Podcasts about nepa

One of the things I try to do on this show is get away from the binary good vs bad framing that so many of us fall into, and explore the messy complexities and grey areas within the environmental and conservation movement here in the northwest.  That's why I enjoyed today's conversation so much.My guest today is Tabatha Rood.  Tabatha is a former Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act planner and currently leads the Wild Rivers Coast Forest Collaborative in Southwest Oregon.As a former Forest Service project planner and collaborative leader, Tabatha brings a set of experiences and perspectives that are often missing in our broader dialogues.As you'll hear, Tabatha and I didn't agree on everything in our conversation, and there were a number of topics that we didn't have time to go as deep on as I would have liked.  But I really appreciated her willingness to engage with me on some thorny topics, and I found her perspectives really valuable.As always, Coast Range Radio is free on all podcast apps, which is a great way to share this episode.  We are also broadcast on community radio stations across the northwest.  A lot of them are struggling right now, and I cannot ask strongly enough that you support local, independent media!My email is coastrangeradio@gmail.com, let me know what you think of the show!https://www.instagram.com/coastrangeradio/

The ubiquitous deployment of both wireless and wireline technology is critical to 5G and other next generation services. However, lengthy permitting processes, as well as burdensome NEPA and NHPA requirements, continue to slow infrastructure builds. As the Trump Administration continues to prioritize streamlining rules and regulations, as well as promoting access to reliable, affordable broadband […]

Episode SummaryThe latest episode of the “The Stream by AASHTO” podcast features Ted Boling, a partner with Perkins Coie, with over 30 years of public service – who discusses recent changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and the removal of regulations by the Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ.Episode NotesThis podcast series is part of the AASHTO Environmental Management technical service program operated by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It explores a wide array of environmental topics that affect state departments of transportation and the infrastructure programs they oversee.In February 2025, the CEQ announced an Interim Final Rule that removes its longstanding NEPA implementing regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. This shift places the responsibility for NEPA compliance directly on individual federal agencies, allowing them to follow their own procedures rather than a centralized set of rules.In this podcast episode, Boling delves into how, if NEPA is revoked, it removes a “universal framework” that will prevent federal agencies working in tandem on environmental reviews.Boling also outlines the potential impact of mass layoffs within the federal government, especially among senior leadership and recent hires, and how that could slow down decision-making regarding environmental reviews for infrastructure projects.

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

The ubiquitous deployment of both wireless and wireline technology is critical to 5G and other next generation services. However, lengthy permitting processes, as well as burdensome NEPA and NHPA requirements, continue to slow infrastructure builds. As the Trump Administration continues to prioritize streamlining rules and regulations, as well as promoting access to reliable, affordable broadband internet, all eyes are on the FCC, NTIA, and the Hill to see what may come next. This webinar features Paul Beaudry, Vice President of Regulatory and Government Affairs for Cogeco, Tony Clark, Executive Director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and former Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Caroline Van Wie, Vice President of Federal Regulatory at AT&T. Danielle Thumann, Senior Counsel to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, will moderate and participate in the discussion.

This week, we cover a relentless wave of threats to America's public lands and environmental protections. But it's not all bad news, because we wrap up with some powerful land-back victories, state park expansions, and global actions to #BeatPlasticPollution.Key Topics This Week:1. Senate Budget Bill Public Land SalesSenator Mike Lee (R-UT) moves to reinstate a provision to sell 500,000+ acres of public land in Nevada and 11,000+ acres in Utah.Parcels affected include land near Zion National Park, desert tortoise habitat, and lands adjacent to Las Vegas.No restrictions on resale — paving the way for luxury developments, mines, and strip malls.2. What Else Is in the Budget Bill?Fast-tracks oil, gas, and mining projects by weakening environmental reviews.Opens new offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.Increases national forest logging quotas and 20-year timber contracts.Cuts climate adaptation and restoration funding.3. Department of the Interior (DOI) Deregulatory BlitzRescinds 2024 rule protecting 13 million acres in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve.Appoints Kevin Pendergast as BLM Alaska State Director.Rolls back 18 federal energy regulations nationwide.Green-lights new timber, oil, gas, and mineral leases across Oregon, Utah, Nevada, and Alaska.4. Supreme Court's NEPA Decision (May 29)An 8-0 ruling limits NEPA's scope so agencies no longer required to analyze cumulative and downstream environmental impacts.Case involved a proposed Utah crude oil railway; ruling sets precedent for pipelines, highways, and fossil fuel infrastructure.

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.

In the latest episode of the Bracewell Environmental Law Monitor, Ann Navaro joins hosts DanielPope and Taylor Stuart to discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. They delve into the ruling's clarifications on judicial deference and an agency's obligations under NEPA. The trio also examine the potential impacts on infrastructure projects in light of this decision.

Hey friends, welcome back to Inspire Create Manifest. I'm your host, Joe Longo, and today I'm sharing a powerful re-release of a conversation I had with the incredible Jennifer Estel, founder of B & Let Liv and co-owner of Endless Mountains Vineyard & Winery in Benton, Pennsylvania.Jennifer is a passionate advocate and the heart behind B & Let Liv, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting and advocating for misunderstood dog breeds, especially those labeled as “pit bulls.” The organization works to fight breed-specific legislation, raise awareness, and provide second chances to dogs who've been unfairly judged simply because of how they look.Their mission is rooted in compassion, education, and real action to challenge the myths that surround these beautiful animals. From public outreach to rescue support, B & Let Liv is helping dogs and communities thrive together.This week, B & Let Liv is proudly participating in NEPA Gives, a powerful 24-hour online giving event that unites individuals across Northeastern Pennsylvania to support local nonprofits making a real impact.If you've ever loved a dog who was misunderstood, or if you believe in second chances and changing outdated systems, this is the moment to support. You can find the donation link in the show notes or head straight to:

Wes and Eneasz are joined by Steven, with a short appearance from Sammy to keep the rationalist community informed about what's going on outside of the rationalist communitySupport us on Substack!News discussed:Rightwing populist wins Polish presidential electionTariffs (finally) struck down by federal courtTrump taking steel tariff from 25% to 50%, but approving Nippon Steel dealTrump EO: pause on student visasAlso wants to “aggressively revoke” Chinese student visasMeanwhile, a Federal Court blocked Trump's order to deny Harvard student visasSCOTUS: deadlocked 4-4 over whether you can exclude religious schools from public fundingSCOTUS curtails NEPA a bit more in an oil-shipping caseTwo Israeli embassy staff (a young couple) shot dead outside Jewish museum in Washington DCA man throwing molotov cocktails and using make-shift flamethrower injures 8 at a gathering in Boulder in support of Israeli hostagesEmil Bove nominated to Third CircuitElon is leaving DOGEHe's not happy with the “big beautiful” budget bill“Take It Down Act” passeshttps://rachelshu.com/Happy News!Penny is finally dead!!Badass doctor gives established medical science a middle finger/shrug of indifference to invent a novel way to remove a chordoma from a 19 year old's brain stem.(second source)Every agency has 365 days to list out all the regulations that have a criminal penalty and then that report has to be made public and must be updated annually.First Personalized CRISPR Therapy for 9 month old treats a rare genetic disorder!Rapid bedside test predicts sepsis with over 90 percent accuracy (Nature article link)Sesame Street will continue to air on Netflix (and on PBS/PBS Kids)Got something to say? Come chat with us on the Bayesian Conspiracy Discord or email us at themindkillerpodcast@gmail.com. Say something smart and we'll mention you on the next show!Follow us!RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/themindkillerGoogle: https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/Iqs7r7t6cdxw465zdulvwikhekmPocket Casts: https://pca.st/vvcmifu6Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-mind-killerApple: Intro/outro music: On Sale by Golden Duck Orchestra This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit mindkiller.substack.com/subscribe

NEPA GIVES Starts Tonight full 240 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:41:51 +0000 CsvCgGyJXbMx6Z0Ni2PqpcpUROyZXQcP society & culture The Doc Show society & culture NEPA GIVES Starts Tonight The Doc Show with Jessie   2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. Society & Culture False https://player.amperwavepodcasting.com?feed-link=https%3A%2F%2Frss.

Today we're delighted to welcome back Mike Sommers, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute (API). Mike has led the API since 2018 and previously spent two decades in senior leadership roles in the U.S. House of Representatives and the White House, including as Chief of Staff to Speaker of the House John A. Boehner and as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush on the National Economic Council. The API represents 600 members across the full spectrum of the U.S. petroleum industry, with roots dating back to World War I, when Congress and the domestic oil and gas sector joined forces to support the war effort. We first hosted Mike on COBT in September 2021 (episode linked here), and with all the changes in energy and Washington since then, we had plenty to catch up on. We were thrilled to visit with Mike to hear his latest insights. As you will hear, there is almost no energy topic Mike can't help us think through. In our discussion, we explore evolving attitudes in Washington toward natural gas, from being viewed as a waste product to a “bridge fuel” during the Obama era, and now as a “forever fuel” due to its growing importance in meeting rising energy demand. We examine the increased engagement between tech companies and the energy industry, the urgent need for a more durable, streamlined, and predictable permitting system to support the expansion of energy infrastructure, referencing the Supreme Court's recent decision that narrows NEPA's scope and increases deference to agency decisions, potentially reducing project delays. We discuss the ongoing debate and uncertainty regarding the IRA, which incentives may survive in reconciliation, and the potential impact of legislative changes on clean energy investment. Mike shares his perspective on the recent House Bill, which removed renewable tax credits, and the expectation of reconciliation in the Senate. We cover the new National Energy Dominance Council and its role in coordinating energy policy across federal agencies, the evolving balance between federal and state authority in energy regulation, and advocacy for consumer choice in vehicle technology, specifically the recent repeal of the California EV mandate. We explore Alaska's resource potential, including the opportunity to build an LNG terminal to utilize natural gas currently being reinjected, and the broader significance for U.S. energy security and exports to Asia, the strategic importance of domestic oil and gas, the role of judicial review in permitting, and much more. It was a fantastic conversation and we greatly appreciate Mike for joining. Mike Bradley kicked off the discussion by noting that while remnants of “Trumpatility” have mostly faded, with S&P 500 volatility now low, broader markets remain sensitive to Trump's policies, as highlighted this week by the doubling of aluminum and steel import tariffs. He pointed out that oil prices have surprised traders to the upside so far this week, rising more than $2/bbl despite OPEC+ signaling a July production increase of >400kbpd. Mike also discussed EOG Resource's $5.6 billion deal to acquire Encino Acquisition Partners' Utica asset, noting that the deal adds another large core oil asset play for EOG and could also prove to serve as a backdoor natural gas play, especially if the Northeast finally opens up for energy infrastructure spending. Jeff Tillery added to Mike's comments, noting that despite the day-to-day volatility in oil markets, the long-term outlook still comes down to tight supply and the need for real demand growth. On the gas side, he pointed to strong demand pull but emphasized that the key question is where prices will ultimately settle given the ample supply. Thanks to you all. We hope you enjoy today's discussion as much as we did!

Did the Supreme Court just make it easier to build things in this country — or did it give a once-in-a-lifetime gift to the fossil fuel industry? Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 against environmentalists who sought to use a key permitting law, the National Environmental Policy Act, to slow down a railroad in a remote but oil-rich part of Utah. Even the court's liberals ruled against the green groups. But the court's conservative majority issued a much stronger and more expansive ruling, urging lower courts to stop interpreting the law as they have for years. That decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, may signal a new era for what has been called the “Magna Carta” of environmental law.On this week's episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk with Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor and frequent writer on permitting issues. He is also Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer's former chief legal counsel. Rob, Jesse, and Nick discuss what NEPA is, how it has helped (and perhaps hindered) the environment, and why it's likely to change again in the near future. Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap's executive editor. Mentioned: The Supreme Court Just Started a Permitting RevolutionThe Supreme Court's Green Double Standard, By Nick BagleyBagley's article on the procedure fetishKey statistics about how NEPA works in the governmentJudge Skelly's 1971 Calvert Cliffs rulingHouse Republicans' NEPA reform proposal Jesse's downshift; Rob's downshift. --Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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. 

Nancy Churchill discusses how recent Supreme Court and Trump administration permitting reforms could help rural Washington's timber and mining communities thrive again. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-golden-opportunity-for-rural-washington/ #NancyChurchill #ruralwashington #timber #mining #NEPA #infrastructure

If someone's NOT from here, what's the hardest NEPA town to pronounce?

In this high-energy and hilariously heartfelt episode, I'm joined by the chaotic creatives behind Kitchen Teeth, one of NEPA's most refreshingly raw and wildly original bands. And they've got something BIG brewing—literally and musically.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal agencies can conduct narrow environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act for projects they are considering permitting. POLITICO's Alex Guillén breaks down the details of the decision and how it will impact legal challenges by environmental groups and Donald Trump's anti-regulatory agenda. Plus, Tesla and Elon Musk have criticized the Republican megabill for gutting the clean energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act. Alex Guillén is an energy reporter for POLITICO Pro.  Nirmal Mulaikal is the co-host and producer of POLITICO Energy.  Alex Keeney is a senior audio producer at POLITICO.  Gloria Gonzalez is the deputy energy editor for POLITICO.  Matt Daily is the energy editor for POLITICO. For more news on energy and the environment, subscribe to Power Switch, our free evening newsletter: https://www.politico.com/power-switch And for even deeper coverage and analysis, read our Morning Energy newsletter by subscribing to POLITICO Pro: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/newsletter-archive/morning-energy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Northeastern PA Congressman Dan Meuser is defending proposed Medicaid cuts and tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. He also told the Schuylkill Chamber of Commerce he's considering a run for Governor in 2026. Health providers hope a new blood test for Alzheimer’s disease will lead to quicker and earlier diagnoses of the progressive form of dementia. Top Republican and Democratic officials in Pennsylvania are decrying a provision in the tax and spending cuts bill passed in the House last week that would ban states from adopting or enforcing artificial intelligence regulations over the next decade. The Reading School District will receive $51 million in federal funds following a court order to restore the funding. The order reverses an earlier decision by the U.S. Department of Education to revoke the funds, which put the future of the district's Reading High School Innovation Academy in jeopardy. Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is co-sponsoring legislation to help Holocaust survivors and their families reclaim artwork stripped from their possession by the Nazis. The bill is sponsored by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, to help smooth the legal process for survivors and heirs. A historic Lancaster County covered bridge is closed after being damaged in an accident Wednesday night. And a case currently in front of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is weighing the state's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as REGGI. We include a conversation between WITF's Asia Tabb and Julie Grant of the Allegheny Front from a recent episode of The Spark.Support WITF: https://www.witf.org/support/give-now/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 Santi: Hi, this is a special episode of Statecraft. I've got a wonderful guest host with me today. Kyla Scanlon: Hey, I'm Kyla Scanlon! I'm the author of a book called In This Economy and an economic commentator. Santi: Kyla has joined me today for a couple reasons. One, I'm a big fan of her newsletter: it's about economics, among many other things. She had a great piece recently on what we can learn from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters, which is a favorite book of mine.Kyla's also on today because we're interviewing Wally Adeyemo, who was the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in the Biden administration. We figured we each had questions we wanted answered.Kyla: Yeah, I've had the opportunity to interview Wally a couple times during the Biden administration, and I wanted to see where he thinks things are at now. He played a key role in implementing the Inflation Reduction Act, financial sanctions on Russia, and a whole bunch of other things.Santi: For my part, I'm stuck on Wally's role in setting up the IRS's Direct File program, where you can file your taxes for free directly through the IRS instead of paying TurboTax a hundred bucks to do it. “Good governance types” tend to love Direct File, but the current admin is thinking of killing it. I wanted to understand how the program got rolled out, how Wally would respond to criticisms of the program, and what he learned from building something in government, which now may disappear.Kyla, you've talked to Wally before. How did that conversation go? Kyla: I actually was able to go to his office in D.C., and I talked to a couple of key people in the Biden administration: Jared Bernstein, the former chair of the CEA, and Daniel Hornung, who was at the National Economic Council.We're talking to Wally on the day that the House passed the one big beautiful bill. There's also so much happening financially, like the bond market is totally rebelling against the US government right now. I'm really curious how he thinks things are, as a key player in the last administration.Santi: Wally, you've spent most of your career in Democratic Party institutions. You worked on the Kerry presidential campaign in 2004. You served in the Obama admin. You were the first chief of staff to the CFPB, the president of the Obama Foundation, and, most recently, Deputy Treasury Secretary in the Biden admin.30,000ft question: How do you see the Democratic Party today?My view is that we continue to be the party that cares deeply about working-class people, but we haven't done a good job of communicating that to people, especially when it comes to the things that matter most to them. From my standpoint, it's costs: things in America cost too much for a working-class family.I want to make sure I define working class: I think about people who make under $100,000 a year, many of whom don't own homes on the coast or don't own a significant amount of stocks (which means they haven't seen the asset appreciation that's led to a great deal of wealth creation over the last several decades). When you define it that way, 81% of Americans sit in that category of people. Despite the fact that they've seen their median incomes rise 5-10% over the last five years, they've seen the cost of the things they care about rise even faster.We haven't had a clear-cut agenda focused on the standard of living, which I think is the thing that matters most to Americans today.Santi: There are folks who would say the problem for Democrats wasn't that they couldn't communicate clearly, or that they didn't have a governing agenda, but that they couldn't execute their agenda the way they hoped to in the time available to them. Would you say there's truth to that claim?Most people talk about a communications issue, but I don't think it's a communications issue. There are two issues. One is an implementation issue, and the second is an issue of the actual substance and policy at the Treasury Department. I was the deputy secretary, but I was also the Chief Operating Officer, which meant that I was in charge of execution. The two most significant domestic things I had to execute were the American Rescue Plan, where $1.9 trillion flowed through the Treasury Department, and the Inflation Reduction Act. The challenge with execution in the government is that we don't spend a lot on our systems, on making execution as easy as possible.For example, the Advanced Child Tax Credit was intended to give people money to help with each of their children during the pandemic. What Congress called on us to do was to pay people on a monthly basis. In the IRS system, you pay your taxes mostly on an annual basis, which meant that most of our systems weren't set up to pay a monthly check to Americans. It took us a great deal of work to figure out a way to recreate a system just to do that.We've underinvested in the systems that the IRS works on. The last time we made a significant investment in the IRS's digital infrastructure was the 1960s; before we had an ATM machine, before we sent a man to the moon, before we had a personal computer. So that meant that everything was coded in a language called COBOL.So execution was quite hard in the American Rescue Plan. People were left out and felt that the government wasn't working for them. If you called the IRS, only 13% of your calls were being answered. We got that back up to 85% before we left. Ultimately, I think part of this is an execution challenge. In government we want to spend money coming up with new policies, but we don't want to pay for execution, which then means that when you get the policy passed, implementation isn't great.When Jen Pahlka was on your show, she talked about the need to focus on identifying the enablers to implementation. Direct File was one of the best examples of us taking implementation very seriously.But also, on some policy issues that mattered most to Americans, we weren't advancing the types of strategies that would've helped lower the cost of housing and lowering the cost of medicine. We did some things there, but there's clearly more that we could have done, and more we need to do going forward to demonstrate that we're fighting to bring down those costs. It's everything from permitting reform — not just at the federal level, but what can we do to incentivize it at the state and local level — to thinking about what we can do on drug costs. Why does it cost so much more to get a medicine in America than in Canada? That is something that we can solve. We've just chosen not to at the federal level.At the end of the year, we were going to take action to go after some of the middlemen in the pharmacy industry who were taking out rents and large amounts of money. It dropped out of the bill because of the negotiations between the Republican Congress and then President-elect Trump. But there are a lot of things that we can do both on implementation, which will mean that Americans feel the programs that we're passing in a more effective way, and policy solutions that we need to advance as a party that will help us as well.Kyla: Some people think Americans tend to vote against their own self-interest. How can your party message to people that these sorts of policies are really important for them?Ultimately, what I found is that most people just understand their self-interest differently, and for them, a big part of this was, “Who's fighting for me on the issues that I care most about?”From my standpoint, part of the problem we had with Direct File, which I think was an innovative solution, was that we got to implementing it so late in the administration that we didn't have the ability for it to show the impact. I'm hoping future administrations will think through how to start their implementation journey on things like Direct File sooner in the administration, when you have a great deal of political capital, so people can actually feel the impact over time.To your question, it's not just about the messaging, it's about the messenger. People tend to trust people who look like them, who come from the places they come from. When it came to the Child Tax Credit and also to Direct File, the biggest innovation wasn't the technology: the technology for Direct File has been used by the Australians, the British, and other countries for decades.The biggest innovation was us joining that technology with trusted people in communities who were going out to talk to people about those programs and building those relationships. That was something that the IRS hadn't done a great deal of. We invested a great deal in those community navigators who were helping us get people to trust the things the government was doing again, like the Child Tax Credit, like Direct File, so that they could use it.We often think that Washington is going to be able to give messages to the country that people are going to hear. But we're both in a more complicated media environment, where people are far more skeptical of things that come from people in Washington. So the best people to advocate for and celebrate the things that we're doing are people who are closer to the communities we're trying to reach. In product advertising today, more companies are looking to influencers to advertise things, rather than putting an ad on television, because people trust the people that they follow. The same is true for the things that we do in government.Santi: I've talked to colleagues of yours in the last administration who say things like, “In the White House, we did not have a good enough sense of the shot clock.” They point to various reasons, including COVID, as a reason the admin didn't do a good enough job of prioritization.Do you think that's true, that across the administration, there was a missing sense of the shot clock or a missing sense of prioritization? No, because I'm a Lakers fan. These are professionals. We're professionals. This is not our first rodeo. We know how much time is on the shot clock; we played this game. The challenge wasn't just COVID. For me at Treasury — and I think this is the coolest part of being Deputy Secretary of the Treasury — I had responsibilities domestic and international. As I'm trying to modernize the IRS, to invest all my time in making the system work better for customers and to collect more taxes from the people who owe money, Russia invades Ukraine. I had to turn a bunch of my attention to thinking about what we were going to do there. Then you have Hamas attacking Israel.There was more we should have done on the domestic end, but we have to remember that part of the presidency is: you get to do the things you want to do, but you also have to do the things you have to do. We had a lot of things we had to do that we weren't planning for which required all-of-the-administration responses.I think the most important lesson I've learned about that is that it comes down to both being focused on the things that matter, and being willing to communicate to the American people why your priorities have to change in light of things that happen in the world.But the people I'm sure you've talked to, most of them work on domestic policy alone, and they probably never have been in a National Security Council meeting, where you're thinking about the risks to the country. The president has to do both of those things. So I get how difficult it is to do that, just given where I sat at the Treasury Department.Santi: Looking back from an implementation perspective, are there things you would've done differently during your time at Treasury?The most important thing that I would've done differently was to immediately set up a permanent implementation and delivery unit in the Treasury Department. We always like to pretend like the Treasury Department is just a policy department where we make policy, we collect taxes. But in any crisis the country ever has, a great deal of responsibility — for execution or implementation of whatever the response is — falls to the Treasury Department. Think about the financial crisis, which is clearly something that's in the Treasury's domain. The vast majority of money for COVID flowed through the Treasury Department. You think about the IRA, a climate bill: the vast majority of that money flows through the Treasury Department.And Treasury doesn't have a dedicated staff that's just focused on implementation: How do we do this well? How do we make sure the right people are served? How do we make sure that we communicate this well? We did this to a degree by a team that was focused on the American Rescue Plan. But it was only focused on the American Rescue Plan. If I could start again, I would have said, “I want a permanent implementation structure within the Treasury Department of people who are cross-cutting, who only think about how we execute the policies that we pass through Congress and that we put together through an executive order. How do we do that extremely well?”Kyla: What you're talking about is very people-centric: How do we get an implementation team, and how do we make sure that the right people are doing the right jobs? Now we have DOGE, which is less people-centric. How do you reconcile what Doge is doing relative to what you would've done differently in this role that you had?As you would suspect, I wasn't excited about the fact we had lost the election, but initially I thought DOGE could be helpful with technology. I think marrying technology with people — that's the key to success for the government. We've never really been great at doing technology in the government.Part of the reason for that is a procurement process that is very slow because of how the federal acquisition rules work. What we are trying to do is prevent corruption and also waste, fraud, and abuse. But what that does is, it leads to slowness in our ability to get the technology on board that we need, and in getting the right people.I was hoping DOGE would bring in people who knew a great deal about technology and put us in a position where we could use that to build better products for the American people. I thought they would love Direct File, and that they would find ways to improve Direct File and expand it to more Americans.My view is that any American in the working class or middle class should not have to pay a company to file their taxes. We have the ability in this country, and I think Direct File was proving that. My goal, if we'd had more time, was to expand this to almost any American being able to use it. I thought they'd be able to accelerate that by bringing in the right people, but also the right technology. We were on that path before they took those two things apart.My sense is that you have to reform the way that we hire people because it's too hard to hire the right people. In some cases, you don't need some of the people you have today because technology is going to require different skills to do different things. It's easier to break something, I found, than it is to build something. I think that's what they're finding today as well.Santi: When I talk to left-of-center folks about the DOGE push, they tend to be skeptical about the idea that AI or modern technology can replace existing federal workers. I think some of that is a natural backlash to the extreme partisan coding of DOGE, and the fact that they're firing a lot of people very quickly. But what's your view? After DOGE, what kinds of roles would you like to see automated?Let me say: I disagree with the view that DOGE and technology can't replace some of the things that federal workers do today. My view is that “productivity enhancing” tech — it's not that it is going to make employees who are currently doing the job more productive. It is going to mean you need fewer employees. We have to be honest about that.Go to the IRS, for example. When I got there, we had a huge paper backlog at the IRS because, despite what most people think, millions of people still file their taxes by paper, and they send them to the IRS. And during the pandemic, the commissioner, who was then working for President Trump, decided to shut down the IRS for public health reasons — to make sure employees did not have to risk getting COVID.There were piles of paper backing up, so much so that they had filled cafeterias at the IRS facilities with huge piles of paper. The problem, of course, is that, unlike modern systems, you could not just machine-read those papers and put them into our systems. Much of that required humans to code those papers into the system by hand. There is no need in the 21st century for that to happen, so one of the things that we started to do was introduce this simple thing called scanning, where you would scan the papers — I know it sounds like a novel idea. That would help you get people's tax returns faster into the system, but also get checks out quickly, and allow us to see if people are underpaying their taxes, because we can use that data with a modern system. But over time, what would that mean? We'd need fewer people to enter the data from those forms.When we get money for the IRS from Congress, it is actually seen as revenue-raising because they expect it to bring down the debt and deficit, which is completely true. But the model Congress uses to do that is reliant on the number of full-time employees we hire. One challenge we have with the IRS — and in government systems in general — is that you don't get credit for technology investments that should improve your return on investment.So whenever we did the ROI calculations for the IRS, the Congressional Budget Office would calculate how much revenue we'd bring in, and it was always based on the number of people you had doing enforcement work that would lead to certain dollars coming in. So we got no credit for the technology investments. Which was absolutely the opposite of what we knew would be true: the more you invested in technology, the more likely you were to bring in more revenue, and you would be able to cut the cost of employees.Santi: If the CBO changed the way it scored technology improvements, would more Congresspeople be interested in funding technology?It is just a CBO issue. It's one we've tried to talk to them about over the last several years, but one where they've been unwilling to move. My view is that unlocking this will unlock greater investment in technology in a place like the IRS, because every dollar you invest in technology — I think — would earn back $10 in additional tax revenue we'd be able to collect from people who are skipping out on their taxes today. It's far more valuable to invest in that technology than to grow the number of employees working in enforcement at the IRS. You need both, but you can't say that a person is worth 5x their salary in revenue and that technology is worth 0. That makes no sense.Kyla: When we spoke about Direct File many months ago, people in my comment section were super excited and saying things like, “I just want the government to tell me how much money I owe.” When you think about the implementation of Direct File, what went right, and how do you think it has evolved?The thing that went right was that we proved that we could build something quite easily, and we built it ourselves, unlike many technology projects in government. We didn't go out and hire a bunch of consultants and contractors to do it. We did it with people at the IRS, but also with people from 18F and from GSA who worked in the government. We did it in partnership with a number of stakeholders outside the government who gave us advice, but the build was done by us.The reason that was important — and the reason it's important to build more things internally rather than hiring consulting firms or other people to build it — is that you then have the intellectual capital from building that, and that can be used to build other things. This was one product, but my view is that I want the IRS home page to one day look a lot more like the screen on your iPhone, so that you can click on the app on the IRS homepage that can help you, depending on what you need — if it's a Direct File, or if it's a tax transcript.By building Direct File internally, we were getting closer to that, and the user scores on the effectiveness of the tool and the ability to use it were through the roof. Even for a private sector company, it would've been seen as a great success. In the first year, we launched late in the filing season, mostly just to test the product, but also to build stakeholder support for it. In the limited release, 140,000 people used it. The average user said that before Direct File, it took them about 13 hours to file their taxes, and with Direct File, it took them just over an hour to file their taxes.But you also have to think about how much money the average American spends filing their taxes: about $200. That's $200 that a family making under $100,000 could invest in their kids, in paying some bills, rather than in filing their taxes.Even this year, with no advertising by the Trump administration of Direct File, we had more than 300,000 people use it. The user scores for the product were above 85%. The challenge, of course, is that instead of DOGE investing in improving the product — which was a place where you could have seen real intellectual capital go to work and make something that works for all Americans — they've decided to discontinue Direct File. [NB: There has been widespread reporting that the administration plans to discontinue Direct File. The GOP tax bill passed by the House would end Direct File if it becomes law. At the time of publication, the Direct File has not been discontinued.]The sad part is that when you think about where we are as a country, this is a tool that could both save people money, save people time, improve our ability to collect taxes, and is something that exists in almost every other developed economy. It makes no sense to me why you would end something like this rather than continue to develop it.Santi: People remember the failure of healthcare.gov, which crashed when it was rolled out all at once to everyone in the country. It was an embarrassing episode for the Obama administration, and political actors in that administration learned they had to pilot things and roll them out in phases.Is there a tension between that instinct — to test things slowly, to roll them out to a select group of users, and then to add users in following cycles — Is there a tension between that and trying to implement quickly, so that people see the benefit of the work you're doing?One of my bosses in the Obama administration was Jeff Zients, the person who was brought in to fix healthcare.gov. He relentlessly focused on execution. He always made the point that it's easy to come up with a strategy to some degree: you can figure out what the policy solution is. But the difference between good and great is how you execute against it. I think there is some tension there, but not as much as you would think.Once we were able to show that the pilot was a success, I got invited to states all over the country, like Maryland, to announce that they were joining Direct File the next year. These members of Congress wanted to do Direct File events telling people in their state, “This product that's worked so well elsewhere is coming to us next.” It gave us the ability to celebrate the success.I learned the lesson not just from Zients, but also from then-professor Elizabeth Warren, whom I worked for as chief of staff at the CFPB. One challenge we had at the CFPB was to build a complaint hotline, at that point mostly phone-operated, for people who were suffering. They said it would take us at least a year to build out all the product functions we need. We decided to take a modular approach and say, “How long would it take for us to build the system for one product? Let's try that and see how that works. We'll do a test.”It was successful, and we were able to use that to tell the story about the CFPB and what it would do, not just for mortgages, but for all these other products. We built user interest in the complaint hotline, in a way that we couldn't have if we'd waited to build the whole thing at once. While I think you're right that there is some tension between getting everyone to feel it right away and piloting; if the pilot is successful, it also gives you the opportunity to go out and sell this thing to people and say, “Here's what people who did the pilot are saying about this product.”I remember someone in Texas who was willing to do a direct-to-camera and talk about the ways that Direct File was so easy for them to use. It gets back to my point on message and messenger. Deputy Secretary Adeyemo telling you about this great thing the government did is one thing. But an American who looks like you, who's a nurse, who's a mom of two kids, telling you that this product actually worked for her: That's something that more people identify with.Healthcare.gov taught us the lesson of piloting and doing things in a modular way. This is what companies have been doing for decades. If it's worked for them, I think it can work for the government too.Santi: I'm a fan of Direct File, personally. I don't want this administration to kill it. But I was looking through some of the criticism that Direct File got: for instance, there's criticism about it rivaling the IRS Free File program, which is another IRS program that partners with nonprofits to help some folks file their taxes for free.Then there's this broader philosophical criticism: “I don't want the feds telling me how much I owe them.” The idea is that the government is incentivized to squeeze every last dollar out of you.I'm curious what you make of that, in part because I spoke recently to an American who worked on building e-government systems for Estonia. One of the things that has allowed Estonia to build cutting-edge digital systems in the government is that Estonia is a small and very high-trust society. Everybody's one degree of separation from everybody else.We're a much bigger and more diverse country. How do you think that affects the federal government's ability to build tools like Direct File?I think it affects it a lot, and it gets back to my point: not just the message but the messenger. I saw this not just with Direct File, but with the Advanced Child Tax Credit, which was intended to help kids who were living in poverty, but also families overall. What we found initially in the data was that, among families that didn't have to file taxes because they made too little, many of them were unwilling to take advantage of Direct File and the Advanced Child Tax Credit because they couldn't believe the government was doing something to just help them. I spent a lot of time with priests, pastors, and other community leaders in many of the communities where people were under-filing to try and get them to talk about this program and why it was something that they should apply for.One of the challenges we suffer from right now in America, overall, is a lack of trust in institutions. You have to really go local and try to rebuild that trust.That also speaks to taking a pilot approach that goes slower in some cases. Some of the criticism we got was, “Why don't you just fill out this form for us and then just send it to us, so that Direct File is just me pressing a button so I can pay my taxes?”Part of the challenge for us in doing that is a technology challenge: we are not there technologically. But the other problem is a trust problem. If I were to just fill out your taxes for you and send them to you, I think people, at this stage, would distrust the government and distrust the technology.Direct File had to be on a journey with people, showing people, “If I put in this information, it accurately sends me back my check.” As people develop more trust, we can also add more features to it that I think people will trust. But the key has to be: how do you earn that trust over time?We can't expect that if we put out a product that looks like something the Estonian government or Australia would put out, that people would trust it at this point. We have to realize that we are on a journey to regain the trust of the American people.The government can and will work for them, and Direct File was a part of that. We started to demonstrate that with that product because the people who used it in these communities became the spokespeople for it in a better way than I ever could be, than the Secretary or the President could be.Everyone knows that they need to pay their taxes because it's part of their responsibility living in this country. The things that make people the most upset is the fact that there are people who don't pay their taxes. We committed that we were going to go after them.The second frustration was: “Why do you make it so hard for me to pay my taxes? Why can't I get through to you on the phone line? Why do I have to pay somebody else to do my taxes?” Our goal was to solve those two problems by investing money and going after the people who just decided they weren't going to pay, but also by making it as easy as possible for you to pay your taxes and for most people, to get that tax refund as quickly as possible.But doing that was about going on a journey with people, about regaining their trust in an institution that mattered to them a great deal because 90 something-percent of the money that funds our government comes in through the IRS.Kyla: You have a piece out in Foreign Affairs called “Make Moscow Pay,” and what I found most interesting about that essay is that you said Europe needs to step it up because the United States won't. Talk through the role of Treasury in financial sanctions, and your reasons for writing this piece.People often think about the Treasury Department as doing a few things. One is working with Wall Street; another one is collecting your taxes. Most people don't think about the fact that the Treasury Department is a major part of the National Security Committee, because we have these tools called financial sections.They use the power of the dollar to try and change the behavior of foreign actors who are taking steps that aren't consistent with our national security interests. A great example of this is what we did with regard to Russia — saying that we're going to cut off Russian banks from the US financial system, which means that you can't transact in US dollars.The problem for any bank that can transact in dollars is that the backbone of most of the financial world is built on the US dollar. It increases their cost, it makes it more difficult for them to transact, and makes it harder for them to be part of the global economy, nearly impossible.And that's what we've done in lots of cases when it comes to Russia. We have financial sanction programs that touch all over the world, from Venezuela to Afghanistan. The US government, since 9/11, has used sanctions as one of its primary tools of impacting foreign policy. Some of them have gone well, some of them I think haven't gone as well, and there's a need for us to think through how we use those policies.Santi: What makes sanctions an effective tool? Positions on sanctions don't line up neatly on partisan lines. Sanctions have a mixed track record, and you'll have Republicans who say sanctions have failed, and you'll have Democrats say sanctions have been an effective tool, and vice versa.The way I think about sanctions is that they are intended to bring change, and the only way that they work is that they're part of an overarching foreign policy strategy. That type of behavior change was what we saw when Iran came to the table and wanted to negotiate a way to reduce sanctions in exchange for limits on their nuclear program. That's the type of behavior change we're trying to accomplish with sanctions, but you can't do it with sanctions alone. You need a foreign policy strategy. We didn't do it by the United States confronting Iran; we got our allies and partners to work together with us. When I came into office in 2021, Secretary Yellen asked me to do a review of our sanctions policies — what's worked, what hasn't — because it had been 20 years since the 9/11 attacks.And the most important lesson I learned was that the sanctions programs that were the most effective were the ones we did on a multilateral basis — so we did it with our friends and allies. Part of the reason for this is that while the dollar is the most dominant currency around the world, oftentimes if you can't do something in dollars, you do it in a euro, or you do it in a Japanese yen, or pound sterling.The benefit of having allies all over the world is that the dominant, convertible currencies in the world are controlled by allies and partners. When we acted together with them, we were more effective in curtailing the economic activity of our adversary, and our pressure is more likely to lead to them changing their behavior.We had to be very cautious about collateral damage. You might be targeting an individual, but by targeting that individual, you might make it harder for a company they're affiliated with to continue doing business, or for a country that they're in to get access to banking services. Let's say that you're a huge bank in America, and you're worried about sanctions risk in a small country where you do little business. Why not pull out, rather than having to put in place a huge compliance program? One of the challenges that we have is that the people who make the decisions about whether to extend sanctions don't necessarily spend a lot of time thinking about some of these economic consequences of the sanctions approach.Whenever I was around the table and we were making a decision about using weapons, there was a process that was very elaborate that ended up with something going to the president. You'd often think about kinetic force very seriously, because you were going to have to get the president to make a decision. We didn't always take that kind of rigor when it came to thinking about using our sanctions policy, but the impact on the lives of people in these countries was just as significant for their access to not only money, but to food and to the resources they needed to live.Santi: What do you make of the effectiveness of the initial sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine? I've heard mixed reviews from folks inside and outside the Biden administration.Sanctions, again, to my point, are only a tool. They've had to be part of a larger strategy, and I think those sanctions were quite effective. I think the saving grace for the Russians has been the fact that China has largely been able and willing to give them access to the things they need to continue to perpetuate.There was a choice for Ukraine, but when you think about Russia's economy today vs. Russia's economy before the sanctions were put in place, it's vastly different. Inflation in Russia still runs far higher than inflation anywhere else in the world. If you were a Russian citizen, you would feel the impacts of sanctions.The challenge, of course, is that it hasn't changed Vladimir Putin's behavior or the behavior of the Kremlin, largely because they've had access to the goods and supplies they need from China, Iran, and North Korea. But over time, it means Russia's economy is becoming less competitive. They have less access to resources; they're going to struggle.I think everyone hoped that sanctions would immediately change the calculus of the Kremlin, but we've never seen that to be the case. When sanctions are effective, they take time, because the economic consequences continue to compound over time, and they have to be part of a larger strategy for the behavior of the individual. That's why I wrote the article, because while the Kremlin and Russia are under pressure, their view is that ultimately the West is going to get tired of supporting Ukraine, financially and politically, because the economic consequences for us — while not as significant as for Moscow or for Kiev — have been quite significant, when you think about the cost of living issues in Europe.I think it's important to write this now, when it appears that Russia is stalling on negotiations, because ultimately, US financial support is waning. We just know that the Trump administration is not willing to put more money into Ukraine, so Europe is going to have to do more, at a time when their economic situation is quite complicated as well.They've got a lot to do to build up their economy and their military-industrial base. Asking them to also increase their support for Ukraine at the same time is going to be quite difficult. So using this money that Russia owes to Ukraine — because they owe them compensation at this moment — can be quite influential in helping support the Ukrainians, but also changing Russia's calculus with regard to the ability of Ukraine to sustain itself.Kyla: On CNBC about a month ago, you said if we ever have a recession over the next couple of months or so, it would be a self-inflicted one. Do you still resonate with that idea? To build on the point I was making, the economy has done quite well over the course of the first few months of the year, largely because of the strength of the consumer, where our balance sheets are still quite strong. Companies in America have done well. The biggest headwind the US economy faces has been self-inflicted by the tariffs the president has put on. Part of what I still do is talk to CEOs of companies, big and small. Small businesses feel the impact of this even more than the big businesses. What they tell me is that it's not just the tariffs and the fact that they are making it more expensive for them to get the goods that they need, but it's the uncertainty created by the off-again, on-again, nature of those tariffs that makes it impossible for them to plan for what supplies they're going to get the next quarter. How are they going to fulfill their orders? What employees are they going to need? It's having a real impact on the performance of these companies, but also their ability to hire people and plan for the future.If you go to the grocery store, you're going to start seeing — and you're starting to see already — price increases. The thing that Americans care most about is, the cost of living is just too high. You're at the grocery store, as you're shopping for your kids for the summer, you're going to see costs go up because of a self-imposed tax we've put in place. So I still do think that if we do find ourselves in a recession, it's going to be because of the tariffs we've put in place.Even if we don't enter a technical recession, what we're seeing now is that those tariffs are going to raise the cost for people when they go out to buy things. It's going to raise the cost of building homes, which is going to make it harder for people to get houses, which is ultimately going to have an impact on the economy that isn't what I think the president or anyone wants at this point.Kyla: Is there anything else we haven't asked about? I think the place where we continue, as a country, to struggle is that, given the federal system we have, many of these problems aren't just in Washington — they're in state and local governments as well. When you think about the challenges to building more housing in this country, you can't just solve it by doing things at the federal level. You have to get state and local governments unified in taking a proactive approach. Part of this has to be not just financial or regulatory from the federal government, but we have to do more things that force state and local governments to get out of the way of people being able to build more housing. I think that the conversations that you've had on your show, and the conversations we're having in government, need to move past our regular policy conversations of: “Should we do more on LIHTC? Should we try to fix NEPA?” Those, to me, are table stakes, and we're in the middle of what I'd say is a generational crisis when it comes to housing. We have to be willing to treat it like a crisis, rather than what I think we've done so far, which is take incremental steps at different levels to try and solve this. That's one thing that I wanted to make sure that I said, because I think it's the most important thing that we can do at the moment.Kyla: Absolutely. During your time there, the Treasury was doing so much with zoning reform, with financial incentives. What I really liked about our last conversation was how much you talked about how important it is that workers can live close to work. Are you optimistic that we will be able to address the problem, or do you think we are sinking into quicksand?I'd say a little bit of both, and the thing that I'm doing now is getting hyperlocal. One of the projects I'm working on in my post-administration life is I'm working with 15 churches in D.C., where they have vacant land and want to use it to build affordable housing as quickly as possible.I'm learning that even when you have the land donated for free and you're willing to work as quickly as possible, it's still quite hard because you have regulations and financial issues that often get in the way of building things. Part of what we have to do now is just launch as many natural experiments as possible to see what works.What I've learned already from this lived experience is that even cities that are trying to get out of the way and make it easier to build housing struggle because of what you all know to be true, which is that the local politics of this is quite complicated. Oftentimes, the way that you get them over the line is by creating incentives or disincentives.In the past, I talked a lot about incentives in terms of “giving people money to do things.” I'm now in favor of “not giving money to people who don't do things” — if you don't take steps to fix your zoning, some of the federal money that you regularly get is not coming to your jurisdiction. I'm going to reallocate that money to places that are doing this activity. I think we have to take those types of radical steps.It's similar to what we did with the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, where if you didn't spend your money, we could take your money back and reallocate it to people who were giving away emergency rental assistance money.That motivates people a lot — when they feel like something's going to be taken away from them. I'm of the view that we have to find more radical things that we can do to get housing built. If we don't, costs will continue to rise faster than people's incomes.Santi: Wally, I have to ask after that point you just made: did you read the paper by my colleague Chris Elmendorf on using LIHTC funds? The idea is to re-allocate those federal funds away from big, expensive cities and into other places in a state, if the cities don't commit to basic zoning reforms.I completely agree with him, and I think I would go even further than just LIHTC money. I would reallocate non-housing money as well, because from my standpoint, if you think about the most important issue for a family, it's being able to find housing that is affordable near their place of work and where their kids go to school. I said that on purpose. I didn't say “affordable housing.” I said “housing that is affordable,” because affordable housing is, in lots of ways, targeted towards a population of people who need it the most. But for even people who are middle income in this country, it crowds out their ability to pay for other things when housing costs continue to creep higher.The only way we solve that problem is if you get rid of restrictive zoning covenants and fix permitting. The natural thing that every city and state is thinking about right now is throwing more money at the problem. There's going to need to be money here, just in light of some of the headwinds, but it's going to be more costly and less effective if we don't fix the underlying issues that are making it hard to build housing where we want it.Right now in California, we're having a huge debate over what we do with infill housing in urban areas. A simple solution — you don't have to do another environmental review if one was already done in this area— is taking months to work through the California legislature, which demonstrates that we're going too slow. California's seeing an exodus of people. I just talked to a CEO who said, “I'm moving my business because the people who work for me can't afford to live in California anymore.” This is the kind of problem that you can solve. State legislatures, Congress, and executives have to get together and take some radical steps to make it easier to build housing.I appreciate what you said about what we were doing at Treasury, but from my standpoint, I wish we had done more earlier to focus on this issue. We had a lot going on, but fundamentally, the most important thing on housing is taking a step to try and build housing today, which is going to have an impact on the economy 10, 20, 30 years from now. We just have to start doing that as soon as possible.Thanks to Emma Hilbert for her transcript and audio edits. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

In this episode of The Creepy Side of NEPA returning guest Linda Schlier owner of The Candle Shoppe Of The Poconos and tour guide of The Haunted, Pocono Joe join Dan Kosloski. They both join Dan to discuss their property's history and paranormal stories centered around monkeys. They also talk about their plans to open the attic area to the public for the first time. The attic is one area Linda was warned when buying the property to stay out of. New to The Creepy Side of NEPA podcast?  Be sure to catch up on our prior episodes available on all major podcasting platforms.  Don't forget to like, subscribe, or follow depending on the podcasting platform that you are using.    Have a creepy story, legend or an idea for an upcoming episode?  Email us at GHOST@WNEP.COM and maybe we will feature your story on our next episode.   Be sure to follow WNEP's Creepy Side of NEPA on Facebook for the latest show information.  Subscribe to The Creepy Side of NEPA on YouTube.    Now you can catch The Creepy Side of NEPA streamed every night at midnight on WNEP+.  For more information on how to get WNEP+ please visit WNEP.COM      Don't forget to like, subscribe, or follow The Creepy Side of NEPA wherever you listen! The Creepy Side of NEPA is hosted and produced by Daniel T. Kosloski 

Entrevista de Pablo Wende a Victoria Cánepa, abogada especialista en migraciones, a propósito de la reforma migratoria.

America's infrastructure future isn't being decided in Washington—it's being fought permit by permit in state capitals across the country. While politicians talk about building more, the real bottlenecks are happening where rubber meets bureaucratic road.From Donald Trump to Pete Buttigieg, everyone agrees: America has forgotten how to build things. But even if Washington cleared every federal rule tomorrow, states would still hold the keys to actually breaking ground. Whether it's Clean Air Act permits, water discharge approvals, or the maze of mini-NEPAs and local reviews, states issue most of the paperwork that determines if your project lives or dies.This isn't just red tape—it can be competitive advantage. States that master the art of streamlined permitting without sacrificing environmental standards can capture billions in reshoring investment. Digital dashboards, consolidated reviews, shot-clocks with automatic approvals—these bureaucratic innovations are becoming economic development superpowers.Federal dollars from infrastructure, CHIPS, and climate bills are queued up, but shovels aren't hitting the ground. From geothermal in California to advanced nuclear in Montana, nearly every clean technology faces its first real test at the state level. Joining us are Emmet Penney, Senior Fellow at FAI focusing on Infrastructure and Energy, and Thomas Hochman, Director of Infrastructure Policy at FAI. For more on what's working and what's not, check out their State Permitting Playbook and the new State Permitting Scorecard.

My guests this week believe in a holistic approach to success and happiness and they're encouraging other women to consider this approach by strengthening five pillars that help build the foundation for wealth in our lives. Scranton business woman Megan Alpert of Joy World Wealth Partners is hosting Abundance Life, a four-week workshop series featuring fabulous women of NEPA presenting on one of the following pillars: financial wealth, time wealth, social wealth, physical wealth and spiritual wealth. Megan talks with me this week about her intention behind this workshop series and she is joined by Trish Dickert-Nieves, a trauma-informed somatic practitioner and holistic health coach of Embody Holistic Living who will help kick the workshop series off on June 6. The Abundance Series will include the following workshops:  June 6: the series kicks off with the topic of financial wealth as Dickert-Nieves presents “Somatic Money,” providing tools for financial confidence and long-term planning.June 13: time and social wealth will be addressed with Certified Recovery Specialist Rose Nogan, owner of White Tail Sober Coaching, who will provide women with tools to build time wealth by creating boundaries that allow morespace for personal peace, joy and happiness. Jeannine Luby, certified laughter yoga leader, comedian, and owner of Laugh to Live, will offer strategies using playful and empowering humor and laughter yoga for social wealth through meaningful connection and stress-reduction.  June 20: physical wealth will be addressed with a focus on vitality, movement and wellbeing with Rigau offering information on health topics such as improvedsleep, nutrition and stress management. ACE Certified Personal Trainer Pat Barnes will share her expertise of more than 25 years in the fitness industry cateringto women over 50. June 27: the series closes with the topic of spiritual wealth. Alison Skoff, an ontological coach and soul-centric guide, will focus on reclaiming wholeness, cultivating peace, purpose and alignment to support the journey of inner reclamation, soul truth, and life aligned leadership. Space for the workshops is limited. Please email Joanna@planwithjoyworld.com.  Thank you to my podcast sponsors Budget Through Life with Emily Hickox who will be presenting financial literacy workshops for young people this summer, and Reinvented Threads with Gabby Lynn who is out and about in the Lehigh Valley this summer with her amazing sustainable fashion accessories that are also available in her online store. Reach out to me at Jeannine.Luby@gmail.com if you're interested in supporting the content I produce each week. Follow me at Funny Wine Girl Jeannine on Facebook and Instagram and Laugh to Live on Facebook.I appreciate you from the bottom of my heart and the bottom of my wine glass.

If you moved away from NEPA and returned, what brought you back?

About the Host: Chris Clarke is the host of "90 Miles from Needles: The Desert Protection Podcast." With an extensive background in environmental journalism, Clarke has covered renewable energy developments in California's deserts for KCET, a public television station in Los Angeles. His work is driven by a passionate commitment to environmental conservation and protection, bringing to light the complexities and challenges of implementing renewable energy projects in sensitive desert habitats. Clarke's expertise and dedication continue to inform and inspire as he navigates the intricacies of desert ecosystems and environmental policies. Episode Summary: In this episode of "90 Miles from Needles: The Desert Protection Podcast," host Chris Clarke offers a critical analysis of "Abundance," the new book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. The episode unpacks the book's treatment of environmental regulations and sustainable development, particularly questioning the authors' thesis of liberal states allegedly hindering renewable projects due to stringent regulations. Clarke, drawing on his years of experience as a renewable energy reporter, counters this narrative with on-ground insights, advocating for the significance of environmental laws. Clarke critiques Klein and Thompson's perspective that liberal regulations are obstacles to progress, especially in solar energy projects. With examples from California's renewable energy history, he underscores how the actual challenges often stem from corporate dynamics rather than regulatory frameworks. Clarke highlights the pitfalls of Klein and Thompson's book, arguing that it oversimplifies complex issues by selectively presenting data, ultimately asserting the need for a grounded understanding of environmental policies. Key Takeaways: Environmental Regulations' Role: Clarke challenges the notion that environmental regulations, like CEQA, are the main barriers to renewable energy progress, presenting evidence from California's solar energy projects. Corporate Influence: The episode points out the critical role of corporate influence, particularly from utility companies, in shaping the renewable energy landscape, rather than blaming public regulations. Complexity in Policy Discussions: Emphasizes the need for detailed and nuanced discussions about housing and energy development, contrasting with the book's broad brush critiques. Grounded Evidence: Advocates for the significance of ground truthing and environmental laws in preventing unforeseen project impacts, contrary to the book's implications. Desert Habitat Challenges: Explores the environmental and cultural challenges of renewable projects in the California desert, highlighting systemic issues outside mere regulatory concerns. Notable Quotes: "In Klein and Thompson's telling of how liberal regulation is getting in the way of renewable energy development, the actual history of renewable energy development in the desert never showed up." "The function of these laws is to ground truth projects, to reduce the number of unanticipated consequences." "[Rooftop solar in California] is having some issues because the utilities don't like it." "This book is a testament to the power of selective cherry picking of data in order to bolster an ideological argument." "Abundance is essentially a polemic, an extended OP-ed, and in this climate, it's just not helpful." Resources: 90 Miles from Needles Website: http://90milesfromneedles.com California Distributed Generation Stats: https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov/ "Rooftop Solar Reduces Costs for All Ratepayers" report by the California Solar and Storage Association: https://mcubedecon.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/calssa_rooftop-solar-reduces-costs-for-all-ratepayers-2025.pdf Mehdi Hasan and Derek Thompson discussing "Abundance": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTC5jKpYYNU Zeteo (Mehdi Hasan's new news network): https://zeteo.com/ Rose Foundation report on CEQA and housing: https://rosefdn.org/wp-content/uploads/CEQA-California_s-Living-Environmental-Law-10-25-21.pdf CEQA and Housing Production: https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_and_Housing_Report_1-30-19.pdfBecome a desert defender!: https://90milesfromneedles.com/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of BuzzHouse, Don Bernards and Garrick Gibson sit down with Thom Amdur, Senior Vice President of Policy and Impact at Lincoln Avenue Communities. Thom shares what he's tracking on Capitol Hill and what could be coming next for affordable housing, tax reform and federal regulation. From the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act to changes in NEPA and Davis-Bacon, he breaks down the legislative and administrative shifts likely to impact developers, investors and housing professionals heading into 2025. Follow UsTwitter @BakerTillyUSFacebook @BakerTillyUSInstagram @bakertillyusPresented by Baker Tillywww.bakertilly.com

Welcome to the first episode in a three-part series about community wildfire resilience, sponsored by Fire Aside. This episode explores a number of big, meaty topics you've likely been hearing about in the wildfire space, from wildfire insurance to categorical exclusions to NEPA to wildfire resilience policy in the era of urban conflagrations like those in LA this winter. Our fearless leader on this journey is former CAL FIRE Chief Deputy Director Chris Anthony, who has worked with some major players in the wildfire space since retiring in 2023. His consultation clients have included entities in the nonprofit, academic, philanthropic, agency and private industry (including Fire Aside) spaces, while also serving as a board member for the Earth Fire Alliance and California Fire Safe Council.Chris has a deep understanding of wildfire resilience at both the landscape scale (think fuels management and big-picture restoration projects) as well as at the community scale (think home hardening, defensible space and how counties and cities engage with homeowners). This breadth of experience has made him instrumental in informing and advancing critical wildfire policy at the state level in California, while also getting involved in projects that leverage technology to help us better understand and mitigate risk to wildfire. After 30 years in CAL FIRE, his goals upon leaving the agency were simple: 1. Bring fire back to fire-adapted ecosystems.2. Build more understanding around what strategies and mitigative actions can meaningful reduce risk in communities.3. Develop and support policies that help us meet these two goals.4. Find innovators and technologies that can help scale up some of the critical actions we need to take to move the needle on fire resilience. We would like to extend a huge thank you to Fire Aside for sponsoring this series. Fire Aside is a home assessment platform that helps fire departments, conservation districts and other entities perform more thorough wildfire risk assessments, while also providing a platform for directly engaging homeowners in taking meaningful action to improve their resilience. Learn more at FireAside.com.

On today's show: To Support and Subscribe

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

In this week's episode, we cover the details of the budget reconciliation package, the agencies and communities affected, and what you can do to help stop these devastating moves before Memorial Day.

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

This conversation, with transit guru Stephanie Pollack, is one of my favorite conversations we've recorded on here. For one, I had a blast recording — Stephanie's funny, and she's got a killer Boston accent. For another, she explains some of the ideas I care about incredibly well — how well-intentioned regulations turn bad, how political pressures make simple things hard to pull off, why building in the real world is so hard. She taught me a huge amount about building transit. And she's a great storyteller.For context, Pollack was the deputy administrator of the Federal Highway Administration for the first half of the Biden admin. Before that, she served as the secretary of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (DOT). And a while before that, before she was in the business of building stuff, she was an environmental activist who sued the the Massachusetts DOT for building stuff. We get into that evolution in her career here.This conversation is one of a series of conversations over the coming months about transit: why it's gotten so hard to build, who fights over it, and what it takes to build something people love.We discuss:(00:00) Introduction (00:54) Federal vs. State Transit Funding Structure (02:58) Transit vs. Highway Agency Operational Differences (04:58) Stephanie's Career and Perspective Changes(10:39) The Massachusetts Big Dig Project (11:34) Cost Overruns and Project Estimates (17:04) Inflation in Infrastructure Projects(18:28) The Four Ps of Project Delays (23:50) NEPA and Environmental Review(34:19) The Green Line Extension Project (43:39) Project Redesign and Procurement Innovation(58:20) Advice for Secretary DuffyThanks to Sofia Scarlat and Emma Hilbert for their audio and transcript edits. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Our recent SAM Huddle, Thinking Clearly in Uncertain Times, was recorded on April 21, 2025. With tensions around trade and cross-border relations rising, this conversation brought together industry and policy perspectives to delve into how these developments are reshaping the landscape for travel and resort operations throughout North America. This is episode two of our two-part series covering this conversation.  The J-1 visa program is facing potential cuts, prompting resorts to diversify recruitment strategies. While the program currently remains viable for the upcoming season, H-2B visas are being considered as a more stable—albeit costlier—alternative. Many resorts are preparing to use both to cover seasonal staffing needs.  Plus, efforts to streamline the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA process are also underway, with more responsibility placed on project sponsors to prepare documentation. Staffing shortages at the federal level are causing some delays, leading to increased use of third-party contractors. But, projects that can align with forest health and wildfire mitigation goals may gain added momentum. Speakers: Dave Byrd, Director of Risk and Regulatory Affairs, NSAA Scott Prior, Senior Associate, Environmental and Permitting, SE Group Nate Riccardi, Pabian Law Listen to part 1 of the conversation here.

Join us in today's episode where we discuss seasonal yard care, landscaping, and the future of outdoor property services with Kyler Higgins, the young entrepreneur behind Higgins Property Care. Discover Kyler's journey, business vision, and how his company is transforming outdoor spaces in NEPA. From lawn maintenance and pond installations to hardscaping and other landscape construction projects, find out all the services Higgins Property Care offers. Plus, learn some insider tips on making your yard look its best this season. Don't miss out on this detailed discussion, perfect for homeowners and budding entrepreneurs alike!If you or someone you know wants to be featured in our next podcast, message us on Facebook!

In this episode, we meet in person with Lesley Owning, a seasoned Principal Planner and Environmental Planning Group Manager at Helix Environmental Planning. With over 13 years of experience, Lesley manages CEQA and NEPA requirements for diverse projects, from infrastructure to renewable energy. Lesley highlights her career journey and key transitions that led her to her current leadership role. She emphasizes the importance of mentorship and flexibility in nurturing her team, sharing her approach to career development and project management. Listeners will be inspired by Lesley's enthusiasm for projects like aquifer storage and groundwater recharge. She also discusses the evolving nature of the environmental industry and how leaders can support their teams in balancing personal and professional growth.

The Laurie Cadden Show from April 19, 2025 featuring 2 guests. Lynn Conrad, Executive Director of the Rail-Trail Council of NEPA, to the show. Lynn gives us an update on improvement projects and a Bike to Table fundraiser coming up on May 4th on the D&H Rail Trail in Susquehanna County. Hannah Radkiewicz, Founder of Swap Scranton Hannah gives us the details on a clothing swap on May 3rd at Dunmore Community Center.

In this episode of the Energy News Beat Daily Standup - Weekly Recap, the hosts, Stuart Turley and Michael Tanner discusses key topics impacting the energy sector, including the economic benefits of oil in Texas, the challenges posed by NEPA regulations on infrastructure projects, and the complexities of U.S. oil prices and their global trade impact. Stuart Turley and Michael Tanner highlight how falling oil prices may worsen the U.S. trade deficit, the implications of the U.N.'s carbon tax on shipping, and China's halting of critical mineral exports amidst rising trade tensions. They also explore the U.S.'s struggles in regaining its shipbuilding capacity and the intricacies of striking trade deals, particularly with China and Malaysia's role in oil exports.Highlights of the Podcast 00:00 - Intro01:52 - DAVID BLACKMON: Reconciliation Permitting Reform Will Make America Go Big Again OPINION 06:59 - Why Falling Oil Prices Are Not Always Good News 11:34 - U.N. Maritime Agency Slaps First-Ever Emissions Tax On Shipping In Latest Money Grab 14:48 - China Halts Critical Exports as Trade War Intensifies 17:14 - Lower Oil Prices Threaten Permian Basin Growth 20:23 - The steep learning curve America faces if it wants to return to previous shipyard glory days 23:49 - How to Strike Trade Deals in Record Time26:55 - OutroPlease see the links below or articles that we discuss in the podcast.DAVID BLACKMON: Reconciliation Permitting Reform Will Make America Go Big Again OPINIONWhy Falling Oil Prices Are Not Always Good News U.N. Maritime Agency Slaps First-Ever Emissions Tax On Shipping In Latest Money Grab China Halts Critical Exports as Trade War Intensifies Lower Oil Prices Threaten Permian Basin Growth The steep learning curve America faces if it wants to return to previous shipyard glory days How to Strike Trade Deals in Record TimeFollow Stuart On LinkedIn and TwitterFollow Michael On LinkedIn and TwitterENB Top NewsEnergy DashboardENB PodcastENB SubstackENB Trading DeskOil & Gas Investing– Get in Contact With The Show –

In this episode, Patrick McKenzie (@patio11) is joined by Tim Fist, Director of Emerging Technologies at the Institute for Progress, to discuss how energy constraints could bottleneck AI development. They explore how AI training clusters will soon require gigawatts of power—equivalent to multiple nuclear plants—with projections showing a single cluster needing 5 gigawatts by 2030. Tim explains why behind-the-meter generation and geothermal energy offer promising solutions while regulatory hurdles like NEPA and transmission permitting create "litigation doom loops" that threaten America's competitiveness. The conversation covers the global race for compute infrastructure, with China and the UAE making aggressive investments while the US struggles with permitting delays, highlighting how energy policy will determine which nations lead the AI revolution. –Full transcript available here: www.complexsystemspodcast.com/the-ai-energy-bottleneck-with-tim-fist/–Sponsor:  VantaVanta automates security compliance and builds trust, helping companies streamline ISO, SOC 2, and AI framework certifications. Learn more at https://vanta.com/complex–Recommended in this episode:Compute in America https://ifp.org/compute-in-america/Tim Fist on Twitter https://x.com/fiiiiiist The Enchippening by Sarah Constantin https://sarahconstantin.substack.com/p/the-enchippening Solar economics with Casey Handmer https://open.spotify.com/episode/0GHegWgLSubYxvATmbWhQu?si=VKJYaSwaRJq_YcK8kJIdvQ AI & Power economics with Azeem Azhar https://open.spotify.com/episode/3KkvPiYpGvXCRukWxHP7Ch?si=RPEjrs67S9CFA0lLak6OVAFracking with Austin Vernon  https://open.spotify.com/episode/0YDV1XyjUCM2RtuTcBGYH9?si=hSniC3N0QkqhF74ra-XAcA Economics of the grid with Travis Dauwalter https://open.spotify.com/episode/5JY8e84sEXmHFlc8IR2kRb?si=BsqMZGu6Qr-2F7-RSyyEhw–Timestamps:(00:00) Intro(00:40) Energy bottlenecks in AI development(02:56) Technical and policy solutions for energy needs(05:18) Challenges in transmission infrastructure(12:14) Behind the meter generation explained(17:50) Solar and storage: The future of energy(18:47) Sponsor: Vanta(20:05) Solar and storage: The future of energy (part 2)(29:07) Power purchase agreements and financing(33:17) Financing geothermal wells(33:53) The promise of geothermal energy(35:25) Challenges in geothermal adoption(36:59) Industrial applications of geothermal heat(45:01) Geothermal energy and national security(49:27) Global investments in AI and energy infrastructure(56:29) Policy and technical expertise in AI(01:00:54) The role of government in technological advancements(01:05:07) Wrap

This week on Regional Roundup, we hear reports from across the region on the "Hands Off" protests, which drew thousands to the streets as part of a nationwide day of action against recent Trump administration policies. We also visit a unique library in Westcliffe, Colorado, where people can check out musical instruments. Plus, we break down NEPA, a cornerstone of environmental law, and close the show with a story about a recent powwow in Durango.

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.

Todd Pousley is a proud Scranton resident who, for the past 7 years, has dedicated himself to improving his community as director of community development at NeighborWorks Northeastern PA. In this role, he leads collaborative, resident-driven efforts to improve Scranton and other communities in NEPA. Todd is also an active volunteer, having served on the boards of Habitat for Humanity of Lackawanna County, Leadership Lackawanna, and Friends of the Poor. He currently serves as the chair of the Scranton City Planning Commission and Lackawanna County Land Bank Advisory Committee. Todd holds a Master of Public Administration degree from Marywood University and a Nonprofit Leadership Certificate from the University of Scranton.

Eric in Exeter took some time out to text in to thank us for the all KRZ concerts we brought to NEPA including Dua Lipa & Sabrina Carpenter.

Send us a textWelcome 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 Lauren Schramm, NEPA Manager about AI, Career Pathing, and Pets.   Read her 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: 2:12 - Can you get through your day without Coffee?6:36 - Interview with Lauren Begins12:12 - Whats new with NEPA25:53 - AI collecting your info?36:08- Field Notes with Lauren!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 Lauren Schramm at https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauren-schramm/Guest Bio: Originally from Northern Vermont, Lauren holds a Bachelor's degree from Alfred University (NY) and earned her MS from Clemson University. Lauren embarked on her career in a Texas freshwater mussel lab before relocating to Atlanta. As a project manager, she successfully led a team of scientists specializing in NEPA work for cell towers across 29 states. Lauren has since transitioned to working with additional lead agencies and Pond and Company, where she serves as the manager of a NEPA team. In her free time, Lauren manages a mini farm, indulges in painting, hand-building ceramic art, and dedicates time to volunteering.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.

The Pennsylvania Senate passed two Republican-backed crime bills. A federal judge says enforcing the requirement that Pennsylvania mail-in ballots include an accurate exterior envelope date violates the federal Constitution. The EPA is continuing to slash grant funding for projects in Pennsylvania. An iconic hard candy mounted to a plastic band is once again rolling off production lines at Bazooka Brands’ new Ring Pop factory in northeastern Pa. A water quality watchdog is threatening legal action against a York County scrap yard for alleged water pollution. For the first time in decades, Lancaster residents and visitors can expect to see park rangers roaming the city. Plans for a new affordable housing addition to the Misty Ridge community won unanimous approval from Cumberland Township supervisors. Gas prices across the Susquehanna Valley rose 10 cents this week to an average of $3.14 a gallon, according to AAA East Central’s most recent Gas Price ReportSupport WITF: https://www.witf.org/support/give-now/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This podcast series is part of the AASHTO Environmental Management technical service program operated by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It explores a wide array of environmental topics that affect state departments of transportation and the infrastructure programs they oversee.In February 2025, the CEQ announced an Interim Final Rule that removes its longstanding NEPA implementing regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. This shift places the responsibility for NEPA compliance directly on individual federal agencies, allowing them to follow their own procedures rather than a centralized set of rules.In this podcast episode, Boling delves into how, if NEPA is revoked, it removes a “universal framework” that will prevent federal agencies working in tandem on environmental reviews.Boling also outlines the potential impact of mass layoffs within the federal government, especially among senior leadership and recent hires, and how that could slow down decision-making regarding environmental reviews for infrastructure projects.

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

NEPA rollbacks, environmental impacts (start time: 6:25) Amidst a flurry of moves by the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations, last month a White House agency proposed a rule to rescind a landmark law meant to protect wildlife, their habitat, and human  communities from unchecked development, and to ensure that the public has a say … Continue reading "NEPA, Wildlife, Lands Under Threat"

In this episode, we discuss the ongoing threats to our public lands and the attacks on US environmental protections under the current administration. From the push for fossil fuel extraction to rollbacks of key policies like the Antiquities Act and NEPA, the Trump administration's agenda is having devastating impacts on public lands and the environment. We hear from: Jocelyn Torres, Chief Conservation Officer for the Conservation Lands FoundationLouis Geltman, Vice President for Policy and Government Relations at Outdoor AllianceTania Lown-Hecht, the Vice President of Communications and Strategy at Outdoor AllianceDo you have questions or potential guests for future episodes covering public lands policy? Submit any information to our Google Form: https://forms.gle/VQW5ZoVcr6nDEd9t8or reach out via email on our website (theoutdoorminimalist.com)Key Topics:The ongoing dismantling of protections for public lands, including national monuments and the Antiquities Act.The shift towards corporate-friendly policies under the Trump administration and the rise of fossil fuel extraction on public lands.The environmental consequences of rapid resource extraction and the increasing threat to ecosystems, wildlife, and local communities.The impact of staffing cuts within federal land management agencies, weakening both recreational management and wildfire response.How public advocacy is making a difference: Over 100,000 letters sent to Congress and restored positions within land management agencies.What you can do to make your voice heard and protect public lands through organizations like Outdoor Alliance and the Conservation Lands Foundation.Resources:Outdoor Alliance: Take ActionConservation Lands FoundationSign up for updates and more at The Outdoor Minimalist NewsletterEpisode Sources:PBS: https://youtu.be/-sDtdCzMIKA?si=VSw4NdskP7Lw1Wl1PBS: https://youtu.be/vYtDOq-EhYU?si=_-JMWFnbLkZsrSLUhttps://www.outdooralliance.org/blog/2025/2/25/press-release-threats-to-rural-recreation-economies-from-poorly-managed-oil-and-gas-developmentnbsp https://www.outdooralliance.org/blog/2025/3/6/public-lands-staffing-crisis-worsens-as-more-layoffs-threatened https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/republican-plan-privatize-sell-federal-public-lands-west/ https://www.wilderness.org/articles/press-release/map-illustrate-public-lands-reach-trump-energy-dominance https://www.nrdc.org/media/executive-orders-direct-massive-expansion-logging-public-lands https://www.npr.org/2025/03/13/nx-s1-5325959/federal-employees-court-firing https://www.outdooralliance.org/blog/2025/3/13/press-release-outdoor-alliance-rallies-120-businesses-brands-organizations-to-correct-public-land-staffing-reductions https://www.conservationlands.org/new_legislation_seeks_to_gut_public_process_on_federal_public_land_management_in_colorado_montana_oregon_and_wyoming

The thousands of homes that burned in Los Angeles this January included the home of Marketplace Morning Report Host David Brancaccio. He shares what he's learning about the challenges of rebuilding with a limited supply and huge demand for contractors. David says there's an opportunity to rebuild a more wildfire-resistant Altadena, and to heal the community itself.  Also, sea otters were hunted out from Oregon and Northern California more than a century ago amid the fur trade, but the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians and conservation partners are now working to bring them back. How reintroducing sea otters can help revive the kelp ecosystem and restore a vital cultural connection for Native people. And major fossil fuel projects like LNG terminals could become harder to oppose on environmental grounds because of a Trump executive order that tries to weaken agency compliance with NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental concerns may take a backseat under the new project review process. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices