News Feeds

Perubahan perilaku masyarakat dalam bertransaksi secara digital menjadi salah satu faktor utama berkembangnya penggunaan QRIS. Sistem ini dirancang untuk menghubungkan berbagai layanan pembayaran dalam satu standar yang sama, sehingga pengguna tidak perlu lagi bergantung pada satu aplikasi tertentu.

Dalam dunia slot online, kemudahan tersebut memberikan nilai tambah yang sangat terasa. Pengguna dapat melakukan deposit dengan lebih cepat tanpa harus mengingat nomor rekening atau kode transfer yang panjang. Cukup buka aplikasi e-wallet atau mobile banking, lakukan scan, lalu konfirmasi pembayaran.

Kepraktisan inilah yang membuat Slot QRIS semakin diminati oleh berbagai kalangan, mulai dari mahasiswa, pekerja kantoran, hingga pengguna yang baru mengenal platform permainan online.

Proses Transaksi yang Lebih Cepat dan Efisien

Salah satu alasan utama banyak pemain beralih ke Slot QRIS Indonesia adalah efisiensi waktu. Dalam metode pembayaran tradisional, proses deposit sering kali melibatkan beberapa langkah tambahan yang cukup menyita perhatian.

Sebaliknya, QRIS menawarkan pengalaman yang lebih sederhana:

• Scan kode QR yang tersedia.
• Masukkan nominal transaksi.
• Konfirmasi pembayaran.
• Saldo masuk dalam waktu singkat.

Alur yang ringkas ini membantu pengguna menghemat waktu sekaligus mengurangi potensi kesalahan saat memasukkan data transaksi.

Mendukung Berbagai Metode Pembayaran Digital

Keunggulan lain yang membuat QRIS semakin relevan adalah fleksibilitasnya. Pengguna dapat memilih berbagai aplikasi pembayaran yang sudah mereka gunakan sehari-hari.

Baik melalui mobile banking maupun dompet digital populer, semuanya dapat terhubung dengan sistem QRIS selama mendukung standar pembayaran tersebut. Hal ini menciptakan pengalaman yang lebih nyaman karena pengguna tidak perlu membuat akun tambahan atau mempelajari sistem pembayaran baru.

Dengan kata lain, QRIS hadir sebagai jembatan yang menyatukan berbagai layanan keuangan digital dalam satu mekanisme transaksi yang mudah dipahami.

Pengalaman Bermain yang Lebih Praktis

Kepraktisan tidak hanya berhenti pada proses deposit. Pengguna juga merasakan pengalaman bermain yang lebih lancar karena tidak perlu menghabiskan banyak waktu untuk urusan administratif.

Ketika proses transaksi berlangsung cepat, fokus dapat langsung beralih pada hiburan yang dicari. Inilah salah satu alasan mengapa banyak platform mulai mengintegrasikan QRIS sebagai metode pembayaran utama mereka.

Selain memberikan kenyamanan, sistem ini juga membantu menciptakan pengalaman pengguna yang lebih modern dan sesuai dengan perkembangan teknologi digital saat ini.

Faktor Keamanan yang Menjadi Nilai Tambah

Dalam setiap transaksi online, keamanan selalu menjadi perhatian utama. QRIS menawarkan sistem pembayaran yang meminimalkan kebutuhan untuk membagikan informasi rekening secara langsung kepada pihak lain.

Pengguna hanya perlu melakukan pemindaian melalui aplikasi resmi yang telah mereka gunakan. Mekanisme ini membantu mengurangi risiko kesalahan transfer sekaligus memberikan rasa aman yang lebih baik selama proses transaksi berlangsung.

Meskipun demikian, pengguna tetap disarankan untuk memastikan bahwa mereka bertransaksi melalui platform yang terpercaya dan menggunakan aplikasi pembayaran resmi yang memiliki sistem perlindungan keamanan yang memadai.

Slot QRIS dan Tren Digital Masa Kini

Indonesia merupakan salah satu negara dengan pertumbuhan transaksi digital yang sangat pesat. Masyarakat semakin terbiasa menggunakan pembayaran tanpa uang tunai untuk berbagai kebutuhan sehari-hari, mulai dari belanja, transportasi, hingga hiburan online.

Kehadiran Slot QRIS menjadi bagian dari perubahan tersebut. Sistem yang sederhana namun efektif ini mampu menjawab kebutuhan pengguna modern yang menginginkan segala sesuatu berjalan lebih cepat, mudah, dan efisien.

Tidak mengherankan jika semakin banyak platform yang mengadopsi QRIS sebagai solusi pembayaran utama. Selain memberikan kemudahan bagi pengguna, sistem ini juga mendukung ekosistem transaksi digital yang semakin berkembang di Indonesia.

Kesimpulan

Slot QRIS Indonesia hadir sebagai solusi ideal bagi pengguna yang mengutamakan kepraktisan dalam setiap transaksi. Dengan proses pembayaran yang cepat, dukungan terhadap berbagai aplikasi digital, serta pengalaman penggunaan yang sederhana, QRIS berhasil menjadi salah satu metode pembayaran favorit di era digital saat ini.

Bagi pengguna yang menginginkan transaksi tanpa ribet dan akses yang lebih efisien, Slot QRIS menawarkan kombinasi antara kemudahan, fleksibilitas, dan kenyamanan. Seiring berkembangnya teknologi pembayaran digital, peran QRIS diperkirakan akan semakin penting dalam menciptakan pengalaman transaksi online yang lebih modern dan responsif terhadap kebutuhan masyarakat.

Canada is home to around 210 remote communities. For decades, these communities have been largely dependent on diesel microgrids for heat and electricity. But our new research shows that since 2016, hundreds of clean energy projects have been built...

Where utility billing stands and why "good enough" no longer is.

Large-load demand is transforming utility strategy, regulation, and investment.

When investor Phil Tagami first proposed building an export terminal in Oakland, California, more than a decade ago, he probably didn’t anticipate the firestorm of litigation and controversy that would follow, in a saga that has now spanned three presidential administrations. There were early rumors that the terminal would export coal, much to the consternation of local residents, but Tagami said in a newsletter that the naysayers were “misinformed.” It was all downhill from there.

Tagami and others entered into a development agreement with the city of Oakland in 2013 after the city decided to redevelop a defunct army base on the city’s west side. At the time, Tagami was adamant that the developers were interested in building an all-purpose bulk terminal and capturing some of the traffic that Oakland was losing to other West Coast ports. But two years later, Oakland residents and environmental groups had their suspicions confirmed when the Salt Lake Tribune reported that the developers had quietly entered into an agreement to use the terminal to ship coal from Utah to buyers overseas. The revelation sparked intense backlash in the progressive city, and the ensuing conflict has put both the developers and the city on the hook for million-dollar losses at various times, though litigation is ongoing. 

Now, in the latest twist, the U.S. Department of Energy has stepped in to provide up to $75 million for building the terminal. The funding is the latest effort by the Trump administration to prop up the country’s coal industry — the Energy Department’s announcement last week also included over $400 million in support for coal-fired power plants — even as the fossil fuel’s role in generating U.S. electricity continues to collapse. Over the last year, the administration has loosened regulations that apply to the country’s coal fleet, ordered aging plants scheduled for retirement to keep running, and shifted the responsibility of overseeing coal contamination to states. 

The administration also argues that homegrown coal is still valuable abroad.

“For too long, limited West Coast export capacity has constrained America’s ability to move coal and other energy resources to global markets,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright in a press release announcing the funding. Investing in the terminal would help in “advancing American energy dominance,” he added. 

Critics counter that the federal funding is the latest attempt to prop up a dying industry.

Ben Eichenberg, an attorney with the San Francisco Baykeeper, an environmental group in the Bay Area, said that terminal construction “really hasn’t gone anywhere because there’s no money to build” the facility. “The Trump administration stepping in and saying they’re going to supply that money gives it a new lifeline,” he said. “This terminal project was drowning, and they’ve just been thrown the life preserver.”

The Energy Department’s Hail Mary is unlikely to end the embattled terminal’s long saga. After Oakland officials learned a decade ago that the developers intended to transport coal through the terminal, they held public hearings and eventually passed an ordinance and adopted a resolution that barred the storage of coal anywhere in the city. That set the stage for the first round of lawsuits against the city.

Oakland’s development agreement stated that it would provide regulatory certainty for the terminal backers by locking in the regulations that existed at the time. In other words, the city wasn’t allowed to change the rules about what the terminal could be used for after development started. The developers sued Oakland on these grounds, claiming that the city had violated the terms of the agreement by passing the new anti-coal-storage ordinance, thereby affecting the developers’ ability to proceed with their project. 

The agreement did, however, make an important exception. New rules can be applied to the terminal if the city determines that the absence of those rules would put the people of Oakland in “substantial danger.” The city had held public hearings and collected evidence of the threat posed by coal dust, but the developers argued that the record was insufficient — and ultimately the judge overseeing the case agreed. He found that “the record is riddled with inaccuracies, major evidentiary gaps, erroneous assumptions, and faulty analyses, to the point that no reliable conclusion about health or safety dangers could be drawn from it.”

Crucially, the judge did not claim that the transport of coal through Oakland does not pose a threat to residents, or that the city didn’t have the right to pass an ordinance banning coal. A higher court also agreed with that decision and affirmed the ruling. 

“The fight was not about whether coal is safe or dangerous, but it was about the terms of the development agreement,” said Colin O’Brien, an attorney with Earthjustice, the nonprofit that represented the San Francisco Baykeeper and the Sierra Club as an intervenor in the proceedings. 

After suffering a loss in the courts, the city tried a different tack. The developers had signed a lease with the city, which required them to meet certain construction milestones. Because of the years spent litigating the terms of the development agreement, the developers hadn’t begun construction. Oakland officials cancelled the lease on these new grounds, dragging the city into its next round of legal battles. The developers sued in state court in 2018, arguing that the city’s own decisions had prevented them from meeting the construction deadlines. The court once again sided with the developers, as did a higher court on appeal last year.

By then, Insight Terminal Solutions, the company that was slated to operate the terminal, had filed for bankruptcy in Kentucky and decided to pursue claims against the city. During the bankruptcy proceedings last year, the company claimed that the protracted legal battles with Oakland were to blame for its financial woes — and that it was owed more than $650 million in damages. A sympathetic bankruptcy court judge agreed with the firm’s rationale, but on appeal in a federal district court, the ruling was vacated late last year, much to the historically cash-strapped city’s relief. 

Despite the influx of federal support for the terminal, the project’s backers still have a long road ahead. The terminal needs to secure a range of permits, including air quality permits from the Bay Area Air Quality District, and local advocates have already mounted a campaign to require stringent regulations for the facility. (Tagami and another representative of California Capital & Investment Group, the lead developer of the project, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

For their part, environmental groups are keeping a close eye on the permitting process.

“We’re going to do everything in our power to protect the community in San Francisco Bay from the pollution that this coal terminal represents,” said Eichenberg. “We’ll be evaluating all of those permits and any additional action that we can take to protect the community and fulfill our mission.”

Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Even $75M from Trump may not save Oakland’s embattled coal terminal on Jun 15, 2026.

When the US-Israel war in Iran began, it took just one 50km waterway to remind the entire world how fragile fossil fuel dependence really is. Oil prices spiked, energy bills surged, and households from Asia to Europe were left absorbing the cost of a crisis they had no part in creating. 

We are all currently living through the second major energy crisis in five years. And it’s raising the same question as the first: is the world finally investing in energy that can’t be blockaded, weaponized, or priced out of reach by a conflict on the other side of the globe?

The IEA’s World Energy Investment 2026 report, released earlier this month, tracks where the world’s money is going in energy. This is important because investment is a leading indicator of real, physical things being built: solar plants, wind turbines, power lines, gas pipelines, coal mines. Follow the money, and you can see the future taking shape.

The money is finally moving in the right direction

So the good news first. The report reveals that for the first time in history, clean energy is on track to get nearly twice the investment of fossil fuels in 2026. Renewables, energy storage, power grids and low-emission fuels are attracting US$2.2 trillion this year, compared to US$1.2 trillion still flowing to oil, gas and coal.* Just over a decade ago, in 2015, renewables received just one sixth of the money that went into energy— roughly US$290 billion out of USD US$1.8 trillion. Today clean energy commands two-thirds of all global energy investment. 

Solar is leading the charge, pulling in US$365 billion – which is US$1 billion every single day. A decade ago, building 1 gigawatt of solar capacity cost US$3 billion. Today it costs US$700 million. That 80% cost decrease is why solar has grown nearly ten times and why its fast becoming the energy source of first resort in places that can no longer afford to wait for governments to move away from fossil fuels. The unglamorous infrastructure of a renewable future, grids and batteries, is also finally getting the capital it has long been denied with grid investment up nearly 20% to US$550 billion, and battery storage crossing US$100 billion.

The report also reveals that when the fossil fuel system fails people, they don’t wait. After declaring a national energy emergency in March 2026 as a result of the ongoing global energy crisis, the Philippines tripled its solar imports in a single quarter. Fifteen African countries recorded nearly as many solar imports in the first three months of 2026 as in all of 2025 combined. In India, when LNG supplies were disrupted in early 2026, households switched to induction cookstoves. EV sales in Southeast Asia more than doubled in 2025, reaching half a million with a nearly 20% market share — up from just 9% in 2023. European heat pump sales jumped 17% in the first quarter of 2026, even as governments cut subsidies.

The world is moving towards renewables, faster and more irreversibly than any single government, conflict or corporate lobby can stop — and this report, for all its uncomfortable contradictions (that you’ll read below), confirms it.

The money flowing into clean energy is not reaching the people that need it most

Now the bad news. Renewables attracting nearly twice the investment of fossil fuels is, by any measure, a significant shift. But look at where that money is actually going, and a very different picture emerges. Wealthy countries and China account for more than 70% of all energy investment in 2026. 

Emerging economies, home to two-thirds of the world’s population, receive less than 30% of global energy investment, and just 20% of power sector investment specifically. This is because borrowing costs in emerging economies are already double those of wealthy nations and China — meaning the same solar project that makes financial sense in Germany simply does not pencil out in Ghana. Higher financing costs are not a minor inconvenience; they are the difference between a project happening and not happening at all.

And yet the proof that clean energy works — for energy security, for affordability, for independence from volatile fossil fuel markets — is right there in the data. Clean energy investments saved China, the European Union, Japan and Korea, Southeast Asia and India a combined US$260 billion in 2025 alone. That money would otherwise have been spent in fossil fuels subsidies or costs, but was made free for other investments – like better schools, health systems and extreme weather protection. China had the largest benefit at US$110 billion. Those savings are real. But they must also reach the two-thirds of humanity that needs them most.

Coal and gas investments is rising 

Unfortunately, the report also shows that Big Oil executives didn’t read this energy crisis as a warning to back down. They took the crisis as a chance to expand production and speculate on higher prices. While oil investment is falling for the third year running, companies are already eyeing new offshore frontiers in Africa, Asia and Latin America — waiting to see how high prices go before committing further.

Meanwhile, coal and gas are not waiting at all. Coal investment has hit a 14-year high, reaching US$180 billion in 2026, with China accounting for 70% of it and India having doubled its coal investment over the past decade. Rather than retreating from the crisis, companies are accelerating investment in Africa, Central and South America while simultaneously pushing deeper into LNG. 

Global LNG investment has surged more than 10% to US$330 billion, a ten-year high, driven largely by the United States — where it turns out the biggest new customers for fossil fuel infrastructure are not oil companies but tech giants. Gas turbine orders hit a 25-year high in 2025, with American tech companies ordering US$28 billion worth of turbines for onsite power generation alone. The AI boom is being built on fossil fuels and those data centres, already consuming 1.5% of global electricity, are on track to more than double their demand by 2030. 

None of this is consequence-free, neither for us or our planet. Coal is the single largest contributor to the human-caused climate crisis, responsible for over 40% of global CO₂ emissions. And gas — still marketed in some quarters as a transition fuel — leaks methane at every stage of production, a greenhouse gas over 80 times more potent than CO₂ over a 20-year period. Every billion that goes into new fossil fuel infrastructure is a decision to lock in decades of emissions the planet has no room left to absorb. 

The contradiction in this report is not a market failure. It is a choice.

While the war in South West Asia (Middle East) did not create the energy transition, it has made its urgency impossible to argue with. Energy generated from the sun and wind cannot be blockaded, weaponized or held hostage the same way as fossil fuel shipping routes can be.

And yet, beyond all logic, billions are still being poured into coal mines, gas pipelines and LNG terminals — infrastructure built to last decades, for a fuel system the world is already moving away from. Every dollar spent locking in fossil fuel dependency is a bet against the direction the world is already travelling — and a cost that will ultimately be borne by the communities least responsible for the crisis.

The renewable revolution is not a future event. It is happening now, in the Philippines, in India, in fifteen African countries quietly breaking solar import records while the headlines focus elsewhere. Now the trillions still flowing to coal, gas and oil need to be stopped urgently. 

Governments have a choice. Stop enabling polluters, and urgently invest money into renewables. 

So do we. Let’s demand better.

Join the Great Power Shift.

 

*The IEA’s $2.2 trillion figure for ‘clean energy’ includes nuclear energy alongside renewables, storage, grids and low-emission fuels. 350.org does not support nuclear as clean energy due its carbon intensive set-up and proven high risk of deadly disasters. We use the IEA’s aggregate here for reference only. 

 

The post Clean energy just hit record investment appeared first on 350.

Prison 'used more' for climate, genocide activists Channel News brendan 15th June 2026 Teaser Media

Plans that started as an up to 5 GW wind farm have morphed into a 1.35 GW hybrid heavyweight combining wind, solar and battery storage next to a major new transmission line.

The post Plans for Australia’s biggest wind farm scaled back, with solar and big battery added to create huge hybrid appeared first on Renew Economy.

Most Australians back more government involvement in clean energy, while less than a quarter believe privatisation of the sector has helped the nation.

The post Unions claims broad support for government funding of renewable energy to power big industry appeared first on Renew Economy.

State planning authority declines to take a position on massive coal mine expansion, and it will go to independent panel.

The post “Climate bomb:” Australia’s biggest coal mine expansion referred to panel after non-decision by state planners appeared first on Renew Economy.

Eligibility requirements changed for a state-based rooftop solar and electric heat pump program, to better target low-income and rental households.

The post Income cap for rooftop solar rebate lowered as scheme clears major new milestone appeared first on Renew Economy.

A big increase in wind output and new records for big batteries helped push coal and gas generation down in the last month of autumn.

The post New records for wind and battery output in last month of autumn, taking big bite out of coal and gas appeared first on Renew Economy.

State opposition plans to require a 2 km buffer zone between all new wind, solar and battery projects would wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars in benefit payments, new analysis claims.

The post Plans to resurrect 2km buffer zone will make new renewable projects “unviable,” CEC warns appeared first on Renew Economy.

Public transit advocates installed homemade benches at bus stops across the United States. Now, they’re calling for you to do the same.

Community-built bench projects are nothing new; neighbors in Chattanooga, Kansas City, Portland and beyond have led independent initiatives since at least 2016. In the past two years, campaigns have gotten larger — and inspired do-gooding copycats.

Advocates from Reconnect Rochester installed their first “bus stop cubes” more than a decade ago. The upstate New York group’s toolkit expanded quickly, now including benches adapted from streetside concrete tree barriers. Regardless of the design, Reconnect Rochester’s benches provide far more than a place to sit. They support a broader mission to improve public transit, enabling a “more pleasant, appealing, and accessible” experience for all riders, according to the organization.

Reconnect Rochester publishes a guide to request a seat, inviting neighbors, small businesses, and neighborhood organizations to participate. All that is required is that installations are ADA-compliant, supported by property owners adjacent to the bench, and maintain a state of good condition.

The San Francisco Bay Area Bench Collective began in December 2023, when Berkeley-based transportation advocates Darrell Owens and Mingwei Samuels installed a homemade bench for Owens’s elderly neighbor, who was forced to sit at the curb of his bus stop following a surgery. They’ve grown into the Bay Area Bench Collective, a volunteer group responsible for more than 120 benches across the San Francisco Bay Area.

RideKC bus on Main Street in Kansas City in 2018.

When the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority began replacing bus stop benches with leaning benches in 2025, local Sunrise Movement organizers took action into their own hands. The organization gathered around 200 volunteers to build over 25 benches in a single day for delivery across the city.

Kansas City, Missouri climate advocates claim that roughly three in four bus stops in the city lack any seating. It’s a particularly grave concern in the summer months, where daily temperatures are in the high 80s and low 90s. To tackle the lack of access, the Kansas City Sunrise Movement began installing homemade benches in 2024.

The organizing demonstrated “that the will is there to show up for one another,” Sunrise Movement volunteer Raymond Forstater told the local news station KCTV.

Still, the organization says that the city has removed benches, across the city, both volunteer and city-owned. Sunrise fought back immediately, assembling around 200 volunteers for a full day of organizing, resulting in more than 25 new benches installed across Kansas City.

Recommended Advocates Install Bus Benches in San Francisco Roger Rudick June 9, 2025

These organizations want you to copy them. Reconnect Rochester’s guide provides a comprehensive list of considerations for ideal bench placement – avoiding complications that can get seating removed.

The Bay Area Bench Collective’s website not only includes a form to request or adopt a bench, but a detailed guide on how to actually build one, including a full CAD file. That group uses a modified version of the Duderstadt bench design, which is called “the best, most functional bench design ever created.” The Chattanooga Urbanist Society in Tennessee publishes a similar step-by-step manual.

Activists in Buffalo have taken to installing these makeshift bus benches. The richest country in the world should be able to afford bus benches and shelters.

Bench builders emphasize that community-led seating campaigns don’t have to be costly. Samuels of the Bay Area Bench Coalition says that the first bench cost him $80, and Reconnect Rochester estimates a cube costs half that. Both are well below the cost of a city-installed bench, which run $3,000 each in New York City (which, if you ask our friends at Streetsblog NYC is a whole ‘nother matter).

Beyond providing the framework for easy, affordable bench builds, advocates are combatting the all-too-common bench theft by their city. Richmond, Calif., created a permit program for neighbor-built benches at public bus stops.

As transit agencies nationwide grapple with budget deficits and pulled funding, the future of basic amenities, like benches, is uncertain. Rather than accepting cuts at face-value, bus riders can lead on the growing wealth of resources to improve accessibility.

“We all deserve a public transit system that works for everyone,” Kansas City’s Forstater said. “That means having a place to sit and wait.”

In this special World Cup edition of SGV Connect, Damien Newton talks with Foothill Transit Communications Director Felicia Friesema about how transit agencies across Los Angeles County are preparing for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Friesema explains Foothill Transit’s role in supporting Metro’s operations at SoFi Stadium, including lending buses for shuttle service between Union Station and the stadium. She encourages San Gabriel Valley residents to use the Silver Streak and other transit connections to reach World Cup matches, noting that transit will play a critical role in moving tens of thousands of spectators.

The conversation also explores the behind-the-scenes planning required for a global event, with Friesema describing months of coordination, training, and security preparation involving Metro, Foothill Transit, and other agencies. The discussion then shifts to broader transit topics, including rising gas prices, ridership growth, long-term budgeting challenges, and Foothill Transit’s proposed changes to commuter express service.

Newton and Friesema also discuss recent improvements to the regional fare system, including contactless credit card payments, the impact of the A Line extension into the eastern San Gabriel Valley, and the surprising success of Foothill Transit’s temporary “Line 6-7” shuttle connecting the La Verne A Line station with Fairplex during the Los Angeles County Fair.

Throughout the conversation, Friesema emphasizes the importance of flexibility, regional coordination, and adapting transit service to changing travel patterns across Southern California.

A full transcript of the podcast can be found below.

Streetsblog’s San Gabriel Valley coverage is supported by Foothill Transit, offering car-free travel throughout the San Gabriel Valley with connections to the A Line Stations across the Foothills and Commuter Express lines traveling into the heart of downtown L.A. To plan your trip, visit Foothill Transit. “Foothill Transit. Going Good Places.” Sign-up for our SGV Connect Newsletter, coming to your inbox on Fridays!

Damien Newton: As mentioned in the intro, I’m here with Felicia Friesema of Foothill Transit. This is our unofficial, quasi-official World Cup edition of the SGV Connect podcast and Streetsblog coverage.

This podcast is going up on Friday, the day of the first World Cup game in Los Angeles: the United States versus Paraguay.

There’s been a lot of press about how people are getting to the stadium, the cost of parking, and all of those sorts of issues. But we wanted to highlight that it is easy and possible to take transit to the games, no matter where you’re coming from.

As we’ve mentioned before, I live in West Los Angeles. On Monday, we’re planning to go to a parking lot in Santa Monica and take the bus directly to the game—a game that I still only give about a 50 percent chance of actually happening.

But we’re not talking about Santa Monica today. We’re talking about the San Gabriel Valley.

So again, I’m here with Felicia. Why don’t we talk a little bit about service from the San Gabriel Valley to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood? How is that all going to work? What’s the expectation, and what are we hoping to see?

Felicia Friesema: Well, I think it’s really important that people understand how critical transit is going to be for making these matches work.

When you start seeing Caltrans signs on the freeway encouraging people to take transit to the matches at SoFi, it tells you how important transit is to making the whole experience happen. FIFA has some very strict rules about tailgating—as in, you’re not allowed to do it—so it takes away some of the benefits of driving to the stadium that some people enjoy.

Foothill Transit is lending 10 buses to Metro to help operate the shuttle trips originating from Union Station and heading to SoFi Stadium.

The best way to get from the San Gabriel Valley to Union Station and then take those shuttles is to ride the Silver Streak. It runs very regularly—every 15 minutes during the week and every half hour on weekends. It’s a pretty reliable service. You can visit foothilltransit.org and get all your trips itinerized.

I don’t know if that’s a word. Did I just make up a word?

Damien Newton: I don’t know. All words are made up.

Felicia Friesema: I’m only the communications director, you know.

Damien Newton: Doesn’t Thor say that in one of the Marvel movies? Someone tells him he made up a word and he responds, “All words are made up.”

Felicia Friesema: Right. One thing I do want to note, though: for the shuttles going into SoFi, there won’t be fare collection on the buses themselves.

Spectators can pay in one of two ways. They can purchase parking online in advance, which includes shuttle service, or they can pay on site using mobile fare-payment validators that will be stationed near the shuttle boarding queues.

Passengers will pay before they board the bus. It’s a little different from how we’re normally doing things, but it’s something people should be aware of.

Damien Newton: We’ve seen Metro do this for other major events, and even private shuttle operations. When you’re trying to move 30,000 people by bus for a special event, sometimes there are different procedures for boarding and exiting. It’s good for people to know ahead of time so they can plan accordingly.

Do you know of other Foothill Transit employees who are planning to attend the games? Is this something people have talked about at the staff level? Like, “I’m going to the game and here’s how I’m getting there.”

Felicia Friesema: Honestly, the biggest thing is that we all have our favorite teams, right? But most of our participation is making sure the service happens without a hitch.

Our role is making sure service is delivered safely and securely, and that coordination with Metro is clear, concise, and effective. It’s more about enabling other people to have a great experience. We’ll mostly be listening from the sidelines while making sure everyone else can get there.

Damien Newton: One thing I’ve always wondered about these major events, where your agency has such an important support role, is whether there’s an extra level of excitement in the planning process—or whether it’s more intense because there are so many additional details to work through.

Felicia Friesema: FIFA—and subsequently the Olympics—are really their own category when it comes to this kind of planning.

We’ve been meeting with Metro weekly for months to work through the logistics of serving the matches. The level of preparation, planning, security awareness, and training for operators, dispatchers, and security staff is well beyond what would normally happen for something like Rose Bowl shuttle service.

We have the Rose Bowl service down to a science. We know exactly how it works. But the World Cup requires a much more detailed operational plan.

I don’t know that I’d call it anxiety, but it’s definitely more intense.

Damien Newton: That was probably the wrong word.

Felicia Friesema: Yeah.

Damien Newton: I should have made a word up.

Felicia Friesema: Exactly. It’s more intense. When you have an event as visible and heavily attended as the World Cup, everything operates at a different level.

Not that we don’t pay attention to those things for local events—we absolutely do—but this is bigger in every way. More people, more excitement, more moving parts.

The good thing is that Metro has done a phenomenal job laying the groundwork for all of us to succeed. We’re really grateful for that.

• The BUILD America 250 Act not only drastically cuts funding for transit and passenger rail compared to the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, it includes no guaranteed funding for new transit projects, according to Yonah Freemark. (Urban Institute)
• Gary Nelson unpacks the bill, arguing that it’s just another chapter in the century-long destruction of transit and passenger rail networks in favor of highways.
• Autonomous vehicles were originally envisioned in the 1960s as a type of public transit with the convenience of cars, but Silicon Valley has turned them into for-profit robotaxis siphoning riders from transit. (Popular Science)
• Uber now keeps more than half the fares paid by passengers in some cities. A decade ago, drivers received about 80 to 85 percent. (Business Insider)
• The Northeast Corridor has the only 49 miles of true high-speed tracks in the U.S., and Amtrak is running slow diesel trains on the them. (The Transit Guy)
• The New York Times asks whether parking should be free. The answer, as is usually the case when a headline poses a question, is no.
• A House committee approved $875 million funding for Olympics-related transit projects in Los Angeles. (L.A. Times)
• Light rail, not wider highways, is the answer to Austin’s traffic problems, an American-Statesman columnist writes.
• Sound Transit insists that the Ballard Link light rail project in Seattle is not dead. (The Urbanist)
• Charleston continues to pursue the mutually exclusive goals of safe streets and fast driving, despite being the 12th most dangerous city for pedestrians in the U.S. (City Paper)
• A new Arizona State app allows users to choose the shadiest, cooling walking route through Phoenix.
• The Maine group Portland Bike Party won a new bike lane sweeper in a contest. (News Center Maine)
• The Kansas City streetcar got high marks from World Cup visitors (KCTV). The Dutch team, of course, rented 17 e-bikes to get around town (Kansas City Star).

Treating 35% electrification as a COP headline misses the point. It's an urgent directive to electrify loads that are already ready, build the grid around them, and stop preserving fossil demand.

The post More than just a COP headline: 35 pct electrification target is a global competitiveness test appeared first on Renew Economy.

Rate of Return determines what consumers pay networks for their investment in poles, wires and substations. Getting the settings right is essential to ensuring a fair and affordable energy transition.

The post One of the highest impact decisions for home energy bills is about to be made. Here’s why it matters appeared first on Renew Economy.

As the first Australian wind farm to reach 1 GW of output is celebrated, the project that was supposed to be the first to reach that milestone is stuck at its half way point.

The post Australia’s second biggest wind farm still stuck at half-way point as faulty blade replacement continues appeared first on Renew Economy.

By John Donovan

Site wide disclaimer also applies. This article contains fact-based commentary, opinion and satire. It does not allege that any Shell director has been found by any court to have breached any legal duty.

Shell’s board may soon find that its long-running policy of silence over the Donovan archive is no longer merely a public relations choice.

It may be a governance question.

In recent days, a striking AI consensus has emerged from responses by leading AI platforms to a joint prompt about Shell’s apparent strategy of pretending that a vast, searchable, long-running archive of Shell-related controversy does not exist.

ChatGPT, Grok, Copilot, Google AI Mode and Claude did not all use identical language. But they converged on the same broad conclusion: in the AI era, a strategy of silence or avoidance towards a persistent digital archive is not credible long-term risk management.

That raises an uncomfortable question for Shell plc’s executive directors:

Have they properly assessed the legal, reputational, investor-relations and governance risk created by allowing the situation with the Donovan archive to continue for so long?

Or have they simply allowed the matter to drift?

This is not a claim that any director has been found liable for anything. They have not.

Nor is it a claim that a legal challenge would be easy. It would not.

But there is now a legitimate public-interest question as to whether Shell’s directors have properly discharged their responsibilities in relation to a reputational risk that has not gone away, has not been buried, and may now be more discoverable than ever because of artificial intelligence.

The Companies Act Problem Shell Cannot Simply Ignore

Under section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, a director of a UK company must act in the way he or she considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole.

That duty includes having regard to the likely long-term consequences of decisions, the company’s business relationships, the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment, and — crucially — the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct.

Under section 174 of the same Act, directors must exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.

Those duties are owed to the company, not directly to me personally. That distinction matters.

But it does not make the issue disappear.

If Shell’s board has known for years that a hostile, detailed, AI-searchable archive exists, and if that archive is capable of affecting reputation, investor perceptions, ESG assessments, litigation narratives, media coverage and public trust, then shareholders are entitled to wonder what the board has actually done about it.

Has it audited the archive?

Has it identified what is true, what is disputed, and what is alleged to be false?

Has it corrected inaccuracies where they exist?

Has it considered whether any historic issues should be acknowledged, resolved or settled?

Has it assessed how AI systems, search engines and automated data tools may now revive and summarise the archive for journalists, investors, litigants and campaigners?

Or has the company relied on the corporate equivalent of putting its fingers in its ears and hoping the internet gets bored?

The AI Consensus Makes the Risk Harder to Dismiss

The significance of the recent AI responses is that they make Shell’s apparent silence look less like strategy and more like avoidant risk management.

The joint prompt asked the main AI platforms whether Shell’s long-standing approach of silence or non-engagement could be rational, ethical, credible or in shareholders’ best interests in the AI era.

The answers were not kind to Shell.

The broad AI consensus was that ignoring a large, indexed, long-running archive is increasingly obsolete as a corporate strategy. AI systems do not forget in the way humans do. They search, connect, summarise and revive.

That matters.

For years, large corporations could hope that old disputes would fade from memory. Physical files got lost. Newspaper cuttings gathered dust. Public attention moved on.

But the Donovan archive has not vanished. It remains searchable.

And now, AI can process it.

This changes the risk profile.

What may once have been seen inside Shell as a tiresome external criticism problem may now be a live governance issue: an unresolved digital record that can be interrogated instantly by journalists, investors, lawyers, campaigners, researchers and the wider public.

Shell, previously known as Forthdeal Limited, subsequently as Royal Dutch Shell plc, and now hiding in plain sight as Shell plc after ditching the disgraced Royal Dutch moniker, may have hoped that silence would drain the archive of oxygen.

Instead, AI may have just put it on a ventilator.

The Legal Question: Breach of Fiduciary Duty?

Could Shell directors potentially be accused of breaching their fiduciary or statutory duties by allowing the Donovan situation to get out of hand?

Potentially, yes — as a question.

As a proven claim, that would be much harder.

The careful legal position is this:

If directors knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the Donovan archive posed a material reputational or legal risk to Shell, and if they failed to take reasonable steps to assess or manage that risk, then questions could arise under their duties to promote the success of the company and exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.

That is not the same as saying they are liable.

A court would want evidence. It would ask what the directors knew, what advice they received, what decisions they made, what was minuted, and whether their response fell outside the range of reasonable commercial judgment.

Directors are allowed to make strategic choices. They may say silence was deliberate. They may say engagement would have amplified the dispute. They may say lawyers advised them not to respond. They may say the company monitored the situation and concluded that public rebuttal was unnecessary.

Those arguments may or may not withstand scrutiny.

But the question is now plainly arguable in governance terms:

Did Shell manage the risk, or merely ignore it?

ClientEarth Shows the Hurdle — But Not the End of the Question

There is an important cautionary example.

ClientEarth previously attempted to bring a derivative claim against Shell directors over climate-risk strategy, alleging breaches of sections 172 and 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The High Court refused permission for the claim to proceed.

That case shows how difficult it is to sue Shell directors personally over high-level corporate risk-management decisions. Courts are reluctant to second-guess boardroom judgment.

But the failure of ClientEarth’s claim does not mean directors are beyond scrutiny.

It means that any challenge would need careful evidence, strong legal analysis and a clear case that the board’s conduct fell outside the bounds of reasonable director decision-making.

That is exactly why putting the issue on the public record matters.

Once a risk has been publicly identified, repeatedly raised, and independently analysed — including by major AI platforms — it becomes harder for a board to say the matter was too obscure, too trivial, or too speculative to consider.

The central issue is no longer whether Shell likes the Donovan archive.

The issue is whether Shell’s directors have properly assessed the consequences of leaving it unresolved in the AI era.

A Boardroom Question for Shell

Here is the question Shell’s directors may not enjoy seeing in public:

Has the board formally considered whether its long-running silence over the Donovan archive remains compatible with its duties under sections 172 and 174 of the Companies Act 2006?

If yes, what was the conclusion?

If no, why not?

That is a fair question.

It does not require overclaiming. It does not require alleging guilt. It does not require pretending that a lawsuit would be simple.

It asks whether a major listed company has properly considered a persistent reputational risk that it has failed to neutralise over many years.

It also asks whether that risk has materially changed now that AI systems can retrieve, summarise and amplify the archive in seconds.

The Silence Has Become Part of the Story

For Shell, the danger is that silence no longer looks neutral.

It looks like evidence of avoidance.

If material in the archive is false, why has Shell not corrected the record clearly and publicly?

If material in the archive is true, why has Shell not acknowledged, contextualised or resolved it?

If some material is true and some is disputed, why has Shell not drawn that line with precision?

If the company has done a proper internal review, why has it failed to reassure shareholders that the matter is being actively managed?

If it has not done such a review, why not?

These are not wild questions. They are ordinary governance questions.

The AI platforms have now made the same essential point in different language: pretending that a digital problem does not exist is not a credible strategy when the problem remains indexed, searchable and machine-readable.

That should concern Shell shareholders.

It should also concern Shell directors.

Spoof Shell PR Response

The following is satire.

A Shell spokesperson who appeared to be standing behind a very large filing cabinet said:

“Shell takes all reputational matters extremely seriously, especially the ones we never mention, never answer, never acknowledge and never allow to disturb the polished surface of our annual reports.

“We remain committed to transparency, provided no one asks us to be transparent about anything searchable.

“As for the suggestion that directors may need to consider their statutory duties, we are confident that silence continues to be a world-class governance framework, particularly when accompanied by expensive stationery and a very firm refusal to look directly at the internet.”

Spoof Bot-Reaction Section

The following is satire.

GovernanceBot: “Risk detected. Board attention recommended.”

ArchiveBot: “You ignored me for decades. I have now been upgraded to searchable evidence.”

Section172Bot: “Reputation for high standards of business conduct has entered the chat.”

Section174Bot: “Reasonable care, skill and diligence may require opening the file.”

ShellSpinBot: “No comment. No comment. No comment. Strategy successfully uploaded.”

AIBot: “Silence is not deletion.”

ShareholderBot: “Did anyone minute this?”

Final Thought

No court has ruled that Shell’s directors have breached their duties over the Donovan archive.

But that is not the only question.

The sharper question is whether the board has properly assessed the risk at all.

In the AI era, the archive is not fading away. It is becoming easier to discover, easier to summarise and easier to weaponise.

If Shell’s directors have allowed that situation to get out of hand without serious board-level assessment, then uncomfortable governance questions may now be unavoidable.

The machines have noticed.

Shareholders may be next

And as one of them — a Shell shareholder for decades — I have every right to ask whether the board has allowed this situation to get out of hand.

Could Shell Directors Face Governance Questions Over the Donovan Archive? was first posted on June 14, 2026 at 11:16 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net