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:
Chris Wright and Doug Burgum started their reign this week by amplifying the president and beating back Biden-era policies.

The Trump administration’s two most senior energy officials, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, are both confirmed and in office as of this week, and they have started to lay out their vision for how their agencies will carry out Donald Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda.
Where the Biden administration sought to advance traditional Democratic policy around public lands (namely, to expand, conserve, and preserve them) while also boosting the development of renewable energy, Burgum and Wright have laid out something of the inverse approach: Maximize the production of domestic energy and minerals, with a focus on fossil fuels, and to the extent non-fossil fuels are a priority, they should be “baseload” or “firm” power sources like nuclear, hydropower, or geothermal.
If Michael Pollan’s basic dietary guidance is “eat food, not too much, mostly plants,” then the Burgum-Wright energy policy might be, “produce energy, as much as you can, mostly fossil fuels.”
Burgum and Wright each laid out his philosophy in the form of secretarial orders, the agency equivalent of an executive order.
“Our focus must be on advancing innovation to improve energy and critical minerals identification, permitting, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, distribution, exporting, and generation capacity of the United States to provide a reliable, diversified, growing, and affordable supply of energy for our Nation,” reads Burgum’s “Unleashing American Energy” order.
“The Department will bring a renewed focus to growing baseload and dispatchable generation to reliably meet growing demand,” reads Wright’s first secretarial order.
Burgum’s orders are largely Interior-specific elaborations of Trump’s early round of executive orders. In “Addressing the National Energy Emergency,” Burgum echoes Trump’s executive order declaring — you guessed it — a national energy emergency, calling for the department to “identify the emergency authorities available to them, as well as all other legal authorities, to facilitate the identification, permitting, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, distribution, exporting, and generation of domestic energy resources and critical minerals.” He also criticizes the Biden administration for having “driven our Nation into a national emergency, where a precariously inadequate and intermittent energy supply, and an increasingly unreliable grid, require swift and decisive action.”
In another order, “Unleashing American Energy,” which follows a similarly titled executive order, Burgum cites the Trump administration’s call for deregulation to allow more extraction of energy commodities and energy production: “By removing such regulations, America's natural resources can be unleashed to restore American prosperity. Our focus must be on advancing innovation to improve energy and critical minerals identification, permitting, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, distribution, exporting, and generation capacity of the United States to provide a reliable, diversified, growing, and affordable supply of energy for our Nation.”
The order calls for the Interior department to examine a number of Biden-era guidelines and rules, including 2024’s public lands rule, formally known as Conservation and Landscape Health, which went into effect last June. The rule put landscape preservation on a similar plane to energy development, mining, logging, or grazing among uses for public lands, and was opposed by a number of interest groups, including the ranching and energy industries.
It’s not just public lands that will be more open to fossil fuel exploration and extraction, it’s also the seas. Burgum issued an order following on Trump’s attempt to roll back restrictions on offshore drilling, notifying the department that “all Biden [outer continental shelf] withdrawals of the OCS for oil and gas leasing have been revoked.”
Two other orders were primarily deregulatory. One implemented the Trump guideline that “for each new regulation that they propose to promulgate, they shall identify at least 10 existing Department regulations to be eliminated.” And the other followed on Trump’s order opening up Alaska to more mining and energy extraction, which, among other actions, revoked a 2021 order cancelling oil and gas leases in the Alaska National Wildfire Reserve and reinstated a Secretary’s Order issued by then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in 2017 opening up Alaska for more oil activity, which itself reversed a 2013 order limiting oil and gas development.
While Burgum’s orders focus on the energy potential beneath the ground and the sea, Wright’s first secretarial order is a celebration of energy writ large, consistent with his often articulated views on the subject. “Energy is the essential ingredient that enables everything we do. A highly energized society can bring health, wealth, and opportunity for all,” he writes.
The document starts by talking down net-zero goals, saying that “net-zero policies raise energy costs for American families and businesses, threaten the reliability of our energy system, and undermine our energy and national security.”
“Going forward,” it says, “the Department’s goal will be to unleash the great abundance of American energy required to power modern life and to achieve a durable state of American energy dominance.”
In Wright’s version of the “energy emergency” order, he commits the department to “identify[ing] and exercise[ing] all lawful authorities to strengthen the nation’s grid, including the backbone of the grid, our transmission system,” in order to deal with the “current and anticipated load growth on our nation’s electric utilities.” He also says the department will focus on “baseload and dispatchable generation to reliably meet growing demand” — i.e. natural gas, along with some geothermal, hydropower, and nuclear.
In keeping with the president’s hostility or indifference toward the most widespread forms of renewable energy generation, Wright writes that the DOE will focus its substantial research and development efforts on “affordable, reliable, and secure energy technologies, including fossil fuels, advanced nuclear, geothermal, and hydropower,” and specifically calls out the Department’s fusion research for focus: “The Department must also prioritize true technological breakthroughs — such as nuclear fusion, high-performance computing, quantum computing.”
Wright refers to the energy department’s considerable research on renewables through its network of national laboratories only via implication, with an eye toward containing the funding demands of such work. “The Department will comprehensively review its R&D portfolio,” the order says. “As part of that review, the Department will rigorously enforce project milestones to ensure that taxpayer resources are allocated appropriately and cost-effectively consistent with the law.” Not mentioned at all was the department’s Loan Programs Office, which the Biden administration fortified by means of the Inflation Reduction Act. Bloomberg News reported that the department is looking to roll back some of the office’s loan guarantees to ensure that its funding awards “are consistent with President Trump’s executive orders and priorities.”
One area where there may be consistency between the Biden and Trump energy departments is in support for nuclear power.
Throughout the order, nuclear energy gets called out for praise and attention, while other forms of non-carbon-emitting energy go unmentioned. “The long-awaited American nuclear renaissance must launch during President Trump’s administration. As global energy demand continues to grow, America must lead the commercialization of affordable and abundant nuclear energy. As such, the Department will work diligently and creatively to enable the rapid deployment and export of next-generation nuclear technology,” Wright writes.
Like Burgum, Wright takes a dim view of Biden-era regulatory initiatives, committing the department to reviewing proposals for liquefied natural gas terminals and promising a “comprehensive review of the DOE Appliance Standards Program.” Scrapping or overhauling appliance efficiency rules, like other envisioned Trump policies, would also help bolster demand for energy writ large.
The orders, while consistent with Trump’s broad directives on energy policy, do not match the vitriol and dismissiveness towards renewables that Trump himself employs. But that may be cold comfort to climate advocates and renewables developers. In Burgum’s and Wright’s philosophy, renewables have been given pride of place in government policies, effectively holding down fossil fuel resources — and that is going to change.
In one order, Burgum directs the department to ensure that its policies do not “bias government or private-sector decision making in favor of renewable energy projects as compared to oil, gas, or other mineral resource projects.” And neither he nor Wright appears to see little role for the fastest growing sources of generation — solar — in American “energy dominance.”
That is also in keeping with what Trump has been doing to achieve his energy priorities, as opposed to what he’s been saying about “unleashing American energy.” During the chaotic first few weeks of this administration, federal officials do not appear to have been treating fossil fuel and renewables equally so much as they have been scrambling to comply with executive orders by obstructing renewable permitting and then reversing themselves (unless, of course, it’s offshore wind).
As Trump’s energy policy finds its feet, we’ll find out if energy dominance is really just fossil fuel dominance.
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.