Shanghai Electric Power and the “11 solar plants” claim: unverified
A post claiming that “the Yana case revealed 11 solar plants involving Shanghai Electric Power’s Japanese subsidiary” is spreading on X. Former agriculture minister Kazuo Yana did raise concerns about a Shanghai Electric Power project in the Diet in 2014, but we found no material linking it to his recent resignation. We sort out what is true and set out the arguments for regulating foreign-owned renewable energy projects and for handling them under the current system.
Verdict: are the viral claims true?
- Misleading“The Minister Yana case revealed Shanghai Electric Power’s solar plants”Yana raised the Shanghai Electric Power project in the Diet in 2014, and there is no material linking it to his recent resignation.
- Unverified“Shanghai Electric Power’s Japanese subsidiary is involved in 11 solar plants”About 5 are named in the company’s official list or in reports, and no evidence for 11 has been found.
- True“The public pays the purchase costs of Chinese-owned power plants”Foreign-owned plants are eligible for purchase on the same terms, and part of the cost is funded by the renewable energy surcharge.
Translated and adapted from our Japanese original. Facts are as of the original publication date unless noted.
Should foreign-owned solar power be regulated by law?
- Evidence for “11 sites” (about 5 are named)
- Unverified
- Year Yana raised Shanghai Electric Power in the Diet (unrelated to his resignation)
- 2014
- FY2026 renewable energy surcharge (per kWh, record high)
- 4.18 yen
Stricter regulation
The surcharge the public pays also flows to foreign capital. Power is central to national security, so entry itself should be strictly limited.
Current system
Foreign exchange law and economic security screening can handle it. Shutting foreign firms out across the board would slow renewables and cost reductions.
- Both sides agree
- Foreign involvement in power infrastructure needs attention from a security standpoint.
- What to watch next
- How a “Japanese CFIUS” under the revised Foreign Exchange Act is run, and the review of solar support schemes from fiscal 2027.
Key points
- A post on X saying “the Minister Yana case revealed 11 solar plants involving Shanghai Electric Power’s Japanese subsidiary” has drawn more than 10,000 likes.
- At a House of Representatives agriculture committee meeting in 2014, Kazuo Yana pointed out that a company whose major shareholder was Shanghai Electric Power Japan was planning a solar plant in Nasukarasuyama, Tochigi Prefecture, his home area, and said he was “very concerned” about foreign capital entering. However, we found no reports or material linking Shanghai Electric Power to his October 14 resignation (over remarks about road budgets and an issue involving transporting supporters).
- Plants involving Shanghai Electric Power Japan that are named in the company’s official list or in reports include Nanko (Sakishima) in Osaka, Sanda in Hyogo Prefecture, Tsukuba in Ibaraki Prefecture, Nasukarasuyama, and Tohoku town in Aomori Prefecture. We found no reliable material supporting “11 sites.”
- Foreign-owned plants are covered by the feed-in tariff (FIT) on the same terms as Japanese operators, and part of the purchase cost is funded by the renewable energy surcharge paid by electricity users. The surcharge for fiscal 2026 is a record 4.18 yen per kilowatt-hour.
1. What is happening
Sorting out the viral claims
| Viral claim | What we could confirm |
|---|---|
| It was revealed by the Minister Yana case | Yana himself raised Shanghai Electric Power’s entry in the Diet in 2014. There is no material linking it to his recent resignation. |
| Shanghai Electric Power’s Japanese subsidiary is involved in 11 plants | About 5 are named in the company’s official list or in reports; no evidence for “11 sites” has been found. |
| Shanghai Electric Power has a solar plant in Nakagawa town, Tochigi | The project raised in the Diet was in Nasukarasuyama. |
| The public bears the purchase costs | Foreign-owned plants are covered by FIT on the same terms, and part of the cost is funded by the renewable energy surcharge (the original post wrongly called it an “energy-saving surcharge”). |
The Shizuoka District Court ruling that also drew attention
On October 15, the Shizuoka District Court revoked a permit the city had issued to change land development for a mega solar project in Ito, Shizuoka Prefecture. It found that the possibility of landslides and sediment runoff had not been examined. Reports describe the operator as “a company based in the city,” and there is no information indicating a connection to Shanghai Electric Power.
Sources (mostly in Japanese)
2. What each side says
We summarize each side's main arguments in our own words, based on the original statements and reporting.
Stricter regulation
Yana said there were concerns about foreign capital acquiring land on a large scale to run power businesses, and that prior consultation with local governments was insufficient, and called for the system to be reviewed (Kazuo Yana, House of Representatives member, Diet question in 2014).
Kamiya questioned how Shanghai Electric Power came to enter the mega solar project at Sakishima in Osaka, and asked how the government handles foreign companies entering businesses that underpin people’s lives, such as electricity (Sohei Kamiya, House of Councillors member, written question in 2022).
Foreign-owned plants also receive purchases funded by the renewable energy surcharge borne by the public. The argument is that foreign involvement in power infrastructure should be strictly screened from an economic security standpoint. In May 2026 the government also enacted a revised Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act that adds investments by companies under the control of foreign governments to the scope of screening.
Current system
The feed-in tariff has no provisions treating foreign capital differently. The government says security for important businesses such as electricity is ensured through mechanisms such as prior notification under the Economic Security Promotion Act.
Some argue solar purchase prices fell because cheaper foreign-made panels were adopted, which has helped lower the cost of decarbonization and supported energy security. The government plans to exclude ground-mounted commercial solar from new FIT and FIP (feed-in premium) eligibility from fiscal 2027, and some point out that shutting foreign firms out across the board could slow adoption.
The explanation that it was “revealed by the Yana case” is inaccurate; Shanghai Electric Power’s entry was already debated in the Diet in 2014. Some also point out that the spread of figures and causal links without a clear basis gets in the way of calm debate.
Posts on X
Sohei Kamiya, Sanseito leader: Said there is also a Shanghai Electric Power mega solar plant in Nishigo village, Fukushima Prefecture, and called for action on political issues such as environmental protection and handling after removal (July 2023 post).
View the post by Sohei Kamiya, Sanseito leader on X ↗
Reading between the lines
This section is our editors' interpretation (speculation). It is not confirmed, but the facts it is based on are sourced.
The spread on X
Why were Yana’s resignation and Shanghai Electric Power linked?
SpeculationYana’s pursuit of the Shanghai Electric Power project in 2014 was dug up, and speculation that “he was targeted because he fought foreign vested interests” appears to have hardened into assertion as it spread. The direct reasons for his resignation were remarks about road budgets and an issue involving transporting supporters, and there is nothing indicating a connection to Shanghai Electric Power.
Facts this is based on
- • From October 11 to 12, posts defending Yana and speculation that he “made enemies of interest-peddlers” spread.note (DJ Thomas, account of how the claim spread, Japanese)(Oct 14)
- • In the Diet in 2014, Yana raised concerns about a project involving Shanghai Electric Power Japan.House of Representatives agriculture committee minutes (Kazuo Yana’s question, Japanese)(Jun 4)
What people are saying
We searched Japanese posts on X (formerly Twitter) for “Shanghai Electric Power Yana” and “Shanghai Electric Power conspiracy theory” from October 10 to 15, 2026. Posts arguing that Yana was targeted because he took on the Shanghai Electric Power issue drew tens of thousands of likes, while posts criticizing this as a baseless conspiracy theory were also prominent.
Stricter regulation
- “Yana has been taking on the Shanghai Electric Power issue since 12 years ago. Regulating foreign-owned solar deserves a proper debate.”
- “The very system where the public props up electricity from Chinese-owned plants through a surcharge is wrong.”
Current system
- “He asked about Shanghai Electric Power in the Diet only once, 12 years ago. What he is being criticized for is what he said this time — claiming he was targeted for fighting vested interests is a stretch.”
- “Plenty of LDP supporters surely think the resignation was deserved. Defending him with conspiracy theories only distorts the real debate.”
Posts are paraphrased, not quoted, and individual accounts are not named.
3. Where things stand
Where they agree
- Important infrastructure such as electricity needs attention from a security standpoint.
- The source of information without a clear basis should be checked.
Where they disagree
- Whether foreign-owned renewable energy projects should be directly regulated by law.
- Whether existing screening under the Foreign Exchange Act and the Economic Security Promotion Act is enough.
What to watch
- How a “Japanese CFIUS” under the revised Foreign Exchange Act is run.
- The review of solar power support schemes from fiscal 2027 onward.
- Lawsuits and regulatory moves over mega solar plants around Japan.
It is true that Yana raised concerns about a Shanghai Electric Power project in 2014, but a link to his recent resignation and the “11 sites” figure cannot be confirmed. There is agreement that foreign involvement in power infrastructure needs attention. Those favoring stricter regulation argue entry itself should be strictly limited, including the system by which the public’s surcharge flows to foreign capital. Those favoring the current system argue security should be ensured through Foreign Exchange Act and economic security screening, balanced against the adoption of renewables and lower costs.