Energy Legislation

Proposed Bill Aims to Clean Up
Nation’s School Buses

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A bill before Congress would authorize a nationwide grant program to offset the purchase of new alternative-fuel school buses and retirement of higher-polluting diesel vehicles.

The "Clean Green School Bus Act of 2001," HR 2518, calls for the implementation of a pilot program in the Department of Energy that would earmark $300 million to fund all but $15,000 of cleaner bus purchases and to retire older, higher-polluting vehicles through 2006. The DOE would appropriate $40 million for fiscal year 2002, with funding increasing by $10 million each additional year. The money would include all state taxes and contract fees and would provide for cooperative agreements with private sector fuel cell bus developers.

The funding would provide up to 10 percent of the price of a new alternative fuel bus for necessary the fuel infrastructure, if the infrastructure will only be available to the grant recipient. If the infrastructure is for the grantee and other fleets, it provides up to 15 percent. In addition, the legislation allows for the acquisition of not more than 10 buses to expand a fleet in areas with high proportions of low-income families. Co-sponsored by Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Mark E. Udall (D-Colo.), the bill was referred to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy Air Quality in July.

Patricia Monahan, author of the UCS "Pollution Report Card," said that federal funding is necessary to curb unhealthful diesel emissions from school buses. It would not only protect children’s health, she said, but it would also promote national security and safeguard the economy by making alternative fuels, such as natural gas, more readily available.

"We feel that school districts should not pay money for these alternative fuel efficiencies," she said.

International Truck and Engine Corporation, which manufactures ultra-low sulfur-emitting "Green Diesel" buses, worked closely with UCS on the bill and lobbying Congress. International and UCS proposed the bill to lawmakers last summer, but intended it to be stand-alone legislation. Instead, it is part of a more inclusive national energy.

"Old school buses need to be replaced," said Tom Trueblood, International manager of public affairs. "The problem is, there isn’t enough funding for it. This legislation enables schools to purchase alternative fuel buses. Patricia Monahan and the Union of Concerned Scientists have been great to work with in this effort."

California is one of few states to have implemented a program that increases the percentage of alternative fuel vehicles in the state’s school transportation fleet. Concluding in December, "The Safe School Bus Demonstration Program" replaced 826 pre-1977 diesel buses with cleaner buses, more than half of which are alternatively fueled, equipped with advanced safety features.

Source: School Transportation News, March 2002.

Return to top

Clean Green School Bus Act of 2001
(Introduced in the House)

To establish a pilot program within the Department of Energy to facilitate the use of alternative fuel school buses through grants for energy demonstration and commercial application of energy technology, and for other purposes.

July 17, 2001

Mr. BOEHLERT (for himself and Mr. UDALL of Colorado) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

To establish a pilot program within the Department of Energy to facilitate the use of alternative fuel school buses through grants for energy demonstration and commercial application of energy technology, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Clean Green School Bus Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT- The Secretary of Energy (in this Act referred to as the `Secretary') shall establish a pilot program for awarding grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities for facilitating the use of alternative fuel school buses through school bus replacement and fleet expansion programs under this section.

(b) REQUIREMENTS- Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish and publish in the Federal Register grant requirements on eligibility for assistance, and on management, transfer, and ultimate disposition of buses, including certification requirements to ensure compliance with this Act.

(c) SOLICITATION- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall solicit proposals for grants under this section.

(d) ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS- A grant shall be awarded under this section only--

(1) to a local governmental entity responsible for providing school bus service for one or more public school systems; or

(2) jointly to an entity described in paragraph (1) and a contracting entity that provides school bus service to the public school system or systems.

(e) TYPES OF GRANTS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Grants under this section may be for the purposes described in paragraph (2), paragraph (3), or both.

(2) REPLACEMENT BUS GRANTS- A grant under this section may be used for the acquisition of replacement buses pursuant to subsection (f).

(3) FLEET EXPANSION BUS GRANTS- A grant under this section may be used for the acquisition of not more than 10 buses to expand a fleet of school buses in an area with a high proportion of low-income families.

(f) REPLACEMENT BUS GRANTS-

(1) REPLACEMENT- For each bus acquired under a replacement bus grant, one older model year bus shall be retired from active service and crushed as provided in paragraph (2).

(2) BUS ACQUISITION- Buses acquired under a replacement bus grant shall be acquired in the following order:

(A) First, new buses will replace buses manufactured before model year 1977, and the older buses replaced shall be crushed.

(B) If all buses manufactured before model year 1977 owned or operated by the grant recipient have been replaced, additional new buses will replace diesel-powered buses manufactured before model year 1991, which shall either--

(i) be crushed; or

(ii) be exchanged by the grant recipient for buses manufactured before model year 1977 from another bus fleet, with that bus then being crushed.

Exchanges made under subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be made without profit or other economic benefit to the grant recipient.

(3) PRIORITY OF GRANT APPLICATIONS- The Secretary shall give priority to awarding grants to applicants emphasizing the replacement of buses manufactured before model year 1977.

(g) CONDITIONS OF GRANT- A grant provided under this section shall include the following conditions:

(1) All buses acquired with funds provided under the grant shall be operated as part of the school bus fleet for which the grant was made for a minimum of 5 years.

(2) Funds provided under the grant may only be used--

(A) to pay the cost, except as provided in paragraph (3), of new alternative fuel school

buses, including State taxes and contract fees; and

(B) to provide--

(i) up to 10 percent of the price of the alternative fuel buses acquired, for necessary alternative fuel infrastructure if the infrastructure will only be available to the grant recipient; and

(ii) up to 15 percent of the price of the alternative fuel buses acquired, for necessary alternative fuel infrastructure if the infrastructure will be available to the grant recipient and to other bus fleets.

(3) The grant recipient shall be required to provide--

(A) in the case of a replacement bus acquired as described in subsection (f)(2)(A) to replace a bus manufactured before model year 1977, 10 percent of the total cost of the bus , but not more than $10,000;

(B) in the case of a replacement bus acquired as described in subsection (f)(2)(B)(ii) to replace a diesel-powered bus manufactured before model year 1991 for exchange for a bus manufactured before model year 1977, 10 percent of the total cost of the bus , but not more than $10,000; and

(C) in the case of a replacement bus acquired as described in subsection (f)(2)(B)(i) to replace a diesel-powered bus manufactured before model year 1991, 25 percent of the total cost of the bus , but not more than $25,000.

(h) BUSES- Funding under a grant made under this section may be used to acquire only new school buses--

(1) with a gross vehicle weight of greater than 14,000 pounds;

(2) that are powered by a heavy duty engine;

(3) that emit not more than--

(A) for buses manufactured in model years 2001 and 2002, 2.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour of nonmethane hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen and .01 grams per brake horsepower-hour of particulate matter; and

(B) for buses manufactured in model years 2003 through 2006, 1.8 grams per brake horsepower-hour of nonmethane hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen and .01 grams per brake horsepower-hour of particulate matter; and

(4) that are powered substantially by electricity (including electricity supplied by a fuel cell), or by liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, propane, or methanol or ethanol at no less than 85 percent by volume.

(i) DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION- The Secretary shall seek to the maximum extent practicable to achieve nationwide deployment of alternative fuel school buses through the program under this section, and shall ensure a broad geographic distribution of grant awards, with a goal of no State receiving more than 10 percent of the grant funding made available under this section for a fiscal year.

SEC. 3. FUEL CELL BUS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM- The Secretary shall establish a program for entering into cooperative agreements with private sector fuel cell bus developers for the development of fuel cell-powered school buses, and subsequently with not less than 2 units of local government using natural gas-powered school buses and such private sector fuel cell bus developers to demonstrate the use of fuel cell-powered school buses.

(b) COST SHARING- The non-Federal contribution for activities funded under this section shall be not less than--

(1) 20 percent for fuel infrastructure development activities; and

(2) 50 percent for demonstration activities and for development activities not described in paragraph (1).

(c) FUNDING- No more than $25,000,000 of the amounts authorized under section 4 may be used for carrying out this section for the period encompassing fiscal years 2002 through 2006.

(d) REPORTS TO CONGRESS- Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and not later than October 1, 2006, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a report that--

(1) evaluates the process of converting natural gas infrastructure to accommodate fuel cell-powered school buses; and

(2) assesses the results of the development and demonstration program under this section.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this Act--

(1) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;

(2) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

(3) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

(4) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and

(5) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

Source: School Transportation News, July 2001.

Return to top

Prop 65 Deadline Nears

SAN FRANCISCO -- The expiration of the 60-day advance notice for potential Prop 65 violations given to school bus manufacturers, distributors and bus OEMs operating in California, is drawing to a close. Formally set for April 13, the notice gives in-state companies an additional five-days to comply and out-of-state companies 10-days to comply.

Since the notice was first filed in mid-February, the list of companies named has swollen to 31 from 12. It is a veritable who's who list of past and present companies that have sold, manufactured or operated school buses in the Golden State.

The notice was filed by As You Sow (AYS), an activist, non-profit organization involved in environmental protection, promotion of human health, improvement of worker and consumer safety, and corporate accountability. AYS alleges that the named private companies are in violation of the toxic labeling requirements of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Prop 65. It alleges the violations result in toxic levels of diesel exhaust inside school buses, unnecessrily exposing children to potential carcinogens.

Prop 65 regulates more than 550 chemicals that have been listed as potentially carcinogenic. The advance notice listed 21 chemicals including 17 carcinogens and four reproductive toxins as chemicals identified by the state "to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity" produced by diesel exhaust

Added to the list since it was originally filed are: Ambassador Bus Sales, Inc., Collins Bus Corp., Atlantic Express, Crown Coach Inc., Ford Motor Co., General Motors, Gillig Corp., International Truck & Engine Corp., Cardinal Transportation Group., Inc., Creative Bus Sales, Epylon Corp., ESASA Corporation/eSASA.com, Jersey Bus Sales, Inc., Kids on the Move, Los Angeles Freightliner, Inc., Navistar-International, Pacific Coast Bus Sales & Leasing, R&D Transportation Services, Inc., Santa Barbara Transportation, Sunset Bus and Commercial, Inc., and West Coach Corp. (Click here to see the original list of 12 companies.)

When the April 13 deadline passes, district attornies throughout the state are empowered to bring legal action against the companies under Prop 65.

Source: School Transportation News, April 2001.

Return to top

California's $50 Million School Bus
Procurement Back on Target

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Despite concerns that $50 million for the purchase of low-emission school buses and retrofit equipment would be withdrawn, the money will be made available.

A March 22 letter signed by R. Timothy Gage, California's Finance Director, stated that the Administration would reimburse the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from the Disaster Response-Emergency Operations Account. It advises the finance department will reimburse CARB funds slated to mitigate the state crises.

Davis issued an emergency proclamation January 17, after a severe energy crisis hit the state sending the cost of power through the roof. As a result, monies that were to be distributed to school districts for school bus procurement by the 15 air quality management districts statewide were put on hold and transferred into the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties.

"This changes everything," said Jerry Martin, CARB spokesman. "It means the administration is releasing all of the funds originally slated for the bus buying program."

"After the Governor's emergency proclamation, only three air districts (South Coast, Ventura and San Diego) were even taking applications [for the funds], contingent on the funds being released after the May budget revise," Martin explained. "The other district's were referring schools to the California Energy Commission." The letter clears the way for California's schools to continue applying for a portion of Governor Gray Davis' allotment.

Source: School Transportation News, March 2001.

Return to top

Environmentalists Hit California School
Transporters with Prop 65 Notice

SAN FRANCISCO -- The controversy over possible carcinogenic effects of diesel exhaust took a new twist on February 13 when environmentalists filed a 60-day "Proposition 65" notice against a dozen school bus manufacturers, dealer/distributors and contractors operating in California. It was the second action against school transporters by environmentalists in less than a week.

The action was initiated by As You Sow (AYS), an activist, non-profit organization dedicated to environmental protection, promotion of human health, improvement of worker and consumer safety, and corporate accountability. It initiates actions against corporations for alleged violations of the toxic labeling requirements of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65.

The notice was sent to 12 school bus manufacturers, distributors and OEM's operating in California: AZ Bus Sales, California Bus Sales, Durham Transportation, Laidlaw, Blue Bird Corp. Collins Bus Corp., Forsythe & Assoc., Inc., Allied Bus Sales of Nixa, Mo., Michael's Transportation, Thomas Built Buses, Ambassador Bus Sales, and First Group America, Inc.

The notice letter alleges these companies are in violation of the warning requirements of Proposition 65 by "distributing and/or selling and/or manufacturing and/or operating School Buses that expose consumers and particularly children …along with other individuals in California to Diesel Exhaust." The penalty for Prop 65 violations can range as high as $2,500 per violation per day.

Prop 65 regulates more than 550 chemicals that have been listed as potentially carcinogenic. In its notice to the school bus industry, AYS identified 21 chemicals including 17 carcinogens and four reproductive toxins as a "chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity" produced by diesel exhaust.

The notice does not name any school district in the state or other bus operators because governmental entities, including school districts and public transit agencies, are exempt from Prop 65 warning requirements. "We hope the companies will retrofit existing (school bus) fleets to reduce diesel exposure particularly inside the bus, and to purchase fleets that either cause no exposures or substantially reduce the exposures," said Shawn Khorrami, the lead attorney for As You Sow.

Khorrami said the National Resource Defense Council and the Coalition for Clean Air, the same environmental organizations that published a report a few days earlier alleging that diesel exhaust inside school buses is highly toxic, collaborated in this development. These two actions "are not necessarily related" said Khorrami.

"There have been lot of issues involving diesel fleets" for years, he said. "The original attack by a private environmental group was against a diesel engine manufacturer, but it failed because no one individual vehicle could be singled out as causing enough exposure to any one individual. The focus shortly after that turned to fleet operators." He said that in 1998, environmentalists, with the assistance of the California attorney general, successfully prosecuted four diesel-powered grocery fleets in California under a Prop 65 action. The action against the California school bus industry is a continuation of the effort against diesel-powered vehicles.

Khorrami said, "School bus fleets tend to be quite a bit antiquated. They seem to be older than other fleets. It seems like operators are not buying buses as fast as other segments of the bus industry. There should be more aggressive retirement of older fleets with newer fleets," he said.

When asked if buses manufactured before enactment of Prop 65 and still in service, are subject to the warning requirements of Prop 65, he said, "If a bus was bought in 1980 then the manufacturer and distributor are responsible for that bus even prior to Prop 65 in 1991."

How many vehicles that affects in California is unknown. An estimated eight-percent of the 21,000 school buses in California were manufactured prior to 1977, and an unknown number prior to 1991. Only 16 percent of California's K-12 student population ride school buses daily.

Since its founding in 1992, AYS has taken on giants of American industry such as Coca-Cola, DuPont, Sysco, Monsanto, Kellogg, Safeway, Citigroup, Home Depot and others. Its web site at www.asyousow.org claims that AYS "has forced more than 300 companies to comply with Proposition 65's labeling requirements over the past six years, garnering nearly $1 million in penalties and restitution awards from these companies. These funds are then granted to other environmental organizations working in the areas of toxic reduction, worker safety, education and activism.

Copies of the 60-day notice were sent to the California attorney general office, the city attorney in three California cities of more than 750,000 population and the district attorney in 58 counties statewide. Under Prop 65 any of these prosecutors can initiate legal action against the named parties after 60 days notification. Khorrami said he expects lawsuits to be filed within two months.

Source: School Transportation News, February 2001.

Return to top

Altered Bill Stymies School Districts’
Alternative Fuel Programs

PHOENIX, Ariz.— A change in SB-1504, the bill mandating minimum standards for alternative fuels (school districts), has ten Arizona school district business managers in an alternative fuel consortium, questioning why they invested hundreds of thousand of dollars in the alternative fuel program.

As of August 22, the districts were prepared to purchase two million gallons of biodiesel for their school buses. According to Paul Cochran, Kyrene School District fleet supervisor, changes to the bill mandating alternative fuels were noticed right before contracts were awarded.

"SB 1504 used to read that by Dec. 31, 2000, 75 percent of a districts total fleet had to run on alternative fuel. We discovered that legislators changed the mandate a couple of months ago to read ‘five percent of the total fleet by Dec. 31, 2002; 15 percent by 2003; 33 percent by Dec. 31, 2004; and, 75 percent by Dec. 31, 2006.’ The changes have set back our alternative fuel program by five years," said Cochran.

"Biodiesel can be used for up to fifty percent of our alternative fuel mandates," he said. "Now that we don’t have to meet the 75 percent mandate by the end of the year, only five percent instead, a lot of the districts don’t want to spend the extra funding. Some districts wanted a half-million dollars of biodiesel that runs 35- to 37-cents more than standard diesel. When you talk a quarter of a million dollars difference in budget, [they] shy off knowing they don’t have to meet the 75 percent standard until 2006."

Some business managers now wish they had waited until the last minute to see if there were going to be any changes made to the bill. As for the contracts, Cochran explains letters will go out by the end of August to the school districts in the alternative fuel consortium. "If we get a majority vote," notes Cochran, "we’ll go
ahead and award the contracts."

Source: School Transportation News, September 2000.