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 imminent closure of Duke University’s herbarium sparked an outcry in the natural sciences community. But the loss to climate science could be even worse.

Kathleen Pryer did not watch March Madness this year.
That isn’t unusual in and of itself — Pryer describes herself as “not a basketball person,” though that might still raise a few eyebrows this time of year at Duke University, her place of employment. But the professor of biology has been a bit distracted lately. For the past few months, she’s been on defense, fending off a loss of her own: the pending closure of the school’s herbarium.
A herbarium (or plural, herbaria) is a collection of preserved plants, typically dried and mounted on sheets of rigid paper. The oldest existing collection in the world, the Gherardo Cibo herbarium in Rome, dates back to the mid 1500s; many U.S. collections are well over a century old. Browsing digitized herbaria online, one can easily get sucked in by their unintended whimsy; though the preserved plants are scientific specimens, traditionally collected by botanists to be used in the study of taxonomy during Western biology’s golden age of naming things, the pages remind me more of the pale, beautiful botanical illustrations in my childhood copy of Thumbelina.
Duke’s herbarium turns 103 this year and contains 825,000 specimens, making it one of the largest collections in the country. But back in mid-February, Susan Alberts, Duke’s dean of natural sciences, sent an email to Pryer, who curates the herbarium, and four other associated faculty members to inform them that “it’s in the best interests of both Duke and the herbarium to find a new home or homes for these collections.”
Though there had long been rumblings about the future of Duke’s herbarium — calls for “strategic plans,” hand-wringing about funds, worry about hiring new staff — the news came as both a shock and a slap in the face to the faculty, chief among them Pryer. “It’s some kind of little stinky plot,” she told me, adding, “I didn’t just roll over when it happened. I reached out to absolutely everybody I could think of.”
The news of Duke’s herbarium closure ricocheted through the tight-knit natural sciences community. Mason Heberling, an associate curator in the Section of Botany at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, told me it should be a “wake-up call” for other researchers. The Duke herbarium is prestigious and hardly a “languishing collection,” he explained; researchers and faculty can easily slip into taking their herbaria for granted. “I’ve realized now that a huge part of my job as a curator will need to be explaining why these collections are important,” he said.
Swiftly, botanists and curators came to Duke’s defense. Opinion pieces and quotes decrying Duke’s decision appeared in the pages of The New York Times and Science. A petition went up on Change.org urging the school to reconsider its decision. Online fora burbled with discontent. “This may be the single worst thing to ever happen to Southeastern botany,” one post on Reddit read, with 64 additional comments piling on the administration for being “profit-obsessed business assholes.” “They could probably fund the entire thing with the salary of one head [basketball] coach,” grumbled another commenter.
The criticism of Duke’s decision is rooted in both a romantic nostalgia about herbaria — the same way you might feel fondly about hand-painted globes or cabinets of curiosities — and a very modern sense of scientific urgency. Researchers have only recently started leveraging the collections as invaluable pieces of data in the greater picture of climate change. “Herbaria are, in many ways, one of our best places to understand nature across space, time, and species,” Charles Davis, the curator of vascular plants at the nation’s largest private herbaria, at Harvard University, told me. “These collections are snapshots of events and occurrences in space and time that you just can’t easily replicate anywhere else. In fact, I would argue it’s impossible.”
Think of it this way: Worldwide, there are about 3,600 herbaria located in 193 different countries that collectively hold about 400 million specimens. Botanists estimate as much as half of the planet’s undiscovered flora could be found in herbaria backlogs. Barbara Thiers, the editor of the Index Herbariorum, a digital guide to the world’s collections, told me that when she was the director of the New York Botanical Garden Herbarium, “we had a huge room filled with unidentified species; I think there were 35,000 or 40,000 specimens in there.” That wasn’t for lack of effort — Thiers said that for many of the plant groups, there simply aren’t any working experts or published literature for curators to consult.
Because the climate is changing so fast, many plants in herbaria will go extinct before they’re formally discovered and named, a process known as a “dark extinction.” “It’s a very sobering feeling to touch the leaves of a tree that doesn’t exist anymore,” Erin Zimmerman, an evolutionary biologist and author of the forthcoming book Unrooted: Botany, Motherhood, and the Fight to Save an Old Science, told me, recalling coming across such a specimen in an herbarium while doing her own research. She likened herbaria to a library, but in her description I also heard echoes of a church: “The specimens are sometimes very old; you have to be very gentle with them, which just adds to the sense of holding something precious,” she went on.
Dwindling biodiversity is only the most obvious way herbaria are critical to 21st-century science. “Phenology, whether it’s when plants flower or when birds migrate, is one of the most important signals of climate change response,” Davis, the Harvard curator, said. Still, our long-term datasets aren’t very robust; research on how plants are changing with warming climates typically dates back only 25 to 30 years, tends to concentrate on the U.S. and Western Europe, and centers on easily observable phenomena, like the leafing out of woody trees. Researchers can turn to herbaria for centuries-old records of where certain plants grew and when they flowered, helping to bridge gaps in our understanding.
Heberling, of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, tracks environmental changes in his research, but he didn’t start using herbaria until well after he’d obtained his Ph.D. Only then did he realize “herbarium specimens are incredible archives of the past,” he told me.
“You can look at the tiny pores, the stomata, on the leaves” of a plant in a herbarium and “see how that has changed over time with increased carbon dioxide,” Heberling said. Scientists have even used this method to create CO2 records.
Admittedly, climate science is still a relatively cutting-edge use case for the herbarium; according to Davis’ research, “global change biology” remains one of the least popular ways to leverage herbaria, well behind “taxonomic monographs” and “species distributions” that still dominate the field. Still, “there are things that, five to 10 years ago, I’d never even imagined we’d be doing today with herbarium specimens,” he told me.
As a result, Duke’s herbarium closure has made some question the university’s commitment to climate research — something that Alberts, the school’s natural sciences dean, emphatically refuted when I raised the question with her. She told me that a rough search revealed that only 23 of the 2,000 papers published by Duke researchers over the past few decades on climate change contained the word “herbarium” anywhere in them. “With my knowledge about all of the climate change research that’s been going on at Duke, the herbarium is not really central to whether or not Duke studies climate change,” she said.
For her part, Pryer has bristled at the administration’s insinuations that the herbarium is of limited use to students and faculty on campus. “You don’t measure a collection by who uses it,” she told me. “As I’ve been naughty enough to say, it’s not a toilet. People outside — the global community — uses it. That’s how you measure its value; things like 90 refereed publications a year [across all disciplines] cite the Duke collections.” Pryer can quickly tick off the climate projects that have come through the herbarium’s halls, including her recent supervision of a local high schooler’s research paper that found the pink lady’s slipper is flowering in the area 17 days earlier than it used to.
Duke is “not an appropriate home for a herbarium that is this large and valuable” for a number of reasons, according to Alberts, ranging from the need to hire new faculty to manage it (Pryer and several of her colleagues are approaching retirement) to the collection’s current building needing renovations. “I have had people email me saying, ‘I know you have enough money, I know you have the facilities.’ I’m like, ‘I’m sorry, you should tell me who you’re talking to, because we don’t,’” Alberts said. She added that she plans to be personally involved in finding the right home for Duke’s herbarium over the next several years.
After all, it’s not like the potential untapped climate records in the Duke collection are being destroyed (though both Pryer and Davis told me they’ve had deans wonder aloud if they could be, since many herbaria are now digitized). The goal is only to move the collection somewhere where it might be better utilized.
Thiers, though, said this is exactly what makes the natural science community so alarmed. As the collection is split up, ideally, the Index Herbariorum would record where Duke’s specimens get sent so scientists can still find them. But when new collections absorb the materials, curators will weed out duplicates, sending unneeded pages elsewhere — at which point specimens can fall between the cracks. “Before you know it, individual specimens will be lost,” Thiers said. “I can almost guarantee that as these secondary moves happen, people will not keep up with the database records.”
There is also a worst-case scenario everyone seemed nervous to mention: that Duke’s collection, in whole or in part, will end up in storage somewhere. Herbarium specimens are extremely susceptible to insect damage and must be kept in expensive, climate-controlled cabinets and rooms. “If they’re putting boxes in a storage storeroom someplace, they’ll be worthless in no time,” Thiers warned. The unidentified plants and uncollected climate data — all of it could be lost. And the cruelest part? Scientists wouldn’t even know what they are losing; it’s a dark extinction of a dark extinction.
When I spoke with Alberts, she said there were no updates on the administration’s plans for the herbarium. She expressed sympathy, though, for the faculty who oppose the administration’s decision. The herbarium “is their life’s work, and it’s important that they have a voice in this process,” she said.
Pryer is determined to keep fighting, even if this isn’t exactly how she’d pictured spending her golden years at Duke. “It’s having an impact on my research and on my health,” she told me. “It’s been pretty unrelenting. I’m anxious for something to resolve.”
She looked tired. There was a faculty meeting later in the day, and she hoped she’d be able to get more clarity about the administration’s decision then. “I don’t want this to go on forever,” she said. “But I also don’t want there to be a decision that makes Duke look insane.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Properly known as “manufactured homes,” they’re extremely vulnerable to extreme heat.
When it gets too hot, the human body starts to cook. At 89.6 degrees Fahrenheit you begin sweating to maintain your core body temperature; by 95 degrees, you’re no longer able to shed heat through radiation alone, relying entirely on the mechanism of water evaporating from your skin. Once it’s 104 degrees out, your body stops working the way it should. By 120 degrees, if you don’t take drastic measures to cool and hydrate yourself immediately, you’re dead.
It’s still unusual for most parts of the U.S. to reach 120 degrees (though humidity and “wet bulb” temperature can reduce the effectiveness of sweating, making much cooler temperatures dangerous, too). The bad news, though, is that it’s not the outdoors you necessarily need to be all that worried about. Most people who die in heatwaves die inside.
Manufactured homes, also called mobile homes, are particularly lethal in extreme heat. During the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome, 20% of the 96 people who died in Oregon lived in such housing, according to an analysis by The Oregonian. In Phoenix in 2024, a full quarter of heat-related deaths occurred in mobile home parks, trailers, and RVs, which make up only 5% of the Valley’s housing stock. In Pima County, the rural region that encompasses Tucson, the share of deaths in the homes was even higher.
And yet last week, the House of Representatives approved a bill that could prevent the adoption of regulations that would help prevent future heat-related deaths in manufactured homes. The vote was the culmination of a nearly decade-long fight over who should regulate the construction of manufactured homes, which are crucial to solving the housing crisis and the primary route to low-income homeownership. It also lies at the crux of the debate over building out quick, cheap homes — the industry’s preference — versus investing in resilient construction practices with an eye on a hotter future.
H.R. 5184 looks, on its surface, like a common-sense affordability bill. Energy standards for manufactured homes have traditionally fallen under the purview of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has not updated the regulations since 1994. In 2007, on a bipartisan vote, Congress passed a law directing the Department of Energy — which has more expertise in energy efficiency than HUD — to set new standards for manufactured homes, which the department (finally) issued in 2022, and which focus on increasing insulation and reducing air leaks.
Slammed as costly “red tape,” the standards were repeatedly held off from going into effect. H.R. 5184 is meant to ensure they never will. Indiana’s Republican Representative Erin Houchin, who authored the bill, claims that the regulations would increase the upfront cost of manufactured homes by “$10,000 to $15,000” over the existing HUD standards. (The DOE’s analysis of the 2022 rule put the added construction cost at between $627 and $4,438, depending on the size of the home and the climate zone.) Proponents of the bill also say it would streamline oversight of manufactured home energy efficiency standards by reverting regulatory authority to HUD alone and excluding the DOE from the rule-making process henceforth.
The bill passed the House with bipartisan support from every Republican and 57 Democrats, the latter group led by Massachusetts Representative Jake Auchincloss. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which opposes the bill, Auchincloss reportedly used the word abundance “multiple times” when advocating for H.R. 5184 in a private meeting — an apparent reference to the Abundance Agenda, which pushes to remove regulatory roadblocks to progressive goals such as clean energy and affordable housing. (Auchincloss’ team did not respond to a request for comment, though in a letter to his Democratic colleagues, he described housing affordability as “a national problem that we should address with common-sense regulatory reform.”)
But “is the purpose of housing to keep us safe and well and to allow us to actually live our best lives, or is it something else?” Vivek Shandas, the founder of the Sustaining Urban Places Research Lab at Portland State University, asked me. “If housing is set up to keep us out of the elements, then what we’re essentially agreeing to when we’re cutting some of these safety precautions is exposing people to more of the elements,” he said.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, an advocacy group, has stressed that H.R. 5184, which preserves the 30-year-old HUD standard, will increase the average annual energy bill by up to $475 for residents of new double-wide homes compared to what they would have paid under the 2022 rules. ACEEE estimates that the break-even point for monthly net savings to recoup the added initial down payment, taxes, and fees for a single-wide home in the South would have been just over a year, and just over four years for a double-wide in the same region. “My hope is that U.S. senators can do math better than, apparently, a majority of their House colleagues and recognize that energy savings significantly exceed the cost of insulation and air sealing,” Mark Kresowik, the senior policy director at ACEEE, told me.
Manufactured home owners already spend an outsized amount of their income on energy costs, and higher energy bills could push residents to avoid turning on their air conditioning during heatwaves, putting their health and potentially their lives at risk. It is “absolutely correct” that H.R. 5184 could result in more mobile home park deaths as a result, Kresowik said.
Cooling manufactured homes can be challenging in general, though. “We’re finding that in some of these [existing] manufactured homes on a 105-degree day, temperatures will be upward of 120, 125 degrees inside,” Shandas said — the threshold of human survival. That’s partially because, unlike site-built homes, mobile homes are often placed on asphalt, which “radiates that heat at night and keeps the temperatures inside the homes up.”
“When the sun rises the next morning,” Shandas explained, “it continues to heat up,” creating a deadly compounding effect.
Even residents who can afford to run an air conditioning unit around the clock at full blast can be in trouble in poorly insulated homes. AC frequently “doesn’t have the horsepower to reduce [indoor temperatures] down to less than 85 degrees, so it often tends to hang around 90 inside on a 100-degree day,” Shandas said. Particularly for the older adult population, some 3.2 million of whom live in manufactured and mobile homes, that is enough to be dangerous.
Esther Sullivan, an expert on manufactured homes at the University of Colorado Denver and the author of Manufactured Insecurity: Mobile Home Parks and Americans’ Tenuous Right to Place, emphasized that H.R. 5184 will affect only the construction of new homes. The most vulnerable live in mobile homes built before the HUD codes instituted in 1976, and which may have as little as an inch of separation between the inside and the outdoors. (One resident Shandas interviewed in Northeast Portland told him that he could tell how fast the wind was blowing when he was inside with his windows closed — it was that drafty.)
As supporters of H.R. 5184 — like the Manufactured Housing Institute, a trade organization that lobbied in support of the bill — point out, most home manufacturers are already voluntarily meeting or exceeding the 2022 DOE standards. (The MHI pointed me toward its statement in support of the bill when I reached out for comment.) Andrew Rumbach, the co-lead of the climate and communities program at the Urban Institute, which does not take an official side for or against the bill, told me that “even if the current HUD standards were not updated and you purchased a manufactured home today, you’re far more safe in an extreme heat event compared to someone who lives in one of those older, potentially dilapidated homes.”
Sullivan also cheered the advancements in new manufactured home construction. Factory-produced housing, even more than site-based homes, can incorporate “extreme innovations in things like energy efficiency,” she said. But H.R. 5184 would be a “major step backward,” she went on, arguing that it won’t even address the housing abundance goals touted by its supporters. “The problem with producing more housing is allowing more housing to be located,” she said. “It’s zoning.” Many suburban and metropolitan areas, for example, forbid mobile home parks from being sited within their borders.
Preventing mobile home deaths in heatwaves will require attention to the existing housing stock, which needs expensive weatherization and park-level infrastructure upgrades, such as shade and collective cooling shelters. “We’ve seen firsthand how replacing aging, energy-inefficient manufactured homes with new, efficient models can create long-term stability for families and entire communities,” Scott Leonard, the Oregon residential project manager of Energy Trust, a nonprofit that helps families make such upgrades to their homes, told me in a statement. Shandas specifically highlighted the need for local, engaged park managers who can check in on residents during extreme heat events. (He also suggested “some kind of indicator or warning that would tell people to leave when it’s hotter inside than outside and go to a cooling center.”)
But new construction needs to be energy efficient as well, so homeowners can afford the operating costs of life-saving AC units during increasingly hot summers. “The bottom line is that people who live in places that have heat waves deserve to live in a home that’s safe from those heat waves,” Rumbach said.
On bring-your-own-power, Trump’s illegal energy cuts, and New York’s nuclear bonanza
Current conditions: Temperatures in Buffalo, New York, are set to plunge by 40 degrees Fahrenheit • Snow could hit the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast as early as midweek • A cold snap in northern India is thickening fog in the region.
In a post on Truth Social last night, President Donald Trump said he’s “working with major American Technology Companies to secure their commitment to the American People” and shift the burden of financing the data center buildout away from ordinary consumers. “First up is Microsoft, who my team has been working with, and which will make major changes beginning this week to ensure that Americans don’t ‘pick up the tab’ for their POWER consumption, in the form of paying higher utility bills.” He said more announcements were coming in the weeks ahead. While “Data Centers are key to that boom, and keeping Americans FREE and SECURE,” he said “Companies who build them must ‘pay their own way.’”
Hours earlier, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg set the stage for a similar announcement when he posted on Threads that the company was establishing a new “top-level initiative” aimed at building “tens of gigawatts” of power for the Facebook owner’s data centers.
A federal judge has overturned President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to kill New England’s Revolution Wind project. On Monday evening, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction suspending the Trump administration’s order halting construction on the nearly complete joint venture from Danish wind giant Orsted and Global Infrastructure Partners’ Skyborn Renewables. The decision allows construction to restart immediately while the underlying lawsuit challenging multiple attempts by the Department of the Interior to yank its permits continues in court. In a statement, Orsted said it would resume construction as soon as possible. “Today’s ruling is a decisive win for energy reliability and the hundreds of thousands of families counting on Revolution Wind,” Kat Burnham, the industry group Advanced Energy United’s senior principal and New England policy lead, said in a statement. “The court rightly saw through a politically motivated stop-work order that would have caused real harm: driving up costs, delaying power for Rhode Island and Connecticut, and putting good-paying jobs at risk. It’s good news for workers, ratepayers, and anyone who recognizes the need for a fair energy market.” To glean some insights into how the White House’s most recent effort fell short, it’s worth reviewing my colleague Jael Holzman’s coverage of the last failure and this time.
The Environmental Protection Agency is scrapping the decades-long practice of calculating the health benefits of reducing air pollution by estimating the cost of avoided asthma attacks and premature deaths to justify clean-air rules. Citing internal documents, The New York Times reported Monday that the Trump administration plans to stop tallying the health benefits from curbing two of the most widespread, deadly pollutants: fine particulate matter and ozone. The newspaper called the move “a seismic shift that runs counter to the EPA’s mission statement.” The overhaul could make slashing limits on pollution from coal-burning plants, oil refineries, and steel mills easier. It’s part of a broader overhaul of the EPA’s regulatory system to disregard the scientific realities that few, if any, credible scientists challenged before. As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo asked in July when the agency dispensed with the idea that carbon emissions are dangerous, “what comes next?”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
A federal judge ruled Monday that the Trump administration’s decision to slash $8 billion in energy grants to recipients in mostly Democratic-led states was illegal. In his decision, Amit Mehta, whom Obama appointed to the bench of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, wrote that the “terminated grants had one glaring commonality: all the awardees (but one) were based in states whose majority of citizens casting votes did not support President Trump in the 2024 election.” The ruling called on the Department of Energy to reverse its decision to rescind all awards mentioned in the case. The case only covered seven grants, leaving funding for more than 200 other projects up in the air. But as NOTUS noted, the Energy Department’s internal watchdog announced an audit into the cancellations last month.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul positioned herself as one of the most ambitious Democratic governors on nuclear power last summer when, as Heatmap’s Mattew Zeitlin covered at the time, she directed the state-owned New York Power Authority to facilitate construction of at least a gigawatt of new atomic power reactors by 2040. Last week, as we covered here, her administration unveiled 23 potential commercial partners, including Bill Gates’ TerraPower and the utility NextEra, and eight possible communities in which to site the state’s next nuclear plant. Now the governor’s office has told the Syracuse Post-Standard that the administration aims to up the goal from 1 gigawatt to 5 gigawatts of new reactors.
The move comes as Hochul prepares to announce another initiative Tuesday to force data centers to pay for their own energy needs. Piggybacking off Trump’s push, the effort will require “that projects driving exceptional demand without exceptional job creation or other benefits cover the costs they create – through charges or supplying their own power,” according to Axios.
Brazil and Argentina are South America’s only two countries with commercial nuclear power. Despite having governments on opposite sides of the continent’s political divide, the two nations are collaborating on maritime nuclear, using small modular reactors to power ships or produce power from floating plants. “The energy transition process we are experiencing guides us to work together to evolve nuclear regulations and their necessary harmonization, with a view to the use of nuclear reactors on board ships worldwide and, especially, in our jurisdictional waters,” Petronio Augusto Siqueira De Aguiar, the Brazilian admiral from the Naval Secretariat for Nuclear Safety and Quality, said in a statement.
A federal court has once again allowed Orsted to resume construction on its offshore wind project.
A federal court struck down the Trump administration’s three-month stop work order on Orsted’s Revolution offshore wind farm, once again allowing construction to resume (for the second time).
Explaining his ruling from the bench Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said that project developer Orsted — and the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which filed their own suit in support of the company — were “likely” to win on the merits of their lawsuit that the stop work order violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Lamberth said that the Trump administration’s stop work order, issued just before Christmas, amounted to a change in administration position without adequate justification. The justice said he was not sure the emergency being described by the government exists, and that the “stated national security reason may have been pretextual.”
This case was life or death for Revolution Wind. If the stop work order had not been enjoined, Orsted told the court it may not have been able to secure proper vessels for at-sea construction for long enough to complete the project on schedule. This would have a domino effect, threatening Orsted’s ability to meet deadlines in signed power agreements with Rhode Island and Connecticut and therefore threatening wholesale cancellation of the project.
Undergirding this ruling was a quandary Orsted pointed out to the justice: The government issued the stop work order claiming it was intended to mitigate national security concerns but refused to share specifics of the basis for the stop work order with the developer. At the Monday hearing on the injunction in Washington, D.C., Revolution Wind’s legal team pointed to a key quote in a filing submitted by the Justice Department from Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Jacob Tyner, saying that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal offshore energy regulator, was “not aware” of whether the national security risks could ever be mitigated, “and, if they can, whether the developers would find the proposed mitigation measures acceptable.”
This was the first positive outcome in what are multiple legal battles against the Christmas stop work orders against offshore wind projects. As I reported last week, two other developers filed individual suits alongside Orsted against their respective pauses: Dominion Energy in support of the Coastal Virginia offshore project, and Equinor over Empire Wind.
I expect what happened in the Revolution Wind case to be the beginning of a trend, as a cursory examination of the filings in those cases indicate similar contradictions to those that led to Revolution winning out. We’ll find out soon: The hearing on Empire’s stop work order is scheduled for Wednesday and Coastal Virginia on Friday.