Turning idle land into economic opportunity

By Gerald Pouncey

This is a lightly edited excerpt of testimony recently provided to the U.S. House’s Energy and Commerce, Environment subcommittee hearing titled, “Ready for reuse: Legislative proposals to unleash the potential of America’s brownfields sites.” 

Brownfield properties are often large, centrally located and deeply intertwined with surrounding communities. As I have testified previously, these properties have often been completely abandoned or severely underutilized, with only skeletal operations remaining to avoid certain EPA permitting requirements. They frequently exceed 100 acres and may sit adjacent to or in the middle of existing neighborhoods. In that condition, they present safety concerns, especially for children, and can serve as magnets for criminal activity. They also pose environmental risks due to deteriorating building materials and exposed conditions in soil or stormwater.

Leaving these properties idle imposes real costs on communities. They depress surrounding property values, limit economic opportunity and create long-term environmental uncertainty. Redevelopment, by contrast, restores economic vitality, improves public safety and provides new opportunities for housing, retail, industrial and mixed-use development. In addition, these properties often have tremendous access to critical infrastructure, including power and natural gas and the development of such parcels can reduce the development of greenfield sites, thus preserving open space.

The challenges associated with redeveloping Brownfield sites are significant and often underestimated. As I have previously explained, redevelopment typically requires substantial upfront capital outlays for environmental testing and records review that would not be necessary on a Greenfield site. These up-front due diligence costs can be five to ten times higher than those associated with Greenfield development, and they are entirely at risk because test results may ultimately show that redevelopment is not viable. Even when redevelopment proceeds, cleanup costs and delays due to existing contamination add further uncertainty.

These realities shape the decisions of developers, lenders, and investors. Without predictable liability protections, clear regulatory pathways and targeted financial incentives, many Brownfield projects simply cannot move forward.

Below are some of my recommendations to enhance Brownfield redevelopment through the Brownfield reauthorization:

1. Continue the effort to transition CERCLA sites and NPL sites to state Brownfield Programs where liability protection and financial incentives are available to incentivize redevelopment of such sites.  

2. Increase federal support for targeted Brownfield cleanup grants and ensure that grant-funded sampling is aligned with specific redevelopment opportunities. 

3. Provide statutory clarity regarding CERCLA liability for passive property owners, particularly in the context of PFAS contamination. 

4. Encourage public-private partnerships (including through the grant program) that leverage municipal authority and private sector expertise to achieve efficient and effective cleanup. 

5. Support the use of intergovernmental financial incentives, including opportunity zones and new market tax credits, to offset the additional costs of Brownfield redevelopment and to incentivize redevelopment.

Brownfield redevelopment is one of the most effective tools available to revitalize communities, expand economic opportunity and return underutilized land to productive use. The private sector plays a central role in this work, but it cannot succeed without predictable liability protections, targeted financial incentives, and strong state and federal partnerships.

Read the full testimony here.

Gerald Pouncey is the senior counsel at Taft Stettinius and Hollister Centers. 

_{*The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of EnergyPlatform.News.}