/reportingaseligible/message

01. LANNE, ZHIKO & Hendriks - Now Or Never (Kilian K Remix) 02. John Dahlback - All My Life 03. Thorne & Andrew A - Behind 04. MorganJ feat. Sash Sings - Energy 05. MOTi & Kenneth G - Like This & That 06. Hanzy - Spiders 07. Noise Affairs - False Alarm 08. Makla & Hooders - Assumptions (feat. Purple Velvet Curtains) 09. Friendz By Chance & jeonghyeon - New Day 10. Visual Effect - Back N Forth 11. BROHUG - Nonsense 12. Syzz & Nora Van Elken - September 13. Flakke - Nudes 14. Sam Smith & Kim Petras - Unholy (NITTI Remix) 15. Mariline & Anzo Gronso - Phonk 16. Marc Kiss, ThomTree & Dave Curtis - Sonic Empire 17. Crystal Rock & Lazard & Marc Kiss - The Business (Hypelezz Remix) 18. Klaas - Heart Swipe 19. Chris Brown - Under The Influence (Jyye Remix) 20. Block & Crown, Maickel Telussa - Smells Like 21. BUNT. x Supermode - Paperplanes vs. Tell Me Why

n this episode of Counterculture, Danielle discusses how the Left tries to force on us a “cult of experts.” But we seek the truth. Danielle interviews Michael Wilkerson, former CEO of the publicly traded company Lazard, about whether or not a recession is coming and what that means for our economy. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

The inside of the earth's pretty hot. How hot? As hot as the surface of the sun. Seriously.  That heat could generate unbelievable amounts of clean geothermal energy to power our civilization—if we could reach all the way down there. You see, to get to fossil fuels like oil and gas, we only need to drill down a couple kilometers. In places that have volcanoes, like Iceland, you can fairly easily reach down into hellish parts of the earth to harness geothermal energy, but most human populations tend not to be crowded around active volcanoes for obvious reasons.  In the places where power plants typically exist—near human civilization—we'd need to drill more like 10-20 kilometers down, which just isn't really possible with conventional drilling techniques.  Enter Quaise Energy, a four-year-old startup that's raised $70 million so far to drill deeper than humans have ever gone. Their plan isn't to use mechanical drill bits, which are limited in their utility at such deep depths, but rather to vaporize rock using microwaves.  Their plan is as bold as it is simple: Drill thousands of these eight-inch-wide but super-deep holes right next to existing power plants. That way, the plants can run on geothermal energy and stop using coal to create the energy we all use daily.  If it works, it's a rapidly scalable solution to quickly slash our fossil fuel use and avert the most catastrophic climate scenarios. Our guest in this episode is Quaise Energy's CFO, Kevin Bonebreak, a guy who spent most of his career in the conventional energy investment world, and is now working to bring about a cleaner, safer, and saner way to power human civilization.  Discussed in this episode Kevin recommends books by Vaclav Smil, including his works on energy Kevin also recommend reading Loonshots MIT on Quaise's holes Bloomberg on Quaise's gameplan Quaise's latest (2022) financing round of $52 million More about Kevin Bonebrake Kevin Bonebrake is the CFO of Quaise Energy. He joined the startup from Lazard, where he was a Managing Director in the financial advisory business focused on the energy industry. Prior to joining Lazard in 2017, Bonebrake was a Managing Director in Morgan Stanley's Global Natural Resources investment banking practice and was a Vice President with Citigroup's Global Energy, Power and Chemicals investment banking team. Bonebrake completed his graduate research in industrial laser applications in the Naval Architecture department at the Helsinki University of Technology and was a member of the intellectual property licensing team at Delphi Automotive.

Adam Levitan and Evan Silva discuss everything they saw in Week 11 and how it impacts fantasy decisions moving forward. In this episode, we discuss: Greg Dortch worth a pick up? Buy D-Mont? Tony Pollard SZN Jamaal 150-to-1 Lazard a buy-low candidate? Saquon's ROS outlook Much more Links mentioned in the episode: Silva's Matchups Column - https://establishtherun.com/in-season-package/matchups/ Reynolds' Waiver Wire Analysis - https://establishtherun.com/category/waiver-wire-analysis/ Thorman's Snaps & Pace - https://establishtherun.com/category/snaps-and-pace/ Want ETR on your team this season? Our 2022 IN-SEASON DFS PRODUCT has you covered with: Fantasy Football Projections: Base, Ceiling, and DFS Ownership DFS Top Plays Silva's Weekly Matchups Column LIVE DFS, Betting, and Strategy Shows And tons more! All in one place. Subscribe now at https://establishtherun.com/subscribe/ $100 ETR COUPON: We have worked out a SPECIAL deal with BETMGM. Sign up for a new account using our promotional link and they will email you a $100 coupon to use on any ETR product. To take advantage of this offer, please follow the 5 steps listed at www.establishtherun.com/offers. FOLLOW US: Check out our social media channels for FREE fantasy football & DFS videos, analysis, and more: https://linktr.ee/establishtherun Timestamps: (2:32) - ARI (4:30) - ATL (5:55) - CAR (8:06) - CHI (9:38) - DAL (12:12) - DET (14:41) - GB (15:48) - LAR (17:45) - MIN (19:55) - NO (21:56) - NYG (23:58) - PHI (25:17) - SF (27:34) - SEA (28:25) - TB (28:59) - WAS

Enjoy FFT? Try Fantasy Football Today in 5 if you're in need of fantasy advice FAST! Download and follow Fantasy Football Today in 5 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever else podcasts are found.  So many decisions to make with your Week 9 lineups! We are here to help! We start with Isaiah Likely and Kenyan Drake and then talk about a huge group of #2 running backs like James Conner, Cordarrelle Patterson, Deon Jackson, D'Andre Swift and Devin Singletary. How the heck do we rank them? Plus our thoughts on Josh Palmer, Allen Lazard, the Rams RBs and more.  You can also follow the full-length Fantasy Football Today podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fantasy-football-today-podcast/id261735167 Get 20% off Fantasy Football Today merch: https://store.cbssports.com/collections/fantasy-football-today%20?utm_source=podcast-apple-com&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=buy-our-merch&utm_content=fantasy-football-collection Follow our FFT team on Twitter: @FFToday, @AdamAizer, @JameyEisenberg, @daverichard, @heathcummingssr, @ctowerscbs, You can listen to Fantasy Football Today in 5 on your smart speakers! Simply say "Alexa, play the latest episode of the Fantasy Football Today in 5 podcast" or "Hey Google, play the latest episode of the Fantasy Football Today in 5 podcast." Watch FFT on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/fantasyfootballtoday Join our Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/FantasyFootballToday/ Sign up for the FFT newsletter https://www.cbssports.com/newsletter To hear more from the CBS Sports Podcast Network, visit https://www.cbssports.com/podcasts/  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