Port Augusta paves the way in coal-to-renewables transition

first_imgPort Augusta paves the way in coal-to-renewables transition FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享The Guardian:The largest solar farm in the southern hemisphere lies on arid land at the foot of the Flinders Ranges, more than 300 km north of Adelaide. If that sounds remote, it doesn’t do justice to how removed local residents feel from what currently qualifies as debate in Canberra.As government MPs and national newspapers thundered over whether taxpayers should underwrite new coal-fired power, mauling advice from government agencies as they went, residents of South Australia’s Upper Spencer Gulf region have been left to ponder why decision-makers weren’t paying attention to what is happening in their backyard.In mid-2016, this region was on the brink, hit by the closure and near collapse of coal and steel plants. Now it’s on the cusp of a wave of construction that investors and community leaders say should place the region at the vanguard of green innovation—not just in Australia but globally. There has been an explosion in investment, with $5bn spread over the next five years. There are 13 projects in various stages of development, with more than 3,000 construction and 200 ongoing jobs. The economy of this once-deflated region has been transformed and those who live here are starting to feel hopeful again.The Port Augusta mayor, Sam Johnson, a 32-year-old former Liberal member, is continually surprised at how resistant some are to the idea that the energy environment has changed. “You might choose to ignore what’s happening here now because we’re out of sight, out of mind, but the reality is that what’s happening here is going to be happening on the eastern seaboard in the next 10 years,” he says.In simple terms, the Upper Spencer Gulf transition story goes like this. Port Augusta was a coal town, home to the state’s only two lignite–or brown coal–plants, Playford B and Northern. Playford B, ageing and failing, was mothballed in 2012. Northern, the larger and younger of the two, closed in May 2016 when owner Alinta Energy decided it was no longer economically viable. The Leigh Creek mine that supplied it, by then offering up mostly low-quality coal, shut at the same time. About 400 workers at the plant and the mine lost their jobs. Roughly a third retired, a third found other employment locally and a third had to leave town to find work.At the same time, further around the gulf, the steel town of Whyalla was teetering precipitously after the owner, Arrium, put the mill in voluntary administration facing debts of more than $4bn.Yet as the doom hit, there were also rays of hope as several clean power projects were mooted for the surrounding area.Two years on, the Port Augusta city council lists 13 projects at varying stages of development. And Whyalla has unearthed a potential savior in British billionaire industrialist Sanjeev Gupta, who not only bought the steelworks but promised to expand it while also spending what will likely end up being $1.5bn in solar, hydro and batteries to make it viable. Gupta says the logic behind his investment in solar and storage is simple: it’s now cheaper than coal.Johnson says: “You can resist change as much as you like, but the reality is, if you’re in a community that has a coal-fired power station, its days are numbered. The market is dictating that change whether we like it or not. My advice is: learn from the Port Augusta experience. I wish the federal government would.”More: Life after coal: the South Australian city leading the waylast_img read more

"Port Augusta paves the way in coal-to-renewables transition"

Check fraud and impostors

first_imgWe have discussed check fraud and concepts from the UCC here and here over the past couple of months. While the UCC does not contemplate every check fraud scenario that a credit union might encounter, the UCC provides a general framework that can be used to determine which party will bear the loss for the check fraud. There are even some special rules that we have discussed that can change the default rules regarding allocation of loss under certain circumstances. For example, section 3-406 of the model UCC explains that a loss that arises from a forgery or an alteration of a check can be allocated to those parties whose negligence contributes to the forgery or alteration. And section 4-406 of the UCC can act to shift the loss to your credit union’s members when there is a forged or altered check if the members fail to exercise reasonable promptness in examining statements provided to them that might evidence any unauthorized payments.Today I want to discuss another special circumstance. What happens when a member falls victim to a scam and unwittingly writes a check to a fictitious person. What if a member writes a check in the amount of $5,000 payable to a fictitious yet hairy individual who purports to be Chewy D. Wookie? The $5,000 is for the purpose of acquiring some Star Wars paraphernalia. But Chewy, being clever and not actually being Chewy D. Wookie but rather B.B. Eight, indorses the check in blank as Chewy and runs off to cash that check as quickly as possible. The credit union pays the check over a forged indorsement of a fake Chewy? Does the credit union bear the loss in this scenario or does the member bear the loss?Section 3-404 of the model UCC deals with impostors and fictitious payees:(a) If an impostor, by use of the mails or otherwise, induces the issuer of an instrument to issue the instrument to the impostor, or to a person acting in concert with the impostor, by impersonating the payee of the instrument or a person authorized to act for the payee, an indorsement of the instrument by any person in the name of the payee is effective as the indorsement of the payee in favor of a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection. ShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr continue reading »last_img read more

"Check fraud and impostors"