News Feeds

Groups Seek Intervention in NorthWestern Energy Data Center Tariff Proceeding Intervention looks to prevent cost shifting to residential ratepayers   For Immediate Release: June , 2026 CONTACTS Perry Wheeler, Earthjustice, pwheeler@earthjustice.org  HELENA, MT — Community, conservation, and Indigenous-led organizations today filed a petition with the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) seeking intervention in the NorthWestern …

The post Press Release: Groups Seek Intervention in NorthWestern Energy Data Center Tariff Proceeding appeared first on Montana Environmental Information Center - MEIC.

The headlines are inescapable: In Washington D.C., generations-long environmental rules are currently under assault. Industry-friendly officials and lawmakers seem intent on enriching multibillion dollar corporations while lowering life expectancies for thousands of Americans.

These efforts are as concerning as they are morally reprehensible. Thankfully, some of the impact is limited. States are in charge of developing and implementing their own rules intended to limit harmful emissions from polluting industries. 

In Colorado, this important responsibility falls on the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). The staff at APCD:

• Grant and enforce permits for polluting facilities
• Monitor and model various air pollutants
• Craft policy and programs intended to reduce emissions of those pollutants
• And respond to public concerns about air quality issues. 

Due to the successful advocacy of Colorado communities fighting for changes to policy and legislation, APCD staff have also taken on additional responsibilities in recent years. The APCD must now provide expanded regulatory oversight of dangerous air toxics like benzene. They must advance environmental justice when developing and when enforcing air quality rules. And they must respond to community air quality complaints rapidly and with thorough, on-the-ground inspections.

All of this work is essential. It is also costly, in part because much of it remains unfinished. For instance, we recently highlighted significant improvements in responsiveness from APCD enforcement staff when we share evidence of harmful oil and gas pollution with the agency. Maintaining and building on these improvements requires sustained investment in staff capacity and resources for years to come. 

(Top) Gas plant in Weld County. (Bottom) Optical gas imaging (OGI) video showing significant hydrocarbon emissions including methane and other harmful volatile organic compounds from permitted venting from the facility’s compressors.

Fortunately, the state of Colorado is making these investments. In late May, the Air Quality Control Commission in Colorado unanimously approved a fee increase on polluters that will generate an additional $13.5 million to help fund the APCD. 

This means that polluters are footing the bill for advancing environmental justice and regulating air toxics, not Coloradans.

Colorado’s fee increase follows a historic fee increase in New Mexico. Regulators in New Mexico can now invest in new staff and resources to hold oil and gas companies accountable for their pollution. 

The federal government is stepping back from a commitment to protecting communities and the environment from polluting industries. States like Colorado and New Mexico have an even greater responsibility to demonstrate leadership and take action. Ensuring that regulatory agencies have the resources to enforce air quality rules is essential for this important work.

The post In Colorado, Polluting Just Got More Expensive appeared first on Earthworks.

State green back invests in four new big battery projects to be built in quick time by an offshoot of the local network company, in time for anticipated coal closures.

The post State green bank backs four new big batteries in first investment to fill gaps from coal exit appeared first on Renew Economy.

The Donovan–Shell Feud: The Timeline Shell Cannot Bury

For most corporations, a commercial dispute from the last century would be dead, buried, and forgotten — filed away in dusty legal archives, smothered by PR varnish, and quietly erased from public memory. But Shell is not most corporations, and the Donovan feud is no ordinary business quarrel.

This is the extraordinary chronology of a dispute that began with petrol forecourt promotions, confidential marketing ideas, and a family business that once worked alongside Shell — only to spiral into High Court battles, public campaigning, domain-name warfare, leaked documents, media investigations, alleged monitoring, reputational blowback, and, now, the strange new battlefield of artificial intelligence.

At its core lies a simple but explosive story: John and Alfred Donovan, Don Marketing, and one of the world’s largest energy giants locked in a decades-long confrontation that Shell has never managed to extinguish. What began in the commercial world of prize promotions and customer loyalty schemes grew into a sprawling public archive — one that has followed Shell through name changes, boardroom reinventions, legal skirmishes, scandals, whistleblower material, and the company’s eventual abandonment of the “Royal Dutch” name.

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, has reportedly marched back into the spotlight via a feud it might have preferred to leave entombed in the 1990s. Instead, the record remains online, searchable, cross-linked, cited, scraped, summarised, distorted, rediscovered, and fed into the hungry machinery of modern AI.

This timeline is not a court judgment. It is not a corporate press release. It is a map through one of the most persistent corporate reputation battles on the internet: from the Donovans’ Shell garage roots in the 1950s, through the Don Marketing partnership years, the intellectual-property allegations, the SMART litigation, the 1999 “peace deal,” the WIPO domain victory, the ShellNews archive, Sakhalin-related leaks, data protection disclosures, Reuters and Guardian coverage, and the recent transformation of the feud into an AI-age reputational problem.

For Shell, this may be ancient history. For the archive, it is evidence. For search engines and AI systems, it is raw material. And for readers, it is a rare chronological trail through a dispute that has outlived executives, restructurings, lawyers, settlements, website takedown attempts, and corporate rebrands.

This is the Donovan–Shell feud: a family, a fortune, a corporate giant, and a timeline that refuses to disappear.

Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud

Updated 15 June 2026

This page gives readers a chronological route through the long-running dispute between John and Alfred Donovan, Don Marketing, and Shell. It distinguishes between public records, published journalism, and John Donovan’s own archive and commentary.

The dispute began as a commercial and legal conflict over promotional ideas and later became a wider online archive, leak publication, domain-name fight, and public campaign about Shell’s conduct.

A June 2026 RoyalDutchShellPlc.com media-record page lists more than 550 externally published references, references in 110 books, and TV, radio and video coverage. This timeline uses that page as a guide to the scale and sequence of coverage, while linking to the main underlying archive sources.

Return to ShellNews.net home page | Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell dossier | Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com | Donovan Shell Feud category | Shell Online Library

1957 to 1979 – Commercial roots of the dispute

According to John Donovan’s archive, Alfred Donovan’s garage business sold Shell fuel from around 1957. John Donovan later took day-to-day control of the family garage business and, in 1979, co-founded Don Marketing, a sales promotion company.

Sources: Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell and Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record.

1981 to 1991 – Shell and Don Marketing partnership

The later media-record page describes Don Marketing and Shell as commercial partners during this period, with Don Marketing inventing and running Shell petrol forecourt promotional games across Britain and internationally. The examples listed there include Shell Make Money, Shell Mastermind, Shell Make Merry, Bruce’s Lucky Deal, and Shell Star Trek.

Source: Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record.

1992 to 1993 – Dispute over confidential promotional concepts

John Donovan’s account says that in 1992 Don Marketing directors presented sales-promotion ideas to a new Shell UK National Promotions Manager in confidence. Don Marketing later accused Shell of misusing confidential promotional concepts. Shell disputed the allegations. The High Court archive records Shell’s position that the SMART scheme was developed through wider consultation inside and outside Shell.

Sources: Shell Intellectual Property Theft, High Court trial index and Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell.

1994 to 1996 – First High Court actions

Don Marketing brought High Court writs against Shell in 1994 relating to promotions including Shell Make Money, a Nintendo themed promotion, and a Hollywood or movie themed promotion. The ShellNews High Court archive describes these first three actions as settled by Shell. Contemporary coverage included Shell struck by writ, Shell stole intellectual property, alleges Don, and Don issues writ number four to embattled Shell. The 2026 media-record page summarises the broader 1992-1999 dispute and litigation period as producing more than 58 articles.

Sources: John Donovan vs. Shell High Court Trial Index Page and Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record.

1995 – Public campaigning and Shell’s first press statement

As litigation continued, the Donovans mounted a public campaign alongside the court actions. Shell issued a press statement about John Donovan on 17 March 1995, and ShellNews links to that statement from its home page.

Sources: ShellNews.net home page and Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell.

1997 to 1999 – Shell SMART litigation

The dispute escalated around Shell’s SMART multi-partner loyalty card scheme. John Alfred Donovan v. Shell UK Ltd, Case No. DD04199, reached the High Court in June and July 1999. ShellNews preserves a large trial index with pleadings, witness statements, reports, transcripts, and related correspondence. Contemporary coverage included Shell faces High Court battle over Smart Card, Promotions expert claims Shell stole his Smart card idea, and Ideas man sues Shell.

Source: High Court trial index.

1998 – Investigative activity and public notices at Shell Centre

John Donovan’s archive alleges investigative activity directed at the Donovans, including the admitted activities of a person using the name Christopher Phillips. The archive also says Shell displayed posters at the Shell Centre in London on 23 September 1998 about John and Alfred Donovan. Newspaper coverage of the early internet campaign included the Daily Telegraph’s Donovan’s beef with Shell online and the Evening Standard’s On cyberpicket lines.

Sources: Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Centre poster document.

1999 – The “peace deal”

The Guardian later reported that, after four court cases in the 1990s, Shell agreed a 1999 “peace deal” under which the Donovans received an undisclosed sum. The same Guardian article reported the Donovans’ claim that Shell breached the agreement and Shell’s denial that it had done so.

Source: The Guardian, 26 October 2009.

2001 – Alleged repudiation of the settlement

John Donovan’s dossier says he later treated Shell as having repudiated the 1999 settlement after Shell allegedly offered information about him to a third party. The dossier says Shell denied breach and threatened legal action, but did not take that issue to court.

Sources: Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell and Peace treaty shattered by Shell.

2004 – Archive broadens beyond the original promotional dispute

By 2004 the Donovan sites had become a wider platform for Shell-related leaks, documents, and whistleblower material. The archive says it published material from Dr John Huong, a former Shell Malaysia production geologist, and later became involved in coverage of Shell reserves, Malaysia pension litigation, and other Shell controversies.

Source: Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell.

2004 to 2005 – Royal Dutch Shell domain dispute

After Shell announced plans for a unified parent company called Royal Dutch Shell plc, Alfred Donovan registered domains including royaldutchshellplc.com. Shell brought a WIPO complaint in May 2005. On 12 August 2005, the WIPO panel denied Shell’s complaint, finding that the respondent had a legitimate interest and that bad faith had not been proved. Media coverage included the Wall Street Journal’s Shell Wages Legal Fight Over Web Domain Name and The Times report that Shell’s attempt had failed.

Sources: WIPO Case No. D2005-0538 and Domain name battle with Shell.

2005 to 2007 – Sakhalin II and international attention

John Donovan says he supplied leaked Shell/Sakhalin information to Russian officials. The Guardian later reported that Russia’s environmental regulator publicly acknowledged the Donovans’ help in obtaining information about alleged environmental abuses, while Shell denied breaking environmental regulations. Related coverage included Prospect Magazine’s Rise of the gripe site, Financial Times coverage of the Sakhalin memo, and the Moscow Times report that David Greer stepped down.

Sources: The Guardian, 26 October 2009 and Sueddeutsche Zeitung profile archived by ShellNews, 27 March 2012.

2006 to 2010 – Data requests, “Focal Point” material, and monitoring claims

John Donovan’s dossier says Subject Access Requests under UK data protection law produced internal Shell material, including “Focal Point” reports and emails about the Donovans and their websites. Reuters later reported Donovan’s claim that Shell had released emails after a data protection request.

Sources: Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell, Royal Dutch Shell/John Donovan DPA Index Page and Reuters report archived by ShellNews, 2 December 2009.

2009 – Reuters and Guardian coverage of Shell targeting claims

Reuters reported on 2 December 2009 that John Donovan said Shell had asked an anti-cyber-fraud agency to target his website. The report said Shell did not comment on the veracity of the communications or Donovan’s allegations, but confirmed that Donovan had made a data request. The same report quoted Shell material saying there would be “no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan.” The Guardian also profiled the Donovans’ website in 92-year-old’s website leaves oil giant Shell-shocked.

Sources: Reuters report archived by ShellNews and The Guardian feature.

2011 to 2012 – The feud becomes a media profile story

The ShellNews archive includes a long Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell dossier setting out John Donovan’s account of the dispute. In March 2012, a Sueddeutsche Zeitung profile described Donovan’s online Shell archive and network of sources. Johndonovan.website later organised the story into book-style chapters, including litigation, corporate espionage claims, the WIPO domain battle, insider information, and assisting third parties to challenge Shell.

Sources: Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell, Sueddeutsche Zeitung profile archived by ShellNews and johndonovan.website.

2022 – Shell drops “Royal Dutch” from its legal name

On 21 January 2022, Shell confirmed that Royal Dutch Shell plc had changed its name to Shell plc. This later became part of the online dispute because the Donovan domain royaldutchshellplc.com continued to use the old corporate name in an active archive.

Sources: Shell announcement, 21 January 2022 and Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com.

Late 2025 – The dispute enters the AI era

RoyalDutchShellPlc.com began publishing articles about how generative AI systems summarize, amplify, and sometimes distort the Donovan-Shell archive. A November 2025 article framed the feud as a 30-year corporate dispute pulled into the AI information environment.

Source: Shell vs. Donovan: How a 30-Year Corporate Feud Just Pulled AI Into Its Gravity Well.

January to February 2026 – “Bot War” phase

In January and February 2026, RoyalDutchShellPlc.com published a series of AI-generated and AI-assisted updates describing the feud as “AI-mediated warfare” or a “Bot War.” These posts focused on prompting multiple AI systems with the archive, comparing inconsistent outputs, and publishing those outputs as part of the continuing public record.

Sources: Latest news on Donovan Shell feud, 21 January 2026 and Grok update, 7 February 2026.

June 2026 – Current snapshot

As of June 2026, recent posts on RoyalDutchShellPlc.com frame the dispute as a reputational and AI-search problem as well as an historical archive. A 9 June 2026 media-record page says the record now contains more than 550 externally published references, references in 110 books, and TV, radio and video material. One 11 June 2026 post describes the feud as sitting at the intersection of archival activism, corporate memory, and generative AI. The site’s Donovan Shell Feud category and Shell Online Library provide current navigation into the wider archive.

Sources: Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record, 9 June 2026, Windows Forum snapshot, 11 June 2026, Legal and reputational implications of Shell abandoning Royal Dutch Shell plc, 5 June 2026 and Shell Online Library.

Core sources

• Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell
• John Donovan vs. Shell High Court Trial Index Page
• WIPO Domain Name Decision D2005-0538
• The Guardian: 92-year-old’s website leaves oil giant Shell-shocked
• Reuters: Shell critic says oil major targeting his website
• Sueddeutsche Zeitung profile archived by ShellNews
• Shell: Royal Dutch Shell plc changes its name to Shell plc
• Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record
• RoyalDutchShellPlc.com: Donovan Shell Feud category
• RoyalDutchShellPlc.com: Shell Online Library
• Link list of over 500 articles
• Books containing references to the Donovans, Don Marketing, or their Shell-related websites
• johndonovan.website
• Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com

This timeline is intended as a navigation aid for readers of ShellNews.net. It is not a court finding. Where matters are disputed, the text identifies the source or attributes the claim.

Return to ShellNews.net home page

Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud was first posted on June 15, 2026 at 2:23 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

In Albania, a mass protest movement has emerged to challenge a plan, spearheaded by Jared Kushner, to build a sprawling resort along the delta of the last wild river in Europe. Tens of thousands of demonstrators took to the capital city of Tirana last week, raising signs that said “Albania Is Not for Sale,” with marches continuing over the weekend.

Read more on E360 →

In a packed room last Friday, the COP30 Presidency presented preliminary elements of the work on the global roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels and some European and small island governments argued the roadmap should be integrated into the formal negotiation process. But besides the global work, how is Brazil’s national roadmap coming along?

“The presidential order [by Lula at COP30] was that the ministries of environment, finance and energy should work together,” Flávia Bellaguarda, extraordinary advisor to Brazil’s environment ministry, told Climate Home News in Bonn. 

“We do have different points of view about what the roadmap means. We have to face our contradictions and bring them to the table because the roadmap is about energy security, economic security, social security,” she said, adding that “we have reached a common place of the guidelines of what must be addressed on the roadmap”.

Those guidelines—that Bellaguarda couldn’t share yet—are now under revision by the Brazilian presidency and then will be analysed by the National Energy Policy Council (CNPE). After those revisions, the three ministries will begin working on the roadmap itself and its governance. That work will include consultations with different stakeholders, including representatives of the energy sector and civil society organisations. 

The Brazilian government still prefers not to give dates for these next steps because “they do not expect it to be something quick,” but rather to respect the steps and time that the process requires.

Roadmaps to transition away from fossil fuels are, at least for now, voluntary for each country. “There is no right and wrong on how to do the roadmap. Countries know what is best for each reality,” said Bellaguarda, encouraging countries to advance on their national roadmaps alongside the global one. “It’s not easy to address the issue nationally, but it’s totally necessary.”

The post Bonn Bulletin: Ministry divisions complicate Brazil’s roadmap away from fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

GM follows other car makers into grid scale storage, but it has chosen to focus on sodium-ion technology, which it argues is lower cost and safer.

The post GM bets the house on new sodium-ion battery technology in major push into grid-scale storage appeared first on Renew Economy.

Reabold Resources has offered to buy Union Jack Oil, both companies confirmed this morning.

Union Jack share price this morning after announcement of a
proposed takeover by Reabold Resources

Statements to investors announced that discussions were underway for Reabold to acquire all Union Jack shares. (Reabold statement and Union Jack statement)

At the time of writing, shares in Union Jack were up 20%. Shares in Reabold were down 1.4%.

Union Jack said the Reabold offer was non-binding and had been made in a letter on 1 June 2026.

Union Jack added:

“The Board has evaluated the Proposed Transaction with its advisers and has provided due diligence access to Reabold. Discussions are ongoing and there can be no certainty that any offer will be forthcoming or proceed, nor as to the terms of any such offer.”

Reabold has until 5pm on 13 July 2026 to announce either a firm intention to make an offer for Union Jack or announce that it does not intend to make an offer.

Reabold said:

“Reabold believes that the combination of the two complementary companies would create a group with greater scale, superior access to capital and other compelling operating efficiencies.”

If the deal went through, Reabold would presumably acquire Union Jack’s 40% investment in Wressle in North Lincolnshire, the largest single stake in the oil field.

The deal would also increase Reabold’s interest in the West Newton oil and gas field in East Yorkshire. It already owns 79.8% of Rathlin Energy, the West Newton operator and has a 16.665% interest in the West Newton licence, PEDL183.

Union Jack has a 16.665% interest in West Newton. It also has a 55% stake in Keddington in Lincolnshire and interests in US drilling at five fields in Oklahoma.

Last week, Union Jack announced it had taken a £1m loan from Egdon Resources, the Wressle operator. Union Jack also revealed that a non-executive director, Graham Bull, had resigned. Mr Ball blamed the “detrimental effect attacks on the Board from certain media organisations” had on him and his family.

In annual accounts, published last month (May), Union Jack warned that government policy had made its UK business “increasingly difficult to progress”.

Earlier this month, the US investment firm, Crypto Cousins LLC, increased its interest in Reabold from 5.6% to 14.309%.

• Last week, UK Oil & Gas plc announced it was selling its stake in the Horse Hill field to energy B for £1m.

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...

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.

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.

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.