First foot passenger fare on Corran Ferry delayed
Plans to introduce the first foot passenger fare on the Corran Ferry have been delayed after a group of councillors pushed for a full council debate.
The five minute, Highland Council-run crossing links the wider Lochaber area with communities in the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
The local authority's economy and infrastructure committee agreed to a £2 charge at a meeting on Thursday.
But the group has used a notice of amendment to pause implementation of the fare after raising concerns about how it might affect businesses and residents.
Highland Council said a special meeting would be held later this month.
Andrew Baxter, Liberal Democrat councillor for Fort William and Ardnamurchan, led calls for a debate at a meeting of the full council.
The charge for the crossing of Loch Linnhe's Corran Narrows was expected to come into effect in the summer.
Under the plan approved last week, the fare would only apply to passengers aged 23 to 60 years old.
It would include cyclists, although there would be no extra charge for the bicycle.
The alternative journey by road around Loch Linnhe takes about two hours.
Highland Council confirmed it had received a notice of amendment and a special meeting would be held on 12 June.
The local authority describes the Corran Ferry as Europe's busiest single-vessel car ferry.
It carries about 10,000 foot passengers, 270,000 cars and 11,000 commercial vehicles a year.
Highland Council said a £2 charge could generate £20,516 a year.
Councillors agreed to a 10% increase on vehicle fares in March, but left a decision on foot passengers to the economy and infrastructure committee.
First foot passenger charge approved for Corran Ferry
First foot passenger fare proposed for Corran Ferry
Highland Council
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sunrun (CRCL) Jumps 18% on Bargain-Hunting
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Sunrun Inc. (NASDAQ:RUN) stands against other best-performing stocks of Friday. Sunrun saw its share prices jump by 18.06 percent on Friday to close at $10 apiece, as investors resorted to bargain-hunting following two straight days of decline. In recent news, Sunrun Inc. (NASDAQ:RUN) announced the switch-on of 130,000 home batteries to support the country's power grid this summer. This represented more than two-thirds of its total battery fleet. A field of solar panels glistening in the afternoon sun, symbolizing the company's renewable energy ambitions. In its grid service programs, Sunrun Inc. (NASDAQ:RUN) said that it was capable of dispatching 650 megawatts of peak power, enough to energize 480,000 homes at critical times every day to support the expected higher demand for electricity. 'America is entering a period of insatiable, hockey-stick energy demand driven by manufacturing, data centers, and AI,' said Sunrun Inc. (NASDAQ:RUN) CEO Mary Powell. 'Sunrun's laser focus on pairing storage with solar puts us in a position to rapidly bring new generating capacity online to stabilize the grid and help lead the nation toward energy independence,' she added. While we acknowledge the potential of RUN as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Mark Carney's conversion from eco warrior to oil and gas champion
Once considered the Bank of England's greenest-ever governor, Mark Carney has seemingly undergone a Damascene conversion. During his time at Threadneedle Street, he called on the world to leave 80pc of oil and gas in the ground. But now, as Canada's new prime minister, he wants to pump as much as he can to protect the country's economy from Donald Trump's trade war. Canada is going to become an energy powerhouse, Carney told reporters last week. And he didn't mean just in renewables. 'When I talk about being an energy superpower, I mean in both clean and conventional energies,' he said. 'And yes, that does mean oil and gas. 'It means using our oil and gas here in Canada to displace imports wherever possible, particularly from the United States. 'It makes no sense to be sending that money south of the border or across the ocean, so yes, it also means more oil and gas exports – without question.' This embedded content is not available in your region. Credit: CTV news These comments are remarkable given they come from a man who repeatedly called for an end to drilling during his tenure as Bank governor between 2013 and 2020. One such call came in a 2015 speech at Lloyds of London, when he described 80pc of the world's known fossil fuel reserves as 'unburnable'. He said: 'The catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors – imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no incentive to fix.' Given Carney's influence, his dramatic warnings inevitably shaped UK government decision-making at the time, as he championed the cause of net zero to a total of five different energy secretaries. Claire Perry, who served as Tory energy minister between 2017 and 2018, recalls: 'Mark had a huge impact on global climate issues. 'He created all the momentum around carbon markets and energy transition investment.' Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader who served as energy secretary in the 2012-15 coalition government, echoes this. 'Mark Carney had a real understanding of where the wind was blowing globally on energy, and recognised the risks to the economy of over-reliance on fossil fuels,' he says. After leaving the Bank, Carney also wrote a book called Value(s): An Economist's Guide to Everything That Matters, where he advocated powerfully for the introduction of carbon taxes. 'One of the most important initiatives is carbon pricing,' he wrote. 'The best approach is a revenue-neutral, progressive carbon tax.' The UK has since faithfully implemented that plan with a raft of carbon levies on consumers and industry, which many argue has left Britain burdened by some of the highest energy prices in the world. Jump ahead to 2025, however, and Carney – now a Canadian politician instead of a British bureaucrat – has adopted a wildly different approach. Immediately after succeeding Justin Trudeau as prime minister and winning Canada's election in April, he wasted no time in signing a directive cancelling Canada's existing carbon tax and confirming rebates for many of those who had paid it. He's now gone even further by pledging to build oil and gas pipelines, LNG export terminals, and to relax the emissions restrictions that have angered many of Canada's biggest fossil fuels producers. And his plans don't stop there. 'All this is not enough just to make Canada an energy superpower,' he said. 'It's not enough to build our full potential. 'It's not enough to truly get incomes growing across the country. We can do much more. We are going to be very, very ambitious. Build, big, build, bold.' Carney, who also previously ran the Bank of Canada, reconciles such ambitions with simultaneous pledges on green technologies that could theoretically reduce emissions, such as carbon capture and storage. But these will take years or decades to implement. According to experts, Carney's conversation has been driven by the economy, as oil and gas accounted for up to 7.5pc of the country's GDP in recent years. In 2023, crude oil exports alone were valued at $124bn, representing 16pc of Canada's total exports. That figure rises to 20pc if gas exports are included. What's more, Canada has about 171bn barrels of oil in recoverable reserves – far greater than America's 44bn. It means Canada can rely on oil for decades, whereas US production is expected to peak in the next few years. However, most of that oil and gas comes from one province, Alberta. That region alone holds billions of dollars, although its voters blame Carney's and Trudeau's Liberal party for climate restrictions that curbed economic growth. A recent opinion piece for Canada's Globe and Mail by Preston Manning, a retired politician who helped found Canada's conservative movement, warned that his 5m fellow Albertans had had enough of rule from Ottawa and were considering secession. Some go further. Alberta, they point out, shares a border with the US and perhaps has more in common with the likes of Texas than Toronto. These growing tensions have created a political opportunity for Alberta's conservative leaders. Less than 24 hours after Carney's election, Danielle Smith, Alberta's premier, introduced a bill to the province's legislature, making it much easier for a citizens' movement to trigger an independence referendum. The new rules slash the number of citizens' signatures required to trigger a referendum, from 600,000 to 177,000 and give petitioners 120 days to collect them rather than the previous 90. She has done so to pile pressure on Carney, handing him a list of nine energy-related federal laws she wants overhauled to unleash more drilling in Alberta. 'We cannot keep the over $9 trillion worth of oil wealth we have in the ground,' she said. 'Mark Carney has acknowledged that the federal government must address key policy barriers. 'That must include abandoning the unconstitutional oil and gas production cap, repealing the tanker ban, and scrapping Canada's net-zero power regulations. 'I believe in a strong and sovereign Alberta within a united Canada, but we cannot persist with the status quo. I won't allow that status quo to continue.' Smith is also exploiting the tensions generated by Donald Trump, the US president, whose talk of making Canada the 51st state resonates with some Albertans. This embedded content is not available in your region. She sees her demands as a test of the scale of Carney's commitment to oil and gas: 'Given his past actions, I've asked myself what version of Mark Carney are we going to get. 'Will we get the pragmatic Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney? Or will we get the environmental extremist keep-it-in-the-ground Mark Carney? 'I don't know the answer yet. He's saying some of the right things, but we need to see meaningful action.' Such tensions have been around for a long time. What Canada's politicians say and do are often very different things, says Brendan Long, a leading energy analyst and Canadian, whose new book Energy Shocks, compares the politics of energy in the UK, US and Canada. He points out that Canada has a long history of electing prime ministers with stridently green manifestos who then preside over huge increases in oil and gas production. 'While previous premier Justin Trudeau had explicitly anti-fossil fuel agendas, domestic Canadian oil and gas production grew dramatically under his leadership,' he said. 'Today, Canada is ranked fourth in terms of global oil production at 5.8m barrels of oil per day and growing.' By contrast, Long points out that the UK is the only large global oil producer to have deliberately cut its production in recent years, signalling the long-standing net-zero legacy left by Carney. 'It means that while Canada's oil and gas industry is ramping up production under Carney, the UK remains aligned with the anti-oil and gas ideology he promoted when he was the governor of the Bank of England,' he says. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
What is NIL Go, and why is it the latest subject of debate among college sports leaders?
ORLANDO, Fla. — The man steps onto a raised platform, walks behind a podium and leans toward the microphone. Before him, more than 200 college athletic administrators shift to the front of their seats. For months now, they've been waiting for this moment. Advertisement 'I'm Karl,' the man says, 'with Deloitte.' Karl Schaefer is a young man with perfectly cropped hair, a sharp grin and slender frame. He is here to lead a 40-minute presentation on the single most talked-about concept of college athletics' new revenue-sharing era: the Deloitte-run clearinghouse dubbed 'NIL Go.' Though it remains unsaid by those in power, the goal of NIL Go is quite clear: prevent booster payments to athletes that, for four years now, have been masquerading as commercial and endorsement deals. As Schaefer flips through slides of the NIL Go software system, for the first time revealed publicly, whispers within the room build to murmurs. Attendees capture slides with photos. Some video the entire event. Others scribble notes on a pad. How Deloitte and the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission, plan to prevent booster pay is the target of much criticism and fascination — plenty of it shrouded in secrecy for the last many months. Advertisement In central Florida, at an annual conference of administrators this week, the shroud was at least partially lifted. Not only was the platform's interface shown on a giant projection screen during Schaefer's presentation — including the six-step submission and approval process — but, in interviews with Yahoo Sports or during other public presentations, college sports executives who helped craft the system answered questions that, up to this point, had remained unanswered. While many doubt that the clearinghouse will withstand inevitable legal challenges, administrators here provided legitimate reasons for why they believe in its long-term survival. Most notable of those, says NCAA president Charlie Baker, is that the clearinghouse's appeals process — arbitration — is equipped with subpoena powers. 'They do have that power,' Baker told Yahoo Sports this week. 'Arbitration typically has subpoena power and I'm pretty sure since this one sits inside an injunction, they will have it.' Officials at the power conferences confirmed that 'significant subpoena powers' exist under the arbitration appeals process, but those powers are less expansive than subpoena authority within a courtroom. The decision to use subpoena powers and how exactly to use them — limited or broad — is expected to rest with the arbitrator presiding over the appeals process. Advertisement A subpoena compels individuals or entities to produce evidence under penalty of law, such as turning over text messages, emails and phone call logs as well as testifying before investigators. It is one of the more important tools for officers of the law, such as police investigators — and something that was never available to the NCAA enforcement staff. 'We won't have complete subpoena power, but if an athlete goes into arbitration … those records, you can get access to some of those records,' said Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork, who is a member of a settlement implementation committee that helped construct the new enforcement entity. 'It's going to be a new day.' The algorithm Back in the Deloitte presentation room, Schaefer is explaining the submission process for NIL Go. Athletes are required to submit third-party NIL deals of $600 or more using a web-based submission system, not unlike an online registration system for, say, a passport. Advertisement Shaefer explains, gesturing toward a giant projection screen, that the clearinghouse makes three determinations once a deal is submitted: Is the third party an 'associated entity' with the university, such as a booster, or a business contracted with a school like a university sponsor or apparel brand? If so, more intense scrutiny is applied in the vetting process. Public companies can, and many of them will, be deemed as associated entities. Is the deal for a 'valid business purpose?" The third-party business, brand or individual must be receiving true value from the activities, such as an autograph session, television commercial or speaking engagement. Is the deal within Deloitte's 'range of compensation' paid to similarly situated individuals? This is perhaps the most criticized of the concepts. Deloitte created 'the range of compensation' through an algorithm using fair market value analysis, comparing similar types of NIL deals struck between an athlete and the third party. More is now known about that algorithm. Clemson athletic director Graham Neff, one of the implementation committee members, details the factors used to form a compensation range: 'Athletic performance is a big part of it. Your social media reach and following. Market — where schools are at. The reach of your school within said market.' This will vary by school. Neff offers an example. 'The reach of Georgia Tech in Atlanta is different than the reach of Georgia State,' he says. Advertisement Neff believes that a 'majority' of NIL deals will derive from 'associated companies,' as school sponsors, multi-media rights partners and individual alumni and boosters work to provide universities with additional compensation so they can exceed the $20.5 million revenue sharing cap that each school is afforded. Third-party NIL compensation that passes the clearinghouse does not count against the cap. Even those who helped craft the new enforcement entity acknowledge that the system is attempting to do a very difficult thing: bring regulation to an enterprise that has, for four years now, seen little to no regulation or enforcement of athlete compensation. 'There's some toothpaste back in the tube a little bit given the environment,' Neff said. For example, Deloitte officials claim that 70% of past deals from booster collectives would have been denied in their algorithm, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved. Deloitte has also shared with officials that about 80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000 and 99% of those deals were valued at less than $100,000. Advertisement These figures suggest that the clearinghouse threatens to significantly curtail the millions of dollars that school-affiliated, booster-backed collectives are distributing to athletes. 'No one is trying to restrict someone's earning potential, but what we're trying to say is, 'What is the real market?'' Bjork says. 'Everybody you talk to about the pro market will tell you that NIL deals for pro athletes are really small. In the collective world, we created a false market.' Denial, approval and arbitration Displayed on the giant screen before hundreds of athletic administrators is the six-step clearinghouse submission and approval process. Advertisement Step 6 lays out the process for a player if his or her deal is denied by the clearinghouse because it either is not struck for a valid business purpose or it does not meet the compensation range. (1) Revise and resubmit the deal so that the compensation amount falls within the algorithm's range. For instance, if the clearinghouse deems that a submitted $1 million deal should be $500,000, the athlete can resubmit for $500,000 and the school, if it so chooses, can compensate the athlete for the other $500,000 through its revenue-share pool. (2) Cancel the deal completely. (3) Request arbitration as an appeals process. Advertisement (4) Accept the rejected deal as is. In this case, the athlete 'may face enforcement consequences (e.g., loss of eligibility),' the Deloitte presentation slide reads. According to settlement terms, attorneys for the plaintiffs (the suing athletes) and defendants (NCAA and power conferences) will work together to select a neutral arbitrator or arbitrators to preside over these cases. Individual arbitration processes are expected to last no more than 45 days. In an interview last fall, plaintiff lawyer Jeffrey Kessler described the arbitration as a trial-like set of hearings in front of an arbitrator — the new enforcement entity on one side (NCAA and power conferences) and the athlete on the other side. NCAA president Charlie Baker says the new NIL enforcement process will add accountability to the system, as long as athletes and schools follow the rules. (Photo by) (Kevin Dietsch via Getty Images) How an arbitrator rules may 'depend on what evidence' each side produces, Kessler said. As Baker and others have noted, that evidence may now be generated through limited subpoena power. Advertisement But one lingering question remains: Will an athlete's school fight alongside him or her in the case? 'I expect that if the athlete pursues it, the school will support the athlete and help provide the athlete with counsel to help represent them in that challenge,' Kessler said. Penalties for NIL violations Implementation committee members say they are finalizing a 'menu' of penalties for those found to commit violations within this new revenue-sharing era, most notably those found to have (1) circumvented the cap with old-fashioned cheating or intentional or accidental miscalculations; and (2) tampered with another college athlete or prospect who is under contract. Officials decided against using a set penalty matrix as the NCAA currently does (Level I, Level II, etc.). Instead, they are providing the new College Sports Commission CEO, Brian Seeley, with the flexibility to choose penalties from a wide range of options, depending on the individual circumstance. Advertisement 'Those penalties being worked through are going to be significant and are going to be different than any penalties we've had previously,' said new Michigan State athletic director J Batt, a member of the implementation committee. An example of a new kind of penalty is a reduction in transfers that a school can acquire from the portal, Bjork says. But there are others. A postseason ban remains among the penalties, said Desiree Reed-Francois, the Arizona athletic director and implementation committee member. There are also stiff fines — multi-million dollars in value — that may be levied against schools, administrators and coaches. Suspensions, for coaches and administrators, are on the penalty menu as well. 'The fines are substantive,' Reed-Francois says. Advertisement One penalty is off the table. Administrators say that reducing a school's revenue-share pool for subsequent years is not permitted. The settlement guarantees that schools are afforded the same revenue share pool. Pushback The clearinghouse has made its way to the U.S. Capitol. During a congressional hearing over college sports on Thursday, Rep. Lori Trahan, a Democrat from Massachusetts, chided college leaders for instituting a new enforcement process that 'guarantees people in power always win and the athletes who fuel this multi-billion dollar industry always lose.' One of the witnesses in that hearing, Ramogi Huma, the executive director of the National College Players Association, chimed in as well, accusing the NCAA and conference leadership as wanting to 'shut down boosters' ability to pay players just to monopolize it' themselves. Advertisement College executives reject these notions and consider all of these elements — even the new enforcement process — as protected by a legally binding settlement. The new enforcement entity was not created by committee members in some 'backroom,' Bjork says. The implementation committee only provided structure to an enforcement piece that is 'codified' within the settlement. 'There are processes here that have been approved by the court and the plaintiffs and the defendants that people are going to be expected to follow,' Baker told Yahoo Sports. 'Given so much of what's been going on in the third-party space hasn't been accountable or transparent, and has made a lot of people outside of college athletics a lot of money, I can understand why there might be some grumpiness about this.' Soon, power conference schools — and others opting into the settlement — are expected to sign an affiliation or membership agreement. With this binding document, schools waive their right to sue over enforcement decisions and commit to settlement terms, even if their state laws contradict them. The agreement — itself the subject of legal concerns, even from some schools — is an indictment on an industry of stakeholders that, for competitive reasons, are constantly scrambling to bend, break and shatter rules to gain even the slightest edge. Advertisement Earlier this week in Orlando, members of the implementation committee publicly implored schools to follow rules. 'This has to be a mindset change,' Bjork told the audience. 'We see all the reports and naysayers, that 'we're going to go back to old-school cheating and all these things and that this is not going to work.' This has to work.' 'This will work if we make it work,' Reed-Francois said. 'We need to shift our mindset and make this work.' Can it be done? But what if athletes decide not to submit any of their third-party deals at all? 'People will be turning in people,' Reed-Francois said. 'There's a lot more `transparency now.' Advertisement Back in the convention hall, Schaefer, from Deloitte, is winding down his presentation. He thanks the crowd before beginning to walk off the stage. From among the crowd, a few raised hands emerge. Folks have questions. Others in the audience remind the hand-raisers of something announced before the presentation began: The Deloitte employees are not taking questions.
