Connect with us

Published

on

A bill has been introduced in California which would require all EVs to have bidirectional charging capability starting in model year 2027.

The bill is numbered SB 233, introduced in the California Senate by Senator Nancy Skinner, who represents the Oakland area, just north of Tesla’s factory in Fremont; it has a lot of organizations supporting it.

It would require all new electric vehicles to be “bidirectional capable” by model year 2027.

The bill doesn’t specifically define “bidirectional-capable” and directs the California Energy Commission to convene a work group and produce a report on the bidirectional capabilities of various vehicles. This would likely include vehicle-to-grid capability, which means that the car’s battery can feed energy into the electrical grid (or a microgrid), much the same way that a home solar system does when it produces more than a home can consume.

There are other types of bidirectional usage available for EVs, notably vehicle-to-load and vehicle-to-home. V2L is the most limited type and typically has lower peak draw capability – for example, the 1.8kW capability on the Kia Niro EV. V2H allows homeowners to power their home with a car’s battery, much like a Tesla Powerwall might work or like Ford’s “Intelligent Backup Power” system.

Another umbrella term for all of this is “vehicle-to-everything,” or V2X.

The bill is meant to help California’s grid tackle challenges with peak loads. As climate change makes temperatures hotter, California’s grid is often overtaxed on the hottest summer days, which are becoming more numerous. Even worse, natural gas peaker plants are the highest-polluting form of electricity California consumes, and these need to be used at peak times in order to deal with high demand.

Electric cars can be a solution to this problem, since they could function as a distributed backup system for the grid. With incentives to charge overnight (utilities give cheaper rates for night charging) and additional incentives to discharge a battery when demand is high, EV owners could help the grid, the air, and also potentially their pocketbooks by buying electricity when it is cheap and putting it back onto the grid when it’s expensive.

California has already moved to incentivize grid-connected storage with its recent changes to its solar net metering program. In a change that was controversial for many rooftop solar advocates, the new 3.0 net metering provision gave higher incentives to stationary battery storage and fewer incentives to normal nonbattery rooftop solar installations.

But there aren’t a lot of V2G-capable cars out there. Currently, only one EV on the market is fully V2G capable and has an available charger to unlock that capability for fleets. That car is also the oldest EV on the market – the Nissan Leaf, which was introduced in 2011 and has been equipped with bidirectional charging capability since 2013. But it only finally got its charger last September, several years after introduction and four years after Nissan partnered with Fermata Energy to deliver this charger.

Other vehicles have V2L or V2H capabilities (or have been promised to eventually have V2G capabilities), but only one is fully V2G capable in the US at the moment.

The bill has already been through two committees (Transportation and Energy, Utilities and Communications), during which it has been watered down significantly. Earlier versions of the bill would have also applied to all electric vehicle supply equipment (chargers), had specific incentives for bidirectional-capable EVs, and may have required these vehicles to use interoperable standards, but these aspects have all been removed as the bill has been amended.

Next, it has to go through the Appropriations committee, then pass through the state Senate and Assembly, and get signed by the governor – so there’s a lot more to go, with the potential that anything could be changed by more amendments.

Then many specifics of implementation would be left up to the California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, and California Public Utilities Commission, and the work group convened to study this issue. This includes potentially exempting certain vehicles from the requirements if they are found not to have a “likely beneficial bidirectional-capable use case.”

Electrek’s Take

V2G hasn’t really taken off with consumers, not solely because there aren’t many vehicles available that allow it but also because it’s not all that easy to use. You can’t just plug your car into an outlet and use it – you need to have a grid interconnect, a system which manages the charging and discharging of your vehicle, and so on.

So far, V2G has been more of a curiosity or potentially something for fleets which have large amounts of dispatchable power, but not really something that consumers can take advantage of.

A system like Tesla’s Virtual Power Plant, which connects Powerwall owners together into a large, automatically-dispatchable reserve of power for the grid (all while making those Powerwall owners money), would make it easier for consumers to use their cars in this way.

And having the force of law behind it, requiring all vehicles to be capable of this, could just be the kick-start needed to make these widespread. V2G definitely benefits from a network effect, where it becomes more useful the more people participate.

There’s no real point to a single person discharging their car into the grid, but when millions of cars are involved, you could work to flatten out the famous “duck curve,” which describes the imbalance between electricity supply and demand. We hear a lot about “intermittency” as the problem with wind and solar, and grid storage as the solution to that, so being able to immediately switch on gigawatt-hours worth of installed storage capacity would certainly help to solve that problem.

And that could be worth a tremendous amount of money to the grid. Not only does it eliminate peaker plant usage, which is costly both economically and environmentally, but it also saves money on grid storage installation and helps to avoid costly and even deadly widespread power outages. These benefits could be thought to balance out any cost of additional incentives for V2G-capable cars. But many of those benefits are had simply by charging the car at the right time, which helps to balance out peaks and troughs on its own.

The question of cost is important. This could increase the cost of EVs, and certainly of electrical charger installations. Will the incentive be enough to make up for this increased cost for consumers? Will enough people install grid interconnections to make this useful? And how can they even do so, when there’s a massive backlog of people waiting for grid interconnections to be installed?

And with 2027 coming so soon, do automakers have time to implement this, given that Nissan’s system took more than a decade to get a V2G-capable charger commercially available in the US? Tesla’s VP of Powertrain and Energy, Drew Baglino, recently said it could have bidirectional charging in two years, and immediately afterward, CEO Elon Musk stepped in to say that he thought nobody would want to use bidirectional charging.

This brings up a point: It still remains to be seen if car owners would accept having their car’s charge controlled by an algorithm. People are already obsessed with buying cars that have much more range than they need, so coming back to a car and finding out it’s got 100 fewer miles than you left it at might rattle some owners. This is solvable by setting minimum thresholds in an app, but that could also limit the overall usefulness of the system to the grid.

While this is a great idea that could solve many problems for California and elsewhere, we could see it being difficult to implement unless the system is made easy to use, easy to install, and people are properly incentivized to use it in a manner that is understandable to a public that doesn’t know the difference between a kilowatt and a kilowatt-hour. State regulators will have their work cut out for them to design these regulations by the end of 2024 as the bill describes, but if they get it right, this could finally give us the V2G dream we’ve been thinking of for so long.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

The aluminum sector isn’t moving to the U.S. despite tariffs — due to one key reason

Published

on

By

The aluminum sector isn't moving to the U.S. despite tariffs — due to one key reason

HAWESVILLE, KY – May 10

Plant workers drive along an aluminum potline at Century Aluminum Company’s Hawesville plant in Hawesville, Ky. on Wednesday, May 10, 2017. (Photo by Luke Sharrett /For The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Aluminum

The Washington Post | The Washington Post | Getty Images

Sweeping tariffs on imported aluminum imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump are succeeding in reshaping global trade flows and inflating costs for American consumers, but are falling short of their primary goal: to revive domestic aluminum production.

Instead, rising costs, particularly skyrocketing electricity prices in the U.S. relative to global competitors, are leading to smelter closures rather than restarts.

The impact of aluminum tariffs at 25% is starkly visible in the physical aluminum market. While benchmark aluminum prices on the London Metal Exchange provide a global reference, the actual cost of acquiring the metal involves regional delivery premiums.

This premium now largely reflects the tariff cost itself.

In stark contrast, European premiums were noted by JPMorgan analysts as being over 30% lower year-to-date, creating a significant divergence driven directly by U.S. trade policy.

This cost will ultimately be borne by downstream users, according to Trond Olaf Christophersen, the chief financial officer of Norway-based Hydro, one of the world’s largest aluminum producers. The company was formerly known as Norsk Hydro.

“It’s very likely that this will end up as higher prices for U.S. consumers,” Christophersen told CNBC, noting the tariff cost is a “pass-through.” Shares of Hydro have collapsed by around 17% since tariffs were imposed.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

The downstream impact of the tariffs is already being felt by Thule Group, a Hydro customer that makes cargo boxes fitted atop cars. The company said it’ll raise prices by about 10% even though it manufactures the majority of the goods sold in the U.S locally, as prices of raw materials, such as steel and aluminum, have shot up.

But while tariffs are effectively leading to prices rise in the U.S., they haven’t spurred a revival in domestic smelting, the energy-intensive process of producing primary aluminum.

The primary barrier remains the lack of access to competitively priced, long-term power, according to the industry.

“Energy costs are a significant factor in the overall production cost of a smelter,” said Ami Shivkar, principal analyst of aluminum markets at analytics firm Wood Mackenzie.  “High energy costs plague the US aluminium industry, forcing cutbacks and closures.”

“Canadian, Norwegian, and Middle Eastern aluminium smelters typically secure long-term energy contracts or operate captive power generation facilities. US smelter capacity, however, largely relies on short-term power contracts, placing it at a disadvantage,” Shivkar added, noting that energy costs for U.S. aluminum smelters were about $550 per tonne compared to $290 per tonne for Canadian smelters.

Recent events involving major U.S. producers underscore this power vulnerability.

In March 2023, Alcoa Corp announced the permanent closure of its 279,000 metric ton Intalco smelter, which had been idle since 2020. Alcoa said that the facility “cannot be competitive for the long-term,” partly because it “lacks access to competitively priced power.”

Similarly, in June 2022, Century Aluminum, the largest U.S. primary aluminum producer, was forced to temporarily idle its massive Hawesville, Kentucky smelter – North America’s largest producer of military-grade aluminum – citing a “direct result of skyrocketing energy costs.”

Century stated the power cost required to run the facility had “more than tripled the historical average in a very short period,” necessitating a curtailment expected to last nine to twelve months until prices normalized.

The industry has also not had a respite as demand for electricity from non-industrial sources has risen in recent years.

Hydro’s Christophersen pointed to the artificial intelligence boom and the proliferation of data centers as new competitors for power. He suggested that new energy production capacity in the U.S., from nuclear, wind or solar, is being rapidly consumed by the tech sector.

“The tech sector, they have a much higher ability to pay than the aluminium industry,” he said, noting the high double-digit margins of the tech sector compared to the often low single-digit margins at aluminum producers. Hydro reported an 8.3% profit margin in the first quarter of 2025, an increase from the 3.5% it reported for the previous quarter, according to Factset data.

“Our view, and for us to build a smelter [in the U.S.], we would need cheap power. We don’t see the possibility in the current market to get that,” the CFO added. “The lack of competitive power is the reason why we don’t think that would be interesting for us.”

How the massive power draw of generative AI is overtaxing our grid

While failing to ignite domestic primary production, the tariffs are undeniably causing what Christophersen termed a “reshuffling of trade flows.”

When U.S. market access becomes more costly or restricted, metal flows to other destinations.

Christophersen described a brief period when exceptionally high U.S. tariffs on Canadian aluminum — 25% additional tariffs on top of the aluminum-specific tariffs — made exporting to Europe temporarily more attractive for Canadian producers. Consequently, more European metals would have made their way into the U.S. market to make up for the demand gap vacated by Canadian aluminum.

The price impact has even extended to domestic scrap metal prices, which have adjusted upwards in line with the tariff-inflated Midwest premium.

Hydro, also the world’s largest aluminum extruder, utilizes both domestic scrap and imported Canadian primary metal in its U.S. operations. The company makes products such as window frames and facades in the country through extrusion, which is the process of pushing aluminum through a die to create a specific shape.

“We are buying U.S. scrap [aluminium]. A local raw material. But still, the scrap prices now include, indirectly, the tariff cost,” Christophersen explained. “We pay the tariff cost in reality, because the scrap price adjusts to the Midwest premium.”

“We are paying the tariff cost, but we quickly pass it on, so it’s exactly the same [for us],” he added.

RBC Capital Markets analysts confirmed this pass-through mechanism for Hydro’s extrusions business, saying “typically higher LME prices and premiums will be passed onto the customer.”

This pass-through has occurred amid broader market headwinds, particularly downstream among Hydro’s customers.

RBC highlighted the “weak spot remains the extrusion divisions” in Hydro’s recent results and noted a guidance downgrade, reflecting sluggish demand in sectors like building and construction.

— CNBC’s Greg Kennedy contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

Environment

One of the world’s largest wind farms just got axed – here’s why

Published

on

By

One of the world’s largest wind farms just got axed – here’s why

Danish energy giant Ørsted has canceled plans for the Hornsea 4 offshore wind farm, dealing a major blow to the UK’s renewable energy ambitions.

Hornsea 4, at a massive 2.4 gigawatts (GW), would have become one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world, generating enough clean electricity to power over 1 million UK homes. But Ørsted announced that it’s abandoning the project “in its current form.”

“The adverse macroeconomic developments, continued supply chain challenges, and increased execution, market, and operational risks have eroded the value creation,” said Rasmus Errboe, group president and CEO of Ørsted.

Reuters reported that Ørsted’s cancellation of Hornsea 4 would result in a projected loss of up to 5.5 billion Danish crowns ($837.85 million) in breakaway fees and asset write-downs. The company’s market value has declined by 80% since its peak in 2021.

The cancellation highlights significant challenges currently facing offshore wind development in Europe, particularly in the UK. The combination of higher material costs, inflation, and global financial instability has made large-scale renewable projects increasingly difficult to finance and complete.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Ørsted’s decision is a significant setback to the UK’s energy transition goals. The UK currently has around 15 GW of offshore wind, and Hornsea 4’s size would have provided almost 7% of the additional capacity needed for the UK’s 50 GW by 2030 target, according to The Times. Losing this immense project off the Yorkshire coast could hamper the UK’s pace of reducing dependency on fossil fuels, especially amid volatile global energy markets.

The UK government reiterated its commitment to renewable energy, promising to work closely with industry leaders to overcome financial and logistical hurdles. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told reporters in Norway that the UK is “still committed to working with Orsted to seek to make Hornsea 4 happen by 2030.”

Ørsted says it remains committed to its other UK-based projects, including the Hornsea 3 wind farm, which is expected to generate around 2.9 GW once completed at the end of 2027. Despite the challenges, the company emphasized its ongoing commitment to the British renewable market, pointing to the critical need for policy support and economic stability to ensure future developments.

Yet, the cancellation of Hornsea 4 demonstrates that even flagship renewable projects are vulnerable in the face of economic pressures and global uncertainties, which have been heightened under the Trump administration in the US.

Read more: The world’s single-largest wind farm gets the green light


If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Is the Tesla Roadster ever going to be made?

Published

on

By

Is the Tesla Roadster ever going to be made?

The Tesla Roadster appears to be quietly disappearing after years of delay. is it ever going to be made?

I may have jinxed it with Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, which suggests any headline ending in a question mark can be answered with “no.”

The prototype for the next-generation Tesla Roadster was first unveiled in 2017, and it was supposed to come into production in 2020, but it has been delayed every year since then.

It was supposed to get 620 miles (1,000 km) of range and accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 1.9 seconds.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Site default logo image

It has become a sort of running joke, and there are doubts that it will ever come to market despite Tesla’s promise of dozens of free new Roadsters to Tesla owners who participated in its referral program years ago.

Tesla uses the promise of free Roadsters to help generate billions of dollars worth of sales, which Tesla owners delivered, but the automaker never delivered on its part of the agreement.

Furthermore, many people placed deposits ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 to reserve the vehicle, which was supposed to hit the market 5 years ago.

The official timelines from Tesla are pretty useless at this point since they haven’t stuck to any of them, but the latest official one dates back to July 2024 when CEO Elon Musk said this:

“With respect to Roadster, we’ve completed most of the engineering. And I think there’s still some upgrades we want to make to it, but we expect to be in production with Roadster next year. It will be something special.”

He said that Tesla had completed “most of the engineering”, but he initially said the engineering would be done in 2021 and that was already 3 years after the prototype was unveiled and a year after it was supposed to be in production:

Musk commented on the Roadster again in October 2024, but he didn’t reiterate the 2025 timeline. Instead, he called the new Roadster “the cherry on the icing on the cake.”

Tesla’s leadership has been virtually silent about the new Roadster since. Two Tesla executives even had to be reminded about the Roadster by Jay Leno after they “forgot” about it when listing upcoming new Tesla vehicles with tri-motor powertrain.

There was one small update about the Roadster in Tesla’s financial results last month.

The automaker has a table of all its vehicle production, and the Roadster was updated from “in development” to “design development” in the table:

It’s not clear if that’s progress or Tesla is just rephrasing it. Either way, it is not “construction”, which makes it unlikely that the Roadster is going into production this year.

If ever…

Electrek’s Take

It looks like Tesla owes about 80 Tesla Roadsters for free to Tesla owners who referred purchases, and it owes significant discounts on hundreds of units.

It’s hard for me to believe that Tesla is not delivering the new Roadster because the vehicle program would start about $100 million in the red, but at this point, I have no idea. It very well might be the reason.

However, I think it’s more likely that Tesla is just terrible at bringing multiple vehicle programs to market simultaneously. Case in point: it launched a single new vehicle in the last five years.

At this point, I think it’s more likely that the Roadster will never happen. It will join other Tesla products like the Cybertruck Range Extender.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending