The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a notice in the Federal Register on February 20, 2026, announcing a request for information to support the development of a new funding opportunity under the Clean School Bus Program. This RFI seeks public comments on alternative fuel technologies, fueling infrastructure, supply chain practices, and oversight mechanisms to promote broader participation, fleet turnover, and protection of taxpayer dollars. Comments are due by April 6, 2026, with an informational webinar planned. The initiative stems from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which allocates $5 billion over five years for replacing existing school buses with cleaner alternatives. By addressing gaps in prior funding rounds, where technologies like biofuels, liquified natural gas, and hydrogen were absent, the EPA aims to provide school districts with more affordable choices while strengthening program integrity. This development is significant as it could accelerate the transition to lower-emission school transportation, benefiting air quality and public health, especially in underserved communities.
Background on the Clean School Bus Program
The Clean School Bus Program, authorized by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act amending 42 U.S.C. 16091, directs the EPA to fund the replacement of existing school buses with clean or zero-emission models, including associated fueling infrastructure. The program splits funding equally between clean school buses—defined as those reducing emissions and using alternative fuels like liquified natural gas, compressed natural gas, hydrogen, propane, or biofuels—and zero-emission buses. To date, the EPA has awarded nearly $3 billion through grants and rebates, resulting in the replacement of about 8,500 buses, predominantly with propane and battery-electric models. Notably, no awards involved biofuels, compressed natural gas, liquified natural gas, or hydrogen, with battery-electric buses comprising over 90 percent of selections.
The EPA's review of previous rounds highlighted successes in projects with early partner engagement, such as school boards, manufacturers, and utilities, but also challenges like the bankruptcy of Lion Electric, which disrupted several initiatives. The agency emphasizes due diligence in partner selection and encourages school districts to apply directly for greater vendor flexibility. For-profit entities are eligible, but the EPA notes the need for improved internal controls and financial management in these cases.
Key Areas of Interest in the RFI
The RFI outlines five main areas: alternative fuel school buses, alternative fuels, fueling infrastructure, industry supply chain and purchasing practices, and oversight and fraud prevention. For alternative fuel buses, the EPA seeks details on availability, pricing, and performance of Type A, C, and D buses using fuels like biodiesel, hydrogen, propane, compressed natural gas, liquified natural gas, or ethanol blends. Questions cover market demand, supply chain constraints, service life, and maintenance in extreme weather, aiming to expand options beyond prior rounds.
On alternative fuels, the RFI requests information on availability, blends, pricing, and documentation for onsite and offsite fueling. It explores emissions comparisons, supply logistics, and practices for ensuring alternative fuel use, such as receipts for blended fuels like B20 (20 percent biodiesel). The EPA notes it has sufficient data on zero-emission technologies and is not seeking input there.
Fueling infrastructure inquiries focus on components, costs, installation timelines, and domestic manufacturing for systems supporting these fuels. The agency asks about necessities for fleet adoption, differences from conventional setups, and tools for tracking fuel usage, including telematics.
Regarding supply chain and purchasing, the RFI probes production timelines, down payment norms, and opportunities for standardization to reduce costs and expedite delivery. It invites suggestions on program design, such as cost-share levels, to promote affordability without overpayment.
Finally, oversight emphasizes preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. An internal review revealed issues like inconsistent documentation, improper fund drawdowns, and weak verification for bus scrappage. The EPA is considering pre-award risk assessments, milestone-based payments, and enhanced conditions for for-profits to bolster accountability.
Legal and Policy Context
The program's foundation in 42 U.S.C. 16091 aligns with broader federal efforts to reduce transportation emissions, building on precedents like the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, which has funded cleaner school buses since 2005. Politically, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act reflects bipartisan support for infrastructure modernization, though debates persist on balancing environmental goals with fiscal responsibility. Stakeholders, including school districts, manufacturers, and environmental groups, may view the RFI differently: districts could appreciate expanded choices for cost-effective transitions, while manufacturers might highlight supply chain hurdles. Critics of for-profit involvement point to risks exposed by past bankruptcies, advocating stricter controls, whereas proponents argue it enables innovation.
Short-term implications include informing a new funding round later in 2026, potentially increasing awards for underrepresented fuels. Long-term, this could diversify the school bus market, reduce reliance on diesel, and improve equity in clean transportation access. However, challenges like geographic fuel availability and infrastructure costs may limit adoption in rural areas.
Potential Implications and Perspectives
From an environmental standpoint, incorporating biofuels and natural gas could yield immediate emission reductions compared to diesel, though lifecycle analyses vary—renewable diesel might offer greater benefits than fossil-based alternatives. Economically, the RFI's focus on pricing and standardization could lower barriers for cash-strapped districts, fostering competition among suppliers.
Different perspectives emerge: environmental advocates may push for robust emissions certification to ensure real reductions, citing EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act. Industry players might emphasize practical hurdles, like permitting delays for hydrogen infrastructure. Policymakers could debate oversight enhancements, weighing administrative burdens against fraud risks, especially for for-profits.
In summary, this RFI represents a strategic pivot to make the Clean School Bus Program more inclusive and resilient. By gathering comprehensive input, the EPA can refine guidance to maximize fleet turnover and safeguard investments. Potential next steps include analyzing comments to shape the upcoming funding opportunity, hosting the webinar for broader engagement, and implementing targeted reforms based on feedback. Ongoing debates may center on balancing innovation with accountability, addressing supply chain vulnerabilities, and ensuring equitable access across regions. These efforts could set precedents for future federal clean energy programs, highlighting the interplay of technology, policy, and oversight in achieving sustainable transportation goals.
