Connect with us

Published

on

The Federal Highway Administration announced today that it will seek feedback on how government rules should be updated to account for the new NACS/J3400 charging standard, potentially unlocking $7.5 billion in federal subsidies for the Tesla-developed charging connector.

As part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the US government has allocated $7.5 billion in subsidies to expand EV charging access. $5 billion of that is through the NEVI program, which is intended to install a nationwide backbone of fast chargers at least every 50 miles along America’s major roads in order to make EV road trips seamless.

But one requirement of that law was that the chargers installed must be accessible by multiple brands of electric car – standard, not proprietary. This requirement is obviously reasonable, but it also seemed targeted at Tesla, a company that had built its own Supercharger network only accessible by Tesla vehicles.

In response to this, Tesla released specifications of its charging connector which it called the “North American Charging Standard.” This was somewhat of an absurd name at the time, given that Tesla was the only company using it.

However, since Tesla is a majority of the US EV market, Tesla’s argument was that most of the cars and most of the DC charging stations in America already used Tesla’s connector, so it should be considered a de facto standard anyway.

For a few months, not many people took this seriously. However, Ford shook up the industry by announcing it would adopt the NACS plug on upcoming vehicles. Soon after, GM made the same move, and now basically everyone else has – including one of the last holdouts Volkswagen, as of today.

But even after momentum was apparent, the White House threw cold water on NACS’ victory, reminding everyone that there are still “minimum standards” within federal charger subsidy rules, and it would have to examine how NACS fulfills those standards, to ensure that the charging network stay accessible and interoperable. A standard isn’t a standard just because one company says it is – it has to be treated like a standard with independent control and verification.

As of today, any DC chargers installed with federal money can have NACS connectors, but must also include CCS connectors.

This led SAE, the professional engineering organization that develops industry standards, to take up the flag of creating a real, independent standard that is no longer in the hands of Tesla, and Tesla obliged by allowing SAE to have control over the process of standardization.

The government will examine how to take advantage of the new SAE NACS/J3400 standard

And today, now that SAE has officially published its report on the J3400 charging standard (J3400 is SAE’s name for NACS), the government has simultaneously announced that it wants to re-examine its minimum standards in light of the new certification.

We covered how the new SAE/NACS standard will solve (basically) every charging problem in one fell swoop last week (click through to learn more about that, I promise it’s more interesting than an article about competing charging standards seems like it would be).

Today’s press release from the Federal Highway Administration announces that it “will soon publish a Request for Information (RFI) to solicit feedback from stakeholders on updating FHWA’s minimum standards and requirements for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations to allow for new technology and continued innovation.”

It also specifically calls out the news of the day, name-dropping Tesla and NACS as the reason for this call to update the government’s minimum standards:

With the implementation of J3400 TM, a new standard for charging EVs published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), any supplier or manufacturer will now be able to use and deploy the Tesla-developed North America Charging Standard (NACS) connector, which a majority of automakers have announced they will adopt on vehicles beginning in 2025 with adaptors available for current owners as soon as next spring.

In addition to that, the Biden Administration and the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation (which worked with SAE to develop the J3400 standard) put out a press release today applauding the new standard, celebrating how quickly the process was finished, and pointing to its potential future inclusion in the FHWA’s requirements.

Electrek’s Take

Firstly, I’d like to make note of the issue that many Tesla fans had for a while about the White House not properly acknowledging Tesla. I always thought this was silly, more of a reflection of the massive chip on the shoulder of the egomaniac who is the titular head of the company in question than of actual reality.

When the Biden administration said “hold up, not so fast” early in the NACS process, it made many think that Biden was once again slighting Tesla, but today’s news I think shows that that was never the case. The government simply wanted it to be a proper standard, and now it is (and that process went really fast), and on the same day that it became a proper standard, the government announced that it’s ready to treat it like one. That all seems fair to me.

While we don’t yet know what the minimum standards will change to, it seems clear that this is an effort to update them to coalesce around NACS. Which is great news, because charging will only get better when everyone just rips the band-aid off and goes with one charging standard – and a more robust one than J1772 at that.

But this leads to the question: will the government fully embrace NACS, thus potentially leaving some of the installed base of CCS-enabled cars out of luck in the longer term? Or will it hamstring deployment to some extent, requiring CCS (which is effectively now a dead standard) and therefore not full taking advantage of the NACS standard’s myriad solutions to charging problems?

But as I stated in that last article, this decision point is also a little ironic, considering NACS’ existence seems to have been spurred on by NEVI in the first place. When the government offered billions of dollars to companies that installed chargers with the requirement that those chargers be useable with multiple vehicles, that’s what got Tesla to finally offer a “standard.”

At the time, it wasn’t really a standard because only Tesla was using it, and it was somewhat of a last-ditch effort to save the Tesla connector. Then, when Ford decided to use NACS, that’s what started all the other dominos falling.

Now, NACS is dominant, but it only happened because of NEVI in the first place – and NEVI now has the difficult decision over whether to embrace the (positive) situation it caused, even if it will give some of the installed base an effective “use-by” date as a shift to NACS will inevitably mean fewer CCS/J1772 chargers over time.

We wish that all of this would have been figured out long ago so we could be done with it by now, but it looks like the solution to all our charging problems is finally nearly at hand.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Wheel-E Podcast: Rad’s sunset, Onewheel minibike, flatbet e-trike, and more

Published

on

By

Wheel-E Podcast: Rad's sunset, Onewheel minibike, flatbet e-trike, and more

This week on Electrek’s Wheel-E podcast, we discuss the most popular news stories from the world of electric bikes and other nontraditional electric vehicles. This time, that includes the potential end of Rad Power Bikes, Tern’s new belt-drive Vektron, a semi-solid-state e-bike battery coming soon on a production e-bike, ALSO drops price on its entry-level model, a tilting flat-bed electric trike/truck, and more.

The Wheel-E podcast returns every two weeks on Electrek’s YouTube channel, Facebook, Linkedin, and Twitter.

As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.

After the show ends, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Overcast

Pocket Casts

Castro

RSS

We also have a Patreon if you want to help us to avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.

Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the Wheel-E podcast today:

Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 9:00 a.m. ET (or the video after 10:00 a.m. ET):

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Electricity is about to become the new base currency and China figured it out

Published

on

By

Electricity is about to become the new base currency and China figured it out

For most of human history, currency was a direct claim on tangible, productive output. Before the abstraction of government fiat or cryptocurrency, value was stored in things that required real work and resources, bushels of grain, livestock, gold, assets with their own direct productive output: horses, and tragically, slaves.

These were the foundational assets of economies, representing a direct link between labor, resources, and stored value.

As we accelerate into an all-electric, all-digital age, this fundamental link is re-emerging, but with a new unit of account. The 21st-century economy, defined by automated industry, robotic, electric transport, and now power-hungry artificial intelligence, runs on a single, non-negotiable input: electricity. In this new paradigm, the real base currency, the ultimate representation of productive capacity, is the kilowatt-hour (kWh).

The kWh is the new economic base layer.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Last week, I was in Bijiashan Park at night overlooking Shenzhen, arguably the most technologically advanced city on earth, built over the previous few decades, partly on cheap electricity, cheap labor, and manufacturing innovations.

I could see the giant high-voltage power lines coming over Yinhu Mountain to power the constant light show that is Shenzhen at night. I couldn’t help but think about how cheap electricity and a strong grid have been critical to China’s exceptional economic rise.

As you stroll around the city, you see power everywhere. There are charging stations at every corner, including insane 1 MW charging posts, electric cars and trucks, trucks that carry batteries to electric scooter shops, which are also literally everywhere.

Everything moves on electric power. Industries are powered by electricity, and now, with the advent of AI, virtually everything is increasingly processed by LLMs, which are ultimately powered by electricity through power-hungry data centers.

In a world where everything runs on electricity, electricity itself becomes the currency of civilization.

It is measurable, divisible, storable, and universal – all qualities that a currency needs, but unlike fiat and crypto, it’s actually directly linked to productive output. No politics. No inflation. Just physics.

This concept is not merely academic; it appears to be the quiet, guiding principle in China. While others debate the merits of decentralized digital tokens, China is executing a multi-pronged strategy that treats electricity as the foundational strategic asset it has become.

First, China is building the “mint” for this new currency at an incredible, world-changing scale, and it has retained absolute state control over its distribution. Its deployment of new electricity generation, particularly from renewables, is staggering. The country met its 2030 target of 1,200 gigawatts of renewable capacity five years early, in 2025.

In 2024 alone, renewable energy accounted for a record 56% of the nation’s total installed capacity, with clean generation meeting 84% of all new demand.

Here’s a comparison of electricity generation between China and the US:

If this chart doesn’t scare the West. I don’t know what will. The trend is not reversing any time soon. In fact, it appears to be accelerating as China is doubling down on solar and nuclear.

State-owned monoliths manage this entire system, primarily the State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), the world’s largest utility. For better or worse, this centralized control allows the state to execute massive national strategies impossible in a liberalized market, such as building an Ultra-High-Voltage (UHV) grid to transmit power from remote solar and wind farms in the west to the power-hungry industrial hubs on its coast.

Second, China wields its control over the grid as a precision tool of industrial policy. China’s average electricity rate of $0.084/kWh is cheaper than most of the rest of the world, but its power lies not in the base price but in its strategic application. The government deploys a “Differential Electricity Pricing” policy: a “stick” that penalizes low-tech, high-consumption industries with higher rates, and a “carrot” that provides preferential pricing to incentivize strategic sectors.

The most potent example is in the AI sector. China is now offering massive electricity subsidies, cutting power bills by up to half, for data centers run by giants like Alibaba and Tencent. The condition for this cheap power is that these companies must use locally-made, Chinese AI chips, such as those from Huawei.

China is spending its “electricity currency” to directly fund the growth of its domestic AI chip industry and sever its dependence on foreign technology. This same logic applies to its global dominance in green tech, where state-subsidized firms like BYD benefit from a state-controlled industrial ecosystem built on reliable, managed power.

Third, and possibly the most explicit exemplification of China viewing electricity as the base currency is its moves against cryptocurrency.

In 2021, the government banned all cryptocurrency transactions and mining. While the official reasons cited financial stability, the move might have had a deeper, strategic intention.

From the state’s perspective, it was a tool for capital flight, allowing wealth to bypass government controls. But in a world where electricity rules, cryptocurrencies are, in effect, a competing “currency” that burns the foundational asset (electricity) to create a decentralized store of value.

By banning crypto, China simultaneously reclaimed its monopoly on economic control and shut down a massive, “wasteful” leak of its most precious resource. It freed up that generating capacity to be strategically allocated to its preferred industries, like AI and manufacturing.

China’s actions, viewed together, are a clear and coherent strategy. By massively investing in and securing total state control over its domestic electricity supply (the “mint”), using its price as a tool to fuel strategic industries, and banning decentralized competitors that consume the same resource, China is making a clear bet. It has been recognized that in an age where all productivity is powered by the grid, the ultimate source of national power is not gold, fiat, or crypto, but the state-controlled kilowatt-hour.

The Blockchain and Crypto: Ledger vs. Furnace

This perspective brings a critical nuance to the role of blockchain technology. In an economy where electricity is the base currency, the blockchain makes perfect sense, but only as a ledger, not as a store of value.

A distributed ledger is the ideal technological layer to act as the accounting system for this new economy. It can track the generation, transmission, and consumption of every kilowatt-hour with perfect transparency. It can automate complex industrial contracts and manage the grid’s load balancing without a central intermediary. In this sense, blockchain is the “banking software” for the electricity standard.

However, “Proof of Work” cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin face a fatal contradiction within this paradigm. They aim to serve as a store of value by burning the base currency (electricity) to secure the network. If the kilowatt-hour is the 21st-century equivalent of gold, then Bitcoin mining is akin to melting down gold bars to print a paper receipt. It destroys the productive asset to create a derivative token.

Bitcoin is quickly losing credibility as a classical safe store of value. It trades like a security, at least over the last year, and its value is only whatever the next moron is willing to pay, with no valuable asset behind it.

China’s strategy reflects this precise understanding. While they ruthlessly banned Bitcoin mining (the “furnace” that wastes the asset), they have simultaneously championed the Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN) and the Digital Yuan. They have embraced the ledger to track and control their energy economy, while rejecting the supposed asset that destroys it.

This is a trap that crypto fans often fall into. They recognize the value of the blockchain, which is real, but they mistakenly broadly assign the same value to cryptocurrency, which is simply an application of the blockchain.

Electrek’s Take

What I’m trying to explore in this op-ed is the idea that if the present is electric and the future is even more electric, then it makes sense for electricity to be the foundation of the economy.

If electricity is the backbone of global trade and the metric of productivity, the kWh ultimately becomes the real currency of a truly electrified world.

And I think China has figured this out, as evidenced by its new electricity generation surpassing the rest of the world combined and by its ban on cryptocurrency.

They are going to let the rest of the world hold the crypto bag while they have more electricity generation than anyone to power their industries, which are already taking over the world.

I think the rest of the world should learn from this. Instead of pouring capital into meme coins and made-up stores of value, we should invest in electricity generation and storage.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Oil prices and energy stocks fall sharply on Trump’s new Ukraine peace plan

Published

on

By

Oil prices and energy stocks fall sharply on Trump’s new Ukraine peace plan

This aerial picture shows the oil tanker Boracay anchored off the Atlantic Coast off Saint-Nazaire, western France on October 1st, 2025. French authorities said Wednesday they were investigating the oil tanker Boracay anchored off the Atlantic Coast and suspected of being part of Russia’s clandestine “shadow fleet”.

Damien Meyer | Afp | Getty Images

Oil prices extended declines and energy stocks fell sharply on Friday morning as U.S. President Donald Trump pushed for a peace deal to end the long-running Russia-Ukraine war.

International benchmark Brent crude futures with January expiry slipped 2% to $62.09 per barrel at 11:02 a.m. London time (6:02 a.m. ET), after dipping 0.2% in the previous session. The contract is down more 16% so far this year.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures with January expiry were last seen 2.4% lower at $57.61, after closing Thursday off 0.5%.

Europe’s Stoxx Oil and Gas index, meanwhile, led losses during morning deals, down more than 2.7%. Britain’s Shell and BP were both trading around 1.6% lower, while Germany’s Siemens Energy fell more than 8%.

U.S. oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron were 0.4% and 0.2% lower, respectively, during premarket trade.

The bearish market sentiment comes as investors pore over the details of the Trump administration’s push to secure a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

The U.S., under a widely leaked plan, has reportedly proposed that Ukraine cede land including Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, and pledge never to join the NATO military alliance.

The plan also says Kyiv will receive “reliable” security guarantees, while the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel, according to The Associated Press, which obtained a copy of the draft proposal. CNBC has not been able to independently verify the report.

Analysts were doubtful that the peace plan, which is thought to be favorable toward Russia, would be backed by Ukraine.

Guntram Wolff, senior fellow at Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank, was among those skeptical about whether the proposed peace plan could lead to a deal.

“I think it’s always good to talk each other so in that sense it’s a good development but I have to say when I saw the details of this supposed peace plan, I really don’t think it can fly,” Wolff told CNBC’s “Europe Early Edition” on Friday.

“Because at the core, what it says is that Ukraine should give up significant parts of its military personnel, meaning the military personnel would decrease by something like a third from 900,000 to 600,000,” he added.

A general view of a PJSC Lukoil Oil Company storage tank at an oil terminal located on the Chaussee de Vilvorde on October 30, 2025 in Brussels, Belgium.

Thierry Monasse | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Alongside the peace plan noise, energy market participants closely monitored the potential impact of U.S. sanctions against Russian oil producers Rosneft and Lukoil, with the measures taking effect from Friday, a stronger U.S. dollar and expectations for the Federal Reserve’s upcoming interest rate decision.

Continue Reading

Trending