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:

The eastern and northern United States are suffering under a hazy, poisonous cloud of wildfire smoke, produced by out-of-control forest fires in Quebec and Nova Scotia. The most toxic soot and ash are sitting virtually on top of North America’s most densely populated corridor, clouding the air in New York City; Toronto; Ottawa; Philadelphia, Washington, D.C.; and Norfolk, Virginia.
Air pollution alerts are in effect across the United States and Canada, affecting roughly 150 million people.
This is Heatmap’s set of commonly asked questions about the crisis. We’ll keep it updated throughout the event.
Hundreds of wildfires have raged across northern Quebec for the past few weeks, driven by unusually warm and dry conditions.
Then on Monday, a low-pressure system surrounded by counterclockwise winds moved just off New England’s coast. Its strong, dry gusts fanned the flames in Canada, then pushed the resulting smoke and ash into the eastern United States.
Intense Canadian fires are unusual this early in the season, but the fires this year were fed by a warm spring and drought-like condition, Kent Moore, an atmospheric-physics professor at the University of Toronto, told me. Because the fires took hold before the vegetation could “green up” for the spring, the conflagrations grew more rapidly than they normally would, he said.
The dry conditions also helped the fires ignite the soil itself. “Because the soil was so dry — because of the dry winter and the dry spring — the fire got into the ground,” he said. “The vegetation below ground started to burn, and those are much harder to put out.”
This is likely one of America’s worst days for air pollution in several decades, in terms of the number of people affected and the severity of the exposure, Marshall Burke, an economist and sustainability professor at Stanford, told me.
“It’s pretty off the chart,” Burke said. Wildfire smoke is affecting New York City much more acutely — and much earlier in the year — than it has at any time since 2006, when contemporary air-pollution data began to be kept.
It is difficult to attribute a single unprecedented event to climate change, and the climatology of wildfires in eastern North America is particularly challenging. (Climate change has more clearly worsened wildfires out West.) “This is probably an unlucky year for Canada, as far as wildfires go,” Moore, the atmospheric physicist, said.
But wildfires will become more likely across Canada as the climate changes, he said. And while climate change should broadly increase rainfall across Canada, it will also increase the likelihood of heat waves and more extreme spring and summer temperatures, which can make wildfires more likely.
“Nova Scotia has always had wildfires. It’s just they’ve had more wildfires this year than they have on average for the whole year,” he said. “There’s always going to be wildfires, but there’s going to be more of them.” As Canadian cities sprawl into previously uninhabited woodland areas, he added, the human impacts of wildfires will increase — even if the number and intensity of wildfires does not.
First, consult the air quality index at AirNow.gov. The AQI is a unit-less index of air quality running from zero to 500; any reading above 100 would rank as unusually polluted in the United States. On Wednesday afternoon, some air sensors in New York and New Jersey indicated that the AQI exceeded 400.
If it’s higher than 100, then the most vulnerable groups of people — including children, the elderly, anyone with a cardiopulmonary condition, and pregnant women — should limit strenuous activity outdoors. If higher than 150, then people should generally try to limit their outdoor activity; at levels above 200, the air is considered unhealthy and everyone should try to go outside as little as possible.
If you think you might be especially vulnerable, err on the side of caution. Recently, a body of new and large-scale studies have shown that air pollution is generally worse for the body and brain than previously thought.
Then, if you’re in an area with hazardous air pollution, consider how to limit your exposure to the air as much as possible. Keep your doors and windows closed. An air filter outfitted with a HEPA filter can improve the air in a home or apartment. It should generally be closer to the most sensitive people.
“Any pregnant moms — if my wife or anyone I knew was pregnant right now — I would be texting them to stay inside and sit by an air filter,” Burke told me. Exposure to severe air pollution during pregnancy has been shown to increase the risk of preterm birth, and it can reduce a child’s lifelong earnings, cognitive performance, and other indicators, he said.
A KN95 or N95 mask — the type of high-filtration mask used to prevent COVID infection — can also significantly limit your exposure to soot and ash. If you are in a sensitive group or are worried about air pollution’s health effects, you could consider wearing a mask inside if you have no other way to filter the air.
Get the best of Heatmap directly in your inbox:
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.