[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES FOR REDEVELOPING
BROWNFIELDS SITES: ASSESSING THE POTEN-
TIAL FOR NEW AMERICAN INNOVATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-11
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-959 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia Ranking Member
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama KATHY CASTOR, Florida
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice RAUL RUIZ, California
Chairman SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas DARREN SOTO, Florida
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee KIM SCHRIER, Washington
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
KAT CAMMACK, Florida LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
JOHN JAMES, Michigan JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina KEVIN MULLIN, California
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
GABE EVANS, Colorado
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
------
Professional Staff
MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
Chairman
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas, Vice Chairman PAUL TONKO, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio Ranking Member
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama RAUL RUIZ, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas DARREN SOTO, Florida
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
GABE EVANS, Colorado GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex officio)
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement.................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Witnesses
James L. Connaughton, Chief Executive Officer, JLC Strategies.... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Answers to submitted questions............................... 128
J. Christian Bollwage, Mayor, Elizabeth, New Jersey, and Chair,
U.S. Conference of Mayors Brownfields Task Force............... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Answers to submitted questions............................... 129
Christa Stoneham, Chief Executive Officer and President, Houston
Land Bank...................................................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Duane A. Miller, Executive Director, LENOWISCO Planning District
Commission..................................................... 63
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 116
Report by The Aspen Institute, Energy & Environment Program,
``Building Cleaner, Faster,'' Spring 2021...................... 117
MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES FOR REDEVEL-
OPING BROWNFIELDS SITES: ASSESSING
THE POTENTIAL FOR NEW AMERICAN INNO-
VATION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Morgan Griffith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Griffith, Crenshaw, Latta,
Carter of Georgia, Joyce, Weber, Pfluger, Miller-Meeks, Lee,
Langworthy, Evans, Fedorchak, Guthrie (ex officio), Tonko
(subcommittee ranking member), Schakowsky, Ruiz, Peters,
Barragan, Soto, Auchincloss, Carter of Louisiana, Menendez,
Landsman, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Dingell.
Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations;
Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Emily Hale, Staff Assistant;
Christen Harsha, Senior Counsel; Calvin Huggins, Clerk; Megan
Jackson, Staff Director; Daniel Kelly, Press Secretary; Ben
Mullaney, Press Secretary; Kaitlyn Peterson, Policy Analyst;
Jackson Rudden, Staff Assistant; Kaley Stidham, Press
Assistant; Dray Thorne, Director of Information Technology;
Matt VanHyfte, Communications Director; Rasheedah Blackwood,
Minority Intern; Giancarlo Ceja, Minority Environment Fellow;
Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Anthony
Gutierrez, Minority Professional Staff Member; Caitlin
Haberman, Minority Staff Director, Environment; Emma Roehrig,
Minority Staff Assistant; Kylea Rogers, Minority Policy
Analyst; Harikrishnan Sanil, Minority Press Intern; Andrew
Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach, and
Member Services; and Hannah Treger, Minority Intern.
Mr. Griffith. The subcommittee will come to order.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH
OF VIRGINIA
Today this subcommittee will examine implementation of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfields Grant Program.
Brownfields are generally described as properties that contain
or may contain a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant, which in turn complicates efforts to expand,
redevelop, or reuse the site. Often these contaminated sites
are not redeveloped because prospective new owners are worried
about becoming responsible for potential liability, as the
original company that is liable for the contamination no longer
exists.
Through this program, EPA provides grant funding to States,
Tribes, economic development agencies, and other entities who
are then able to study the extent of contamination, clean up
the site, and find a way to redevelop it. Since 1993, the EPA
has administered efforts to clean up these sites. Congress
first formally established the Brownfields Program in the Small
Business Liability, Relief, and Brownfields Revitalization Act
of 2002 and codified it under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
The Brownfields Program has traditionally enjoyed
bipartisan support, and the last statutory authorization
expired last September at the end of fiscal year 2023.
Reauthorizing this program will provide us with an opportunity
to examine the program and find out what aspects are working
well and what aspects need improvement. I believe taking
testimony from our witnesses today will help us to inform our
efforts.
Additionally, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
provided an unprecedented supplemental appropriation of 1.5
billion for brownfields. The awards funded under the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act were exempted from some
of the traditional statutory limitations, such as certain
maximum grant amounts and State and the local cost share
requirements. We will need to examine these changes and
understand their advantages and their disadvantages.
EPA estimates there are more than 450,000 brownfield
properties in the United States. This amounts to a lot of
unused or underutilized land with great economic potential.
Broadly, we also know that we will need additional
infrastructure and facilities to support our growing economy
and process the materials and components needed for new,
innovative technologies.
The Brownfields Program may also be a good tool to help
secure American leadership in emerging industries and
traditional manufacturing. For example, ABI Research, an
industry analysis firm, estimates that by the end of 2025 there
will be over 6,000 data centers built worldwide as artificial
intelligence continues to take off. Over the next 5 years, our
country's electricity demand is expected to grow by 16 percent.
This growing demand will entail construction of additional
energy resources.
So today we will examine opportunities to bring those
industries to brownfield sites in our communities and explore
existing barriers to put these sites to good use. In my
district in southwest Virginia, county, State agencies,
regional organizations, and public-private partnerships have
already been hard at work revitalizing former mine land for
economic development. I hope we can learn more today about how
the Brownfields Program can support these endeavors and similar
ones around the country.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. Thanks to our witnesses for being here and
contributing to these efforts.
First we have the Honorable Jim Connaughton, chief
executive officer of James L. Connaughton Strategies, where he
works on sustainable technology, innovation, and public policy.
Mr. Connaughton recently served as CEO of Nautilus Data
Technologies, a company producing data center components with
minimal environmental impacts. He also served as chairman of
the White House Council on Environmental Quality under
President Bush.
As you all know, this committee has been engaged in robust
discussion over the past few years on ways to improve
permitting process generally, so we welcome his extensive
experience in this area.
We also welcome back Mayor Christian Bollwage. Did I get
that right? All right--from the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey.
The committee greatly appreciates him lending his knowledge and
expertise to our efforts to reauthorize the Brownfields
Program.
We will also hear from Christa Stoneham, president and CEO
of the Houston Land Bank.
Thank you for being here today and sharing your insights on
the program and efforts to revitalize the areas your
organization serves.
Last but not least, I am excited to recognize and to
welcome my constituent, Duane Miller, executive director of
LENOWISCO Planning District Commission. And if you want a
definition of what that is, we will give it to you later. But
my staff and I have had the privilege of working with the
commission for years. They have played an integral role in
attracting emerging industries to our region, creating jobs,
and cleaning up abandoned sites in southwest Virginia.
Thank you all for being here, and I look forward to a good
discussion today. And I now recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
EPA's Brownfields Program has enjoyed tremendous bipartisan
support for decades, and I do hope we can continue to work
together to examine and strengthen the program in the 119th
Congress. I am certain we all share a love for the places we
have the privilege of representing. And like so many districts
across the country, New York's 20th has an incredible
manufacturing history that is foundational to its story.
Along the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers many mill towns once
thrived. Factories produced carpets and collars and leather
products, to name just a few. But sadly, many of these sites
have closed, leaving valuable properties, often on the
waterfront, abandoned or underutilized. And this too is part of
my district's history.
But the story of these former industrial communities does
not need to end here, with blighted properties and years of
disinvestment. EPA's Brownfields Program can be the catalyst
for these communities' comebacks by creating new economic
opportunities that begin with assessing and remediating former
industrial sites. In my district, brownfields funding has led
to transformational revitalizations. Some sites have become new
parks, allowing public access to the waterfront. Others have
been prepared for redevelopment, enabling new employers to move
in.
And simply put, these success stories would not be possible
without EPA's programs. Since 2002, tens of thousands of acres
of idle land have been made ready for productive use,
increasing property values and local tax revenue, preserving
green fields, and creating jobs. We know EPA's program has a
proven track record of success and provides effective
downpayments. Each dollar spent leverages more than $20.
And I am incredibly proud that the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act included an historic investment of some
$1.5 billion for the program for fiscal years 2022 through
2026. These funds include $1.2 billion for the EPA's program
and $300 million for State programs. IIJA also took important
steps to create greater opportunities for disadvantaged
communities by waiving the program's cost--cost share
requirements and increasing the maximum award amounts. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses whether the IIJA has been
effective and how Congress can best build upon those
investments.
Finally, I want to express my concerns that the Trump
administration's suggestion that 65 percent of EPA's budget
could be cut. The majority of EPA's funding goes to programs
that State and local governments rely upon. Without a doubt, a
cut of this magnitude will have devastating consequences for
our districts, and I do hope Congress will ensure that the
value of EPA's programs, including the Brownfields Program, are
properly reflected in our appropriations process as it moves
forward.
Because 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. I hope we can work together to
make certain this program has the resources and the authorities
necessary to continue its great work.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. With that I would like to yield my remaining
time to our colleague and good friend, Congressman Menendez,
and thank you.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Ranking Member Tonko. I am honored
to welcome Mayor Bollwage to the Energy and Commerce Committee
today to discuss the incredible work being done on brownfields
across the country and back home in New Jersey's Eighth
Congressional District.
Mayor Bollwage was first elected as mayor of Elizabeth in
1992 and has prioritized the redevelopment of brownfield sites
throughout his tenure. He has been recognized for his role in
redeveloping brownfields and was awarded the Distinguished
Leadership Award for Elected Officials by the American Planning
Association. He is testifying today in his capacity as chair of
the U.S. Conference of Mayors Brownfields Task Force, a role
that he has held for over 20 years.
Mayor Bollwage is uniquely qualified to discuss the
importance of reauthorizing the Federal Brownfields Program and
has testified at every brownfields hearing this committee has
had. It is an honor to call Mayor Bollwage a friend and partner
and to recognize the success stories in Elizabeth that he has
overseen.
Mayor Bollwage, thank you for your leadership on this
issue. I look forward to hearing your testimony here today.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. Now I recognize
the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH
OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Chairman Griffith, and Ranking
Member Pallone and Ranking Member Tonko, my colleagues, and
thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
Today we will be examining implementation of EPA's
Brownfields Program and opportunities to carry on bipartisan
tradition of reauthorizing the program.
As you all know, brownfields are contaminated sites or
areas that are suspected of being contaminated. The negative
impact of a brownfield site does not end within the geographic
boundary of the site itself. They can also pose environmental
hazards beyond their borders and lead to broader economic
downturns in their communities. And unfortunately, brownfields
are found nationwide.
Legal liability for existing contamination often
discourages buyers from purchasing properties for redevelopment
out of fear of litigation. Properties then sit vacant as
communities lose the opportunity to improve their local
economy. We have a mandate to ensure our taxpayer dollars are
spent wisely, and part of why we are here today is to look at
how we can improve upon this program moving forward and
redevelop brownfield sites to support new and emerging
industries, potentially even including opportunities to build
state-of-the-art AI data centers.
The Brownfields Program has been successful in aiding
economic development while prioritizing environmental
contamination. Just look at my home State of Kentucky. The
Commonwealth of Kentucky and the historic Fayette County
Courthouse in Lexington was used for over 100 years before the
courts transitioned to a bigger facility. Shortly after
becoming vacant, workers discovered structural defects, water
damage, high levels of lead paint, asbestos, and other
hazardous materials. The public-private partnership between the
developer and the EPA through the Brownfields Program made its
revitalization possible. This building now houses a restaurant,
visitor center, event space, and a focal point of the--and is a
focal point for the community while maintaining historical
integrity.
You have major sites like the Hudson Yards in New York
City, which is built on the Long Island Railroad yard. When
completed, Hudson Yards is expected to contribute $19 billion
per year to the local economy. And I went to school just up the
Palisades Parkway from Elizabeth, and so I consider northern
New Jersey and Manhattan my college town. And my daughter went
to intern a couple of summers ago in New York City, and I saw
the address. She was in a college dorm, and it was near Hudson
Yards, adjacent. But I didn't know that it really existed until
I moved her in. And I know the difference between what it was
and what it is. So I was concerned when I saw the neighborhood
she was moving into, until I got there and just saw how
beautiful and nice it was. And absolutely, northern New Jersey
is just absolutely fantastic as well.
And so we have other brownfield sites across the country I
know that we are going to talk about today. One in Indianapolis
was a vacant 19th century iron foundry, and it was given a
second chance to make affordable housing.
This program also helps us in our mission to expand nuclear
power and restore American energy dominance. In the 118th
Congress, I was proud to see my bill, the Nuclear for
Brownfield Sites Preparation Act, signed into law as part of
the ADVANCE Act. My bill utilizes existing infrastructure to
lower project costs and further our investments in nuclear
power by allowing nuclear facilities at brownfield sites.
The Brownfields Program has been a bipartisan tradition
here at the Energy and Commerce Committee, and this hearing
today upholds that legacy. I really appreciate our witnesses
for being here and look forward to hearing what is going on in
your communities.
And I look forward to the further discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Guthrie. And Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5
minutes opening--of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JER-
SEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank all of
the panel, but I particularly want to thank Mayor Chris
Bollwage, who is, as you know, the chair of the--I guess his
official title is chair, U.S. Conference of Mayors Brownfields
Task Force.
But I think that kind of, you know, underplays the role
that you have played for so many years in our Brownfields
Program from the very beginning. And I know you have been a
trusted advisor to me on everything we do with brownfields, so
thank you for all that and for being here today.
We are discussing the 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.
In 2002 I partnered with the late Representative Paul
Gillmor of Ohio, who chaired the subcommittee at the time, to
write the brownfields law. And over the last 20 years, the
Brownfields Program has consistently enjoyed bipartisan support
and has been an economic engine for local government and
communities looking to turn former contaminated sites into
economic centers and green spaces. And every congressional
district is home to at least one of these sites.
As part of the program, the Federal Government provides
financial help in the form of grants or loans for cleanup,
assessments, and job training so communities can turn impacted
sites into parks, public housing, or new business centers. And
since its inception, more than 40,000 sites have been
revitalized and made ready for development around the Nation,
and these revitalization projects leveraged nearly 280,000 jobs
and more than $41 billion in economic development.
So this funding really has been a lifeline for communities.
And with the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in
2021, we were able to inject an additional $1.5 billion into
the Brownfields Program, and that increased annual awards by
nearly 400 percent to around $240 million. Through these funds,
communities are growing their economies for the future and
creating good-paying jobs.
And the Brownfields Program also benefits public health and
safety by reducing contamination in communities that couldn't
afford to repurpose contaminated sites on their own. And that
is just the beginning. For every dollar the Federal Government
invests in the Brownfields Program, we get more than $20 back
in economic return, and that showcases the win-win scenario
that the program facilitates.
And it is important that we keep all of these benefits in
mind as we look to reauthorize the program before funding runs
out in fiscal year 2026. We must reauthorize and fund the
program to continue its critical mission, and I believe that
starting these bipartisan conversations early, Mr. Chairman, is
the necessary first step.
I hope we can all agree that this program is more than
worth every dollar we put into it and that we can work together
to provide robust funding moving forward. But what makes
today's hearing unique is the chaotic circumstances in which we
find ourselves. The Trump administration, perpetrated by Elon
Musk and DOGE, has continued to recklessly and, I believe,
illegally cut staff at Federal agencies, including those that
administer the Brownfields Program at the EPA's Office of Land
and Emergency Management.
These illegal funding freezes have directly impacted the
Brownfields Program, delaying projects and causing confusion
among grant recipients who are responsible for cleaning up
these sites. The Brownfields Program protects our communities
and revitalizes our local economies, and we owe it to all of
our constituents to figure out a path forward, ensuring funding
is delivered. It is crucial that any discussion of the future
of the Brownfields Program builds on the program's economic and
community success while recognizing the need for dedicated
Federal staff to administer it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. So I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and with
that I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back, and I appreciate
that. We now conclude with Member opening statements. The Chair
would like to remind Members that, pursuant to the committee
rules, all Members' opening statements will be made a part of
the record.
We want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to
testify before the subcommittee. Although it is not the
practice of this subcommittee to swear in witnesses, I would
remind our witnesses that knowingly and willfully making
material false statements to the legislative branch is against
the law under title 18, section 1001 of the United States Code.
You will have an opportunity to give an opening statement,
followed by questions from Members. That said, we will now
begin our opening statements, and our first witness will be Mr.
Connaughton.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF JAMES L. CONNAUGHTON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, JLC STRATEGIES; J. CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE,
MAYOR OF ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIR, U.S. CON-
FERENCE OF MAYORS BROWNFIELDS TASK FORCE; CHRISTA
STONEHAM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT,
HOUSTON LAND BANK; AND DUANE A. MILLER, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, LENOWISCO PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF JAMES L. CONNAUGHTON
Mr. Connaughton. Good morning, Chairman Griffith, Ranking
Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jim
Connaughton. I am a technology entrepreneur, a policy
entrepreneur, and an innovation infrastructure developer.
I have spent the better part of my professional life in and
around brownfields, and I was privileged to be with Mayor
Bollwage at the signing of the Brownfields Act in 2001 in
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
Growing our economy to meet the needs of a thriving
population and national security will require a doubling or
even a tripling of infrastructure over the next 25 years. That
means hundreds of thousands of new projects. The hundreds of
thousands of America's brownfields are the best place to start
driving innovation, unleashing prosperity, and revitalizing our
communities.
My written testimony highlights five priority areas of
American industrial innovation, where brownfields are ideal:
data centers, semiconductor manufacturing, submarine and ship
building, energy production, and plastics recycling. During Q&A
I hope to be able to talk about my own successful, albeit
challenging, 8-year saga developing innovative AI data center
infrastructure at two brownfields in the State of California
and many others.
My testimony today, however, is going to focus on the
critical barriers to success of brownfield projects, the
prolonged delays in approving site assessments, environmental
permits, and connections to the electricity grid. These delays
either kill brownfield projects or needlessly make them two to
three times more expensive than they need to be.
Whether your objective is growing the economy, sustaining
U.S. technology leadership, strengthening national security,
addressing the energy emergency, or confronting climate change,
fully achieving these objectives is procedurally impossible. I
will highlight four policies to enable immediate and lower-cost
project development. These policies eliminate process and
litigation barriers while preserving compliance with our
Nation's environmental protection laws.
The first speed bump for projects happens when agencies
delay signing off on the environmental site assessments used to
clear brownfield sites for reuse. This work is now performed
quickly and cost-effectively by credentialed private-sector
experts using well-established methods developed over 30 years
and tens of thousands of projects. Congress should authorize an
automatic signoff process for certified third-party-expert site
assessments.
The second major delay happens during environmental
permitting. I am recommending that Congress legislate a permit-
by-rule approach that I call Approve, Build, and Comply, or
ABC. The legislation would categorically approve a list of
precleared locations and precleared types of critical
infrastructure projects in lieu of further permitting. Such
projects would still have to comply with substantive
environmental regulations, and any noncompliance would still
remain subject to enforcement. These precleared locations would
include areas that Federal, State, and Tribal law have already
prioritized, such as brownfields, opportunity zones, energy
communities, shipyards, and existing rights of way.
The third delay factor, of course, is NEPA and its State
equivalents. The solution is to refocus NEPA reviews on
unquantified environmental impacts as the original 1970 law
provides. Since 1970, hundreds of Federal, State, local, and
Tribal laws have been enacted, all of which quantify most every
environmental impact in thousands of implementing regulations
and technical documents. Congress should clarify that any
environmental impacts that are regulated or managed under
another law do not require redundant analysis and evaluation
under NEPA. We still get full coverage, but we eliminate the
redundancy.
Finally, new infrastructure faces a 5-year delay and a
massive backlog, preventing connection to the electricity grid.
Imagine if that was your home, your school, or your hospital.
Five years before you can connect to the grid. Congress should
set a 6-month limit on interconnection decisions and direct the
FERC and DOE to work with system operators to implement
automated technology solutions for 3 years. We have the
hardware, we have the software. We just need to invest to make
it happen.
With these initiatives, brownfields can happen starting
tomorrow, and we can move from thousands of sites redeveloped
to hundreds of thousands of sites redeveloped, and it will be
the foundation of the future of our economy.
Thank you for your consideration, and I will look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connaughton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, sir. Now I recognize Mr. Bollwage,
Mayor, for your 5-minute opening statement.
STATEMENT OF J. CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman Griffith, I
appreciate it.
Ranking Member Tonko, it is good to see you again.
And thank you very much, Congressman Menendez and
Congressman Pallone, for your kind words.
I have been before this committee, Chairman, numerous times
since the 1990s on the topic of brownfields, and I represent
the U.S. Conference of Mayors. But I would like the committee
to know that we are also working closely with the National
League of Cities and the National Association of Counties on
this important issue.
I also want to thank this committee for incorporating our
recommendations into the brownfields law in 2018, including the
multipurpose grants, the increasing of the cleanup grant
amounts, and we were very pleased at that time to see
additional funding of $1.5 billion that--and the higher funding
caps that were included in the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act.
Previous testimony, cities have been doing brownfields, as
all of you know, for years. But we have hit roadblocks on those
efforts. And the legislation that you mentioned in your opening
remarks, Chairman, in 2002 was a game changer on many of those
roadblocks, providing liability protections for innocent
parties, codified the Brownfields Program, and made a
difference throughout many communities in this entire country.
The results are impressive. For every Federal dollar that
are awarded in this Brownfields Program, $20.45 has been
leveraged; 13.9 jobs were leveraged per $100,000 of EPA
funding. The only downside is, you know, Mr. Chairman and
members of this committee, are that the grant applications far
outnumber the resources that are available.
And although many of the easier-to-develop brownfield field
sites have been tackled, communities still struggle to develop
more difficult sites. The changes that were incorporated in the
2018 reauthorization bill as well as the Jobs Act have assisted
with cleanup and redevelopment of more complex sites.
EPA brownfields has consistently been one of the most
useful Federal programs at the local level, and it is a
bipartisan program supported by Congress.
Brownfields are a neighborhood eyesore that the
neighborhood sees. But for cities, they represent unutilized
potential. We see redevelopment as a chance to create jobs,
revitalize neighborhoods, increase the tax base, and reutilize
existing infrastructure.
I want to thank Congress for the--including 1.5 billion in
brownfields redevelopment in the Job Acts as well as providing
higher grant levels.
EPA was hesitant towards larger grants because they only
had $90 million. However, with the increased funding and
additional flexibility, EPA provided larger grant amounts of
$500,000 for assessments and 5 million for cleanups. In my
community, we have developed the Jersey Gardens, the Harbor
Front Villas, Elizabeth Port HOPE VI, and they are all included
in my written testimony.
The former landfill became a 200-acre shopping experience.
A former industrial waterfront is now home to mixed-use
development that includes luxury homes as well as affordable
housing. This is what the great brownfield--the Brownfields
Program is all about. Each community is different. They have
their own needs and their own vision, and the program provides
them with the tools they need.
Regarding the next reauthorization bill, we would like to
recommend, on behalf of the Conference of Mayors, naturally,
additional levels of funding of 250 to 300 million per year for
the next 5 years; multipurpose grant programs, increasing the
grant amounts to 5 to 10 million--we would also ask the EPA to
allow the broadest application of the area to cover these
grants; support of our original recommendation of increasing
the cleanup grant cap to 1 million, with the flexibility to go
up to 10 million in certain instances; raise the administrative
caps to a higher level--this will help smaller communities; and
finally, we would like to work with you to develop
recommendations on potential tools that can be implemented.
The changes that Congress has made in the last
reauthorization bill improve the program. And significantly,
the Jobs Act built on that progress. Our organizations are
asking Congress for a simple reauthorization package with
change in the effective dates. But if possible, we ask for
additional resources such as those that were allocated in the
Jobs Act.
This is a program that I think all of us are proud of,
where--whatever side of the aisle, and I urge this committee
for reauthorization.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bollwage follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman, and now recognize Ms.
Stoneham for her 5-minute opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTA STONEHAM
Ms. Stoneham. Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member Tonko, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
As chief executive officer and president of the Houston
Land Bank, America's largest geographic land bank, our mission
as a quasigovernmental nonprofit is to turn vacant, abandoned,
and underutilized properties into thriving community assets.
However, I also serve as a steering committee member for the
National Brownfields Coalition and a board member for the
Center for Community Progress, both organizations dedicated to
ensuring that brownfields are opportunities for redevelopment
and economic progress.
As the energy capital of the world, Houston is on track to
become the third-largest city in the United States. Yet
hundreds of brownfields and acres remain barriers to housing,
jobs, and economic prosperity. But unlike many major cities,
Houston has no zoning laws, meaning that industrial sites often
sit directly next to homes, schools, and community centers.
This creates health and safety risks, drives down property
values, and makes redevelopment complicated, especially when
absentee landlords, legal barriers, and contamination costs
prevent private investment from stepping in. But that is where
land banks step up. We take on the toughest properties, the
ones that market won't touch, and position them for community-
driven revitalization. But we can't do this work alone.
One example of Federal support in action is Project Yellow
Cab, a 6.8-acre brownfield site in Houston's near north side.
Once a vital transportation hub, the former taxi headquarters
quickly became an illegal landfill, a crime hotspot, and an
environmental hazard. But since 2019 the Houston Land Bank has
secured $5 million in local government grants for site
acquisition, leveraged $7.3 million in ARPA funds to gain full
site control with Harris County, demolished abandoned
warehouses, and prepared the land for redevelopment. But most
importantly, we partnered with the community to plan 40
affordable single-family homes and 120 affordable multifamily
units. In addition, we secured over $200,000 to ensure these
homes are energy efficient and disaster ready, a critical need
in Houston, where storms and hurricanes are a constant threat.
But Project Yellow Cab is just one example of a bigger
need. To expand our impact, we also secured a $600,000
assessment grant for over 40 acres to conduct infrastructure
analysis, facilitate reuse planning, and to engage community
leaders, environmental experts, and policymakers to drive new
funding and partnerships. Today we are working with a $500,000
citywide brownfield assessment grant and a $5 million cleanup
grant to transform a 60-year abandoned trash incinerator site
into a public green space.
But without sustained Federal investment, these projects
and many like them may never happen. Land banks across the
country rely on governmental partnerships to take on sites that
private developers cannot do alone. But we need continued
success in order to align with Congress to ensure long-term
funding stability; expand eligibility for small, community-
driven projects; strengthen public-private partnerships; and
expand reuse planning support.
Because at Houston Land Bank we don't see brownfields as
problems, we see them as possibilities: homes where families
can build wealth, parks where children can play, and
storefronts where businesses can grow. But this progress
depends on sustained Federal investment. Houston, like so many
cities, cannot afford to lose a single square foot of
opportunity. We have the tools, we have the partnerships, we
have the momentum. Now we need the resources to amplify our
mission.
Thank you for your time and service and attention. I
welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stoneham follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. I thank you so much, and now recognize Mr.
Miller for his 5-minute opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DUANE A. MILLER
Mr. Miller. Good morning, Chairman Griffith, Vice Chairman
Crenshaw, Ranking Member Tonko, and Ranking Member Pallone.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the critical
role of EPA's Brownfields Program in revitalizing rural coal
communities.
I represent voices from the communities of southwest
Virginia that have powered this Nation for generations, towns
built around coal mines, processing plants, and industries that
once thrived but have since faced economic downturn and
environmental challenges. The Brownfields Program is a lifeline
for these communities. It transforms once-contaminated,
underutilized properties into productive sites for economic
development, public use, and community restoration. The program
does not just clean up land, it restores hope, attracts
investment, and paves the way for a new economic future.
One of the most significant benefits of the Brownfields
Program is its role in economic development. Rural, coal-
impacted communities often struggle to attract new businesses
due to environmental concerns tied to former mining and
industrial sites. Brownfields funding changes that equation. By
assessing and remediating contamination, these sites--often the
only developable flat acreage in a locality of very mountainous
and sloped terrain--become viable locations for manufacturers,
small businesses, and even a plethora of possible renewable
energy and data center projects. We have seen direct results.
For every Federal dollar invested in brownfields cleanup,
communities see an average return of $20 in economic
development activity. Also, it is estimated that brownfields
redevelopment creates over 10 jobs per $100,000 spent, jobs
that stay in the community and provide opportunities for
displaced coal workers and younger generations alike.
Beyond job creation, brownfields funding enables rural
communities to repurpose land for critical infrastructure
projects. Many former coal-related sites are being transformed
into modern industrial parks, and--it is our hope--future
housing developments to meet growing community needs. Without
this Federal support, many of these sites would remain
abandoned, limiting the region's ability to attract new
residents, industry, and businesses.
The Brownfields Program is not just about industrial
economic growth, it is also about promoting the resurgence of
downtown communities. Many downtown districts' brownfield sites
contain legacy contaminants that pose risks. Brownfields
funding allows localities to clean up these sites and create
prime locations for downtown district resurgence, further
improving the livability and quality of life in these
communities.
Many rural dependent communities are seeking ways to
diversify their economies while maintaining their identity.
Brownfields funding is playing a critical role in repurposing
former mine land and industrial sites for new energy data
center development, including battery storage facilities and
even small modular reactor possibilities to meet ever-growing
domestic data center development power needs.
I am thankful for Chairman Griffith as well as Governor
Youngkin, for making SMR and energy generation priority in our
region. LENOWISCO, the agency I work for, completed an SMR site
feasibility study and identified seven possible sites. Six of
those seven were brownfield locations. I also would note all
seven of those locations scored very high in the siting tool
for advanced nuclear development, the STAND requirement.
These projects align with Federal and State goals for
energy security while ensuring that rural areas remain key
players in America's emerging data center and energy future.
The EPA's brownfield program is one of the most successful
examples for Federal investment sparking local revitalization.
It empowers rural communities to turn environmental liabilities
into economic assets.
In my experience, when a former coal site is cleaned up and
put back into productive use, it does more than remove
contamination. It restores local pride, creates economic
opportunity, and provides a pathway for the next generation to
stay and thrive in their hometowns.
I urge this committee to continue its support for the
Brownfields Program, ensuring that rural, coal-impacted
communities have the resources needed to reclaim their land,
rebuild their economies, and create a more sustainable future.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, and I thank all of our
witnesses. We will now begin questioning by the Members.
I would ask that Members remember not to ask a new question
to our witnesses just as your 5 minutes is expiring. We do
have--yes, that happens. We do have the opportunity for you to
submit written questions for the record subsequent to the
hearing, and I would encourage you to do so.
That being said, I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Miller, Duane, as you know, I represent a large
district. It is larger than nine States by land mass. And so
while today we are focusing on LENOWISCO and the southwest
corner with the mines and so forth of the district, I have
brownfields in all of the 28 different geopolitical
subdivisions that I represent, from Martinsville to Pennington
Gap and Lee County, which is part of your service area. And it
is--from those two locations, it is about 220 miles, no matter
where you are in the district, to get from one side to the
other. It is about 4 hours and so many minutes, depending on
exactly where you are located. So I don't want to--it is not
that we are ignoring them, it is just that I couldn't focus on
everybody.
But I am proud to have you here talking about the work that
you have done in the LENOWISCO area. Could you talk more about
how your organization has successfully utilized the brownfields
grant program in our part of Virginia? And I know in your
testimony you mentioned Project Intersection, so you may want
to get into that.
Mic.
Mr. Miller. Sure, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Project Intersection
actually is on a brownfield site in the City of Norton in
Virginia.
As the chairman mentioned, I would say probably 80 percent
of any acreage we have in the district where I work that is
more than 5 to 10 acres is going to be some form of a
brownfield site. If it is something that can't be developed, it
is because of the slope or the mountainous terrain that is in
the region where we are.
Project Intersection was an abandoned mine land site, and
we were able to develop those 200 acres into an industrial park
just over the last 5 years, utilizing brownfield money for
assessment in the early stages and then able to turn those
funds into AMLER funding through OSM.
Mr. Griffith. And AMLER is Abandoned Mine Land Economic
Revitalization. That is a separate program from your
traditional abandoned mine land program, correct?
Mr. Miller. Correct.
Mr. Griffith. All right.
Mr. Miller. And it is a wonderful program.
Mr. Griffith. Yes, it is.
Mr. Miller. Yes, we have certainly utilized that program
and secured over $30 million to develop that industrial park,
and also have recruited two prospects that, at full capacity,
will have 350 jobs within our region. Three hundred and fifty
jobs may not sound like a whole lot to some of the Members--or
members of the committee here, but 350 jobs in our region is
what we like to refer to as a big lick. So we are really happy
to be able to do that.
Mr. Griffith. And you couldn't have done that without
several programs, but particularly also the Brownfields
Program. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller. Absolutely. There is really no development we
can do, whether it is in downtown districts or larger economic
development projects within our region, without reaching into
the brownfield pot in one form or another, whether it is an
assessment or actual implementation.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Can you tell us what barriers, if
any, your organization has faced in receiving and making use of
cleanup grants and revolving loan fund grants?
Mr. Miller. The biggest issue, and what I would like to
leave with you all today in terms of that, is what can we do
for redevelopment? The brownfield money is wonderful for
assessment. It is also wonderful for cleanup. But in rural,
small areas like where we are, with an aging population and, of
course, a dropping tax basis is--with that older demographic--
is where can we find the funds for redevelopment?
I mean, we struggle to find the funds just for the
assessment. And what we have had to do is pool a lot of our
localities together, go to EPA for a collaboration fund grant,
and then use those funds. Because our communities--you remember
some of our towns--I am fortunate to work for 15 towns, 1 city,
and 3 counties. And we have, actually, the smallest town in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Duffield, which has 50 residents,
going up to our largest town of those 15, which is about 3,500.
So very rural, small area.
So, you know, we will get--I kind of like--I won't use an
analogy, but we really don't have the funds in our small
localities to really get past--we will do--or we will do, you
know, the assessment, and then we will get into the cleanup on
implementation. But there is really nothing to go that next
step in redevelopment.
I am not asking for EPA and brownfields to fund all of
that, but maybe some type of matching program, where you could
access some of those funds in the form of a grant for
redevelopment of some of those areas. And again, not 100
percent by any means, but at least something that we could do.
And I would be remiss if I didn't plug, too, certainly
anything we could do that would help specifically coal-reliant
communities, I think, would be wonderful.
Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that. And you mentioned
Duffield, and I am out of time so I will just say that Duffield
has a lot of brown sites--brownfield sites, even though it only
is a town of--how many people did you say?
Mr. Miller. There's 50 in Duffield.
Mr. Griffith. All right, I appreciate it.
Mr. Miller. Well, 54 to 50 in the last census.
Mr. Griffith. I yield back and now recognize Mr. Tonko, the
ranking member, for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
witnesses again. I absolutely want this program to be able to
continue working, and working effectively. And after the
enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act we have
some new data points that Congress might want to consider for
adjusting the program moving forward.
So, Mayor Bollwage, do you and the local government groups
you are representing believe that those IIJA funds have been
used effectively?
Mr. Bollwage. When we can get them, yes.
Mr. Tonko. And, Ms. Stoneham, do you or any of the other
witnesses share the view that the IIJA has resulted in Federal
dollars being well utilized?
Ms. Stoneham. Absolutely. It provided an opportunity to
work directly with the communities to imagine what they would
like to see, and then directly implement the solution as well.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Anyone else on that?
[No response.]
Mr. Tonko. Those IIJA dollars included some tweaks to the
program's requirements. Mayor Bollwage, I know you have made
the point that many of the easier brownfields have already been
addressed through the program, which has left sites that are
more complex, costly, or otherwise less attractive for
redevelopment. But, of course, those sites also deserve the
chance to spark a locally driven revitalization effort. Those
IIJA dollars sought to address this by increasing the maximum
award amount.
Mr. Mayor, was this an effective policy change to better
address more complex sites?
Mr. Bollwage. Yes, Mr.--Vice Chairman--Ranking Member. It
helps in a way that it affords flexibility for the
municipalities, and that is the important part of that
question.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And did EPA strike the right balance
between award amounts and the overall number of awards?
Mr. Bollwage. It depends on the municipality. It could
work, the balance. In my city it has always worked.
Mr. Tonko. And do other witnesses have an opinion on the
merits of larger award amounts?
Mr. Connaughton.
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, Ranking Member Tonko. The projects I
have been--I am focused on are these big innovation
infrastructure projects, which tend to be larger and be a--have
a much more complex physical infrastructure, but then have all
these spillover effects into then the smaller brownfields that
will support them and supply them. So think of building
submarines in Mobile, Alabama. You have the big redevelopment
that occurs just at the facility for building, but then you
have all these zones around the shipyard that can now be
restored and redeveloped. So it is a combination of anchor and
then lots of lots of smaller supporting. And now you could have
a systematic redevelopment that brings lots of value to the
community.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The bipartisan brownfields
reauthorization that was recently marked up by the Senate EPW
Committee also included a statutory increase to the maximum
award amount. And while the Senate hasn't gone as far as the
IIJA's maximum awards, the inclusion of this provision is an
acknowledgment that some future sites may require additional
flexibility in the size of awards.
Mayor Bollwage, based on the IIJA experience, is this a
change we should consider in the program's reauthorization?
Mr. Bollwage. We believe the new money that is being
provided by the Jobs Act is utilized and justify any
appropriations in the future. Higher funding levels are,
naturally, extremely important and could be included in this
new authorization bill.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you for that.
And from our other witnesses, any comments on that effort
being made?
Mr. Miller. I would have to agree. And anything we could do
to raise the amount. And one of the things--again, I am in a
very rural location, you know, so some of our projects may be
as simple as redevelopment of an old school building, not a
high cost in terms of the grand scheme of things. But then we
are also focusing now on really trying to take some of this
rural property that is in a remote area and market it for data
centers and also small modular reactors and looking at other
energy projects.
And as most of you all know, when you are talking about
data centers or small modular reactors, you are talking about
huge price tags. So anything we could do to increase a--I think
we would certainly ask.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Ms. Stoneham, I think you wanted to say
something too.
Ms. Stoneham. Yes, the $5 million cleanup grant for the
trash incinerator that I mentioned was the largest in our
region. If we had more dollars, we could have considered
additional uses outside of a green space, considering the site
currently has over 40 feet of incinerator ash currently on that
site. So if we had a larger funding amount, then maybe we can
incorporate other community benefits, but we were very grateful
to receive that grant award to produce that result.
Mr. Tonko. OK. With seconds remaining, I heard the Chair
earlier today, so with that I will yield back.
How is that for support?
Mr. Griffith. Absolutely. I thank the gentleman and now
recognize Mr. Crenshaw for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all
for being here.
Thank you, Ms. Stoneham, for being here and telling us
about some of these successful brownfield site cleanups in our
hometown of Houston. Before I get to Mr. Connaughton on a few
other questions, on some of these Houston-based projects, you
know, in your testimony you stated that the initial brownfield
grant of, I think, $600,000 opened up $13 million. But does--
but I--but when we look at those, those are also mostly EPA--
well, mostly Federal funding that it opened up.
Where is--where does the State come in in projects like
these? I saw some from City of Houston. Does the--what is the
State agency that would be matching or cost sharing?
Ms. Stoneham. So currently we have not had any matches,
match requirements, or received any direct funds from the
State. Now, we did coordinate with the TCQ in terms of the
compliance and the reporting and the testing, but we did not
receive any funding as of yet.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK. I was just curious. Thank you.
Mr. Connaughton, you mentioned many ways to make this just
a more efficient process in general. Could you maybe elaborate
on that and on ways to increase private investment interest in
brownfield sites, and also just the efficiency of the program
and permitting and just getting it going? We keep hearing this
stuff in terms of years. How do we make those months?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes. So many of the projects that have
been in the program are smaller, more--located near cities,
rebuilding communities. And, you know, we are talking about
grants and the 1 to 10 million. What I want to talk about is
the opposite of funding. These--those are what I call assess to
attract. So you are funding to clear the site so hopefully
somebody will develop it in the future. What I want to talk
about is attract to assess, where there is not an outlay of
money.
The main obstacle to building out large innovation
infrastructure--and I have lived it and have the successes and
the scars to prove it--the main obstacle is speed to project
completion. So if I know I am going to build a $200 million
data center project, which I have done, and I know that I can
actually turn it on in under 2 years, which is impossible, I
will pay anything to assess the site to make it clean for
redevelopment, OK? That will be on my budget. But if I am
looking at a brownfield, and it is--I am not sure of its
assessment status, and I don't know if I can get my permits,
and I don't know that I can build, my project is going to cost
two to three times more, right? I am going to have all this
uncertainty, and I am not going to get my investors or my
insurers to sign off.
So the biggest risk to brownfield redevelopment are all the
projects that never get built that we don't talk about, OK,
because they die on the vine. That is why these permitting
reforms are so vital. And I want to underline I am not talking
about changing any environmental standards; I am just talking
about reversing the process step like we do in most other
sectors, which is let's let developers with their third-party
experts actually build and be subject to an enforcement for
noncompliance, which, by the way, in the modern age almost
never happens now. The rules are strict. The enforcement is
harsh. You know, you have huge damages, liabilities.
So the beauty of rebuilding in a brownfield is you can take
that brownfield and turn it into an environmental greenfield.
And that is why you can support all these activities. But you
need this--it is a three-legged stool, and the three-legged
stool is you have got to get the site assessments cleared fast,
OK? I can pay my expert to do it in, you know, weeks--actually,
months. But then I sit around and wait for a year and a half
for the government clearance, right? I can do all my NEPA. I
did a NEPA in California. We did it in 3 months, and it took me
3\1/2\ years to get it signed off on. I mean, that is nuts.
And then the environmental permits, once I was finally able
to apply for them--which I couldn't do until my NEPA was done,
OK, that took another year, right? You know, my project is now
three times more than it was, very hard to--especially as a
startup, to get investment.
So if we don't go after all of these pieces, they run in
parallel. Any one doesn't solve the problem.
Mr. Crenshaw. And when you testify about automatic signoff
processes, is that what you are talking about?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, we do that in so many other sectors,
you know, where we have third-party certified professionals
signing off to government-set standards. In the brownfield
program, I mean, the mayor and others have created a 30-year
record of how to do this right. We know how to do it, we have
the practices, we have the standards. We know what is clean, we
know what is not clean. The remediation methods are really well
established.
So where all of this is well established, we just--we
should just have a process where the professionals sign off,
and then they can be inspected and reviewed, you know, if they
screw up. But it almost never happens anymore.
Mr. Crenshaw. Got it. Thank you. That is an interesting
thing for the committee to think about as we look at
reauthorization.
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I
now recognize Mr. Pallone, the chair--ranking member of the
full committee, for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me go to Mayor
Bollwage.
In your testimony you say--and I quote--``It will never be
a bad investment to put more money into this program.''
Obviously, I agree. But as we start to think about
reauthorizing brownfields, what authorization levels should we
consider for the program?
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I recommended in the
testimony that we do 300 million per year for the next 5 years,
and that the caps are set at 10 million for cleanup,
multipurpose, and job training grants--$500,000 for assessments
is what is in my written testimony.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you. And, I mean, the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law had 1.5 billion. That was a big
boost to the program. And, you know, I don't want to slow down
that momentum, because brownfield sites are getting harder to
remediate and clean up. So I think the authorization levels
need to reflect that, if you will. But let me go to Ms.
Stoneham.
From your perspective, how important is it for Congress to
reauthorize the Brownfields Program, and particularly for the
planning of important projects that are in the pipeline?
Ms. Stoneham. Absolutely. Thank you for that question.
So for the reuse planning aspect of brownfields assessment,
that is one of the first lines of implementation, of just being
able to have a feasibility study to have the reuse planning.
And then, of course, obviously, doing the phase one and phase
two testing. So having additional appropriation so we can
figure out what--not just what the vision is, but do they also
match the performance analysis of whatever development is
trying to take place would be extremely helpful so we can move
forward with additional money needed for the capital stack as
we are partnering with the public, nonprofit, and private
sectors.
Mr. Pallone. Did you want to add anything to that, Mayor,
about the planning of projects and the pipeline and brownfield?
Mr. Bollwage. I agree with my colleague over here. I mean,
as you know, Congressman and on both sides of me, when we did
the Jersey Gardens Mall, getting the money and the assessments
on the brownfields was relatively easy. Then getting signoff
became much more difficult. And so I would only add that part
to the answer to the question.
Mr. Pallone. Okay. You know, obviously, to provide
certainty for local and private-sector investments we have to
ensure the program is reauthorized in a timely manner as well.
I am going to ask both of you, the mayor and Ms. Stoneham, the
next question.
Has the Trump administration's illegal funding freeze
impacted the development and operation of your brownfields
projects, and how so?
I will start with the mayor, if you will.
Mr. Bollwage. So we have a $500,000 grant under the Jobs
Act for brownfields, for job training, and it was held up 2
weeks ago, or a month ago. We are waiting. We can't even get a
hold of anybody to talk to them. And just recently I was told
on a train on the way here this morning that we would know an
answer in the next 2 weeks, and that is a tough way to deal
with a grant that you got.
Now, keep in mind the Groundworks association in Elizabeth
has put in a lot of upfront effort when it comes to dollars and
training for this, and now they are being told you can't access
the money.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I--first of all, let me say I learn a
lot on the train back to New Jersey as well.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pallone. But, you see, this is the problem. We had the
freeze. The courts said you can't freeze the money. But what I
find more and more is that, even though in theory the Trump
administration has recognized that they can't freeze this
money--not just for brownfields, but for so many other things--
that, practically speaking, in many cases this freeze continues
only because there is nobody to send out the money, the portal
doesn't work, you know, whatever it happens to be.
So let me ask Ms.----
Mr. Bollwage. I would just add to you, Mr. Congressman,
that if you don't answer the phone on the other end----
Mr. Pallone. Yes, I mean, that is a problem.
Mr. Bollwage. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. So you got 50--if--can I add, Ms.--if you
wanted to add to that, Ms. Stoneham.
Ms. Stoneham. Yes, so it significantly impacted our
timeline planning of what we needed for the procurements for
the cleanup grant for 5 million that I mentioned earlier.
Definitely, just having the risk of us being a nonprofit and
this being a reimbursement grant, I don't feel comfortable even
publishing it not knowing if we will have the opportunity to
pay our contractors.
So we needed to meet the compliance measures, obviously, of
this particular grant, but we also have other people that we
have to report out to, including the community, the local
government. So definitely, the instability makes it difficult
in order for us to enact the development that we said we were
going to do.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the chair of the full committee,
Representative Guthrie, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks to all the
witnesses for being here.
Last year, Congress passed the ADVANCE Act, which required
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the NRC, to modernize its
efforts to develop domestic advanced nuclear energy. The
ADVANCE Act included the Nuclear for Brownfield Sites
Preparation Act, which directed the NRC to identify and report
on regulations, guidance, or policy necessary to license and
allow nuclear facilities at brownfield sites as well as other
sites with retired fossil fuel facilities.
So Mr. Connaughton, in your testimony you discussed the
need to ``deliver on the proven promise of brownfield-driven
industrial innovation,'' which requires, ``a significant
modernization of governmental approval processes for site
assessment, permitting, and interconnecting.''
So Mr. Connaughton, could you discuss, in your view, what
improvements to the Brownfields Program could be made to
deliver on that promise?
Mr. Connaughton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, let's start
with nuclear.
The key for nuclear is the stringent safety regulations
that the NRC is entrusted to implement, to be sure that these
projects are built in a--in the manner, historically, that has
been proven to be quite safe for our communities and providing
tons of zero-emission power. That is the critical path to
making these projects work.
If you think about the billions of dollars that go into
these projects, environmental compliance is a necessity. And
the work of certified professionals--the lawyers, engineers,
biologists, what have you--is conducted by the project
proponent, OK? Meaning so that they meet at the highest
standards before they ever go to talk to a regulator.
If we could have brownfield sites assessed and ready to go,
and you have these new, more modular construction in
particular, but also conventional, and we had a system where
you actually built and submitted your paperwork demonstrating
compliance, OK, if you would--if we could just allow the
project to get built, OK, we would cut the cost by two-thirds,
and that is a direct pass-through to consumers. It lowers your
cost of capital for investment. It means we can have three
times more for the same price for our communities.
Brownfields are great for that, and in the appropriate NRC-
identified locations the siting is critical. You still want to
100 percent defer to local concerns and interests on the siting
process, but the permitting process and connecting to the grid,
if we don't fix it we are not going to get it.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, I appreciate that. So Mayor--Mayor
Bollwage, as I said, I spent a lot of time in the New York-New
Jersey border there, so it is beautiful town that you have, and
a beautiful area. So I just want to say--so in your testimony
you note that ``additional tools may be necessary to convince
owners of mothballed properties that it is safe to turn over or
sell or redevelop those properties.'' Would you talk about what
tools you suggest would be necessary, or may be necessary?
Mr. Bollwage. Well, one of the tools that we have locally
would be eminent domain in order to take the property, and that
creates a liability issue. on who is going to be responsible if
the city takes it over. The other tools would be financial
incentives in order to attract the developer, whether it be
through local tax abatements or through other tax incentives.
Tools that this committee or the Congress could give us would
naturally mean more dollars moving towards the redevelopment
process.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
And then--so Mr. Connaughton, in your testimony you asked
rhetorically, shouldn't we be doing more to put brownfield
sites ``back to work with renewed deployment of modern, large-
scale industrial innovations''? Do you want to kind of expand
on that?
And then maybe also Mr. Mayor and Mr. Miller, as well, want
to expand on that?
Mr. Connaughton. In the decades following World War II we
built this massive physical footprint for the massive
industrialization that unfolded. And then we have basically,
you know, given most of it away to, you know, overseas and
moving into more of a services and small tech-based economy.
Now we are facing--we are paying the price for that, which is
now we got to rebuild it all. And the brownfield footprint is
there, it is efficient, it has got communities, it has got all
the amenities, it has got the schools, the churches. So putting
those communities back to work in the new, modern form of
infrastructure is an opportunity we just--we have to go after.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thanks.
Mayor, I had you answer questions, so I will just skip over
it because I am about out of--Mr. Miller, shouldn't we be doing
more to put brownfields back to work for the large-scale
industrial--you want to expand on that--innovations?
Mr. Miller. No, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in
my comments--and kind of--kind of switching, but in terms of
SMR feasibility site studies that we did in our region, we
identified seven possible sites. Six of those seven are in
brownfield areas.
And kind of to your point to some of the other committee
members, I mentioned six of those seven sites are on brownfield
sites, and all seven sites scored above average on a nationwide
average in the siting tool for advanced nuclear development, or
the STAND criteria that is utilized for that. So that kind of
goes back to your point, I mean, about what we can do for new
types of projects.
And I would love to talk to you more about this, I----
Mr. Guthrie. I look forward to it. Yes, my time has
expired, but I will look forward to following up with you.
Thank you.
Mr. Griffith [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. I now
recognize Ms. Schakowsky for her 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask
questions just of Ms. Stoneham and Mr. Bollwage--am I saying
that right?
My questions, of course, deal with this issue of the, you
know, what is going on in our communities. And it is so
important that we have clean places for our children, for our
community, for our merchants to have. And we know that in
Illinois, seven of the counties definitely have places that
need to be cleaned up and have not been so far.
But I wanted to raise the question that seems to defer the
ability--or could defer the ability to clean up. And one of
them, an important one that we see right now, is that there are
monies that are being taken away right now, and that there is
going to be fewer amount--less amount of money to be able to
clean up these brownfields. And I am just wondering how you see
the problem that is going to be emerging when the money is not
available to do the cleanup.
And I mentioned the two people I am hoping would answer
that.
Ms. Stoneham. So definitely not having the funding we need,
especially with Houston and the significant amount of
brownfields throughout the city and across our Nation, would
have an economic decline. I strongly believe in public-private
partnership, and it is just too much for a private investor to
take on solely on their own, especially with all of the
compliance measures that need to take place. And having those
funds will ensure the stability to have continued--contiguous
change for the different developments needed across our Nation,
whether it is housing or green space or solar activity.
Really, just having that consistency is absolutely
necessary, in addition to the staff needed to make sure that
the paperwork and the compliance measures are moving forward
accordingly as well.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I really feel concerned that people
who have been doing this work--that the money is shrinking,
that it has been taken away through the Trump administration,
and I am just concerned that who is going to be able to have
the money if the people who are working on these projects are
out of a job.
Ms. Stoneham. I strongly agree and echo your sentiments as
well.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, we have to watch that the--when there
are dollars being taken away, because then, you know, we need
to have all the resources that we have in our communities. We
know in the Chicago area itself this is a real problem.
And I am wondering if Mr.--let me get the name right.
Boll----
Mr. Bollwage. ``Bowl-wage''?
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes.
Mr. Bollwage. OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you, Congresswoman. Many communities
are still going to do the easy ones. They are still going to do
the ones that are simple in the brownfields. And, you know,
Congress recognized this in 2018 in the reauthorization bill,
raising the cleanup grants to--200 to 500 thousand dollars with
the flexibility to go up to $650,000, based on the anticipated
level of contamination.
But in answering your question, we also need people in the
EPA to answer the phones.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Latta for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks very
much for our witnesses for being with us today. It is a very
important topic.
And if I could, Mr. Connaughton, if I could ask you,
because you--I am sorry I had to step out for a couple of
meetings, but you mentioned something that is kind of near and
dear to everybody's heart as we are watching what is happening
today with data centers going up across the country, and there
is a real question of, you know, where they are being placed,
you know, and the amount of space that is needed for them.
And I would get your opinion as to what do you see the--
what we could be doing on brownfields and data centers, because
this is absolutely a massive need that we are going to be
having in this country, not just the massive amount of power we
are going to have to have, but just the siting and some of the
issues we have there.
Mr. Connaughton. Just to put things in perspective: If we
were sitting here 10 years ago, a 5-megawatt data center would
be big. And then, very quickly it was 20 megawatts. Just 2
years ago, 100 megawatts was a gigantic data center. We are
involved, my former company where I worked with Nautilus
Technologies, we are involved with a project at a coal-fired--
old coal-fired power plant that shut down in Portugal, 1.2
gigawatts, so 1,200 megawatts of power that that data center
will use.
And in America you are seeing these 250, 500-megawatt
projects that want to be built and can't find the places that
they can build to get access to the power or the time to be
able to build their own power in anything that represents, you
know, the demand. I describe this as we need to build at the
speed of the need, and we have got too many obstacles to
getting there.
The thing I want to underline is these data centers are
essential to our daily lives. And the beauty is they are out of
sight, you know, and they are in big warehouses, but they don't
clutter our world. They don't clutter our world. Our world
shows up like this. And so they are really, really valuable
pieces of infrastructure.
And then, of course, with AI, they are going to be defining
the, you know, the industrial, you know, the fourth Industrial
Revolution. And America kind of owns that right now. We could
give it up. Ireland, for example, has no process for siting any
new data centers of any size. They just killed the goose that
laid the golden egg. Ireland was a hub for information
technology companies, and it is over in Ireland. I do not want
to see that happen here.
OK, we have the ability to use brownfields to make these
data centers----
Mr. Latta. You know, the problem is, you know, if we think
about what we always talk about in this committee--and
hopefully we are going to get something done in this Congress--
like on permitting, you will be able to, you know, get into
these brownfields and say, you know what? It is safe to put
these in.
And so where do you see on the permitting side--what do we
need to be doing on permitting to move things along, get things
along faster?
You know, the great thing about this committee, the broad
jurisdiction we have, I have never heard anybody ever testify
before saying that they were against all regulations. Just give
us regulations that we can live with. But what do you see on
the permitting side that we ought to be doing right now?
Mr. Connaughton. You know, what is interesting, we had all
the big infrastructure projects, data centers, semiconductors--
by the way, even shipbuilding today, they actually don't have a
big outward environmental footprint. There is a lot of things
to comply with, OK, but all the methods of controlling to
prevent environmental contamination are, you know, are well
known and are in place.
And so if we could simply change the default to yes, with
inspection and enforcement of noncompliance, which almost never
occurs, that solves the problem. And you do it in site
assessment, you do it in permitting, and you do it with
interconnection. You have to create an automated system. We
live in a modern age.
When I got my car this morning, I did not call the police
to get permission to leave my home, promising I would--you
know, I am certified, I have my license, I have my insurance, I
am trusted to comply. And if I don't comply, they come, they
come and get me. We should be doing the same for our
infrastructure builders because they are really skilled and
they spend--you know, we are talking about billion-dollar
projects, $10 billion projects.
You know, we are in a whole new world in America, you know,
putting in physical infrastructure again. We have got to match
that opportunity.
Mr. Latta. Well, in my last 45 seconds, you know, let me
ask this because, again, when you are talking about going to
brownfields, especially when you're going to, let's say, coal-
fired plants, what is the real--the difficulty for saying, ``I
am going to go into that facility to put that data center in
there,'' where these plants want to be there?
And I only have about 28 seconds left.
Mr. Connaughton. State or Federal environmental review
process, which is 4 to 5 years, and a parallel or overlapping
State and Federal permitting process, which causes me to have
to know that I can't build and complete anything in less than 8
or 10 years.
There are some exceptions to that, by the way, and they are
really good. Like in Memphis, the big AI data center there was
built in 6 months, with just 6 months of--they had a lot of
support--6 months of clearances. They have set the benchmark.
We should be able to do this in a year. If Memphis can do it in
a year, the rest of the country should be able to do it in a
year.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, and my time is
expiring. I will give the balance of my questions written to
our witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Dr. Ruiz for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's topic is about the critical importance of the
Brownfields Program and its impact on communities across the
country. As we all know, the Brownfields Program provides
funding and resources to clean up and redevelop contaminated
sites, transforming them into safe, usable spaces that drive
economic growth and environmental restoration.
There is bipartisan consensus that the brownfield program
is essential for community revitalization. Cleaning up
contaminated sites and transforming them into economic engines
benefits everyone: businesses, workers, and families across
America.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfields Program
is a proven solution. By providing grants and resources to
assess, clean up, and revitalize these sites, we can turn
blighted, polluted lands into thriving community spaces,
whether it is new housing, small businesses, or parks. And
since the program's inception, it has helped create hundreds of
thousands of jobs and leveraged billions in private investment
nationwide.
Mr. Bollwage, could you share how does the Brownfields
Program contribute to local economies, particularly in terms of
job creation and attracting private investment?
Mr. Bollwage. So we had a former landfill in the City of
Elizabeth of almost 200 acres. We transformed that with an
initial grant of assessment into a mall that is about 200
stores, 2 million square feet, 4 hotels on the waterfront,
providing hundreds of jobs, plus 5,000 construction jobs. That
site generated $63,000 a year to the City of Elizabeth. And
now, with the State incentives and others, it generates over $7
million a year to the City of Elizabeth.
Mr. Ruiz. That is incredible. In my district, we see
firsthand the consequences of abandoned contaminated
properties, sites that once held promise but have instead
become environmental and economic burdens. And these brownfield
sites, many of which are former--formal--former industrial
facilities, gas stations, or landfills, pose risks to public
health, drive down property value, limit economic development
in already underserved communities.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Ruiz. For example, in 2019 the City of Raleigh
facilitated the sale and redevelopment of this CEQA property.
Once an unusable contaminated site, as you see in this photo,
that sat vacant for years and was a hardship on the community--
and thanks to the EPA's brownfield remediation efforts, that
property has been transformed into a thriving car repair shop
not only--that not only improves the area's appearance but also
provides good-paying jobs and brings economic activity to the
district. So this is a perfect example of how strategic
investment in brownfields cleanup leads to real, tangible
benefits for our communities.
Ms. Stoneham, how does brownfield redevelopment contribute
to broader environmental and sustainability goals, such as
reducing urban sprawl and promoting green infrastructure?
Ms. Stoneham. Absolutely. With the Project Yellow Cab case
study that I mentioned earlier, just that being in the urban
core and producing an urban typology for the single family
homes is providing an opportunity for people to live, work, and
play.
But also, additionally, the trash incinerator site, which
is transforming into a green space, connects to a bigger Bayou
master plan of how affordable housing and just being able to
walk on the bayou and the different environmental measures and
preservation components that we are evaluating as well.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. You know, we must remember that this
is also about community investment. Too often, historically
underserved neighborhoods like those in my district face the
greatest challenges from contamination and neglect. The EPA's
Brownfields Program helps revitalize these areas by driving
redevelopment, creating jobs, and bringing much-needed economic
opportunities to the communities that need them the most.
Oh wait, did I say bringing much-needed economic
opportunities to the communities that need them the most? That
is equity. That is equity. And rural communities like those
from my Republican colleagues on the other side need these
funds just as well. That is why we must continue supporting
these programs.
Investing in brownfield remediation is not just about
cleaning up land. It is about building healthier communities,
creating jobs, and ensuring that all Americans, no matter their
ZIP Code, have access to clean air, safe water, and economic
opportunity.
That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in
strengthening and fully funding the Brownfields Program and the
EPA staff who make this program work so we can continue turning
environmental liabilities into safe economic opportunities for
families across the country.
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I
notice that we have a group of students who have joined us.
This is the Environment Subcommittee of the Energy and
Commerce Committee. We welcome you here today. We are
discussing brownfields, and we have four experts from across
the country who are giving us different ideas. We anticipate
that this will occur, that we will reauthorize the Brownfields
Program, but perhaps with some suggestions that our witnesses
have brought to our attention.
With that, I now recognize Mr. Carter of Georgia for his 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
thank each of you for being here. And I am glad the students
are here too. I hope you are learning a lot. I know I am,
because brownfields are important. Brownfields--in fact, we got
over 450,000 brownfields here in the United States, and every
one of them represents a unique opportunity for us. And I hope
that we take those opportunities, and certainly what we are
discussing today is important.
On this committee, Energy and Commerce, we talk a lot about
energy needs. We know that we are going to need more energy in
the future, and our growing energy needs--and we also talk
about the need for more businesses. So we ought to be looking
at brownfields as places where we can grow.
My own State of Georgia has over 50 major data centers, and
many of the brownfields have the potential to house future data
centers, and for good reasons. And a lot of these sites have
electrical existing power delivery infrastructure, which is a
common challenge for data centers.
Mr. Connaughton, let me ask--``Con-a-tin''?
Mr. Connaughton. ``Con-a-tin,'' perfect.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. ``Con-a-tin,'' OK. ``Con-a-tin.''
Your company specializes in creating data center-related
technologies. I have visited many data centers, and they use a
lot of energy, a whole lot of energy. Do you feel that
brownfields represent an opportunity for building out more data
centers in America?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, I certainly do, and I will give you
the example of my company, Nautilus, where we have invented an
approach to cool data centers the same way you cool a coal-
fired power plant or an industrial processing facility, and
that is taking naturally cold water running through the data
center and returning it unchanged, just a little bit warmer,
back to the water body it came from. That is how we do power
plants, industrial facilities. It is how we cool ship engines.
So imagine all of these old thermal power plants, these old
manufacturing centers that already have that intake and the
discharge infrastructure. It has already been permitted in the
past. The regulators know and understand what--you know, what
the dynamics of this are. They tend to be located close, by the
way, to water treatment facilities and other big
infrastructure, so the workforce is there. And the communities
are familiar with and accept that kind of activity.
So we could, you know, immediately be repurposing these old
energy centers and these old manufacturing centers if we were
able to deal with permitting, OK? I went to a site----
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Well, how is permitting holding you
up? Tell me that.
Mr. Connaughton. So our technology results in a process
that does not trigger any environmental controls or regulatory
standards. And yet, in building that at a brownfield at the
Port of Stockton, right, which is a community that really would
benefit from this investment, and even though our State NEPA
review--it is called CEQA--our State----
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Right.
Mr. Connaughton [continuing]. Review, we got through it in
9 months because we had no impacts, we had no negative impacts,
it still took us 3\1/2\ years to get signed off on--of the
NEPA. We then had to wait----
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Three and a half years?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes. And then we had to wait to file all
our regular environmental permits until that process was done.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK.
Mr. Connaughton. Because the permitters don't want to get
into their work until the NEPA is done. And then for them--
remember, we had no environmental things, nothing to regulate.
That still took a year for them to agree with us that there was
nothing to regulate.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK.
Mr. Connaughton. And in one case we still got additional
requirements, even though it wasn't required by law. So that is
the challenge. That is just one example of the, you know,
thousands of them out there.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. All right. Well, and I want to get
to two more things, and one of them--Mr. Miller, he just
described an area that I think could help us.
These brownfields are in rural areas just as well as urban
areas. So this is an example where you could actually use the
brownfields in rural areas as well, correct?
Mr. Miller. Correct. That is what we want to do. We
actually, in the--I guess we refer to it as a green room--back
earlier we were talking and made sure we traded contact with
one another to put focus on this. I mean, yes, I mean, rural
areas should really be----
Mr. Carter of Georgia. You got water supplies, you got
everything----
Mr. Miller. You got----
Mr. Carter of Georgia [continuing]. That you need.
Mr. Miller. Right.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Good, good.
Mr. Miller. One thing----
Mr. Carter of Georgia. So this sounds win-win.
Mr. Miller. One thing that we do lack in some of our rural
areas is the power supply for those data centers. But yet
again, brownfields are also very attractable to alternative
types of energy, whether it is small modular reactors,
microhydrogen, or any of those other types of forms that you
could then, you know, use those for behind-the-meter power to
these data centers.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK, all right. The chairman has
already warned us about asking questions with little time
remaining, but I will--I got to get to this because I represent
the coast of Georgia, two major seaports.
Shipyards, Mr. Connaughton. What about the infrastructure--
shipyard--how can we upgrade shipyard infrastructure and the
importance of building new classes of vessels, much of which
will take place on brownfield sites?
Mr. Connaughton. The locations are there. We just need to
say yes to building, and we need to extend the Opportunity Zone
law to these infrastructure locations to bring in and leverage,
you know, on a, you know, 9-to-1 or 20-to-1 basis, private-
sector capital.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Great, great, good. Well, thank you
all very much. This sounds like a win-win situation, something
we should be--all be interested in.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back, and
I now yield for a point of personal privilege to Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. I see our former colleague Congressman
Butterfield is in the audience, and a faithful Member in the
House, and led a lot of good fights on the environment.
So good to see you, Congressman, and always a pleasure to
introduce you. Welcome.
Mr. Griffith. Welcome, and we appreciate you being back.
I now recognize Representative Peters for his 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connaughton, a lot of us have expressed concern about
the delays in permitting for getting stuff built. We have
worked really hard on clean energy, in particular on this
committee. And even the Biden administration recognized that.
Last year they took some steps to expedite permitting under the
National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, for clean energy on
disturbed, developed, or lower-conflict areas. So we are all in
this permit reform game.
I wanted to ask you about something--a distinction you drew
in your testimony about limiting the scope of NEPA review to
unquantified impacts. Can you tell me what that means, versus
quantified? What is an example of that?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, so if you take the original NEPA
law--so read it, the second page--it says the agency, you know,
shall consider unquantified impacts. Because in 1970 we didn't
have this modern body of environmental law. So it was a good
idea, OK? And I am a big defender of NEPA, by the way, and I
think NEPA is important.
But over 50 years we now have environmental laws covering
everything, quantifying everything.
Mr. Peters. For example, the Clean Air Act----
Mr. Connaughton. Air, water, endangered species.
Mr. Peters. Right.
Mr. Connaughton. You know, dust, you know, you name it, we
have a law that covers it. And then State and local laws that
do, on a fine-grained basis, at the local level. And so all
project developers have to comply with all of that, and they
do. That is the great thing. We should be celebrating that.
They do comply with it.
And so this idea for NEPA is--you know, I had a 160-page
NEPA document I had to do for my first data center, and all it
talked about was all the stuff the other agencies were going to
regulate. But I couldn't get to them until I got through my
CEQA process. And so this is my point. It is redundant.
Mr. Peters. So what is the unquantified impact in that
case? You have the--in other words, you have the Clean Water
Act that says you can release a certain amount of pollution but
not over that amount without a permit. So we know that is
covered. What is the unquantified impact you look at under
NEPA?
Mr. Connaughton. So what would be left is actually uniquely
local circumstances like, you know, proximity to a school, what
kind of traffic flows there will be, right? There will be a
whole bunch of unregulated things that are of social and
environmental interest and concern.
Mr. Peters. OK.
Mr. Connaughton. And you want to capture that, which is
what the--you know, what the idea originally was for NEPA and
for the State versions of it. So you will have a--you know, I
think you would have a much-reduced NEPA document that would be
highly relevant to what matters locally while still getting all
the work done through the regulatory process.
Mr. Peters. A lot of people on my side of the aisle express
concern that that would limit public input into these
decisions. So give me an example of why that is not a concern
for one of these quantified impacts you won't be analyzing
under NEPA anymore.
Mr. Connaughton. So you would have a public comment related
to the zoning of the site. So that is the first and most
important place. So the community speaks about site suitability
through zoning. And you have got to preserve that, and that is
good.
If it is a Federal project, Federal lands, or the stuff the
FERC sites, then you have a national process for that in which
there is extensive public provision for public engagement, and
they can sue. So you still--you also have the public being able
to participate in lawsuits. So that will occur.
In the unquantified NEPA piece, the community will
participate in the development of the unquantified analysis. So
they will have that.
And then, with respect to the regulations, there is, you
know, six, seven layers of public participation in the original
legislation, and the development of the regulation, in the
development of the standards, in the permits there that are
provided for those activities.
And then, the public participation in enforcement. You
could have citizen enforcement--
Mr. Peters. Yes.
Mr. Connaughton [continuing]. And they can participate in
lawsuits.
Mr. Peters. So by a long shot----
Mr. Connaughton. So----
Mr. Peters [continuing]. NEPA is not the only point of
public impact, whether it is quantified or unquantified.
Mr. Connaughton. Well, arguably it is actually the least--
--
Mr. Peters. Right, right.
Mr. Connaughton [continuing]. Important in terms of
environmental compliance. It is the most important in terms of
local suitability.
Mr. Peters. Right. A lot of folks have also suggested that
we don't need to change the process. What we need to do is
really staff up the agencies. I know the Biden administration
led an effort to provide $1 billion to do that, and we--that
may be under some question. Is that an answer in this case, or
do we have to have process reforms?
Mr. Connaughton. Well, we have a gross mismatch between the
scale of what we need to get done and the number of officials
we have to do it. And it is a gross mismatch.
Mr. Peters. Right.
Mr. Connaughton. And there is no addition of staff that
will change that. Here is--let me tell you why.
Let's just assume it is 100,000 projects. It is more like
200,000, but let's assume it is 100,000 projects. That is
100,000 projects. Each project developer is hiring lawyers,
environmental consultants, and engineers. Their banker is doing
it too, and their insurance company is doing it too, OK? So
that is a lot of professionals per project--nine, at a
minimum--to sign off on the project.
Then it goes to the Federal, State, and local regulators, 5
to 25 permits, OK, times all the districts and States.
Mr. Peters. Right.
Mr. Connaughton. OK? So you end up with sort of thousands
of offices involved in doing all this permitting times 100,000
projects, each one of which then has another permit bundle for
connecting to the grid and another permit bundle for doing
digital connection. So that is several hundred thousand
review--requirements. That is millions of reviews. We are not
built, as a nation, to handle what we now want.
Mr. Peters. Right, right.
Mr. Connaughton. As a matter of process.
Mr. Peters. Well, I am out of time. I do appreciate all
your work on permitting and helping us get back to building
stuff again.
And Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Representative Joyce for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Joyce. First, I want to thank Chairman Griffith for
holding today's hearing on EPA's Brownfields Program, and the
witnesses for joining us.
In Pennsylvania we are proud of our industries, the coal,
the steel, and allied industries that were mined and forged in
our cities and in our towns. Sadly, many of these legacy
industries have fallen on hard times and gone out of business,
leaving behind land in need of environmental cleanup and
communities with limited resources to invest in that necessary
redevelopment. This is where EPA's Brownfields Program has been
useful to ensure that these are areas that are not left behind
and economic development can occur.
Across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, counties like
Cambria and Blair have used brownfields to leverage public and
private funding to create family-sustaining jobs. This program
is a great example of how, instead of Federal Government
getting in the way with burdensome regulations, it can work
with local stakeholders to spur lasting redevelopment.
I have seen how successful these efforts have been in my
own hometown of Altoona, Pennsylvania, where a brownfield grant
helped encourage downtown redevelopment by jump-starting
investment. In Johnstown, brownfields funds were used to build
the Greater Johnstown High School. Another brownfields grant in
Johnstown redeveloped the Cambria Ironworks, repurposing older
industrial buildings into an area that can attract visitors and
residents, while creating opportunities for new manufacturing
jobs.
In the last few years, three new brownfields grants have
been awarded in my district by the EPA. Two are in western
Pennsylvania, in Cambria and Somerset Counties, and one in
central Pennsylvania that helps capitalize a $1 million
brownfields revolving fund that covers Mifflin, Perry, and
Juniata counties. Across my district I could go on and on about
different success stories of local communities taking advantage
of this program to bring their towns back to life.
Mayor Bollwage, in your written testimony you discussed
some of the benefits of the multipurpose brownfield grants
created in the 2018 reauthorization of the program. You also
noted that it would be helpful for cities to be able to use the
funding for wider areas. Are there any limitations on the
funding that make it challenging to redevelop cities or
maximize the value of these properties?
And if so, do you have any recommendations on how the EPA
could be more helpful for economic redevelopment?
Mr. Bollwage. Well, thank you, Mr.--thank you, Congressman.
The first thing is, naturally, resources, and the maximum
or the minimum amount of resources. We would like to use the
multipurpose grants--continue. We want to see it included in
the reauthorization, as well as the dollar amounts increase. We
would also like to ask the EPA to allow for the broadest
application of the area to be covered by this part of the
grant.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Connaughton, similarly, do you have any
suggestions for Congress or the EPA on how the current program
could better facilitate a variety of uses on brownfield sites
or allow the applicants to redevelop properties with unique
aspects?
And can you explain why all stakeholders need to have skin
in the game?
Mr. Connaughton. Thank you. I think, as I mentioned
previously, we have this opportunity to take the big old sites
and convert them into big new sites. And in that instance you
are going to be able to leverage a lot of private-sector
capital as long as you, you know, have them see the capital go
into completing a project in a reasonable period of time. That
is why the permitting reform is necessary.
We have some great programs, like I mentioned, the
Opportunity Zone law, which is quite popular and doing well.
The big complaint with Opportunity Zones is it is not going to
build big infrastructure projects. Why? Because you have to put
your money in in 6 months, and a project has to be ready to go.
And the problem is there aren't big infrastructure projects
ready to go if--and then you need the site to be designated as
an Opportunity Zone.
I think a lot of Governors did good designations but didn't
think about these big industrial locations or shipyards, so I
really recommend doing another designation round under that
law, and I think you will bring forward hundreds of billions if
not trillions of dollars of new private-sector money. And that
is serious skin in the game, Congressman.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Miller, have you or others in your
organization identified any limitations on acceptable uses of
brownfields funding or lack of flexibility with any of the
funding streams with the Federal Brownfields Program?
Mr. Miller. Not necessarily with the funding streams, but
as much dealing with issues with the complexity of the
application process itself for smaller, rural areas.
I mentioned in my opening comments, you know, we have had
to pool resources together with our localities, kind of with
the approach stronger as a whole, weaker as pieces, and going
in for those funds.
The other item is strengthened provisions for rural,
distressed coal communities and what we could do because,
again, those localities--I am sure in your district as well--
struggle for funds, not for any other reason than just because
of their small size.
Mr. Joyce. And I thank you for emphasizing the need in
rural areas. That is indeed my district.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back and
now recognize Representative Barragan for her 5 minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and to our witnesses
for being here.
I appreciate the bipartisan support we have on this
committee for the Brownfields Program at the Environmental
Protection Agency. However, the EPA's budget and the staff it
needs to implement its programs are under attack from the Trump
administration. President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin
have talked about a 65 percent cut on the EPA's budget. This
would gut the very programs that keep our air clean, our water
safe, and our children healthy. This threatens every program at
EPA, including the Brownfields Program. And House Republicans
have been silent on these cuts to EPA.
Mr. Miller, would massive cuts to the EPA funding harm the
Brownfields Program and the work of your organizations, yes or
no?
Mr. Miller. It comes down to efficiency.
Ms. Barragan. So you are telling me that if there is a 65
percent cut to EPA, that you don't think there could be an
impact to the Brownfields Program? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Miller. I don't know----
Ms. Barragan. OK.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Until that reduction was ----
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
The Honorable Connaughton, have--what is your thought? If
there is a 65 percent cut to EPA budget, do you think----
Mr. Connaughton. If they are cutting the funding for the
Brownfields Program, then it will have an impact on the
Brownfields Program, and that is why I am trying to advocate we
need to--in this budget environment and in this political
environment, we should be looking at the funding sources and we
should be looking at the leverage that the--at the leverage.
Because even with the current brownfield funding, it doesn't
come close to matching the opportunity that we have got to
achieve here.
Ms. Barragan. So----
Mr. Connaughton. I would want to look at all of it.
Ms. Barragan. So would it be safe for you to say there
shouldn't be a single penny cut to the Brownfields Program?
Mr. Connaughton. No.
Ms. Barragan. That there should not be? Or no, you are not
saying that?
Mr. Connaughton. I am not saying that. I am saying----
Ms. Barragan. OK.
Mr. Connaughton [continuing]. We need to take a look at the
program to leverage the dollars to do even more, in which case
it could justify increasing. And as we have been discussing
today, there could be good reason to increase the money if we
are getting 20 times the benefit.
Ms. Barragan. OK.
Mr. Connaughton. That would be a good deal, in my view.
Ms. Barragan. OK, thank you.
Mr.--Mayor Bollwage, many brownfield sites are in rural
areas, low-income communities, and communities of color. How
would funding cuts impact efforts to clean up contaminated land
in disadvantaged communities?
Mr. Bollwage. I can only speak to what is going on in
Elizabeth right now. We have a $500,000 grant for job training,
and there is no one picking up the phone at EPA.
Ms. Barragan. Ms. Stoneham, do you have any thoughts on
this?
Ms. Stoneham. Yes, I would say that cutting staffing by 65
percent would significantly impact the Brownfields Program in
Houston. Just the regional coordination that we experience with
them on a recurring basis, which is monthly and sometimes
weekly, depending on the projects, would slow us down
significantly, in addition to the progress happening in the
communities that we impact, which are majority underserved and
low income.
Ms. Barragan. Great, thank you.
Mayor Bollwage, as Congress discusses the reauthorization
of the Brownfields Program, are there any improvements or
incentives you recommend to better direct grants to
disadvantaged communities?
Mr. Bollwage. In my written testimony I talk about the
cleanup grants and I also talk about the ability to access the
dollars and to draw down the money as quickly as possible.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Ms. Stoneham, how do brownfield grants
leverage private-sector investment?
And what happens to those investments if Federal funding
disappears?
Ms. Stoneham. So having access to Federal funding makes
us--makes it easier to attract more private investment,
especially with the land bank taking that on. It saves the
developer, frankly, time and money because we are willing to
take on that responsibility as opposed to having them solely do
this by themselves.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. The EPA Brownfields Program is an
important program for communities, even in my district--
actually, quite a bit in my district. In Carson, California, we
received $1.8 million in grants to clean up a former oil
refinery site so that the Los Angeles Sanitation can build a
recycled water treatment facility on the property. This grant
was made possible because of the increased Brownfields Program
funding in the Infrastructure Law, a law that Democrats fought
for and passed and that I will remind folks not a single
Republican that is currently on the Energy and Commerce
Committee voted for.
So as we fight back against devastating cuts to the EPA, I
urge my Republican colleagues to speak up and to defend the
good work that EPA does for all our communities.
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
Representative Pfluger for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Connaughton, I want to talk to you about
streamlining. But before I do that, I just want to give a shout
out to Director Zeldin for the good work that he is doing to
find the fraud, waste, and abuse in these slush funds that have
gone to fund NGOs and other organizations. And I appreciate
your answer there previously, you know, on the fact that, no,
we can still fund brownfield projects and look to more
efficiently operate our Government, and that is something that
we are focused on.
So in your testimony you talked about approve, build, and
comply, which I think offers a pretty intriguing solution. Can
you expand on that concept and talk about the streamlining of
permitting and other issues that will help us with this topic
that we are talking about today?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, Congressman. The concept is actually
very well-practiced but in a small scale in--under the banner
of permit by rule. There are lots of examples where Congress
has looked at a very specific issue and legislatively approved,
you know, the activity to go forward while still requiring
compliance.
Again, it may be a controversial area, but the border wall
is an example of that. Bipartisan legislation in 2006 provided
for that, and it allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to
certify construction and to waive permitting--again, not
compliance, but waive permitting. And each administration--or
President Obama, President Trump, and then President Biden,
each of their Homeland Security Directors used that authority.
Recently you had the Congress--for the sake of, I think,
one semiconductor plant, and it was critical--legislatively
waiving NEPA, OK? Now, the plant is still complying with all
the environmental laws. It is still subject to all the
permitting. It is not just--it is not subject to 5 years of
waiting around for the environmental review to get done. They
are just getting on with compliance.
So that has happened in Congress. And at the administrative
level, at the Federal and State level, including in your State
and your Congressman from Pennsylvania, there is actually well-
established procedures for automatic permitting, OK? And Texas
is the king of the States when it comes to that. And things
move, investments happen.
Mr. Pfluger. Well, thank you. I may come back to you on the
State and local coordination there. I want to go to Mr. Miller.
When it comes to rural issues, obviously, this is important
to me, I represent a very rural district but one that has a
tremendous amount of energy, one that could benefit very, very
greatly. But we see, you know, more of a, I guess, an urge to
show some--to do urban projects rather than rural. So maybe
talk to me a little bit about some of the barriers that have
impacted us in the rural community.
Mr. Miller. I am a big believer in our rural areas. We
have--kind of view them as a blank canvas. And a lot of people,
you know, at least in the Commonwealth of Virginia and more
urban areas because of urban sprawl and, for instance, data
centers and construction of them taking up a property that
could be used for other things that those people think would be
of more benefit, I think it is an amazing opportunity for rural
areas, for recruitment of data centers and to bring them to
those rural areas.
A lot of data centers prefer to be in an area that is kind
of away, especially when you are talking about Department of
Defense and in more sensitive-type data centers. So I really
think a concise effort should be put on the recruitment of data
centers to rural areas. And even, you know, through this
brownfield funding, you know, maybe a set-aside for data
centers, preferably for rural data centers, but especially for
rural or for data-center-type projects.
I think that is the future. I mean, I think we all know
that, and we have to have the power generation for those data
centers, which--again, brownfields present an excellent
opportunity for that, especially in rural areas.
Mr. Pfluger. So whether rural or urban, these projects are
beneficial. They help us in a number of ways. But specifically
on the rural areas, can you talk to us about maybe some of the
challenges they face when it comes to not being able to match
funds because we have small communities or--you know, how do
they overcome that?
Mr. Miller. Well, and that is one of the items I mentioned,
of course, with the EPA brownfield fund specifically. You know,
we talked about more funding from a grant standpoint for
redevelopment. Not necessarily--I think they do a wonderful job
with the assessment, I love this approve, build, comply method
that is being discussed. But we just need to figure out a way
to--we can utilize matching funds, but we need redevelopment
funds from EPA in rural areas. We are really good to have a
certain pot of money, especially State money, for some of this
development. But you have to have those matching funds.
So again, I mentioned in my opening remarks if we could
create something maybe that, you know, with some of this
brownfield funding for rural areas--and it can even have a
match requirement to that, I think everybody is fine with that
because we can stack. That is what we all do, I think, it is
what everybody does to make projects work, especially at the
cost we are looking at for these type of projects.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Auchincloss, Representative Auchincloss, for his 5 minutes
of questions.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Connaughton, I appreciate your proactive and
prescriptive set of policy proposals for this, and I think it
might help me to bring it to life to use a specific example
with you. I represent Massachusetts. We have a lot of
brownfield sites in Massachusetts, many of them prime spots for
redevelopment. We also have a big shortage of housing in
Massachusetts, and challenges with local zoning and land use
restrictions that make it hard to build the housing that we
need.
Imagine a circumstance where there was a major brownfield
site, State owned--or that the locality granted to the State--
and the State came to you and said, ``We want to develop this,
we want to really build a huge amount of housing on this site.
We got a big shortage of housing, and because it is a
brownfield it is--we can bypass local zoning.''
In this--in the future that you are envisioning in your
written testimony, talk me through like what that would look
like, how you would advise them and how you would stack private
and public capital to make it happen.
Mr. Connaughton. So first you need the zoning, OK, so it is
clear that this is for housing. OK? That is the first gate. So
now you have the local suitability.
Second gate, you got to do the assessment. Assessment is
not that--is not expensive, and it doesn't take a lot of time,
and everyone--and people know how to do it now. These
professionals are sitting here.
Mr. Auchincloss. The EPA can pay for that, or do you think
the State would pay for that?
Mr. Connaughton. Well, actually, if I knew as the developer
that I could actually get through the permitting process then--
--
Mr. Auchincloss. Right.
Mr. Connaughton [continuing]. And get the project up and
running in under 2 years, I will pay for the assessment.
Mr. Auchincloss. Got it.
Mr. Connaughton. OK? Because it is--I am not at risk now.
Mr. Auchincloss. Yes.
Mr. Connaughton. That is the key. If I am a developer, I
know that I am--only 1 in 20 is going to pay off. I can't do 20
assessments, but I will pay for the one if I know I will
actually be able to develop on it. That is the key to this
process.
Mr. Auchincloss. What do you mean by not at risk for it? I
mean, that is true now, isn't it, that they are not at risk for
it?
Mr. Connaughton. So what happens is I get the zoning, OK? I
then do the--I then wait for the assessment, and that takes
longer than it should. And then, when the assessment is done,
then I go in and I still don't know if I am going to get all of
my other permits.
Mr. Auchincloss. Oh, I see what you are saying.
Mr. Connaughton. That is what I--the environmental permits.
So I distinguish siting and assessment from permitting. I still
don't know that somebody is not going to come in and shut me
down, you know, two-thirds of the way through my development
2\1/2\ years later. That is the big problem. That is why--
again, it is the sites you don't see investors show up for that
are the ones you should be worried about.
Mr. Auchincloss. Right.
Mr. Connaughton. Because investors will go where they can
get the return on their investment fastest. And for data
centers, that is certainly the case. If I can't get it up and
running under a year, I am not interested, OK? And so that is
the critical step.
Mr. Auchincloss. And if the assessment came back as showing
contaminants--again, in your ideal scenario, what happens next,
provided that the developer and the State are still on board
with wanting to develop housing?
Mr. Connaughton. Well, actually, these great professionals
have put together--I mean, there is just a cookbook for that.
Mr. Auchincloss. Yes.
Mr. Connaughton. And it is cookie cutter. Everyone knows
what they need to do. They know what the thresholds are. They
know how to do--whether you have to cap the site or do some
soil removal or put industrial, not housing, so you put the
industrial on the lightly----
Mr. Auchincloss. Sure.
Mr. Connaughton [continuing]. Contaminated locations, and
the housing on the clean ones.
So that process is now really well--I mean, they are great
at it. And so my view is let the professionals do a good job,
let them do what they know how to do already.
Mr. Auchincloss. And the friction that you identify in our
current system is that there is not enough preapproval of those
professionals to just go out and do it?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, just go out and do it. And here is
the issue. If you imagine that we actually have to do 20 to 100
X, right, there is no growth of the professional government
class to be able to keep up with all that requirement.
Mr. Auchincloss. Right.
Mr. Connaughton. We need to let each government
professional--I don't want to lose the government
professionals. I just want them looking over 100 sites, right,
and moving 100 sites along, rather than focusing on 1 or 2,
right?
And more importantly, I want them inspecting and enforcing
against, you know, against the bad guys, who are rare, rather
than have them focusing on the good guys who actually know what
they are doing.
Mr. Auchincloss. Mayor, did you want to speak to that?
Mr. Bollwage. I just want to reinforce his point. We had an
old plastics factory, and we did the assessment with brownfield
dollars. And the assessment said you have to clean away 3 feet
of the soil and remove that soil, and then you could put a
Little League field there. If we didn't remove the 3 feet of
soil, we would have to put pavement there. So we chose to
remove the 3 feet of soil, build two Little League fields. And
actually, we took the bad soil and brought it to the site that
I described that was the mall, where we are preventing the
leachate from going into what is called the Arthur Kill, the
waterway there. So it was a win-win for everyone involved.
But once the assessment was done and the plan is there,
then you can leave it to the mayors or the economic development
directors to follow up on the next process.
Mr. Auchincloss. I yield back, thank you.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Representative Miller-Meeks for her 5 minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Griffith and Ranking
Member Tonko, for holding this important hearing today, and I
also want to thank our witnesses for testifying before this
subcommittee.
Iowa, like other States, has abandoned, idled, or
underutilized industrial and commercial properties where real
or perceived environmental contamination hinders redevelopment.
The Brownfields Program is essential to helping communities
address these challenges, turning what were once underutilized
and potentially hazardous sites into spaces for economic
growth, environmental protection, and public health
improvements.
Mr. Connaughton, your testimony calls for leveraging
private market forces and certified professionals to enhance
the impact of government programs. How can the EPA better
integrate private-sector involvement into brownfield
redevelopment efforts?
And what role can private investment play in accelerating
the cleanup and redevelopment of these sites?
Mr. Connaughton. When it comes to certified professionals,
the analogy I like to use is taxes. So I don't go to my CPA and
then tell them what I am expecting to earn next year and having
the CPA evaluate it, and then go to the IRS and get the
permission for me to earn the money before I am allowed to pay
my taxes.
I earn the money, I talk to my CPA, the CPA assesses, you
know, what the taxes should be. I then send that to the IRS,
OK? And then, if I cheated or lied, they come after me.
And so I see this the same way. We have this incredible
class of private-sector professionals now who have--you know,
who are--almost all of whom are certified to do the legal work,
the biological work, the engineering work to provide full
assurance of environmental and public health and safety, just
like OSHA. By the way, OSHA doesn't give you permits. You build
your plant, and OSHA comes in and inspects and enforces
afterwards.
So if we apply the same thing to the environmental regime,
this is what can unleash speed. When you unleash speed, you
unleash money, OK? You know, if I have got a dollar to spend
and I can get that dollar back in a year, I am going to go
there versus I have a dollar to spend and I get 20 cents back
in 5 years, OK? It is just economics. And speed is everything.
And if I can put my--if I am going to put my money into a
software company and I am going to see it in 2 years, and I
know my same money in an infrastructure project is 7 or 8 years
away, where is my money going to go? It is going to go to the
software company.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. And you addressed permitting
and approval, so I won't ask that question.
Mr. Bollwage, you mentioned in your testimony the use of
multipurpose grants and the restrictive view the EPA has taken
of their use. In past hearings, witnesses have testified on the
benefits of using this program to revitalize economic
opportunity or construct affordable housing. Is flexibility a
strength for the program?
And can you explain how the restricted view EPA has
regarding these grants has made it more difficult for
communities with several brownfield properties?
Mr. Bollwage. Well, the multipurpose grants, as you said,
creates flexibility, and that is something we pushed for in the
2018 reauthorization. And we are extremely grateful for that.
And it also helps with some of the other witnesses we are
talking about with rural communities and those communities with
a lot less population. And those grants, the multipurpose
grants, clearly gives a leg up to those communities.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mr. Miller, you mentioned that for every
Federal dollar invested in brownfields cleanup, communities see
an average return of $20 in economic activity. Can you
elaborate on how these economic returns are measured?
And are there specific success stories from southwestern
Virginia or other rural areas that highlight the long-term
economic benefits of the Brownfields Program?
Mr. Miller. Absolutely. I mentioned, I believe, earlier to
a previous question Project Intersection, which is in Norton,
Virginia. We were able to, you know, turn a small amount of
brownfield funding into close to $35 million in investment to
develop that industrial site. So that number is actually an EPA
figure.
And I would probably say, at least in the coal fields, it
would be a whole lot higher in terms of what the return is that
we receive.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. You also highlighted that the
brownfield redevelopment creates over 10 jobs per 100,000. And
how are these jobs being allocated? And what steps can be taken
to ensure that displaced rural workers, to Representative
Pfluger's comment, as well as younger generations in these
communities are able to access these opportunities?
Mr. Miller. And that is an issue we deal with. It is a nut
we haven't cracked yet because of limited population of a
working age.
You know, we will create new job opportunities. A lot of
times people in their current position will move, as we all
would, to a position with better compensation. So that is an
issue we are dealing with.
What we are hoping to see and what we have started to
notice to see in our rural area, especially after COVID, is we
are finally seeing for the first time, though a small amount,
at least some in-migration coming into our rural areas from
more urban areas. And so we certainly, when those people do
come to the area, we want to be able to have things in place
that they can make a living and prosper.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Menendez for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member.
Mayor Bollwage, as I mentioned earlier, I am grateful for
your national leadership on the Brownfields Task Force as well
as your work back home in Elizabeth. In your tenure as mayor,
you have taken on the challenges posed by Elizabeth's
industrial history head on, and you serve as a national leader
in advancing brownfield remediation.
Mayor, can you share some examples of how the Brownfields
Program has supported Elizabeth's economic development and
environmental well-being, especially those examples that you
are most proud of?
Mr. Bollwage. Well, Congressman, thank you very much. Thank
you for your kind comments as well.
The one that we are all familiar with that I testified here
is the mills at Jersey Gardens, which I spoke about earlier, a
200-acre landfill that is--now has 2 million square feet of
economic development with hotels and restaurants, as well as
the 5,000 construction jobs.
Another one is the HOPE VI program. In 1999 we took two
outdated public housing projects and recreated them into new
HOPE VI housing--not only some market rate housing, but also
some mostly affordable housing.
We are currently developing around the train station, which
you visited not long ago, where we have taken a lot of vacant
land and have developed housing, part of the--working with the
Brownfield Development Association--New Jersey Brownfield
Development. New Jersey Transit committed $70 million to a new
train station that has helped the economic development as well.
Harbor Front Villas was another project on the waterfront
that has created market-rate housing. So those are three of the
projects, plus the Little League field that I just mentioned as
well, and we developed some neighborhood gas stations now into
small public uses.
Mr. Menendez. So in short, you--it is fair to say that the
Brownfields Program has helped transform Elizabeth.
Mr. Bollwage. Well, it has created an awful lot of economic
development as well as jobs and tax ratables.
Mr. Menendez. I appreciate that, because I want to talk
about, in addition to all the projects that you just mentioned,
last year Groundwork Elizabeth received a $500,000 job training
grant from the Brownfields Program to train 75 students and
place 40 environmental jobs. I think you have alluded to it
earlier. But Mayor, can you provide an update on Groundwork
Elizabeth's grant?
Mr. Bollwage. So the Groundwork Elizabeth grant would go
towards--well, as you know, Congressman, we are a densely
populated community, and we have worked diligently to identify
resources in order to address brownfields and economic
development. The mills at Jersey Gardens is one area.
But getting into this specific issue, Groundwork Elizabeth
has worked with the housing authority in our city, they have
worked with other nonprofits, they have worked to develop job
training for young people. This proposal generated almost $1
million award from the National Science Foundation for air
quality monitoring walks that we are doing in partnership with
Rutgers University.
I say this, that not only is the brownfields grant
responsible for that, but it has generated money from Rutgers
University and other areas in order to work on air pollution
issues, being a hub of transportation where the City of
Elizabeth sits in the State of New Jersey.
Mr. Menendez. Yes, absolutely. And Groundwork--and I
appreciate you having me in with Senator Booker to speak with
them directly about the work that they are doing.
And with respect to that specific grant, my understanding
is that it is currently being delayed, the funding that was
appropriated, the $500,000. Is that accurate?
Mr. Bollwage. So actually, as I told Congressman Pallone
earlier, I was on the train on the way here this morning at
6:40, and I was informed that the grant has been held up based
on chaos.
Mr. Menendez. Yes, it is disappointing, because it would
have put students to work, it would have helped facilitate the
remediation of New Jersey's brownfields, and it would have
connected folks to good-paying jobs, which I think is such a
bipartisan set of accomplishments that we could have been doing
right now, but is held up because of President Trump's
unconstitutional funding freeze, preventing congressionally
authorized grants from reaching the communities that we all
represent. And it is obviously disruptive to the things that we
all want to make progress on.
So Mayor Bollwage, just--if I could ask you a yes-or-no
question. In your experience has EPA staff provided Elizabeth
and other communities with valuable technical assistance
related to brownfield remediation?
Mr. Bollwage. In my 33 years as a mayor, we have worked
very closely with the EPA under Democratic and Republican
administrations in order to benefit my community.
Mr. Menendez. Yes, I mean, they--the staff does an
incredible job. We need to fund the EPA and make sure that we
don't have staffing cuts so we can continue the incredible work
that you have testified here today. Thank you for your
leadership. It is a real privilege to call you a partner and a
friend.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Evans for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
ranking member and, of course, to our witnesses for taking the
time today. My first question is actually to Ms. Stoneham.
In a previous life I was the code enforcement supervisor
for a local municipality. And in that capacity one of the
biggest headaches that I had to deal with was either abandoned
or defunct commercial or industrial properties within the city
that attracted just a lot of--you know, in local parlance they
were problem properties. We had one particular one where it
became the de facto dumping ground for anybody that didn't want
to pay to dispose of a sofa. And so in 1 week we had 46
different sofas that were dumped behind this building that the
city had to go pay to remove.
And in your testimony you mentioned that many of these
properties that are either in the Brownfield Program or
potentially viable for that program are owned by absentee
landlords or tangled in legal and financial complications that
make redevelopment nearly impossible. And so that was something
that I personally interacted with, trying to, again, police up
these--some of these abandoned properties.
And so the first question to you is, Is there any way in
how the EPA administers the brownfield program that we could
address some of these obstacles to redevelopment for those
properties where you have either an absentee landlord or it is
tangled up in some sort of legal proceedings because it is a
defunct company, and potentially that property and that
building is the most valuable asset that that entity still
owns?
Ms. Stoneham. Thank you for acknowledging that statement,
and for your previous service.
For that particular portion of my testimony, I was
referring to one of the powers that land banks have, which
makes this unique and special, which is clearing up some of
those clouded title issues, some of the heirship property
issues. But also, most of the time those properties are
abandoned, tax delinquent, or nontax-generating properties that
are also brownfields.
So I am not sure exactly if the EPA can get involved with
that particular lane, but I was just sharing that the land bank
makes us unique in being able to address additional powers
outside of just the typical contamination or the assessment
with the Brownfields Program.
Mr. Evans. So the land banks do have some special play in
spaces where you have a property that is tangled up in some of
those issues?
Ms. Stoneham. Correct. Different land banks have different
powers. Specifically in Texas, we have the ability to request
foreclosed properties at any point in the process, and we are
currently navigating that process with our county and our city
leadership so we can help to intervene some of those problems,
in addition to the contamination potential issues as well.
Mr. Evans. Awesome, got it. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor, thank you for coming. Next question to you. You
mentioned mothballed properties. Again, in our city we call
them problem properties. I am just curious, can you speak to
any barriers that you have seen between this program and then
actually getting those boots-on-the-ground resources to local
governments?
Mr. Bollwage. First of all, I really appreciate your story,
by the way, because I live that every day with staff members.
So the mothball properties usually is dealing with absentee
landlords, and people aren't involved in the property, and that
is probably the bigger struggle. The brownfields and the
incentives, if we can get site control, we can move some of
these mothballed properties back to the tax rolls.
Mr. Evans. Thank you.
And then, Mr. Miller, a question for you kind of going off
of that same vein, just the liability concerns that exist in
these spaces. Can you talk about ways that we might be able to
either reduce the liability or assuage some of the concerns for
the landlords to be able to get additional properties into a
program like this to be able to revitalize for additional
industry or commercial uses?
Mr. Miller. Sure. In our region, most of the brownfield
development is at a much larger scale for economic development
projects.
But in our downtowns--and keep in mind, most of our towns
are a population between 50 and 1,000, so small. And most of
those towns maybe have one--in the downtown district one land
or one person that owns a lot of that property. So what we have
been able to do with that, though is through assessment and
then through the implementation of, essentially, tearing down a
lot of the facilities, and then creating an opportunity for
them to rebuild a better structure.
Mr. Evans. And so that is intriguing to me. The district
that I represent, my largest municipality is almost 150,000
folks, and then I go down, same thing, to small municipalities
that don't even have their own police department. So can you
speak to--specifically to anything that you have seen in that
space with those smaller localities that is working for you?
Mr. Miller. People working together. I mean, really, I
mean, that is one of the things--a lot of times, especially in
a rural area, people may be uncomfortable even with the word
``brownfield'' because they are not familiar with it. So
really, essentially, people working together, the landowner,
people in the position that you once found yourself in, you
know, some of the building officials, and everybody working
together.
And again--
Mr. Evans. Thank you.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. That is probably a difference
between a small, rural area and a larger, urban area.
Mr. Evans. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I appreciate that
and now recognize Mr. Landsman for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Landsman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
this hearing. Incredibly important, the Brownfield Program has
been a huge game changer for folks and communities back in
southwest Ohio. We have done so much redevelopment work with
this program.
And so I--three sets of questions as we are sort of
wrapping up here, and I will ask them across the board. Answer
them as you see fit.
But one is a question about, as we look to reauthorize,
what are the big changes? I have heard a few of them, but I am
just--I am curious if you had to, you know, pick the top two or
three, what are the top two or three big changes that you want
us to focus on?
Two, the State's role has come up, and I am curious what
that looks like, or what it should look like. And I--Mr.
Miller, in particular, when we have these communities that
struggle to get the private investment, is that a role for the
State to play? I mean, is--am I jumping to the wrong
conclusion? I am just curious in terms of what role the State
is or isn't playing but should be playing.
And then, finally, it--we just can't not talk about the EPA
stuff, because it is a huge problem. If you would just talk a
little bit about the funding freeze and the cuts and how you
would want us to approach this, you know, what you would like
to see the United States Congress do as it relates to this
program and the withholding of grants.
So three questions. We will start with the big changes, the
role of the State, and then the EPA cuts and funding freezes.
Mr. Connaughton. The most important thing you can do is
look at this opportunity at scale. The program has crept its
way up to tens of thousands, but it is 100,000--you know, a
hundreds-of-thousands opportunity. So I would work backwards
from how do we get almost all of it redeveloped and put
together a suite of programs of which the EPA piece is just
one--one important, but just one--aspect.
Speed. So automatic permitting, however you come up with
it., legislative so we are not tied up in courts forever. The
money will flood into these communities, believe me, because
the sites are so great.
And then, for States, States are--
Mr. Landsman. I would call it--just because I think this
came up--presumptive permitting, which is that you get it, and
then----
Mr. Connaughton. Yes.
Mr. Landsman. Yes, OK. Sorry, keep going.
Mr. Connaughton. That is right. And then, for States--as it
turns out, States, by the way, do most of the permitting,
including delegated programs, and States want this freedom
because they know what they want to do, they are close to their
communities. That is why Texas is so good at this, OK? And you
know, if it works, it works. And they still have----
Mr. Weber. Could you say that again? Texas is what?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connaughton. Texas is so good at this, and they ensure
environmental compliance.
Mr. Landsman. Yes.
Mr. Connaughton. So, you know, we should be competing with
them.
Mr. Landsman. Yes.
Mr. Bollwage. Congressman, naturally, more money has got to
be the top of the category. And, you know, we talked about caps
set at $10 million for cleanup and multipurpose grants.
One of our Congress Members, Mikie Sherrill, has introduced
a bill along with Mike Turner, who is in Ohio. Mike used to be
a cochair with me on the U.S. Conference of Mayors Brownfields
Task Force way back when. And, you know, they have a bipartisan
tax incentive bill. That bill would be helpful along with
reauthorization of this. It is called H.R. 815. It allows
companies to expense their cleanup costs in the year that it
incurred. So those issues would be important and helpful.
As far as the State goes, you know, I have worked really
well with the State of New Jersey, and I think that often
depends on the relationship between mayors and Governors.
Mr. Landsman. And the freeze.
Mr. Bollwage. And the freeze, of course, yes.
Mr. Landsman. I mean, is there something you want this
Congress to do?
Mr. Bollwage. Well, I am curious to know why--and I don't
mean to be a smartass, but why are we spending 4 hours here if
we are not going to have any funding and people to eventually
execute what we are doing here?
Mr. Landsman. That is a good question.
Ms. Stoneham. In terms of the changes, I absolutely will
echo more resources.
But also, could there be more flexibility for acquisition
funds? We can't even use the assessment dollars or cleanup
dollars if you don't have site control. So if there could be a
line item to where you can also use dollars for acquisition, it
would be a game changer.
In terms of the States' role, Texas is awesome. But I would
also say if there could be a streamlined approach to make sure
we are not working in silos--because depending on if you are
talking to the TCEQ, the Texas Railroad Commission, it kind of
just depends on which program is applicable.
And then, of course, just making sure that we are able to
access the technical experts to help us spend the dollars.
Mr. Landsman. I am out of time. And out of respect to the
Chair and the rest of the committee, I yield back. Sorry.
Mr. Griffith. We will get Duane's answer later, when the
Texas delegation is talking again.
I now recognize Mrs. Fedorchak for her 4--for her 5 minutes
of questioning.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. Well, good afternoon. I think it
is afternoon now. Thank you all for your expertise. This is a
fascinating subject, and I would love to spend 10 minutes
talking to each of you about this, but we have a very limited
time, so I am really going to zero in on the AI issues here.
I agree with Mr. Connaughton that this could--AI could
drive or power the fourth Industrial Revolution in our country.
But in order to do that, we need to power AI. And meeting the
energy demands of this business are--that is a substantial
challenge for our country. It is why I launched an AI and
Energy Working Group this week, and invite you all to
participate. We initiated an RFI seeking information, so I hope
you all will participate in that.
Mr. Connaughton, you have particularly piqued my interest
with your thoughts on permitting reform. I spent 12 years
permitting on the--as an environmental permitter in my State,
as a State utility commissioner, and so I have a decent amount
of experience in that. You mentioned this idea of certifying a
third-party expert's site assessments. That is brilliant. What
is preventing this from happening more broadly?
Mr. Connaughton. What is preventing it is not accepting the
fruits of their labor.
Mrs. Fedorchak. In law, Federal law?
Mr. Connaughton. In law.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
Mr. Connaughton. Because they do the work, they certify it,
they are liable, you know----
Mrs. Fedorchak. Yes.
Mr. Connaughton [continuing]. Professionally, if they are
cheating or lying, like CPAs. And then we spend 5 years working
to agree with them.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
Mr. Connaughton. So my view is, let's put the private-
sector professionals that we have trained to work, and let's
accept the fruits of their work.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Great. I love that. In my State, once an
area has been permitted or certified to be safe for
construction, you can rebuild in that same site without going
through permitting again. So it is kind of the same type of----
Mr. Connaughton. You had also mentioned--because you are a
former regulator--when we have a major storm, the utilities are
incredible at rebuilding as fast as humanly possible.
Mrs. Fedorchak. True.
Mr. Connaughton. It is the same process. It is the same
people. They know what they are doing. They know how to comply.
And we are so overjoyed when the electricity system is stood
back up in 48 hours. If we want to build new infrastructure--4
years, 5 years, 6 years----
Mrs. Fedorchak. Right.
Mr. Connaughton [continuing]. Why don't we take the example
of our emergencies, and make that standard practice?
Mrs. Fedorchak. Mm-hmm, and the same on your NEPA idea, on
the unquantified environmental impacts. So I will be following
up on those, and I am sure many of my colleagues will be as
well.
I wanted to zero in a little bit more on your
interconnection proposal, the 6-month window. That is the only
area where I think you might be a little overly optimistic,
having gone through a lot of that on the MISO level, the
interconnection queues and the studies required. So talk a
little bit more about what you envision there and how much your
vision is tied to actual experience trying to go through those
interconnection processes.
Mr. Connaughton. So having suffered through this wearing
many different hats over 35 years, there is only a
technological solution to the interconnection problem. So we
have to get on with applying the AI and the hardware systems,
and the RTOs currently aren't funded and their business model
isn't set up to do it that way.
So I really believe that is the only way through this, and
our target has to be 6 months because we have to build at the
need of speed.
Mrs. Fedorchak. So using AI to help them run their studies
faster when they are----
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, because they are operating 12, 15, 16
different spreadsheet models. And it was one thing when you
were, like, you know, attaching dozens or hundreds of projects.
We are going to be attaching thousands or tens of thousands of
projects. Just the raw--just the labor of doing that, we can't
keep up. The technology is going to solve our problem, but we
are 10 years behind in applying it.
Mrs. Fedorchak. And have you talked to any of the grid----
Mr. Connaughton. Yes.
Mrs. Fedorchak [continuing]. Any of them? Which ones are
open to this?
Mr. Connaughton. Stay tuned for an interesting announcement
that is coming. I can't say anything further on that.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK, very good. Then just with my remaining
1 minute, I would like you--and others, if they have time--to
elaborate on what else should we be doing to stay ahead?
Because I am really worried that we are going to be falling
behind China in our ability to really meet the energy demands
of this industry.
So Mr. Connaughton, if you could start.
Mr. Connaughton. Really focus on the communities that
actually want to build. So let's put a priority where people
actually want to do something. We spent a lot of time trying to
work in areas where people just don't want to see the
construction, so I would start there. Start with yes, and
create a competition for outcomes rather than work with all the
problem children.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Twenty seconds. Anybody else?
Mr. Griffith. Duane Miller wants to say he will take all
those places.
Mr. Miller. You actually read my mind. Any rural area with
specific interests in southwest Virginia, yes.
Mrs. Fedorchak. And North Dakota.
Mr. Miller. Yes. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Fedorchak. All right, thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Carter for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all of our witnesses for being here today.
The EPA Brownfield Program revitalizes communities by
transforming contaminated properties into economic assets. It
attracts private investment, creates jobs, and boosts local tax
revenues through funding and technical assistance for the
assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of potentially
contaminated former commercial industrial sites. This
transformation eliminates environmental hazards and stimulates
economic activity, benefiting businesses and residents. This is
critically important.
A prime example of this type of development is the recent
$2 million award of an EPA brownfield cleanup program grant for
the City of New Orleans to support the environmental
remediation of the former Naval Support Activity Complex in the
downtown Bywater neighborhood. This vast, now vacant complex,
completed in 1919 by the United States Navy, formerly served as
a logistics station for the Port of New Orleans and the
military training site. Deactivated and sold to the City of New
Orleans in 2011 for redevelopment, it comprises some 84,000
square-foot 6-story buildings and on about a 1.5 million
square-foot site.
Thanks in large to the EPA brownfield funding, the complex
is now being redeveloped to create mixed-use development with
295 affordable residential units and ground-floor retail space,
including a grocery store and--as the primary retailer.
Ms. Stoneham, since taking office, President Trump has
pledged to cut funding to EPA by 65 percent, undertaking
significant indiscriminate staff firings, and terminated
congressionally appropriated EPA grant funding to local
recipients. Can you tell us how the current atmosphere of the
uncertainty impacts the EPA Brownfield Program's awards and
projects now underway in your home of Houston?
Ms. Stoneham. Absolutely. It has significantly impacted our
project timeline and us being able to release procurement
opportunities. It also reduces the potential for more training
opportunities not just for my staff and the contractors that we
work with but also community members who directly want to
better understand how they can receive access to funding
allocations and just being able to see how they can amplify
what they want to directly do in their neighborhoods.
And then just the relationships that we built of working
with our grant officer, the chemist that we talked to that
reviews the reports on a regular basis just so we can continue
the work that we are doing and also continue to pursue more
funding opportunities.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mayor Bollwage, I began my career
in local government serving on the New Orleans City Council
many years ago. So I understand and appreciate the incredible
job that you have to do as a mayor and your employees do with
limited resources. What would gutting our career workforce at
EPA, including those at the Brownfield Program who provide
technical assistance, mean to your municipal employees in the
City of Elizabeth who partner with EPA to carry out these
projects?
Mr. Bollwage. So we are a very urban, dense community. And
taking the EPA away from our city, which has the largest port
on the East Coast, the second-largest in the country--air
pollution issues, brownfield issues, economic development
issues, without having the EPA as a partner we run the risk of
higher pollution and less availability of vacant land to
develop.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Ms. Stoneham, without the EPA
Brownfields Program, would the projects listed in your
testimony still be vacant, blighted eyesores in our community?
Ms. Stoneham. Absolutely. The trash incinerator site was
abandoned for 60 years, and I strongly believe it would
continue to still be abandoned and wouldn't have a partner to
step up to take on the complex measure of having over 40 feet
of trash incinerator site currently still there.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Mayor Bollwage, in your
opinion, should we keep the funding of EPA brownfield in its
current level? And without it, what happens in your
communities?
Mr. Bollwage. Well, I am always looking for more.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. So cutting it is not--
Mr. Bollwage. Cutting is not--cutting it should not be an
option.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Would you agree that it is
counterproductive in that we actually lose money and not gain
money by making these kind of ill-thought cuts?
Mr. Bollwage. We heard testimony from Mr. Miller earlier
that every dollar of the brownfields generates $20 in
additional funding.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And that doesn't sound very
efficient, and we are talking about an effort from DOGE to be
more efficient, to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. If you are
putting in a dollar but you are getting 20 back, that seems
pretty efficient to me.
Mr. Bollwage. It is extremely efficient for local
governments because we have the ability not only to generate
tax revenue, but also jobs, which then creates more income tax,
et cetera.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
My time is exceeded, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentleman from Texas for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Weber. About time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Weber. OK. So we are going to have fun here. So how
many sites, total sites, in the country? We will start down
here on the left. Is it--say--Connaught?
Mr. Connaughton. Connaughton, thank you.
Mr. Weber. Connaughton. I can do this. How many sites in
the United States would you say there are, brownfields?
Mr. Connaughton. More than 400,000.
Mr. Weber. Four hundred thousand. Would you agree, Mr.
Connaughton, that when we have got almost a $37 trillion
deficit, that we ought to be focused on reducing that in as
many ways as possible?
Mr. Connaughton. Addressing the deficit is one of the
most--that and national security are the two most important
priorities for America, in my personal view.
Mr. Weber. Would you agree with that, Mayor?
Mr. Bollwage. You know, I--in a way, yes, but we recycle
everything else. We need to start recycling our land.
Mr. Weber. Ms. Stoneham, would you agree?
Ms. Stoneham. Yes.
Mr. Weber. We need to work on--Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Weber. OK. So the average--looking at sites--and you
all may know the answer to this question or not. What is the--
do we know the acreage of every single site? Do we have that in
our database, the size of the site, of the brownfield site?
Mr. Bollwage. If I may, Congressman, I believe the local
governments and the State governments would have that
information.
Mr. Weber. Right.
Mr. Bollwage. I am not aware of a national database.
Mr. Weber. Sure. Well, Texas's Commission on Environmental
Quality says there is 207 brownfield sites in Texas. In my home
district along the Gulf Coast we have 10 sites. So the EPA is
working with getting the word out.
So, Mr. Connaughton, I think you talked about businesses
being willing to get in there and redo this as quickly as
possible if we can get the permitting process low. Does the EPA
send out regular emails, letters? How do they get the word out
to potential businesses?
Mr. Connaughton, I will come back to you if you know that,
about--there was some--there--is that possible, you know,
business to be done here?
Mr. Connaughton. I think the answer is there's hundreds of
different ways all of this gets communicated--Federal, State,
and locally--and it is a hodgepodge. But it is now coalescing
into this understanding of 400,000 sites at different points.
And maybe to get a jump on your point, which is we can and
should sustain the EPA contribution to this effort, but I want
to see all 400,000 addressed.
Mr. Weber. Yes, but we have to do them in order of ones
that yield the most economic benefit.
Mr. Connaughton. Exactly, exactly.
Mr. Weber. Do we do that, Mayor? Has that been your
experience?
Mr. Bollwage. In my experience, yes, Congressman. I mean,
the landfill was causing health issues in our community. And
not only did we take away the health issue, we generated
economic development through jobs, as well as open space.
Mr. Weber. And you see that in Houston. I grew up in
Houston, lived in a 20-mile radius, 71 years. September of
2023--I brought this up at the last hearing on brownfields, I
would be remiss if I don't bring it up again. The cleanup site
of the site that Daikin or--Daikin Park, formerly known as
Minute Maid, right, Minute Maid Park, now sits on the home of
the Astros, a success story. Not every brownfield site will be
lucky in something like that. But would you hazard a guess--or
how long have you been doing this? Let me ask you that, Ms.
Stoneham.
Ms. Stoneham. I have been president for 3 years. Formerly I
was a board member, so I have been in this industry----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Ms. Stoneham [continuing]. For about 15.
Mr. Weber. So what was the impact of the redevelopment of
that for the Houston--town of Houston? Do you have those
figures, when they went----
Ms. Stoneham. I don't necessarily have the numbers, but I
am happy to follow up with that. But I will say just the
resurgence of downtown with significant developments such as
the former Minute Maid Park----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Ms. Stoneham [continuing]. Has created more housing
opportunities, job opportunities, and just overall commercial
redevelopment.
Mr. Weber. I am going to assume--and Mr. Miller, you--I
think you said something earlier about maybe it being--those
being prime areas for nuclear in some instances in your
comments, or did I miss that?
Mr. Miller. No, that is correct. We actually--as I
mentioned, we identified seven sites in our region. Six of the
seven were brownfields, and all seven scored very highly in the
industry standard.
Mr. Weber. Now, that is in your Commonwealth of Virginia,
correct?
Mr. Miller. That is just within southwest Virginia.
Mr. Weber. Southwest Virginia, OK.
Is there a rating--I am sure there is--of severity of these
sites, some that have--are you familiar with the site, Ms.
Stoneham, in the south part of Houston, over toward Dixie Farm,
south of Hobby Airport about 10 miles? It has been a long time
since it was an issue.
Ms. Stoneham. I am not familiar with that specific site.
Mr. Weber. Yes, it probably predated you, but the
severity--OK, well, good enough. I will leave it there.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much for yielding back, and I
now recognize Mr. Soto for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses. I know it has been a long day. You are almost
through it.
You know, we are here talking about brownfields, polluted
lands that we see throughout all of our districts, even in
Florida, where a lot of the areas in central Florida are very
new. We see that brownfields are bad for public health, they
are bad for business, they are bad for communities.
When you look at places like downtown Kissimmee or downtown
Orlando, you will see gas stations that were around 10, 20
years ago, and now it is just sitting there, abandoned, in the
middle of downtown. These are areas that, when they are
restored, bring huge economic growth to areas.
I am thrilled that, through the infrastructure law, we saw
over $1 billion in investment in these Brownfields Programs.
When you look at Florida itself, in Florida's 9th Congressional
District we have 45 sites in Orange County, where Orlando is
one of the most urban areas of our district, 4 in Osceola, and
31 in Polk County--a lot of old citrus sites, and helping out
with mining in that area. And then, since 1997, we have seen in
Florida over 235 contaminated sites cleaned up in Florida,
almost 90,000 jobs. So we know that this can be helpful.
So--which is--when I saw the 65 percent cut to EPA
spending, I was deeply concerned about that. Now it looks like
it won't be staff alone, it will be spending cuts. And
obviously, we want to be mindful that this isn't strategic and
it could hurt programs like the brownfield.
Mayor Bollwage, how could a reduction in 65 percent
spending or a huge reduction in staff affect brownfield
projects that you are working on?
Mr. Bollwage. Well, it happens all at once. It will create
chaos, and that seems to be what is going on at the moment. I
would not like, as a mayor of the fourth-largest city in New
Jersey, to not be able to rely on EPA and EPA funding.
Mr. Soto. You know, a long time ago I lived in New Jersey
and worked in Jersey City, and--
Mr. Bollwage. Where? Oh, Jersey City?
Mr. Soto. The Lackawanna Building in Jersey City, and then
in--for Prudential, and I saw the important reuse through these
brownfield programs. Like many New Jerseyans, I am a Floridian
for over half a lifetime now, and work very closely with our
ranking member, Frank Pallone, and others. And we see this in
central Florida in areas that, even though they may be a little
newer, there still are already brownfields, and it is just
leaving economic growth on the table.
Do you think this would affect the number of years it takes
to put these projects forward?
Mr. Bollwage. Absolutely. I mean, you have heard an awful
lot of testimony from Mr. Connaughton about the process. And if
you eliminate the people who are reviewing the process, then
the mathematical equation is it takes even that much longer.
Mr. Soto. And then how important is consistency in getting
investment and raising bonds to help match some of these funds?
Mr. Bollwage. Well, being the fourth-largest city, unlike
the rural and the small towns, we have the ability to raise
money through bonding issues, and that is helpful in
redeveloping a brownfield site. But if you don't have the
people to review it and you don't have the assessments done
properly, then it takes that much longer, and the bonding
agency is going to give you a more difficult rate to borrow
that money.
Mr. Soto. Mr. Connaughton, I did appreciate your comments
about the need to try to streamline these, so I am trying to
find what is that careful balance to have an efficient review,
where it is not dragging on and on and on, but we are not just
rubber-stamping even a well-qualified private-sector's plan
without at least some review. So where do we find that balance
with something so sensitive as brownfields?
Mr. Connaughton. Well, the great advantage of the way we
have constructed our modern environmental laws is they all have
reporting, monitoring, self-reporting of noncompliance,
auditing, inspection, and enforcement. And very different from
when I started in my career--and then many of you--we now have
a culture of compliance when it comes to the environment.
In fact--and so noncompliance is very rare, and especially
with respect to the kinds of big infrastructure projects that I
have been talking about, OK? They can't afford not to comply.
So my view is, can we please let them? And they still have to
do all of the--all the mandatory things with the judicial
review behind that and citizen suits. So there is still risk if
you screw up. We are just putting 99 percent of our effort on
the people that don't screw up.
And this goes to the resources issue you are raising. I
really want to see--our quite capable environmental
professionals that are in these agencies, I want them working
on the hard problems. I don't want them working on the easy
problems.
Mr. Soto. Sure.
Mr. Connaughton. I think we can find a really good outcome
here.
But also I would just note we have 400,000 to work on, and
there is no amount of increase in the brownfields budget,
which--again, I want money there, but there is no amount of
increase that is going to get the rest of the 400,000. We have
only done, you know, tens of thousands in 25 years. So I want
to be sure that--I hope you will look bigger and say let's go
after all of them because we need them, of which EPA is one
contributing part.
Mr. Soto. Which is why we need to keep EPA funding steady
to keep these projects going.
Thanks so much, and I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I am going to take
a point of personal privilege, since he mentioned Osceola and
Orlando.
My constituent who lives not too far from Mr. Miller is Mac
McClung, who plays for a 2-way contract with the Orlando Magic
and the Osceola Magic and is a threepeat winner of the dunk
contest, and----
Mr. Soto. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Griffith. Both Mr. Miller and I know his family, and we
wish him well.
Mr. Soto. If I may, I saw him jump over Shaq to dunk last
year to win the championship. We are going to claim
impartially, if that is OK with you, sir, since he----
Mr. Griffith. We will share, we just want to make sure the
Orlando Magic pick him up full-time. And that being said----
Mr. Soto. I support that. We will get the petitions going.
We are doing it right here in the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. Griffith. There you go. That being said, we have the
policy in our committee of anyone who is on the committee being
able to waive on. Mrs. Dingell considers this an important
matter and has sat here for some time so that she can waive on
to the committee. We welcome her and now recognize Mrs. Dingell
for her 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me be
here and for this important hearing, EPA's Brownfield Programs.
And thank you to all of the witnesses. I have--for a long time
we have worked together on things. We agree most of the time,
and it is great to be with all of the witnesses.
As we have heard today, the Brownfield Programs have a long
history of empowering States, local communities, and
stakeholders to work together to clean up contaminated sites,
protect public health, and restore land for productive use. It
has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in this committee, and I
am hopeful that it will continue in this Congress.
In my district and across southeast Michigan, the Downriver
Community Conference operates one of the most successful
programs in the country, as Jim knows. Serving 20 communities
across 3 counties and over 900,000 residents, the DCC has
secured and distributed more than $21 million in grants for
site cleanups and their assessments. It has revitalized 200
sites, generating more than $700 million in investment,
creating jobs and strengthening the tax base of our Downriver
communities.
Through the Brownfield Program, the DCC has made Michigan a
more vibrant, sustainable, and attractive place to live, work,
visit, and raise a family, and we need to make sure this
success continues. We must fully reauthorize and fully fund the
program. And if you think people don't care, it continues to be
an issue that brings many people that--to townhall meetings
every quarter that I hold that want--we are a heavy industrial
area, we have a lot of places that need to be cleaned up. So
the Brownfield Program delivers real results, and we must
ensure it remains a priority.
Mayor Bollwage, a lot of people have asked you the same
questions I was going to, so I am going to ask you the same
question, but a different way.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Dingell. If the Brownfields Program--it is set to
become insolvent in 2026. What will be the impact on your
community if these resources are allowed to lapse?
Mr. Bollwage. So we have identified 57 brownfield
properties, of which we have developed about 15 to 18
properties. Without the ability to have assessment dollars or
cleanup dollars, then our efforts to revitalize that property
would be put off for another day or years.
Mrs. Dingell. Or may not get cleaned up.
Mr. Bollwage. Ever.
Mrs. Dingell. You know, when we are revitalizing a
community through Brownfields Programs, it is imperative that
we center said community in the planning and implementation
process, assuring that we are serving their needs first and
foremost.
Ms. Stoneham, you emphasized that a key part of
redevelopment is ensuring to--that end product is reflective of
the priorities for your community. Can you talk about--more
about how you accomplished this when you were administrating
your brownfield grants in Houston?
Ms. Stoneham. Happy to. We have a brownfields activation
committee, which is comprised of local community leaders,
policy experts, professionals, and anyone who just cares
whether you are doing air quality, soil quality, water quality.
We convene them on a quarterly basis in order to discuss our
projects and to directly listen to what they would like to see.
But we also host community visioning sessions with our
architects so we can discuss what housing solutions can be
placed, whether it is a duplex, a town home, or whatever
typology that may be.
We also incorporated in the Houston Land Bank policy a
neighborhood advisory council. So regardless if it is a
brownfield or not, they have a scoring portion of our criteria
so when we procure land and give it to a builder, we actually
gave them 15 out of the 50 points.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. You know, what is important--I am
going to say this to all of you--is to remember that brownfield
sites usually consist of multiple hazards that pose threats to
the public health of their local communities. They are aware of
it. They are scared of it. And that is the issue that drives a
lot of this wanting to be cleaned up. Revitalization of a
brownfield does not only mean an economic recovery but the
removal of threats that will contribute to the protection of
our people's health.
Ms. Stoneham, during your testimony you mentioned that --
significant threats to brownfield sites present to the
communities you work with in Houston. Can you speak more to the
specific health challenges you have tackled through your work
with the Houston Land Bank?
Ms. Stoneham. Sure, and I also want to share a saying that
I have adopted from one of my colleagues from Adapta, which is
everything is a brownfield until proven not guilty, and we take
that approach to everything that we look at when we are
assessing the opportunities.
Now, I am not an environmental scientist, but I will say
for our Project Yellow Cab we removed about 20 feet of soil,
some underground storage tanks. We found levels of dioxin, and
just made sure that we are very transparent also with the
findings that we found and publicly share that on our website
so we are also educating the community about what a brownfield
is, what these contaminants are, and they can directly talk to
our consultants so they can better understand what solutions we
are proposing to move forward with them.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I must yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
Seeing no further witnesses, I ask unanimous consent to
insert into the record the documents included in the staff
hearing documents list.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Griffith. I remind Members that they have 10 business
days to submit questions for the record. I am already thinking
of some, and I ask the witnesses to respond to those questions
promptly.
Without objection, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]