Contributed by Trey Hess P.E., Brownfield Director and Principal, PPM Consultants
As someone who has long advocated for practical, state-led solutions to environmental challenges, I find that some of the most promising policy changes from the new administration are those that empower states to lead with flexibility and accountability. In earlier articles such as Toward State-Run PCB Cleanups: A Road Map for Amending TSCA and When Presumption Becomes a Barrier: Rethinking EPA’s Eligibility for Petroleum Brownfields, I explored how targeted reforms could improve outcomes by shifting technical and regulatory decision-making closer to the ground. The newly issued Executive Order on “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure” (EO 14318) offers another opportunity to make that vision a reality.
This executive order, released in July 2025, does more than fast-track the permitting of large-scale data centers. It signals a broader federal intent to realign environmental review, economic redevelopment, and technological infrastructure—placing efficiency and environmental stewardship on the same track rather than opposite ends of it.
A Convergence of Technology and Redevelopment
The data-center industry has evolved from niche server farms into energy-intensive, infrastructure-heavy facilities that anchor the AI-driven economy. A single hyperscale data center can consume more than 100 megawatts of power—comparable to a small city—and requires robust access to transmission, water, and cooling systems.
Yet the siting of such projects has become increasingly difficult. Communities often resist greenfield development due to its environmental footprint, while many former industrial properties remain underutilized despite existing access to power, roads, and utilities. These Brownfield and Superfund properties represent a vast, underused resource. The Executive Order’s directive for EPA to identify and prioritize such sites for reuse could reshape how America powers its digital future.
What the Executive Order Requires
EO 14318 directs the EPA Administrator to identify Brownfield and Superfund sites suitable for redevelopment as data-center or “covered component” projects and to issue guidance within 180 days to expedite environmental review for their reuse.
This effort is part of a broader modernization strategy—streamlining processes under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, CERCLA, TSCA, and NEPA. The goal is straightforward: enable faster, smarter project approvals without compromising environmental protections. Success, however, will depend on EPA’s ability to leverage existing state infrastructure and regulatory mechanisms rather than layering new federal oversight on top of them.
What Wise EPA Guidance Should Include
The forthcoming EPA guidance will be pivotal in translating the Executive Order’s intent into actionable policy. The best outcomes will come from an approach that emphasizes state leadership, risk-based flexibility, and data-driven site identification.
Preserve Environmental Integrity While Streamlining
EPA must affirm that the Executive Order does not dilute environmental standards but instead reduces redundancy. States already manage sophisticated risk-based cleanup programs that incorporate engineering controls, institutional restrictions, and long-term monitoring to ensure protectiveness.
Because these systems are embedded in state law—and supported by regulatory mechanisms for land-use restrictions, vapor mitigation, and groundwater controls—states are best equipped to safeguard environmental integrity while advancing redevelopment. EPA’s guidance should reinforce this reality, focusing federal attention on coordination and funding rather than duplicative technical review.
Recognize State Program Capabilities Under CERCLA §128(a) and §128(b)
EPA could formally acknowledge that most states already meet the statutory requirements under CERCLA §128(a) for a qualified State Response Program. These programs include four key elements:
- Enforcement and oversight authority,
- Adequate resources and staff capacity,
- Public participation mechanisms, and
- A public record of response actions.
These programs not only oversee cleanups but also review Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) and Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) under EPA Brownfield grants. In parallel, CERCLA §128(b) provides a liability shield for developers and purchasers acting in good faith under such programs.
Each state’s Quality Management Plan (QMP), typically renewed every five years by EPA regional offices, defines how environmental data are collected, verified, and validated. These existing frameworks provide all the regulatory infrastructure necessary to ensure high-quality, defensible cleanup data.
To truly streamline Brownfield redevelopment, EPA should defer QAPP and SAP review to the states, allowing the Brownfield Grant Program to focus on project funding and grant management. This approach aligns with the cooperative-federalism model that has proven effective in other environmental programs.
Reaffirm State-led Risk-Based Cleanup Programs
EPA could use this opportunity to reaffirm that actions approved under qualified state programs meet the intent of federal cleanup standards.
Most states already apply a risk-based framework across their Brownfields, Voluntary Cleanup, and UST programs, providing consistent cleanup criteria. In contrast, federal cleanup regimes often operate in silos—most notably where PCBs are regulated separately under TSCA, distinct from CERCLA Superfund processes.
This is precisely why the Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) should be driven at the state level. States already maintain enforceable Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and long-term control mechanisms. Moreover, EPA defers to the soil, groundwater, soil vapor, and RBCA procedures of their state counterparts. Since EPA is already deferring to the State cleanup approach (and the necessary data quality required for state sign-off), it really doesn’t make much sense to expect EPA staff to be well versed in each State’s procedures and protocols for collection of data (e.g., what is an adequate purge volume for a well in a given state?) and implementation of corrective actions, including state-specific requirements for activity and use limitations (AULs), engineering controls, and issuance of a “no further action” (NFA) letter of covenant not to sue. A unified, state-administered cleanup approach would reduce overlap, simplify liability protections, and maintain the risk-based rigor necessary for modern redevelopment.
Establish NEPA Efficiencies
EPA could propose a new categorical exclusion under NEPA for projects located on previously developed or remediated sites where contamination is stable and controlled. Projects meeting these conditions could move forward under a shortened environmental review process.
Equally important, EPA Brownfield Assessment Grant dollars could be allowed to fund the broader environmental analyses required under NEPA. Currently, grant funding covers only traditional Phase I and Phase II ESAs, not ancillary studies like wetlands delineations, archaeological reviews, endangered species surveys, or noise and traffic analyses.
Allowing these funds to support comprehensive environmental assessments would prevent costly duplication and give communities the tools to satisfy categorical exclusion or EA/EIS requirements in a single process.
Clarify Liability Protections
Uncertainty over CERCLA liability remains the single greatest barrier to private investment in Brownfield properties. EPA could reaffirm existing tools such as Prospective Purchaser Agreements (PPAs), comfort/status letters, and Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser (BFPP) templates while building on CERCLA §128(b) to give greater weight to sites that achieve regulatory closure under state programs.
By explicitly recognizing that state-issued regulatory satisfaction determinations confer nearly equivalent liability protection at the federal level, the administration could harmonize enforcement and eliminate one of the most persistent disincentives for Brownfield redevelopment. This reform could reward states with high technical standards and create consistency nationwide.
A Practical Framework for Site Identification
To truly accelerate progress, EPA could combine policy reform with data-driven implementation.
A Redevelopment-Ready Inventory should identify sites with completed remedial actions or “No Further Action” determinations, prioritizing those near high-capacity electrical, water, and fiber infrastructure. These could be tiered into readiness categories—Green (ready), Yellow (limited mitigation), and Red (complex). Providing cloud-based storage area as part of the EPA ACRES database and setting an expectation that EPA Brownfield Assessment Grantees will use this storage to upload the Phase I/II ESAs, Cleanup Plans, and other deliverables could very easily be the start of this Redevelopment-Ready Inventory. Right now, certain documents can be uploaded to ACRES, but the most crucial brownfield documents (i.e., the environmental assessment reports) are not stored in ACRES.
EPA could then cross-reference these sites within its ACRES database and state Brownfield inventories to locate parcels adjoining or embedded within designated Brownfield zones or target areas. This geospatial approach would promote redevelopment where environmental due diligence is already complete and infrastructure capacity exists—advancing both the EO’s permitting goals and EPA’s longstanding mission of returning idle properties to productive use.
Balancing Opportunity and Oversight
The potential benefits of this streamlined approach are significant. Redirecting data-center investment toward properties with existing infrastructure reduces sprawl, saves taxpayer dollars, and revitalizes communities. The technical systems, liability protections, and regulatory frameworks are already in place; what’s needed is the confidence and coordination to let them work. If EPA embraces this model—trusting states to lead while focusing federal resources on funding, transparency, and guidance—the agency could set the stage for a new era of environmentally responsible redevelopment. In short, it could realize Administrator Zeldin’s promise: an EPA that “gets out of the way” and lets innovation, cleanup, and economic renewal
For more information on this topic or to discuss how PPM can help “Make Redevelopment A Reality For Your Community”, please contact me at trey.hess@ppmco.com or 601.953.2564.