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:

Dr. Cliff Kapono sometimes still surfs the way his Indigenous Hawaiian ancestors did 1,000 years ago, on a traditional wooden board and all. But the professional surfer and molecular biologist fears his descendants might not have the same privilege. The reason is the looming scarcity of surfable waves.
While climate change could be a boon for big-wave surfers, as some have highlighted, the beloved recreational side of the sport is endangered by the shifting climate. Dramatic changes are already locked in, with rising waters swallowing surf breaks and wary communities erecting sea walls that alter the shape of the coastline. But this tension — between the masses losing access to cherished resources and the few who benefit even as they lament — is not exclusive to surfers; it’s one that bedevils almost anything related to climate adaptation.
There are several ways climate change could jeopardize surfing, but the most dramatic is also the most counterintuitive: sea level rise could drown waves.
Put simply, surfing is made possible by the interplay of water and wind. Waves form as energy from gusts passes through water and underwater obstacles (shallower ocean floor, coral reefs, even a man-made jetty) trip them up, allowing the top of a wave to crest as the water below the surface slows down. Whether it’s surfable, however, depends on everything from the break’s geography to how high the tide is on any given day.
Models of future wave conditions indicate sea level rise could change the shape of waves that generations of surfers have relied on. A 2017 analysis of 105 California surf spots found that 34% are at risk of “drowning” by 2100, meaning the wave will break too close to shore or not at all. Just 5% of the state’s surf spots are expected to improve, the study found.
Erosion, which will alter the shape of coastlines, is partly to blame. But surfing’s precarity also results from the larger volume of water inherent to sea level rise. Many breaks perform best at low or medium tide; but in most places, sea level rise will push high tide higher while rendering low tide unrecognizable.
Accordingly, head of the Surfrider Foundation’s coast and climate initiative Stefanie Sekich said, “millions of people … will have their surf breaks drowned before their eyes.” Sekich herself has already seen a treasured and unnamed pocket break near San Diego swallowed up by erosion.
Climate change could also result in changes in the water quality that make surfing untenable, such as algal blooms that release toxins that kill fish and irritate swimmers’ skin.
Warmer waters also can stress the coral reefs that often help shape the most reliable surf breaks. This causes them to expel the algae living within them (“bleaching”) and leaves them at risk of dying off entirely.
“A balance and a natural flow that has existed over millennia is being disrupted as a result of human interaction,” Kapono said of this suite of effects. “And change is difficult for people. It requires either time or money, patience or adaptation.”
Determining how to adapt to this change, however, involves hard choices about what we value and why. Surf communities vulnerable to coastal erosion are being forced to weigh the risk that homes could slip into the sea against the risk that new infrastructure could upend a chief reason people seek to live there in the first place: surfing, and the lifestyle and natural splendor that goes with it.
Nik Strong-Cvetich, who leads the non-profit Save the Waves Coalition, argues that surf breaks themselves have unappreciated economic power. In the last 70 years, surfing’s spread has transformed it from a spiritual and social practice for small island communities to a global sport. But towns like his own Santa Cruz, California, do not account for ridable waves when it comes to erecting sea walls, breakwaters, and other manmade structures along the shore, even though the waves are the main attraction for many tourists and transplants.
This so-called “armoring” of the coast via cement structures designed to simultaneously block the waves and prevent the shore’s slip into the sea can negatively impact intertidal ecosystems and even hasten beach erosion. The California Coastal Commission, charged with protecting coastal resources and regulating development, has accordingly become choosier about where this armoring is allowed; in recent cases, it has required owners of new coastal properties to waive their rights to future sea walls to protect their vulnerable developments.
Still, a cement-forward approach to adaptation, Strong-Cvetich said, is among climate change’s biggest threats to surfing, and to the ecosystems and economies that go hand-in-hand with the sport. His organization, Save the Waves, argues for nature-based solutions to sea level rise, such as dune restoration, and for legally protecting surf breaks.
This latter point is controversial. For non-surfers it can sound an awful lot like prioritizing recreation over people’s homes. But if done well, Strong-Cvetich maintains, it is possible to both protect surfing and walk back people’s exposure to environmental hazards.
Both Save the Waves and Surfrider are joining those calling for the government to fund relocating some vulnerable coastal neighborhoods. This too is quite controversial. Several California towns have already considered and shot down “managed retreat” proposals, which many affected homeowners view as jeopardizing the value of their beachfront properties. Meanwhile, a California Legislative Analyst report found that sea level rise is projected to submerge $10 billion worth of property by 2050.
In the midst of any likely climate tragedy, there will be those that come out ahead. When it comes to surfers and climate change, one prominent story goes, the winners are the big-wave surfers.
For certain elite surfers, there may be some truth to this. The swells that launch the waves sky-high at breaks like Nazaré result largely from storm activity thousands of miles offshore; one of climate change’s knock-on effects is stronger hurricanes and surface winds, which cause those swells to carry even more energy within them. In fact, this has already begun to happen, with global wave power increasing 0.4% per year since 1948, according to a 2019 study.
In combination with sea level rise, this has the potential to fuel the monster waves that surfers like Garrett McNamara and Kai Lenny watch for.
Kurt Korte, vice president of forecasting for the surf report service Surfline, said the question of where new 100-footers could be found lingers in the back of his mind as his team monitors changing ocean conditions.
“When you see a storm system that does something a little bit atypical, or you see a shift in the general pattern from one winter to the next, you get … thinking about what that may mean,” Korte said. He expects that climate change makes uncovering the next Nazaré especially likely at higher altitudes: think Alaska, Western Canada, or Greenland.
This would be a boon for the extreme surfers that increasingly get the spotlight in documentaries like the glossy HBO documentary series 100 Foot Wave — and for the fans that devour footage of their work. But the rise of monster waves while gentler, warmer breaks are swallowed would represent a gradual sea change for surfing more broadly: from leisure activity to extreme sport, most accessible to those who can afford the training, equipment, and travel required, and increasingly unrecognizable to Kapono’s ancestors
But Li Erikson, a research geographer at the U.S. Geological Survey, notes her own team’s models paint a more nebulous picture of the big-wave future. While there are some places where waves are projected to grow taller (including at the higher latitudes), there are others where they are expected to shrink.
As is so often the case in conversations of the climate crisis’ winners and losers, treating bigger and better waves as a foregone conclusion betrays both a desire to simplify the phenomenon’s effects, and to focus on the not-that-bad-actually-perhaps-even-good elements of the story. While this might be an effective coping mechanism, it’s also one that threatens to distract us from adapting before it’s too late.
The reality of the surf community’s experience of climate change is one that mirrors our collective experience: A few will gain, while most will lose. For instance, the internet brims with articles on the few regions that will fare best when so much of the world weathers floods and drought and fires. (The area around the Great Lakes seems particularly promising.) And while climate change has already caused the number of people suffering from hunger in some of the world’s most vulnerable countries to more than double since 2017, a warming Siberia will see its lucky farmers able to produce new crops.
Preserving what we value in the face of climate change is complicated and often overwhelmed by the sheer volume of what we stand to lose. But sticking our heads in the sand and relying on a sea wall to save us only promises to compound our grief. Adaptation is the task of stemming the losses, especially while resources still abound.
“There’s a finite number of people that are really impacted by the big wave stuff,” Korte said. But when it comes to the future of the smaller coastal breaks that have lured an increasing number of surfers into the water, he added, millions stand to lose.
If you enjoyed this article, get Heatmap's best work delivered to your inbox every day:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The Senate approved a House resolution using the Congressional Review Act to allow a mining operation near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters wilderness area.
In a 50-49 vote on Thursday, the Senate approved opening a national forest just outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area in Minnesota to a copper-nickel mining operation, a move that environmentalists and conservationists say will pollute the downstream watershed and set a precedent for future rollbacks on protected public lands.
The upper chamber’s decision follows a near-party-line House vote in January and months of subsequent protests, op-eds, and pleas to senators to preserve the wilderness expanse and recreation area. The level of mobilization has been reminiscent of the early days of the second Trump administration, when public outrage erupted against the efficiency department’s gutting of the beloved National Park Service. This time, the focus was on House Joint Resolution 140, which had made its way onto a Senate calendar already crowded with debates over funding for the Department of Homeland Security and the limits of war powers.
The Boundary Waters is America’s most heavily visited wilderness area, supporting an estimated $16 billion recreation-based economy in the region. Minnesota’s Democratic Senator Tina Smith, who held the floor on Wednesday night in protest of revoking the protections, said that a poll by her office found that 70% of residents in the state believe preventing pollution from the mine should be a top priority for their elected officials.
Democratic presidents had managed to stave off the copper-nickel mining operation on the Boundary Waters’ doorstep for almost 20 years by way of a mineral withdrawal. Then, this winter, the House utilized the Congressional Review Act to reopen consideration of the withdrawal. With Thursday’s vote, Senate Republicans handed a victory to the Chilean mining company Antofagasta and its subsidiary, Twin Metals Minnesota, which has a plethora of connections to Trump administration officials. President Trump is expected to sign the bill. (Twin Metals did not respond to a request for comment.)
Because of the use of the CRA, though, it wasn’t just the fate of the Boundary Waters watershed that was decided swiftly — and perhaps permanently — on Thursday, just days before the 60-day clock would have expired. The vote is “the tip of the spear in terms of setting a precedent,” Ingrid Lyons, the executive director of Save the Boundary Waters, had told me prior to the Senate’s vote.
Justin Meuse, the government relations director at The Wilderness Society, was even more direct when I spoke to him last month. “I can’t stress enough how much it’s freaking us out,” he said.
The Congressional Review Act was originally a bipartisan bill passed in 1996 as a mechanism for the legislative branch to oversee agency rulemaking. The law requires that federal agencies submit final rules to Congress and, in doing so, triggers a 60-day window for the House and Senate to pass a joint resolution of disapproval of those rules via a simple majority. If the president signs the resolution, then the agency’s rule is void, and the agency is further barred from issuing a “substantially similar” rule in the future.
“It wasn’t used for a long time, and people thought it was dead,” Susan Dudley, the former director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, told me of the CRA. “Then people, including me, said, ‘Okay, the only time we’ll be seeing it used is during transitions, so an incoming president of a different party or with different policy preferences can undo last-minute regulations of the prior president” — so-called midnight regulations such as a Clinton-era Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule that would have established ergonomic protections for workers, and that Congress and President George W. Bush blocked in early 2001.
Opponents had taken to calling the CRA “secretive,” “archaic,” and “obscure.” Then, during the first Trump administration, Republicans passed 15 joint resolutions of disapproval to void late-term Obama rules that would have established fair pay, mandated recordkeeping on workplace injuries, and environmental protections, among other lefty goals. The Biden White House also used the mechanism against three Trump-issued rules — including one that loosened methane emission limits —and paced its own rulemaking with the ticking CRA clock in mind.
Under Trump 2.0, Republicans have stretched the CRA’s deregulatory powers. In defiance of the Senate Parliamentarian last year, conservative members of Congress used the CRA to overturn a waiver that allowed California to preempt the Clean Air Act by setting its own stricter-than-federal emissions standards for cars and trucks. Opponents were outraged. A “waiver” is a state- and site-specific authorization, they argued, distinct from agency “rules” as defined by the CRA.
Most alarming to conservationists, though, is the fact that Republicans are now using the CRA to attack public land protections in myriad ways. Congress has already used the act to target resource management plans, which are the Bureau of Land Management’s guidelines for allowable land use ranging from oil and gas leases to renewable energy rights-of-way. Last summer, the Government Accountability Office determined that an RMP banning coal leases across millions of acres of eastern Montana counted as a “rule,” a determination that Dudley told me was in keeping with the original intent of the CRA, which defined “rule” expansively. But it also created a loophole that allows Republicans to submit any RMPs enacted since the CRA became law in 1996 for consideration by the GAO. Each time they do so, it resets the 60-day clock to submit a resolution of disapproval, even if the resource management plan was established decades ago.
“We literally have hundreds of land use plans that have been finalized over the last 30 years,” John Ruple, a research professor of law at the University of Utah’s Wallace Stegner Center for Land Resources and the Environment, told me. “The fact that none of those were submitted to Congress — even though Congress had these GAO opinions in front of them that said, ‘Yeah, technically, these are probably rules,’ they never objected. I think that should tell us something: RMPs were meant to be treated differently.”
In the case of the Boundary Waters, the CRA voids a 20-year-old withdrawal of watershed lands from mineral leasing, which the BLM finalized in 2023 but only submitted to Congress earlier this year.
Though many of the conservationists I spoke to argued that a mineral withdrawal doesn’t qualify under the CRA to begin with because it’s not federal rulemaking, Todd F. Gaziano — who served as the chief counsel of the subcommittee on regulatory affairs during its passage in 1996, and was the primary staffer who drafted the final version of the legislation — disagreed. He told me that CRA was always intended to have a broad mandate in order to prevent circumvention by agencies — say, by issuing “guidance” rather than a formal “rule.” As Gaziano put it to me, “If people outside government care about it, and it’s an agency statement that’s going to have a future effect, that sounds like a rule covered by the Congressional Review Act.”
Ruple stressed to me that focusing on what is or is not a rule misses the greater point. Whether it’s legal or not, using the CRA to undo land management plans is a “really bad idea,” he said. “It’s really dangerous, it’s really destabilizing, and it injects tremendous uncertainty into the land management process.”
A major concern is that, because of the CRA’s provision barring a federal agency from issuing a “substantially similar” rule in the future, a resolution of disapproval effectively salts the earth behind it. “It’s a sledgehammer rather than a tool to tweak a regulation that Congress might think should be better,” is how Dudley, the former Regulatory Studies Center director, put it to me. That’s also Ruple’s point — there are many other avenues Congress can pursue if it disagrees with an agency, from sending letters to calling in staff to testify, before the nuclear option of the CRA.
Nevertheless, there are fears about what Republicans in Congress will target next — the party appears poised to test the CRA against a national monument. Republican Representative Celeste Malloy and Republican Senator Mike Lee, both of Utah, introduced a joint resolution to undo the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan under the CRA after getting the GAO’s go-ahead this winter. “It’s a really big escalation to go from knocking off land‑management plans versus tackling a national monument,” Steve Bloch, the legal director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, told me earlier this year. “There are lots of monument management plans in the country that would be at risk if this one falls.”
There will likely be a regrouping in the aftermath of Thursday’s defeat on Boundary Waters to reconsider how to protect public lands. Jim Pattiz, a co-founder of the website and public lands newsletter More Than Just Parks, told me ahead of the vote that he expected a lawsuit to follow in short order if the vote didn’t go conservationists’ way. “Hopefully they can get an injunction, they can get a class action, and at least put a hold on this, and it can play out in courts,” he said.
But Ruple seemed to believe the crisis is even more existential — not just a case of micromanaging, but a sign of how far the legislative branch has drifted from its intended purpose in the name of party politics. “Congress can’t even pass a budget. Do we really expect them to delve into the minutiae of hundreds of land management plans?” he said.
Gaziano had a different take: “Congress may not want responsibility,” he argued, “but it’s got it.”
As the Boundary Waters vote makes clear, though, even tremendous outcry isn’t enough to sway this Congress from its attack on public lands. “I don’t want to speculate, but I’m not sure what type of action they’re going to go after next because it keeps getting more and more granular,” Meuse, of The Wilderness Society, said. “It really does seem like, as long as there is a willing majority in both chambers, there isn’t an end in sight.”
On Trump’s dubious offshore wind deal, fast tracks, and missed deadlines
Current conditions: At least eight tornadoes touched down Wednesday between central Iowa and southern Wisconsin, and more storms are on the way • Temperatures in Central Park, where your humble correspondent sweltered in a suit jacket yesterday afternoon, hit 90 degrees Fahrenheit, shattering the previous record of 87 degrees • Mount Kanloan, a volcano on the Philippines’ Negros island, is showing signs of looming eruption with dozens of ash emissions.
The Trump administration appears to be tapping an essentially bottomless but highly restricted pool of federal money at the Department of Justice to pay the French energy giant TotalEnergies the $1 billion the Department of the Interior promised in exchange for abandoning two offshore wind projects. Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo got her hands on a document that suggests the fund, which is typically reserved for helping federal agencies pay out legal settlements, may have been improperly used for the deal. Tony Irish, a former solicitor in the Department of the Interior who unearthed a letter in the public docket from his former agency to TotalEnergies and shared the document with Emily, told her that the terms of the French energy giant’s lease are such that a lawsuit requiring monetary damages couldn't have been reasonably imminent. Without that, there would be no credible reason to dip into the Judgment Fund for the payout.
This morning, Emily published another banger. While listening to Secretary of Energy Chris Wright speak before the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday, she noticed the cabinet chief say that “well over 80%” of the 2,270 awards reviewed by agency were now moving forward. But there are “big holes” in that number, which doesn't account for several grants to blue states that a judge mandated be reinstated, or for energy efficiency rebates that are still in limbo.
Louisiana’s Public Service Commission voted 4-1 to fast-track a proposal from Facebook-owner Meta and the utility Entergy to build seven new gas-fired power plants, in a $16 billion investment into fossil fuel infrastructure. The project is, according to the watchdog group Alliance for Affordable Energy, one of the largest single power requests in state history. The timeline established under the vote today requires a final vote on the application by December.
The federal government, meanwhile, is getting interested in how much power data centers use. The Energy Information Administration is planning to implement a mandatory nationwide survey of data centers focused on their energy use, Wired reported, calling the move the first such effort to collect basic data on the server farms’ power demands.

Super Typhoon Sinlaku slammed into the Northern Mariana Islands as the most powerful storm on Earth so far this year, plunging the U.S. territory into darkness. It’s unclear just how many of the remote Pacific archipelago’s 45,000 residents lost grid connections amid the storm. But reports indicate island-wide blackouts. Local officials told the Associated Press it could take weeks to restore power and water service across the territory. Even if cellphones were charged, Pacific Daily News reported that wireless networks were overloaded and slow throughout the storm. Saipan, the capital, and neighboring Tinian were plunged into “total darkness,” according to Pacific Island Times.
The incident highlights the particular risk that the five populated U.S. territories face from extreme weather. All five — Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean; Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa in the Pacific — are island chains vulnerable to hurricanes, typhoons, and rising seas. And all five depend on increasingly costly imports of oil and gas to generate electricity. This September will mark nine years since Hurricane Maria laid waste to Puerto Rico’s aging grid system.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Over at NOTUS, reporter Anna Kramer found that the Interior Department “has blown past a congressionally-mandated deadline to report its progress on energy projects.” Per a letter from Senate Democrats, the agency failed to submit two required reports to Congress on its reviews and approvals of energy projects, which wind and solar developers say reflects the administration’s ongoing de facto embargo on permits for renewables.
Overall, 2025 was a worse year for zero-emissions trucks than 2024. Annual total registrations of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that don’t run on gasoline or diesel fell by 7.6%, according to new data from the International Council on Clean Transportation. But the decline wasn’t uniform across all segments: The medium-duty truck, such as a box truck or a delivery truck, saw a 61.7% surge in zero-emission vehicle registrations year over year. That held even as buses fell 32.8% and heavy-duty trucks, such as flatbeds and dump trucks, declined 20.7%.
The times, they are a-changing over at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Once a stalwart opponent of nuclear power and supporter of stricter and more onerous environmental rules, the conservation-focused litigation nonprofit first embraced the need to restart existing nuclear plants, in a major shift. Now the NRDC has thrown its weight behind permitting reform, calling on lawmakers to speed up the process for approving clean energy projects. Green groups like NRDC once derided an overhaul of the landmark U.S. environmental laws as a deregulatory assault on nature. What’s going on here? The Foundation for American Innovation’s Thomas Hochman put it simply: “Vibe shift.”
The Secretary of Energy told Congress that his agency had completed its review of Biden-era funding commitments.
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright testified in front of the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday to defend his agency’s proposed 2027 budget. Under questioning from Democrats, Wright told the committee that his department’s review of Biden-era funding, announced in May 2025, had “finally come to a completion.”
“Well over 80%” of the 2,270 awards reviewed were moving forward, he said. Some would proceed as originally conceived, while others would be modified. “We have finished that effort, and we are keen to move forward with the majority of the projects which did pass, either straight up or through restructuring,” he testified.
But that assertion obscures the level of uncertainty that remains about the funding.
To back up his statement, Wright sent Congress a list of grants titled “Retain/modify,” which named roughly 1,950 awards — a number consistent with his “well over 80%” of 2,270 number.
But there are big holes in the data. As one example, in January, a federal judge ruled that DOE had to reinstate seven awards the agency terminated last year, ruling that the agency’s targeting of awards in blue states violated Constitutional protections against discrimination. But just one of those seven awards — which should all theoretically be “retained” — is on the list sent to Congress this week. (The single retained award is a nearly $20 million grant for Colorado State University’s Methane Emissions Technology Evaluation Center.)
Meanwhile, 18 other awards that were terminated as part of that same targeting on blue states, but which were not named in the court case, are on the new list. In other words, 18 awards that had been publicly deemed “terminated” and were not reinstated by a judge have been cleared to progress.
Wright’s stats are also misleading in that the new list doesn’t include any of the funding the DOE is statutorily required to pay out to states based on pre-set formulas, such as funding for long-established Weatherization Assistance Programs or the home energy retrofit programs created by the Inflation Reduction Act, which also fell victim to the agency’s review. As I reported last summer, many states were stuck in a holding pattern waiting for the DOE to respond to their applications for the IRA rebate funding.
During the hearing, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida asserted that the agency was still withholding more than $345 million in funds for her state’s energy efficiency rebate programs. Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut raised the same issue.
Wright told DeLauro that the timing for releasing the funds was “in the near future,” and could be as soon as a few weeks away. Later, when Wasserman Schultz pressed him again, Wright said he didn’t know when the funds would be released.
“I do not have a specific answer to that at the tip of my tongue,” Wright said. “I know a lot of these broad scale rebate programs, we’ve gone through to look at carefully, to make sure we get rid of fraud on these things …”
“$345 million is a lot of damn money,” Wasserman Schultz said, cutting him off. “And $8,000 to $14,000 grants are the kinds of things that help struggling homeowners dealing with high electric bills to try to reduce those costs. I would think that you would know at least something about what I’m talking about when you are withholding that much money.”
In response, Wright argued that there was “an incredible amount of fraud” in the programs and “DEI stuff put in,” referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, against which the Trump administration has mounted a crusade. The rebate programs were specifically designed by Congress, in statute, to help lower- and moderate-income households afford home upgrades like heat pumps.
Wright did not provide any information to Congress about which projects were being “modified” versus approved as-is, or describe how the “modified” projects were changing course. He did, however, indicate that the agency was still open to reconsiderating grants that had been terminated. During the hearing, Representative Mike Levin of California brought up his state’s canceled ARCHES hydrogen hub, which had been eligible for up to $1.2 billion in DOE funding. He asked whether Wright would “commit to engage in good faith” with the hub’s leadership, who “want to work collaboratively with you.”
“Absolutely,” Wright replied. He said that the ARCHES hub failed to prove it had a viable pathway to meet its cost goals, but that he was “absolutely open for that dialogue.”