Daily on Energy: Data centers on Superfund sites? 

Published September 10, 2026 3:12pm ET



WHAT’S HAPPENING TODAY: Good afternoon and happy Thursday, readers! While it may not feel like fall in the D.C. area yet, football season kicked off yesterday, with more games set for today and this weekend. Maydeen will be rooting for the Los Angeles Rams to go all the way this year! 🍂🏈🐏

  • ☣️⛰️ In the meantime, we’re taking a closer look at how contaminated land sites could be transformed into data center developments. We’re also keeping an eye on diesel prices, which, shortly before the newsletter went out, were just two cents away from reaching $6 per gallon. 

Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner energy and environment writers Callie Patteson (@CalliePatteson) and Maydeen Merino (@MaydeenMerino). Email cpatteson@washingtonexaminer dot com or mmerino@washingtonexaminer dot com for tips, suggestions, calendar items, and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you’d like to sign up, click here. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email, and we’ll add you to our list. 

FROM CONTAMINATED LANDS TO DATA CENTERS: 

Brownfield and Superfund sites could emerge as locations for data center development. 

Chris Barnard, the president of the conservative American Conservation Coalition, is advancing the argument that building data centers on such sites could help defuse the growing angst over development. 

“There’s a lot of land out there that exists that people can’t currently use,” Barnard told Maydeen, referring to Brownfield and Superfund sites. 

“If there’s a way to use that land for data centers and have that land be remediated at the same time, it’d be a win-win for communities, for local environments, and then also for developers,” he said. 

Superfund sites are properties designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as having environmental contamination risks, but the cleanup process varies by site, depending on the severity and type of contamination. 

Barnard wrote an op-ed last month arguing that developers should be allowed to build data centers on brownfield and Superfund sites in exchange for cleaning them up. 

The administration has taken steps to not only accelerate the development of data centers but make it easier for companies to consider using these sites as locations for their AI facilities.

Last month, the Energy Department announced a partnership with NextEra Energy and several other companies to develop the Paducah Site, a former nuclear site, into a data center campus. The site was designated as a Superfund site in the 1990s.

In July, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the EPA to identify contaminated properties that could be suitable for data center development. The agency has since released guidance for communities or companies looking to develop on these sites. 

Location, location, location: However, not all brownfield or Superfund locations are the same in terms of cleanup status, level of contamination, or ease of access to energy.

“If the site is suitable for commercial development, it may indeed be suitable for a data center,” Walter Mugdan, former EPA Region 2 Deputy Regional Administrator and Superfund Director, told Maydeen. 

These sites are “certainly something [data center developers] ought to be looking at,” Mugdan said.

But, he added, “it’s more a question of location, location, location, which I’m using as a shorthand for all the elements about a site that make it intrinsically appropriate for a certain kind of use.” 

Who pays for the clean-up? In some cases, new owners of a contaminated site could be legally obligated to contribute to cleanup costs.

Mugdan said contributing to the cleanup can help the buyer obtain a prospective purchaser agreement, or a PPA, with the agency. A PPA is a contract with the government that can protect a buyer from liability for existing pollution on a property as long as they contribute to the cleanup costs. 

Mugdan said these sites carry a liability risk, and new owners want to make sure they don’t inherit a costly legal or environmental problem.

Barnard said that developers should be given Good Samaritan liability protections for voluntarily cleaning up contaminated sites, so they aren’t held liable for pollution they didn’t create.


All the rest:

TRUMP GIVES UP ON GAS PRICES: It was overshadowed by his pledge to send out $5,000-a-head “dividend” checks, but Trump said yesterday that gas prices will not come down before the midterm elections. 

What he said: In brief interviews yesterday while en route to the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, Trump told reporters that oil and gas prices won’t come down before the elections. 

Then, in his speech at the convention, Trump said: “We’re more powerful now than OPEC and prices right after this very important election on November 3rd will be plummeting. The war will be over very shortly after the election.”

He said that Iran is holding out for the midterm elections to put pressure on him and in hopes of Democrats winning, but that “we’re not gonna let that happen.”

What it means: The status quo with Iran and shipping conditions in the Strait of Hormuz means that oil prices near or above $100 per barrel could persist, along with gas prices above $4 and diesel prices near $6 a gallon. 

Politically, that is a problem for Republicans. Gas prices play a major role in determining consumer sentiment. They are one of the prices that consumers encounter most frequently, as drivers see them every time they pull into a gas station to fill up. 

The Iran war effect on gas prices has helped suppress consumer sentiment and drive down Trump’s economic approval rating, which is now dragging down the overall Republican Party as it looks to retain control of the House and Senate. 

Taking a step back: For months, Trump has responded to complaints about higher gas prices by saying that the war with Iran will end quickly. At the same time, his administration has worked hard, with mixed success, to increase the flow of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz even without a deal with Iran. All those efforts have been meant in part to limit the energy and political fallout from the conflict. 

Now, though, Trump is acknowledging that there is a price to be paid, and he will pay it. 

NEW GEOTHERMAL TECH AT WORK IN BOSTON: Dig Energy has completed a geothermal heating and cooling system for the headquarters of Suffolk Construction in Boston, Canary Media reports

Dig has a unique technology that bores through the ground using an extremely high-pressure water system. 

Former Loan Programs Office director Jigar Shah said on X that the news is a sign that geothermal is taking off. 

“The ground beneath every building in America is a thermal battery that recharges itself for free, every year, forever,” he wrote. “Now we have the technologies to unlock it cost effectively.”

GLOBAL DEMAND FOR COAL IS INCREASING: Global coal demand is set to rise by 1.2% this year, bringing the world’s consumption to a record 8.94 billion tonnes, the International Energy Agency said. 

In a report, IEA said that the strains on the supply of oil and liquefied natural gas in the Middle East are pushing global demand for coal generation higher. The disruptions have contributed to higher coal use in markets that otherwise rely on gas-fired power plants, such as Japan, Korea, China, and Europe. 

The report said that coal demand could decline next year if shipments of LNG and natural gas rebound to pre-war levels, but there remains significant uncertainty. 

Coal production reached record highs last year. It is expected to decline this year but remain above 9 billion tonnes for the third consecutive year, the report said. China’s decline in output has played a significant role in the decline in production. 

ICYMI – STATES SUE TRUMP OVER ROLLING BACK ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: Democratic attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., filed lawsuits yesterday against the Trump administration over its efforts to roll back the Endangered Species Act. 

States are challenging the Interior Department’s rule that would revoke the federal definition of “harm” under the ESA, claiming the regulation was outdated and a regulatory burden. Under the law, the definition of “harm” deems that any action that hurts or kills an imperiled species is illegal. 

The states also brought a second lawsuit challenging a rule that would eliminate protections for newly listed threatened species and another rule that requires the government to consider the economic, national security, and other impacts before declaring areas as “critical habitats.” 

The attorney generals are arguing that these rules violate the ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. 

RUNDOWN

NPR Scientists say August was Earth’s hottest month they’ve measured

Bloomberg Aging US Water Systems Are No Match for Climate Change

The Associated Press For these Midwest farmers, regenerative agriculture is about more than soil health. It’s spiritual