 |
|
|
|||||
A federal judge said Tuesday that a nearly completed Massachusetts offshore wind project can continue, as the industry successfully challenges the Trump administration in court. At U.S. District Court in Boston, Judge Brian Murphy halted the administration’s stop work order for Vineyard Wind, citing the potential economic losses from the delays and the developers’ likelihood of success on their claims. Vineyard Wind is one of five big offshore wind projects on the East Coast that the Trump administration froze days before Christmas, citing national security concerns and the fourth that has since been allowed to go forward. A spokesperson for the company, Craig Gilvarg, said in a statement that it would work with the Administration to understand the matters raised in the Order. Vineyard Wind will focus on working in coordination with its contractors, the federal government, and other relevant stakeholders and authorities to safely restart activities, as it continues to deliver a critical source of new power to the New England region, Gilvarg added. Developers and states sued seeking to block the administration’s order. Prior to Vineyard Wind’s hearing, federal judges had allowed three of the five to restart construction: the Revolution Wind project for Rhode Island and Connecticut by Danish company Orsted, the Empire Wind project for New York by Norwegian company Equinor, and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind for Virginia by Dominion Energy Virginia. Those three judges essentially concluded that the government did not show that the national security risk is so imminent that construction must halt, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond Law School professor who has been following the lawsuits. Orsted is also suing over the administration halting its Sunrise Wind project for New York the fifth paused project but has not had a hearing yet. Vineyard Wind is a joint venture between Avangrid and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, located 15 miles (24 kilometers) south of Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket, Massachusetts. It is 95% complete and partially operational, able to produce nearly 600 megawatts of power for the New England electric grid, according to the complaint. Before the pause, it was on track to be complete by the end of March, with 62 turbines generating a total of 800 megawatts. That is enough clean electricity to power about 400,000 homes. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the completion of this project is essential to ensuring the state can lower costs, meet rising energy demand, advance its climate goals and sustain thousands of good-paying jobs. U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, welcomed the judge’s ruling. This stay is an important step in the process to fight back against the Trump administrations lawless attacks against our union jobs, grid security, and energy affordability, Markey said in a statement. Vineyard Wind 1 is currently delivering affordable and reliable power into our grid and has the permits, financing, and approval to deliver even more. Shutting off Vineyard Wind 1 would kill thousands of local union jobs, prevent power from reaching 400,000 homes, and cause us to lose out on $3 billion of energy savings.” The administration’s announcement that paused construction did not reveal specifics about its national security concerns. But in a court filing, Matthew Giacona, acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said he reviewed classified documents in November that discussed direct impacts to national security that arise from operating offshore wind projects near early warning monitoring and radar systems. Giacona said he determined the ongoing activities for the Vineyard Wind project did not adequately provide for the protection of national security interests, absent potential mitigation measures. Given its nearly complete status, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management decided to allow Vineyard Wind to continue partially operating during the suspension period while it consulted with defense officials and the owners, Giacona said. But he said he is not aware of any measures that would mitigate the national security risks. Trump has targeted offshore wind power President Donald Trump has targeted offshore wind from his first days back in the White House, recently calling wind farms losers that lose money, destroy the landscape and kill birds. Research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory shows that states with the most utility-scale wind and solar often have low electricity prices, supported by federal tax incentives. However, states with aggressive, binding programs to mandate more renewable energy have seen prices increase as a result of those policies, according to the study. Turbines, like all infrastructure, can pose a risk to birds. The National Audubon Society, which is dedicated to the conservation of birds, thinks developers can manage these risks and climate change is a greater threat. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers has said the construction pause is meant to protect the national security of the American people and Trump has been clear that wind energy is the scam of the century.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized the Vineyard Wind project, specifically, because of a blade failure. Fiberglass fragments of a blade broke apart and began washing onto Nantucket beaches in July 2024 during the peak of tourist season. Manufacturer GE Vernova agreed to pay $10.5 million in a settlement to compensate island businesses that suffered losses. Kennedys family famously opposed an earlier failed wind project not far from the familys Cape Cod estate. ___ The Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find APs standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. Jennifer McDermott and Michael Casey, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
When the Supreme Court granted an unusually quick hearing over President Donald Trump’s tariffs, a similarly rapid resolution seemed possible.After all, Trump’s lawyers told the court that speed was of the essence on an issue central to the Republican president’s economic agenda. They pointed to a statement from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warning that the “longer a final ruling is delayed, the greater the risk of economic disruption.”But nearly three months have elapsed since arguments in the closely watched case, and the court isn’t scheduled to meet in public for more than three weeks.No one knows for sure what’s going on among the nine justices, several of whom expressed skepticism about the tariffs’ legality at arguments in November. But the timeline for deciding the case now looks more or less typical and could reflect the normal back-and-forth that occurs not just in the biggest cases but in almost all the disputes the justices hear.Several Supreme Court practitioners and law professors scoffed at the idea the justices are dragging their feet on tariffs, putting off a potentially uncomfortable ruling against Trump.“People suspect this kind of thing from time to time, but I am not aware of instances in which we have more than speculation,” said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.The timeframe alone also doesn’t point to one outcome or the other.One possible explanation, said Carter Phillips, a lawyer with 91 arguments before the high court, “is that the court is more evenly divided than appeared to be the case at oral argument and the fifth vote is wavering.”Even if the majority opinion has been drafted and more or less agreed to by five or more members of the court, a separate opinion, probably in dissent, could slow things down, Phillips said.Just last week, the court issued two opinions in cases that were argued in October. All nine justices agreed with the outcome, a situation that typically allows decisions to be issued relatively quickly. But a separate opinion in each case probably delayed the decision.The court is generally moving more slowly in argued cases, perhaps because of the flood of emergency appeals the Trump administration has brought to the justices. The first argued case wasn’t decided until January this year. Typically, that happens in December, if not November.Over the last 20 years, the average turnaround time for a Supreme Court opinion was just over three months, according to data gathered by Adam Feldman, creator of Empirical SCOTUS. The timeline has increased in recent years, with the court releasing half or more of its cases in June.Decision times can vary widely. The court can move quickly, especially in cases with hard external deadlines: The landmark Bush v. Gore case that effectively decided the 2000 presidential election took just over a day. The recent case over TikTok took seven days.On the higher end, when the justices are on their own timelines, cases can take much longer to resolve. Gundy v. U.S., a case argued in 2018 about how the sex offender registry is administered, took more than eight months to be decided.Major decisions on expanding gun rights, overturning Roe v. Wade and ending affirmative action in college admissions were handed down six to eight months after the cases were argued.Also undecided so far is a second major case in which the court sped up its pace over redistricting in Louisiana and the future of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.The tariffs case took on added urgency because the consequences of the Trump administration’s policy were playing out in real time, in ways that have been both positive and negative.“Like many, I had hoped that the Supreme would rush the decision out,” said Marc Busch, an expert on international trade policy and law at Georgetown University. “But it’s not a surprise in the sense that they have until June and lots of issues to work through.”The separation of powers questions central to the case are complicated. Whatever the majority decides, there will likely be a dissent and both sides will be carefully calibrating their writing.“It is the language at the end of the day that’s going to make this more or less meaningful,” he said.Meanwhile, as the justices weigh the case, Trump continues to invoke the threat of tariffs, extol their virtues and refer to the case as the court’s most important.“I would hope, like a lot of people, the justices have been watching the tariff threats over Greenland and realize the gravity of this moment,” Busch said. Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court. Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Remember the Flip video recorder? In 2009, it was a sensationa dead-simple, pocket-size recorder that let ordinary people capture and share moments without lugging around a camcorder or figuring out complicated settings. Cisco acquired Flip’s maker, Pure Digital Technologies, for $590 million in stock. Two years later, Cisco shut Flip down entirely. The Flip wasn’t a failure. It solved a real problem elegantly. But it was what I call a “gateway product”an innovation that reveals what customers want but that gets supplanted by something that delivers the same outcome more simply, cheaply, or conveniently. In this case, the rise of smartphones made a dedicated device obsolete. The history of innovation suggests that most game changers proceed through a series of gateways. We had fax machines before email, PalmPilots before BlackBerrys before iPhones, TiVo before streaming, MapQuest and GPS units before Google Maps. Each one mattered. Each one made money. And each one was eventually swept aside. The strategic challenge is to figure out what the shelf life of your gateway offering is. Gateways solve real jobswith inherited constraints Gateway products genuinely solve customer problems. That’s what makes them successful, and that’s what makes them dangerous. Their success validates the desire of customers to achieve given outcomes while obscuring the fact that the method of doing so may be temporary. The fax machine eliminated the delay of postal mail. But it still required paper, a dedicated phone line, and a compatible machine on the receiving end. It imported friction from the old system even as it improved upon it. Email didn’t just do the fax’s job fasterit eliminated the infrastructure entirely. When your product requires customers to maintain scaffolding from a previous era, you’re building on borrowed time. The dedicated device trap One of the clearest gateway signals is a stand-alone device built for a job that could eventually migrate to a general-purpose platform. GPS units, point-and-shoot cameras, MP3 players, handheld translators, portable DVD playersall were gateways. The job each one performed was real and enduring. The form factor was not. This doesn’t mean dedicated devices always lose. Sometimes they win on performance or experienceprofessional cameras, high-end gaming consoles, studio monitors. But the burden of proof is on the dedicated device to justify its separate existence. If a product’s primary advantage is that nothing else can do the job yet, leadership needs to plan for “yet” becoming “now.” When your moat is mastery, you’re vulnerable Gateway products often develop loyal followings among people who’ve invested time in learning them. PalmPilot users mastered Graffiti. BlackBerry devotees became virtuosos of the physical keyboard. TiVo owners learned the interface and programming logic. The learning curve feels like a moatcustomers have sunk costs, and they’re reluctant to switch. But mastery-based loyalty evaporates the moment a competitor makes it unnecessary. Smartphones didn’t require users to learn a new input language; they just worked. Streaming didn’t demand programming skills; it just played. If your customer retention depends on what people have learned rather than what they love, you’re more vulnerable than your churn numbers suggest. 5 questions to ask about your product What frictions or complexities does our product require that customers would prefer to eliminate entirely? Every negative is an opening for a competitor who does away with it. Are we competing on getting to an outcome or on the current method of doing it? If your differentiation is about how rather than what, you’re racing against obsolescence. If someone started fresh today with current technology, would they build this the same way? This is the greenfield test. If the answer is noif they’d build something that makes your product unnecessaryyou have a gateway. What temporary technological gap are we exploiting? Flip cameras existed because smartphone cameras weren’t good enough yet. GPS units existed because phones lacked sensors and software. Identify your gap, and monitor it relentlessly. What’s our plan for when the gap closes? This is the question most leaders avoid. Acknowledging that your hit product has an expiration date feels like disloyalty. But the alternative is being caught flat-footed. The right strategic stance None of this means gateway products are bad businesses. Nokia and Blackberry built hugely profitable business empires on technology that would eventually be supplanted. The strategic error is being lured into believing that it will be a permanent franchise. That can lead, in turn, to overinvesting in extending the product’s life, building organizations optimized for a form factor that’s becoming obsolete, and missing the chance to be the company that makes its own product unnecessary. Apple famously undermined its own hugely profitable iPod to launch the modern smartphone revolution, leading to enormous value creation. The smart play is to harvest margins while they last, watch for substitution signals, avoid the trap of defending your method, and position your firm to ride the next wave rather than getting swamped by it. Gateway products can be supremely valuable. They are like paying tuition to learn about the future.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||