Power outages have become an unfortunate recurring event across much of the country. Last month, for example, a powerful winter storm in the Northeast caused an outage for over 600,000 homes and businesses.

I’ve written before about how you or someone you know needs clean backup power (read: not from a fossil fueled generator). The recent winter storm may just be one of those times, or it may be the next event, whether a winter storm, public safety power shut off for wildfire prevention, hurricane, or another emergency. At that time, I also wrote about how electric vehicles can be a solution in times of power outages, acting like a quiet generator with no direct air pollution emissions through vehicle-to-home (V2H) power flow. Short of V2H, the more limited vehicle-to-load (V2L) functionality that many electric vehicles have can also help in a pinch to power a critical devices, such as a refrigerator or fan. V2L is also great for powering tools at a job site or gear on your next camping trip.

In principle, electric vehicles can do more than backup power V2H and off-grid V2L.  Drivers with a properly equipped electric vehicle and home set-up have the option to use their vehicles routinely in coordination with electricity grid needs to lower their electricity bills through bill credits or incentives. Drivers can do this through managed charging (grid-to-vehicle aka V1G) or bidirectional charging (vehicle-to-grid aka V2G).  

V1G and V2G involve charging up vehicles at times when renewable generation is abundant or when demands on the grid are low. In the case of V2G, vehicles also discharge when the grid needs some extra juice. In so doing, V1G and V2G lower costs for the grid by better utilizing grid resources, including cheaper sources of energy, and by deferring or avoiding grid upgrades that would otherwise need to be made to meet the demand for energy on the grid. Lower grid costs mean relatively lower bills over the long term for all electricity customers. UCS analysis has demonstrated the potential magnitude of V1G and V2G grid savings into the future. (spoiler: it’s in the billions per year!)

I’ll come back to V1G and V2G a little later. First, we need to know, what is the market currently delivering in terms of vehicle functionality and what else may you need to use that functionality?  

Bidirectional charging includes a range of capabilities

To do any kind of bidirectional charging, the vehicle must have both the hardware and software to enable that capability. A key component is a battery management system that allows for discharging the battery for a purpose other than running the electric motors that move the vehicle.

Many new electric vehicles can do V2L bidirectional charging. My Hyundai Ioniq 5, for example, has USB outlets in the cabin, and I have the option of using an adapter for the charging port through which a power cord or extension cord can be plugged in. Some Ioniq 5 trim levels also have a regular wall outlet type receptacle under the back seat. My Ioniq 5 is not, unfortunately, equipped for V2H, but many new vehicles are.

Indeed, the good news is that the market is beginning to deliver V2H capability for home backup power in a growing number of electric vehicle models. And drivers are buying those models: V2H-capable models have grown as a share of electric vehicle sales, reaching over 18 percent in the U.S. in 2025. News from Hyundai outlines plans to start full V2H for home backup power with the Ioniq 9, and meanwhile, Hyundai subsidiary Kia rolled out V2H in 2025 for the Kia EV9. Other available models include Chevy’s Equinox, Balzer,  Silverado, and upcoming 2027 Bolt, as well as the Ford F150 Lightning units that made it off the line before production stopped (over 100,000 of them). There’s the Tesla Cybertruck, Volvo E90, and Polestar 3, too. V2H-capable models from Rivian and BMW are anticipated in the near future.

The most sophisticated end of the bidirectional charging capability range V2G. It allows an EV to discharge power to a driver’s house while the house is actively connected with the grid. Grid-coordinated EV discharge may involve offsetting the house’s electricity needs or exporting power through the house and beyond the electricity meter back to the grid.  This is different from V2H that is set up for backup power purposes only, which you may also see referred to as V2H. (It’s confusing, I know!) The main difference is the kind of connection to the electricity grid you pursue with your local utility. There may also be software to update in the vehicle.

Providing consumers with more options for affordable models with V2H is important. Notably the V2H-capable models mentioned above span a range of price points, including the forthcoming 2027 Bolt on the more affordable end (advertised at around $30,000). However, that V2H capability (and V2G capability for that matter) is not universal in new vehicles is a problem. The majority of drivers purchase on the used market, and consequently are subject to the preferences of new car buyers. If new car buyers choose V2H capable models, then more V2H options will be available on the used market. If they don’t, V2H capability on the used market will remain limited, preventing many drivers from having this important option for clean backup power and other bidirectional charging opportunities. That’s where policy can help by ensuring V2H capability (and better yet, V2G) is offered across all electric vehicle models: if all new models have V2H, the more and more vehicles on the used market will have it over time.

So your electric vehicle is configured for bidirectional charging. What else do you need?

For V2L, you may need the charging port adapter. Some models come with it (check the spec sheet posted in the window!), or it may have to be purchased separately.  

V2H, even just for home backup power, takes a bit more external hardware, including a bidirectional capable charger, control system, and other electronics. This is where additional setup cost comes in, though most of the extra cost would be the same as that of a whole house generator or stationary battery system. Currently, most automakers have only OK’ed their vehicles to push power through their own proprietary system or a single, specific third-party provider. Take, for examples, the General Motors V2H kit (also requires their PowerShift Charger) or the Sunrun system for the Ford F-150 Lightning (requires Ford’s Charge Station Pro and a V2H activation fee for some trim levels).

It’s encouraging to see automakers going beyond vehicle capability to ensure their customers have all the components needed to set up V2H at their homes. At the same time, the walled gardens each automaker has created limits driver choice and prevents them from shopping around for the best price and functionality for a V2H rig. This is another instance in which policy can help by requiring interoperability. And I mean implementation of interoperability, not just capability to adhere to the relevant standards.

If V2H isn’t feasible for you, you still have options

When my household first acquired an electric vehicle, I lived in a rented apartment. Even if my Ioniq 5 was equipped with V2H backup capability, I wouldn’t have been able to install the home setup because I didn’t have access or authority to make changes to my electrical panel. Multiunit housing is a tough nut that needs cracking to unlock V2H for back-up power, as well as vehicle-to-grid opportunities for those who would like to participate. There’s much work to be done to develop solutions for V2H in multiunit housing where access to charging can be a challenge in the first place.

Without a full V2H setup, V2L can still be a lifeline in power outages. As I noted before, V2L can power critical devices to help you through an outage. Aside from the ability to plug in a device, an electric vehicle can be a place to escape from very hot or cold weather while the power is out. I contemplated sleeping in the car with the AC running in a post-hurricane power outage in order to cope with the sweltering weather. That’s not something you can do in a gasoline car parked in a garage due to the tailpipe emissions. Luckily for me, that power outage didn’t last long enough for me and my household to have to camp in the car in order to rest at a safe temperature.

Regardless of whether you personally have an electric vehicle, you may still be able to go to a place where one is providing backup power. A growing area of emergency planning is incorporating electric school buses as a source of backup power for schools, shelters, and other community gathering locations. Check out these examples from Illinois and Oklahoma.

Beyond backup: vehicle-grid integration for bargain bills and a better grid for all

V2H for backup will get many drivers thinking about and using their electric vehicles for more than just getting around. That’s a huge mental shift that was once unthinkable for the hundred or so years that fossil fueled vehicles ruled the road. Once you’ve made the shift in thinking, you might be wondering how else you can leverage your vehicle’s capabilities.

That’s where vehicle-grid integration comes in. If you’re set up for V2H backup, the next step to grid-coordinated bidirectional charging. Whether you stick to offsetting some of your energy use from the grid or go all the way to pushing power to the grid, you could earn you some incentives while supporting the operation of the grid. And don’t forget (one directional) managed charging! The UCS analysis mentioned above shows that actively managed charging, which delays or advances charging based on grid conditions, can create significant benefits all on its own.

The availability of grid-coordinated managed charging and V2H/V2G programs depends on what your local electric utility or third party aggregators offer in your area. I’ll cover more on that another time. For now, I’ll assure you that UCS is working with stakeholders in the vehicle-grid integration space to make sure bidirectional capable vehicles and opportunities to use those vehicles are available to more drivers.

How to enjoy bad but not worse weather

Dig the webcam at Poipu beach, on the south side of Kauai, near where I'll be for a week, starting tomorrow. Also, the turtles, in calmer weather.

I love me a water matrix printer

This fountain in Moravian Square (Moravské náměstí), in the Czechian city of Brno, prints the time in falling water.

Two stories, one slo-mo tragedy

Radio World: How AM and FM station totals have changed in ten years. And Cord Cutter News' story about it.

I dunno why, but I did give it an image

This was my most-visited blog post yesterday.

Until the Iran war, the main political pressure on President Donald Trump was high prices, particularly on housing and food. So earlier this year, he announced an executive order on a popular policy - banning Wall Street investors from controlling housing. “I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes,” he said, “and I will be calling on Congress to codify it.” I didn’t believe Trump was serious, because he’s generally talked a big game on constraining Wall Street, but hasn’t followed through.

However, something unusual happened. Trump’s pledge meshed with a set of vibrant debates about housing happening in both parties, and it may end up turning into law.

To understand why, we have to start with how Trump’s arguments were received in Congress. After Biden lost in 2024, people on both sides of the aisle blamed high housing costs, particularly the spiraling prices and rents in the post-pandemic period, for the collapse of the Democratic Party. Trump inherited the problem, and hasn’t solved it.

The housing story was dominated by two different factions. One group, the “Abundance movement,” argued that zoning prohibitions prevented more housing supply, and thus kept prices high and unaffordable. This group generally blamed homeowners and bureaucrats for refusing to allow more multi-family housing.

The second group, anti-monopolists, argued the predominant problem was financial. After the Great Financial Crisis, went this argument, the number of builders fell by 60%, because smaller builders couldn’t get a loan while large ones could borrow cheaply from the capital markets. Moreover, large institutional buyers were taking existing supply off the market and engaging in various forms of soft monopolization to drive up rents. And big builders were engaged in land-hoarding to keep supply off the market.

On BIG, we got into a fight with Abundance co-author Derek Thompson, over the specific case of housing in Dallas. The passion is real, and exists for a reason. Here’s Thompson in 2021 calling allegations of private equity control of housing leading to higher prices something close to a conspiracy theory.

What’s going on is a debate over the nature of American society. For much of the 20th century, government support for homeownership was a foundational method of U.S. statecraft. As the founder of the post-WWII suburb, William Levitt, once said, “No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist. He has too much to do.” Every President supported homeownership, we anchor our schools and communities around it, and homeownership is associated with pretty much every socially beneficial health trend.

Wall Street was linked to Main Street through the housing finance channel, first through thrift loans, and then eventually through securitization. But from the 1980s onward, as wage growth flattened, Wall Street started lending too much to Americans, and the home became a financial asset as much and eventually even more than a place to live. This dynamic ultimately led to the great crisis of 2008, which snapped the spine of the American system.

In the post-crisis era, Obama decided that renting, not ownership, was a more suitable option for Americans. And he had his administration sell off large swaths of single family homes in foreclosure to large investors to turn them into rental properties. As Morgan Stanley put it, “[e]ach distressed single-family liquidation creates [not only] a potential renter household” but also “a potential single-family rental unit. That meant, for “the first time in history,” there was “an opportunity for institutions to own single-family rental properties as part of a larger asset allocation strategy.”

In other words, the rise of institutional ownership of single family housing is new, a result of Obama-era changes to try and move America from a society with high homeownership to one where people rent. This shift hasn’t been wholesale, a majority of Americans still owns their own home. But the age of the average homebuyer moved from 39 years old to 59 years old in the last 15 years.

Everyone else rents, and increasingly from corporate landlords. Institutional ownership is regionally concentrated, with investors buying up properties in particular cities. In Atlanta, for instance, large institutional investors have dominant shares of the market.

As homebuilding consolidated, and an institutional asset ownership class emerged, the big builders started working with Wall Street to craft single family homes from scratch that would never go on the market. This “Build to Rent” sector took off, doubling in market share from 2021-2024. Giants builders Lennar likely have market power, and may also be hoarding land as part of their strategy to work with big institutional investors to keep home prices up. After all, one way to keep supply off the market for normal buyers, and thus control prices, is to build housing for large institutional owners.

For a long time, most housing analysts and think tank types dismissed private equity buying up homes as some sort of conspiracy theory, even though it was a pretty common story to hear someone talk about how they couldn’t buy a home because of the all-cash purchase by some sort of investor. But over time, serious policymakers started to notice that the frustration was more than just a few dissatisfied anecdote tellers.

In 2024, the Federal Trade Commission under Lina Khan found that Invitation Homes, a spinoff of Blackstone, had engaged in rampant misbehavior. The CEO told one of his subordinates to “juice this hog” and they did so by deceiving renters, unfairly evicting people, charging junk fees, and so forth. Her successor, Trump FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, is continuing her legacy in this area. Last year, Senator Jon Ossoff investigated and found that institutional purchases make it harder for Americans to buy homes.

Congressional documents showed that “renters in institutionally-owned SFR homes often experience higher rent increases, inflated fees, and diminishing quality of housing over time.” And Federal Reserve economists wrote a paper observing that such investors “raise rents at 60 percent higher rates than the average increase when first acquiring the property,” and that rents overall go up.

This information, and increasing frustration of Americans on high housing costs, led to Congressional action.

In July, Republican Senator Tim Scott and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren passed a bill out of the Senate Banking Committee doing meshing the Abundance and anti-monopoly framework. It encouraged more manufactured housing to lower costs, facilitated faster zoning approval, and loosened standards for financing for multi-family apartment construction, among other changes. There was more public money for homebuilding, and support for cities trying to speed up processes. It promised to be some of the most important housing legislation passed out of Congress in decades. It didn’t include anything on institutional bans, but drew support from both anti-monopolists and Abundance groups.

Then came Trump’s comments and executive order. And if anything, his rhetoric was even more heated than the policy he suggested; he criticized the big homebuilders for land hoarding and attacked them as similar to the oil cartel OPEC. As Dave Dayen notes, the White House pushed hard for Congress to bar institutional ownership, going so far as to criticize the House version of the bill for not including such a ban. So Senate Republicans, led by Scott, decided to negotiate one with Warren and add it to their July bill. And they did, which Trump approved in his statement of administrative policy on the Senate bill.

That part of the bill bans large institutional investors from buying up single-family homes, setting a limit of owning 350 homes. They can still build new construction, but must sell it after seven years, unless the renter wants to stay, in which case that gets extended by another three. There are a few other loopholes, such as allowing for institutional ownership of manufactured housing, which is designed to reduce costs. But it’s a pretty good package.

Yesterday, it passed by an overwhelming margin of 89-10. And the administration is encouraging the House of Representatives to pass it.

But if you’re thinking this story sounds too good to be true, well, you’re right. Now it heads to the House of Representatives, where there is opposition from the Republican head of the Financial Services Committee, French Hill. And his goal is to force the Senate to sit down and negotiate something different, likely remove the institutional ownership caps, and then jam a bunch of bank and crypto deregulatory policy in there to make the whole thing unpalatable to Democrats.

There are a couple of dangerous signals that Wall Street is rousing to back Hill’s opposition strategy. The first is that Senator Brian Schatz, who is set to take over as the Democratic Senate leader in a few years, opposed it to signal to private equity that he’s going to be a reliable ally. He gave an assertive speech against the provision preventing Build to Rent from owning large swaths of housing for more than seven years. Here’s Dayen.

Schatz called [the Build to Rent] particular measure “positively Soviet,” described it as “an effort to demonize people who want to build rental housing for folks,” and claimed it was a “drafting error,” presumably to embarrass its authors into a fix. “There is literally no reason to do it this way, and it would take like a two-line fix. But what we were told last week was, I’m sorry, the bill is closed,” he said.

The peroration got a lot of attaboys from the abundance folks, who have decided to magnify what Schatz even admits is a small part of the overall housing construction market and claim that this poisons the entire bill. But Schatz was, frankly, lying to his own supporters. He never filed an amendment to deal with this part of the bill, according to Senate aides, even though first-order amendments were open until this Monday and second-order amendments until this Wednesday. There was never an attempt to make that two-line fix or rally support around it. (Schatz’s office was asked about this and did not respond.)

Another signal is that, according to conservative Mike Cernovich, “a massive influencer contract to block this went out.” He continued, “Keep an eye out for ‘MAGA’ people who suddenly try derailing Trump’s plan to make home ownership more affordable. BIG MONEY is trying to stop this in the House.” So we’re going to see chatter online, especially among MAGA opinion leaders, on this legislation.

And finally, when Speaker Mike Johnson asked the President about whether he should push to pass the law in the House, sources claim that the President said “no one gives a fuck about housing.” I don’t know if that’s true. Trump may have said it, he also changes his mind a lot.

One interesting point is that a lot of the people who argue that supply constraints are the main factor limiting housing went aggressively to bat for Wall Street’s right to own homes, saying that such a limit overrides everything else that’s good in the bill. If that’s true, then much of the argument from the Abundance world isn’t credible. After all, the problem then can’t be zoning, it’s just a financing issue. But not all of the people in that world agree, many are sincere and wanted to see it pass. This bill split the Abundance types in a useful way.

So what happens now? I don’t know. It may move through the House, it may not. Trump is unpredictable, and the Iran situation has thrown all calculations out the window. Regardless, this legislation to make housing something ordinary families own, instead of an asset class for Wall Street, has moved further than I imagined possible.

That’s good news, in some dark times.

Thanks for reading! Your tips make this newsletter what it is, so please send me tips on weird monopolies, stories I’ve missed, or other thoughts. And if you liked this issue of BIG, you can sign up here for more issues, a newsletter on how to restore fair commerce, innovation, and democracy. Consider becoming a paying subscriber to support this work, or if you are a paying subscriber, giving a gift subscription to a friend, colleague, or family member. If you really liked it, read my book, Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy.

cheers,

Matt Stoller

While media coverage of Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz has focused on oil prices, the implications for global food supplies are no less alarming. A prolonged closure could disrupt agriculture worldwide and place more than 100 million people at risk of a humanitarian catastrophe.

You’ve been wanting to read a comic about the intersection of New York’s matching fund program and the comptroller’s race, haven’t you? Admit it.

Well, now you can!

“We took an ancient vice…put it on everyone’s phone, and made it as normal and frictionless as checking the weather. What could possibly go wrong?” I *hate* the extent to which gambling has infested everything; it’s not going to end well.