Ready for Reuse: Legislative Proposals to Unleash the Potential of America’s Brownfields Sites
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
This is a complete nonstarter. A site receiving a couple $100,000 in Brownfields money in no way justifies that site being completely exempted from the NEPA process. That is policy making far beyond the scope of a Brownfields reauthorization effort. Finally, the Brownfields Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act is a solution in search of a problem. It would allow EPA to provide loans and loan guarantees up to $4,000,000, rather than traditional grants.
If the issue is stretching federal dollars further by allowing for revolving loans, the EPA already has a track record of doing this. But this pilot program would siphon limited dollars away from the wide range of projects that communities want, and toward that limited definition of nationally significant infrastructure facilities. The Brownfields program is an incredible investment of federal dollars. It enables local governments to support environmental and economic revitalization by turning a liability into an opportunity. The program is working.
Let's not mess with a good thing. I look forward to today's discussion, and I hope that we can work together on the areas of consensus to make certain this program has the resources and the authority necessary to continue its great work. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 3
Mister Chair. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Thanks, Mr. Tonko. I will now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
Beginning with Chairman Palmer is also a member of the oversight committee, and they're having votes right now. He'll be in and out. So I'll be here for a few minutes. So I appreciate our witnesses for being here today. And I wanna thank chairman Palmer and the team for holding this hearing.
Because for EPA Brownfields, the grant program has had bipartisan support and served as an important tool for remediating contaminated sites and restoring them to productive use for more than 2 decades. The last reauthorization of this program occurred in 2018 and expired at the end of the fiscal year 2023. When authorizations lapse, agencies are forced to make decisions based on outdated guidance from Congress. So we're here today to discuss four bills to provide direction to the EPA on how to best serve those we represent back home. The first three bills on today's hearing agenda would support both the cleanup and reuse of brownfield sites by removing barriers to the cleanup of contaminated sites, maximizing the value of taxpayer funding, and incentivizing reuse of brownfields for onshoring manufacturing, building AI data centers, and many other productive uses instead of forcing new industry growth to turn over fresh greenfield sites.
The proposals before us today will accelerate the remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites, including the more complicated or larger sites, while helping find locations for much needed infrastructure. The minorities bill would lock in elevated funding levels and make more modest policy changes to the Brownfields program. However, taxpayer funds cannot be the only solution. We need creative solutions that require the private sector, localities, states, and tribes to all come together. I'm confident we can deliver more innovative solutions to this Congress if everyone is willing to come to the table.
I look forward to robust discussion today and engagement with all the interested parties, all our witnesses, for being here. And I will yield back my time, and the chair will recognize the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, mister Pallone, for five minutes for his opening statement. Thank.
Speaker 4
You, Chairman McGaughery. Today, we're discussing proposals to reauthorize the Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields program, which continues to be a shining example of how government can protect the public health of our communities while also stimulating economic growth. Since I partnered with the late Republican representative Paul Gilmore of Ohio over 20 years ago to write the Brownfields Law, the program has consistently enjoyed bipartisan support. We've come together to reauthorize the program to revitalize communities around the nation, cleaning up environmental contamination, boosting public health, and bringing back economic growth and jobs. Every congressional district is home to at least one of these sites.
Since its inception, more than 42,000 brownfield sites have been revitalized and made ready for development around the nation. These projects leverage nearly 230,000 jobs and more than $444,000,000,000 in economic development. And for every dollar the federal government invests in the Brownfields program, we get roughly $20 back in economic return, showcasing the win-win scenario that the program produces. And I think we can all agree that this program is more than worth every dollar we put into it. That's why my discussion draft, the Brownfields Reauthorization for an Affordable and Revitalized America Act, continues this record of success by increasing funding for the program and increasing grant amounts to tackle harder-to-reach projects.
It also waives the cost-share requirement for communities with the most need. And while the Republican discussion drafts before us have promising ideas, overall, unfortunately, they move the Brownfields program in the wrong direction and could unnecessarily imperil this bipartisan program. Most notably, they include a new definition for nationally significant infrastructure projects that I think is short-sighted. It would open the door for private industry like data centers, fossil energy generation, and mining operations to take public funds from the brownfields program, and create backward incentives that prioritize polluting interests over local control. Americans across the country are facing higher monthly energy bills thanks to data centers, the cancellation of cheap renewable energy projects, and the Trump administration forcing expensive fossil generation to stay online.
Yet these Republican drafts propose to take away money from one of our most successful public programs to funnel it to the very same corporate interests. In reauthorizing the Brownfields program, we must ensure it serves those who need it most: state and local governments, nonprofits, and communities who should have final say in how the land is developed. Ultimately, they may choose to approve a new park or low income housing or a data center on remediated land, but Congress should not predetermine that outcome. Unfortunately, that's what the Republican press would have us do. So I can't support taking funds needed to clean up and revitalize local communities to give even more handouts to big corporations.
Thankfully, there are some things on which our draft bills have agreement. We all include increased funding for the overall program and increased grant amounts for harder-to-reach projects, although my discussion draft includes more funding. We also all the bills remove the cost share requirement for small and disadvantaged communities, and these are the same priorities raised at previous Brownfields hearings before the subcommittee. So my hope, mister chairman, is that we can use these agents of agreement as the basis for a strong and unified Brownfields reauthorization bill that can pass this committee and be signed into law before the end of the fiscal year. We must reauthorize and fund the program to continue its critical mission, and I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, to do that.
And I yield back.
Speaker 3
The gentleman yields back. We now conclude with members' opening statements. The chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. We don't have to. We wanna introduce. Right?
Wanna thank our witnesses for being here today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. The witness will have an opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by a round of questions for members. And our witnesses before us today are Chris Wells, executive director of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, and President, Environmental Council of States. Gerald R. Pouncy.
Does that sound correct? Pouncy. Senior counsel, Tavs Statenas. I know how to say it because it's a chip named after. Yeah.
And Hollister. The honorable Alan Thompson, mayor, town of Davis, West Virginia, National Brownfields Coalition, and David W. Robinson, executive vice president of strategic development, Aligned Data Centers. We appreciate you all for being here today. You only have 5 minutes. I think at one minute, you'll have a green light.
One minute, you get a yellow light. And when it turns red, it's about time to wrap up so we can get to the questions we're all excited about. So we appreciate you being here. And Mister Wells, you are recognized for your five-minute opening segment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Chairman Guthrie. I'm very appreciative of the opportunity to be here today to testify on this matter. I'm here today to express strong support for the reauthorization of the EPA brownfields program and innovations that can help advance economic and energy progress while maintaining the fundamental mission of the Brownfields programs to ensure environmental protection and remediation at the state and local levels. In my view and in the view of most, if not all, of my fellow state environmental leaders, the circle 128a and 104k Brownfield programs are among the most effective state federal partnership programs that we have. With relatively limited funding, these programs consistently produce positive results.
From an environmental perspective, Brownfield redevelopment preserves green space, while transforming blighted properties that pose environmental risks. With a range of community benefiting outcomes such as parks, commercial industrial space, energy sites, and other facilities, partnerships among state, local, and federal governments, the private sector, and local organizations are delivering cleanups at sites previously ignored or marginalized. On the economic front, brownfield programs can serve as significant sources of job creation, revenue enhancement through income, property, and sales tax, and infrastructure development, including in the areas of power generation, data centers, and other commercial and industrial processing facilities. All of these benefits help meet local, regional, and national needs. In Mississippi, the results are tangible.
Through 70 EPA 104 grants totaling nearly $30,000,000, our communities have leveraged more than $300,000,000 in private investment, roughly a 10 to one return, and created more than 800 jobs and returned over 700 properties to productive use. As mentioned earlier, nationally, EPA reports an average leverage of approximately 20 to 1, underscoring the strong economic return this program consistently delivers. This is particularly important in small and rural communities. Let me give you an example. The Fry Building in Natchez, Mississippi, which is a community of about 14,500 people, is a cradle to reuse success story.
Federal assessment cleanup and revolving loan fund assistance is helping Natchez turn a long vacant building into infrastructure to support the redevelopment of the historic Eola Hotel, expected to create approximately 75 jobs and generate over 30,000,000 in private investment. This is just one of several major projects that the city of Nash. Natchez has been able to leverage due to federal brownfield dollars in combination with the state brownfield program support, liability protection, and incentives. That project likely would not have been possible but for the brownfield program, and that's the key point. Brownfield program works because it removes uncertainty at the local level for the community and potential investors.
Liability protection gives private investors confidence. Technical assistance gives local officials guidance, and disciplined oversight ensures public health and environmental protection. To sustain the momentum of this program, the states ask Congress to provide robust 128a funding along with strong circle of section 104k EPA Brownfield multipurpose assessment, revolving loan fund, and cleanup grant funding. We would welcome the proposed increase to 128 a funding. This type of support is the fastest and most efficient way to provide noncompetitive brownfield assessment, planning, and cleanup assistance to small, rural, and low-capacity public entities and nonprofits.
In addition, we would endorse an increase in the 104k grant maximum for cleanup grants. States understand the need to include limited waivers from cost-sharing requirements for small and rural communities. And in fact, very small and rural communities often lack the capacity to manage competitive 104 grants directly. In Mississippi, our targeted brownfield assessment efforts have helped communities like Alligator, Eupora, and Utica, places that would otherwise struggle to access these resources. Supporting state-administered assistance for these communities ensures that no community is left behind and that rural America can fully participate in redevelopment opportunities.
The proposed increase to 104k funding is much needed also, but without bolstering state, tribal, brownfield support, reaching rural and small communities is not achievable. Across the nation, states, and tribes seize the opportunity provided by the IIJA supplemental 128a funds to elevate and enhance their brownfield programs to reach communities in the greatest need. There's a need to continue the support. States recognize the importance of using brownfield sites in innovative ways to meet growing needs and emergence challenges, and ECOS looks forward to and welcomes the opportunity to engage with the members of the subcommittee to ensure that enhancements to the program are just that, beneficial to the program and enhance what is already working. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Thank you for your opening statement. Mister Pounce, you're now recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have the opportunity to speak before the committee today. I have spent almost the entire portion of my 40 years of career in the environmental area in redeveloping brownfield properties across the country and in structuring the financing and the economic incentives to make these properties work. But it's not just a professional interest of mine. I grew up in a cotton mill village in a small part of Eastern Alabama, and my father and my uncle worked in that mill.
And if the mill closed forty years ago. And if you drove by that site today, what you're going to see is a shell of a building and rubble, forty years later. And besides the job losses, what's really disappointing about that is the fact that you have massive infrastructure that exists that previously served the mill. Power, water, rail, and those are the opportunities that we are losing and that we are wasting. I would offer after forty years in this business that there are two fundamental conclusions I've come to.
One is that if we want effective cleanup, and by the way, all of these programs should be judged not upon the dollar spent, but upon was cleanup actually accomplished at the end of the day. And I have seen that if you want effective cleanup, the best way to get it is by incentivizing the private sector to undertake this cleanup as part of redevelopment efforts. It's consistent with the construction that occurs, and it's consistent with the liquidity that is generated as part of these transactions. And at the end of the day, once again, the measuring sticks should solely be: did cleanup occur? I would note also that there are significant challenges to the private sector in undertaking this cleanup.
In most instances, it is going to be much better for them financially, without incentives, to go to another location, to go to a greenfield site. And that's what we must somehow bridge the gap on, is that business decision, that primary business decision that they need to go somewhere else to make the dollars work. That to me is the issue that we see and deal with constantly. Now there are other issues associated with Brownfield sites, is the cost. It's the uncertainty of where we get to finish.
Three, it's the fact of the timing, and I can't overemphasize the issues we have with respect to redeveloping these properties in terms of timing and in terms of waiting on regulatory approvals. What would I suggest as solutions? Number one, and this will come to discussion on grants, is let's get these properties from federal jurisdiction down to state brownfield programs. Why do I suggest this? State offers various state brownfield programs and offer many incentives for cleanup, including financial incentives in the way of property tax relief or income tax relief.
Two, the state has the ability at the state level to implement the cleanup, approve the cleanup, and oversee the cleanup on a much more rapid basis, dealing with the time issues we've talked about. And third, if you look at state programs, I'll give you an example. If you look at the state programs, they have been the programs that demonstrated effectiveness. And I'll give you one example. Georgia's brownfield program.
I'm from Atlanta and have been involved in a lot of developments, including a number in Georgia. Georgia's brownfield program has had almost 1,600 sites go into the program, and 900 exit that program with cleaned up sites. That program's been around for roughly 20 years. If you looked at the state super fund program, which relies on enforcement agencies, we have half that number that have gone on the super fund, and only a third of those have been cleaned up. And that's it, almost twice the time.
So you can see the huge benefit of incentivizing these brownfield cleanups, particularly getting them down to the state level. Second issue I would note is we need to clarify the innocent owner, bona fide purchaser of provisions encircula. They've been subject to too much interpretation by agencies and have had the result has been that it has delayed or caused uncertainty in the market. And three, I would like some consideration to be made as to whether it's possible to accelerate the NEPA review process. I'm not suggesting it'd be eliminated altogether, but is there some way to accelerate it so that we don't get to know by never saying yes, which I fear is where we have become.
On the grants, I would close by noting the following. I do think it's important for grant money to be made available to these state brownfield programs so they can go out and do the lion's share of the work. I would also note that we should be focused on programs that are at or near shovel-ready, because once again, the measure should be, is cleanup actually taking place? And I would close with those remarks.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. The chair now recognizes Mayor Thompson. I understand you're in the beat navy.
Speaker 3
Beat the navy. I'll give us some fellow grad. So, thank you. So, Mister Mayor Thompson, you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. What class?
I was 87. What are you?
Speaker 7
Chairman Guthrie, ranking member Tonko. Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Doctor Alan Thompson. I'm proudly serving in my third term as mayor of Davis, West Virginia, where I have lived with my wife since retiring from an army career that began at West Point and concluded in service as a senior executive at the major general equivalent level. Davis is a town of roughly 800 residents in the Allegheny Highlands, about three hours from Washington, DC, surrounded by Blackwater Falls State Park and the Monongahela National Forest.
Tourism and outdoor recreation power our economy. The late senator Byrd called this region the scenic crown jewel of West Virginia, a description that still holds true. Despite our size, we welcome up to 20,000 visitors each week. Today, I speak on behalf of the National Brownfield Coalition with a simple message. The EPA Brownfields program works.
It is one of the strongest examples of federalism and public-private partnership helping communities clean up contaminated properties and return them to productive use, creating jobs, growing local economies, and improving quality of life. We strongly support a clean reauthorization. What we oppose are proposals that would fundamentally alter the program, drain limited resources, and undermine local communities. In Davis, we have seen this program's success. An abandoned contaminated gas station on our main street was transformed with EPA brownfield support into a thriving business that generates jobs and tax revenue.
That's exactly what this program was designed to do. At the same time, we face a very different proposal. A private LLC seeking to build a 1,600-megawatt power plant in support of a data center complex of up to 10,000 acres just outside our downtown on a brownfield site. This project would fundamentally alter our tourism economy, landscape, public health, and community character. Davis strongly opposes it.
The fact is that the brownfield site, because it is a brownfield site, doesn't automatically make the project appropriate. Under the legislative package before you, such a project could be labeled a nationally significant infrastructure facility. It would receive priority access to EPA brownfield funds and be exempt from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. Therefore, eliminating meaningful local consent, the prospect that deeply concerns brownfield communities nationwide. The brownfields program has always been about helping communities, not subsidizing billion-dollar industrial ventures.
Meanwhile, funding is projected to drop sharply from nearly $350,000,000 annually to $98,000,000 when the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act support ends in 2026. There are an estimated 450,000 brownfield sites nationwide. And with fewer than half of the grant applications funded, the program is already oversubscribed. We should not allow private LLCs to compete directly with small towns, cities, states, and nonprofits for scarce dollars. The current proposal would create three major problems.
First, making private for-profit LLCs eligible for direct grants, diverting funds from local governments and nonprofits. Second, granting preferential treatment and NEPA exemptions for heavy industrial use, thus removing an essential safeguard that ensures community input. And finally, creating a duplicative financing structure that would concentrate funds in the handful of very large projects. These changes are unnecessary. The existing framework already supports public-private collaboration, and revolving loan funds provide low-interest financing to private developers.
The structure works. What we need now is stability and certainty. The National Brownfield Coalition supports a clean reauthorization that authorizes robust funding up to $450,000,000 annually, raises per grant caps for assessment, cleanup, and multipurpose grants, provides flexibility for support in rural communities, including potential match waivers, strengthens state programs, and removes the arbitrary 5% administrative cost cap for brownfield guarantees. What we support is reinstating the brownfield tax incentive, which previously helped drive private cleanup investment nationwide. Let me close with this.
We all support infrastructure, energy independence, and innovation. But heavy industry can thrive without diverting brownfields funding, sidelining states, or overriding local voices. The EPA brownfield program is not broken. Please do not fix it in a way that breaks it. On behalf of the National Brownfields Coalition and the people of Davis, I thank you and look forward to your questions.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Mister Robinson, you are now recognized for your 5 minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Palone, and the members of the committee and the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am Dave Robinson, EVP of Aligned Data Centers. Aligned is an industry-leading provider of innovative, sustainable, and adaptive digital infrastructure, powering the world's most complex and demanding work, cloud, and AI workloads. To date, Aligned is investing over $45,000,000,000 in its 57 US data centers in nine sites, nine states, and currently has over 1,000 employees globally.
We will need to invest tens of billions of additional dollars and more than double our headcount. I'm here today to share what Aligned has done to reclaim remnants of America's past and optimize them as we build America's future economy. We're admittedly biased, but firmly believe that data centers provide an ideal opportunity for leveraging and repurposing brownfield sites to grow investment, jobs, tax revenues, and supply chain ecosystems. Right now, our nation is racing to deploy the infrastructure required to lead the world in artificial intelligence and cloud computing. This is not just a technological race.
It's a critical national security imperative. But we face a choice on where to build. At Align, we believe that one of the most effective solutions is to revitalize and repurpose our nation's dormant industrial sites. Where possible, we prioritize the redevelopment of brownfields and try to transform these properties into high value community assets, bringing them back into productive, sustainable use. The reality of acquiring these brownfield sites is that they're rarely turnkey.
Any reuse requires comprehensive environmental remediation to protect our employees, contractors, and customers who will be at those sites, while also benefiting the surrounding community by removing existing risks. We abate these legacy hazards and restore the property to a safe standard. We're a firm believer in the power of public and private partnerships and believe the federal government has an important role to play in encouraging and incentivizing redevelopment of brownfield sites through these programs that remove regulatory barriers and accelerate permitting and other regulatory processes. These industrial sites often possess exactly what the digital economy requires. Substantial land area, robust existing utility infrastructure, and favorable industrial zoning.
By maximizing these legacy assets, we not only expedite the deployment of critical computing infrastructure, but we do so while improving local environmental conditions. We believe that data centers are among the best developments for the communities. Not only do they bring significant capital investment and jobs into communities, they can provide outsized local tax revenues without corresponding burdens on police and fire services, local schools, or roads that other large-scale projects might present. Some examples of what Aligned is doing to put this into practice. In Perkins Township, Ohio, which is in Erie County, Aligned is breathing new life into a shuttered manufacturing plant, a cornerstone of America bearing America's bearing production for nearly 70 years at the time of its closing.
In its place, we're constructing a state-of-the-art digital campus, anchoring the greater Sandusky regional economy for a new era of tech progress. Local leaders share that this revitalization has become a powerful symbol of civic pride. For nearly a decade, millions of families drove past this site on their way to the Cedar Point amusement park and saw a hulking, abandoned, decaying industrial facility. Now our data center campus is a modern testament to Perkins Township's forward-looking future. In West Jordan, Utah, we transformed a semiconductor facility built in the late 70s that sat empty for over five years.
Today, it's a functioning three-building data center campus hosting prominent tech companies, driving tax revenue and job creation. In Frederick, Maryland, the former East Alcoa aluminum manufacturing site is getting a second life, bringing stable tax revenue and high paying jobs, but also investments in robust fiber connectivity. In Konesville, Ohio, we transformed a former coal-fired power plant into a massive data center campus. We're in the process of doing that. Beyond comprehensive environmental remediation, our reuse strategy also reduces the strain on local watersheds.
By transitioning these properties from heavy manufacturing to modern digital infrastructure, we dramatically reduce water usage. In Perkins Township, for example, we reduce the amount of water consumed by 99% compared to the historical use. The economic ripple effect of this strategy is profound. Since 2017, the data center industry's total tax contributions have surged to over $162,000,000,000 in 2023. In Loudoun County, Virginia alone, data centers contribute more than 1,000,000,000 in local tax revenue this year, which is 45% of the county's budget.
Significant increases as well in neighboring Prince William County, where the tax revenues have grown by 953% since just 2020. Each of our brownfield sites fuels thousands of local construction jobs and hundreds of long-term operational roles. By prioritizing local vendors, we invest in the community. Members of the committee, if America is going to win the global AI race, we cannot afford to be stalled by a lack of infrastructure. America's abandoned factories and closed plants should not be monuments to a bygone era.
They are the blueprints for our future. By incentivizing redevelopment of Brownfields' internationally significant infrastructure facilities, you can help us clean up our environment, revitalize local economies, and build the critical infrastructure required to secure American technological dominance for decades to come. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 8
I thank you all for your testimony. We will now move into the question and answer portion of the hearing. I will begin the questioning and recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mister Griffith, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Mister Ponzi, I represent a very rural part of Virginia, and we often hear that brownfield grants help pay for broad-based testing that identifies contamination. But rural communities and organizations are not ultimately then awarded brownfield grants for further cleanup. How can we encourage more cleanup and not just site assessment in rural areas?
Speaker 6
Good question. We struggle with that throughout the South as well. I do there are a couple of thoughts that come to mind in that regard. Number one is there is having someone, developer of some product, having someone at the table working with the community when those funds are awarded. I would much rather see funds spent toward assessment and then immediate cleanup, rather than seeing funds spent toward assessment, a report, and then it being put in a drawer and the drawer closed, which is what I fear we see too often.
Speaker 6
And so I do think that it's you've gotta have someone at the table as part of that process in my mind that's prepared to move forward to some level of redevelopment.
Speaker 10
Should we have, should we have in the bills some set aside funds for rural areas so that doesn't happen?
Speaker 6
I don't think that you're going to see the brownfield successful process extend beyond urban cores, and extend beyond ports and other major industrial areas without having some set aside for the rural communities.
Speaker 10
I appreciate that. Now I'm gonna switch gears, and we don't have a bill in front of us today that would do this. But in one of the previous hearings that we had on Brownfield, somebody came up with a suggestion, and I happen to like it a lot. And that was we do pre clearance, that not depending on the industry or such, but that if a community wanted to invest the money, they had a site. And I have a town in my district I'm thinking of, actually, a little city that's got a site.
And if they could get it pre cleared, it would make it so much more marketable for companies if they knew that the Brownfield site was precleared, all the stuff had already been done, and they had a seal of I call it the good housekeeping seal of approval. I guess it'd be the EPA good housekeeping seal. But so that the company coming in wouldn't have to wait six months. For additional reports and studies, they could move right in if they wanted to. Yeah.
Your thoughts on that?
Speaker 6
Yeah. Congressman, I'd a couple of aspects on that. One is I don't think you could be in a position where you can, where it's gonna be cost effective to both investigate and clean up the site before you market it to the developer. The reason for that is because very often that construction process is comparable to or an integral part of the cleanup process. And so it's much more cost effective for that developer and for the community and for the grant itself if you're able to, if you do the testing.
You've had input into the testing because that's gonna be consistent with what your structure is going to be, and then you're able to take that testing and implement the cleanup as part of the redevelopment itself. And that that's what I think is a little bit of the hurdle there to try to pre clear these rural sites, and then bring the developer in. The successful rural development we have done, and candidly, that includes some data centers which have been, have been in those instances where we had some level of testing done, but we went in and helped orchestrate the testing in terms of how it would fit the development that was occurring. And then we spent the, and then we were able to integrate the development into the cleanup.
Speaker 10
Well, I appreciate that input. I would just say the site I'm thinking of, and you nailed it with the plant that your father had worked at. Here we have a facility that's got everything you need. And before the infrastructure goes away or falls apart, the community wants to do something with it. They have acquired ownership.
Mhmm. And it sure would be helpful if we could figure out some way to fast track it, if we could. So any ideas that you have after this hearing, please don't hesitate to let me know. I would greatly appreciate it.
Speaker 8
The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonka, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I stated earlier, I would like us to focus our attention on areas of consensus. Mayor Thompson, both Republicans and Democrats have proposals that would raise the maximum Brownfield's award from 500,000 to 1,000,000. Do you support that change, and why is it important, if you do, to allow the EPA the flexibility to provide larger awards?
Speaker 7
I think the increase in grant awards is welcome. There are projects that right now could use more funding to be able to be done, and that would allow more brownfields, facilities, and sites to be addressed and taken care of so that they can be put back into service and be productive in terms of revenue and job creation.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And, mister Wells, based on your experience, would larger awards be helpful for some communities to remediate bigger and more complex properties?
Speaker 5
Thank you for the question. And the short answer is absolutely. I mean, at the end of the day, what we're facing is an ever increasing cost of doing business, and that applies in this realm as it does in many others.
Speaker 2
K. Thank you. And Republicans and Democrats have also both proposed allowing the EPA to waive cost share requirements in certain circumstances. This is also a feature that Brownfield funding included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. So, Mayor Thompson, back to you again.
Can you talk about how cost-share requirements can be a barrier for some communities to pursue an EPA grant? And do you believe waiving these requirements for struggling communities is warranted? I do believe it's warranted. For example,
Speaker 7
When you look at rural and small communities, in Davis, we have a budget of about $2,000,000. We have to provide water. We have to provide sanitary sewer, public works. We have to buy equipment and replace assets. We don't have that much discretionary funds to be able to fund, you know, all of the requirements that come under a brownfield program.
To get a waiver of the cost share is a significant impact for small and rural communities in a very positive way, and it would be very welcome.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And, mister Wells, I'm sure you work with some disadvantage in the rural communities in Mississippi. Could avoiding a cost share make or break a project for some communities?
Speaker 5
I think absolutely yes is the answer. The cost share waiver would certainly ease access for certain communities as the mayor alluded to. But I also think that it's important not to lose sight of the support at the state level through the 128 grants to the state agencies to provide technical assistance and so forth. So I think the two are kind of hand-in-hand.
Speaker 2
Thank you. I believe that the views we've just heard on these policy changes are broadly shared by local and state government stakeholders and should serve as the foundation for a bipartisan reauthorization effort. One of my concerns with the majority's proposals is that they take resources away from limited, oversubscribed assessment and remediation grants. This includes the Brownfields Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, which would provide opportunities for loans instead of providing grants, to more communities. Those loans would be focused on data centers, critical mineral processing, and semiconductor manufacturing.
Local governments and the people they represent should have a say in the types of economic development projects in their communities. So, Thompson, how do you feel about more dollars being directed to these types of projects in the form of loans at the expense of grants going to a wider range of projects that a community may be interested in developing, such as affordable housing?
Speaker 7
We very much wanna see that the dollars in the Brownfield program stay in the entities that are qualified for those programs today. I think to make more organizations or public businesses eligible for brownfields funding dilutes the resources that are available, and it hampers local and public sector entities from being able to compete. So there is a revolving loan program, and it's working. But it needs more dollars and more resources put into it, so that it can be more effective as a revolving fund. Right now, it's very limited.
It worked. It needs more resourcing, and I think it would do a great job if you can do that.
Speaker 2
I thank you for that. I see my time has expired. So I thank you, and Mr. Chair, yield back.
Speaker 8
The ranking member yields. I will continue the questioning and recognize myself for five minutes. As we've held hearings in congress to examine how policy can help spur economic growth while balancing environmental protection needs, it's become incredibly clear that federal investment works best when used to leverage local resources and development interests. Development of brownfields is a prime example of this dynamic. These sites would be right for redevelopment if not for the additional challenges represented by the potential presence of hazardous substances.
This makes the reuse of these brownfields more difficult and resource-intensive, an additional burden to development that is especially difficult for under-resourced areas like those that I represent. When a community is interested in turning a brownfield site from an abandoned or underutilized property into a viable economic engine, the EPA's brownfields program can help lessen that burden and provide the initial push needed for private investment to take interest. Mister Pouncey, you discussed the importance of public-private partnership in your written testimony. How do you usually come about, and how could the EPA's Brownfields program better support these public-private partnerships?
Speaker 6
Most of these public partnerships are with a local development authority and a developer, some developer who is looking to come in and bring business or industry into that area. And that might be as a result of the economic development authority approaching them to bring this investment in. And the economic development authority may have located a site or a group of sites that has been pitched to the developer, and the developers agreed to move forward with those. Those sites may be impacted, often they are. And the approach in that instance would be, and it can either be were there to be some amendments.
It could either be a joint application by the private developer and the public entity to get this money so that it can be used for cleanup to allow that project to go forward. Or in some instances, it can be a grant that is made to the public and the development authority. Currently, that would be the structure, and then we reach an agreement regarding who then implements the cleanup.
Speaker 8
Mister Palencia, how could the focus in the Brownfield Inventory and Permitting Efficiency Act on identifying Brownfield sites be ideal for reuse for a nationally significant infrastructure? How could that help with encouraging the private sector that you just mentioned to have that investment in former industrial areas and the large brownfield sites that you mentioned in your testimony? Right. Right.
Speaker 6
I could point to two things there which are absolutely critical. One is some database under the EPA, and we have worked I've worked on some organizations to help create that, a database that identifies these impacted sites and shows certain critical components such as proximity to utilities, such as proximity to transportation corridors, other things like that, which the local community could then use to present this. So I think that's one way to accomplish that is this database or list. And then I think too, in terms of encouraging that type of development, that type of cooperation, I think there is some measure of support from grants that might assist with that as well.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Mister Wells, in your written testimony, you stated that any new program should avoid duplicative requirements and diversion of funds from traditional brownfield grants. Do you think that loan and loan guarantees that we are discussing today would be helpful when addressing any gaps in needs that our existing revolving loan programs is a top of mind subject that could be part of that? You think that could have an effective use?
Speaker 5
I think that revolving loan funds programs have been proven to be successful in other settings. I think it can work here. I think the concern from the state regulator standpoint is the existing program is functions. It functions well. It's been successful.
And the concern would be that any enhancement to the program that would divert funds from the core program could be problematic or it could reduce the effectiveness of the core program. Those enhancements are there's some good ideas, but if they can be implemented in such a way as to not divert funds away from the core program, I think that would be the best of both worlds. I think it says, taking some sort of all of the above approach would make sense.
Speaker 8
Communities are highly motivated to get these brownfield sites back up and running. I think we can all recognize that today. They benefit local economies. And beyond that, I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee to bolster efforts from both sides of the aisle through targeted and effective federal assistance. Thank you, and I yield back.
I now recognize the ranking member of the entire committee, Mister Palone, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for joining us today. I wanted to mention the bipartisan infrastructure law, which included 1,500,000,000 for the Brownfields program and was a big boost to the program. And while we might not authorize that level of funding this year, we must ensure we do not slow the momentum. Brownfield sites are getting harder to remediate and clean up, so authorization levels need to reflect that reality.
And that's why my draft bill ensures funding increases for the program over the next five years. Now I wanted to go to Mayor Thompson and Mister Wells. From your perspective, how important is it for Congress to reauthorize the Brownfields program with robust funding, especially for the planning of important projects that are in the pipeline? I have one more question. So I'm gonna maybe spend a minute or so on each of these, if you will, mister Wells.
Speaker 5
I can answer that simply. I think any increase in the funding would be helpful to the program and would foster even more good work.
Speaker 4
What about the fact that, as I mentioned, that it's getting harder to remediate these sites and clean them up. Is that a factor too in terms of the authorization?
Speaker 5
I think that's arguably a factor. It would support an increase in funding.
Speaker 7
I agree completely with that. When the infrastructure investment and jobs act was passed and that 1,500,000,000 was infused into the system, it made all the difference in the world. It was so important to the recipients of Brownfield grants to have those funds available. And to reauthorize something on a similar basis for another 5 or 6 years would be significant and very important.
Speaker 4
I appreciate that. I wanna issue one more question, but I do wanna say, you know, we know that state budgets are very strained right now. Constrained, is that the word? And, you know, I sometimes hear people say, well, you know, the states are on their own. We don't need to give grants out, blah blah blah.
But, I mean, reality is that they just don't have much money. Right? And so I think part of the reason why we need to have robust funding is that they're not gonna be able to do this on their own as well. But my question, the question I wanted to issue though, was, you the Republican discussion address would open the constrained amounts of funding to private companies and prioritize the interests of these industries over local communities, in my opinion. That's my concern.
So, Mary, it sounds like you're dealing with a situation in Davis that might be relevant to this. Are you concerned with the Republican drafts giving private companies access to Brownfield grants? Is this how you think the program should work? Or just comment on that, if you will, from your perspective, practically.
Speaker 7
Thank you for the question. I think right now the program in its current construct works very well. There's limited resources available. So the program is oversubscribed. If we open it up to the private sector, then I think that makes it more difficult for local governments and municipalities and nonprofits to be able to seek the scarce dollars that are in the program.
So we really don't want to see it expanded to include other entities that would compete for those limited funds.
Speaker 4
Alright. And, you know, I guess, as you know, we have my bill. We have Republican bills. But what I really want, I'm concerned about these incentives for the private sector, as you say. And I think, I guess I'm saying to my Republican colleagues here today that we focus on the core purpose of the program, which was, you know, funding that went to states or localities.
I think we can get a strong reauthorization bill across the finish line in time. I'm concerned that if the Republicans insist on, you know, opening it up to private companies, it's gonna make it very difficult for us to come to an agreement, come to a consensus. Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you, miss, thank you, madam chair.
Speaker 11
Now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans, for five minutes.
Speaker 12
Well, thank you, Chair Ranking Member, for holding this hearing. Thank you, of course, to all of the witnesses for coming today. As we talk about potential legislation to unleash America's brownfield sites, I strongly believe that bipartisan permitting reform is within our reach of this Congress. I've supported it across a wide range of different avenues. This congress, in this committee, we have the FIRE Act, voted in support of the Speed Act, partnering with some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make sure that we can actually build and produce things again in The United States.
And I'm so pleased to see some of these permitting reform ideas included in the Brownfields Inventory and Permitting Efficiency Act that will prioritize projects that significantly support American manufacturing, position us to be able to win the AI race, and reduce our emissions. And this can all be done without compromising our environmental stewardship or the public's ability to be involved and give feedback on some of these projects and reuses for brownfield sites. So first question to Mr. Thompson. Mayor Thompson, would you be able to share just how some of these measures that we're discussing today would encourage siting projects in areas that will minimize environmental impact and maximize economic benefit, places like brownfield sites.
Speaker 7
Thank you. I think as far as the, you know, the inventory of brownfield sites out there, and the program helps fund organizations that are ready to tackle those sites. That doesn't mean that entities outside of what's right now within the sphere of the possible couldn't redevelop those brownfield sites without taking funds from the brownfield program. That's the issue we have. It's kind of the haves and the have nots.
When you're talking about building a data center complex of $2.03, $4,000,000,000, that's significant money. But as far as when you're competing with entities that are down in the millions of dollars level, there's no comparison. For us, it's all or nothing. We can't do it without the Brownfield program. But a data center complex, a power plant, those entities, they can build those with the existing resources that they already have.
So we really.
Speaker 12
Don't, that makes perfect sense. Limited resources. How do we make sure that this is available to a wide range of folks in the community to be able to serve that community's interests, and also be able to responsibly use those sites? I'd worked for the municipal government for ten years. I got to be the guy that got assigned to go read all of the land development code.
I was a cop. But I had to go read all the land development code and figure out how we could do some of the urban renewal, and revitalize some of these areas. And that's critically important to me and my district. I represent North Denver suburbs in the Northern Colorado area, with a lot of traditional industrial hubs along I-25. We've got a lot of brownfield sites scattered throughout the region.
And so my next question will be to Mister Palince. Just wanna hear your thoughts as we talk about making these programs more efficient, more accessible so that more people, as the mayor was talking about, more people can access these. Would being able to incorporate previous environmental assessments or reviews or other information gathered into the current permitting process for redevelopments help to make these funds in this program more accessible to medium and smaller sized users?
Speaker 6
Congressman Evans, let me try to respond, because I think there are two or three questions within there. One, there's no doubt that anything that can be done to expedite the review of permitting, whether that is local permitting, whether that is state permitting on the environmental side, whether that is federal permitting on the NEPA side, there's no doubt that has a tremendous impact upon the ability to successfully do these projects, do these roundfoot projects. That's without question. And the biggest enemy on these projects, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes we get to know it because no one ever says yes. And I've seen that time and time again.
The one comment I wanna make that is contrary to some of the other testimony here is I look at smaller towns, and I look at whether a developer is willing to invest in redevelopment in these smaller areas, these less populated areas. The due diligence cost for me to do a smaller development on a brownfield in a smaller town are often prohibitive. I'm spending five or 10 times as much money on due diligence as I would spend if it's a greenfield site. And at the end of the day, we should measure all of this by, are we getting more cleanups accomplished? And so I think that's one instance which I could see funds being available to the private side, where that then gives them the ability to conduct the due diligence associated with a development in a smaller town, where I could see that has some benefits.
Speaker 11
Now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for five minutes.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Chairwoman. The EPA's brownfields program drives economic development while protecting families from toxic contamination. A great example of this in my district is Groundwork Elizabeth, which will use $500,000 in brownfields funding to train the next generation of our environmental workforce. Across New Jersey, these investments have transformed contaminated properties into parks and other projects that benefit our communities. Unfortunately, the Republican brownfields reauthorization bills would undermine this important work by allowing polluting industries, including fossil fuel power plants and big tech data centers, to access these limited federal funds.
I believe that this committee has work to do to support artificial intelligence and invest in our nation's future, but growth requires sensible guardrails. EPA's brownfields program exists to support community revitalization, not to further subsidize the fossil fuel industry or provide handouts to AI data centers that are driving up utility bills for our constituents. These Republican proposals prioritize energy generation facilities that could burn coal, oil, and gas for Brownfields funding while completely removing the current criteria for clean energy projects. Mayor Thompson, would you agree that prioritizing these energy and pollution-intensive facilities could have negative effects on the communities living near Brownfield sites?
Speaker 7
Agree completely. Within the town of Davis, we have a proposed power plant that's gonna burn natural gas and diesel fuel, and that's going to power a data center complex. And in the haste of trying to permit that facility, steps were excluded from the process to ensure safety of the people that live in close proximity to that plant. We had a study done by Harvard and MIT to look at the effects of the dispersion modeling, and it came back and said one or two people might die every year. Five or six people would develop asthma that didn't have it previously, and the cost of medical situations would be anywhere from 19 to $35,000,000 a year.
So we really need some protection. We can't just, in haste, say we need to do all these things and forget about the human cost that could be a trade-off.
Speaker 13
I appreciate you sharing that, because these sites would contribute to the very pollution that brownfield funds are intended to remediate. In addition to propping up fossil fuels, these Republican bills would also allow data centers to access brownfield funding. But our friends and neighbors have legitimate concerns about data centers' impacts on our air quality and drinking water. In Mississippi, 27 gas turbines help power Elon Musk's AI data center, worsening air quality and the surrounding community. And we're also seeing reports that raise alarms about data centers' overall impact on our water supply.
Mayor Thompson, in your experience, would you agree that building more data centers with brownfield funds could worsen environmental burdens on our communities, including increasing air pollution and impacting our water supply? Just yes or no, if you don't mind.
Speaker 13
I appreciate that. To help our communities fully understand the environmental impacts of data centers, I introduced the Data Center Transparency Act, which would bring greater transparency to the water and energy consumption of data centers, as well as the air pollution they emit. We need to ensure these facilities do not harm the health of the people whom we represent. We've also seen significant concerns about the quality of life issues that data centers create. For example, Mississippi residents describe the noise from the turbines I described earlier as, quote, "excruciating."
Mayor Thompson, would you agree that building more data centers with brownfields funds could worsen noise pollution and other quality of life concerns in the surrounding communities? Just yes or no?
Speaker 13
I appreciate it because we heard earlier from Mister Robbins about some of the benefits, but there's also an immense number of harm that could be caused. We should not use funds to make quality of life worse, or to make our energy dirtier or utility bills more expensive. Yet Republicans are proposing bills to incentivize the development of data centers that drive the energy affordability issue without a real plan to lower energy cost. I'm concerned that directing millions of dollars in federal funds to data centers could make the energy affordability issue worse when all we have is a handshake deal between President Trump and big tech. I can't support a bill that gives more handouts to the very companies driving up energy prices for working families.
Companies building data centers can and should provide their own renewable energy and use their own financial resources instead of public funds. In my legislation, the price act would require data centers to generate the electricity that they consume, and do so with 100% renewable energy by 2040. So I'm disappointed that these proposals would deliver more expensive energy, increase pollution, and reduce investment in our communities. I urge my colleagues to return to the table to negotiate a reauthorization that puts our communities first. I yield back.
Speaker 11
I now recognize the general lady from North Dakota, Miss Podorchik, for five minutes.
Speaker 14
Thank you, madam chair, and thanks to the committee leaders for organizing this great hearing today. Thank you all for sharing your expertise as well. Mayor, I'm intrigued by you. I come from the state of North Dakota, and we have lots of small communities of 800 families, much like what you described as your community. So I first want to know a little bit more about the Brownfield site in your community.
What created it?
Speaker 7
It was created by funds that came from the EPA through the state of West Virginia.
Speaker 7
That had polluted the soil around it, it needed to be mitigated. And once that site was cleaned up, it was repurposed, and now it's serving as a brewery. And, we get a lot of benefit from that. So, we're very happy with the jobs it's created, the revenue that it's producing for the area, and the fact that we took a site or a facility that was unusable and untenable and made it something productive.
Speaker 14
And do you that that's a great story. Do you have a data center that's being proposed in your community as well, on a brownfield site?
Speaker 7
We do. It's a brownfield site. They're proposing to build the gas power plant that I talked about earlier. Mhmm. And then that would power not the grid, but the data center complex that would be built around it.
And it's not that we're against data centers per se. Mhmm. What we're against is having the data centers compete for the brownfield funding that's so limited because, again, the order of magnitude is so different between the two entities.
Speaker 14
Do you have a permitting process for your data centers that address the noise and the traffic and all the issues that any large industrial development would have on your community?
Speaker 7
In West Virginia, the situation's a little different. There was a legislation passed by the state that basically omits local voice in the process at all. So everything is done at the capital and with the developer, and the counties and the municipalities have no say whatsoever. No ordinance, regulations, or anything else would apply to the permitting of that facility.
Speaker 14
Okay. Alright. And I'm sure that you participate in the process when that law was passed.
Speaker 14
Okay. What would you think, what would you define? You raised concerns about community involvement. What would you define as sufficient engagement in this process?
Speaker 7
Well, I think it always helps to have a dialogue. I think all the players need to come to the table. And I've often said that, in our situation, if the state, the developer, and the local community could come together and form a triad where there is that dialogue, then better solutions can often be found. We have a number of brownfield sites in the area. And what I've tried to explain to people is that if you just move 12 miles down the road, it would be a more palatable site in terms of a location for that facility.
But I still would say that it should not be competing for brownfield dollars.
Speaker 14
And so I'm sure that you're also, as a mayor, worried about jobs and opportunities for future residents in your community, which this new industry would also offer. Correct?
Speaker 7
Yeah. It's looking at jobs. It's looking at the revenue. It's also looking at the lives and the well-being of the people of the community. And that's why, again, fundamentally, we're not against data centers.
We're not against AI. We're not against quantum computing and all those kinds of things that go with it. From a national security perspective, I get it. We need to disperse those facilities around the country, but we need to make sure that we put them in an appropriate location so that it doesn't have secondary effects that are detrimental to people or to other factors. Very supportive of jobs and revenue.
Speaker 14
Yep. And that's where I think we all have to step back a little bit. I think there's an awful lot of demonizing that's going on everywhere in our country right now as it relates to data centers and development. These facilities are manufacturing intelligence for us, for the betterment of human beings. We need to do this in our country, and it isn't a choice of one or the other.
We can do both. We can develop this industry. We can protect local communities, and we can protect our national security, and create more opportunities for the future. But when we get stuck in these kinds of partisan conversations where it's one or the other or false choices, that's where people feel trapped, and we get stuck. So we just have to be open and be able to have good conversations and input and deal with facts, not scare tactics.
So thank you for being here. I appreciate all of your input.
Speaker 1
I yield back. General lady yields. The chair now recognized. Gentlemen from California, Mr. Ruiz. Four or five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One year ago, we met to discuss why the Brownsfields program remains one of the most effective and cost-efficient tools for economic revitalization, especially in communities where contamination, disinvestment, and affordability pressures compound each other every day. Brownsville sites, abandoned industrial facilities, gas stations, dry cleaners, landfills are not just environmental hazards. They are economic wounds. When left untreated, they depress property values, threaten public health, and block the housing and jobs working families need.
And as a doctor, I know you do not heal wounds by ignoring them. In districts like mine, across the Imperial, Coachella, and San Jacinto Valleys, this is a daily reality. The Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields programs offers a proven bipartisan solution, creating jobs, unlocking private investment, easing housing pressures, and restoring community dignity. When contaminated land sits idle, communities lose housing, small businesses, and tax revenue. Families pay the price through higher rents and fewer opportunities.
Brownsville remediation house breaks that cycle, and we have already seen that progress in my district. This is the case in point. In 2019, the city of Brawley facilitated the redevelopment of the Lasica property, a long-vacated contaminated site that had been a public burden. Through Brownsville remediation, that property was transformed into a thriving local car repair business, creating good-paying jobs and renewed economic activity in a community that had waited far too long. That is not an outlier.
That is what this program was built to do when we give it the resources it needs. So, mister Wells, from your experience, what keeps small, rural, and low-income communities from participating in the Brownsville program, and what changes or funding would make the biggest difference in making sure these communities benefit from the program?
Speaker 5
Well, as I said earlier, I think the cost-share waiver is a good idea. I think that limited funds are always a hurdle for small communities. That's why I think that some sort of all of the above approach makes sense. I don't think that, while I tend to agree that private sector entities competing with limited funds can be an issue, I think that excluding private parties from the programs or from benefiting from the program would be as big a mistake. I think that is that I'm a big believer in public private partnerships.
I think when we're talking about economic development through the redevelopment of brownfields, you can't have economic development without the private sector.
Speaker 15
So give me what would a public-private partnership look like in your opinion to help these lower income communities who all oftentimes face difficulty recruiting private industry?
Speaker 5
Sure. Well, and I think that's where a program like the Brownfield program is helpful for those communities. And removing hurdles from their access to the program is important.
Speaker 15
Okay. Thank you. So Brownfield's redevelopment is a powerful, often overlooked sustainability tool. Reusing existing land protects open space, reduces infrastructure costs, and shortens commutes that worsen air pollution, especially in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys where I live and represent. Mister Thompson, your community is fighting a power plant and data center development and threats to increase air pollution.
Can you talk about how certain choices on Brownfields could actually harm more than help the community surrounding the site?
Speaker 7
Sure. I think, you know, I talked about the detrimental effects of the toxic emissions being in close proximity to where the town of Davis is. And because of the particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less, it's so pervasive. And because of prevailing winds and temperature inversions, we live in an area that threatens human health. And so that's why we're a proponent of having the site move somewhere else where it can function safely and not harm individuals.
Speaker 15
Potentially the site. You just wanted to make sure that it's moved somewhere else to protect the air quality of the people who breathe in proximity to the site.
Speaker 15
Okay. Okay. So, thank you. The Brownsville program helps clean up contamination, create jobs, lower costs for families, and give communities the path forward, instead of keeping them stuck in the past. That is why we must not corrupt this program.
We must protect and fully fund it. So I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky. The chairman of the pool committee, mister Guthrie, has five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Appreciate it very much. So, in Kentucky, we have an idle aluminum smelting facility that was recently sold to a company looking to place a data center on the property. The site transition must be done properly, of course. But I think this is the type of redevelopment of brownfield sites we should be encouraging.
Rather than allowing these sites to remain idle, as Mister Pouncey said, Alabama has been there for 40 years empty. Instead of idle, we should reallocate, we should have relocation of innovative new industries. And so this is an area that had a smelter. The smelter decided to shut down and had transmission lines, has 450 megawatts of power that has been dedicated to the smelter from the user. Now we have a data center that wants to come to town.
The community has a 3% utility tax already in place because of the data center. And they're probably gonna have the wealthiest school system in Kentucky once this data center shows up by empower. So there's absolutely proper ways to do this. So, mister Robinson, how do companies such as Aligned locate ideal sites for potential data centers, and what are some of the challenges with identifying an appropriate location?
Speaker 9
We thank you, Mr. Chair. There are a lot of challenges once you locate the site. As far as locating the sites, we've got a team that goes, looks for proper power. It's really the power that drives it, the necessary infrastructure. In my prepared remarks, I also mentioned that those industrial sites for past industrial use are ideal for data center development.
It has the infrastructure, the favorable industrial zoning, the power lines, and also usually the land area for data center development. The data centers that Aligned has developed. It was a former semiconductor power plant, semiconductor fabrication plant. We've also worked at a coal-fired power plant, and we've also worked at and we are currently redeveloping an old ball bearing manufacturing facility that sat dormant for over a decade. It had been in operations for seventy years, and it was a hulking mass that was abandoned that we've redeveloped.
We have not taken advantage of these grant programs, by the way, but certainly an advocate for public-private partnership.
Speaker 3
Thank you, now it makes sense. This one really did because I already had the transmission, and it was an industrial site. I have areas in my area that people are concerned because it's Greenfield. It's farmland. It's Bras Nira.
There is one particular county that had put up opposition to a data center coming in. And it just seems like it's a win-win. We have places like Mister Pouncey described. What town in East, I was actually born in North Alabama. What town in East Alabama were you from?
I was gonna.
Speaker 3
So I got a beat Navy and a War Eagle. That's what kind of fun. So, I mean, it's important where we choose to do this, and it's important because it can transform communities and does transform communities. And but if we don't do it, I had a reporter ask me. Some maybe somebody in town's proposing a complete ban on data centers.
I don't know if that's accurate or not. But if we don't deal with them, then China's gonna do it. China, well, China's gonna do them anyway.
Speaker 3
And Gary Palmer, our good chairman here, says, I'm not supposed to use your first name. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Is that whoever controls this is not gonna be one of the world's superpowers, will be the world's superpower. So this is vitally important, we get it right and put them in the right place. That's what we just want to do.
And I know, Mister Thompson, mayor, you have a pristine area. And so you don't want that. You want to preserve your pristine area. But that area is situated like that. So, mister Pouncey, in your written testimony, you discussed how former industrial sites have existing energy and transportation infrastructure that makes them attractive.
Can you expand upon the difficulties in redeveloping sites that lack infrastructure, and how difficult it can be to get electric and other infrastructure installed?
Speaker 6
It's a huge consideration, particularly with those types of uses like you're referring to, data center uses, which require that level of infrastructure investment. Number one is the cost of the community when you start looking at expanding the infrastructure. Two, there's a huge time component in terms of the delay that is caused, when you're looking at infrastructure that must be brought from several miles away, whether that's water, whether that's power. Most often with the data centers, it's the power. Mhmm.
The third, and I wanna come back to the measure stick, should always be what accelerates and what ensures that the maximum number of sites are actually cleaned up under brownfield. And if you look at sites that already have that infrastructure in place, that provides a huge, immediate incentive that supports redevelopment of those sites. And there, and correspondingly, cleanup of those sites. And in some instances, also the type of development that is, which provides a lot of cover, also reduces overall exposure to human health, which Mayor Thompson has expressed legitimate concerns regarding. So I think.
Speaker 3
I'm sorry. The man who has the gavel and the time clock played for Alabama. So I better, since you said I worry,
Speaker 3
My and I'm not this is serious business, and we need to get it done. Thanks, mister chair.
Speaker 1
Gentleman Niels, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mister Peters, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 17
Thank you. Mister chairman, I also, just because they love it in Kentucky, I'll add "Go Devils" to your list. Thanks to all the members for being here. I had to step out for something else, but I did hear all of your testimony. And I wanna thank Chairman Palmer for holding this hearing, and Chair Pologne for putting his own proposals forward.
And do hope that we can work together in a bipartisan way to make this program work. I mean, we've seen it for a while. The idea is to redevelop compromised areas. We know they're compromised. They're brownfields.
They're not green fields. And I think we need to work however we can to make this program better. In particular, it interests me around the NEPA. I've been doing a lot of work on trying to modernize the NEPA. The number of projects that we will have is in the 10,000s.
And it seems to me that Brownfields is a candidate for recognizing that these are compromised sites and that these are places where we should be developing, you know, a lot of these things. Many of them are already connected, as I think you said, mister Pouncey, to infrastructure, water. Yes, and are natural for redevelopment. And we should be encouraging that. And if this Brownfields, our Brownfields program is not helping in the way it should, we should improve it. And I know mister Griffith talked about the idea of pre-clearance.
I think in NEPA, that makes a lot of sense to me. Now it doesn't change the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. We have those bills there to protect us in terms of compliance. But for NEPA, it's a citing bill, and we know we want to put stuff in these brownfields that they can match. And, of course, one of those things is data centers.
I do wanna also acknowledge and thank the majority in this in their draft for not trying to pick false battles between kinds of energy. They want to advance all kinds of energy. I think that makes sense. It's consistent with what the market is demanding. But I do want to ask Mister Robinson about data centers.
Are you looking for, I assume, a full suite of options to build power generation inclusive of transmission, clean energy, fossil fuels. Is that something kind of what's your view on how brownfields can mesh with generation of power and data centers? How do you think that works?
Speaker 9
Absolutely. To date, we have not done any on-site power generation. For all of our sites, it's been primarily fed by the utility. Mhmm. But we do have to look at on-site behind the meter generation, just given the constraints right now with the generation side, the transmission side.
I think it's, and as you aptly note, I think it's gotta be all the above.
Speaker 17
Right. I would just also say, I listened to Google's presentation on this, which they have a very sophisticated approach. They wanna be connected to the grid. They wanna make sure that because they want that reliability. But what they're offering communities nearby is that their investment will not cost them money because they'll cover the cost, but also their investment can improve reliability of the grid in general.
So when you bring that kind of investment to a community, maybe on a brownfield, you're also in a position to help the community.
Speaker 9
I think that's true across the board, actually. There's a misconception that data centers are not paying their fair share. We do pay our fair share. When a data center is interested in locating in a particular place, the local utility has to do a load study. That load study is to make sure that all the infrastructure is in place to support the projected load.
If there are any infrastructure improvements that have to be made, the data center provider is actually paying for them. So the utility will give us a bill. There'll be a kayak payment, which is a contribution in the date of construction. There'll be other forms of security to protect the ratepayer, and data centers do pay their fair share.
Speaker 17
Right. I think except for the issue about whether data centers pay their fair share, which is something we should make sure that they do. Mhmm. It's a fairly benign use, particularly on a brownfield. I mean, it's the kind of thing that is a natural place for redevelopment.
Definitely. Right. I also would just say we, you know, I'm, I believe as someone who advocates for climate action, but also who understands the demand we have coming for energy from data centers and manufacturing, onshoring, and electrification, I really want to be able to site, permit, and build things much faster. I think if we're gonna compete as a country, we're choosing between a future of higher energy costs and astronomically higher energy costs. If we wanna stay away from astronomically higher costs, we have to change these laws and modernize them.
I would go further in many ways than these drafts do on permanent reform, and thinking about streamlining under NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act. The reauthorization of the pro program presents an opportunity for this committee to make America more competitive, to help keep costs down, and to make real reforms to our federal permitting process. So I'm looking forward to working on that with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I hope we're successful. Thanks again to the people, to the witnesses for coming out, and to the chairman.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen Yields, chairman, recognize this gentleman from Georgia, Mister Carter, for five minutes.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you for being here, all of you. This is extremely important. You know, we've got a lot of brownfills in my district, a lot of brownfills in the stadium for Georgia.
In fact, they're in Georgia, there are over 400 brownfield sites that have been cleaned up since 2003. And I think that's good. This is what we need to be doing. I do think it's so lengthy, and I get frustrated the amount of time it takes. I understand it, but at the same time, it's very frustrating.
But we've got some great examples in Georgia of where we've had success. One of those is in my district. It's the Seapoint Industrial Terminal Complex, the largest cleanup by area since the inception of the Georgia Brownfields program. So that's, again, a great example. Delaney Industries is the one who has done that.
It's a good program. We all understand that the program supports the assessment, the cleanup, and the safe reuse of these properties in the hope that we can reinvest. And we've got some in my home county of Glen County that I live in now that, we're hoping will develop and really spur our economy down there, and it should because the locations are really good. Mister Robinson, I wanna ask you, and we've talked about data centers. I suspect you've gotten numerous questions during this hearing about data centers and how we can use brownfields as a development site for data centers.
Have you seen any issues related to the development due to our current permitting process?
Speaker 9
Much of the permitting process is with regard to power generation. Most of the permitting that we deal with on the environmental side is at the state and local level. One of our sites is a US EPA reviewed site, and all of these sites have challenges for sure.
Speaker 18
Great. Well, I think it's important to note because there's a lot of fear from constituents about the cost of electricity and that being them having to absorb that and having the foot to bill for that. I'm very proud of the public service commission in Georgia who have said that that's not gonna happen, that the data centers are gonna have to pay for their own electricity and that it's not gonna be passed on to consumers. So I think we're addressing that. In fact, the Georgia state legislature is in session right now.
There are a number of bills addressing that as well. So, mister Wells, you know all about brownfields and about the opportunities to clean up contaminated sites in rural America. And this is very important. I represent a lot of rural area. Would the legislation we're discussing today help accelerate the remediation of brownfield sites across the country?
Speaker 18
The brownfield revitalization for a better tomorrow act. It creates, as I understand, a pilot program for rural communities. And under this, the EPA would award a grant to an eligible organization to provide technical assistance for applying for Brownfields grants. Mister Wells, do you feel that the legislation we're discussing today could help spur an economic revitalization in rural America?
Speaker 5
Well, in our experience, it's well, it's the same thing we've been talking about all day. When, whether it's a small community, a large community, being able to take a property that is blighted, that is contaminated, and put it back in productive use. That's the core tenet of the program, and is vital for all community, any community that has that type of site.
Speaker 18
Alright. Let me ask you something, and this is really for anybody on the panel. Is there anything we can do to speed up the process, or is this just a necessary part of the program? Because we've had some brownfields that have just been there for years and decades. Mister Robinson or Mister Wells, go ahead.
Speaker 5
I will say that, you know, one thing that I have heard is that limiting the number of grants that can be provided to a specific site can limit the ability to, ultimately, get that site completely remediated. The current program has some limitations in that respect that might could be revisited.
Speaker 18
Addressed. Okay. More sites to be addressed, but I'm talking about speeding up the process of the existing ones.
Speaker 6
Congressman, I would suggest in that instance that two items could be considered. One is to the extent, and we mentioned this earlier, the extent that we can get this down to the state programs and, you know, involved in drafting Georgia's Brownfield legislation, which we said we can get it down to the state programs. Those are extremely effective. And one of the key components to me of funding would be that we're funding these state programs so that they are up and running and able to administer this work.
Speaker 18
I'm getting the hook from the Alabama grad. So I'm being a Georgia boy, I've got to yield back. So I yield.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields. The chair now recognized the gentleman from Ohio, Mister Lansman, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 19
Thank you, mister chairman, and for all of you being here, and for the committee holding this hearing on the Brownfield's program. Mister Wells, you had talked about Brownfields as it relates to the core mission of taking blighted and contaminated spaces, remediating those spaces, and then turning them back into something that the public can use. Can you give me a couple examples for just our folks watching at home?
Speaker 5
Well, we've had projects in Mississippi, for instance, where previously contaminated sites could be turned into green space.
Speaker 19
Yep. And I guess this is for you, Mister Wells, and Mister Thompson, although anyone can answer it. A lot of these spots were, you know, former gas stations or other places where something leaked into the soil. Right? And the remediation was required in order to put it back into use.
Have you ever heard and I think there's I've seen here there's 42,000 properties that have been remediated since this project started. Does that sound right? Okay. That's a ton of projects. Do you think any of them turned back into gas stations, Mr. Wells?
Have you ever heard of any of us taking a remediating a site and then turning it back into a gas station?
Speaker 7
I haven't. What I've really run into is they've turned into retail and office space.
Speaker 19
Yeah. Retail, office, workforce housing. The issue with the data centers, mister Robinson, is that they are going to require additional remediation. When y'all leave, you're gonna have to remediate the soil and the water. True?
I don't believe that's true. I don't know. You aren't going to, you don't think the data centers are gonna remediate water and soil after they leave?
Speaker 9
I do not believe so. We discharge the water into typically the municipal water system. Our water use is dramatically less than the former industrial use. We often see a 90+ percent reduction in water usage. We use a closed loop system, so our water usage is minimal.
It's down to convenience for the restrooms and common area, kitchen.
Speaker 19
But in order to use in order to operate the data center, you've gotta use what we would call forever chemicals, and some of these chemicals are absolutely going to leak into the soil. And so then the question is, do you all intend to remediate the soil? There's nothing leaking in.
Speaker 19
My worry, and I agree with you that there is a race to win AI. I think the race, though, is not how many data centers you build or the next algorithm. It is which country can figure out how to harness AI for good and protect its citizens and the environment from harm. That's the race. Mhmm.
And I worry that we're gonna take a program where we're, you know, remediating sites to get contamination out of the water and soil and having, you know, projects that will just, you know, re, you know, contaminate the water and the soil. And I appreciate that you're saying that's not the case for your crew. Why the need to open this up to private companies? You guys have been fine. Right?
I mean, you had no issues.
Speaker 19
Oh, I do too. I just, clearly, you're having no real issue. So I'm wondering why that changed. But I guess the other question, it has to do with the database. The 5% of the grant program is gonna go to a database.
You've also been okay, Mister Robinson, like finding sites. Right? I mean, you don't need a database. Right?
Speaker 9
To date, we have not needed that, but there could be value if the committee thinks so. Yeah.
Speaker 19
Fair enough. Mister Thompson, I mean, the 5%, that's a lot of money that goes to something other than remediating and bringing these sites back online. Right?
Speaker 19
And just in the twenty seconds that you have left, what where could the money go? I mean, what are the projects that were.
Speaker 7
Well, it takes dilapidated properties. It takes contaminated properties, and it turns them into vital, productive entities. And after the brownfield program, helps it come back to life. Yeah. And makes a difference for our communities.
Speaker 19
Would love to see all of the dollars go to those things that are going to move these projects along, but also to ensure that we're getting projects that the community really wants. So, with that, I yield back, and I apologize for going over.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, Yale's chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa, doctor Miller Meeks, for five minutes for her questions.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Chairman Palmer, and thank our witnesses for appearing here today. In Iowa, we understand both the promise and the challenge of brownfield redevelopment. I represent a district with a strong manufacturing base, facilities that build, process, and produce the goods that keep our economy moving. And I also represent deeply rural communities where small towns are working hard to stay competitive and grow. Across my district, there are former manufacturing sites, rail corridors, grain facilities, and riverfront properties that once powered local economies but now sit underutilized because of real or perceived contamination concerns.
These sites are often located near existing infrastructure such as rail, roads, transmission lines, and a skilled workforce, which makes them strong candidates for redevelopment if we get the policy right. The EPA's brownfields program under CERCLA has been an important tool, but for many rural communities in Iowa, accessing that tool is not easy. Small towns do not have full-time grant writers or environmental staff. They rely heavily on partnerships with counties and the state to move projects forward. The bills that we're looking at present opportunities to increase grant caps, provide cost share flexibility, strengthen state response programs, improve permitting efficiency, and create new financing tools.
And if structured correctly, these reforms can help rural and manufacturing-heavy districts like mine attract new investment, support domestic supply chains, and create good-paying jobs. Mister Ponzi, you've testified that high upfront cleanup costs and circular liability uncertainty hinder private developers from redeveloping brownfields. How would increased grant maximums, expanded eligible entities, and cost share waivers in the proposed legislation reduce these barriers for rural and industrial communities?
Speaker 6
I would suggest a couple of items in that regard. One is that, I do think having some allocation of resources specific to the rural area is important because I share your concern and see it often where there just isn't the expertise, and they the municipalities can't afford it the expertise for this grant writing. So some mechanism that addresses that, I do think that is important.
Speaker 20
And, in your written testimony, you recommended continuing efforts to transition sites off the national priorities list. Yes. Into state brownfield programs. Do you think these former NPL sites would be ideal locations for nationally significant infrastructure facilities, such as critical mineral processing?
Speaker 6
Actually, I do, and for a couple of reasons. One, very often these sites are large sites where only a small portion of the site is impacted, yet they have this tremendous infrastructure that's in place that makes them suitable for that kind of use. And so by if I have a 200-acre site that has access to tremendous infrastructure and only 20 of it is impacted, why is the entire 200 acres on the NPL? And it keeps it from being put in state programs.
Speaker 20
Thank you. And, mister Wells, is there anything you'd like to add about the state's role in the process for deleting sites from the national priorities list?
Speaker 5
Well, I don't know that I have any comment specific to the national priorities list issue, but supporting the state programs that then in turn support the local communities through the technical assistance and otherwise is a critical part of the program.
Speaker 20
So improving that federal-state coordination. Yes, ma'am. And, mister Wells, you highlighted the success of Mississippi's targeted brownfields assessment program in assessing 82 sites and unlocking private investment. Given the proposed rural brownfields pilot program and cost share waivers for small or disadvantaged communities, how would this legislation improve access to technical assistance and capital for communities with limited grant writing or administrative capacity, particularly in areas facing depopulation and industrial decline?
Speaker 5
I think the answer is in the question itself. The removing hurdles to access is key. I think the issue, in all candid, the issue with the pilot program for the loan portion of it, I think there are some issues there. I think that we can work through, but I think that incentivizing private investment is also a key part of the future success of the program.
Speaker 1
General Lady Yields. The chair now recognize the general lady from Florida, miss Lee, for five minutes for her questions.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we are all considering the reauthorization of the EPA brownfield programs, I appreciate the suggestions and the testimony from our witnesses today about how we might best provide federal support for the continuation of these programs. In my own community, I'm very committed to working with my constituents and with the EPA and our state and local government partners to solve some significant brownfield issues. I've visited homes in my district adjacent to significantly contaminated areas and have seen the damage that it causes to families, and want to prioritize working with the EPA to clean up these areas and make them safe and habitable. I thank the chairman for conducting this important hearing and giving us the opportunity to hear from all of you today, as we consider these legislative proposals.
I'd like to go back to your testimony, Mr. Pouncy. One thing that I wanna be sure that we cover today is the notion that for federal dollars that are invested in these sites, economic studies show a good return on those investments for the communities where the dollars are spent. That's one of the things that's in your written testimony. I'd love to hear more from you about that. And, also, you mentioned accountability metrics and that what we needed to be measuring as our metric was where did we actually succeed in cleaning up.
Would you tell us more about those two things, the return on investment, and how we should be capturing that metric?
Speaker 6
And I may address those in reverse order, if I may. Sometimes I would offer that we get so distracted on other potential implications that we avoid the core mission of these environmental laws, and that is to clean up as many properties as we can as soon as we can. And, that's why I think the brownfield approach is so critical, because it is bringing the private parties to the table that can accomplish that cleanup quickly as part of redevelopment, as long as we are not creating too many barriers to that process. And so I think that, as I think the key metric should always be and the key analysis as we're looking at legislation should always be, if it's under the brownfield approach, what process allows for the most sites to be cleaned up the quickest? I would suggest that that should be the metric.
And forgive me. I've forgotten the first question.
Speaker 11
It was about the return on investment. The meeting you cited in your testimony.
Speaker 6
Yes. I do think there has been significant return on investment. And I would argue, again, the biggest return on investment has been when these dollars have gone to support state brownfield programs that are doing the work on the ground. They're doing most of the work, and I'm sure, mister Wells would concur with that as well. We have tremendous state brownfield programs across the country that are working their tails off and just doing tremendous work, allowing these sites to be cleaned up, allowing these sites to be cleaned up quickly, and being put back into use with certain incentives that are available in this program.
And I just think it's important for us to continue to recognize that investment and the return on that investment.
Speaker 11
And, Mister Wells, I would like to return to your testimony on that subject. Also, specifically the discussion about reaching rural, small, and disadvantaged communities, and how important that is. I do believe I may be last, if not close to it. Is there anything you would like to add on those subjects that you have not had the opportunity to already tell us about today?
Speaker 11
Absolutely. So, mister Pelosi, going back to you, you've mentioned the need to effectively collaborate with our state and local partners and where we can to actually vest down with the state the cleanup of some of these sites. Tell me, if you would, why you think that is more effective and what we can be doing better as congress to ensure that that is actually happening.
Speaker 6
The reason I think that is better lies in the, if you take an analysis of the brownfields programs across the country, and you see how many sites have been cleaned up under the state brownfield programs versus under enforcement, it's remarkable. I mentioned Georgia earlier, wherein a little bit more than half the time, because since the Superfund program was put in place, the Brownfield program has cleaned up twice as many sites and is well on its way to cleaning up a lot more. That shows the effectiveness not just in Georgia, but in Mississippi and other states or certainly around the Southeast, Alabama being one as well. So I think that's that is so critical. The states also have the ability to give other types of financial incentives, such as property tax relief to brownfield sites, where you can recover some of your cleanup costs from an increase in property taxes, which has also been a critical issue, and they are able to provide liability protection.
So I think those are what make the state component of this so fundamental.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady yields. The chair now recognized the gentleman from Texas, Mister Weber, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As he said, I'm from Texas. How many of you have heard of the city of Port Arthur, Texas? Some of you have heard. They have pursued a grant under this program to address hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead paint, at the historic Hotel Sabine, which currently sits vacant.
If successful, renovating this building would play a critical role in revitalizing Downtown Port Arthur by adding office and retail space, as well as student housing. So I want you all to discuss, and I'll take good in turn, each of it, how this program generates a strong economic return on investment for communities like Port Arthur. But before I do, I wanna give you some Texas history. In 1901, have you ever heard of the Spindle Top well in Beaumont, Texas? And he's shaking his head.
You've heard it. And they would they were drilling, they went down a 20 feet deep. The well blew out about 150 the air at an estimated 150,000 barrels a day. That was the spindle top event. Why is it important?
It started the Texas oil boom. It led to the major expansion of major oil companies like Texaco, Gulf Oil, and later influence on companies like Exxon. It helped shift the US from coal to petroleum as a major energy source. Why do I tell you all that? It's extremely important what is going on there.
If you went to Port Arthur, Texas, today, you wouldn't recognize it. I mean, this is, you know, 1901. The math major is 100 and, what, twenty five years ago. But just for the record, mister chairman, I wasn't alive back then. K?
So what I wanna know is when you think of a city of Port Arthur like that, that's had that extremely, extremely economic boom that they had for a while, and yet now they don't. How is it that you, what can you do with the program that generates that for the city of Port Arthur and exclusively that Sabine hotel, which had asbestos and all kinds of lead paint. How does that program benefit someone like that? I'll start with you.
Speaker 5
Well, I think it touches the question touches on something that's been, maybe lost in the shuffle today during the discussion today, and that is, one aspect of the program is that local decision making, you know, and what benefits the local community that is impacted by that brownfield site and empowering those communities to make decisions about what would be the best sort of redevelopment from their perspective. Data centers, whether it's data centers or whatever type of facility, we've talked a lot about that today, but hotels, retail space, mixed use developments, all those you look across the universe of brownfield projects across the country, you're gonna see a wide variety of those projects. And I think allowing having a program like this that allows that provides an opportunity financially for those local communities to recruit whatever type of economic development is best suited for them.
Speaker 16
And let me read up real quick because I wanna move on. Do you know of any projects, any brownfields there in Port Arthur, Texas? I'm sorry. I haven't looked them up. Anybody know of any?
No? Okay. Mister Thompson, I'm gonna come to you. As of today, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, TCEQ, you would recognize it as, has identified 213 brownfield sites across my home state. That's all of Texas, of course, with approximately 10 of them located in my congressional district.
Now I am in the Upper Gulf Coast of Texas. We started the Louisiana line, that other foreign country. And we come down the Gulf Coast. We pick up Orange County, Jefferson County, Galveston County, the southern half of Missouri County. Are y'all acquainted with any of those brownfield sites?
Speaker 6
should we may have worked on a couple of those, congressman. I would have to go back and review some of our materials.
Speaker 16
Okay. As you all know, navigating the brownfields program requires coordination and buy-in from residents as well as local elected officials to stay cold roofs in Washington. Well, I call it Washington. Y'all probably call it Washington. As communities work to remediate sites such as Shield Park in Galveston, it is very historic, the oldest port in Texas if I have my facts right.
What advice would you offer to local elected leaders to help ensure the process is efficient and seamless as possible? I'm gonna tell the leaders, local leaders in Galveston, they need to apply for this. How do I do that, mister?
Speaker 7
I think part of it's really using all the resources that are available in the Brownfield program. For example, starting with the technical assistance, Brownfield centers that are in the regions, they provide EPA assistance to the local entities. The other thing that's very important is, as Mister Wells has mentioned before, the state programs that are available to local communities. And that makes a big difference to, again, local entities.
Speaker 16
Okay. Well, thank you. I'm running out of time. So I wanna give you a little bit of Texas history and why it was important. Mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Someone yields. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Miss Barry, for five minutes for her questions.
Speaker 22
Thank you. Mister Thompson, I will, mister Robinson, I wanna start with you for just a moment. I understand that you made a comment similar to data centers. Companies are paying their way. Is that right?
Speaker 22
So several AI and data center companies have committed to cover the full cost of energy and grid upgrades if they build in a community so that residents do not have to pay higher electricity prices. Has your company made that commitment?
Speaker 9
We haven't seen it yet. We've heard about it. We're prepared to make the pledge as well. Yes. And we are paying our way.
Yes.
Speaker 22
Okay. The reason I'm asking, I saw an article about consumers in seven PJM states paid 4,400,000,000 for data center transmission and some other stuff. So I'm glad to hear you say that. And it makes me wonder then whether we should amend this bill, to have that in writing that, basically, if you're going to get money for a data center, that you are not gonna pass on any rate hikes, and that the data centers are gonna pay for it.
Speaker 9
Congresswoman, I have not commented on any of the bills. What I've mentioned is really Aligns experience developing brownfield sites, turning them into data centers. We've not taken advantage of the grant programs or the loan programs in doing so, and we are prepared, and we'll continue to pay our fair share.
Speaker 22
Okay. So it sounds like, you could be supportive of an amendment that says if any data center project receives a Brownfield grant, the company must cover the energy cost. Does that sound accurate?
Speaker 22
Okay. That's great. Mister mayor, mayor, hold on. I wanna make sure I get this right. Mayor Thompson, I saw the mayor of Davis, and I just was a little confused for a second.
I wanna thank you for your testimony, for being here today. When you did your opening statement, you talked about some of the concerns I have. I believe that the brownfield program was created to help communities clean up contamination on land, and they did not create, they did not really create this fund for, you know, folks, companies that have a lot of money that could be using that money for things. Although I do believe in the public private partnership, my concern is what the impact will be on changes like this. And you expressed some of those concerns that you also had.
You one of the things that we hear a lot about is that the Brownfields program is great, and I think it's fantastic that it's bipartisan. I completely support it. But not all of there isn't enough money in there right now, right, in the Brownfields program? Right. And you say you all support, you know, putting more money into it.
Right?
Speaker 22
Yeah. Now if EPA begins prioritizing brownfield grants for projects that build data centers for NVIDIA and Amazon, do smaller community projects like affordable housing or community parks risk losing out on funding in a competitive grant process?
Speaker 7
We would lose out in that process and not be as competitive as we would have been in the existing brownfield program the way that it's structured today.
Speaker 22
You mentioned also an impact on the local community and local decisions. Could you elaborate a little bit on that?
Speaker 7
Well, I think it's important that local communities have a voice in the Brownfield process. And, again, through the technical assistance, brownfield centers, and through the state brownfield agencies, we do have that voice. And we form partnerships and alliances to go ahead and successfully complete these projects, and it's working.
Speaker 22
Right. Well, in my district, Brownfield's funding is one of the only tools we have to clean up contaminated land. It can be, so it could be turned into affordable housing or green space and community facilities. If those projects start competing against large industrial infrastructure projects, it's hard to see how they don't get left out. Mister Wells, is there anything you want to add on this?
Speaker 22
Well, I was just saying if you wanted to add anything on this conversation about the use of the Brownfield grant money and the competition against, you know, large industrial infrastructure projects.
Speaker 5
I think there's a way to balance the two. I don't think that excluding private entities, categorically, is necessarily the solution.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady yields. The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questions. First thing I wanna do though is I think what we're doing right now is one of the most important things that the committee is undertaking, and it's largely because of the race for dominance in artificial intelligence. This is not a race for artificial intelligence, it is for one thing only, and that is to determine who will be the superpower. Whoever wins this race will not be a superpower, they'll be the superpower.
It's not about, whoever wins this race has done it so they can improve the environment or improve the human condition, particularly if one of our adversaries achieves that before we do, and then specific China. So, what we're discussing today is, I think, critical to determining who will win that race, and that is the ability to do a couple of things. One, obviously, data centers are getting them properly located. And mister Pouncey, I'll talk to you a little bit about military sites, for locating those, as well as brownfield sites. And sometimes those are the same thing.
The other, though, is we're almost totally dependent on China for refined rare earth elements. There's not a single major refinery for rare earth elements in the Western Hemisphere. Mayor Thompson, as your role as a general, that would have raised some significant concern for the military, and particularly, given the fact that there's not a single military vehicle that I know of that can operate without rare-earth elements. And you have to have antimony to harden lead so that you don't foul the barrels of your weapons, and not a single rare earth refinery, major refinery in the Western Hemisphere. So one of my main objectives right now is to get this critical infrastructure built, do it in a way that's, is keeping in, to the standards that we already have set for environmental quality.
I worked for two international engineering companies in a previous time in my career, so that we can decouple ourselves from China in that regard. It's absolutely a top, national security issue. So mister Pouncey, I wanna allow you to take a few minutes to talk about, particularly, the military sites. And I think some of our bases make sense for data centers, where I think, mister Well and I think it's you, mister Pouncey, that talked about the infrastructure that exists on some of the coal fired power plants that have been closed. The transmission lines are still intact, which would allow us, and I'm pushing small modular nuclear reactors to tie into the existing transmission lines there, that not only could power the data center or the processing refining facility, but increase the baseload power for the local communities.
Would you like to comment on that?
Speaker 6
Mister chairman, if I may start with the development of data centers, refineries of rare earth minerals. Though, in my mind, it's more appropriate for those to occur at sites that already have impacts than occur or that activity occur on greenfield sites, because I think that's, you can manage that, and part of the cleanup of those sites can be part of the construction of that new material and equipment and structures. So I think that's a first observation that I would make, and I do think it's appropriate to prioritize critical mission undertakings in terms of site selection. The second comment I would make is with respect to military bases. We have just completed development of a data center on a military base and a closed military base.
And what was significant to us was, number one, that we had, once again, the access to the infrastructure. And number two, as we looked at other uses, the data center made the most sense in terms of covering up areas of impact, preventing that impact from being subject to human exposure. While candidly, the data center use is a much cleaner use than what had been there previously. And so I don't think those are two observations I would make with regard to that. And then finally, I do think, one of the other attractive things about having the infrastructure place and immediate access to power, and our data center, Mister Robinson, can testify to that, is the fact that you don't have to look for interim sources of power until you can get the electricity infrastructure put in place and delivered to that data center facility.
We've got that infrastructure all in place that allows you to use the power, use electrical power immediately rather than having used an interim source, which may be a source that has more environmental impacts than what the electricity has been provided.
Speaker 9
Mister chairman, if I may, we actually have two of our existing data center sites that are closely coupled where a coal-fired power plant used to be operational. The one in Konesville, Ohio, we've got another site in Pennsylvania that we're currently looking to redevelop. And then the site that we've got in Sandusky, Ohio, as well was an industrial site.
Speaker 1
I yield, recognize the gentleman from Ohio. Mister Latter for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 21
Well, thanks very much, mister chairman, and thanks for our witnesses for being here. It's really an important hearing today, especially, you know, when we're talking about reusing mine sites. Mister Collins, if I could ask my first question to you, how can the federal government support the remediation and redevelopment of former mine sites? And then just out of curiosity, if you have any experiences where that might have happened on these federal sites? Know we're talking about military, but what about on other sites that might have been presently owned by the, for
Speaker 6
We have some of the quarry mining sites and some others, sir, across primarily the Southeast by other parts of the country as well. Once again, I think the key in each of those with which I've had personal experience was the fact that we were able to use state brownfield programs. One was in Maryland. One is in Georgia, and one is actually in the Midwest. We were able to use state brownfield programs to oversee the cleanup and conversion to some other use.
The federal dollars and why they were important in that regard was because they went to help fund the state brownfield employees that ran that state program and therefore were able to deliver to us the immediate oversight or very quick oversight to ensure that things were being properly conducted, to ensure that there'll be an acceptable closure to the site from a regulatory standpoint, and for us to be able to take advantage of financial incentives that existed within that brownfield program, primarily relief on property taxes.
Speaker 21
Thank you. Mister Robinson, you know, as we're talking about these former energy sites, and, you know, one of the issues that if you're talking about maybe, like, at a coal mine or something like that, you know, one of the great things about this committee is we have a very broad jurisdiction. I chair the energy subcommittee. So we're thinking about the generation, the transmission, the distribution of power. When you're looking at a, let's just say, would be a coal site.
Are there any barriers that are for a coal mine or a strip mine that would be a barrier for you to be able to get in there? Are there issues on the again, from bringing that power in from either generation, would be wonderful. The other question would be is that we're looking behind the meter at these sites. But, any experience on your end on that?
Speaker 9
Sure. Our site in Conesville, Ohio, what was really attractive about that is the transmission infrastructure feeding the site. It used to have the electrons going out, but that infrastructure now can bring power in. That particular site also had a very large coal ash pond. So remediating the coal ash and the coal combustion residuals has been a process to overcome.
There was some mining as well that was done in the hills there in Konesville, Ohio, and Kushoktin. So there's various issues that you may come across there as well. But what's super attractive about the former power plant sites is the infrastructure. I think the transmission to permit a new transmission line is seven to ten years. Meanwhile, we can build a data center in 14 to 18 months.
So there's a massive disconnect on the transmission and permitting regulatory reform to expedite that process, to then permit the fast development of data centers would be ideal. But for right now, it's really the transmission feeding those power plant sites.
Speaker 21
Let me ask this, then. Because let's say you can use that former site, power site. You know, one of the issues we also have to contend with is modernizing that grid out there. You know, from the preexisting site that was there, you know, are we talking about the same amount of, is it on the megawatt side? We at a terawatt?
Or where are we at on some of these sites? Would you have to do a lot of upgrading to that site with the modernization? Because, again, we're talking about a massive amount of power being utilized at the site.
Speaker 9
Yeah. No. Prior to really any installation, we go through what's known as a load study with the local utility. In that case, it was AEP, and this site used to be an AEP coal-fired power plant. Any site, though, a load study is done, and the local utility identifies each portion of the infrastructure that has to be improved to then carry the load that we want to bring to the data center site.
And we do end up paying for those improvements. So we are paying our fair share.
Speaker 21
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired, and I yield back.
Speaker 23
Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes myself for questioning. I thank the witnesses, and I believe this may be the last, on the last question or so you've survived. I'll focus kind of on the rural aspect. It's obviously outsized economic impact when done correctly, but also, there are limitations on staff, and y'all have talked about this today, and that's kinda where I wanna start.
But it does make a huge difference when we do this correctly. So, I'll start with Mayor Thompson. You know, kinda what are the biggest, practical barriers that rural towns face when trying to access or administer EPA brownfield grants? And, specifically, is it are we talking funding levels or cost-sharing requirements? Are there restrictions or technical capacities?
Can you talk us through that?
Speaker 7
Yes, sir. It's a little bit of all of that. Resources are very important. The program, the funding I talked about, how, you know, we really don't wanna compete with the big entities because we probably would lose the ability to have the funding that we've had in the past. From a technical standpoint, we also, in rural communities, don't have the expertise to do the things we need to do for these grants, and that's where we rely on the EPA's technical assistance brownfield centers, which do a great job.
And then also our partners at the state level, also with the brownfield program, make a big difference. And it's leveraging their knowledge, their expertise that allows us to be successful.
Speaker 23
Thank you for that. And I'm glad to hear good positive comments on the EPA assistance as well. Mister Wells, how can federal policy better support state brownfield responses in those programs and assist small rural communities? As the mayor just mentioned, they don't have the staffing to navigate the cleanup or the redevelopment on their own.
Speaker 5
Well, we serve in that role of helping people walk through the process, and adequately funding the components of the program that fund our work there is critical.
Speaker 23
Are there specific examples where you can cite that it is in states or that you know of examples that have gone well and those that have not gone well?
Speaker 23
I'll turn to mister Robinson. You mentioned, you just talked about some permitting with my colleague. And, you know, what conditions make a brownfield site viable for private investment, and then what role should the federal incentives play in ensuring that these projects are financially feasible without overriding local priorities. How does that fit into some of the permitting discussions?
Speaker 9
One point that I really wanted to make was we do take community involvement. There was a description of a data center coming to a town, ignoring the local community. That's certainly not how we do our data center projects. We often have community information sessions that we go into the community even before we buy the land. We share what our plans are.
I've done 3 of them in the last month alone. Going into the community, getting feedback, sharing with them what we'd like to do at the site, that helps gain trust, and add transparency to the process. So many of our permits are local permits. So that really helps the process from a permitting standpoint. Earlier, I mentioned we have not taken advantage of the brownfield programs.
The brownfield sites that we've developed, and there's six plus that we've done as a company as part of our sustainability mission, taking brownfield sites, putting them back into productive use, making it part of the digital infrastructure for this new age. We've not had to use any of those grant programs to date, so I can't really specify any issues that need to be rectified.
Speaker 23
Mayor Thompson, just on a cost basis, without some of these permitting reforms as we craft this legislation, I mean, give us an idea of what the cost could be if we don't streamline and make it more efficient. For some of the staffing positions, you know, you have to go out and hire attorneys. You have to go do different things that maybe a small community like mine is not set up to do.
Speaker 7
Well, I think especially when you look at the EPA technical assistance brownfield centers, they actually had a 20% staffing cut through the Doge efforts. And that has hampered their ability to support local, rural communities in some of the advice and technical assistance. So shoring that up would be very helpful.
Speaker 23
Very interesting. We have 20 left. Did anybody not get a chance to say something? Mister Pouts, I didn't have specific questions, but I'll yield to you for 15, 20 seconds if you have anything.
Speaker 6
It is, I would just reemphasize the role that the private sector plays in developing and cleaning up these sites. And so there, we can't understate the fact that we need them as a player at the table.
Speaker 23
Thank you. My time has expired, and I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. Members may have additional, written questions for you, and I'll remind members to get those in within ten business days. And I ask that the witnesses do their best to submit responses within 10 business days upon receipt of those questions. And I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the documents included on the staff hearing document list, without objection.
So ordered. And without objection, the committee is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.