Latest news with #Ballentine
NDTV
26-05-2025
- Business
- NDTV
UAE Man Fined Rs 16 Lakh For Negative Review Against Business Online
A UAE man has paid a huge price for posting disparaging remarks against a business on social media. The Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial, and Administrative Claims ordered the man to pay the business owner Dh70,000 (approximately Rs 16.21 lakh) for inflicting financial losses. The businessman filed the lawsuit and initially sought Dh200,000 in damages for material and moral harm, court costs and legal fees. He alleged the man's remarks damaged his store's reputation and significantly reduced sales, Gulf News reported. The court acknowledged the man's remarks about the business harmed the company's reputation. The defendant was earlier found guilty in a criminal court ruling before filing a written defence asking the court to dismiss the case. He also asked the Federal Tax Authority to furnish the company's tax records to verify whether there had been a decline in sales during the period of the claimed defamation. The man also provided supporting documentation, such as images of internet conversations and a certificate of dependent status. The defendant also sought to recoup legal fees. However, the court concluded that the man had committed defamation, affirming the previous ruling. He was mandated to compensate the merchant with the designated amount. In a similar case in 2024, a man from Northern Ireland was sentenced to up to two years in prison in Dubai for posting a critical review of a dog grooming business. Belfast native Craig Ballentine was arrested on "slander" charges after he posted a critical review following a dispute with his previous employer. Ballentine lost his job and faced a travel ban for two months. He had to pay thousands of pounds to get it removed. The man then returned to Northern Ireland and wrote a critical online review outlining all of his grievances with the grooming centre and his former supervisor. Later, he was arrested while on vacation with friends in Abu Dhabi.
The Irish Sun
18-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Irish Sun
RTE Fair City viewers all left with same complaint about J.J. as he offers to help Vinos if Paul hires his accountant
RTE Fair City viewers were all left with the same complaint about J.J. as he offered to help Vinos. In tonight's episode, a downbeat Paul hid his true feelings when he reached out to Ruth. Zoe got an idea when Paul complained about business being slow. Advertisement 2 Paul was floored when he learned that Ruth wanted to stay in Spain for good Credit: RTE 2 J.J. offered to help Vinos Credit: RTE J.J. was given pause for thought when he noticed Paul's business struggling. Zoe pitched her food delivery service idea to a receptive Paul. When Pete saw J.J.'s accountant at Vino's, he warned Paul against getting involved. Paul was floored when he learned that Ruth wanted to stay in Spain for good. Pete tried to comfort a shocked Paul. When Paul closed Vinos early, J.J. insisted on having a lock-in to cheer him up. Advertisement READ MORE ON FAIR CITY J.J. offered to help Vinos - on the condition that Paul hired his accountant. One fan said: "I've a bad feeling about J.J. and Zoe." Sinead wrote: "J.J. just has scammer written all over him." Advertisement most read in the irish sun Another added: "Another spoofer, J.J. and his dodgy accountant." Elsewhere, Victor kept Ruby's car accident a secret from Babs. Ruby assured Victor she wanted nothing to do with Lorcan. First look at tonight's Fair City Lorcan was stung when Ruby rejected his apology. Victor was taken aback when Doug revealed the high price of his car repair. To stop Babs learning the truth, Ruby begged Victor to take Carol up on her offer to pay half the repair costs. Advertisement A reluctant Carol eventually agreed to give Victor a dig out. CITY DRAMA Jess and Melanie remained at loggerheads. Joan needed her team to pitch in when she was left to shoulder a big case alone. Renee and Jacinta clashed over organising a charity dance. Jess fretted about childminding when the team had to work late. Jacinta overplayed her hand and lost the Ballentine as a dance venue. Ray and Nora urged Jacinta to find a new venue before Renee found out. Advertisement Jess reached a compromise with Greg to mind baby Taylor while she worked late. When Jess was forced to leave early to watch Taylor, a smug Melanie jumped at the chance to impress Joan.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Neighboring states' nuclear debacles loom over North Carolina bill
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways Proposed legislation in North Carolina that would allow utility Duke Energy to charge customers for power plants still under construction is taking heat from opponents across the political spectrum, in part because similar schemes have left residents in neighboring states holding the bag for pricey abandoned nuclear projects. The failed expansion of South Carolina's V.C. Summer nuclear plant is the most notable example. After nearly a decade of ballooning costs and construction delays, utilities gave up on the project in 2017, and consumers are still paying down a $9 billion price tag. 'The pay-up-front provision was a key factor leading to the catastrophe on the customer side,' South Carolina Rep. Nathan Ballentine, a Republican, wrote in a recent opinion piece for The Butner-Creedmoor News, a North Carolina outlet. 'We learned the hard way that this type of provision benefits only the utility, while the cost of its failure is borne by every hardworking family and business that pay their electric bills,' Ballentine says in the April 29 article. 'Let the experience that rocked South Carolina be a cautionary tale for North Carolina's Senate Bill 261.' Ballentine isn't the only conservative sounding the alarm about SB 261. National nonprofit Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future released a poll last week in which 650 likely North Carolina voters were asked if they supported or opposed legislation to allow utilities to charge residents for up-front plant construction costs. More than three-fourths said they opposed, including 75% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats, and 77% of unaffiliated voters. 'North Carolina voters of every kind oppose putting consumers on the hook for risky spending on power plants that might never produce a single watt of energy,' Dee Stewart, whose political consulting firm conducted the poll, said in a news release. 'You don't buy a house until it's built, and you don't pay for a car before it's available. … Lawmakers would be wise to reject this ill-advised proposal.' Meanwhile, clean energy advocates believe the bill would likely sweeten Duke's appetite for large new gas plants more so than nuclear ones. That could make the legislation, which also aims to erase the utility's obligation to cut carbon emissions by 2030, a double whammy for climate progress. SB 261 has passed the Senate and is now in the House committee on rules and operations. The text of the bill was also inserted into the Senate's version of the state budget, which awaits action in the House Appropriations Committee. How North Carolina pays for power plants today A basic tenet of the utility regulatory compact is that shareholders bear the risk and cost of power plant construction. In exchange, these investors are guaranteed a customer base that repays them, plus profit, once facilities are producing electricity. This dynamic has long disfavored nuclear power, with its protracted construction timelines, astronomical costs, and episodic concerns about safety. Especially since the fracking boom began some two decades ago, Wall Street has judged natural gas the better bet. This century, only two new nuclear projects have made it across the finish line in the U.S. The most recent, Southern Co.'s Vogtle plant in Georgia, came fully online last year, with the utility finishing the second of two reactors that were about seven years behind schedule and $16 billion over budget. Vogtle was made possible partly by policymakers who scrambled the regulatory compact, allowing investors to recoup their outlays as the plant was under construction and to shift the burden of cost overruns to consumers. Thanks to similar policies in other states, the Southeast is dotted with examples of customers still paying for nuclear forays that never came to fruition. North Carolina already allows Duke to recoup ongoing construction costs for plants but only after regulators scrutinize those plans via a general rate case — a heavily-litigated and time-consuming process that currently occurs about every three years. By contrast, SB 261 would allow Duke to seek rate increases as often as every 12 months to recoup outlays for building 'baseload' plants, which can provide electricity around the clock. While regulators would still have to ensure the charges were prudent, they would do so without a full picture of the utility's finances. Many experts believe such 'single-issue ratemaking' can be worse for consumers than the holistic approach. Legislation could harm state's nuclear energy aspirations Duke has no plans for a large, Vogtle-style nuclear reactor right now, and the earliest it envisions bringing a small modular reactor online is in 2035, according to its latest long-range plans. That's part of why Justin Somelofske, senior regulatory counsel for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, said the construction-cost provision will likely benefit plans to build gas plants in the near term. As power demand grows nationwide, Duke and other utilities are all trying to build more gas plants, Somelofske said. That 'is going to constrain the supply chain and increase the demand for these turbines and units and run up costs.' Duke could be eager to see those costs recouped annually rather than waiting for a general rate case. The effect, said Somelofske, is that SB 261 'could pave the way for more carbon-based resources powering our grid.' Then there is the other part of the bill, which would erase the 2030 deadline by which Duke must cut its carbon pollution 70% from 2005 levels. Regulators have already allowed the company to plan to miss the date by about five years. It must still reach carbon neutrality by 2050, but without a midway target, advocates believe Duke is likely to build gas plants to meet baseload needs. In modeling the bill's impact, North Carolina's consumer advocacy agency, Public Staff, estimated that Duke would build half as much nuclear energy by 2035 as the utility recently projected in its long-term plan, according to Tyler Norris, a Duke University doctoral fellow who previously worked as a solar developer and as a special advisor at the U.S. Department of Energy. 'Repealing the interim standard significantly weakens the rationale for nuclear deployment in the 2030s,' Norris wrote in March in his Power & Policy newsletter. Advocates say it also decreases the rationale for building solar, wind, and other renewables. 'What the interim target does,' said Somelofske, 'is require the utility to scrutinize all the best available technologies that can be deployed in the near term and interim term and not wait until we're past the point of no return' on climate change and meeting the 2050 deadline. Still, arguments about the climate crisis aren't likely to carry the day in a General Assembly where Republicans are just one vote shy of a supermajority and the ability to override vetoes from Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat. The fate of SB 261 will likely hinge on the level of support for the cost-recovery provision, and even some of the bill's backers want to see that section amended. Kevin Martin, head of the manufacturing and industry trade group Carolina Utility Customers Association, previously told Canary Media that SB 261 needs 'more guardrails' to protect customers, although he also said his group is 'directionally supportive' of the bill. Testifying on behalf of the conservative John Locke Foundation, lobbyist Drew Heath told the Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee that his organization supports the bill, but it wants 'clarification' on the section allowing Duke to charge customers for the up-front cost of power plants. 'We have questions about the cost-recovery system,' Jon Sanders, director of the foundation's Center for Food, Power, and Life, told Canary Media. 'We are curious what may happen to that aspect in House debates.'
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
SC colleges have frozen tuition for several years. University presidents say that's not sustainable.
Students walk to class on the College of Charleston campus (Photo provided by College of Charleston) COLUMBIA — South Carolina's public colleges have frozen tuition charged to in-state students for upwards of five years. That could change. House budget writers want to loosen the strings attached to additional state funding for universities that agree to keep tuition level for the students who call South Carolina home. This money has continuously been at the top of budget wish lists for Palmetto State colleges when they've come to state legislators for funding each year. For the coming fiscal year, schools collectively asked for $130 million. House budget writers are suggesting the state cover 40% of that. But South Carolina's college presidents are telling legislators that approach won't work long term. At some point, they will need to raise their prices, said Rep. Nathan Ballentine. The Chapin Republican, who heads the higher education budget panel, wants to split the difference between what universities say they need and certainty for college students that they won't see a sudden tuition spike. Under the budget proposal approved Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee, the tuition set for incoming freshmen will stay the same for that class of students for as long as they remain enrolled in their degree program. 'We don't want any surprises out there,' Ballentine said. But colleges will have the option to raise rates for the next incoming class. That means a sophomore and a freshman enrolled in the same degree program at the same college could end up paying different tuition rates for their bachelor's degree. Since the Legislature began offering colleges more money in exchange for frozen rates, the schools have kept tuition steady for all students from the Palmetto State. Among universities raising the alarm is the College of Charleston. There are a limited number of college-ready students graduating from South Carolina high schools, and all state colleges are competing for them, President Andrew Hsu told Ballentine's budget panel. 'There are just not enough in-state students to fill all the available seats,' he said. 'That's the reality that we're facing.' Last school year, there were roughly 163,000 in-state undergraduate students enrolled in public, private and technical colleges in the Palmetto State, according to the most recent data from the state's higher education agency. About 62,000 of those students were at public, four-year universities. University of South Carolina and Clemson University students made up just shy of half of them. With Clemson and USC growing larger each year, Hsu said it puts considerable pressure on the other 31 colleges in the state. That's when colleges turn to students from outside South Carolina to fill out their student body, much to the chagrin of legislators. The state's public, four-year schools have 37,000 out-of-state undergraduates. Unlike in-state students, those students have seen their tuition steadily rise. They're often paying three times that of their peers from South Carolina. Hsu said if the College of Charleston continues this practice, it risks pricing itself out of the market completely for students attending college from another state. 'Out-of-state students are paying a much higher tuition to subsidize our education of our South Carolina citizens,' Hsu said. 'I don't think it's a sustainable model.' The mix of in-state and out-of-state students at the College of Charleston is split nearly down the middle. More than half of Coastal Carolina University's student body is from outside South Carolina. USC and Clemson are at about 60% in-state. Meanwhile, universities across the country are reckoning with what experts have dubbed a pending 'enrollment cliff,' caused by a shrinking college-age population and rising costs for a college degree. The national birth rate has been in decline and colleges are expected to start feeling the impact this year. It's a trend that Gov. Henry McMaster has said will continue well into the future. The birth rate in 2023 fell to a historic low — about 55 births for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 — according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Despite this shift in demographics, the governor is unlikely to support the House proposal. In a statement, McMaster's office said he 'is opposed to any tuition increases and will act accordingly if sent to his desk.' 'Under Governor McMaster's leadership, college tuition has been frozen for five years at our public colleges and universities,' said his spokesman, Brandon Charochak. 'In addition, during the governor's tenure, our public colleges and universities have received hundreds of millions of dollars in additional budget funds to support their missions, improve facilities, and expand their campuses. 'To then turn around and raise tuition and fees on the sons and daughters of South Carolina is an incredibly bad idea and is politically tone-deaf,' he continued. McMaster has instead called for a study of the state's public colleges, looking at affordability and a possible need for mergers. The House included $2 million in funding for the study in its budget proposal. The SC Daily Gazette contacted multiple colleges. None of them responded to questions Thursday about whether they support House members' suggested changes. USC plans to build $350M neurological hospital touted as first in Southeast Other big ticker higher education projects recommended for funding include: $150 million to the USC for a specialized hospital to treat stroke and dementia patients, as well as other diseases affecting the brain and nervous system $13 million to USC to renovate a failed biomass power plant into a battery research center that would house the manufacturing line $13 million to Clemson for a computing complex $10 million to South Carolina State University to renovate the building that houses its agriculture, nutrition, child development and fashion merchandising programs $10 million to the Citadel to renovate its engineering building
