89–010 

Calendar No. 431 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–207 

SUSTAINABLE SCHOOLS POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT OF 

2010 

JUNE 18, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 3362] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 3362) to amend the Clean Air Act to direct the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to provide 

competitive grants to publicly funded schools to implement effective 

technologies to reduce air pollutants (as defined in section 302 of 

the Clean Air Act), including greenhouse gas emissions, in accordance with that Act, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill, as 

amended, do pass. 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

S. 3362 would amend the Clean Air Act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide 

competitive grants to publicly funded schools to implement effective 

technologies to reduce air pollutants (as defined in section 302 of 

the Clean Air Act), including greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Department of Energy reports that States and local agencies are planning to invest more than $60 billion in the next three years 

to build or renovate schools, which provides a significant opportunity to incorporate technologies that reduce pollution and energy 

use. Increasing the energy efficiency of schools and implementing 

projects that provide renewable energy help reduce the consumption of fossil fuels that can result in significant emissions of various 

air pollutants, including greenhouse gases. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

With public schools nationwide spending more than $8 billion per 

year on energy, the economic benefits of pollution reduction technologies that also improve energy efficiency are significant. Space 

heating, lighting, and water heating account for over 80% of school 

energy use. An average conventional school with 4,000 students 

spends $700,000 annually on energy costs, while an energy efficient 

school spends on average $488,000 annually, savings that can be 

put towards educational purposes. For existing schools, implementing energy-efficient operations and maintenance strategies can 

enable school districts to save as much as 20% in energy costs, extend the life of equipment, and improve the overall physical environment in their school facilities. These strategies range from simple, no-cost measures to more complicated investments. Many energy management strategies require small capital outlays and can 

produce rapid paybacks, in some cases, in less than two years. 

Improvements to reduce emissions and save emissions also have 

other benefits. Energy efficiency upgrades can provide healthier 

learning environments, through better indoor lighting, temperature 

control, acoustics, and air quality. Implementing pollution reduction projects can also familiarize parents, teachers, and students 

with affordable, advanced pollution reduction, energy efficiency, 

and renewable energy technologies and practices. 

S. 3362 has been endorsed by the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships and the National Association of 

Secondary School Principals. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION

This bill will amend the Clean Air Act to direct the Administrator of the EPA to provide competitive grants to publicly funded 

schools to implement effective technologies to reduce air pollutants 

(as defined in section 302 of the Clean Air Act), including greenhouse gas emissions, in accordance with that Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 notes that this bill may be cited as the ‘‘Sustainable 

Schools Pollution Reduction Act of 2010.’’ 

Section 2. Sustainable schools pollution reduction grant program 

Section 2 amends Section 105 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

7405) by directing the Administrator of the EPA to provide competitive grants to publicly funded schools to implement effective 

technologies to reduce air pollutants (as defined in section 302 of 

the Clean Air Act), including greenhouse gas emissions, in accordance with that Act. Section 2 describes some of the criteria the Administrator is to use in selecting grants under this program, including selecting projects that: 

• Ensure implementation of clean technologies that reduce 

air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; 

• Offer additional benefits, such as reduction of water consumption or water pollution; promotion of distributed renewable energy technologies, such as solar, small-scale or community-scale wind, geothermal, biomass, and other energy techVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:00 Jun 19, 2010 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR207.XXX SR207

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

nologies; or demonstration of new and innovative technologies; 

and 

• Provide opportunities for student involvement in the 

project to be funded. 

Section 2 also establishes three categories of grant amounts and 

cost shares 1) grants of $50,000 or less have no non-federal cost 

share, 2) grants between $50,000 and $100,000 have a 20% nonfederal cost share, and 3) grants between $100,000 and $200,000 

have a 50% non-federal cost share. 

Section 2 establishes requirements for the Administrator to report to Congress on the implementation of the grant program. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 3362 was introduced by Senators Bernard Sanders (I–VT) and 

Barbara Boxer (D–CA) on May 13, 2010. It has one Democratic cosponsor. The bill was received, read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

On May 20, 2010, the full Environment and Public Works Committee met to consider the bill. An amendment was offered by Senator Max Baucus (D–MT) to ensure that a minimum share of funds 

appropriated for this program will be provided to each state and 

ensures that grants awarded will reflect diversity in size and geographic locations. This amendment was amended by a second-degree amendment offered by Senators Baucus and Udall. Both 

amendments were adopted, and the bill was ordered to be reported, 

as amended, favorably. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to consider S. 3362 on May 20, 2010. The bill was ordered to be reported 

with amendments favorably. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the committee finds that S. 3362 does not create any additional regulatory burdens, nor will it cause any adverse impact on the personal privacy of individuals. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4), the committee noted that the Congressional 

Budget Office (CBO) has found, ‘‘S. 3362 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, 

local, or tribal governments.’’ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

JUNE 2, 2010. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 3362, the Sustainable 

Schools Pollution Reduction Act of 2010. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. Mehlman. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF

Enclosure. 

S. 3362—Sustainable Schools Pollution Reduction Act of 2010 

Summary: S. 3362 would authorize the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to provide grants to schools for implementing technologies to reduce air pollutants, including greenhouse gases. The 

legislation would authorize the annual appropriation of the necessary amounts for the grant program over the 2011–2015 period. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO estimates 

that implementing S. 3362 would cost $41 million over the 2011– 

2015 period and $9 million after 2015. 

Pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply to this legislation because it would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

S. 3362 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 3362 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011– 

2015 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level .................................................................. 10 10 10 10 10 50 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................................... 4 8 9 10 10 41 

Basis of Estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 3362 

will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2011 and that necessary amounts will be appropriated in each year. Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar grants. 

Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that the amount 

of funding required for this proposed program would be similar to 

the existing Climate Showcase Communities Grant program, which 

is a competitive program designed to assist local and tribal governments in establishing and implementing climate-change initiatives. 

For fiscal year 2010, that program is funded at $10 million. 

Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact: S. 3362 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman, Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact 

on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate Approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 

of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as reported 

are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in øblack brackets¿, new matter is printed in italic, existing 

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman: 

* * * * * * * 

CLEAN AIR ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 105. (a)(1)(A) The Administrator may make grants to air 

pollution control agencies, within the meaning of paragraph (1), (2), 

(3), (4), or (5) of section 302, in an amount up to three-fifths of the 

cost of implementing programs for the prevention and control of air 

pollution or implementation of national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. For the purpose of this section, ‘‘implementing’’ means any activity related to the planning, developing, 

establishing, carrying-out, improving, or maintaining of such programs. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) The Administrator, with the concurrence of any recipient of 

a grant under this section may reduce the payments to such recipient by the amount of the pay, allowances, traveling expenses, and 

any other costs in connection with the detail of any officer or employee to the recipient under section 301 of the Act, when such detail is for the convenience of, and at the request of, such recipient 

and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. The 

amount by which such payments have been reduced shall be available for payment of such costs by the Administrator, but shall, for 

the purpose of determining the amount of any grant to a recipient 

under subsection (a) of this section, be deemed to have been paid 

to such agency. 

(e) No application by a State for a grant under this section may 

be disapproved by the Administrator without prior notice and opportunity for a public hearing in the affected State, and no commitment or obligation of any funds under any such grant may be revoked or reduced without prior notice and opportunity for a public 

hearing in the affected State (or in one of the affected States if 

more than one State is affected). 

(f) SUSTAINABLE SCHOOLS POLLUTION REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM.— 

(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

(A) ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; SECONDARY SCHOOL.—The 

terms ‘elementary school’ and ‘secondary school’ have the 

meanings given the terms, respectively, in section 9101 of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 7801). 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

(B) ELIGIBLE SCHOOL.—The term ‘eligible school’ 

means— 

(i) a public elementary school or a public secondary 

school; or 

(ii) a school district that encompasses a public elementary school or a public secondary school. 

(C) PROGRAM.—The term ‘program’ means the sustainable schools pollution reduction program established by 

paragraph (2)(A). 

(2) PROGRAM.— (A) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within the 

Environmental Protection Agency a sustainable schools pollution reduction program. 

(B) GRANTS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program, for 

each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015, the Administrator shall provide competitive grants to eligible 

schools for use in implementing effective technologies to 

reduce air pollutants, including greenhouse gas emissions. 

(ii) CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF GRANTEES.—The Administrator shall provide criteria for selection for 

grants under the program, including criteria that ensure— 

(I) implementation of clean technologies that reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, 

and offer additional benefits, such as— 

(aa) reduction of water consumption or 

water pollution; 

(bb) promotion of distributed renewable energy technologies, such as solar, small-scale or 

community-scale wind, geothermal, biomass, 

and other energy technologies; or 

(cc) demonstration of new and innovative 

technologies; and 

(II) prioritization of projects that provide opportunities for student involvement in the project to be 

funded, including— 

(aa) project installation; 

(bb) project data monitoring; and 

(cc) incorporation of the project into classroom curricula. 

(iii) CATEGORIES OF GRANTS AND MATCHING

FUNDS.—Of the grant funds provided under the program— 

(I) not less than 40 percent shall be provided in 

amounts not to exceed $50,000 for each grant, with 

no required matching share; and 

(II) the remaining funds shall be provided— (aa) in amounts of not less than $50,000 but not to exceed $100,000 for each grant, with a 

required non-Federal share of 20 percent; and (bb) in amounts that exceed $100,000 but 

not to exceed $200,000, with a required nonFederal share of 50 percent. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
7 

(C) REPORTS.—Not later than 18 months after the date 

on which funds are made available to carry out this subsection, and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall 

submit to Congress a report evaluating the implementation 

of the program, including, at a minimum, a description 

of— 

(i) the number of grant applications received; 

(ii) the number of grants funded, including the 

amount of each grant funded; 

(iii) the types of technologies funded; and 

(iv) the environmental, educational, and financial 

benefits to eligible schools receiving the grants. 

(D) ALLOCATIONS.— (i) STATES.—Notwithstanding the other provision of 

this section, the Administrator shall ensure, in awarding grants under this subsection, that at least 1 grant 

shall be awarded to an eligible school in each State if 

at least 1 eligible school in the State has submitted an 

application that meets the criteria described in subparagraph (B)(ii). 

(ii) INDIAN TRIBES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, before providing grants under 

this subsection, the Administrator shall allocate at 

least 2.0 percent of the total annual amount made 

available to carry out this subsection among Indian 

tribes, based on criteria described in subparagraph 

(B)(ii). 

(E) GEOGRAPHICAL AND SIZE DIFFERENCES.—In addition 

to applying the criteria described in subparagraph (B)(ii), 

the Administrator shall ensure geographical diversity 

among grant awardees and ensure that grant awardees reflect a variety of schools sizes. 

(F) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 

such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 

through 2015. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS