Overview
Title
To establish a pilot grant program to improve recycling accessibility, to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out certain activities to collect and disseminate data on recycling and composting programs in the United States, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
S. 351 is a plan to help more people recycle by giving money to create better recycling centers and gather information about recycling. This means the government will spend money to help places that need it the most and learn more about how people are recycling.
Summary AI
S. 351 proposes the establishment of a pilot grant program aimed at improving recycling accessibility and infrastructure in underserved communities through a "hub-and-spoke" model. The bill sets out to fund projects that increase accessibility to recycling services by enhancing infrastructure, expanding curbside recycling, and promoting public-private partnerships. Additionally, it mandates the Environmental Protection Agency to collect and disseminate data about recycling and composting efforts across the U.S., with a focus on improving these programs and providing transparency through reports to Congress. The bill includes a total authorized funding of $30 million annually for the pilot program from 2025 to 2029, and $4 million per year for data-related activities during the same period.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, titled the "Strategies To Eliminate Waste and Accelerate Recycling Development Act of 2025" or the "STEWARD Act of 2025," aims to establish a pilot grant program to improve recycling accessibility in underserved communities. It also requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to collect and disseminate data on recycling and composting programs in the United States. The bill outlines funding provisions for these initiatives and sets forth specific responsibilities for the Administrator of the EPA.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the bill's notable issues is the substantial financial commitment it proposes, with $30 million annually allocated for the pilot grant program, and an additional $4 million per year for data collection activities. However, the lack of detailed plans for fund allocation could lead to inefficient spending.
The bill defines "eligible entity" broadly, potentially complicating the process of selecting appropriate recipients for the grants. This opens the door to the risk of funds being distributed to entities not ideally suited to achieve the bill's goals.
Another concern is the prohibition on using grant funds for education about recycling. Educational components are often vital to the success of recycling initiatives, and excluding them may limit the effectiveness of the program.
Finally, the criteria for determining underserved communities are somewhat subjective. Likewise, the bill does not establish clear metrics or desired targets for improving recycling and composting rates, leaving the objectives and measures of success ambiguous.
Impact on the Public
The bill could have a broadly positive impact by potentially increasing recycling accessibility, especially in underserved communities that currently lack sufficient infrastructure. By improving curbside recycling and setting up more transfer stations, communities may see reduced waste and enhanced environmental outcomes.
However, if funds are not allocated efficiently or the right entities are not chosen to lead these initiatives, the desired improvements may not be realized. Furthermore, without including educational efforts, the public may not have the necessary knowledge to fully utilize improved recycling systems.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For local governments and municipalities in underserved areas, this bill could offer much-needed resources to develop recycling infrastructure. This could boost local environmental health and possibly create jobs associated with the construction and operation of new recycling facilities.
However, companies benefiting from public-private partnerships under this program could see mixed effects based on the undefined criteria for assessing financial health. Those with weaker financial standings but effective recycling solutions might face challenges in accessing funds.
Moreover, states and local governments tasked with cooperating in data collection and reporting might see increased administrative burdens, especially if they lack resources to fulfill these requirements efficiently.
In summary, the STEWARD Act of 2025 presents promising measures to enhance recycling infrastructure but needs clearer guidelines and criteria to ensure impactful outcomes.
Financial Assessment
The proposed legislation, S. 351, outlines significant financial commitments aimed at enhancing recycling infrastructure and data collection efforts related to recycling and composting in the United States. Below is an examination of these financial provisions and their implications as highlighted by the issues identified.
Funding Allocations
The bill authorizes substantial financial resources to achieve its goals:
Pilot Grant Program: The bill proposes the establishment of a "Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Program" meant to improve recycling in underserved communities. It authorizes $30 million per fiscal year from 2025 to 2029, amounting to a total of $150 million over five years for this initiative. Grants awarded under this program must be at least $500,000 but no more than $15,000,000.
Data Collection and Reporting: An additional $4 million per year from 2025 to 2029 is allocated for activities relating to the collection and dissemination of data on recycling and composting efforts, totaling $20 million over the five-year period.
Relation to Identified Issues
The financial provisions are directly linked to several of the issues raised:
Spending Without Detailed Plans: The bill authorizes large sums for the pilot grant program and data collection without detailed allocation plans, oversight mechanisms, or success criteria. This creates a risk of inefficient or wasteful spending. There's a concern that funds may not be effectively targeted or managed, as there is no explicit outline or accountability structure provided within the bill regarding how these funds will be distributed or monitored (Issues 1 and 6).
Eligibility and Allocation Concerns: The broad definition of "eligible entity" can complicate the selection process for grant recipients and potentially lead to misallocation. With such a wide net, the risk is that funds intended for underserved communities could be diverted to entities that may not fully align with the bill's objectives (Issue 2).
Limitations on Use of Funds: The prohibition on using grant funds for recycling education programs may limit the program's success. Education is a critical component in changing recycling behaviors, suggesting that the allocated funds' impact might be reduced without this component (Issue 3).
Financial Health Assessments of Partners: The bill suggests evaluating the financial health of private entities involved in public-private partnerships. However, it lacks clarity on what constitutes "financial health," which could result in inconsistent application and potential favoritism toward entities with unstable financial backgrounds (Issue 4).
Subjective Criteria for 'Underserved Communities': The definition of "underserved community" uses subjective criteria that may lead to varied interpretations, impacting the fairness of fund distribution across different communities. This lack of precision could result in uneven allocation of the program's substantial funding (Issue 6).
Conclusion
The financial allocations in S. 351 underscore the legislative intent to bolster recycling infrastructure and data collection initiatives. However, the bill presents potential financial management challenges, particularly in terms of oversight, eligibility, and clarity of purpose. Addressing these issues could enhance the efficacy of the financial investments made by the bill, ensuring that funds are used effectively and equitably to achieve the desired improvements in recycling and composting infrastructure.
Issues
The bill proposes spending large sums without detailed allocation plans, potentially leading to wasteful spending in sections 2 and 3. Specifically, $30 million per fiscal year is authorized for the pilot grant program in section 2, and $4 million annually for data collection in section 3, without specific delineation of spending, oversight mechanisms, or criteria for evaluating the success of funded projects.
The broad and somewhat vague definition of 'eligible entity' in section 2 opens the possibility for various organizations to qualify for grants, which may complicate the selection process and lead to misallocation of funds intended for improving recycling accessibility in genuinely underserved communities.
The prohibition on using grant funds for recycling education programs in section 2(h) may limit the effectiveness of the recycling initiatives, as public education is often a crucial component of developing successful recycling programs.
The lack of clarity in the criteria for evaluating the 'financial health' of private entities in section 2 could result in inconsistent or biased partnerships in public-private partnerships, potentially favoring entities with questionable financial stability.
There is potential for overlapping responsibilities and redundancy between the Administrator and the Comptroller General in sections 3 and 4011 regarding data collection and reporting, which could lead to inefficiency and miscommunication.
The term 'underserved community' in section 2(j) is defined with subjective criteria, which may lead to different interpretations, affecting eligibility for grant funds and equitable distribution across communities.
The bill does not specify clear metrics for 'improvement' or desired targets in composting and recycling rates as described in sections 3 and 4011, leading to ambiguities about the actual goals and effectiveness of the initiatives.
The complexity and lack of accessible definitions referencing other acts in sections 3 and 4011 could lead to confusion or misinterpretation by stakeholders not well-versed with the existing legislation.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act provides its short title, stating that it may be referred to as the “Strategies To Eliminate Waste and Accelerate Recycling Development Act of 2025” or simply the “STEWARD Act of 2025.”
2. Recycling infrastructure and accessibility improvements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a pilot grant program called the "Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Program," aimed at improving recycling accessibility in underserved communities through infrastructure investments like transfer stations and curbside recycling programs. The program prioritizes projects in areas with limited recycling facilities, and sets grant amounts between $500,000 and $15,000,000, covering up to 95% of project costs.
Money References
- (i) Minimum and maximum grant amount.—A grant awarded to an eligible entity under the pilot grant program shall be in an amount— (1) not less than $500,000; and (2) not more than $15,000,000.
- (m) Authorization of appropriations.— (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out the pilot grant program $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029, to remain available until expended.
3. Recycling and composting data collection Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the requirements for gathering and reporting data on recycling and composting activities, including defining key terms related to these processes, and mandates the creation of reports on composting and recycling infrastructure, market sales, and federal agency recycling activities. It also lays out a study to determine how much recyclable material is diverted from a circular market and authorizes funding for these activities while ensuring sensitive information remains confidential.
Money References
- “(f) Report on end markets.—The Administrator, in collaboration or contract with, as necessary and appropriate, relevant Federal agencies, States, units of local government, or Indian Tribes, shall— “(1) provide an update to the report submitted under section 306 of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act (Public Law 116–224; 134 Stat. 1096) to include an addendum on the end-market sale of all recyclable materials from materials recovery facilities that process recyclable materials, including, to the extent practicable— “(A) the total, in dollars per ton, domestic sales of bales of recyclable materials; and “(B) the total, in dollars per ton, international sales of bales of recyclable materials; “(2) prepare a report on the end-market sale of compost from, to the extent practicable, compostable materials, including the total, in dollars per ton, of domestic sales of compostable materials; and “(3) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, submit to Congress the update to the report prepared under paragraph (1) and the report prepared under paragraph (2).
- (e) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this section and the amendments made by this section $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029. (f) Administration.— (1) UNFUNDED MANDATES.—The Administrator or the Secretary of Commerce may not exercise any authority under this section or any amendment made by this section if exercising that authority would require a State, a unit of local government, or an Indian Tribe to carry out a mandate for which funding is not available.
4011. Reports on composting and recycling infrastructure capabilities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the responsibilities of the Administrator regarding composting and recycling infrastructure, including collecting data and reporting on compostable materials, recycling facilities, recycling rates, and the sale of recyclable materials. It also mandates partnership with States, local governments, and Indian Tribes to understand and improve recycling and composting programs while ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive information.
Money References
- (2) USE.—Using amounts made available under section 3(e) of the Strategies To Eliminate Waste and Accelerate Recycling Development Act of 2025, the Administrator may use the information collected and rates developed under paragraph (1) to provide requesting States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes data and technical assistance— (A) to reduce the overall waste produced by the States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes; (B) to assist the States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes in understanding the nuances of the information collected relating to diversion activities; and (C) to increase recycling and composting rates of the States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes. (f) Report on end markets.—The Administrator, in collaboration or contract with, as necessary and appropriate, relevant Federal agencies, States, units of local government, or Indian Tribes, shall— (1) provide an update to the report submitted under section 306 of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act (Public Law 116–224; 134 Stat. 1096) to include an addendum on the end-market sale of all recyclable materials from materials recovery facilities that process recyclable materials, including, to the extent practicable— (A) the total, in dollars per ton, domestic sales of bales of recyclable materials; and (B) the total, in dollars per ton, international sales of bales of recyclable materials; (2) prepare a report on the end-market sale of compost from, to the extent practicable, compostable materials, including the total, in dollars per ton, of domestic sales of compostable materials; and (3) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, submit to Congress the update to the report prepared under paragraph (1) and the report prepared under paragraph (2).