Latest news with #Maine
Yahoo
a day ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Disappearing U.S. government support for EVs? Panel at WEX sees technology moving ahead anyway
Portland, Maine–It was difficult at times, in listening to a panel discussion on fleet electrification at a WEX-sponsored forum here, to remember it was taking place against a backdrop of Washington eliminating various subsidies and incentives designed to reorient transportation toward electrons and away from petroleum molecules. A $7,500 U.S. federal tax break for buyers of new electric vehicles (EVs)? Gone. A $4,000 break if you purchase a used EV? Ditto. A tax credit for new wind and solar projects? That's still around, but given the aggressive timeline to get the projects moving, it might as well not be. And Congress has taken steps to undercut California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule by withdrawing its EPA waiver, though the legality of that is being challenged. But for the panel at the forum sponsored by WEX, which is mostly a payments provider but also has its own division that invests in mobility technology, the outlook remained positive. If there was a theme running through the comments by the panel's members, it was that technology is racing ahead so fast that while U.S. government policies are shifting quickly from a pro-EV slant to at best a neutral stance, those changes will not derail the energy transition. The members of the panel have a stake in seeing it happen; they were all in businesses that will flourish on the back of EV growth. But their message did not falter at all during the panel. They left little doubt about where they see the electrification of fleets heading. Andrew Beebee, the managing director at venture capital firm Obvious Ventures, said a failure of those who are now predicting a big slowdown in EV technology is that they are not 'looking around the corner in terms of making probability-weighted predictions about technology that's coming, that's in the labs, that are soft of breakthrough things that we invest in as venture capitalists.' While much of the focus on the panel was on smaller vehicles including medium-duty trucks, discussion on heavy-duty trucks crept into the conversation with a balance of acknowledgement of current limitations but still with a belief that technology will eventually be able to overcome them. Beebee made the analogy to trans Pacific ocean shipping 'which we've all thought for a long time there's no way you can electrify that.' He cited an unidentified company that three or four years ago that Obvious Ventures looked at for an investment. At the time, the company's engineers said of electrified trans-Pacific shipping, 'we want to do that someday, but there's no way we can get there in the next five to 10 years.' But in recent discussions, Beebee said, the company is now saying 'we can get across the Pacific with a container ship that's fully electrified and it's more cost effective than today's container ships.' That led Beebee to note that the assumption in long-distance over the road trucking always has been that a transition would need to end up with hydrogen as the fuel, because battery weight and storage capacity would be inadequate. He's no longer sure: 'Batteries do extraordinary things and they will be an order of magnitude better over the next decade. So I would just encourage everyone to sort of go on a journey of suspended belief.' Beebee is a former executive in the solar industry. 'Remember the solar cost curve and others that we've seen over time that have blown our minds in terms of the capabilities to reduce costs,' he said. 'I think we will get to those places faster than a lot of people anticipate.' Beebee also said during his days as a solar investor, the challenge was to have solar power generate electricity at less than $1 per watt. He noted that it is now 15 cents per watt. Lisa Drake, the director fleet electrification for third party fleet manager Merchants Fleet, was somewhat more cautious about the pace of electrification in general. Medium duty trucks were part of her discussion of the market. 'Pickup trucks and cargo vans in 2021 really weren't ready,' she said. 'I think that the excitement and curiosity and some level of readiness to at least get started was there, but the vehicles were not.' But that was followed by a period where both tax and other incentives came into the market through the Inflation Reduction Act. Concurrently, more vehicles were making their entrance as well. She also said the now-sidelined California Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule also arose during that period and was 'the first regulation that really forced fleets to create the demand.' But with ACF effectively done and ACT either done or locked in litigation for the foreseeable future, electrification for some fleets is 'the least of their worries, unless they have sustainability goals or parent company expectations.' Without those factors, Drake said, 'we see many, many fleets taking a break.' They haven't written off that there might eventually be change in vehicle propulsion, she added. 'But it doesn't have to be today.' Drake said there's an upside to that. 'I think it gives us some time to breath and kind of reevaluate what are the right services that are going to meet our fleets' needs,' she said. Sarah Booth, panel moderator and the director of Sawatch Labs, which WEX purchased last year sounded a sentiment similar to Drake: the pace of adoption is slowing. Sawatch consults with companies investigating making a full or partial switch to EVs. 'Ultimately, the people that run logistics today and fleets are sometimes not super forward thinking, and they're used to doing it one way,' Booth said. That reluctance often still exists even after Sawatch has shown that if total cost of ownership is the guide, EVs are clearly superior. 'Sometimes they're still saying we're going to hold up another two years,' Booth said. 'So they're making a more expensive decision by putting an internal combustion engine in because change is hard.' The representative on the panel who works for a company that is actually using EVs was Mathias Krieger, the chief product officer and co-founder of the UK's HIVED, which is a parcel delivery service. He came back to the point that any long-term analysis of EVs will always wind up with the conclusion that it will become the dominant mobility technology. That case can be made without making reference to net zero or other climate goals. 'It is just more efficient to deploy,' Krieger said. 'I think people are gradually realizing that. I don't think there's a sudden shift, but I think more and more people are realizing that is the case.' But beyond the withdrawal of government support, what about the reports of EVs being warehoused due to a lack of buyers? Part of that development is due to Tesla and its political problems, but it extends beyond Elon Musk's company. Beebee cautioned that while the industry is experiencing a drop in the rate of growth, he still expects more EVs to be sold in the U.S. this year than in 2024. The confidence of not just the panel but those in attendance could be seen in a spot 'raise your hands' poll conducted by Booth. A few hands went up when she asked if the audience saw global new sales of passenger vehicles being 100% by 2035. But when the timestamp was pushed out to 2040, the number rose to close to 100%. For over the road trucks, the time frame of 2050 got some support. As far as the rest of the world's adoption of EVs, Beebee said Europe is 'sort of holding steady' and 'China is cranking ahead.' More articles by John Kingston At a conference of mostly green investors, AlFleet pushes marriage of AI and trucking Another broker liability case knocks at Supreme Court door, this one involving C.H. Robinson XPO rating cut by S&P, agency cites continuing weak freight market The post Disappearing U.S. government support for EVs? Panel at WEX sees technology moving ahead anyway appeared first on FreightWaves. 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
a day ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Rare image of great white shark captured off the coast of Maine
The nonprofit National Geographic Society, committed to illuminating and protecting the wonder of our world, funded Explorer Brian Skerry's work through a collaboration with Builders Vision. Learn more about the Society's support of Explorers. As soon as National Geographic Explorer and photographer Brian Skerry locked eyes with the enormous animal, he knew immediately what was staring back at him. 'There's no mistaking that face,' he says. A nearly 10-foot long great white shark was just four feet away. Sharks tagged with tracking devices have been documented off the U.S. coast of Maine, but Skerry thinks this is the first underwater photo of one here. Skerry started diving in these waters around 50 years ago. Since then, he's spent more than 10,000 hours underwater , photographing marine animals from above and below the water. Once rare, great whites are now flourishing in the Gulf of Maine, which stretches from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Nova Scotia, Canada. While these growing numbers might make it easier to see or photograph a shark in nearby waters, experts say the risk of being bitten by a great white remains low. Skerry's encounter on July 8 was fleeting. 'Maybe three minutes,' he says. 'Then she was gone, and we never saw her again.' Luckily, his camera was ready. He snapped a photo of what he suspects is a juvenile, mouth slightly open and white belly glowing against the eerie green water. Her surface reflection hovered above her like a halo. 'White sharks have always been here,' says John Chisholm, a marine biologist at the New England Aquarium in Boston who says this is the first confirmed underwater photo of a great white shark he's seen in Maine. In the Gulf of Maine, great whites have been recorded in historic fisheries data and 1,000-year-old teeth have been found in archaeological digs, but trophy fishing and commercial bycatch in the 1970s and 1980s may have caused populations to decline by around 73 percent. In 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act created legal protections for seals and thereby protected one of the key prey species great whites feed on. Over two decades later, in 1997, the National Marine Fisheries service began more tightly regulating and in some cases prohibiting shark fishing, a protective regulation Massachusetts strengthened in 2005 after the state banned the possession and sale of lucrative shark fins. They are now protected throughout their Northwest Atlantic range–it's illegal to catch, keep, or possess a white shark in U.S. waters. This helped great white populations rebound. Scientists recorded over 100 individual great whites in Maine waters between 2012 and 2023. 'We started seeing both seals and white sharks in more and more numbers than we had ever seen in recent memory on the Cape,' says Camrin Braun, assistant scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's marine predators group. Braun is also unaware of any previous such image of a great white in Maine. A fatal shark bite in 2020, the first in the state's history, made the public aware that there were even white sharks off the coast, he adds. Could warming sea surface temperatures be luring more sharks to Maine's coastline? The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 97 percent of the world's oceans. 'It's one of the global epicenters for warming,' says Braun. Warmer waters might allow juveniles to travel further north into waters that were once too cold for great whites, though Chisholm thinks an increase in shark numbers is more likely to result from conservation regulations. More sightings might also be the result of more people on the water with a digital phone camera. Twenty years ago, it could take Chisholm days, weeks, or even years to confirm a sighting. Now he receives dozens a day through the Sharktivity app. And while a new photo of a great white has now surfaced, it's no indication that New England beachgoers should now be more fearful of setting foot in the ocean. There's a higher risk of being hurt while driving to the beach than getting bitten by a great white shark in the water, Chisholm says. We can coexist with sharks if we are mindful 'in the way that somebody in Alaska walks in the woods knowing there might be a grizzly bear,' Skerry says. 'We can learn to appreciate these animals, even if we don't want to swim out and give them a hug.' To be shark smart, don't swim alone, in murky water, or if you see seals or big schools of bait. Avoid swimming at dawn and dusk and don't 'make a commotion… That can attract a shark,' Chisholm says. As apex predators, sharks play a vital role in keeping the ocean healthy, but they face more danger from us than we do from them. Humans kill over 100 million sharks each year, says Skerry: 'The only truly scary ocean would be one without sharks in it.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
First Circuit rules Maine ban on foreign government election spending likely unconstitutional
A campaign sign on Portland's Eastern Promenade. Nov. 3, 2023. (Jim Neuger/Maine Morning Star) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled on Friday that a law passed by Maine voters in 2023 prohibiting foreign government spending in elections is likely unconstitutional. The ruling underscores that the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on corporate contributions continues to control the campaign finance landscape, those on both sides of the issue said. The decision, which affirmed a district court's temporary stay on the state from enforcing the law, is not the final word, as it will next return to the lower court. The law prevents foreign government-influenced entities, defined as companies with 5% or more foreign government ownership, from donating to state and local ballot measures. It also requires media outlets to establish policies to stop campaign ads from those prohibited entities. Voters overwhelmingly approved the law in 2023 with 86% voting in support. 'We really wanted to deal with the underlying root problem here of the inability of citizens to control their own elections,' said Maine Sen. Rick Bennett, chair of the ballot question committee and independent candidate for governor. 'Now with this ruling… it means that foreign-government controlled entities, even with 100% foreign government control, can still spend millions of dollars in Maine elections.' Meanwhile, Charles Miller, a senior attorney at the Institute for Free Speech who filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, argued the decision sends a message that states can't put vague parameters on free speech. Utilities, media groups sue state over foreign electioneering ban 'I think that we citizens have to all be on high alert for clever ways that politicians are going to use to try to limit our speech rights, and we have to fight against it, even when the target of those laws at the time are things that we don't want to hear,' Miller said. This law was one of two campaign finance changes Maine voters passed by referendum in recent years. In 2024, voters also overwhelmingly approved a law to place limits on donations to political action committees that independently spend money to try to support or defeat candidates — teeing up a path to get the Supreme Court to reevaluate its 2010 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections. A decision on the lawsuit filed against the 2024 referendum is expected on Tuesday, before which the state agreed not to enforce that law. The plaintiffs believe Friday's ruling could have consequences for that case, too. The Office of the Maine Attorney General, which is defending the law on behalf of the state, does not comment on pending litigation, Director of Public Affairs Danna Hayes said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Three different lawsuits arguing the ban on foreign government spending is unconstitutional were consolidated in the appeal. The utility companies Central Maine Power and Versant Power each filed a lawsuit. Two media groups, the Maine Association of Broadcasters and the Maine Press Association, jointly filed another. The majority opinion issued on Friday, written by Judge Lara Montecalvo, concluded that the law is too broad in its definition of foreign government because it silences U.S. corporations that have their own First Amendment rights. Central Maine Power is owned by the Spanish multinational company Iberdrola, while Versant's parent company is owned by the city of Calgary in Canada. The companies' filings outlined concern that the law prevents them from speaking on matters of concern to their company. As the decision notes, this referendum was passed amid attempts to prevent the construction of an energy transmission line to Canada, which CMP and Versant would benefit from. The companies spent millions to oppose that referendum as well as another in 2023 that would have replaced the utilities with a consumer-owned utility. While the court found that Maine has a 'compelling interest' to limit foreign government influence in its elections, it ruled that the state has no such interest in trying to limit the 'appearance of' foreign influence, such as with CMP and Versant. The appeals court specifically highlighted a challenge it sees with the law's practical implementation, given the prevalence of corporate ownership of publicly traded companies these days, which Miller sees as noteworthy. 'A corporation might not even know when it crosses that 5% threshold because of the way that stocks are traded routinely on a daily basis,' Miller said. 'They could enter into and out of that threshold without even knowing it.' The appeals court agreed, noting further that, 'as a consequence, U.S. corporations with First Amendment protections will likely choose not to speak at all rather than risk criminal penalties,' the court wrote. Bennett noted that the percentage that constitutes foreign influence will continue to be litigated, adding, 'If we have to consider adjusting the law because of the ultimate court decision, whenever that comes months from now, then I think the Legislature could consider that.' However, he also noted that there are other parts of the law that aren't being challenged, one being a requirement that Maine's congressional delegation put forth an 'anti-corruption' resolution in Congress that could undo Citizens United. The opinion, supported by all three of the judges on the First Circuit panel, also concluded that the 5% threshold looks like 'an end-run around Citizens United, aimed at silencing a large swath of corporations merely because they are corporations.' This is the crux of the issue at hand and broader attempts to place stricter regulations on spending in elections, those on both sides agree. 'Fundamentally, the problem goes back to this notion that the courts are stuck with this precedent saying that money is speech and corporations are people,' Bennett said. Citizens United overturned century-old campaign finance restrictions by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds on elections. Fundamentally, the problem goes back to this notion that the courts are stuck with this precedent saying that money is speech and corporations are people. – Maine Sen. Rick Bennett 'Really the most critical point overarching all of this is the court's recognition that this case is controlled by Citizens United,' Miller said. Miller believes the circuit court's point on that decision in particular could also have consequences for the lawsuit against the 2024 referendum, in which Miller is representing the plaintiffs. Three months after Citizens United, in v. FEC, the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court upheld that contributions to PACs cannot be regulated, either, so long as the PAC is independent from the campaign it is supporting. That decision essentially created the 'super PAC,' which can receive unlimited contributions but can't contribute directly to candidates. Other lower federal and state courts followed suit and the ruling was never reviewed by the Supreme Court. Those behind Maine's 2024 referendum to place limits on donations to PACs, including legal scholar Larry Lessig, argue that the reasoning behind SpeechNow is incorrect. They say large contributions to PACs inevitably create a risk of quid pro quo corruption, given that donors and candidates have the opportunity to collaborate even if a PAC is independent. Supporters therefore expected, and planned, for the referendum's legality to be challenged, presenting an eventual path to the Supreme Court. Lessig previously told Maine Morning Star he specifically chose to introduce the referendum in the jurisdiction of the First Circuit Court because it hasn't ruled on whether Super PACs are constitutionally required — meaning there is no precedent. 'They came to Maine to do this because they thought the First Circuit was their best chance to get a court to sort of try to sidestep or ignore Citizens United, and this opinion indicates that they have no appetite to do so,' Miller said. Editor's Note: The Maine Press Association, which filed one of the lawsuits, represents about 50 newspapers and digital news outlets in the state, including Maine Morning Star. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine Supreme Judicial Court upholds voter ID ballot question language
Alex Titcomb, co-founder of The Dinner Table PAC, speaks at a press conference before delivering petition signatures to the Department of the Maine Secretary of State on Jan. 6, 2025. (Photo by AnnMarie Hilton/ Maine Morning Star) Maine's highest court has OK'd the language of a voter identification referendum question that highlights other substantial changes the reform would make to state voting laws. Alex Titcomb, campaign manager for the ballot question committee 'Voter ID for ME,' and four other registered voters challenged the wording for a citizen initiative to change various election laws, including the implementation of a photo ID requirement for voting. They argued that the language did not meet the statutory requirements of being understandable and not misleading to a reasonable voter, but the courts disagreed. The Dinner Table PAC launched the campaign in April 2024 as an effort to require voters to show photo identification at the polls. However, the official five-page petition submitted to the state in January seeks to change additional aspects of Maine election law, such as absentee voting. Secretary of State Shenna Bellows called the petition 'a wolf in sheep's clothing' when it was first submitted to the state. When Bellows released the wording for the question that will appear on the November ballot, it encompassed the changes beyond photo ID requirements. It will read: 'Do you want to change Maine election laws to eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, ban prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limit the number of drop boxes, require voters to show certain photo ID before voting, and make other changes to our elections?' Under law, voters have the right to appeal the final decision on the wording, so Titcomb filed a legal petition in Cumberland County Superior Court, arguing the ballot language fails to meet the standards of clarity, accuracy and impartiality. The Superior Court affirmed the question's wording, finding that it is understandable and not misleading. Titcomb appealed the decision, arguing that the language used confusing terms and singled out the effect on seniors and people with disabilities. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court then reviewed the case and upheld the Superior Court's judgement. In its decision, issued Friday, the court noted that the language accurately reflected the proposed legislation and used terms that would be clear to an informed voter. While the court also acknowledged that the question was longer than usual, it said that is necessary to convey the various changes proposed. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The Guardian
2 days ago
- General
- The Guardian
A Year With the Seals review – what to know about the elusive sea creature
'There is no creature born, even among the greater apes, which more resembles a human baby in its ways and its cries than a baby grey seal,' wrote the ecologist Frank Fraser Darling in 1939. Seals' large eyes, the five digits of their flippers, their lanugo – the soft down with which they (and sometimes we) are born – all erode the mental barriers we erect between ourselves and our marine cousins. According to Faroese legend, there are even seals, known as selkies, that can shed their skins, assume human form and live undetected among us. The selkie myth is just one that appears in the Maine-based science writer Alix Morris's compelling book, which explores seals' fraught relationship with culture, the economy and our imaginations. She charts the varied and conflicting ways in which we conceive of these creatures: as reviled competitors for fish, magnets for great white sharks, or defenceless human children who 'weep' when distressed. Seals do not actually weep under the influence of emotion (they do so to moisten their eyes), though they have had reason to feel sadness and terror. Viewed as a threat to fisheries, they were hunted in the US under a bounty system in the 19th and 20th centuries; by the 1970s grey seals were in effect eliminated from the country's waters. In recent decades the numbers of grey and harbour seals have recovered, largely thanks to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. In an era of widespread species loss, the reappearance of seals has been a conservation success (though hunting had a major impact on their genetic diversity). Not everyone is pleased with the seals' return. Intelligent, nimble and creative, they can catch their own fish, but will never turn down a free or discounted meal found in a net, on a fishing line or fish ladder (an 'all-you-can-eat seafood buffet'). Morris's descriptions of pilfering seals often made me smile, but the joke is lost on the fishing community, who view them as a threat to already depleted stocks. Even more charged are the concerns of Maine bathers, some of whom say seals attract sharks close to the shore. In their reading, the presence of seals poses a threat to human life. Set against this mistrust, and even hatred, are stories of care and concern by conservationists who spend their days and nights nursing seals harmed by fishing nets, predators or beachgoers suffering from a 'seal saviour complex'. In Morris's telling, the last type is a particularly male pathology: one kayaker, believing that a baby seal was threatened by seagulls, took it home, placed it in a waterless bathtub and proceeded to offer it cat food, striped bass and milk (the seal refused to eat, and later died, despite the emergency assistance of a marine mammal NGO). With seals, there is a blurred line between adoption and abduction. Like Fraser Darling, Morris feels drawn to the seals, welling up with emotion when a rescued pup dies, and even offering her lips to a seal in an aquarium. But she is also aware that she has little to lose from a stolen fish or a roving great white. While she notes that seals have indeed reduced fish numbers in some places, she sees the effect as minimal when set against the harms of industrial fishing, damming and climate change. Seals, she suggests, are marine scapegoats, a distraction from wider conflicts in the US that have very little do with them. I live in Scotland, close enough to the water to see seals, but not to know them, their smell, their thick whiskers, blubber, or lanugo. While Morris offers tantalising glimpses of these creatures, I wished there was more in this book about their lives, their anatomy, their relationships and sociability. As she points out, seals spend so much of their time underwater that we still know very little about them. They remain as elusive as the selkie. A Year With the Seals: Unlocking the Secrets of the Sea's Most Charismatic and Controversial Creatures by Alix Morris is published by Ithaca (£18.99). To support the Guardian, order your copy at Delivery charges may apply
