Finding Common Ground in Contaminated Places

As policymakers on both sides of the aisle reconcile with what an “all of the above” energy policy strategy can look like, prioritizing energy developments on environmentally contaminated sites could garner bipartisan support. This “repurposed” use of brownfields, Superfund sites, and other legacy industrial lands could help address growing energy demand and lead to direct local benefits for constituents. But concerns about liability, funding, and potential environmental harm emerge in the face of overdue permitting reform.

At the federal level, energy permitting—renewable and fossil fuel alike—faces criticism for delays and uncertainty. Both the Biden and Trump administrations have supported permitting reform, but with different primary goals: for Democrats, largely enabling clean energy; for Republicans, often fossil fuels and industrial development. Issues of lengthy environmental reviews, bureaucratic red tape, and regulatory uncertainty apply to both sides alike. Yet partisan divisions often stall reform, as disagreements arise over which energy projects should receive support.

Brownfields as a Bridge

Thus far in 2025, both fossil fuel and renewable energies have boosted production to record highs, but there is lingering unease within both parties regarding power deficits and increasing generation costs. This shared urgency creates an opening: brownfield energy development. Sitting at the intersection of permitting reform and community redevelopment, this approach can help meet rising demand while remediating environmental contamination and revitalizing long-neglected sites. While federal momentum may be limited, states can lead by identifying low-risk land, engaging communities early, and bundling incentives and benefits.

In practice, developments like solar farms are particularly well-suited and popular for these sites, but wind projects are also strong candidates given the right conditions. Because the sites are already contaminated, this would limit the use of agricultural or otherwise protected land for these space-intensive developments.

In addition to environmental advantages, redeveloping brownfields typically encounters less public opposition than projects on undeveloped or usable “greenfield” sites. This may help alleviate investors’ concerns about project delays down the line. However, there is continued attention on public participation, as some reforms broadly aim to shield energy projects from court action that may delay their completion timelines. Without strong oversight, this shift could sacrifice environmental safeguards and deepen public mistrust.

To encourage momentum, state policies can promote the development of energy projects on repurposed land through procurement preferences and direct financial incentives. This avenue can support renewable projects that can advance state environmental goals despite federal deregulation. States can also consider shortening the permitting process through other administrative changes, such as the use of external professionals to help  ease staff capacity shortages. 

Encouragingly, creative policy tools are already emerging. Last year’s ADVANCE Act promoted streamlining the development of nuclear projects on brownfield sites. New York State’s “Build Ready” program, led by NYSERDA, accelerates renewable deployment by pre-permitting brownfield parcels and engaging communities before auctioning sites to developers for construction and operation. State and local governments can proactively identify land where renewable energy projects (like solar and wind) would have minimal environmental impacts and streamline permitting or funding opportunities.

Conclusion

In an era when economic policy often feels abstract, brownfield redevelopment offers something tangible, transforming polluted land into community assets where people walk, breathe, and build their futures. These projects allow for development tailored to the needs of individual communities, yielding a better chance of broad public support.

Contaminated site permitting reform offers an example of common-sense, bipartisan policy reform that can help meet the demands of a growing energy crisis. While states are leading with innovative tools and targeted incentives, federal action is still essential. Reauthorizing the Brownfields Program and pursuing smart permitting reform—with strong environmental and community safeguards—can help these efforts scale. In the meantime, expanding state-level initiatives can ensure that repurposed lands lay the groundwork for bipartisan energy progress, even in the face of federal gridlock.

Arwen Kozak

Senior Research Coordinator

Arwen Kozak is senior research coordinator at the Kleinman Center. She assists with research and programming initiatives at Kleinman, working to support visiting scholars, students, and grant recipients.