You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Plus manufacturing news in advanced battery materials and a glint of light for clean steel.

This week’s Funding Friday comes with good news for a few hard-hit sectors. First up, the international sustainable infrastructure giant Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners has raised a significant first close of its latest credit fund, highlighting institutional confidence in the maturing clean energy sector despite challenging political sentiments stateside.
Furthermore, clean iron startup Electra bolstered its capital base with debt financing from J.P. Morgan, another promising sign of life for low-carbon materials despite federal incentive rollbacks, grant cuts, and industry layoffs. Meanwhile, a new platform that helps homeowners cut upfront costs for clean energy upgrades also secured funding, even as the Trump administration exhibits its disdain for residential electrification initiatives. Finally, there’s also activity in silicon batteries and transformers, two areas gaining momentum as of late.
Building on the success of its first energy transition credit fund, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners has raised nearly $1.5 billion (€1.3 billion) at the first close of its second credit fund, which will support renewable energy projects and companies driving the energy transition. While CIP is targeting a total of $2.29 billion (€2 billion) for the final close, this first tranche of capital exceeds the more than $1.1 billion (€1 billion) it raised for its first fund, which is now fully invested.
With roughly $40 billion in assets under management, CIP ranks among the largest climate and energy infrastructure investors globally. By comparison, sustainable infrastructure investment firm Generate Capital manages “only” about $9 billion in assets — though its recent $1 billion raise for its own dedicated credit strategy illustrates both the growing role of debt financing for clean energy projects and the increasing confidence that institutional investors have in the risk profile of low-carbon assets.
CIF has already begun allocating capital from this latest fund, refinancing a 450-megawatt portfolio of Dutch solar and battery storage assets, as it targets investments across Europe, North America, and parts of the Asia-Pacific region. While it doesn’t disclose its limited partners, they span an array of typical LP categories, from sovereign wealth funds to insurance companies and pension funds, the firm says. CIF also contributed an undisclosed amount to the fund itself, signaling internal confidence in its strategy despite the headwinds facing renewables — particularly in the U.S.
Building on its momentum from a big 2025, the clean iron startup Electra has announced a $30 million venture debt facility from J.P. Morgan. This lending agreement allows Electra to draw funds in tranches as it plans to build out its first commercial iron ore refining plant, expected to come online by the end of the decade. The mix of debt capital from a major institutional lender combined with last year’s $186 million Series B round — backed by prominent climate tech investors alongside iron ore mining companies and steel producers — is a sign the startup could be ready for a big infrastructure buildout.
Iron is the base metal for steel, and its energy-intensive refining process is the fundamental driver of steel-related emissions, which account for about 7% of the global total. Melting and purifying iron ore requires extremely high temperatures — around 1,600 degrees Celsius — traditionally achieved by burning coke derived from coal in blast furnaces. Electra’s tech, however, can refine iron at just 60 degrees Celsius by dissolving the ore in an acidic solution to separate it from impurities and then zapping that solution with electricity to deposit pure iron onto metal sheets.
While competitors’ systems typically require continuously high temperatures, Electra’s low-temperature approach pairs well with renewables, as it’s simple to start and stop the process in sync with wind and solar output. The startup has secured binding purchase orders from industry leaders such as Nucor and Toyota Tsusho, as well as an agreement with Meta to sell the tech giant the Environmental Attribute Credits associated with its reduced emissions.
The median American household has about $8,000 in savings, so expecting people to shell out thousands upfront for an energy-efficient home upgrade like a heat pump is a tough sell. That’s the problem electrification startup Coral aims to address with its platform that helps installers navigate the patchwork of electrification incentives — from state rebate programs to utility-run initiatives — and apply them directly at the point of sale, taking thousands off the upfront cost. So far, the platform has helped installers sell nearly 4,000 heat pumps across Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York, cutting upfront costs by 30%. This week the company announced a $7.5 million seed round to help expand its platform nationwide.
Homeowners often wait months to receive rebates from incentive programs in the mail — and that’s after they’ve spent untold hours parsing eligibility requirements and filling out paperwork. Coral verifies eligibility and manages the application process on customers’ behalf. And while it started with heat pumps, it now aims to expand both geographically and across other electrification opportunities, including water heaters, home batteries, and electric vehicle chargers.
The Trump administration phased out federal incentives for residential energy efficiency and electrification upgrades a full seven years early via last summer’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but continued venture funding for startups like Coral and heat pump adoption platform Zero Homes, which I covered a few weeks ago, underscores ongoing demand for home energy upgrades.
This latest funding round, led by ResilienceVC, also included strategic participation from Watsco Ventures, the VC arm of North America’s largest HVAC distributor, showing that corporates remain committed to the sector, as well.
The advanced battery materials company Group14 makes a silicon-carbon composite anode for batteries that, it says, can charge from 0% to 100% in just 90 seconds. Now the startup has officially started production of its proprietary formula at a facility in South Korea, which is expected to ramp up to 2,000 metric tons of material annually — about 10 gigawatt-hours of battery capacity. Depending on what its customers — which include batterymakers Molicel and Sionic Energy —are optimizing for, Group14 says they can build cells that are 43% more energy dense or charge 50 times faster than traditional lithium-ion chemistries.
While standard batteries typically have graphite anodes, silicon could theoretically, at least, be a superior choice. But pure silicon anodes are prone to swelling, causing mechanical stress and destabilizing the battery. Group14 says it has solved this challenge by building a nanocarbon scaffold to contain the silicon and prevent it from expanding as the battery charges and discharges.
Group14’s battery materials can already be found in consumer-focused electronics such as certain Android smartphones, cargo drones, and yet-to-be commercialized air taxis. CEO Rick Luebbe told TechCrunch that if the startup can scale into the EV market, that could enable cars to, say, wirelessly recharge while they’re at a stoplight, “You’d never think about charging ever again,” Luebbe said.
In a small but telling seed round, the solid state transformer company Hyperscale Power has raised $5.7 million to build a prototype that it says will be even more compact than products from a growing field of competitors. The raise follows two much larger financing rounds in the solid state transformer space that I covered recently — $140 million for Heron Power and $60 million for DG Matrix — highlighting rising demand for smarter, smaller, and more efficient transformers as data centers push to maximize their usable space and electricity load growth strains conventional grid infrastructure.
The company expects data centers to be a core market As Hyperscale’s co-founder Daniel Rothmund said in a release, “Server racks are becoming significantly denser, and our technology provides the ideal solution.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Or, the Senate releases its latest attempt at bipartisan permitting reform.
Are we getting closer to a viable permitting reform proposal?
At least one part is falling into place: This morning, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto and Senator Tom Cotton released a bipartisan bill that would keep future presidents from messing with already permitted energy projects. The House has already published its version, dubbed the FREEDOM Act — we scooped it in February — and now the Senate has had their go.
President Trump’s interference with onshore and offshore wind projects has made this kind of legislation a priority for Democrats, and I see its inclusion as essential to any kind of final permitting deal. Of course, Republicans have wanted to limit the executive branch’s interference with energy projects since President Joe Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline on the first day of his term. Harsh experience — or canny gamesmanship on the Trump administration’s part — has made permitting certainty a bipartisan priority. Lawmakers have come to recognize, too, that the government doesn’t need to revoke the permits for an energy project in order to effectively wage extrajudicial war on it — in other words, as George Michael might have sung, sometimes a “slow” can amount to a ban.
The new Senate bill makes a few key breaks with the House version. Most importantly, it jettisons a de-risking compensation program. In the original House version, developers would be eligible to receive up to $5 million in public funding if the government revoked a permit, missed a permitting deadline, or ran out the clock on a project. An agency that missed a deadline also faced stiff financial penalties.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
That mechanism is now stripped from the bill. In the new Senate version, when a court decides a federal agency has waylaid a permit, it can appoint a court-approved contractor to finish the job. The bill establishes a new fund to pay for that contractor’s work, but it doesn’t fund the fees from agency penalties — and it doesn’t financially compensate developers.
There's one more change to the bill worth noting. The original House version of the proposal covered any project that would “develop, produce, generate, store, transport, or distribute energy” — great verbs! — as well as mineral and carbon capture infrastructure. The Senate adopts that definition in full, but adds that it covers projects on the “Outer Continental Shelf” — that is, offshore wind.
The FREEDOM Act doesn’t cover everything that I expect an eventual permitting reform bill would need to do, although it is getting closer. The bill’s final section, for instance, allows enhanced geothermal projects, like those developed by Fervo or Eavor, to benefit from the same exclusion from some federal rules that fracking wells already enjoy. Any final bipartisan effort will need to include transmission reforms and perhaps, as Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah hopes, potential changes to federal historic preservation law.
But one thing I’d call out is Senator Tom Cotton’s cosponsorship of this bill. Cotton has become more of a presence on energy policy than I can remember from recent years.
He proposed a bill earlier this year that would allow data center developers to build their own independent power plants and transmission lines, provided they didn’t connect them to the grid. And he wrote a Washington Post op-ed in April tying the country’s failure to “build the physical foundations of power and defense” to its “broken permitting system.” He also cosponsored a partisan permitting bill back in 2020. But this is the first time I can remember the hard-right senator joining a Democrat to put out an energy-related proposal.
We’ll be tracking all that and more at Heatmap.
Like gas stations, electric car chargers just have to work.
About 14% of American EV drivers experienced a charging fail last year — that is, they stopped somewhere expecting to charge and just couldn’t get the electrons to flow. That number is headed in the right direction, down from 19% just a year prior. Yet it demonstrates how far we have to go. Just imagine the collective rage if it were a yearly occurrence that one in seven gas car drivers pulled into a service station — maybe the only one for miles — and couldn’t get the pumps to work.
For an electrifying nation, it’s not enough to look at the map of high-speed chargers and see enough dots to get you from place to place. Drivers, especially those considering their first try with an EV, need to believe those plugs are going to work seamlessly and without drama. That makes charger uptime the new competition for America’s high-speed charging providers and a crucial concern for carmakers trying to sell electric cars to a still-skeptical general public.
Take what’s happening at Rivian. During the brand’s ascendance, it has been slowly building out the Rivian Adventure Network. While the system is much smaller than Tesla’s Supercharger network in terms of stations and plugs, it has fast-chargers in strategic locations to ensure Rivian drivers can reach popular destinations and far-flung adventure attractions such as national parks. It also focused on making sure those plugs almost always work.
That’s crucial, because not all charger fails are created equal. Plenty of times I’ve tried to plug into a Level 2 destination charger in a parking structure or at a grocery store, only to be thwarted by a card reader that wouldn’t scan my payment method — or by the requirement to download a whole new app just to charge my car, something impossible to do with the cell service in the bowels of a garage. But those are charging sessions of convenience, times it would be nice to add a few miles during a shopping trip. The DC fast-chargers that make road trips possible have to work, no excuses.
When I asked Rivian cofounder and CEO RJ Scaringe about the network during this month’s first drive event for the R2 SUV, he noted that his and Tesla’s are the only EV fast-charging networks in America to achieve uptime north of 99%, and that he’s not stopping there. “The U.S. needs to have more than one great high-speed network,” he said, “and so we’re continuing to build it and we’re continuing to invest in the development of the hardware.”
Rivian could just outsource fast-charging, as legacy carmakers largely have done. Especially now that Rivians use the Tesla-developed NACS plug that is becoming the industry standard, they can charge easily at any of the legion of Superchargers, as well as at the stations run by third parties such as EVgo, Ionna, and Electrify America. But Scaringe says the continued expansion of Rivian’s network remains a core part of the company’s growth. The brand just opened its 1,000th plug, up from just 700 a year ago, while the network has about 150 total charging locations.
The continued investment makes sense. The more affordable R2 is the company’s do-or-die moment, and as Americans consider buying one as the various versions roll out this year and next, they’ll be greeted by a charging map that promises peace of mind — a growing list of Rivian-branded, high-reliability plugs that open up even the lonely places in America, backed up by thousands of accessible stations built by Tesla and others. (It doesn’t hurt that Rivian’s network delivers not only customer confidence, but also corporate revenue: Nearly all Rivian stations are now open to other brands’ EVs, creating a growing revenue stream as the startup finds its financial footing.)
Meanwhile, the rest of the charging industry is catching up. A report by the EV data analysis firm Paren says that while most U.S. states scored between 85% and 92% for charger reliability in the first quarter of 2025, that range of average performance rose to 90% to 95% in the first quarter of this year. In March, when I talked to Sara Rafalson of EVgo, her company was hard at work on a revised technology to make sessions more reliable and foolproof. That will involve “a completely different site layout, a completely different power sharing technology, a different dispenser, a different user interface, different hardware, firmware, software, the whole thing,” she told me.
All the parts matter. Bad interfaces with clunky software or busted hardware like physical buttons or credit card readers caused plenty of charger-fail chaos in the early days of American EVs. Tesla has created the charging gold standard — plug in your Model Y and it just works — but step outside that vertical integration and even Superchargers become a little annoying, as charging a non-Tesla still means having a Tesla account and navigating deep into their app. And too many American EV drivers know the pain of pulling up to a charger to find all the plugs either occupied or busted. Even if that doesn’t count as a failure in the statistics, it still represents a broken experience.
People have always had their reasons for picking which gas station to go to: They hit the one nearest their home, the one where they have a loyalty credit card, or the one that’s always a few cents cheaper than everywhere else in town. They don’t choose based on whose pumps are the most reliable. The gasoline delivery economy is one of those systems so mature it becomes invisible. But as EV charging comes of age, uptime and reliability might be just as important as price and amenities when it comes to planning out stops along the highway.
Copper and Impulse Labs have taken their patent fight to court.
There’s drama in the niche world of battery-powered induction stoves. The two leading companies in the category — Copper and Impulse Labs — are now suing each other, with Copper accusing Impulse of patent infringement and Impulse hitting back with allegations of false advertising.
The dispute formally began in early April, when Copper filed suit against Impulse for willful patent infringement, alleging that its rival not only copied Copper’s proprietary battery-integration technology, but did so knowingly. Both companies sell high-end induction stoves with built-in batteries, a design that allows them to plug directly into standard 120-volt household outlets — the same kind you would use to charge a phone or operate a toaster — rather than the less common 240-volt outlets that electric and induction stoves typically require. That helps customers avoid expensive electrical upgrades that could add thousands to the installation process while also equipping them with a stove that can run off battery power during a power outage.
According to Copper’s suit, the company started developing its own battery integration tech in 2019. It went on to file its first provisional patent application in March 2021, before formally incorporating as a company the following year. By January 2025, the company had secured three patents for various aspects of its battery-stove integration, and has raised $39 million in venture funding to date.
Impulse, which was founded in 2021, has raised about $25 million, though it has yet to secure patents for the core battery-integrated system at the heart of its product. That’s not for lack of trying — while it’s unclear whether the company was familiar with Copper’s tech when it began developing its product, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has repeatedly rejected Impulse’s patent applications for its integrated battery-and-power-management system, citing Copper’s existing protections. (The U.S. PTO has granted Impulse two patents of its own, for its magnetic control knobs and modular battery.)
That’s central to Copper’s case. Because the patent office and Impulse reference Copper’s patents in their exchange, Copper says this proves that Impulse was fully aware of its intellectual property, therefore making any infringement “willful.” That designation would substantially increase whatever damages Copper might seek to extract if the company can prove it in court.
When all this came out back in April, Impulse provided a fiery statement to Fast Company, saying “such lawsuits are a common tactic taken by companies that are losing in the marketplace,” referring to the suit as a “PR stunt.” Then last week, Impulse fired back with some claims of its own.
First, it denied Copper’s allegations, raising several standard defenses common to this type of litigation, such as the claim that Copper’s patents are invalid and should not have been issued in the first place. Impulse hasn’t yet provided much detail here — those arguments will likely emerge as the case progresses. So far its counterclaims alleging false advertising are what really pack a punch.
Firstly, Impulse alleges that Copper makes misleading statements about its safety certifications. In its countersuit, Impulse states that it spent “approximately two years and in excess of a million dollars” obtaining Underwriters Laboratories certification for its tech, covering both household electric ranges as well as rechargeable stationary batteries. Yet Copper says on its website that with regards to electric ranges, “UL does not yet certify battery-integrated appliances” — a claim Impulse says can’t possibly be true, given that it went through the process and received certification itself.
Impulse goes on to say that “many states and municipalities have issued laws that require products, including battery-powered electric cooking appliances, to comply with UL standards,” thereby arguing that Copper’s framing misleads consumers into thinking certification isn’t available or necessary. It also contends that while Copper advertises its batteries are UL certified, they actually only hold “recognized component” status — a conditional designation that Impulse argues is incomplete unless the full stove itself is UL-certified — which, as discussed, it is not.
In a statement, Impulse told me, “We believe consumers deserve accurate information when making decisions about the products they bring into their homes. That’s why we’ve brought counterclaims against Copper’s advertising practices which we believe have been deceptive. We’re proud that the Impulse Cooktop is certified to UL 858, the safety standard for household electric ranges, and to UL 1973, the standard for the battery system inside it.”
There’s also the question of tax credit eligibility. Multifamily property owners purchasing stoves with at least 5 kilowatt-hours of integrated battery storage could, at least in principle, qualify for the federal Clean Electricity Investment Credit under Section 48E of the U.S. tax code. This gives buyers a 30% credit for a range of technologies, including energy storage, a category these stoves technically fall into. In theory, such systems could even serve as a grid resource, shifting electricity use away from peak periods or charging when renewable power is abundant.
Copper says on its website that its stoves are eligible for 48E, but Impulse alleges that’s false, pointing to the “material assistance” restrictions that President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act introduced, which require eligible projects to avoid significant input from countries designated “foreign entities of concern” such as China. Impulse argues that Copper doesn’t meet this standard, asserting that key components of its system — including the battery and housing —- are largely made in China. Impulse, on the other hand, does not claim eligibility for 48E; regardless of where the company gets its components, its smaller, 3-kilowatt-hour battery would prevent it from qualifying anyway.
In an interview, Copper co-founder Weldon Kennedy categorically denied that his company has “been misleading in any way whatsoever,” whether on safety standards, third-party certifications, or tax credit eligibility. In a subsequent statement, the company added, “Copper builds appliances that enable access to clean energy and is working to bring this technology to the market with major appliance makers. We are also taking steps to ensure that this technology is adopted responsibly and transparently. To that end, we cannot support the unlicensed use of Copper’s IP, and we have taken steps to protect it and ensure the progress of the category.”
Neither Copper nor Impulse discloses customer counts, unit sales, or revenue figures. Copper, however, has landed one high-profile commercial deal: The New York Power Authority and New York City Housing Authority have awarded it a $32 million, seven-year contract to provide 10,000 battery-equipped induction stoves to apartments across the city, assuming an initial 100 unit pilot goes according to plan.
It’s unclear whether the competing lawsuits will affect this deal. But the Power Authority’s press release on the partnership does suggest confidence in Copper’s safety certification strategy, stating that the company “will work with industry testing and safety standards organizations, such as Underwriter Laboratories, to achieve certification for novel technologies prior to the pilot phase.”
The climate tech world will be watching closely for Copper’s formal response to Impulse’s counterclaim. Both companies have demanded a jury trial, though any courtroom showdown must come after a discovery process that could stretch on for many months. In the interim however, the litigation adds a new complication — and distraction — for two startups attempting to establish an entirely new appliance category. And whoever comes out on top could ultimately determine who gets to shape the market itself.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct Impulse Labs’ patent status.