Contributed by Isaiah Shupe, Marketing Intern, PPM Consultants
During my short tenure at PPM, I have been immersed in a world of data collection and analytics that has challenged me to learn and improve in various ways. I have had the privilege of collaborating with PPM team members across the southeast, and their guidance and encouragement have been an incredible aid for my work. This article is a brief rundown of my findings in my largest analysis project to date: the EPA’s recent announcement of brownfields grant winners for 2025.
Comparing the Field
Each year, the EPA’s Brownfields Program delivers millions in grants to communities working to transform contaminated, underused properties into spaces with a new purpose—parks, housing, businesses, and more. The funding is highly competitive, and in FY2025, two regions (Region 1 and Region 4) told very different stories about how to win (and lose) in this national race.
On one hand, Region 1 (New England) soared to the top, outpacing all others in funding, awards, and overall impact. On the other hand, Region 4 (the Southeast) stumbled, despite submitting one of the highest volumes of applications in the country. The data doesn’t just show who got what; it reveals what works, what doesn’t, and how strategy can make or break an applicant in a grant cycle.
Region 1: New England’s Incredible Haul
Let’s start with the immediate standout. Region 1, made up of six northeastern states—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont—walked away with nearly $53 million in Brownfields funding. The next closest region, Region 6, received just over $34 million. A nearly nineteen-million-dollar difference between first and second place, greater than some regions’ total haul, shows that whatever Region 1 is doing is producing unbelievable results.
And the biggest winner within Region 1? Maine. Yes, you read that correctly, Maine. The state brought in a whopping $31.7 million on its own, accounting for more than half the region’s total. It had 21 selected applications, more than the total number of winners in entire regions like Region 2 and Regions 6-10. What drove this success? A few factors stand out to me.
First, Region 1 knew how to collaborate. Many of the most competitive applications came from coalitions—regional planning commissions and councils of government applying on behalf of several towns. These kinds of proposals often score better because they cover more ground and benefit more communities.
Second, the region brought experience to the table. Many of Region 1’s applicants have been in the Brownfields game for years. They’ve got the infrastructure, the site inventories, and the grant-writing know-how to build strong proposals that align with EPA’s standards.
Finally, the Northeast has no shortage of eligible sites. Old industrial properties, former textile mills, and abandoned factories are scattered across the region. These legacy sites often carry serious environmental risks, making them high-priority targets for EPA funding.
Region 4: Huge Potential, Underwhelming Results
Now, contrast that with the unfortunate results in Region 4, which includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. On the surface, the region seemed poised for a strong showing. It submitted 86 applications, the second-highest total in the country. Communities were engaged and eager to secure federal support.
But only 23 applications from Region 4 were selected, giving the region the lowest win rate of any EPA region: just 26.7%.
So, what went wrong?
A big piece of the puzzle is that Region 4 lacked the kind of coordination that made Region 1 a powerhouse this cycle. While New England leaned heavily on coalitions, Region 4 mostly submitted individual applications, one town, one county at a time. That meant dozens of small-scale proposals were essentially competing against each other for the same limited funding, weakening the region’s overall competitive edge.
Another issue was the overwhelming focus on Community-Wide Assessment grants. These are important; They are the first step to remediation in a brownfield site. However, the sheer number of unselected assessment proposals makes me wonder if there is an underlying issue with those applications. My first thought would be that the assessments had no written plans to follow up with any cleanup or remediation if something was found in the assessment. While I currently have no data to prove my theory true, it certainly would make sense if that were the case. The EPA wants to fund projects that make tangible and achievable progress, so applications that lack plans for those types of results can tend to fall behind.
Then there were the budgets. Region 4 saw some high-scoring applications ultimately passed over because the funding requests were simply too large, as much as $4 million, without enough justification. While shooting for the maximum isn’t necessarily bad (most applicants do request the maximum in each category), it only works if there’s a rock-solid case for the funding and a plan to execute efficiently and effectively.
Moving Forward: Course Correction for Region 4
The big question now is, how does Region 4 (and all other regions, for that matter) adjust to be more successful in the next cycle? The data points to a few clear takeaways.
One of the most consistent patterns that I have noticed in successful regions is collaboration. Applications submitted by councils of government, regional planning councils, and other larger-scale collaborative efforts tend to win more frequently than individual city governments. These proposals demonstrate a shared vision, coordinated strategy, and a broader geographic and social impact, which often resonate more with EPA reviewers.
Another critical factor is having a plan that goes beyond basic assessments. While identifying contamination is an important first step, the EPA increasingly prioritizes projects that show how a site will move from assessment to cleanup and eventually to redevelopment. Proposals that articulate this full lifecycle, what happens after Phase I and II studies, are typically more competitive.
Budgeting strategy also plays a major role. It’s quite common to request a large sum, but the proposal needs to clearly show how the money will be used and why it’s appropriate for the project’s scope and readiness. Reviewers are easily turned away from vague or overly ambitious budgets. Often, a more modest, realistic budget, backed by a solid plan, can be more persuasive than a larger ask without clear justification.
Finally, it’s important to focus on the strength of your application rather than the number you submit. Submitting more proposals might increase visibility, but quality still wins out. Well-structured, targeted applications that align with EPA priorities tend to rise to the top, while weaker or redundant submissions can reduce a region’s overall competitiveness.
Wrapping Up
Brownfields funding is transformative, but it’s also finite. With the large number of applicants all trying for their chance to get a piece of the brownfields grants action, competition is a given. In FY2025, Region 1 showed what’s possible when preparation, collaboration, and experience come together. On the other side of the coin, Region 4 showed that eagerness and interest do not always equate to competitiveness.
But the Southeast’s story isn’t finished. With strong interest already in place, communities have a fantastic opportunity to build smarter relationships, tie assessments to action, prioritize quality over quantity, and come back stronger next cycle.