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 electric vehicle-maker’s newly unveiled, lidar-equipped, autonomy-enabled R2 is scheduled to hit the road next year.

When Rivian revealed the R2 back in the spring of 2024, the compelling part of the electric SUV was price. The vehicle looked almost exactly like the huge R1S that helped launch the brand, but scaled down to a true two-row, five-seat ride that would start at $45,000. That’s not exactly cheap, but it would create a Rivian for lots of drivers who admired the company’s sleek adventure EV but couldn’t afford to spend nearly a hundred grand on a vehicle.
But at the company’s “Autonomy and AI Day,” held on Thursday at Rivian’s Palo Alto office in the heart of Silicon Valley, company leaders raised the expectations for their next vehicle. R2 wouldn’t just be the more affordable Rivian — it would be the AI-defined car that vaults them into the race to develop truly self-driving cars.
First, the hardware. Rivian said that the R2 will come with 11 camera and five radar units spread around the vehicle to improve the car’s ability to comprehend the world around it. But the crucial, headline-grabbing addition is a lidar, or light-based radar, unit. Lidar shoots laser pulses and measures the time it takes for the reflected light to return, thereby building a three-dimensional picture of the environment it surveys.
Those twirling bobs you might have seen on the top of Waymo’s driverless cars as they roam the streets, mapping the world around them, are lidar. The technology’s ability to see the world in detail across distances is necessary for the upper levels of automotive autonomy — the ones where the car can basically do it all and the humans can take their hands off the wheel and their eyes off the road.
Lidar units to date have been large and expensive, which is one reason they’re seen in pods that protrude from the top of a vehicle. Rivian, however, figured out how to mount one within the vehicle, in the area at the top of the front windshield near the rear-view mirror. The forward-facing lidar gives the vehicle 300 meters of forward vision. Demos the company showed during autonomy day revealed just how much more a constellation of cameras, radar, and lidar can see than a system without lidar, especially in dark or foggy conditions.
The other “wow” reveal on Thursday was that the R2 will process all that camera data on a chip that Rivian built from scratch to handle the AI and autonomous driving workload of its vehicles, rather than sourcing chips from some other tech company. CEO R.J. Scaringe said during his presentation to open the event that this kind of vertical integration was meant to allow the company to keep pace with the AI race as opposed to having to work with whatever third-party components it could get.
The result is a leap forward in capability over what Rivian offered with the R1S SUV and R1T pickup truck. Those vehicles had a hand-free system that let the EVs drive themselves with minimal human oversight on a little more than 100,000 miles of roads that were well-marked and well-mapped. James Philbin, the vice president of autonomy and AI, promised on Thursday that the lidar and processing improvements would allow hands-free driving on more than 3 million miles of roads — basically anywhere that the lines on the highway are clear enough for the R2’s cameras to see. And what’s next, Rivian promises, is true autonomy. The SUV will drive itself entirely from point to point when the conditions allow, and as the AI continuously improves over time, you might eventually see driverless Rivians out there competing with the likes of Waymo.
All this stuff costs money, of course. The Rivian Autonomy+ package would add $2,500 or a monthly fee of $50 to the purchase price. But the fact that this tech is coming to a car that starts in the $40,000s is telling. It is how many people will get their first taste of true vehicle autonomy.
Thursday’s event wasn’t all about self-driving, either. Rivian also built an AI software assistant for the cabin that can be summoned with a “Hey Rivian” and perform all kinds of in-car functions, such as changing the driving mode or adjusting the climate control. The achievement here is one of natural language. In Rivian’s demos, the assistant could ably fulfill the driver’s wishes with a command like “make it a little toastier in here” as opposed to formal instructional language like “turn the driver’s temperature to 70 degrees and set the seat heater to level one.”
At times this feels unnecessary, like AI looking for something to do to justify its existence. It doesn’t take that many button-pushes to alter the climate, after all. I admit, though, that having test-driven Rivians on road trips this summer, one of their weak points is my struggle to remember exactly which menu contains which controls. AI, in a way, helpfully solves a problem created by the modern EV that has amazing capability, but routes that capability through a large touchscreen that’s annoying (and dangerous) to navigate while driving.
Rivian is playing catch up with Tesla when it comes to autonomy, of course, as Elon Musk’s company has been touting its Full Self Driving feature for years and is now building the Cybercab, which is meant to be a car that humans will never drive. But Tesla has struggled to meet its timelines and targets for autonomous systems, giving rivals like Rivian a window to develop their own technology.
And so, what’s clear after Rivian’s event is that car companies, especially EV makers, are going to be key players in this autonomy and AI age. Nowhere was it written that electric vehicles had to be synonymous with self-driving vehicles. Battery-powered cars could be dumb and not smart, ruled by buttons instead of touchscreens. It just so happens that EVs are finally coming of age during the simultaneous ascent of artificial intelligence — and that the leading EV-only startups are Silicon Valley tech companies, or at least started out that way.
Tesla has forgotten about acting like a car company and staked its future on being the one that will crack true self-driving and reap the windfall. Rivian, which hadn’t made nearly as much noise about AI and autonomy before this week, has put forth a compelling case for its in-house autonomous systems and AI models, ones that will continue to improve as they’re trained on data provided by thousands of R2s hitting the road starting in 2026.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
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 its cooktop design. 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, citing Copper’s existing protections.
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.
Current conditions: Portland, Oregon, just broke a 60-year heat record yesterday, with temperatures topping 95 degrees Fahrenheit • The South Fork Fire in Nebraska's Panhandle has now scorched nearly 40,000 acres • Winds of up to 45 miles per hour are whipping half of Vanuatu’s six provinces.
The price of crude fell to its lowest level in three months Monday after President Donald Trump announced the bones of a ceasefire agreement to end the war with Iran and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. In response to Sunday evening’s news of a memorandum of understanding, which New York Times reporter David Sanger called “more like a table of contents” on yesterday’s episode of “The Daily,” oil prices dropped by nearly 5% on the main European benchmark. Murban crude, the index used for oil coming out of the United Arab Emirates’ biggest port, plunged by 7%.
The truce news comes as GasBuddy data shows national U.S. price averages for gasoline falling by $0.093 over the last week. The national average is down $0.52 from a month ago, though it’s still $0.91 higher per gallon than a year ago. “Average gasoline prices fell in 47 states over the last week, with the national average dropping below $4 per gallon late Sunday for the first time since mid-April,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, wrote in a post on X. “The decline came as oil prices moved sharply lower in reaction to news of a potential deal between the United States and Iran, though it remains to be seen whether the agreement will hold.”
Americans are rooting for Washington to work out its on-again, off-again effort to overhaul federal permitting on energy infrastructure. That’s according to a new poll from Blue Rose Research shared exclusively with me for this newsletter. Asked about making it faster and easier to build energy infrastructure, 60% of voters said they supported such policy reforms. Another 62%, including half of self-identified Trump supporters, said the president should not have unilateral authority to cancel approved projects, a key Democratic demand in Congress’ bipartisan negotiations. When the survey, taken in late May, asked its roughly 20,000 participants about support for data centers near their homes, the results aligned with Heatmap Pro’s most recent polling. But the poll found that views softened on data centers if companies made concrete commitments to bring electricity costs down.
The findings come as a bipartisan Senate duo introduces legislation to limit the White House’s power to cancel or slow-walk approvals for all forms of energy projects, E&E News reported. On Tuesday, Senators Tom Cotton, the Arkansas Republican, and Catherine Cortez Masto, the Democrat from Nevada, will introduce the FREEDOM Act. While it’s unclear how closely they’re aligned, I reported earlier this year on details of the bill’s House version.
If you’re looking for a sign that American solar is going to keep booming even after the federal tax credits for building and generating power from panels expire in a few weeks, it’s worth taking a look at the Steel River Energy Center. The project in Arkansas aims to add 1.6 gigawatts of solar power and 1.9 gigawatt-hours of battery storage in a two-phase buildout. The California-based developer, Cypress Creek Energy, said last week it had locked down $3.5 billion in financing. A third phase, set to come online in 2029, will round out the total project capacity to 2.5 gigawatts of solar generation and 2.9 gigawatt-hours of storage, making it one of the largest solar and storage builds in the U.S., according to Power Magazine. The entire project is set to use panels produced by First Solar, one of the largest domestic manufacturers in the U.S.
Meanwhile, the long duration energy storage startup Energy Dome inked a deal Monday with Salt River Project to sell the utility that serves the greater Phoenix metropolitan area a 19-megawatt, 10-hour CO2-based battery. As I told you last summer, Energy Dome has a partnership with Google to deploy the technology, which looks something like an indoor tennis tent filled with carbon dioxide that can store energy for far longer without any losses than a lithium-ion battery. The Phoenix project is part of the Google partnership. “Arizona’s sustained growth makes it one of the most compelling energy markets in the country,” Claudio Spadacini, Energy Dome’s founder and chief executive, said in a statement. “At a time when AI growth and rising demand are reshaping America’s energy landscape, the CO2 Battery offers the scalable, dispatchable capacity needed to strengthen U.S. energy dominance.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

The Japanese government is laying out plans to develop potential mining projects in Greenland to meet its demand for rare earths and other critical minerals without relying on China. That’s according to a report in Nikkei over the weekend. As I told you back in February, Japan is stepping up its efforts to secure new mineral supplies, including taking a leading role in establishing a new deep sea mining industry.
A sizable chunk of that $550 billion that Tokyo pledged to invest in the U.S. last year, meanwhile, is headed toward building out an export supply chain for nuclear technology. At least, that’s the latest update Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick gave to the Japanese financial newswire last week.
Honda has pumped the brakes on its entire North American electric vehicle effort as the Japanese auto giant stares down its first annual loss since 1957, expected to top $15.7 billion. The move comes less than two years after Honda went all in on the O Series that Automotive Manufacturing Solutions called “deliberately, provocatively unlike anything the brand had previously produced.” Today, the trade publication noted, “every legacy OEM’s electrification strategy is now under scrutiny.”
It’s been a good few days for Rolls-Royce. The iconic British industrial manufacturer just won a deal to build Sweden’s next nuclear plant and joined a United Kingdom-Japanese effort to work on building modern, large-scale, high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors. The deals come less than two months after Rolls-Royce secured a deal with the British government to build its small modular reactors in Britain. “This is another major endorsement of Rolls-Royce SMR’s technology and a significant boost for Britain’s nuclear export ambitions,” Nuclear Industry Association CEO Tom Greatrex, who heads the largest British nuclear trade group, said in a statement. “Coming so soon after its selection by Great British Energy – Nuclear, it underlines the growing international confidence in the technology and the strength of the British nuclear industry.”
The Iran War laid bare the two energy regimes fighting for global dominance.
We have an Iran deal. We think. Since President Trump and Iran announced the arrangement on Sunday afternoon, its details have had a Heisenbergian quality — not even Israeli leaders seem to be sure what they are. From an energy markets standpoint, Trump told The New York Times on Sunday that the text guarantees “permanently toll-free” access to the Strait of Hormuz, but it remains unclear how and when the waterway will reopen.
What we do know is that some version of the deal is set to be signed on Friday. At the same time, the U.S. and Iran will start 60 days of “technical negotiations” to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and sanctions relief, according to Vice President JD Vance. “A lot of very important details” have yet to be figured out, Vance told reporters on Monday. If Iran doesn’t agree to give up its nuclear program in those talks, Trump told the Times yesterday, he would either order bombing to restart or make the United States “the guardian of the Middle East” in exchange for oil revenues. (So much for toll-free access! At least then CENTCOM could establish a hotline.)
Regardless, it may take weeks for Iran to remove its sea mines from the strait. Then ships and their exhausted crews will begin trickling out of the Persian Gulf. My colleague Matthew Zeitlin has the full rundown on what will happen next in Iran — and what it means for oil, natural gas, and the energy transition.
But let’s assume, for a moment, that the war really is over. What did we learn from the past 107 days of conflict?
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
For me, the most astonishing thing about the conflict remains that China, which used to buy 11 million barrels of oil a day from global markets, only imported about 7.8 million barrels a day in May. That’s just over 3 million barrels a day of demand, seemingly vaporized overnight. (For context, the world used about 104 million barrels a day last year.) China’s enormous domestic oil and gas stockpiles and its high concentration of electric vehicles seem to have produced the cut — as did a domestic increase in energy prices that helped dampen demand on its own.
For the past few years, climate and energy journalists like me have hammered that China’s solar, battery, and electric vehicle manufacturing complex is the real deal. But the war clarified that the world now has two real and rivalrous energy regimes. There is the oil-and-gas regime, heavily concentrated in the OPEC+ countries and North America, and there is the electricity-and-batteries regime, located in East Asia and especially China.
These systems are linked and interdependent, yet in competition for consumer demand — as well as policy-driven and infrastructural lock-in from countries. The United States is the lynchpin of the former system: Not only is it the world’s No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas, but it also (allegedly) guarantees security and freedom of navigation in the Middle East. China anchors the electric regime: Not only does it dominate the manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, lithium-ion batteries, and electric vehicles, but it also owns or refines the minerals essential to their production. While America can boast better petroleum engineers than anywhere else in the world, China has the manufacturing know-how necessary to spin off new innovations. Each country, in other words, dominates the stocks, flows, and knowledge that drive these planet-spanning regimes.
To be clear, I don’t agree with the interpretation — sometimes in vogue — that the United States is a “petrostate” while China is an “electrostate.” America has a much more diversified economy than most petrostates; oil makes up 10% to 15% of our dollar-denominated goods exports and an even smaller share of our overall exports. In Saudi Arabia, by comparison, oil is more than 70% of goods exports. Nor do I think “electrostate” evokes the reality that China, notwithstanding its world-historic renewables buildout, still gets 60% of its power from coal.
Much still unites these systems too — notably the petrochemicals sector, which produces from oil and gas the necessary inputs to solar, batteries, and EVs. But that’s why China’s coal-to-chemicals sector — which I previously discussed on our podcast Shift Key with the energy analyst Lauri Myllyvirta — has played such an important role during the past few months, allowing the country to cut crude demand without slowing down production lines. Given that the coal-to-chemicals industry is more carbon intensive than the sector it ostensibly replaces — and that India is already looking at developing its own version of the sector — I suspect we’ve only heard the beginning of it. We’ll examine it more in the days and weeks to come.