Michelin develops EV-specific prototype tire

Nissan V2G Parking lets EV drivers pay with electricity via bidirectional charging at the Yokohama Nissan Pavilion, showcasing vehicle-to-grid, smart energy trading, and integrated mobility experiences like Ariya rides and Formula E simulators.

Key Points

A program where EV owners use V2G to pay for parking by discharging power at Nissan's Yokohama Pavilion.

✅ Pay for parking with EV energy via V2G

✅ Powered by Nissan LEAFs and solar at the Pavilion

✅ Showcases Ariya, Formula E, ProPILOT, and I2V tech

Nissan is letting customers pay for parking with electricity by discharging power from their electric car’s battery pack, a concept similar to how EV owners sell electricity back to the grid in other programs. In what the company claims to be a global first, owner of electric cars can trade energy for a parking space at Nissan Pavilion exhibition space in Yokohama, Japan, echoing how parked EVs earn from Europe's grids in comparable schemes.

The venue that showcases Nissan's future technologies, opened its doors to public on August 1 and will remain so through October 23, underscoring how stored EV energy can power buildings in broader applications. “(It) is a place where customers can see, feel, and be inspired by (the company's) near-future vision for society and mobility," says CEO Makoto Uchida. “As the world shifts to electric mobility, EVs will be integrated into society in ways that go beyond just transportation."

Apart from the innovate parking experience, people visiting the pavilion can also virtually experience the thrill of Formula E electric street racing or go for a ride in the all-new Ariya electric crossover, similar to demos at the Everything Electric show in Vancouver. Other experiences include ProPILOT advanced driver assistance system as well as Nissan’s Invisible-to-Visible (I2V) technology, which combines information from the real and virtual worlds to assist drivers, themes also explored at an EV education centre in Toronto for public outreach.

A mobility hub in front of the Pavilion offers a variety of services including EV car-sharing. The Pavilion also operates a cafe operated on power supplied by Nissan LEAF electric cars and solar energy, showcasing vehicle-to-building charging benefits on site.

As part of its Nissan NEXT transformation plan, the company plans to expand its global lineup of EVs and aims to sell more than 1 million electrified vehicles a year by the end of fiscal 2023, aligning with the American EV boom and the challenge of scaling charging infrastructure.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Rooftop Solar Cost Shift examines PG&E rate hikes, net metering changes, and utility infrastructure spending impacts on low-income households, distributed generation, and clean energy adoption, potentially raising bills and undermining grid resilience.

Key Points

A claim that rooftop solar shifts fixed grid costs to others; critics cite PG&E rates, avoided costs, and impacts.

✅ PG&E rates outpace national average, underscoring cost drivers.

✅ Net metering cuts risk burdening low- and middle-income homes.

✅ Distributed generation avoids infrastructure spend and grid strain.

California is grappling with soaring electricity prices across the state, with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates more than double the national average and increasing at an average of 12.5% annually over the past six years. In response, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order directing state energy agencies to identify ways to reduce power costs. However, recent policy shifts targeting rooftop solar users may exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it.

The "Cost Shift" Theory

A central justification for these pricing changes is the "cost shift" theory. This theory posits that homeowners with rooftop solar panels reduce their electricity consumption from the grid, thereby shifting the fixed costs of maintaining and operating the electrical grid onto non-solar customers. Proponents argue that this leads to higher rates for those without solar installations.

However, this theory is based on a flawed assumption: that PG&E owns 100% of the electricity generated by its customers and is entitled to full profits even for energy it does not deliver. In reality, rooftop solar users supply only about half of their energy needs and still pay for the rest. Moreover, their investments in solar infrastructure reduce grid strain and save ratepayers billions by avoiding costly infrastructure projects and reducing energy demand growth, aligning with efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid as well.

Impact on Low- and Middle-Income Households

The majority of rooftop solar users are low- and middle-income households. These individuals often invest in solar panels to lower their energy bills and reduce their carbon footprint. Policy changes that undermine the financial viability of rooftop solar disproportionately affect these communities, and efforts to overturn income-based charges add uncertainty about affordability and access.

For instance, Assembly Bill 942 proposes to retroactively alter contracts for millions of solar consumers, cutting the compensation they receive from providing energy to the grid, raising questions about major changes to your electric bill that could follow if their home is sold or transferred. This would force those with solar leases—predominantly lower-income individuals—to buy out their contracts when selling their homes, potentially incurring significant financial burdens.

The Real Drivers of Rising Energy Costs

While rooftop solar users are being blamed for rising electricity rates, calls for action have mounted as the true culprits lie elsewhere. Unchecked utility infrastructure spending has been a significant factor in escalating costs. For example, PG&E's rates have increased rapidly, yet the utility's spending on infrastructure projects has often been criticized for inefficiency and lack of accountability. Instead of targeting solar users, policymakers should scrutinize utility profit motives and infrastructure investments to identify areas where costs can be reduced without sacrificing service quality.

California's approach to addressing rising electricity costs by targeting rooftop solar users is misguided. The "cost shift" theory is based on flawed assumptions and overlooks the substantial benefits that rooftop solar provides to the grid and ratepayers. To achieve a sustainable and equitable energy future, the state must focus on controlling utility spending, promoting clean energy access for all, especially as it exports its energy policies across the West, and ensuring that policies support—not undermine—the adoption of renewable energy technologies.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Massachusetts Energy Code Updates align DOER regulations with BBRS standards, advancing Stretch Code and Specialized Code beyond the Base Energy Code to accelerate net-zero construction, electrification, and high-efficiency building performance across municipal opt-in communities.

Key Points

They are DOER-led changes to Base, Stretch, and Specialized Codes to drive net-zero, electrified, efficient buildings.

✅ Updates apply Base, Stretch, or opt-in Specialized Code.

✅ Targets net-zero by 2050 with electrification-first design.

✅ Municipalities choose code path via City Council or Town Meeting.

Massachusetts will soon see significant updates to the energy codes that govern the construction and alteration of buildings throughout the Commonwealth.

As required by the 2021 climate bill, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has recently finalized regulations updating the current Stretch Energy Code, previously promulgated by the state's Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS), and establishing a new Specialized Code geared toward achieving net-zero building energy performance.

The final code has been submitted to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy for review as required under state law, amid ongoing Connecticut market overhaul discussions that could influence regional dynamics.

Under the new regulations, each municipality must apply one of the following:

Base Energy Code - The current Base Energy Code is being updated by the BBRS as part of its routine updates to the full set of building codes. This base code is the default if a municipality has not opted in to an alternative energy code.

Stretch Code - The updated Stretch Code creates stricter guidelines on energy-efficiency for almost all new constructions and alterations in municipalities that have adopted the previous Stretch Code, paralleling 100% carbon-free target in Minnesota and elsewhere to support building decarbonization. The updated Stretch Code will automatically become the applicable code in any municipality that previously opted-in to the Stretch Code.

Specialized Code - The newly created Specialized Code includes additional requirements above and beyond the Stretch Code, designed to get to ensure that new construction is consistent with a net-zero economy by 2050, similar to Canada's clean electricity regulations that set a 2050 decarbonization pathway. Municipalities must opt-in to adopt the Specialized Code by vote of City Council or Town Meeting.

The new codes are much too detailed to summarize in a blog post. You can read more here. Without going into those details here, it is worth noting a few significant policy implications of the new regulations:

With roughly 90% of Massachusetts municipalities having already adopted the prior version of the Stretch Code, the Commonwealth will effectively soon have a new base code that, even if it does not mandate zero-energy buildings, is nonetheless very aggressive in pushing new construction to be as energy-efficient as possible, as jurisdictions such as Ontario clean electricity regulations continue to reshape the power mix.

Although some concerns have been raised about the cost of compliance, particularly in a period of high inflation, and amid solar demand charge debates in Massachusetts, our understanding is that many developers have indicated that they can work with the new regulations without significant adverse impacts.

Of course, the success of the new codes depends on the success of the Commonwealth's efforts to transition quickly to a zero-carbon electrical grid, supported by initiatives like the state's energy storage solicitation to bolster reliability. If the cost of doing so is higher than expected, there could well be public resistance. If new transmission doesn't get built out sufficiently quickly or other problems occur, such that the power is not available to electrify all new construction, that would be a much more significant problem - for many reasons!

In short, the new regulations unquestionably set the Commonwealth on a course to electrify new construction and squeeze carbon emissions out of new buildings. However, as with the rest of our climate goals, there are a lot of moving pieces, including proposals for a clean electricity standard shaping the power sector that are going to have to come together to make the zero-carbon economy a reality.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Great British Energy could cut UK electricity costs via public ownership, investing in clean energy like wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear, curbing windfall profits, stabilizing bills, and reinvesting returns through a state-backed generator.

Key Points

A proposed state-backed UK generator investing in clean power to cut costs and return gains to taxpayers.

✅ Publicly owned investment in wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear

✅ Cuts electricity bills by reducing generators' windfall profits

✅ Funded via bonds or asset buyouts; non-profit operations

A publicly owned electricity generation firm could save Britons nearly £21bn a year, according to new analysis that bolsters Labour’s case to launch a national energy company if the party gains power.

Thinktank Common Wealth has calculated that the cost of generating electricity to power homes and businesses could be reduced by £20.8bn or £252 per household a year under state ownership, according to a report seen by the Guardian.

The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has committed to creating “a publicly owned national champion in clean energy” named Great British Energy.

Starmer is yet to lay out the exact structure of the mooted company, although he has said it would not involve nationalising existing assets, or become involved in the transmission grid or retail supply of energy.

Starmer instead hopes to create a state-backed entity that would invest in clean energy – wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, large-scale storage and other emerging technologies – creating jobs and ensuring windfalls from the growth in low carbon power feed back to the government.

The Common Wealth report, which analysed scenarios for reforming the electricity market, said that a huge saving on electricity costs could be made by buying out assets such as wind, solar and biomass generators on older contracts and running them on a non-profit basis. Funding the measure could require a government bond issuance, or some form of compulsory purchase process.

Last year the government attempted to get companies operating low carbon generators, including nuclear power plants, on older contracts to switch to contracts for difference (CfD), allowing any outsized profits to flow back to taxpayers. However, the government later decided to tax eligible firms through the electricity generator levy instead.

The Common Wealth study concluded that a publicly owned low carbon energy generator would best deliver on Britain’s climate and economic goals, would eliminate windfall profits made by generators and would cut household bills significantly.

MPs and campaigners have argued that Britain’s energy companies should be nationalised since the energy crisis, even as coal-free records have multiplied and renewables still need more support, which has resulted in North Sea oil and gas producers and electricity generators making windfall profits, and a string of retail suppliers collapsing, costing taxpayers billions. Detractors of nationalisation in energy argue it can stifle innovation and expose taxpayers to huge financial risks.

Common Wealth pointed out that more than 40% of the UK’s offshore wind generation capacity was publicly owned by overseas national entities, meaning the benefits of high electricity prices linked to the war in Ukraine had flowed back to other governments.

The study found the publicly owned generator model would create more savings than other options, including a drive for voluntary CfDs; splitting the generation market between low carbon and fossil fuel sources at a time when wind and solar have outproduced nuclear, and a “single buyer model” with nationalised retail suppliers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

PG&E Wildfire Blackouts highlight California power shutoffs as high winds and suspected transmission line faults trigger evacuations, CPUC investigations, and grid safety reviews, with utilities weighing risk, compliance, and resilience during Santa Ana conditions.

Key Points

PG&E Wildfire Blackouts are outages during wind-driven fire threats linked to power lines, spurring CPUC investigations.

✅ Wind and line faults suspected amid Lafayette evacuations

✅ CPUC to probe shutoffs, notifications, and compliance

✅ Utilities plan more outages as Santa Ana winds return

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. power lines may have started two wildfires over the weekend in the San Francisco Bay Area, the utility said Monday, even though widespread blackouts were in place to prevent downed lines from starting fires during dangerously windy weather.

The fires described in PG&E reports to state regulators match blazes that destroyed a tennis club and forced evacuations in Lafayette, about 20 miles (32 kilometres) east of San Francisco.

The fires began in a section of town where PG&E had opted to keep the lights on. The sites were not designated as a high fire risk, the company said.

Powerful winds were driving multiple fires across California and forcing power shut-offs intended to prevent blazes, even as electricity prices are soaring across the state as well.

More than 900,000 power customers -- an estimated 2.5 million people -- were in the dark at the height of the latest planned blackout, nearly all of them in PG&E's territory in Northern and central California. By Monday evening a little less than half of those had their service back. But some 1.5 million people in 29 counties will be hit with more shut-offs starting Tuesday because another round of strong winds is expected, a reminder of grid stress during heat waves that test capacity, the utility said.

Southern California Edison had cut off power to 25,000 customers and warned that it was considering disconnecting about 350,000 more as power supply lapses and Santa Ana winds return midweek.

PG&E is under severe financial pressure after its equipment was blamed for a series of destructive wildfires and its 2018 Camp Fire guilty plea compounded liabilities during the past three years. Its stock dropped 24% Monday to close at $3.80 and was down more than 50% since Thursday.

The company reported last week that a transmission tower may have caused a Sonoma County fire that has forced 156,000 people to evacuate.

PG&E told the California Public Utilities Commission that a worker responded to a fire in Lafayette late Sunday afternoon and was told firefighters believed contact between a power line and a communication line may have caused it.

A worker went to another fire about an hour later and saw a fallen pole and transformer. Contra Costa Fire Department personnel on site told the worker they were looking at the transformer as a potential ignition source, a company official wrote.

Separately, the company told regulators that it had failed to notify 23,000 customers, including 500 with medical conditions, before shutting off their power earlier this month during windy weather.

Before a planned blackout, power companies are required to notify customers and take extra care to get in touch with those with medical problems who may not be able to handle extended periods without air conditioning or may need power to run medical devices.

PG&E said some customers had no contact information on file. Others were incorrectly thought to be getting electricity.

After that outage, workers discovered 43 cases of wind-related damage to power lines, transformers and other equipment.

Jennifer Robison, a PG&E spokeswoman, said the company is working with independent living centres to determine how best to serve people with disabilities.

The company faced a growing backlash from regulators and lawmakers, and a judge's order on wildfire risk spending added pressure as well.

U.S. Rep. Josh Harder, a Democrat from Modesto, said he plans to introduce legislation that would raise PG&E's taxes if it pays bonuses to executives while engaging in blackouts.

The Public Utilities Commission plans to open a formal investigation into the blackouts and the broader climate policy debate surrounding reliability within the next month, allowing regulators to gather evidence and question utility officials. If rules are found to be broken, they can impose fines up to $100,000 per violation per day, said Terrie Prosper, a spokeswoman for the commission.

The commission said Monday it also plans to review the rules governing blackouts, will look to prevent utilities from charging customers when the power is off and will convene experts to find grid improvements that might lessen blackouts during next year's fire season, as debates over rate stability in 2025 continue across PG&E's service area.

The state can't continue experiencing such widespread blackouts, "nor should Californians be subject to the poor execution that PG&E in particular has exhibited," Marybel Batjer, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, said in a statement.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Quebec Hydropower Export Retaliation examines using electricity exports to counter U.S. tariffs amid Canada-U.S. trade tensions, weighing clean energy supply, grid reliability, energy security, legal risks, and long-term market impacts.

Key Points

Using Quebec electricity exports as leverage against U.S. tariffs, and its economic, legal, and diplomatic consequences.

✅ Revenue loss for Quebec and higher costs for U.S. consumers

✅ Risk of legal disputes under trade and energy agreements

✅ Long-term erosion of market share and grid cooperation

As trade tensions between Canada and the United States continue to escalate, with electricity exports at risk according to recent reporting, discussions have intensified around potential Canadian responses to the imposition of U.S. tariffs. One of the proposals gaining attention is the idea of reducing or even halting the export of energy from Quebec to the U.S. This measure has been suggested by some as a potential countermeasure to retaliate against the tariffs. However, experts and industry leaders are urging caution, emphasizing that the consequences of such a decision could have significant economic and diplomatic repercussions for both Canada and the United States.

Quebec plays a critical role in energy trade, particularly in supplying hydroelectric power to the United States, especially to the northeastern states, including New York where tariffs may spike energy prices according to analysts, strengthening the case for stable cross-border flows. This energy trade is deeply embedded in the economic fabric of both regions. For Quebec, the export of hydroelectric power represents a crucial source of revenue, while for the U.S., it provides access to a steady and reliable supply of clean, renewable energy. This mutually beneficial relationship has been a cornerstone of trade between the two countries, promoting economic stability and environmental sustainability.

In the wake of recent U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods, some policymakers have considered using energy exports as leverage, echoing threats to cut U.S. electricity exports in earlier disputes, to retaliate against what is viewed as an unfair trade practice. The idea is to reduce or stop the flow of electricity to the U.S. as a way to strike back at the tariffs and potentially force a change in U.S. policy. On the surface, this approach may appear to offer a viable means of exerting pressure. However, experts warn that such a move would be fraught with significant risks, both economically and diplomatically.

First and foremost, Quebec's economy is heavily reliant on revenue from hydroelectric exports to the U.S. Any reduction in these energy sales could have serious consequences for the province's economic stability, potentially resulting in job losses and a decrease in investment. The hydroelectric power sector is a major contributor to Quebec's GDP, and recent events, including a tariff threat delaying a green energy bill in Quebec, illustrate how trade tensions can ripple through the policy landscape, while disrupting this source of income could harm the provincial economy.

Additionally, experts caution that reducing energy exports could have long-term ramifications on the energy relationship between Quebec and the northeastern U.S. These two regions have developed a strong and interconnected energy network over the years, and abruptly cutting off the flow of electricity could damage this vital partnership. Legal challenges could arise under existing trade agreements, and even as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects among some stakeholders, the situation would grow more complex. Such a move could also undermine trust between the two parties, making future negotiations on energy and other trade issues more difficult.

Another potential consequence of halting energy exports is that U.S. states may seek alternative sources of energy, diminishing Quebec's market share in the long run. As the U.S. has a growing demand for clean energy, especially as it looks to transition away from fossil fuels, and looks to Canada for green power in several regions, cutting off Quebec’s electricity could prompt U.S. states to invest in other forms of energy, including renewables or even nuclear power. This could have a lasting effect on Quebec's position in the U.S. energy market, making it harder for the province to regain its footing.

Moreover, reducing or ceasing energy exports could further exacerbate trade tensions, leading to even greater economic instability. The U.S. could retaliate by imposing additional tariffs on Canadian goods or taking other measures that would negatively impact Canada's economy. This could create a cycle of escalating trade barriers that would hurt both countries and undermine the broader North American trade relationship.

While the concept of using energy exports as a retaliatory tool may seem appealing to some, the experts' advice is clear: the potential economic and diplomatic costs of such a strategy outweigh the short-term benefits. Quebec’s role as an energy supplier to the U.S. is crucial to its own economy, and maintaining a stable, reliable energy trade relationship is essential for both parties. Rather than escalating tensions further, it may be more prudent for Canada and the U.S. to seek diplomatic solutions that preserve trade relations and minimize harm to their economies.

While the idea of using Quebec’s energy exports as leverage in response to U.S. tariffs may appear attractive on the surface, and despite polls showing support for tariffs on energy and minerals among Canadians, it carries significant risks. Experts emphasize the importance of maintaining a stable energy export strategy to protect Quebec’s economy and preserve positive diplomatic relations with the U.S. Both countries have much to lose from further escalating trade tensions, and a more measured approach is likely to yield better outcomes in the long run.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News