Business

Hyundai and LG will build a new $4.3 billion EV battery plant in Georgia

[hotlink]Hyundai Motor[/hotlink] Group and LG Energy Solution announced Thursday they will build a $4.3 billion electric battery plant as part of Hyundais new electric vehicle assembly plant in southeast Georgia.

The companies will split the investment, starting production as soon as late 2025.

Hyundai Motor Co. CEO Jaehoon Chang said in a statement that the battery plant would create a strong foundation to lead the global EV transition, explaining the company wants to speed up efforts to produce electrified Hyundai and Kia vehicles in North America.

Hyundai Motor Group is focusing on its electrification efforts to secure a leadership position in the global auto industry, Chang said.

The South Korean automaker said in 2022 it would invest $5.5 billion to assemble electric vehicles and batteries in Ellabell, just west of Savannah. The site is supposed to have 8,100 employees and is slated to begin producing vehicles in 2025.

Garrison Douglas, a spokesperson for Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, said the 3,000-job battery plant would be part of the 8,100 overall jobs and the $4.3 billion investment would be part of the previously announced $5.5 billion total.

The Hyundai/LG plant is supposed to be able to supply batteries for 300,000 electric vehicles per year, which is the initial projected production of the adjoining vehicle assembly plant. Hyundai has said the Georgia plant could later expand to build 500,000 vehicles annually.

This is exactly what we envisioned when Georgia landed the Hyundai Metaplant in May of last year, and this project is the latest milestone in Georgias path to becoming the EV capital of the nation, Kemp said in a statement.

In addition to the assembly and battery plants, auto parts suppliers have pledged to invest more than $2 billion and hire 4,800 people in the region around the Hyundai site.

The announcements are part of an electric vehicle and battery land rush across the United States. Under the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, EVs must be assembled in North America, and a certain percentage of their battery parts and minerals must come from North America or a U.S. free trade partner to qualify for a full $7,500 EV tax credit.

Currently, no Hyundai or Kia vehicles are eligible for the tax credit.

The IRAs manufacturing incentives continue to bring jobs and investment to Georgia, Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia said in a statement. My goal remains to make Georgia the world leader in advanced energy production.

LG said this would be its seventh battery plant in operation or under construction in the U.S., saying it was concentrating efforts to expand production in the country, in one example of how federal incentives are luring manufacturers.

This is the second huge electric battery plant that Hyundai is partnering to build in Georgia. Hyundai and SK On, a unit of South Koreas SK Group, announced in December they would jointly invest $4 billion to $5 billion to build a new plant northwest of Atlanta that would supply electric batteries for Hyundai and Kia electric vehicles assembled in the U.S. That plant, in Cartersville, is planned to begin production in 2025 and employ a projected 3,500 people.

Hyundai will need batteries for more than just vehicles made in Ellabell. The company is already assembling electric vehicles at its plant in Montgomery, Alabama, and announced in April it would start assembling its electric Kia EV9 large SUV at the Kia plant in West Point, Georgia.

Partnering with LG and SK also will diversify Hyundais supplier base, giving the automaker more than one battery manufacturer from which to buy.

Because the battery plant is part of the overall Hyundai complex, Douglas said no additional incentives would be offered.

The state of Georgia and local governments already have pledged $1.8 billion in tax breaks and other incentives. Its the largest subsidy package a U.S. state has ever promised an automotive plant, according to Greg LeRoy, executive director Good Jobs First, a group skeptical of subsidies to private companies.

Want a lighthouse? U.S. is auctioning or giving away 10 of them

Ten lighthouses that for generations have stood like sentinels along Americas shorelines protecting mariners from peril and guiding them to safety are being given away at no cost or sold at auction by the federal government.

The aim of the program run by the General Services Administration is to preserve the properties, most of which are more than a century old.

The development of modern technology, including GPS, means lighthouses are no longer essential for navigation, said John Kelly of the GSAs office of real property disposition. And while the Coast Guard often maintains aids to navigation at or near lighthouses, the structures themselves are often no longer mission critical.

Yet the public remains fascinated by the beacons, which are popular tourist attractions and the subject of countless photographers and artists.

People really appreciate the heroic role of the solitary lighthouse keeper, he said, explaining their allure. They were really the instruments to provide safe passage into some of these perilous harbors which afforded communities great opportunities for commerce, and theyre often located in prominent locations that offer breathtaking views.

The GSA has been transferring ownership of lighthouses since Congress passed the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act in 2000. About 150 lighthouses have been transferred, 80 or so given away and another 70 auctioned, raising more than $10 million.

This year, six lighthouses are being offered at no cost to federal, state or local government agencies, nonprofits, educational organizations or other entities that are willing to maintain and preserve them and make them publicly available for educational, recreational or cultural purposes.

They include the 34-foot (10.4-meter) tall Plymouth/Gurnet Light in Massachusetts. The octagonal wooden structure dates to 1842, although a lighthouse has been at the site since 1768. A previous beacon at the site was staffed by Americas first female lighthouse keeper.

Kellys personal favorite is Warwick Neck Light, in Warwick, Rhode Island. The 51-foot (15.5-meter) tall lighthouse that dates to 1827 was an important navigation tool for mariners making their way to Providence.

Warwick Neck is really at quite a prominent location up on a cliff overlooking Narragansett Bay, he said. Thats probably one that I would say that has a real Wow factor when you get out and look at it.

The other lighthouses being offered at no cost are Lynde Point Lighthouse in Old Saybrook, Connecticut; Nobska Lighthouse in Falmouth, Massachusetts; Little Mark Island and Monument in Harpswell, Maine; and Erie Harbor North Pier Lighthouse in Pennsylvania.

Some are already maintained by nonprofits, and those agencies will have the opportunity to apply to continue doing do, Kelly said.

If a new owner is not found, the lighthouse is offered for competitive bidding at auction.

The four lighthouses being sold at auction include Cleveland Harbor West Pierhead Light, a 50-foot (15.5-meter) steel tower dating to 1911 that is only accessible by boat but has spectacular views of the city skyline.

The others are Penfield Reef Lighthouse in Fairfield, Connecticut; Stratford Shoal Light in the middle of Long Island Sound between New York and Connecticut; and Keweenaw Waterway Lower Entrance Light in Chassell, Michigan.

Some of the lighthouses purchased in the past have been converted into private residences by people who want a unique living situation.

They all have their own interesting history, Kelly said.

Uber driver pay raise bill blocked by Minnesota governor Tim Walz

Gov. Tim Walz on Thursday vetoed a bill that would have mandated higher pay and job security for Lyft and Uber drivers in Minnesota, saying the legislation wasnt ready to become law.

Rideshare drivers deserve fair wages and safe working conditions, Walz said in a statement announcing his first veto ever in his five-plus years as governor. I am committed to finding solutions that balance the interests of all parties, including drivers and riders. This is not the right bill to achieve these goals.

Uber threatened to offer only premium-priced service in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area and cut off service altogether in the rest of Minnesota if Walz signed the legislation.

This bill could make Minnesota one of the most expensive states in the country for rideshare, potentially putting us on par with the cost of rides in New York City and Seattle cities with dramatically higher costs of living than Minnesota, the Democratic governor said in a letter to legislative leaders.

Uber and Lyft drivers had staged noisy but peaceful demonstrations outside Walzs office in the Capitol in recent days to demand that the governor sign the bill. They were clearly audible through closed doors earlier Thursday as he signed a bill creating a paid family and medical leave system.

Ride-hailing drivers, like other gig economy workers, are typically treated as independent contractors not entitled to minimum wages and other benefits, and have to cover their own gas and car payments. A California appeals court ruled in March that companies like Uber and Lyft could continue to treat their drivers there as independent contractors.

But most gig workers in Seattle became entitled to paid sick leave and safe time under a first-in-the-nation law enacted there in March. And the Biden administration proposed new standards last year that could make it more difficult to classify millions of workers as independent contractors and deny them minimum wage and benefits. Ride-hailing and delivery driving are among the deadliest occupations in the country, according to occupational fatalities and injury data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While Walz vetoed the bill, he also signed an executive order commissioning a study about the working conditions of ride-hail drivers and how potential changes could affect costs and access for riders.

His order also sets up a committee to make recommendations by Jan. 1 for legislation to ensure that drivers receive fair compensation, ensure due process before drivers are terminated, limit the impact on fairs and ensure continued operation of ride-hail services in Minnesota.

The bill was championed by Democratic Sen. Omar Fateh, of Minneapolis, who was lifted into the air by drivers outside the Senate chamber right after the bill passed Sunday. Fateh is the first Somali American to serve in the Minnesota Senate, and many Uber and Lift drivers come from the areas large Somali and East African community.

The bill would have required that drivers be paid a minimum of $5 per ride, or at least $1.45 per mile and 34 cents per minute in the metropolitan area. Fares would have been slightly less in the rest of Minnesota. It also would have made it harder for the companies to deactivate drivers from their platforms because drivers said they could be terminated for no reason with no recourse.

But some Democrats complained as Fatehs bill made its way through the process that it needed more work to address concerns.

Fateh tweeted that the veto showed the power corporations hold on our government despite Democrats controlling the trifecta of the governors office and both houses of the Legislature for the first time in eight years.

The fight is not over, and I promise you I wont back down, Fateh tweeted. This will be my top priority going in to next session.

Supreme Court curbs U.S. government wetlands regulation

A 5-4 majority significantly expanded the ability of farmers, homebuilders and other developers to dig up or fill wetlands near rivers, lakes and streams, finding the government had long overreached in limiting such activities.

The ruling Thursday may nullify key parts of a rule the Biden administration imposed in December, which two federal judges already had blocked from being enforced in 26 states. Its the latest turn in a decades-old struggle by courts and regulators to determine which waters are subject to protection under the Clean Water Act.

Some experts say the battle over wetlands now may shift to states, with red and blue states writing laws that take dramatically different approaches.

The high courts decision follows one in 2022 curtailing federal power to reduce carbon emissions from power plants and indicates a willingness by the courts emboldened conservatives to limit environmental laws and agency powers.

This is one of the saddest chapters in the 50-year history of the Clean Water Act, said Jim Murphy, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation.

Industry and farm groups praised the ruling.

Were absolutely thrilled with the results, said Travis Cushman, deputy general counsel for the American Farm Bureau Federation. This is the exact answer that weve been asking for for a long time.

The courts majority sided with an Idaho couple who sought to build a house near Priest Lake in the states panhandle. Chantell and Michael Sackett objected when federal officials identified a soggy portion of the property as a wetland requiring them to get a permit before filling it with rocks and soil.

Now that the case is finally over theyll be able to make reasonable use of their property, said Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the couple.

While all nine justices agreed the Sacketts property was not covered by the law, they disagreed over the definition of waters of the United States and which wetlands it includes.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, echoed a 2006 opinion by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. It said federally protected wetlands must be directly adjacent to a relatively permanent waterway connected to traditional interstate navigable waters such as a river or ocean.

They also must have a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins, Alito wrote.

The court jettisoned a 17-year-old opinion by their former colleague, Anthony Kennedy, describing covered wetlands as having a significant nexus to larger bodies of water. It had been the standard for evaluating whether permits were required for discharges under the 1972 landmark environmental law. Opponents had objected that the standard was vague and unworkable.

Justice Elena Kagan, one of three liberals on the court, said the majority rewrote the law to reach the political decision it wanted by coming up with new ways to curtail environmental protection powers Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency.

The court will not allow the Clean (Water) Act to work as Congress instructed, Kagan wrote. The court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the decision erodes longstanding clean water protections and the agency was considering its options.

The Biden administration regulations replaced a Trump-era rule that federal courts had thrown out and environmentalists said left waterways vulnerable to pollution.

Even after the latest court ruling, some experts said ambiguities remain and likely will persist as the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers craft yet more regulations tailored to the courts edicts.

Landowners wishing to develop property near waterways will still need to hire consultants, walk the land and figure out whether youre in or out of federal reach, Boston real estate attorney Peter Alpert said. Theres still going to be a lot of doubt about whats in the gray area.

The ruling could scuttle protections for at least 45 million acres of wetlands, an area roughly the size of Florida, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center.

They just put huge swaths of wetlands at risk, said Kelly Moser, an attorney with the center.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the majority likely stripped protections from wetlands that were long considered regulated, including those behind levees along the flood-prone Mississippi River.

Despite their vital role in blocking flood waters and filtering out pollutants, those wetlands may lose protection because they arent directly connected to the river, he said in an opinion that concurred on the Sackett case but disagreed significantly with the majority on the broader issues.

The ruling will have a big impact in the arid Southwest, where some rivers and streams dry up between infrequent rainstorms, experts said. The court majority said the Clean Water Act protects only wetlands connected to rivers and streams that are relatively permanent or continuous.

Continuous is a big deal because we dont have water, really, for 10 months of the year, said Maureen Gorsen, a California environment and regulatory attorney.

The ruling might lead some developers to decide they dont need to seek permits for projects that could disturb wetlands, said Jim Murphy, director of legal advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation.

And those who are discussing settlements for wetland damage or building new ones to compensate for losses might back out, said Alpert, the Boston attorney.

Everybody involved in enforcement actions is going to hit the pause button on negotiations with agencies right now and question with their consultants whether under this decision there is a reason to even be talking with the government, he said.

Environmental advocates will prod Congress and states to plug some of the gaps that have been created by this decision, Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation said.

But Congress showed in March it is in no mood to do so, voting to overturn the administrations wetlands rules and prompting a veto from President Joe Biden.

State governments may become another battleground. More than a dozen prohibit environmental regulations tougher than federal ones.

Youre going to see a patchwork of regulation depending on what state you are in, said Ashley Peck, an environmental attorney in Salt Lake City.

The Supreme Court ruling will likely create red state and blue state approaches to water protection, said Cara Horowitz of the UCLA School of Law.

Kids who use smartphones at a young age have worse mental health. Here's the best age to give them a phone

Earlier this week, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared that social media poses a meaningful risk of harm to children in his latest advisory. Now, a global study of nearly 30,000 young adults shows a strong correlation between the age at which children receive their first smartphone and the status of their mental health. The study also found that trends of lower self-worth, motivation and resilience were stronger among females compared to males

In the study, participants who got their first smartphone before age 10 are doing worse, on average, than those who didnt get one until they were in their teens. The benefits of waiting until high school for smartphones are undeniable, Dr. Jessica Gomez, executive director of Momentous Institute who was not involved in the study, said in an email to Fortune.

Researchers determined that the older children were when they received their first smartphone or tablet, the better their mental well-being was as adults. However, those who received their first smartphone at a younger age were more likely to experience suicidal thoughts, feelings of aggression towards others and a sense of being detached from reality.

The study, which was conducted by Sapien Labs as part of the Global Mind Project, an ongoing survey of global mental well-being, used a comprehensive assessment called the Mental Health Quotient, or MHQ, to determine mental well-being. The assessment includes 47 elements covering a range of symptoms and mental capabilities, which are then categorized into six dimensions of well-being:

Mood & Outlook
Social Self
Adaptability & Resilience
Drive & Motivation
Cognition
Mind-Body Connection

The impact of social media on mental health

According to statistics found in Murthys advisory, adolescents who spend at least three hours a day on social media face double the risk of mental health problems including experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety. The national average for time spent on social media for eighth- and 10th-graders is 3.5 hours a day.

Although children under 13 technically are not allowed to sign up for accounts on social media sites, such as TikTok and Snapchat, it is easy to bypass restrictions. Nearly 95% of young people between the ages of 13 and 17 report using a social media platform, with more than a third saying they use social media almost constantly, as previously reported in Fortune.

Heavy social media use is also negatively impacting sleep in adolescents. A recent study by De Montfort University Leicester in the U.K. suggests that 12.5% of 10-year-olds are losing about one night of sleep per week because theyre waking up in the middle of the night to check notifications.

As a result, the Surgeon General has called for more government oversight, such as age-appropriate health and safety standards for technology platforms and higher standard of data privacy for children and adolescents. However, the most critical role will come down to parent and caregivers involvement.

How to safely introduce a phone (and when)

Its crucial to remember that our brains merge with our environments, and childrens brains are still developing, so its our responsibility as adults to communicate with and educate our children, especially concerning a key part of modern society: smartphone technology and access to social media, says Dr. Caroline Leaf, a neuroscientist and author of How to Help Your Child Clean Up Their Mental Mess. This means we need to educate ourselves and our children on how to manage this continuous content and how this impacts the brain.

Leaf encourages caregivers to talk with their children about how social media may be influencing them and how its making them feel. But be prepared to explain your reasoning for not letting them have a smartphone, if thats the route you choose.

Restricting something or just saying no without explanation will only make your child more interested in the forbidden, she says. As parents, we want to educate and guide our children to better prepare them for the modern world, which includes teaching them how to use and interact with technology like smartphones.

One option Leaf shares is to start them off with a flip phone around age 10 to 13 without access to the internet or apps, so they can learn the value of texting and communication.

It shows they are learning to manage communication and encourages them to bring questions to their parents, she explains. Then, using their phone becomes a healthy, collaborative effort and you can eventually give them more freedom, such as a simple smartphone with safety restrictions to prevent them being targeted by unsavory individuals or organizations.

Gen Z will have the most successful marriages yet, a Tinder relationship expert claims. Heres why

Gen Z daters are investing in emotional well-being and clear communicationand as a result, theyll have the most successful marriages yet.

Thats according to Tinder global relationship insights expert Paul Brunson, who made the bold prediction this week in a news release accompanying the dating apps Future of Dating Report 2023.

The majoritynearly 70%of Gen Z daters (ages 18-25) believe theyre refreshing dating standards and making the oft-heartbreaking pastime healthier, according to the report. Among its findings:

80% of Gen Z daters say that self-care is their top priority when dating.
Nearly 80% want prospective partners to also make self-care their top priority.
75% find a potential mate more attractive if that person is open to working on their mental well-being.
Values-based qualities like loyalty, respect, and open-mindedness are more important than looks, in the minds of Gen Z daters.
Gen Z daters would rather leave a relationship than betray their personal values.

Whats more, Gen Z daters are 32% less likely to ghost potential matches than those over 33, the survey found.

Couple that with the fact that most Tinder users claim they dont drink or only do so occasionally, Gen Z daters are playing the field with clear minds and their hearts and standards in the right place, Brunson says.

It may be largely for not, thoughmarriage isnt at the top of Gen Zs wish list, according to the popular dating app, which is mostly used by members of that particular generation.

Among the reports other findings:

80% of surveyed Tinder users say theyve dated someone of a different ethnicity.
Half of users say they would be open to dating someone with a disability or who is neurodiverse.
Users identifying as non-binary have increased by 104% over the past year.

Gen Zs acceptance of differences is paving the way for future generations to embrace their true selves and live their best lives, Brunson says.

1 in 10 people get long COVID after Omicron

About 10% of people appear to suffer long COVID after an omicron infection, a lower estimate than earlier in the pandemic, according to a study of nearly 10,000 Americans that aims to help unravel the mysterious condition.

Early findings from the National Institutes of Healths study highlight a dozen symptoms that most distinguish long COVID, the catchall term for the sometimes debilitating health problems that can last for months or years after even a mild case of COVID-19.

Millions worldwide have had long COVID, with dozens of widely varying symptoms including fatigue and brain fog. Scientists still dont know what causes it, why it only strikes some people, how to treat it - or even how to best diagnose it. Better defining the condition is key for research to get those answers.

Sometimes I hear people say, Oh, everybodys a little tired,' said Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Langone Health, one of the study authors. No, theres something different about people who have long COVID and thats important to know.

The new research, published Thursday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, includes more than 8,600 adults who had COVID-19 at different points in the pandemic, comparing them to another 1,100 who hadnt been infected.

By some estimates, roughly 1 in 3 of COVID-19 patients have experienced long COVID. Thats similar to NIH study participants who reported getting sick before the omicron variant began spreading in the U.S. in December 2021. Thats also when the study opened, and researchers noted that people who already had long COVID symptoms might have been more likely to enroll.

But about 2,230 patients had their first coronavirus infection after the study started, allowing them to report symptoms in real time - and only about 10% experienced long-term symptoms after six months.

Prior research has suggested the risk of long COVID has dropped since omicron appeared; its descendants still are spreading.

The bigger question is how to identify and help those who already have long COVID.

The new study zeroed in on a dozen symptoms that may help define long COVID: fatigue; brain fog; dizziness; gastrointestinal symptoms; heart palpitations; sexual problems; loss of smell or taste; thirst; chronic cough; chest pain; worsening symptoms after activity and abnormal movements.

The researchers assigned scores to the symptoms, seeking to establish a threshold that eventually could help ensure similar patients are enrolled in studies of possible long COVID treatments, as part of the NIH study or elsewhere, for apples-to-apples comparison.

Horwitz stressed that doctors shouldnt use that list to diagnose someone with long COVID its a potential research tool only. Patients may have one of those symptoms, or many - or other symptoms not on the list and still be suffering long-term consequences of the coronavirus.

Everyones doing studies of long COVID yet we dont even know what that means, Horwitz said.