On February 19, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally gave an update on the Clean School Bus Program after over a year of silence on the program’s fate. Administrator Zeldin announced that the program would be overhauled and a “clean” school bus will now include buses powered by liquified natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG), hydrogen, propane, or biofuels. EPA published a Request for Information (RFI) seeking input from stakeholders on these fuels, details on supply chains and purchasing practices, and feedback on new recommendations for oversight and compliance. Comments are due on April 6, 2026.
EPA also confirmed pending applications would not be honored; the 2024 rebates, which saw over $900 million in funding requests, are dead. This hurts the hundreds of school districts that spent significant time and effort putting together those applications, and means thousands of children who could be enjoying a clean ride to school are still riding in aging diesel buses.
In the EPA media release and press tour accompanying the announcement, Administrator Zeldin made quite a few claims about the Clean School Bus Program. None hold up to scrutiny.
The Clean School Bus Program Already Offers Fuel Choice. The Market Is Another Story.
Administrator Zeldin has said that EPA’s reforms will provide school districts with “increased choice” of fuel types for their school buses. The reality is the Clean School Bus Program already offers fuel choice. Liquefied natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG), hydrogen, propane, and biofuels are specifically named in the text of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that established the program, in addition to zero-emission school buses. Past program rounds have funded propane, CNG, and battery-electric school buses.
Why not the other fuels?
- No company manufactures LNG school buses
- No company manufactures hydrogen school buses (though they’ve long been promised)
- Renewable diesel, a drop-in fuel for diesel buses, is only readily available in three states
- Renewable CNG, or biomethane, is available through only one supplier and requires converting diesel buses, since manufacturers stopped producing CNG buses in 2024
- Biodiesel is more widely available, but the most popular blend (B20) still runs 80% on petroleum diesel — not much of an alternative to diesel after all, nor much cleaner
Incidentally, only one company still makes propane school buses.
The program didn’t limit fuel options; the market did. The school bus industry recognizes the future is electric and has invested heavily in developing 21 different models across 12 manufacturers. Most companies continue to sell diesel and some gasoline, but few are diving into these other alternatives.
That’s good for our kids: electric school buses are the safest, cleanest option available today. They’re the preferred choice for thousands of school districts looking for a better option than diesel. Which explains why 91% of past applicants to the Clean School Bus Program chose to request funding for electric school buses. Critically, the EPA is required by law to award at least 50% of funding to zero-emission school buses.
Affordability Is Important. Electric School Buses Produce a Lifetime of Savings While Keeping Kids Healthy.
Administrator Zeldin claims that the Clean School Bus Program is being reworked to prioritize affordability, as if previously this was not a concern. In fact, the program was created to make clean school buses affordable to school districts — to help school districts choose the cleaner, healthier option, even if it has a higher sticker price, so they can experience the benefits of the technology while it’s brought to scale.
Electric school buses cost more upfront than diesel buses. That’s the truth and we don’t deny it. It’s also true for every alternative fuel, from propane to CNG to biodiesel; each one costs more than a diesel bus or diesel fuel.
But the sticker price only tells part of the story. While they cost more upfront, electric school buses produce a lifetime of savings in maintenance and fueling. Across the country, electricity prices are lower — and more stable — than diesel fuel prices. Electric drivetrains are more efficient than internal combustion engines, averaging a lower cost per mile. While diesel buses have 20,000 moving parts, electric school buses have 20. School districts are reporting 40-60% savings on maintenance and 40-80% savings on fuel. Those help close the gap between the total cost of owning an electric bus versus a diesel one.
But the real benefits of electric school buses are to the wellbeing of the children riding them. Tailpipe pollution is linked to cancer, shorter lifespans, lung and heart illnesses, and higher rates of asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia. This leads to more missed days of school (and more parents missing work) while children are dealing with asthma attacks and hospitalizations. Tailpipe pollution has even been found to impact brain development and cognitive performance. Kids do worse in class. Their test scores literally drop. Children in low-income families, Black children, and children with disabilities are more likely to ride a school bus, making them more exposed to toxic diesel pollution. Children who already have asthma — predominantly Black, Latine, and Indigenous children — are doubly affected.
No child should experience these harms just to get a ride to school.
Electric school buses don’t have a tailpipe. They eliminate that pollution completely, which can’t be said for alternative fuels like propane, CNG, biodiesel, or renewable diesel. While they may have lower emissions than diesel fuel, no amount of tailpipe pollution is safe for kids. Over its lifetime, an electric school bus will produce up to 80% less climate pollution than a diesel, propane, or CNG bus.
Studies have quantified these benefits in real dollar amounts, if that interests the EPA.
- A 2024 study by Harvard found that replacing diesel school buses with electric models can lead to up to $247,600 in climate and health benefits per bus, due to reduced climate pollution, lower adult mortality rates, and fewer childhood asthma cases.
- A 2025 study by WRI and Carleton University finds that electric school buses could result in $1.6 billion in climate and health benefits every year from reduced carbon pollution and fewer deaths.
Affordability is important. Our children matter, too. Their health is worth the investment.
Electric School Buses Are Already Fueling a U.S. Manufacturing Boom
Administrator Zeldin says his program revamp will “bring back U.S. auto jobs,” completely ignoring the fact that electric school bus production is a robust U.S. industry. The Clean School Bus Program led to a domestic manufacturing boom as companies raced to meet demand for electric school buses.
In May 2023, Blue Bird, the largest U.S. school bus manufacturer based in Fort Valley, Georgia, opened a new 40,000 square foot EV manufacturing facility and brought its workforce up to 2,000. Through a third electric school bus production facility underway, Blue Bird is expected to create another 428 manufacturing jobs and 250 construction jobs.
In 2024, MicroBird — previously a joint venture between Blue Bird and Canada’s Girardin and now fully owned by Blue Bird — announced it would move its EV manufacturing hub from Canada to Plattsburgh, New York. The move created 225 local jobs.
In 2022, Thomas Built Buses, the second largest U.S. school bus manufacturer based in High Point, North Carolina, added extra production shifts and hired another 280 employees in response to electric school bus demand. GreenPower, a Canadian company, added a West Virginia facility to its California one, bringing hundreds of jobs to South Charleston.
The Clean School Bus Program has helped further develop U.S. dominance in clean technology development while providing well-paying jobs for Americans. If Administrator Zeldin really wants to support auto workers, he’ll continue investing in made-in-America electric school buses.
No Evidence of Fraud or Abuse. Does Administrator Zeldin Protest Too Much?
EPA Administrator Zeldin says the Clean School Bus Program “has been a disaster of poor management and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.” He names two examples: Lion Electric’s collapse and EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reports on the program.
Lion Electric’s bankruptcy was a huge disappointment. It was also the market righting itself. A company that seemingly made unwise business decisions, overpromised and underdelivered on its product, and treated its workers poorly, folded. School districts deserve much better, on that we agree. Other companies and nonprofits are stepping in to support fleets with Lion buses. We still await word on how EPA or the Department of Justice will help the U.S. customers Lion abandoned.
Yet a business problem is not a technology problem. Electric school buses are made by 12 other manufacturers who are faring much better, because the technology is sound. There have definitely been learning curves, as we can expect with a growing industry, and we will see more improvements as manufacturers refine and mature their product.
The OIG’s reports, meanwhile, started in 2023 and have exclusively focused on the 2022 rebates. The OIG faults EPA for using rebates as a funding mechanism and for insufficiently monitoring bus deployment and award spending as of December 2024. Despite highlighting the increased risk for fraud, waste and abuse, the OIG didn’t find any incidence of deliberate misuse of CSBP funds. No actual fraud, waste or abuse has occurred, outside the fallout of Lion Electric’s bankruptcy.
Throughout 2025, EPA conducted audits of every 2022 rebate recipient, visiting each site that received funding and requesting documentation of progress. Although audit reports are not public, the EPA has listed no new withdrawals of funding for the 2022 rebates — meaning every awardee passed their audit. Since the 2022 rebates, EPA updated guidelines and compliance requirements in three subsequent rounds of funding to strengthen and improve the program based on the OIG recommendations and stakeholder feedback.
We appreciate the OIG and EPA working together to ensure that taxpayer dollars are wisely spent. Fortunately, this was happening years before Administrator Zeldin took his post.
Reliability, Safety and Fear Mongering
EPA claims that electric school buses are unreliable and unsafe, without a shred of evidence.
So let’s hear it from school districts themselves: Most schools, bus drivers, students and parents are reporting a positive experience. Electric school buses are quiet, accelerate smoothly, save school districts money, and keep students calm and healthy, especially students with sensory needs and disabilities. As more school districts deploy electric school buses, concerns about battery safety, cold weather performance, range, and reliability are answered by on-the-road experience. Where there are problems to solve, many partners are ready to help troubleshoot.
Despite knowing these benefits, Administrator Zeldin has chosen to push the current administration’s fossil-fuel agenda by fearmongering about electric school buses.
Meanwhile, we’ll keep adding success stories to our map of electric school bus progress.