Podcasts about national environmental policy act nepa

On this episode of Legal Download, Kelley Drye partners Joe Green and Wayne D'Angelo, along with special counsel Frances Morris, explore the Supreme Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado—the most consequential ruling on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in decades. They walk through the Court's reasoning, its restoration of agency deference, and its potential to reduce litigation risk, streamline reviews, and reset NEPA's role as a procedural statute. A must-listen for lawyers, project developers, and agencies navigating permitting and environmental reviews. For more information: https://www.kelleydrye.com/practices/environmental

Scott Novak is joined by Tom Jackson as they discuss the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County , which has significant implications for infrastructure project permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The conversation covers the limitations on agency obligations to consider upstream and downstream impacts and the emphasis on judicial deference in NEPA cases.

This case concerned the question of whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. When the Surface Transportation Board granted a petition from the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to construct and operate an 80-mile Utah […]

This case concerned the question of whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. When the Surface Transportation Board granted a petition from the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to construct and operate an 80-mile Utah railway, they conducted an environmental review in which they considered direct impacts of the highway on nearby land, water, and air. But they did not consider certain environmental “downline impacts” or possible effects on historic sites along the Union Pacific line in Eagle County. The county challenged their review as inadequate, while the Board argues that these effects were either too minimal for serious analysis, or outside the scope of their authority.This case was decided 8-0 on May 29. The Court ruled in favor of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, concluding that the federal environmental review process does not have to consider “downline” impacts. Join us in discussing the case and its decision with Mario Loyola and Austin Lipari, who wrote amicus briefs in support of petitioners.Featuring:Prof. Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow for Law, Economics, and Technology, The Heritage Foundation; Professor, Florida International UniversityModerator: Austin Lipari, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC--To register, click the link above.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the National Environmental Policy Act require an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority?The case was decided on May 29, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of federal projects by preparing a detailed environmental impact statement (E-I-S), but it does not impose substantive limits on agencies' decisions. NEPA only applies to the environmental consequences of the proposed project itself, not to impacts from future or geographically separate projects that the proposed project might cause. The Surface Transportation Board complied with NEPA by addressing the environmental effects of constructing and operating an 88-mile freight railroad in Utah. NEPA did not require the Board to evaluate environmental impacts from increased oil drilling in the Uinta Basin or increased oil refining along the Gulf Coast—both of which were separate activities outside the Board's regulatory control. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 5-3 majority opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett.NEPA's role is procedural: it ensures agencies and the public are informed about potential environmental effects but does not direct agencies to reject projects with environmental downsides. Courts reviewing an E-I-S must apply a “rule of reason” and defer to the agency's decisions about the scope and detail of environmental analysis, recognizing that such decisions depend on scientific, technical, and policy judgments that fall within the agency's expertise. Agencies have discretion to omit analysis of speculative or weakly connected effects—particularly when those effects depend on future decisions by other entities or fall under the authority of other regulators. The Board's choice not to analyze upstream drilling or downstream refining effects was reasonable because those were not part of the project under review and because the Board lacks the authority to control such activities.A mere possibility that a project might lead to additional development does not impose an obligation under NEPA to assess all environmental impacts of hypothetical, unrelated projects. Even if a project's effects are foreseeable, NEPA does not make one agency responsible for evaluating the far-reaching environmental costs of others' conduct unless those effects are directly caused by the agency's decision and fall within its regulatory scope. Therefore, the Board's approval of the railway project, based on an E-I-S that focused on the rail line itself, satisfied NEPA's requirements.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreeing that the Board was not responsible for assessing the environmental effects of oil production because it lacked authority to regulate those downstream and upstream activities.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

This week, we're breaking down a sweeping federal budget package passed by the House on May 22 and what it means for America's public lands, waters, and environmental protections.In this episode:The public lands sell-offs we stopped — and how grassroots action made it happen.How deep staffing cuts at the National Park Service and Forest Service are hollowing out essential public lands operations just ahead of peak season.The quiet but relentless expansion of fossil fuel development on public lands, with new oil and gas lease sales announced in North Dakota, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and New Mexico.Changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and old-growth forest protections that fast-track extraction projects and sideline public oversight.A dangerous new directive threatening free, honest historical interpretation within the National Park Service.Plus:A small but important win at Mount Rainier National Park with the rollout of a limited timed-entry system.Alarming impacts of agency consolidation in Alaska, where the National Park Service regional office has lost a third of its workforce.Have tips, testimonials, or insights on public land changes? Submit them through our Google Form (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://forms.gle/JwC73G8wLvU6kedc9⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Episode Resources:https://www.outdooralliance.org/blog/2025/5/22/land-sell-offs-removed-from-spending-bill-but-its-still-bad https://www.npca.org/articles/8891-house-advances-budget-bill-reducing-national-park-service-staff-amid-peak https://www.sierraclub.org/washington/2025-end-of-session-report https://grist.org/politics/house-republican-tax-bill-inflation-reduction-act-repeal-clean-energy-tax-credits/https://www.nwf.org/Home/Latest-News/Press-Releases/2025/5-21-2025-Removal-of-Public-Lands-Transfer-Testament-to-Public-Input https://www.nwf.org/Home/Latest-News/Press-Releases/2025/5-22-2025-Reconciliation-Package https://www.wilderness.org/articles/press-release/house-passes-big-giveaway-budget-bill-drilling-and-mining-interests-reap-huge-rewardshttps://www.outdooralliance.org/blog/2025/5/19/bigger-cuts-to-staff-at-public-land-agencies-will-affect-outdoor-recreation  https://www.blm.gov/press-release https://www.doi.gov/news https://www.npca.org/articles/8759-mount-rainier-rolls-out-limited-seasonal-reservation-system https://www.npca.org/articles/8825-national-park-service-alaska-regional-office-decimated-by-staff-cuts-and https://www.npca.org/articles/8858-new-order-threatens-park-service-s-efforts-to-protect-and-explore-american https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/nonprofits-sue-trump-administration-over-illegal-freeze-billions-electric-vehicle https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/judge-deals-significant-blow-unconstitutional-reorganization-federal-government https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/house-passes-new-attack-clean-air-protections

About fifty years ago, multiple environmental disasters forced a reckoning with how we care for the Earth. President Richard Nixon signed numerous environmental protection bills into law in the 1970s, including what is considered to be the nation's green Magna Carta: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).   Among many other moves to eliminate or weaken federal environmental regulations and laws, the Trump administration is trying to fundamentally change NEPA, a bedrock rule that requires federal agencies to analyze environmental and cultural impacts of any major development. Critics point out these changes will result in fewer protections for citizens, natural resources and communities. What other regulations are being rolled back and going unnoticed?  Guests:  Sam Wojcicki, Senior Director, Climate Policy, National Audubon Society  Olivia N. Guarna, Climate Justice Fellow, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Jared Huffman, U.S. Representative (D-CA 2nd District) and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee On June 4, Climate One is hosting a special screening of the documentary “Good Grief: The 10 Steps” to be followed by a climate anxiety workshop. Join us for this intimate conversation about the importance of mental health live at The Commonwealth Club. Tickets are available through our website. Support Climate One by going ad-free! By subscribing to Climate One on Patreon, you'll receive exclusive access to all future episodes free of ads, opportunities to connect with fellow Climate One listeners, and access to the Climate One Discord. Sign up today. For show notes and related links, visit our website. Ad sales by Multitude. Contact them for ad inquiries at multitude.productions/ads Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

About fifty years ago, multiple environmental disasters forced a reckoning with how we care for the Earth. President Richard Nixon signed numerous environmental protection bills into law in the 1970s, including what is considered to be the nation's green Magna Carta: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).   Among many other moves to eliminate or weaken federal environmental regulations and laws, the Trump administration is trying to fundamentally change NEPA, a bedrock rule that requires federal agencies to analyze environmental and cultural impacts of any major development. Critics point out these changes will result in fewer protections for citizens, natural resources and communities. What other regulations are being rolled back and going unnoticed?  Guests:  Sam Wojcicki, Senior Director, Climate Policy, National Audubon Society  Olivia N. Guarna, Climate Justice Fellow, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Jared Huffman, U.S. Representative (D-CA 2nd District) and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee On June 4, Climate One is hosting a special screening of the documentary “Good Grief: The 10 Steps” to be followed by a climate anxiety workshop. Join us for this intimate conversation about the importance of mental health live at The Commonwealth Club. Tickets are available through our website. Support Climate One by going ad-free! By subscribing to Climate One on Patreon, you'll receive exclusive access to all future episodes free of ads, opportunities to connect with fellow Climate One listeners, and access to the Climate One Discord. Sign up today. For show notes and related links, visit our website. Ad sales by Multitude. Contact them for ad inquiries at multitude.productions/ads Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Clean Wisconsin has been keeping track of the many attacks on bedrock environmental safeguards being carried out by the Trump Administration. Dozens of rules and regulations that protect our air, water, land, endangered species and more are being targeted. With so much happening in such a short time, how do you know what's important, what's just a lot of bluster, and what's even legal?  Host: Amy Barrilleaux Guest: Brett Korte, Clean Wisconsin attorney Resources for You: Running list of attacks on environmental safeguards 1/20 Freeze All In-Progress Standards  EO - Freezes in-progress climate, clean air, clean water (including proposed limits on PFAS in industrial wastewater) and consumer protections. 1/20 Energy Emergency Declaration EO - Authorizes federal government to expedite permitting and approval of fossil fuel, infrastructure, and mining projects and circumvent Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act requirements. 1/20 Withdrawal from Paris Climate Agreement EO - Reverses the US' international commitment to tackling climate change and reducing pollution. 1/20 Revokes Biden Climate Crisis and Environmental Justice Executive Actions EO -  Reverses U.S. commitment to fight climate change and its impacts, and protect overburdened communities. 1/20 Attacks on Clean Car Standards EO -  to stop clean car standards that required automakers to reduce tailpipe pollution from vehicles beginning in 2027. 1/20 Resumes LNG Permitting EO - Expedites Liquid Natural Gas export terminal approval over analysis finding exports raise energy costs for consumers. Attacks Climate and Clean Energy Investments from IRA and BIL EO - Freezes unspent funds from the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and directs agencies to reassess. 1/20 Attacks NEPA Protections EO - Rescinds order requiring White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to assess environmental and community impacts and allow community input into federal infrastructure projects. 1/21 Expands Offshore Oil Drilling EO - Reopens U.S. coastlines to offshore drilling. 1/21 Terminate American Climate Corps EO - Ends all programs of the American Climate Corps, which created thousands of jobs combatting climate change and protecting and restoring public lands. 1/21 Freezes New Wind Energy Leases EO - Withdraws wind energy leasing from U.S. waters and federal lands. 1/21 Open Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other Alaska Lands for Drilling EO - Reopens sensitive federal lands and waters in Alaska to drilling. 1/28 EPA's Science Advisory Panel Members Fired Memorandum - Acting EPA administrator James Payne dismisses members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and Science Advisory Board, which provides independent expertise to the agency on air quality standards and sources of air pollution. 1/28 EPA Suspends Solar For All Grants Memorandum - The EPA halted $7 billion in contractually obligated grants for Solar For All, an Inflation Reduction Act program that delivers clean energy and lower prices to vulnerable communities 1/31 Trump administration scrubs "climate change" from federal websites Memorandum - Mentions of climate change have been removed from federal websites such the Department of Agriculture, which includes the Forest Service and climate-smart agriculture programs, and the EPA. 2/3 Trump requires removal 10 existing rules for every new rule EO - The order requires that when an agency finalizes a new regulation or guidance they identify 10 existing rules to be cut. 2/3 Interior secretary weakens public lands protections in favor of fossil fuel development Sec Order - After Trump's "Unleashing American Energy" executive order, Interior Secretary Burgum ordered the reinstatement of fossil fuel leases, opened more land for drilling, and issued orders weakening protections of public lands, national monuments and endangered species, and overturned advanced clean energy and climate mitigation strategies. 2/5 Energy secretary announces review of appliance efficiency standards Sec Order - Energy Secretary Wright ordered a review of appliance standards following Trump's Day One order attacking rules improving the efficiency of household appliances such as toilets, showerheads, and lightbulbs as part of a secretarial order intended to increase the extraction and use of fossil fuels. 2/5 Army Corps of Engineers halts approval of renewables Guidance via DOD - The Army Corps of Engineers singled out 168 projects – those that focused on renewable energy projects – out of about 11,000 pending permits for projects on private land. Though the hold was lifted, it was not immediately clear if permitting had resumed. 2/6 Transportation Department orders freeze of EV charging infrastructure program Memorandum - A Transportation Department memo ordered the suspension of $5 billion in federal funding, authorized by Congress under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, for states to build electric vehicle chargers. 2/11 SEC starts process to kill climate disclosure rule Memorandum - The acting chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission paused the government's legal defense of a rule requiring companies to identify the impact of their business on climate in regulatory findings. The rule was challenged in court by 19 Republican state attorneys general and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright's Liberty Energy, among others. 2/14 EPA fires hundreds of staff Memorandum - The Trump administration's relentless assault on science and career expertise at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continued today with the firing of almost 400 staff who had ‘probationary' status. 2/14 DOE issues the first LNG export authorization under new Trump administration DOE Secretary Wright issued an export authorization for the Commonwealth LNG project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, despite a 2024 DOE report finding that unfettered LNG exports increase energy bills and climate pollution. 2/18 Trump issues order stripping independent agencies of independence EO - Trump signed an executive order stripping independent regulatory agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of their independence, moving them to submit proposed rules and final regulations for review by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and granting the attorney general exclusive authority over legal interpretations of rules. The order is likely to be challenged as Congress created these agencies specifically to be insulated from White House interference. 2/19 Zeldin recommends striking endangerment finding Memorandum - After Trump's "Unleashing American Energy" executive order, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has told the White House he would recommend rescinding the bedrock justification defining six climate pollutants – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride – as air pollution to be regulated by the Clean Air Act. 2/19 Trump administration moves to rescind all CEQ regulatory authority Rulemaking - The Trump administration has moved to rescind the Council on Environmental Quality's role in crafting and implementing environmental regulations, revoking all CEQ orders since 1977 that shape how federal agencies comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires the government to consider and disclose environmental impacts of its actions. 2/19 Trump directs agencies to make deregulation recommendations to DOGE EO - Trump issues executive order directing agencies to work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to make recommendations that will accelerate Trump's efforts to dismantle regulations across the federal government as part of his 10 out, 1 in policy. Among the protections likely to be in DOGE's crosshairs are those that keep polluters from ignoring environmental laws and protect clean air and water. 2/19 FEMA staff advised to scrub "changing climate" and other climate terms from documents Memorandum - A Federal Emergency Management Agency memo listed 10 climate-related words and phrases, including "changing climate," “climate resilience,” and “net zero," to be removed from FEMA documents. The memo comes after USDA workers were ordered to scrub mentions of climate change from websites. 2/21 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Director Placed on Administrative Leave Guidance - According to media reports, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin has put the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) director on administrative leave. The GGRF is a $27 billion federal financing program that addresses the climate crisis and is injecting billions of dollars in local economic development projects to lower energy prices and reduce pollution especially in the rural, urban, and Indigenous communities most impacted by climate change and frequently left behind by mainstream finance. 2/27 Hundreds fired as layoffs begin at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Guidance - On Thursday, February 27, about 800 employees at NOAA, the agency responsible for the nation's bedrock weather, climate, fisheries, and marine research, were fired in the latest round of Trump administration-led layoffs. The layoffs could jeopardize NOAA's ability to provide life-saving severe weather forecasts, long-term climate monitoring, deep-sea research and fisheries management, and other essential research and policy. 3/10 Energy secretary says climate change a worthwhile tradeoff for growth Announcement - Speaking at the CERAWeek conference, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the Trump administration sees climate change as “a side effect of building the modern world,” and pledged to “end the Biden administration's irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change." 3/10 Zeldin, Musk Cut $1.7B in Environmental Justice Grants Guidance - EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the cancellation of 400 environmental justice-related grants, in violation of a court order barring the Trump administration from freezing "equity-based" grants and contracts. 3/11 EPA eliminates environmental justice offices, staff Memorandum - EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin ordered the closure of environmental justice offices at the agency's headquarters and at all 10 regional offices and eliminate all related staff positions "immediately." The reversal comes just days after the EPA reinstated environmental justice and civil rights employees put on leave in early February. 3/12 EPA Announcement to Revise "Waters of the United States" Rule Announcement - The EPA will redefine waters of the US, or WOTUS, to comply with the US Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Sackett v. EPA, which lifted Clean Water Act jurisdiction on many wetlands, Administrator Lee Zeldin said 3/14 Zeldin releases 31-rollback ‘hit list' Memorandum (announced, not in effect as of 4/10) - EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to dismantle federal air quality and carbon pollution regulations, identifying 31 actions ranging from from soot standards and power plant pollution rules to the endangerment finding – the scientific and legal underpinning of the Clean Air Act. 3/14 EPA halts enforcement of pollution rules at energy facilities Memorandum - According to a leaked memo, the EPA's compliance office has halted enforcement of pollution regulations on energy facilities and barred consideration of environmental justice concerns. The memo states: "Enforcement and compliance assurance actions shall not shut down any stage of energy production (from exploration to distribution) or power generation absent an imminent and substantial threat to human health or an express statutory or regulatory requirement to the contrary.” 3/14 Trump revokes order encouraging renewables EO - Trump signed an executive order rescinding a Biden-era proclamation encouraging the development of renewable energy. Biden's order under the Defense Production Act permitted the Department of Energy to direct funds to scale up domestic production of solar and other renewable technologies. 3/17 EPA plans to eliminate science staff Memorandum - Leaked documents describe plans to lay off as many as 1,155 scientists from labs across the country. These chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists are among the experts who monitor air and water quality, cleanup of toxic waste, and more. 3/16 EPA invites waivers on mercury pollution and other hazardous pollutants Memorandum - The EPA invited coal- and oil-fired power plants to apply for exemptions to limits on mercury and other toxic pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Mercury is an extremely dangerous pollutant that causes brain damage to babies and fetuses; in addition to mercury, pollution from power plants includes hazardous chemicals that can lead to cancer, or damage to the lungs, kidneys, nervous system and cardiovascular system. 4/3 Trump administration adds "deregulation suggestion" website A new page on regulations.gov allows members of the public to submit "deregulation" ideas. The move is the latest in the Trump administration's efforts to slash public health, safety, and climate safeguards, and comes soon after the administration offered companies the opportunity to send the EPA an email if they wished to be exempted from Clean Air Act protections. 4/8 Series of four EOs to boost coal  EO - Under the four orders, Trump uses his emergency authority to allow some older coal-fired power plants set for retirement to keep producing electricity to meet rising U.S. power demand amid growth in data centers, artificial intelligence and electric cars. Trump also directed federal agencies to identify coal resources on federal lands, lift barriers to coal mining and prioritize coal leasing on U.S. lands. In a related action, Trump also signed a proclamation offering coal-fired power plants a two-year exemption from federal requirements to reduce emissions of toxic chemicals such as mercury, arsenic and benzene. 4/9 Executive Order Attacking State Climate Laws EO - Directs the U.S. Attorney General to sue or block state climate policies deemed "burdensome" to fossil fuel interests — including laws addressing climate change, ESG investing, carbon taxes, and environmental justice. 4/9 New expiration dates on existing energy rules EO - The order directs ten agencies and subagencies to assign one-year expiration dates to existing energy regulations. If they are not extended, they will expire no later than September 30, 2026, according to a White House fact sheet on the order. The order also said any new regulations should include a five-year expiration, unless they are deregulatory. That means any future regulations would only last for five years unless they are extended. 4/17 Narrow Endangered Species Act to allow for habitat destruction The Trump administration is proposing to significantly limit the Endangered Species Act's power to preserve crucial habitats by changing the definition of one word: harm. The Endangered Species Act prohibits actions that “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” endangered plants and animals. The word “harm” has long been interpreted to mean not just the direct killing of a species, but also severe harm to their environment  

Share your Field Stories!Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Ted Boling, Partner at Perkins Coie LLP about Updates on NEPA, the IAIA Conference in Italy, and Cumulative Effects.  Read his full bio below.Special thanks to our sponsor for this episode.  Perkins Coie is a leading global law firm, dedicated to helping the world's most innovative companies solve the legal and business challenges of tomorrow. Learn more about our work and values at https://perkinscoie.com/Please be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Ted Boling at https://www.linkedin.com/in/ted-boling-66326811/Guest Bio:Ted advises clients on renewable energy and transmission projects, resource development, transportation, and related infrastructure development, building on more than 30 years of high-level public service.Ted Boling's experience includes deep involvement in the environmental review and authorization of federal infrastructure projects, environmental mitigation and conservation programs, and leadership of the comprehensive revision of CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. He served on the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Ted's work at CEQ included the development of the National Ocean Policy, CEQ's climate change guidance, and the use of environmental management systems in environmental impact assessment. Ted advised on the establishment of numerous national monuments, including the first marine national monuments in the United States and the largest marine protected areas in the world. He represented CEQ as a member of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the board of directors of the Udall Foundation, and the U.S. delegation to negotiations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. He also assisted in briefing three cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.At DOI, Ted served as a deputy solicitor and counselor to the assistant secretaries for land and minerals management and for fish and wildlife and parks. Ted handled matters involving energy development on the outer continental shelf and the fast-track process for solar and wind energy projects on public lands. At DOJ, Ted was a senior trial attorney and litigated significant cases involving NEPA, endangered species, marine mammals, wetland protections, and management of public lands. He was involved in litigation concerning the Northwest Forest Plan, National Forest management decisions, and Federal Transit Administration decisions and U.S.Support the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.

On his first day back in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14154 (Unleashing American Energy). Among numerous other objectives, this broad Executive Order directs the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to “expedite and simplify the permitting process” by providing guidance on the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and rescinding CEQ’s NEPA regulations.Less than four weeks later, CEQ issued a Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies on how to conform their NEPA practices to the President’s Executive Order and other factors. Less than a week after that, CEQ published an interim final rule removing its NEPA regulations. Among the potential intended impacts of these actions is more expeditious federal government reviews of environmental permits. Even before these Executive Actions, courts had expressed concern over CEQ’s NEPA regulations. In November 2024, the D.C. Circuit held the CEQ regulations to be ultra vires. Marin Audubon v. FAA, 121 F.4th 902 (D.C. Cir. 2024)). In February 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota followed suit. Iowa v CEQ, No. 1:24-cv-00089-DMT-CRH, 2025 WL 598928 (D.N.D. Feb. 3, 2025).Join attorneys Mario Loyola and Ted Boling as they discuss these important developments in environmental law.Featuring:Ted Boling, Partner, Perkins Coie LLPMario Loyola, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Policy and Regulation, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation(Moderator) Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) landscape is shifting fast. With major developments like Eagle County, Marin Audubon, Section 5 of President Trump's Unleashing American Energy Executive Order, and several critical cases on the horizon, the way NEPA is applied and interpreted is set for a major transformation. Join Susan Jane Brown (Silvix Resources) in a thought-provoking discussion with Ted Boling (Perkins Coie Partner, former member of the Council on Environmental Quality) and Dinah Bear (former General Counsel of the Council on Environmental Quality). Together, they'll break down these pivotal changes, what they mean for environmental policy, and how NEPA's role may evolve in the years ahead. Don't miss this essential conversation for legal professionals, policymakers, and anyone invested in the future of environmental law.

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Ted Boling, Partner at Perkins Coie LLP about Environmental Executive Orders, Managing Shifts between Administrations, and Sailing.  Read his full bio below.Help us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form perkinsSpecial thanks to our sponsor for this episode Perkins Coie - https://perkinscoie.com/Showtimes: 2:29 - Nic and Laura dive into tacking Challenging Work10:08 -  Interview starts with Ted Boing18: 50 - CEQ Updates  32:15- Changes from the new administration 41:20 - Sailing  Please be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Ted Boling at https://www.linkedin.com/in/ted-boling-66326811/Guest Bio:Ted advises clients on renewable energy and transmission projects, resource development, transportation, and related infrastructure development, building on more than 30 years of high-level public service.Ted Boling's experience includes deep involvement in the environmental review and authorization of federal infrastructure projects, environmental mitigation and conservation programs, and leadership of the comprehensive revision of CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. He served on the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Ted's work at CEQ included the development of the National Ocean Policy, CEQ's climate change guidance, and the use of environmental management systems in environmental impact assessment. Ted advised on the establishment of numerous national monuments, including the first marine national monuments in the United States and the largest marine protected areas in the world. He represented CEQ as a member of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the board of directors of the Udall Foundation, and the U.S. delegation to negotiations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. He also assisted in briefing three cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.At DOI, Ted served as a deputy solicitor and counselor to the assistant secretaries for land and minerals management and for fish and wildlife and parks. Ted handled matters involving energy development on the outer continental shelf and the fast-track process for solar and wind energy projects on public lands. At DOJ, Ted was a senior trial attorney and litigated significant cases involving NEPA, endangered species, marine mammals, wetland protections, and management of public lands. He was involved in litigation concerning the Northwest Forest Plan, National Forest management decisions, and Federal Transit Administration decisions and U.S. Coast Guard activity in New England.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: NeverSupport the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.

In this episode of Bionic Planet, Season 10, Episode 115, we dive into the significant environmental implications of the executive orders signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office. Originally, we had planned to focus this season on Africa, but the rapid changes in U.S. environmental policy prompted us to shift gears. I connected with Tim Male last week. Tim, who founded the Environmental Policy Innovation Center in 2017, has a wealth of experience in environmental policy, having worked in various capacities, including at the White House and with organizations like Defenders of Wildlife. Both Tim and I share a commitment to addressing climate challenges, despite our differing perspectives on party policies. In our discussion, we unpack Tim's recent LinkedIn post, where he meticulously breaks down the ten executive actions that target environmental regulations. We explore the unprecedented number of executive orders issued in such a short time frame and the potential consequences of these actions. Tim emphasizes that while executive orders can set priorities for federal agencies, they must still align with existing laws, which can lead to legal challenges. We delve into specific orders, starting with the requirement for the "God squad" under the Endangered Species Act to meet more frequently and expedite reviews of projects that could impact endangered species. Tim explains the historical context of this committee and its potential to prioritize development over environmental protections. Next, we discuss directives to the Army Corps of Engineers to expedite permitting processes under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, raising concerns about the implications for environmental safeguards. Tim provides insights into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its role in ensuring that federal actions minimize environmental harm. We also examine the revocation of President Carter's executive order aimed at making environmental impact statements more accessible to the public, which Tim argues could lead to confusion and inconsistency across federal agencies. The episode continues with a discussion on the rescinding of protections for ancient forests and the withdrawal from international efforts to combat deforestation. Tim highlights the significance of ecosystem service valuation and the potential loss of guidance that could have helped quantify the benefits of environmental services. We touch on the broader implications of these actions, including the potential for increased energy production at the expense of environmental protections. As we wrap up, we reflect on the long-term consequences of these executive orders and the potential for legal challenges. Tim expresses concern about the sweeping nature of these actions and the message they send to communities affected by energy projects. This episode serves as a critical examination of the intersection between politics and environmental policy, providing listeners with a deeper understanding of the current landscape and the challenges ahead in the fight against climate change. Timestamps 00:00:00 - Introduction to Season 10 and Episode Overview 00:02:09 - Trump's Executive Orders on Environmental Policies 00:03:29 - The Role of Executive Orders in U.S. Government 00:04:01 - Critique of Trump's Environmental Actions 00:05:01 - Legal Challenges to Executive Orders 00:06:19 - Endangered Species Act and the God Squad 00:10:11 - Clean Water Act and Emergency Procedures 00:13:42 - Understanding NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) 00:16:03 - Revocation of Carter's NEPA Executive Order 00:19:12 - Rescinding Protections for Ancient Forests 00:21:49 - International Cooperation on Deforestation 00:23:09 - Ecosystem Service Valuation Guidance Rescinded 00:28:05 - Nature-Based Solutions and Their Importance 00:29:59 - Action Plans for Energy Production Regulations 00:32:19 - Suspension of Policies Related to Energy in Alaska 00:34:27 - Impact of Schedule F on Federal Employment 00:38:11 - DOJ Teams and Federal Workforce Changes 00:41:00 - The Role of Professionals in Government 00:44:25 - Conclusion and Future Implications Quotes "On his very first day in office, President Donald Trump signed 78 executive actions, and 10 of them targeted environmental policies." - 00:02:09 "It's pretty hard to find the wheat among the chaff in this set of actions from the environment." - 00:04:01 "What this order is foreshadowing is a bunch of people who are much more likely to prioritize a development project are going to get the final say on conflicts involving endangered species." - 00:09:33 "This is really just we're not going to do it." - 00:04:33 "The law is pretty limited in terms of who can, you know, ask for an appeal of the decision." - 00:10:21 "This is a part of that same executive order from President Biden that is being rescinded." - 00:20:25 "It's a broad and messy brush that they're painting across the forest landscape in a way that is pretty harmful." - 00:21:18 "This is a White House that's showing great interest in expanding the power of the White House." - 00:18:00 "There's people across the federal government who are very creative at saying, well, you've told me to do it this way, and that's not legal." - 00:42:19 "At the end of the day, I don't know what your philosophy is on how democracy is supposed to work, but, you know, at some level, the winner is supposed to get to decide what happens next." - 00:36:38 Keywords Bionic Planet Season 10 Episode 115 Donald Trump Tim Mayle Environmental Policy Innovation Center White House Defenders of Wildlife Nairobi LinkedIn Endangered Species Act Alaska Clean Water Act National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Obama administration Biden administration Anthropocene Steve Zwick snail darter whooping cranes Trans-Alaskan pipeline liquefied natural gas (LNG) Tongass National Forest U.S. Digital Service Virginia Youngkin ecosystem services climate emergency energy dominance fossil fuels Native Alaskans Paris Accord Washington, D.C. environmental impact statements mitigation banking biodiversity carbon sequestration emergency procedures federal workforce Schedule F Department of Justice (DOJ)

This Update relates to historic and important resources that can be useful for your participation in the public hearings about draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and its proposed operations in the next 15 years or so. Public hearings under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will begin on Tuesday, February 11th in Santa Fe, followed by a wednesday, February 12th hearing in Española, and a Thursday, February 13th hearing in Los Alamos. The specifics are available at nuclearactive.org.

On this week's edition of the Talking Michigan Transportation podcast, Margaret Barondess, a manager in the Michigan Department of Transportation's (MDOT) environmental section who is retiring from state government, reflects on her career. More than 50 years ago, Congress adopted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Barondess, who worked for MDOT for 33 years, explains how the act informs planning for transportation projects in Michigan and department efforts to at once protect our air, waterways, wildlife, and plants and minimize inconvenience to travelers. While critics of NEPA have argued for scaling back the need for environmental impact statements, supporters tout NEPA's role in saving money, time, lives, historical sites, endangered species and public lands while encouraging compromise and cultivating better projects with more public support. Barondess also talks about the challenges and rewards she and her team have experienced in recent years, including the success protecting some threatened species on a segment of I-75 in Monroe County with a corridor conservation action plan. 

This case concerns the question of whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. When the Surface Transportation Board granted a petition from the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to construct and operate an 80-mile Utah […]

This case concerns the question of whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. When the Surface Transportation Board granted a petition from the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to construct and operate an 80-mile Utah railway, they conducted an environmental review in which they considered direct impacts of the highway on nearby land, water, and air. But they did not consider certain environmental “downline impacts” or possible effects on historic sites along the Union Pacific line in Eagle County. The county challenged their review as inadequate, while the Board argues that these effects were either too minimal for serious analysis, or outside the scope of their authority. Oral Argument is set for December 10, 2024. Join us in discussing this case and its argument with Prof. Andrew Mergen, who assisted respondents in the court of appeals, and Prof. Paul Salamanca, who wrote an amicus brief in support of petitioners. Featuring:Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law & Faculty Director, Emmett Environmental Law and Policy ClinicProf. Paul Salamanca, Acting Dean and Wendell H. Ford Professor of Law, University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of LawModerator: Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP--To register, click the link above.

On this episode of the Environmental Law Monitor, Daniel Pope, Taylor Stuart, Kevin Ewing and Ann Navaro discuss the shift in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulation and break down the recent decision in Marin Audubon Society v. the FAA. They discuss implications of the DC Circuit ruling for federal agencies and what it means for the future of environmental and natural resources law and policy.

Michelle Turner is an environmental scientist who serves as the president of the Anchorage Democrats. Her day job is as a Principal Scientist with over 25 years of professional experience providing analysis and strategic advice under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a local environmental consultancy firm. Her work includes data gap analyses, Environmental Impact Assessments, and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) working on behalf of both project sponsors and federal regulators. Michelle's husband Carl Johnson is an environmental lawyer who ran for the state Senate in South Anchorage in 2020. His lifelong passion for photography first manifested in the Navy. He has served as the artist-in-residence for Gates of the Arctic National Park & Preserve, Badlands National Park, and Rocky Mountain National Park. In 2010, he was named the “Environmental Issues” category winner for the Windland Smith Rice International Awards sponsored by Nature's Best Photography. His winning piece, “Wolf Tracks on Ice,” highlights the challenges of aggressive wolf predator control programs and was on display at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC. Together Carl & Michelle own and manage two businesses: Alaska Photo Treks and Great Land Graphics. 

Eli Dourado is on a mission to end the Great Stagnation, that half-century period of economic and technological disappointment that began in the 1970s (what I refer to in my 2023 book, The Conservative Futurist, as the Great Downshift). If we want to turn the page on this chapter of slow progress and deserved skepticism, we're going to have to accept some creative destruction.Dourado believes that the courage to embrace major change is key to meeting our potential. Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with Dourado about the future of the US job market and energy production in a world of AI.Dourado is chief economist at the Abundance Institute, and author of his own Substack newsletter.In This Episode* The dawn of a productivity boom? (1:26)* Growing pains of job market disruption (7:26)* The politics of productivity growth (15:20)* The future of clean energy (23:35)* The road to a breakthrough (30:25)* Reforming NEPA (35:19)* The state of pro-abundance (37:08)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationThe dawn of a productivity boom? (1:26)Pethokoukis:  Eli, welcome to the podcast.Dourado: Thanks for having me on, Jim.I would like to think that what we are experiencing here in the 2020s is the beginnings of an extended productivity boom. We have some good economic data over the past year and a half. I know this is something that you care about, as I do . . . What's your best guess?I think the seeds of a boom are there. There's plenty of low-hanging fruit, but I'd say the last few quarters have not been that great for TFP growth, which is what I followed most closely. So we actually peaked in TFP in the US in Q4, 2021.Now what is that, what is TFP?Total factor productivity. So that's like if you look at inputs and how they translate into outputs.Capital, labor . . .Capital and labor, adjusting for quality, ideally. We've gotten less output for the amount of inputs in the last quarter than we did at the end of 2021. So slight negative growth over the last three years or so, but I think that you're right that there is room for optimism. Self-driving cars are coming. AI has immense potential.My worry with AI is other sociopolitical limits in the economy will hold us back, and you kind of see the news breaking today as we're recording this, is there's a strike at the ports on east coast, and what's at issue there is are we allowed to automate those jobs? Are the owners of the ports allowed to automate those jobs? And if the answer ends up being “no,” then you can say goodbye to productivity gains there. And so I really think the technology is there to do a lot more to kick off a productivity boom, but it's the sociopolitical factors that are slowing us down.And I definitely want to talk about those sociopolitical factors, and the port strike is hopefully not a harbinger. But before I leave this topic, I suppose the super bullish case for productivity is that AI will be so transformative, and so transformative throughout the economy, both automating some things, helping us do other things more efficiently, and creating brand new high-productivity things for us to do that we will have maybe an extended 1990s, maybe more, I might hope?What is your bullish case, and does that bullish case require what they call artificial general intelligence, or human-level, or human-level plus intelligence? Is that key? Because obviously some people are talking about that.Can we have an important productivity boom from AI without actually reaching that kind of science-fictional technology?I don't actually think that you need one-to-one replacement for humans, but you do need to get humans out of the loop in many, many more places. So if you think about the Baumol effect, the idea here is if there are parts of the economy that are unevenly growing in productivity, then that means that the parts of the economy where there is slow productivity growth, perhaps because you have human labor still being the bottleneck, those parts are going to end up being massive shares of the economy. They're going to be the healthcares, the educations, the parts of the economy where we have lots of inflation and increased costs. So the real boom here, to me, is can you replace as many humans as possible? Over the short run, you want to destroy jobs so that you can create a booming economy in which the jobs are still available, but living standards are much higher.If you think about these big chunks of GDP like health, housing, energy, transportation, that's what you need to revolutionize, and so I can think of lots of ways in health that we could use AI to increase productivity. And I also have very little doubt that even current levels of AI could massively increase productivity in health. I think the big question is whether we will be allowed to do it.So you don't need AGI that is as good as a human in every single thing that a human might do to limit the number of humans that are involved in providing healthcare. Housing, I think there's construction robots that maybe could do it, but I think the main limits are, like land use regulation, more sociopolitical. In energy, it's kind of the same thing, NIMBYism is kind of the biggest thing. Maybe there's an R&D component that AI could contribute to. And then in transportation, again, we could automate a lot of transportation. Some of that's happening with autonomous cars, but we are having trouble automating our ports, for example, we're having trouble automating cargo railroads for similar make-work reasons.I think the bull case is you don't need AGI, really, really sophisticated AI that can do everything, but you do need to be able to swap out human workers for even simpler AI functions.I don't actually think that you need one-to-one replacement for humans, but you do need to get humans out of the loop in many, many more places.Growing pains of job market disruption (7:26)I'm sure that some people are hearing you talk about swapping out human workers, replacing human workers. They're thinking, this is a world of vast technologically-driven unemployment; that is what you are describing. Is that what you're describing?Not at all. If we had the kind of productivity boom we're talking about, the economy would be so incredibly hot, and you need that hot market. People have all kinds of fantasies about how good AI could get. Can it substitute for a human in every single thing? And I'm not even positing that. I'm saying if we could just get it good enough to substitute in some things, the economy's going to be booming, it's going to be hot, there will still be things that humans can do that AIs can't. There's lots of things that maybe we want a human to do, even if the AI can do it, and we will be able to afford that a lot better.I think that the world I'm thinking about is one where living standards are way higher for everybody — and higher levels of equality, even. If you have the sort of uneven productivity gains that we've had for the last several decades, where tech does really well, but every other part of the economy does badly, well, that drives a lot of regional inequality, that drives a lot of different kinds of demographic inequality, and if we had broad-base productivity growth, that means better living standards for everybody, and I think that's what we should aim for.When I talk about what you've been referring to as these sociopolitical factors or how we might slow down progress, slow down automation, the whimsical example I use is there being a law saying that yes, you can have kiosks in every McDonald's, but you have to have an employee standing next to the kiosk to actually punch the buttons.As you mentioned with this port worker strike, we don't need my scenario. That is kind of what's happening on these ports, where there could be a lot more automation, but because of both unions and our acquiescence to these unions, we don't have the kind of automation — forget about sci-fi — that doesn't exist in other places in the world. And I wonder if that doesn't sort of encapsulate, at least in this country, the challenge: Can we get our heads around the idea that it's okay in the long run, that there will be some downsides, and some people might be worse off, and we need to take care of those people, but that's the disruption we need to tolerate to move forward?You can't have a growing economy where there's no churn, where there's no displacement, where it's complete, where there's no dynamism. You need to be able to accept some level of change. I sympathize with people whose jobs get destroyed by automation. It is hard, but it's much less hard if the economy is super hot because we've been prioritizing productivity growth, and if that were the case, I think we'd find new jobs for those people very quickly. The process is not automatic, but it's much slower when you have low productivity growth and a stagnant economy than it is when you have high productivity growth and a booming economy.The question I always get is, what about the 60-year-old guy? What's he going to do? And I'm not sure I have a much better answer. Maybe there's other jobs, but it's tough to transition, so maybe the answer there is you cut him a check, you cut that 60-year-old a check, and if you have a high-productivity economy, you have the resources for that to be an option.Right! So that's the other thing is that we can afford to be generous with people if we have a really rapidly growing economy. It's that we don't have the resources if we're stagnating, if we're already overextended fiscally, that's a terrible position to be in because you can't actually afford to be generous. And if there are people that truly, like you said, maybe they're very old and it doesn't make sense to retrain, or something like that, they're near retirement, yeah, absolutely, we can afford that much better when GDP is much higher.Where do you think, as a nation, our head is at as far as embracing or not being fearful of disruption from technological change? If I only looked at where our head was at with trade, I would be very, very worried about entering a period of significant technological disruption, and I would assume that we will see lots and lots of pushback if AI, for instance, is the kind of important, transformative, general purpose technology that I hope it is.Again, if I look at trade, I think, “Boy, there's going to be a lot of pushback.” Then again, when I think about risk broadly, and maybe it's not quite the same thing, I think, “Well, then again, we seem to be more embracing of nuclear energy, which shows maybe — it's not the same thing, but it shows a greater risk tolerance.” And I'm always thinking, what's our societal risk tolerance? Where do you think we're at right now?I think most people, most Americans, don't actually think in those terms. I think most Americans just think about, “How are things going for me?” They kind of evaluate their own life, and if their communities, or whatever, have been struggling due to trade stuff, or something like that, they'll be against it. So I think the people who think in these more high-level terms, it's like societal elites, and I think normal people who have just lived under 50 years of stagnation, they're kind of distrustful of the elites right now: “I don't pay attention to policy that closely, and my life is bad, at least in some dimensions is not as good as I wanted it to be, it's hasn't had the increase that my parents' generation had,” or something like that. And they're very distrustful of elites, and they're very mad, and you see this nihilistic populism popping up.You see kind of a diverse array of responses to this nihilistic populism. Some people might say, “Well yeah, elites really have messed up and we need to do what the common people want.” And then the other people are like, “No, we can't do that. We need to stay the course.” But I think that there's a hybrid response, where it's like, the elites really have done bad, but we don't just want to do what the populists want, we want to just have better elite-led policies, which include things like, we have to take productivity growth seriously, we can't just paper over a lot of the tensions and the conflicts that arise from that, we need to embrace them head-on and do everything we can to produce an economy that is productive, that works for everybody, but maybe not in the way that the populists think it will work.You can't have a growing economy where there's no churn, where there's no displacement, where it's complete, where there's no dynamism. You need to be able to accept some level of change.The politics of productivity growth (15:20)I would love to see what American politics looks like if the rest of this decade we saw the kind of economic productivity and wage growth that we saw in the fat part of the 1990s. We act like the current environment, that's our reality, and that's our reality as far as the eye can see, but I'll tell you, in the early '90s, there was a lot of gloom and doom about the economy, about productivity, how fast we could grow, the rise and fall of great powers, and America was overstretched, and after really three or four years of strong growth, it's like America Triumphant. And I'm wondering if that would be the politics of 2030 if we were able to generate that kind of boom.Yeah, I think that's totally right. And if you look at total factor productivity, which is my KPI [key performance indicator] or whatever, if you look at 1995 to 2005, you were back to almost two percent growth, which is what we had from 1920 to 1973. So you had a slow period from 1973 to 1995, and an even slower period since 2005, and you get back to that two percent. That's the magic number. I think if we had TFP at two percent, that changes everything. That's a game-changer for politics, for civility, for social stability, we'd really be going places if we had that.I was mentioning our reaction to trade and nuclear power. The obvious one, which I should have mentioned, is how we are reacting to AI right now. I think it's a good sign that Congress has not produced some sort of mega regulation bill, that this recent bill in California was not signed by Governor Newsom. Congress has spent time meeting with technologists and economists trying to learn something about AI, both the benefits and risks.And I think the fact that it seems like, even though there was this rush at some point where we needed to have a pause, we needed to quickly regulate it, that seems to have slowed down, and I think that's a good sign that perhaps we're able to hit a good balance here between wanting to embrace the upside and not utterly panicking that we're producing the Terminator.Absolutely. I think AI is something where the benefits are very clear, we're starting to see them already. The harms are extremely hypothetical, it's not evidence-based, it's really a lot of sci-fi scenarios. I think the right attitude in that kind of world is to let things ride for a while. If there are harms that arise, we can address them in narrowly tailored ways.I think government is sometimes criticized for being reactive, but reactive is the right approach for a lot of issues. You don't want to slow things down preemptively. You want to react to real facts on the ground. And if we need to react quickly, okay, we'll react quickly, but in a narrowly tailored way that addresses real harms, not just hypothetical stuff.I love what you're saying there about reaction. I'm a big preparer. I love preparation. If I'm going to go anywhere, I over-prepare for all eventualities, I will bring a messenger bag so if the world should end while I'm out, I'll be okay. I love to prepare. But one lesson I draw from the pandemic is that only gets you so far, preparation, because before the pandemic, there were a gazillion white papers about the possibility of a pandemic, all kinds of plans as a culture, we were sort of marinating in pandemic apocalypse films, maybe about turning us into zombies rather than giving us a disease.And then when we finally have a pandemic, it's like, “Where's the respirators? Where's this, where's that? We didn't have enough of this.” And so, while I'm sure preparation is great, what really helped us is we reacted. We reacted in real time because we're a rich country, we're a technologically advanced country, and we came up with a technological fix in a vaccine. To me — and again, I'm not sure how this is you meant it — but the power of being able to react effectively, boy, that's a pretty good capability of a well-functioning country.Yeah, and a slight difference between the pandemic and AI is it was not the first pandemic. AI is just such a unique set of theorized risks that people are like, nothing like this has ever happened before. This is like the introduction of a brand new super-intelligent species to the planet. This is the first time two intelligent species — if you want to count humans as an intelligent species — two intelligent species will the planet at the same time. And the theorization here is just so far out of the spectrum of our experience that it is hard to even see how you could prepare if those risk materialize. The only intelligent thing that is likely to do any good is to have our eyes open, and let's see what the harms are as they materialize.The problem with coming up with remedies for theorized harms is that the remedies never go away once they're implemented. Safety regulation never gets laxer over time. And so if you're implementing safety regulations because of real safety problems, okay, fair play, to some extent. I think in some dimensions we're too safe, but it kind of makes sense. But if you're doing it to just theorized harms that have never materialized, I think that's a big mistake.And you've written about this fairly recently. To me, there's a good kind of complexity with an economy that you have a high-functioning economy where people can connect, and colleges and universities, and businesses, and entrepreneurs, these networks work together to produce computer chips or large language models. That's a good kind of complexity.But then there's the other kind of complexity, in which you just have layer after layer of bureaucracy, and programs meant to solve a problem that was a problem 20 years ago and is no longer a problem, and that kind of complexity, that's not the kind we want, right?Yeah, I think you want the sophistication in the economy, but in a way that works for everybody. There have to be benefits to it. If you increase the burden of complexity without producing any net benefits, then people start to rebel against it, they start to be indifferent to or apathetic about the health of society. And there's an anthropologist, Joseph Tainter, who wrote this book, The Collapse of Complex Societies, and his theory is that once you have complexity without the marginal benefits of complexity, you're in for a shock, at some point, when people start becoming apathetic or hostile to the current order. And the complexity grows and shrinks as a system, you can't ever just control like, “Oh, let's do more, or let's do one percent less complexity.” Once people start to rebel against it, it snowballs and you could end up with a very bad situation.The problem with coming up with remedies for theorized harms is that the remedies never go away once they're implemented. Safety regulation never gets laxer over time.The future of clean energy (23:35)Nuclear versus solar versus geothermal: What do you like there?Solar panels have massively come down in cost, and we're not that far away from — in sort of number of doublings of deployment, and sort of long-deployment space — we're not that far away from the cost being so low that . . . you could almost round the panels cost to free. It almost makes sense. And the problem is, if you look at the solar electricity costs on utility-scale farms, they have not really moved in the last few years. And I think this is in large part because we're designing the solar farms wrong, we're not designing them for the era of cheap panels, we're designing them, still, to track the sun, and complex mechanisms, and too much space between the panels, and too much mowing required, and all that. So as we adapt to the new paradigm of very, very cheap panels, I think that you'll get lower solar costs.I think the other thing that is obviously complimentary to all of these sources actually is battery innovation. I'm very excited about one particular new cathode chemistry that maybe could drive the cost way, way down for lithium ion batteries. And so you're in a world where solar and batteries is potentially very, very cheap. And so for nuclear and geothermal, they have some advantages over solar.If batteries get cheap, the advantage of not the firmness . . . I think people think that the advantage of these sources versus solar is just that solar is variable and the other sources are constant, but that's less of an advantage if batteries are cheap, and I think you also want batteries to be able to respond to the fluctuations in demand. If we had an entirely nuclear-powered economy, the nuclear plants actually want to run at constant speed. You don't want to ramp them up and down very quickly, but demand fluctuates. And so you still want batteries to be a buffer there and be the lowest-cost way to balance the network.So the things that nuclear and geothermal can really compete on is land density — even gigawatt-scale nuclear where you have these giant exclusion zones and tons of land around them and so on, they're still more dense per acre than solar, and geothermal is maybe even denser because you don't need that exclusion zone, and so they could be much, much better in terms of density.There's an advantage — if you want a lot of power in a city, you probably want that to be supplied by nuclear. If you're more rural, you could do solar. Another possibility is portability. So there's future versions of nuclear that are more mobile. People have talked about space-based nuclear for being able to go to Mars or something like that, you want thermonuclear propulsion and you can't do that with solar. Or powering submarines and stuff. So I think there's always a place for nuclear.And then the other advantage for both nuclear and geothermal is if you don't need to produce electricity. So if you're producing just the heat — it turns out a big part of the cost of any sort of thermal source is converting it to electricity. You have to have these giant steam turbines that are very capital intensive. And so, if you just need heat, say up to 600 degrees C heat for nuclear and maybe 400 degrees C heat for deep geothermal, those are really good sources for doing that, and maybe if we had continued advances in drilling technology for geothermal or if we could figure out the regulatory stuff for nuclear, I think you could have very cheap industrial thermal energy from either of those sources.Nuclear and geothermal are competing against a backdrop where we'll probably have pretty cheap solar, but there's still some advantages and these sources still have some utility and we should get good at both of them.What do you think that energy mix looks like in 25 years, the electrical generation mix for this country?It would be surprising if it wasn't a lot of solar. My friend Casey Handmer thinks it's going to be 90-plus percent solar, and I think that's a little crazy.Do you happen to know what the percent is now?Oh, I don't know. It's probably like three or four or something like that, off the top of my head, maybe less. The other question is, what's the base? I think a lot of people just want to replace the energy we have now with clean energy, and much more we need to be thinking about growing the energy supply. And so I think there's a question of how much solar we could deploy, but then also how much other stuff are we deploying? Let's do a lot of everything. You do have to drive the cost of some of these sources down a bit for it to make sense, but I think we can.And then the real gains happen when maybe some of these . . . what if you could do some sort of conversion without steam turbines? What if you had ways to convert the thermal energy to electricity without running a steam cycle, which is hundreds-of-year-old technology? EssentiallyYou're just finding a new way to heat it up.Yeah, so you look at why has solar come down so much? It's because it's solid-state, easy to manufacture, any manufacturing process improvements just move forward to all future solar panels. If we had thermoelectric generators or other ways of converting the heat to electricity, that could be really great, and then there's other kinds of nuclear that are like solid-state conversion, like alpha voltaics and things like that. So you could have a box with cobalt 60 in it that's decaying and producing particles that you're converting to electricity, and that would be solid state. It's sometimes called a “nuclear battery,” it's not really a battery, but that would be a way to power cars maybe with something like that. That would be awesome.Nuclear and geothermal are competing against a backdrop where we'll probably have pretty cheap solar, but there's still some advantages and these sources still have some utility and we should get good at both of them.The road to a breakthrough (30:25)When, if ever, this century, do you think we get AGI, and when, if ever, this century, do you think we get a commercial fusion reactor?AGI, I'm still not really a 100 percent clear on how it's defined. I think that AI will get increasingly more capable, and I think that's an exciting future. Do we even need to emulate every part of the human brain in silicon? I don't think so. Do we need it to have emotions? Do we need it to have its own independent drive? We definitely don't need it to be a perfect replica of a human brain in terms of every capability, but I think it will get more capable over time. I think there's going to be a lot of hidden ways in which AGI, or powerful AI, or highly capable AI is going to happen slower than we think.I think my base reasoning behind this is, if you look at neurons versus transistors, neurons are about a million times more energy efficient. So six orders of magnitude is kind of what we have to traverse to get something that is equally capable. And maybe there's some tricks or whatever that you can do that means you don't have to be equally capable on an energy basis, but you still need to get four orders of magnitude better. And then the other thing about it is that, if you look at current margins that people are working on, things like the ChatGPT o1 model, it's a lot slower, it does a lot of token generation behind the scenes to get the answer, and I think that that's the kind of stuff that could maybe drive progress.Let's say we have a world where you ask an AI for a cure for cancer, and you run it on a big data center, and it runs for six months or a year, and then it spits out the answer, here's the cure for cancer, that's still a world where we have very, very powerful AI, but it's slow and consumes a lot of resources, but still ultimately worth it. I think that might be where we're headed, in a way, is that kind of setup. And so is that AGI? Kind of. It's not operating the same way as humans are. So this is different.You're not going to fall in love with it. It's nothing like that.I'm pretty uncertain about AGI: A) what it means, but what does it even look like in the end?Fusion, I'll give you a hot take here, which is, I think there will be net energy gain fusion developed in this decade. I think that someone will have it. I think that probably the first people to get it will be doing it in a completely uneconomical way that will never work economically. Most of the people that are working on fusion are working on DT fusion, which is another one of these sources that basically produces heat, and then you use a steam turbine, and then that produces electricity. I think that the steam turbine is just a killer in terms of the added costs.So all these sources are basically fancy ways of boiling water and then running a steam turbine. So what you want to look at is: What is the cheapest way to boil water? With fission, you just hold two magic rocks together and they boil water. With geothermal, you drill a hole in the ground and send water down there and it boils. With these DT fusion reactors, you build the most complex machine mankind has ever seen, and you use that to boil water — that's not going to be as cheap as fission should be. So I think that we'll struggle to compete with fission if we can ever get our act together.There's other kinds of fusion called aneutronic fusion. That's harder to do. I think it's still possible, maybe this decade, that someone will crack it, but that's harder to do. But the nice thing about that is that you can harvest electricity from those plasmas without a steam turbine. So if it's going to be economical fusion, I think it's plausible by 2030 somebody could crack it, but it would be that aneutronic version, and it is just technically a bit harder. You'll see some reports in a couple of years, like, “Oh, these people, they got net energy out of a fusion reactor.” It's like, okay, it's a scientific breakthrough, but look for the cost. Is it going to be competitive with these other sources?Do we even need to emulate every part of the human brain in silicon? I don't think so . . . We definitely don't need it to be a perfect replica of a human brain in terms of every capability, but I think it will get more capable over time.Reforming NEPA (35:19)Do you think we've sort of got a handle, and we've begun to wrangle the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] to the ground? Where are we on reforming it so that it is not the kind of obstacle to progress that you've written so much about and been a real leader on?My base scenario is we're going to get reforms on it every two years. So we had some a year and a half ago with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, I think we were possibly going to get some in the lame duck session this year in Congress. None of these reforms are going to go far enough, is the bottom line. I think that the problem isn't going to go away, and so the pressure is going to continue to be there, and we're just going to keep having reforms every two years.And a lot of this is driven by the climate movement. So say what you will about the climate movement, they're the only mainstream movement in America right now that's not complacent, and they're going to keep pushing for, we've got to do something that lets us build. If we want to transform American industry, that means we've got to build, and NEPA gets in the way of building, so it's going to have to go.So I think my baseline case is we get some reforms this year in the lame duck, probably again two years later, probably again two years later, and then maybe like 2030, people have kind of had enough and they just say, “Oh, let's just repeal this thing. We keep trying to reform it, it doesn't work.” And I think you could repeal NEPA and the environment would be fine. I am pro-environment, but you don't need NEPA to protect the environment. I think it's just a matter of coming to terms with, this is a bad law and probably shouldn't exist.I am pro-environment, but you don't need NEPA to protect the environment. I think it's just a matter of coming to terms with, this is a bad law and probably shouldn't exist.The state of pro-abundance (37:08)What is the state of, broadly, a pro-abundance worldview? What is the state of that worldview in both parties right now?I think there's a growing, but very small, part of each party that is thinking in these terms, and I think the vision is not really concrete yet. I think they don't actually know what they're trying to achieve, but they kind of understand that it's something in this general direction that we've been talking about. My hope is that, obviously, the faction in both parties that is thinking this way grows, but then it also develops a little bit more of a concrete understanding of the future that we're trying to build, because I think without that more-concrete vision, you're not actually necessarily tackling the right obstacles, and you need to know where you're trying to go for you to be able to figure out what the obstacles are and what the problems you need to address are.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

The latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy examines a groundbreaking legal case that has set a new precedent for how immigration policies intersect with environmental law. Julie Axelrod, Director of Litigation at the Center for Immigration Studies, joins the conversation to discuss the federal court's landmark decision that holds the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accountable for violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).The Center bought a case against DHS on behalf of a rancher in the first case to successfully apply NEPA — often regarded as the "Magna Carta" of environmental laws — to immigration actions. NEPA, enacted in 1970, mandates that federal agencies evaluate the environmental effects of significant actions, including their impact on human environments. Yet, immigration policies have never undergone such analysis, despite their direct influence on population growth and environmental conditions.Key HighlightsWhat is NEPA? Axelrod explains the origins of NEPA and its importance in shaping government decision-making. She emphasizes that NEPA requires agencies to "look before they leap" by conducting thorough environmental reviews before implementing actions that could affect the environment. While NEPA has long applied to policies regarding energy, agriculture, etc., immigration authorities have never been held to the same standard — until now.Why It Matters: The ruling underscores the environmental impacts of mass immigration, which contribute to population growth, urban development, and strain on natural resources. Axelrod points out that, paradoxically, environmental groups — which typically champion NEPA — have not pursued this angle, leaving the Center to lead the charge.Future Implications: The court's decision paves the way for future lawsuits that could hold the government accountable for immigration policies' environmental consequences.Remedies: The case will now move forward to determine appropriate remedies, with briefings scheduled for later this year. Axelrod highlights the need for future public engagement and hearings to assess how immigration impacts local communities and ecosystems.In his closing remarks, Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and host of the podcast, addresses the recent announcement that the U.S. government will not be renewing the parole of Haitians and Venezuelans who were let in unlawfully by the hundreds of thousands by the Biden-Harris administration. While this may seem like a tough stance, Krikorian explains that the decision is largely symbolic with no real impact and purely designed to influence the election.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJulie Axelrod is the Director of Litigation at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedCIS Prevails in Challenge to Biden-Harris Immigration Actions50th Anniversary of NEPA: Five Decades of Ignoring Environmental Impacts of ImmigrationIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

On Monday, September 30th, United States District Court Judge Mary Geiger Lewis ruled that the Department of Energy (DOE) and its National Nuclear Secrurity Administration (NNSA) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the federal agencies failed to take a “hard look” at the alternatives to fabricate plutonium pits, or the triggers, for nuclear weapons at two of its sites. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) was created to design and fabricate the atomic bombs used during World War II. The Savannah River Site in South Carolina has never fabricated pits for nuclear weapons --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ccnsupdate/support

As we've talked about on previous editions of the pod, advocacy includes a wide array of different options to help change things for the better in our communities. One of the more important, but less discussed methods, is litigation. On this episode, we dive into the role litigation plays in nonprofit advocacy, its treatment under the law, and things to think about if your nonprofit is looking to use this tool for good.   Lawyers for this episode Natalie Ossenfort Tim Mooney Quyen Tu   Litigation as an advocacy tool (citizen suits, appeals, amicus briefs etc.) Treatment under tax law Relation to charitable purpose Not lobbying under 501(h) or insubstantial part definitions Not limited by IRS / Tax Code Spectrum of engagement Example: Letter of Support signed by over 225 organizations in support of the Fearless Foundation (currently under legal attack for a program that supports the funding of black female entrepreneurs) Example: In 2018, Alliance for Justice and Council on Foundations filed a joint amicus brief in the case of Parks Foundation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue arguing for a narrow interpretation of what it means to “express a view on specific legislation” when determining whether a nonprofit's activities constitute lobbying. Example: Lambda Legal focuses on litigation in support of LGBTQ+ rights and individuals living with HIV/AIDS. They represent clients in cases involving discrimination, marriage equality, and transgender rights, participating in all stages of litigation. Currently representing AFJ member PFLAG in a Texas case. Example: Clean Water Act citizen suits suing polluters for discharges without a permit – we'll talk more about this specifically later Standing: must show harm to the organization or members of the organization Publicly supporting (or opposing) another organization's litigation Amicus briefs Representing clients Litigating as a plaintiff (citizen suits, standing) Things to think about The law (who are the experts in relevant area of law?) The courts (judges matter!) - For more check out AFJ's federal and state court resources on our website. Capacity (internal or external) Staff and resources (funding and time) Reputation with funders, members, public In-house or outside counsel Media impact and PR Insurance (not sure if this is too deep in the weeds?) Examples Lawsuits typically target government agencies, industrial polluters, and corporations to enforce existing environmental laws Clean Water, Clean Air Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Safe Drinking Water Act Litigates claims of actual innocence made by individuals convicted of serious crimes in Texas. Example: Former client, Johnny Pinchback, wrongfully convicted of sexual assault of two teenage girls in Dallas (proven innocent via DIA testing) and formally exonerated via post-conviction habeas corpus litigation Stories of clients like Johnny led to increased public awareness of wrongful convictions and even legislative reforms Earthjustice (AFJ member) + Waterkeeper Alliance Legal Services Corporation & regional public interest law; Legal Aid at Work, Legal Aid Association of CA, CA Women's Law Center, Tzedek Innocence Project of Texas (member of Innocence Network, which is also home to AFJ Member, Innocence Project) Resources Issue Advocacy: Why Courts Matter State Courts Hub AFJ Database of reports on federal judges and judicial nominees

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates federal agencies evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions, crucially influencing transportation projects like road construction and bridge expansions. Our guest on The Stream by AASHTO is Ted Boling, a partner at Perkins Coie with over 30 years of public service. He discusses NEPA's role in promoting sustainable development within the transportation sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions, crucially influencing transportation projects like road construction and bridge expansions. Our special guest, Ted Boling, a Partner at Perkins Coie with over 30 years of public service, will discuss NEPA's role in promoting sustainable development within the transportation sector.

This Day in Legal History: Organization of American States EstablishedOn this day, April 30, in 1948, a significant event in the realm of international law and diplomacy occurred with the establishment of the Organization of American States (OAS). This was formalized through the signing of the Charter of the Organization of American States during the Ninth International Conference of American States held in Bogotá, Colombia. The creation of the OAS marked a pivotal moment in regional cooperation, emphasizing the importance of legal and political solidarity among its member states.The Charter, serving as the foundational legal document of the OAS, laid down the principles of peace and justice, promoting the solidarity and collaboration among the member countries. The OAS was established primarily to foster mutual assistance and defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of the states within the Americas.The organization's core objectives included strengthening peace and security, promoting the effective exercise of representative democracy, ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes among members, and facilitating economic, social, and cultural development. Over the years, the OAS has played a crucial role in various diplomatic and political crises in the Western Hemisphere, acting as a forum for multilateral negotiations and conflict resolution.The establishment of the OAS also symbolized a collective effort to prevent foreign interference in the Americas, which was a growing concern during the post-World War II era, particularly with the onset of the Cold War. The OAS's commitment to democracy and human rights has been tested through various crises, but it continues to serve as a prominent regional entity in promoting democratic values and facilitating cooperation among its member states.Today, the OAS includes all 35 independent states of the Americas and continues to influence the legal and political landscape of the region. Its ongoing initiatives and missions focus on critical areas such as the promotion of human rights, fostering educational and cultural exchange, and addressing contemporary challenges like drug trafficking, political instability, and the protection of the environment. The establishment of the OAS remains a landmark in the history of international relations in the Western Hemisphere, reflecting a lasting commitment to regional solidarity and cooperative governance.Jeffrey Clark, a former Trump administration official and US assistant attorney general, is facing the possibility of disbarment as the only sanction deemed appropriate by DC Bar officials. In late 2020, Clark attempted to influence Justice Department superiors to send a letter to Georgia officials, improperly questioning the election results. This act was characterized by DC Bar lawyers as a dishonest attempt to create national chaos just before January 6. The situation escalated after a three-person panel preliminarily found that Clark violated at least one ethics rule, which could potentially affect his future career prospects, particularly in a potential second Trump administration.Clark's legal representatives, Harry MacDougald and Charles Burnham, have not yet responded to requests for comments on the matter. Meanwhile, Clark has claimed in court filings that the disciplinary proceedings are being used politically against Trump's allies, arguing through his lawyer that the case is politically charged.The three-person panel involved in the case sought advice from DC Disciplinary Counsel Phil Fox on possible lesser sanctions if disbarment were not pursued. However, Fox, alongside two other attorneys, argued that suggesting a sanction other than disbarment would be inconsistent with their professional duty. They emphasized that lawyers who betray their country by violating professional conduct rules should face disbarment. The final stages of the disciplinary process will involve a recommendation by the panel, followed by reviews by the Board on Professional Responsibility and the DC Court of Appeals.The ethical violation considered here is Clark's attempt to misuse his position to influence electoral outcomes, a severe breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which mandates adherence to lawful and ethical standards by practicing lawyers. This emphasizes the critical nature of legal integrity and the repercussions of its breach.Jeffrey Clark Disbarment Is Only Possible Sanction, DC Bar SaysA new study by global consulting firm Workiva reveals that a significant majority of companies, nearly 90%, plan to voluntarily disclose extensive data on their carbon footprint, surpassing the mandated requirements. In the U.S., 86% of surveyed companies expressed intentions to adhere, wholly or partially, to Europe's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, despite not being obligated to do so. This directive requires companies with subsidiaries in the EU to report on their impact on local communities and fair labor practices, with enforcement potentially starting by 2026.Meanwhile, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's efforts to mandate climate impact disclosures have been delayed due to ongoing litigation, even as their proposed rules on greenhouse gas emissions reporting are perceived as less stringent.The motivation for these voluntary disclosures, as explained by Andie Wood, vice president for regulatory strategy at Workiva, stems from substantial investor demand and competitive pressures. Companies are committed to providing robust and comparable data, recognizing the strategic value in transparency.The survey involved environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practitioners from 2,204 companies globally, including 660 U.S.-based firms, all having at least 250 employees and a minimum of $250 million in annual revenue. Although these companies are confident in the accuracy of the data they volunteer, they anticipate challenges in meeting the more stringent EU reporting requirements. About 83% of respondents see accurately collecting data to comply with EU standards as a challenge, highlighting the complexity involved in fulfilling these regulatory expectations. This reflects a broader understanding among businesses that while they are confident in their current disclosures, there is room for improvement in efficiency and compliance with international standards.Most Companies Plan to Voluntarily Disclose Climate Rules DataOn Tuesday, the Biden administration announced the implementation of its second set of changes to the U.S. environmental permitting rules, aiming to accelerate the development of renewable energy infrastructure and other projects. These modifications are designed to balance the rapid construction of clean energy projects with the preservation of established environmental safeguards.The new rule introduces the concept of "categorical exclusions," which allows federal agencies to use previous decisions by other agencies for projects that are not expected to significantly impact the environment, thus bypassing more exhaustive reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It also promotes programmatic environmental reviews for broad actions, aiming to reduce the level of scrutiny for projects that either mitigate their environmental impact or provide clear environmental benefits.Additionally, the rule mandates that agencies must consider climate change impacts during environmental reviews and explore reasonable alternatives to minimize these effects. It also states that projects with long-term positive environmental outcomes may not require environmental impact statements (EIS).This rule covers a broad spectrum of construction activities, including renewable energy projects and infrastructure like roads and bridges, which are supported by recent infrastructure and climate legislation. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has worked to expedite the permitting process, with the White House reporting a 14% increase in the federal permitting workforce and faster completion of EIS processes under this administration.The rule is expected to attract more private investment in sectors such as advanced manufacturing and clean energy. Natalie Quillian, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and Lael Brainard, the national economic adviser, highlighted the importance of providing businesses with the certainty needed to invest confidently and navigate the federal permitting process efficiently.However, the rule has faced criticism from business groups who argue that it could favor certain projects, complicate agency analyses, increase litigation risks, and expand the scope of projects requiring NEPA review, potentially conflicting with the debt ceiling law. Despite these concerns, CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory expressed confidence in the new system's durability and effectiveness.Biden Issues Permitting Changes to Speed Clean Energy Build OutDonald Trump's criminal trial in New York, concerning charges of falsifying business records, is set to continue with testimony from a banker knowledgeable about the accounts involved in the alleged hush money scheme. This scheme was purportedly designed to influence the 2016 election by concealing a sex scandal. The trial, which marks the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president, began on April 22. Trump, who is also the Republican candidate in the 2024 presidential election, faces accusations related to a $130,000 payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, to prevent her from discussing a claimed sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied the encounter and pleaded not guilty.The trial has heard from various figures, including former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, who testified about using his publication to suppress negative stories about Trump during the 2016 campaign. Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who also claims to have been paid for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump, are expected to testify.Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, is set to testify that he arranged and disguised the payments to Daniels and McDougal under Trump's direction, claims that Trump has denied. This case is one of several legal battles Trump is facing, with others concerning his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and his handling of classified documents. Trump has labeled all these cases as politically motivated witch hunts.Trump NYC hush money trial to resume with banker's testimony | ReutersChangpeng Zhao, the former CEO of Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, pleaded guilty to violating U.S. money laundering laws and is awaiting sentencing. The U.S. prosecutors have recommended a sentence that is twice the 18-month maximum suggested by federal guidelines, emphasizing the need for a stern penalty to serve as a deterrent in the cryptocurrency industry. Zhao has accepted responsibility and paid a $50 million criminal fine. His defense argues for probation, noting his cooperation and lack of prior criminal history.Zhao's sentencing is part of broader legal actions against cryptocurrency executives following the industry's downturn in 2022, which revealed widespread fraud and misconduct. Binance, under Zhao's leadership, admitted to evading anti-money laundering measures and agreed to a substantial $4.32 billion criminal penalty. The exchange has been criticized for a lax approach that allegedly facilitated transactions involving criminal and terrorist groups, as well as other illegal activities. Zhao, who has stepped down from his role and is on a $175 million bond, has agreed not to appeal any sentence within the recommended guidelines.Binance's CEO Zhao faces sentencing over money laundering violations | ReutersIn my column today, I discuss the increasing reliance of states on vice industries—like marijuana and online sports betting—for tax revenue. This approach seems attractive, especially as it promises substantial inflows that help offset persistent revenue shortfalls, a situation exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. For instance, California alone generated over $160 million from cannabis taxes in just one quarter of 2023.However, it's crucial to understand that these funds aren't "free money." They come with societal debts due to the decades of criminalization of these now-legal activities. Moreover, they bring potential future costs, such as increased health-related expenditures from addiction and mental health issues stemming from these industries.While the immediate fiscal benefits are undeniable, allowing states to bolster their budgets without divisive tax hikes, the long-term sustainability and ethical implications need careful consideration. Market saturation and the ineffectiveness of regional exclusivity are real risks as more states legalize these activities. It's no longer necessary to cross state lines for gambling, reducing the unique economic benefits previously offered by state-specific legalization.The revenue generated should not merely fill gaps caused by other tax policy failures but should specifically address the harms inflicted by these industries. Funds should be allocated to education, job training, and community development in areas most affected by past criminalization. Additionally, a portion should be earmarked for public health initiatives focusing on addiction treatment and mental health services.It is imperative that the utilization of vice tax revenues is approached not just as an economic opportunity but as a means to rectify historical injustices and promote social equity. This requires a strategic shift in policy, prioritizing long-term social benefits over short-term fiscal gains. Effective redistribution of these funds is essential to ensure that the communities historically disadvantaged by these policies see real improvements.Vice Taxation Isn't ‘Free Money' and Should Focus on Public Good Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

When airports, buildings, highways, dams, power plants, and other federal activities are proposed, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements are invoked. Passed by Congress in 1969 and signed into law on January 1, 1970, NEPA fundamentally altered how lawmakers and regulators approach human impacts on the natural world. Despite significant success in involving the public in decision-making, NEPA regulations have been criticized for delaying projects and raising costs. In this episode, ELI Senior Attorney Amy Reed breaks down how NEPA works and explains proposed regulation changes.  Relevant Resources: Vibrant Environment, Proposed NEPA Rule Goes All-In on Environmental JusticeELR, Amending the NEPA Regulations  ★ Support this podcast ★

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Fred Wagner, partner with Venable, LLP about NEPA, the Future of the Supreme Court, and the Cherry Blossom Festival.   Read his full bio below.Help us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-formShowtimes: 1:54  Nic & Laura talk about burnout9:48  Interview starts10:09  Cherry Blossom Festival21:35  NEPA34:11  Future of the Supreme CourtPlease be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Fred Wagner at linkedin.com/in/fred-wagner-59043019Guest Bio:Fred Wagner focuses his practice on environmental and natural resources issues associated with major infrastructure, mining and energy project development. Fred helps clients manage and then defend in court environmental reviews performed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or equivalent state statutes. He works with public agencies and private developers to secure permits and approvals from federal and state regulators under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Fred is familiar with the full range of issues surrounding USDOT surface transportation programs, including grant management, procurement, suspension and debarment, and safety regulations. During his career, Fred has handled a wide variety of environmental litigation in federal trial and appellate courts across the country, from citizen suits, to government enforcement actions, to Administration Procedure Act (APA) challenges.Fred was appointed Chief Counsel of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during the Obama administration. He managed all legal matters involving the $40 billion Federal-Aid Highway program, including environmental and natural resources issues for highway and multimodal transportation projects. Among other high-profile projects, he oversaw the agency's defense of the following:  New York's Tappan Zee Bridge, San Francisco's Presidio Parkway, Chicago's Elgin-O'Hare Expressway, Kentucky and Indiana's Ohio River Bridges, North Carolina's Bonner Bridge, Alabama's Birmingham Northern Beltline, Wisconsin's Zoo Interchange, and Washington's State Road 520 Bridge. He represented the FHWA on government-wide Transportation Rapid Response Team, a multi-agency task force focused on improving project delivery and environmental review reforms.Fred began his career as a trial attorney in the Environment Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He also served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Misdemeanor Trial Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. Prior to joining Venable, he spent more than 20 years in private practice at a national law firm focusing on environmental and natural resources issues.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: Never Ending Soul Groove by Mattijs MullerSupport the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.

In episode 129, Coffey talks with Corinne Spencer about the latest changes in California employment law.They discuss California's Fair Chance Act regulations; who qualifies as an employer or employee under the FCA; the criminal history inquiry rules under the FCA; what employers are allowed to consider regarding criminal records; the challenge with individualized assessments; steps employers in California must take before utilizing an applicant's criminal history; the importance of documentation; and how the FCA might apply to an out-of-state employer hiring talent from California.Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—premium background checks with fast and friendly service. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com. This episode is pre-approved for .5 hour HR (California) recertification credit for HRCI-certified professionals and .5 professional development credit for SHRM-certified professionals. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com. About our Guest:Corinne Spencer is a partner and the Chair of the firm's Labor and Employment Practice Group. Corinne also spearheads the firm's Environmental Law practice, including, but not limited to, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) matters. Prior to returning to Pearlman Brown & Wax, Corinne was counsel with Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard, & Smith, a national, full-service law firm listed among the AmLaw 100.Corinne is dedicated to representing and counseling clients in employment-related matters, including litigation, risk assessment, policy preparation, personnel decisions, and training. She represents employers in State and Federal Courts and appears before all state and federal employment-related agencies, including the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), Employment Development Department (EDD), and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).Corinne's practice encompasses single-party discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination cases, most often arising out of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), wage-and-hour class actions, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Representative Actions. She has defended numerous clients across all industries including food service, healthcare, sporting goods, and entertainment. In addition to conducting independent investigations of workplace misconduct, Corinne has extensive experience drafting law and motion, responding to discovery, taking, and defending depositions, and arguing substantive and dispositive motions. She also zealously advocates for employers and management in mediations, arbitrations, trial, and appellate courts.Most recently, Corinne successfully appealed to a trial court's decision to deny a motion to compel arbitration. After Corinne argued the case before the California Court of Appeal, the decision issued in favor of her client, the employer, reversing the trial court's decision with instructions the matter should be ordered to arbitration.Corinne Spencer can be reached at:https://www.pbw-law.com/professionals/partners/corinne-spencerhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/corinne-spencer-744a3825https://www.linkedin.com/company/pearlman-brown-wax-llp https://www.facebook.com/pearlmanbrownandwax About Mike Coffey:Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, human resources professional, licensed private investigator, and HR consultant.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations firm helping risk-averse companies make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Today, Imperative serves hundreds of businesses across the US and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence and has twice been named HR Professional of the Year. Additionally, Imperative has been named the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike is a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Entrepreneurs' Organization and volunteers with the SHRM Texas State Council.Mike maintains his certification as a Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute. He is also a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP).Mike lives in Fort Worth with his very patient wife. He practices yoga and maintains a keto diet, about both of which he will gladly tell you way more than you want to know.Learning Objectives:1. Understand when the California Fair Chance Act applies to employers in—and possibly outside—of California. 2. Implement processes to ensure that criminal history information is collected and evaluated in accordance with California's Fair Chance Act.3. Ensure compliance with California's Fair Chance Act when criminal history information may adversely impact an applicant.

In episode 123, Coffey talks with Corinne Spencer about the latest changes in California employment law.They discuss the complexities of California law in contrast to the rest of the country; California's upcoming protections for off-work cannabis use and their impact on drug-free workplaces; California's modified but ongoing COVID prevention regulations; the increase in wage and hour litigation; and the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) which allows private plaintiffs to prosecute alleged violations of California labor law.Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—premium background checks with fast and friendly service. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com. If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for half a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com. About our Guest:Corinne Spencer is a partner and the Chair of the firm's Labor and Employment Practice Group. Corinne also spearheads the firm's Environmental Law practice, including, but not limited to, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) matters. Prior to returning to Pearlman Brown & Wax, Corinne was counsel with Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard, & Smith, a national, full-service law firm listed among the AmLaw 100.Corinne is dedicated to representing and counseling clients in employment-related matters, including litigation, risk assessment, policy preparation, personnel decisions, and training. She represents employers in State and Federal Courts and appears before all state and federal employment-related agencies, including the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), Employment Development Department (EDD), and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).Corinne's practice encompasses single-party discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination cases, most often arising out of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), wage-and-hour class actions, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Representative Actions. She has defended numerous clients across all industries including food service, healthcare, sporting goods, and entertainment. In addition to conducting independent investigations of workplace misconduct, Corinne has extensive experience drafting law and motion, responding to discovery, taking, and defending depositions, and arguing substantive and dispositive motions. She also zealously advocates for employers and management in mediations, arbitrations, trial, and appellate courts.Most recently, Corinne successfully appealed to a trial court's decision to deny a motion to compel arbitration. After Corinne argued the case before the California Court of Appeal, the decision issued in favor of her client, the employer, reversing the trial court's decision with instructions the matter should be ordered to arbitration.Corinne Spencer can be reached at:https://www.pbw-law.com/professionals/partners/corinne-spencerhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/corinne-spencer-744a3825https://www.linkedin.com/company/pearlman-brown-wax-llp https://www.facebook.com/pearlmanbrownandwax About Mike Coffey:Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, human resources professional, licensed private investigator, and HR consultant.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations firm helping risk-averse companies make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Today, Imperative serves hundreds of businesses across the US and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence and has twice been named HR Professional of the Year. Additionally, Imperative has been named the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike is a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Entrepreneurs' Organization and volunteers with the SHRM Texas State Council.Mike maintains his certification as a Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute. He is also a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP).Mike lives in Fort Worth with his very patient wife. He practices yoga and maintains a keto diet, about both of which he will gladly tell you way more than you want to know.Learning Objectives:1. Explore the implications for California employers regarding off-work cannabis use protections.2. Understand the ongoing COVID-related regulations affecting workplaces in California.3. Gain insights into wage and hour litigation trends and considerations for California workplaces, including PAGA and evolving COVID regulations.

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Thomas Abdallah, Assistant Vice President and Chief Environmental Engineer for the MTA's Construction and Development (MTA C&D) agency about All Things Mass Transit, Pandemic Lessons, and Career Advice & Experiences.   Read his full bio below.Help us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form Showtimes: 4:39  Nic & Laura discuss useless knowledge of planes9:39   Interview with Thomas Abdallah starts9:51  All things mass transit25:55  Pandemic lessons39:12  Career advice & experiencesPlease be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Thomas Abdallah at https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-abdallah-p-e-leed-ap-77b59718/Guest Bio:Thomas Abdallah, P.E. LEED AP, ENV SP is the Vice President and Chief Environmental Engineer for the MTA's Construction and Development (MTA C&D) agency. Thomas holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Rutgers University. He is responsible to provide expert environmental engineering services for all MTA capital projects, and ensures that all design and construction projects meet environmental requirements including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the NY State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). He is also a fierce champion of environmental sustainability issues and is responsible for MTA C&D's certified ISO 14001 Environmental Management System (EMS).Thomas is also an Adjunct Professor in Columbia University's Sustainability Management (SUMA) graduate program in the School of Professional Studies, and the Transportation curriculum lead at the Charles B. Rangel Infrastructure Workforce Initiative at the City College of New York CUNY. He is the proud author of the book(s) Sustainable Mass Transit: Challenges and Opportunities in Urban Public Transportation (1st Edition 2017 & 2nd Edition 2023 Elsevier) and has appeared in an episode of History Channel's Modern Marvels – Moving America.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: Never Ending Soul Groove by Mattijs MullerSupport the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.

What's Next for US Energy Policy?As part of Climate Week in New York, The Energy Gang recorded a special edition in partnership with New York University: an expert panel discussing the future direction of US climate policy and its implications for the energy transition.Amy Myers Jaffe, a regular contributor to The Energy Gang and director of the Energy, Climate, Justice, and Sustainability Lab at NYU, hosted the event, leading a conversation about the key steps that governments, regulators and companies need to take to pave the way to a low-carbon future.Joining her for the discussion were Ana Unruh Cohen, the senior Director for NEPA Clean Energy and Infrastructure at the White House Council on Environmental Quality; Elizabeth Gore, the senior vice president of political affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund; and Rob Gramlich, founder and president of Grid Strategies, LLC.The vital need to strengthen the US power grid was one of the key topics. As Rob Gramlich explains, it is about more than just funding: regulation and policy support are critical, too. The new rule on transmission planning and cost allocation proposed by FERC – the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – is seen as an essential component of an energy policy suited for the new would of low-carbon power supply.The need for efficient and transparent permitting of new infrastructure projects was also highlighted in the discussion. Building a low-carbon energy system requires massive investment in infrastructure such as power lines and wind farms. The harder it is to get those projects built, the slower the transition to low-carbon energy will be. The panel discuss some of the key issues involved in securing approvals for projects, including the Permitting Action Plan of 2021, the updates to regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and infrastructure buildouts' community benefits.Towards the end of the discussion, the panel shifts its focus towards hydrogen. Is it truly the next frontier for climate solutions, or is it a mere distraction? The US already produces about 10 million metric tons of hydrogen annually, with high carbon emissions, for industrial use. But there is mixed opinion about the potential for much more extensive use of low-carbon hydrogen as a way to cut emissions in sectors where it is not currently used, such as steel-making and power generation. As research and development continues, hydrogen looks set to remain a contentious topic in climate and energy debates in the future.Follow the conversation on X – we're @theenergygang. And subscribe to the show so you don't miss an episode.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to this week's episode of Environmentally Speaking! In today's episode, Marisa and Clarice dive into the topic of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the recent reforms that have taken place. They discuss the intention behind these reforms, the changes that have been made to streamline the NEPA process, and the potential implications of these modifications. Join Marisa and Clarice as they unravel the complexities of NEPA and shed light on the impact of these reforms on environmental regulations.

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Fred Wagner, partner with Venable, LLP about Phase II NEPA Regulations, the Future of WotUS, and Upcoming Supreme Court Case.   Read his full bio below.Special thanks to our sponsor for this episode VENABLE, LLP!   Check them out at https://www.venable.com/Venable is one of the nation's leading law firms. Venable's management reflects a commitment to Diversity and Inclusion through a broad category of hiring, training and educational activities. The Firm's Environmental Practice Group works with clients across the country on major infrastructure development, including NEPA compliance and resource agency permitting. Venable encourages volunteer activities in professional environmental associations, as reflected by Fred Wagner's membership on the NAEP Board of Directors.Please be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Fred Wagner at linkedin.com/in/fred-wagner-59043019Guest Bio:Fred Wagner focuses his practice on environmental and natural resources issues associated with major infrastructure, mining and energy project development. Fred helps clients manage and then defend in court environmental reviews performed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or equivalent state statutes. He works with public agencies and private developers to secure permits and approvals from federal and state regulators under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Fred is familiar with the full range of issues surrounding USDOT surface transportation programs, including grant management, procurement, suspension and debarment, and safety regulations. During his career, Fred has handled a wide variety of environmental litigation in federal trial and appellate courts across the country, from citizen suits, to government enforcement actions, to Administration Procedure Act (APA) challenges.Fred was appointed Chief Counsel of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during the Obama administration. He managed all legal matters involving the $40 billion Federal-Aid Highway program, including environmental and natural resources issues for highway and multimodal transportation projects. Among other high-profile projects, he oversaw the agency's defense of the following:  New York's Tappan Zee Bridge, San Francisco's Presidio Parkway, Chicago's Elgin-O'Hare Expressway, Kentucky and Indiana's Ohio River Bridges, North Carolina's Bonner Bridge, Alabama's Birmingham Northern Beltline, Wisconsin's Zoo Interchange, and Washington's State Road 520 Bridge. He represented the FHWA on government-wide Transportation Rapid Response Team, a multi-agency task force focused on improving project delivery and environmental review reforms.Fred began his career as a trial attorney in the Environment Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He also served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Misdemeanor Trial Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. Prior to joining Venable, he spent more than 20 years in private practice aSupport the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.

President Biden had to cut a deal with the Republicans to get the debt limit extension passed and avoid an economic catastrophe. But in doing so, he had to water down his climate change initiative…and that's causing a lot of concern among environmentalists. We're going to talk about that today with someone who's in the trenches.Maya K. van Rossum is the Delaware Riverkeeper and leader for the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network works throughout the four states of the Delaware River watershed (NY, NJ, PA & DE) and at the national level using advocacy, science and litigation.During van Rossum's 30 years leadin the Network, she and her organization were the lead plaintiffs in a successful case that had the PA Supreme Court breathe legal life into PA's long ignored environmental rights amendment.Now, van Rossum is advancing The Green Amendment movement, seeking to inspire and secure constitutional protection for environmental rights across the nation. On the podcast, she cautions that the budget deal Biden cut with Congressional Republicans will weaken current federal environmental initiatives and jeopardize other critical environmental laws, like the Clean Water Act.van Rossum is author of a book titled “The Green Amendment, The People's Fight For a Clean, Safe & Healthy Environment”.Meanwhile, she's just returned from Montana for a groundbreaking climate trial in which the young plaintiffs argued that Montana officials and agencies must be held accountable for exacerbating the climate crisis and thereby violating their constitutional rights. It marked the first constitutional climate trial in U.S. history.Here are some questions we discussed with Maya:Q. First off, let's talk about that trial in Montana. What's happening and what are the implications?Q. Why were you there?Q. What is a Green Amendment and how does it bring transformational change to environmental protection?Q. Let's talk about the debt ceiling deal and the fallout from that. You've said that it will undermine environmental protection and people's safety. How is that?Q. The deal overhauls the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), rewriting this iconic environmental protection law. What's the problem with that?Q.The debt deal mandates approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline. How is that a problem?Q. Tell us about your work with the Riverkeepers and what you do?Q. Let's talk about your book, The Green Amendment: The People's Fight to Secure a Clean, Safe & Healthy Environment, now in it's 2nd edition.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-lean-to-the-left-podcast--4719048/support.

Talk all you want about the delays caused by repairs/mods to the launch pad and re-certifying the Autonomous Flight Termination System, the real issue that is grounding Starship at Boca Chica is this one thing: The Lawsuit. You know … the one filed by a consortium of environmental groups and Indigenous tribes against the FAA alleging (based on the observable environmental damage wrought by the April test launch) FAA's inadequate oversight and review of SpaceX's plans and operations at Boca Chica. This time around, Larry Herrin and Gene Mikulka are joined by the guy who accurately predicted that the Starship test launch last April 20th would cause more damage than SpaceX or the FAA's own calculations predicted in its worst-case scenario. His name is Eric Roesch, and he goes by the Twitter handle @ESGHound. Turns out, Eric has experience working both the consulting and regulatory sides of the fence in shepherding Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents through the process; knows quite a bit about the related issues; and has some well-reasoned answers to questions like: Eric, how do you know so much about this stuff? Why did SpaceX want to join the FAA as a co-defendant in the lawsuit? What are some of the strategies the Plaintiffs may use to try to win it all (or at least wrangle some additional mitigations that SpaceX will have to implement)? How much longer will we have to wait for a decision? What is the most likely outcome? Will it be: The Plaintiffs win it all, and SpaceX must go back to the drawing board for years while a new Environmental Impact Statement is prepared, reviewed, and revised again and again? The Plaintiffs manage to wrangle some concessions, and FAA adds some additional mitigations to the existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document with which SpaceX must comply? Defendants prevail and it's business as usual under the existing launch license? The answers may surprise you! All will be revealed in this episode of Talking Space. Please be sure to let us know your thoughts on the topics we discuss. You can always reach us at mailbag@TalkingSpaceOnline.com .   How to contact Eric and read his writings: website: blog.esghound.com Substack: esghound.substack.com Twitter: @ESGHound   Show recorded 06-21-2023.   Host: Larry Herrin Panelist(s): Gene Mikulka (Mark Ratterman, Sawyer Rosenstein and Dr. Kat Robison will return) Podcast Editor: Larry Herrin

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Ted Boling, Partner at Perkins Coie LLP about NEPA updates, Teaching and CEQ.   Read his full bio below.Thank you to this episode's sponsor Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie is a leading international law firm that is known for providing high-value, strategic solutions and extraordinary client service on matters vital to our clients' success. With more than 1,200 lawyers in offices across the United States and Asia, Perkins Coie provides a full array of legal advice including on environment, energy, and natural resources issues. This year, Chambers USA named Perkins Coie the Environment Law Firm of the Year, as well as ranking the practice Band 1, the highest possible ranking.  Check them out at www.perkinscoie.comHelp us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form Please be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Ted Boling at https://www.linkedin.com/in/ted-boling-66326811/Guest Bio:Edward (Ted) Boling served as the country's top National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) attorney as an associate director at the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Executive Office of the President. Ted served at CEQ, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in Democratic and Republican administrations. His experience includes deep involvement in federal infrastructure permitting issues and the first comprehensive revision of CEQ's NEPA regulations in 40 years.Drawing on over 30 years of high-level public service, Ted currently advises leaders on transportation and energy development projects, agencies that must hire outside counsel, and the environmental professionals that support them on the development of renewable energy, resource development, transportation, and infrastructure. Ted's extensive government experience at CEQ included the development of the National Ocean Policy, CEQ's climate change guidance, and the regulatory response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. He drafted NEPA guidance on mitigation and monitoring, cumulative impacts analysis, and the development categorical exclusions from detailed NEPA documentation. Ted advised the White House on the establishment of numerous national monuments and also assisted in briefing three U.S. Supreme Court cases.At DOI, Ted handled matters involving energy development on the outer continental shelf, including offshore wind power development, and the fast track for solar and wind energy projects on public lands. He has provided legal and policy advice on environmental issues concerning the Federal Columbia River Power System and the California Central Valley Project.  At DOJ, early in his career, Ted litigated significant cases involving NEPA, endangered species, marine mammals, wetland protections, and management of public lands. Support the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.

In the inaugural episode of our Energy Podcast, join former US Senator Byron Dorgan, former US Congressman Phil English, and Amy Antoniolli as they discuss the intricacies of energy permitting reform, it's critical role in the US's clean energy transition goals, and the challenges arising under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Key issues include: • infrastructure development • bipartisan reform efforts in Congress • litigation reform • energy security transmission projects

On June 3, President Biden signed into law H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-5). The Act made significant changes to federal permitting for major infrastructure projects, including the first significant amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in its history. In this webinar, experts aim to shed light on the implications of these changes for our nation's environmental policy framework.Our distinguished panelists will provide expert analysis and engage in a robust discussion on major issues raised by the new changes and their implications for permitting and NEPA review of major infrastructure projects.Discussion will focus on changes to NEPA and related permitting for major infrastructure projects, including:Empowering lead agencies"Reasonably foreseeable" limitation on environmental impacts that must be studiedGuidance on alternatives that must be consideredStatement of purpose and needTime limits and page limits for EISs and EAsProject proponent can prepare their own EISsNew definition of "major federal action"Mining, offshore leases, and other Department of Interior issuesJoin us for this engaging webinar to gain a comprehensive understanding of the significant changes to NEPA resulting from the debt ceiling compromise.Featuring: Emily Domenech, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the SpeakerThomas Connally, Counsel, House Natural Resources CommitteeJason Hill, Counsel, Hunton Andrews KurthModerator: Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Why is the government getting in the way of green energy initiatives? Join hosts Kelli Pierce and Shoshana Weissmann as they navigate some of the red tape that is slowing down clean energy projects. R Street's Josiah Neeley speaks with host Kelli Pierce about the crucial role of our nation's power grid in our pursuit of green energy goals. He talks about how wind and solar have become the cheaper options, why utilities are monopolies, the challenges this creates for our clean energy future, and finally why there aren't more clean energy projects connected to the grid. Next up, R Street's Philip Rossetti shares his thoughts on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and how it can delay clean energy projects by years-even decades. He also talks about the hard choices we have to make as we pursue a greener future.  (0:00:00) - Bureaucracy or BS (0:05:42) - Power Grid and Clean Energy Goals with Josiah Neeley (0:20:22) - NEPA's Impact on Clean Energy with Phil Rossetti

History of Republican EnvironmentalismThe history of Republican environmentalism spans decades. On January 1, 1970, just a few months before the very first Earth Day, President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law. NEPA created a program to review and require government agencies to take into consideration the environmental impacts and consequences of their actions or projects. After the first Earth Day celebration on April 22, 1970, President Nixon signed into law a slew of new environmental programs and agencies, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Endangered Species Act. President Ford continued this trend by championing the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, designating national parks like Isle Royal, and coordinating with several other countries to protect and expand the Endangered Species Act. All of these environmental policies and actions were passed under Republican administrations. There are many examples of Republican environmentalism throughout America's history, from the initial establishment of national parks under President Theodore Roosevelt to passing amendments to the Clean Air Act under President George H.W. Bush. It is important to recognize this history in order to find common ground across partisan lines when moving to pass climate legislation. This is why many young conservative climate activists believe in a path towards bipartisan climate action.  The American Conservation CoalitionThe American Conservation Coalition (ACC) works to mobilize young people around climate solutions in ways that align with conservative values ––  market-based mechanisms and a limited-government approach –– without attributing partisan labels to their work. The ACC's current climate solution goals include energy innovation, 21st century infrastructure, nature based climate solutions, and a global approach to fighting climate change. In addition to a broad set of goals for a bipartisan approach to climate solutions, the ACC encourages young people to get involved in their local communities to enact climate solutions and lessen climate denial. For example, in the Midwest, the human-wildlife conflict and agriculture are likely more relevant than rising sea levels and wildfires, so ACC advocates for a local focus on those issues rather than the broader spectrum of climate issues that may not have the same local immediacy. ACC and others also promote  bipartisan climate action through events held at college campuses, talking to conservative members of state and local governments, and urgently making clear that climate change must be on the political agenda. Climate change does not discriminate based on political ideologies, and action will benefit from participation  by everyone, from all walks of life and political backgrounds, coming together to find innovative, sustainable and equitable climate solutions. Further reading:American Conservation CoalitionBipartisan Path to Address Climate ChangeYoung Republican Climate MovementAdler, The Conservative Record on Environmental Policy, The New AtlantisYoung Conservatives for Carbon DividendsBruggers, Bucking GOP Elders, Some Young Republicans Embrace a Slower, Gentler Brand of Climate Activism, DeSmogRepublicans for Environmental Protection

On this week's Talking Michigan Transportation podcast, a conversation about the success of efforts by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) to attract pollinators with roadside sunflowers and other vegetation. Amanda Novak, a resource specialist in MDOT's Bay Region, talks about the origins and successes of MDOT's pollinator program and how the experience of other state departments of transportation (DOT), including North Carolina, inspired the program. Novak talks about MDOT's efforts planting sunflowers, dubbed pollinator superheroes, along state highways. From a 2015 issue of “The Scenic Route,” a publication of the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at the University of Texas: The alarming loss of habitat over the past two decades has left untold millions of bees, butterflies, and other wild pollinators hungry and homeless. The small creatures on which we depend for a significant portion of our food supply have hardly been without their champions; public support for monarch butterflies alone has been estimated in the billions of dollars. Still, the pollinator prognosis remained dire. But over the past 18 months, support for pollinators has undergone a seismic shift, led by President Obama, who called for a national Pollinator Task Force in the spring of 2014. Less than a year later, in a book-length “Strategy to Protect the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators,” the federal government set ambitious goals that include the restoration or enhancement of 7 million acres of land for pollinator habitat over the next five years. Roadsides will comprise a significant portion of that acreage. Novak also talks about “Show Stopper” wildflowers to be planted at the Port Huron and Coldwater welcome centers. This is a trial year for us to see how the seed does. A second segment reprises a 2021 conversation with Margaret Barondess, manager of MDOT's Environmental Section, explaining the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and how it informs Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and DOT decision making.

Host Jeff Crank sits down with Senator Mike Lee of Utah to talk about his  UNSHACKLE Act, which seeks to reform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).     Check out the UNSHACKLE Act here: https://www.lee.senate.gov/2021/3/sen-lee-reintroduces-unshackle-act    Check out American Potential here: https://americanpotential.com 

This year, we have created a new Environmental Law series on Lawyer 2 Lawyer, where wewill cover cradle to grave treatment of chemicals and our laws on environmental biology. In this episode, host Craig Williams joins Mark Squillace from the University of Colorado Law School, to discuss the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), wetlands protection, and habitat conservation plans.

This year, we have created a new Environmental Law series on Lawyer 2 Lawyer, where wewill cover cradle to grave treatment of chemicals and our laws on environmental biology. In this episode, host Craig Williams joins Mark Squillace from the University of Colorado Law School, to discuss the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), wetlands protection, and habitat conservation plans.

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick!On today's episode, our fabulous legal guru, Fred Wagner, Partner with Venable, LLP.,  is back for the 6th time! Tune in to hear our conversation about  Music Theater, Waters of the U.S., and Green House Gas Reporting Disclosures. Read his full bio below.Special thanks to our sponsor for this episode VENABLE, LLP!   Check them out at https://www.venable.com/Showtimes:2:36  Nic & Laura discuss the Expendables movie franchise7:17  Interview with Fred Wagner starts7:43  Music Theater21:07  Waters of the U.S.38:23   GHG reporting disclosuresPlease be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review.This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Fred Wagner at linkedin.com/in/fred-wagner-59043019Guest Full Bio:Fred Wagner focuses his practice on environmental and natural resources issues associated with major infrastructure, mining and energy project development. Fred helps clients manage and then defend in court environmental reviews performed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or equivalent state statutes. He works with public agencies and private developers to secure permits and approvals from federal and state regulators under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Fred is familiar with the full range of issues surrounding USDOT surface transportation programs, including grant management, procurement, suspension and debarment, and safety regulations. During his career, Fred has handled a wide variety of environmental litigation in federal trial and appellate courts across the country, from citizen suits, to government enforcement actions, to Administration Procedure Act (APA) challenges.Fred was appointed Chief Counsel of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during the Obama administration. He managed all legal matters involving the $40 billion Federal-Aid Highway program, including environmental and natural resources issues for highway and multimodal transportation projects. Among other high-profile projects, he oversaw the agency's defense of the following:  New York's Tappan Zee Bridge, San Francisco's Presidio Parkway, Chicago's Elgin-O'Hare Expressway, Kentucky and Indiana's Ohio River Bridges, North Carolina's Bonner Bridge, Alabama's Birmingham Northern Beltline, Wisconsin's Zoo Interchange, and Washington's State Road 520 Bridge. He represented the FHWA on government-wide Transportation Rapid Response Team, a multi-agency task force focused on improving project delivery and environmental review reforms.Fred began his career as a trial attorney in the Environment Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He also served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Misdemeanor Trial Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. Prior to joining Venable, he spent more than 20 years in private practice at a national law firm focusing on environmental and natural resources issues.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: Never Ending Soul Groove by Mattijs MullerSupport the show

In this episode, I interview Dr. Joseph Scalia III, practicing psychoanalyst in Livingston, Montana and frequent guest of the program. Dr. Scalia is a board member with the Gallatin Yellowstone Wilderness Alliance and long-time wilderness activist in Southwest Montana.Topics we cover:  Societal change as an important component of the wilderness movement, Joe's career as a psychoanalyst, the perversion of truth, Felix Guattari's The Three Ecologies, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shortcoming, the dark obscene underbelly of public lands politics and recreation, neoliberalism and how it drives mainstream conservation, psychological symptomology of capitalism, treating society as the patient, mechanisms of societal change, what drives the Big Greens, confronting painful truths and the unwillingness of many in the grassroots environmental movement to confront reality and advocate for radical change. Support the show

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Ryan Hathaway, Environmental Justice Coordinator for the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, about the DOI, Reinventing Yourself, and Workplace Culture.  Read his full bio below.Help us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form Showtimes: 1:44  Nic & Laura talk about Managing Social Media8:41  Interview with Ryan Hathaway Starts9:12  The Department of the Interior20:18  Reinventing Yourself27:53  Workplace Culture36:07  Field NotesPlease be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.orgConnect with Ryan Hathaway at https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanhathaway/Guest Bio:Ryan Hathaway is the Environmental Justice Coordinator for the Department of the Interior (DOI). Previous he led the Department's Major Infrastructure and Renewable Energy Program, and prior was the Branch Chief for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Land Use Planning at the Bureau of Land Management. Ryan has his Bachelor's in Wildlife Conservation from the University of Delaware; and a Master's in Natural Resource Management, and in Sustainable Development and International Policy both from Virginia Tech University. In his free time, Ryan is adjuct faculty and sits in an advisory board at Virginia Tech Center for Leadership in Global Sustainability and University of Delaware Biden Center for Public Policy, he sits on the boards of several animal shelters and NGOs around the world, and coaches and mentor's youth soccer goalkeepers entering the US Olympic Development Program. He enjoys travelling, playing slide guitar, smoking BBQ, managing his hobby farm with his wife, and being barefoot and outdoors whenever possible.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: Never Ending Soul Groove by Mattijs MullerSupport the show

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Fred Wagner, Partner with Venable, LLP about Court Cases, the CEQ Phase II Rule, and Monza.   Read his full bio below.Special thanks to our sponsor for this episode VENABLE, LLP!   Check them out at https://www.venable.com/Help us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form Showtimes: 1:40  Nic & Laura talk about what makes a good storyteller5:58 Interview with Fred Wagner starts20:02  Court Cases36:05  CEQ Phase II Rule57:28  MonzaPlease be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Fred Wagner at linkedin.com/in/fred-wagner-59043019Guest Bio:Fred Wagner focuses his practice on environmental and natural resources issues associated with major infrastructure, mining and energy project development. Fred helps clients manage and then defend in court environmental reviews performed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or equivalent state statutes. He works with public agencies and private developers to secure permits and approvals from federal and state regulators under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Fred is familiar with the full range of issues surrounding USDOT surface transportation programs, including grant management, procurement, suspension and debarment, and safety regulations. During his career, Fred has handled a wide variety of environmental litigation in federal trial and appellate courts across the country, from citizen suits, to government enforcement actions, to Administration Procedure Act (APA) challenges.Fred was appointed Chief Counsel of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during the Obama administration. He managed all legal matters involving the $40 billion Federal-Aid Highway program, including environmental and natural resources issues for highway and multimodal transportation projects. Among other high-profile projects, he oversaw the agency's defense of the following:  New York's Tappan Zee Bridge, San Francisco's Presidio Parkway, Chicago's Elgin-O'Hare Expressway, Kentucky and Indiana's Ohio River Bridges, North Carolina's Bonner Bridge, Alabama's Birmingham Northern Beltline, Wisconsin's Zoo Interchange, and Washington's State Road 520 Bridge. He represented the FHWA on government-wide Transportation Rapid Response Team, a multi-agency task force focused on improving project delivery and environmental review reforms.Fred began his career as a trial attorney in the Environment Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He also served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Misdemeanor Trial Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. Prior to joining Venable, he spent more than 20 years in private practice at a national law firm focusing on environmental and natural resources issues.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: Never Ending Soul Groove by Mattijs MullerSupport the show