S-1890-116
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 383.
Sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
What it does
The Renew America's Schools Act of 2019 would direct the Department of Energy to create and administer a competitive grant program for public school facilities. Eligible uses of grant funds would include renovations to install energy-efficiency or renewable energy technologies, repairs to improve indoor air quality, and purchases of zero-emission vehicles. Only public schools would be eligible to apply.
Who benefits
Public K-12 school districts, particularly those with aging or energy-inefficient facilities, would be the direct recipients of grants. Students and staff in those schools would benefit from improved indoor air quality and updated facilities. Manufacturers and contractors specializing in energy-efficiency upgrades, renewable energy installation, and zero-emission vehicles would likely see increased demand for their products and services. Lower-income districts with older buildings — which often lack capital budgets for facility upgrades — could benefit disproportionately if grant criteria prioritize need.
Who is hurt
Private and charter schools not classified as public schools would be ineligible and would not receive grants. Taxpayers would bear the cost of the federal grant program. Fossil fuel suppliers and conventional vehicle manufacturers could see reduced demand if schools shift to zero-emission vehicles and away from traditional energy sources. States and localities that currently fund school facility upgrades independently may face competitive disadvantage if federal grants flow unevenly across regions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that thousands of public school buildings across the country are decades old and consume far more energy than modern facilities, driving up operating costs that divert money away from instruction. A federal grant program would allow districts — especially those in lower-income communities that cannot afford capital improvements on their own — to modernize facilities, reduce utility bills, and redirect savings toward students. Supporters also contend that poor indoor air quality in aging school buildings is linked to higher rates of asthma and other health conditions among children, and that targeted federal funding addresses a market failure that local budgets alone cannot fix. Finally, proponents argue that purchasing zero-emission vehicles for school transportation would reduce children's daily exposure to diesel exhaust, a documented health hazard.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that school facility funding is a state and local responsibility under the Tenth Amendment, and that a federal grant program inserts the Department of Energy into an area of governance traditionally reserved to states and communities. Critics contend that competitive federal grants tend to favor districts with more administrative capacity to write grant applications, meaning the neediest schools may not actually receive funds. Opponents also argue that the program adds to federal spending without a demonstrated guarantee that energy savings will offset costs, and that mandating zero-emission vehicle purchases may not be cost-effective in all regions, particularly rural areas with limited charging or fueling infrastructure. Some critics further argue that the program duplicates existing Department of Energy and Department of Education initiatives, making it an inefficient use of federal resources.
Constitutional context
The bill's spending authority rests on Congress's power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). Because grants flow to state-run public schools, the anti-commandeering doctrine (New York v. United States, Printz v. United States) is relevant — grants are voluntary, which generally satisfies that doctrine. The Tenth Amendment is implicated because education is not an enumerated federal power. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts would independently review any Department of Energy regulations implementing the grant criteria rather than deferring to the agency's interpretation. The major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) could be raised if the Department of Energy uses the program to impose broad energy mandates beyond the grant's explicit scope.
Checks and balances
The executive branch — specifically the Department of Energy — would gain new administrative authority to design grant criteria, select recipients, and oversee fund use. Congress retains the power of the purse and would set appropriations levels. Because the bill creates a grant program rather than a regulatory mandate, it does not directly expand federal regulatory power over states, but it does give the executive branch discretion in determining which schools and projects qualify, concentrating implementation authority in the agency.
Historical precedent
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and subsequent reauthorizations included provisions for energy-efficiency grants and loans to schools and public institutions. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 also funded energy-efficiency upgrades at public school facilities through the State Energy Program and other mechanisms.