Child passenger safety providers are urging the industry to voice support of proposed rulemaking by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that addresses an oversight in updates made to FMVSS 213 that could impact the new manufacturing of child safety restraint systems for school buses.

NHTSA proposed on May 30 amendments to Child Restraint System Standards FMVSS 213, FMVSS 213a and FMVSS 213b to exempt school bus child safety restraint systems from the requirement to comply with side-impact protection requirements defined in FMVSS 213a.

It also delays the side-impact protection compliance date for all other child restraint systems from June 30, 2025, to Dec. 5, 2026, and provides that the Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction 12-month-old (CRABI)-12MO test dummy will not be used to test forward-facing CRSs.

NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213, “Child Restraint Systems” and FMVSS No. 213b, child restraint systems: Mandatory applicability beginning Dec. 5, 2026,” to exclude school bus CRSs from the requirements and to provide attachments for connection to the vehicle’s LATCH child restraint anchorage system. These anchorages are only required in school buses that are 10,000 pounds GVWR and less.

Charlie Vits, a child passenger safety technician and a consultant to school bus seating manufacturer IMMI, said NHTSA has always been supportive of school bus child restraint systems since the 2003 introduction of IMMI’s SafeGuard STAR as well as the Besi Pro Tech and HSM PCR.

As currently designed for school transportation, NHTSA wants to assure their continued future availability and use, Vits said, adding the purpose of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on the Federal Register last week is to remove three important but non-applicable regulatory details impacting their design and function.

“Unless these detailed requirements are removed from FMVSS 213, 213a and 213b as currently written, the production of these school bus child restraints will most likely cease on June 30, 2025, when the three requirements are to become effective,” he said.

These child restraint systems will no longer be compliant with the federal child restraint standards unless they are redesigned and constructed as a more costly and less usable product, Vits added.

Denise Donaldson, a certified passenger safety instructor and editor and publisher of Safe Ride News, noted the recent proposals are essentially housekeeping in nature.

“The more exciting development occurred in 2023, when NHTSA issued a final rule to create a product category specifically for school bus child restraint systems,” she explained. “Although these products were previously considered compliant with FMVSS 213 under the category harness, the new category’s description gives manufacturers greater freedom to innovate when designing products made exclusively for school bus use.”

When that rule was issued, Donaldson said incongruities with school bus CRSs remained in the regulatory text.

“Since these products install using a seatback mount, they needed to be made exempt from the standard’s requirement that car seats have a LATCH system for installation,” she added. “They should be exempt from the upcoming side-impact standard since the test in that standard replicates a passenger vehicle environment, substantially different from a school bus. These are loose ends, so the proposals are important for addressing these issues and satisfying the requests of petitioners, including manufacturers.”

Vits noted the NPRM cleans up regulatory language from current rulings that school bus child restraint systems could not meet due to the nature of their design.

Meeting the requirements would require costly redesigns resulting in a less usable school bus child restraint, he said, adding, “The intent of NHTSA is not to change anything that impacts the concept of the current school bus child restraint.”

In 2014, NHTSA first published proposed rulemaking to add side-impact crash protection to all types of child seats except harnesses, otherwise known as school bus vests, Vits said.

“IMMI commented on the NPRM that although it supported side-impact protection requirements in child restraints, school bus child restraints were similar to the excluded harnesses and not capable of meeting those requirements,” he added. “The nature of the web-based, no-shell design for these child restraints does not provide the necessary structure to meet these requirements. Therefore, school bus child restraint systems should also be excluded from meeting the side- impact protection requirements.”

NHTSA published the final ruling on side impact requirements as FMVSS 213a on June 30, 2022. But, Vits noted, NHTSA had yet to formally define school bus child restraints as a type of child restraint, so they could not exclude it from side impact requirements.

With FMVSS 213b in December 2023, NHTSA formally defined it as a type of child restraint but omitted excluding it from the requirements of FMVSS 213a. He said the oversight was to have been corrected in a to-be-published ruling last Oct. 9 but again was missed.

IMMI submitted a Petition for Rulemaking on Jan. 19 that formally requested NHTSA change the regulations to exclude school bus child restraints from the FMVSS 213a requirements, resulting in last week’s NPRM. IMMI also found the requirement to include LATCH and tether connectors and their associated labeling remained as a requirement for school bus child restraints, Vits said.

“IMMI submitted another Petition for Rulemaking on May 19, 2025, formally requesting NHTSA to change the regulations to exclude school bus child restraints from the LATCH connector and associated labeling requirements of FMVSS 213 and 213b,” he said, adding the change was also included in the NPRM.

---

Related: NHTSA Rulemaking at Heart of NCST Resolutions Focused on Safety
Related: What Transporters Must Know About CSRS for Preschoolers on School Buses
Related: CSRS Decisions During IEP Avoid Seclusion, Restraint Issues

---

Several other regulatory product developments impacted passenger vehicle child seat manufacturers and caused concern they would not be able to meet the FMVSS 213a effective date of June 30, 2025. In response to the petitions of these manufacturers,Vits said NHTSA published the NPRM to propose delaying the effective date of FMVSS 213a to Dec. 5, 2026, the same effective date of FMVSS 213b.

The proposals “are what is needed to set the standard’s school bus CRS category on the correct footing, allowing current CSRs models to be compliant and opening the door for future innovation,” Donaldson, who favors the proposals, pointed out.

“School bus child restraints have served the industry well for the past 22 years,” she added. “They have provided critical protection to pre-K children in numerous school bus crashes over the years. They need to continue to be available to school transportation for years to come.”

While Donaldson expressed confidence that NHTSA will make the necessary changes to FMVSS 213a and 213b, Vits commented that unless NHTSA acts immediately according to the proposed ruling, manufacturers will need to cease production.

“Although the comment period closes on June 30, NHTSA wants to hear from those in the industry as soon as possible due to the urgency to turn this NPRM into a final ruling,” he added. “They want to know that transporters of pre-K children want these school bus child restraints now and in the future.”

In providing input by June 30, Vits noted “comments should be short and simple, beginning with a statement in support of the May 30, 2025 NPRM, FR Doc. 2025-09750. Then, briefly share your positive experiences with these type of child restraints, especially if they have provided protection to any of your children in crashes.

“Express your need to have them continue in production without adding requirements to provide side impact protection and LATCH anchorage connectors.”

Public comments on docket number NHTSA–2025–0046 can be submitted electronically at the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via U.S. mail to: Docket Management Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

Donaldson noted in creating the school bus CRS category in 2023, NHTSA clearly signaled its support of this type of child safety restraint system.

“I feel confident that a rule that finalizes these important proposals, which are necessary to make that category viable, will be forthcoming,” she added.

Ronna Weber, executive director for the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, said the National Congress on School Transportation’s Resolution No. 6, Request for Clarification on FMVSS 213a and 213b Final Rules, approved by state delegates last month underscores the industry’s commitment to safely transporting preschool and special needs children, a sizeable industry component.

The resolution noted that any regulations should continue to ensure children requiring securement based on age and weight are carried safely and securely, CRSs are attached to the seat back to ensure a secure fit for the child. It is believed approximately 310,000 to 335,000 CRSs designed for school buses are on the road today.

NHTSA also published a total of 16 NPRMs on May 30, most of which are considered deregulatory by cleaning up obsolete ruling text related to requirements for vehicles produced more than 10 years ago. Rules pertaining to school buses include: FMVSS 207: Seating Systems, FMVSS 210: Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and FMVSS 222: School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection

As no new requirements are being added, there is little merit in commenting on them, commented Charlie Vits, a certified passenger safety technician and consultant to IMMI.

Donaldson said those in the school transportation sector should be assured that their school-bus-only CSRS and any that they purchase while the NPRM is going through the rulemaking process continue to be safe and legal.

“These regulatory changes will not necessitate though would allow future redesign of these products,” she said. “However, another aspect of the 2023 final rule that applies to any forward-facing child restraint, including school-bus-only CSRS, requires labels and instructions to state a minimum child weight for riding forward facing of 26.5 pounds.

“The compliance deadline for this requirement is June 30, 2025. For school-bus-only CSRS, this means that a rider must be at least 26.5 pounds, which is slightly higher than the pre-rule-change minimum weight of 25 pounds for most models.”

The post NHTSA Seeks Fix to Child Safety Restraint Standard Affecting School Buses appeared first on School Transportation News.

School districts are contemplating how to best move forward with the cleanest-emitting school bus that best meets their individual needs, be that an electric school bus (ESB), one fueled by propane, or a cleaner diesel variety.

Several factors lead to the uncertainty over more widespread adoption of ESBs. Pricing, infrastructure and range remain concerns, and Lion Electric customers are still figuring out their next moves amid the company’s auction following financial trouble. But none are bigger than the the fate of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) five-year, $5 billion Clean School Bus Program.

Some anxiety eased in late February, after the Trump administration a month earlier put a temporary pause on award distribution, despite a memo from the EPA CFO that all program funds appropriated by the IIJA and IRA should continue to flow. Last month, the National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT) announced funding through the 2023 grant competition awards is now accessible.

By the end of 2024, the EPA made three rounds of awards to 1,344 school districts, totaling some $2.8 billion. Over 98 percent of those funds have gone toward purchasing ESBs.

NAPT noted it is not clear whether the EPA plans to award the remaining $2.2 billion as was authorized by Congress or to let its authorization run out, adding the program has received some strong support from senators in states where electric buses were being purchased and in at least one state where they are being manufactured.

The EPA did not respond to questions for this article. If the Clean School Bus Program lives on, one electric vehicle insider told School Transportation News funding could be funneled toward more propane school buses.

Meanwhile, Blue Bird used its first quarter results to address the impact of the federal funding pause on ESB deliveries through the Clean School Bus Program. Some
750 ESBs were sold or scheduled for production and delivery, whereas 250 were awarded with funding paused. Blue Bird initiated a reprioritized production plan to build fully funded buses earlier and push back build dates for ordered buses where EPA and federal funding was paused.

The company said it is processing new ESB orders attached to state and local funding and has confirmed political support for the Clean School Bus Program from elected officials in Washington, D.C. Blue Bird also indicated it has lowered its range of annual forecasted ESB deliveries from 1,300 to 1,000 buses.

The company noted uncertainty over the impact of tariffs means it will explore sourcing and other options with suppliers. All applicable government tariffs will be passed through to the end customer, with a potential five percent increase on all Blue Bird non-ESB buses expected by the end of February, should the tariffs on components be applied as originally proposed. School districts are exploring available options.

The non-profit Vermont Energy Investment Corp. (VEIC) has a clean transportation team specializing in programs and projects supporting electric vehicle fleet adoption and alternative fuel vehicle technology.

VEIC published a report last September for the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on ESB performance, summarizing evaluation activities and results associated with ES deployments in the program over the 2023-2024 academic school year.

The report found ESBs performed well in all weather conditions and route types. In extremely cold conditions, vehicle efficiency was reduced by up to 40 percent. However, ESBs were found to start up more consistently and reliably than diesel buses. ESBs also had better acceleration and quieter operation than diesel buses, but a lower top speed. Each ESB averaged $1,575 in annual fuel savings compared to diesel buses.

The report indicated primary vehicle downtime causes were related to components outside of the electric drivetrain. Resolving these issues proved more challenging with some vendors than others.

Incorporating feedback from interviews with 15 school transportation managers, school bus drivers and mechanics who engaged the most with ESBs in this program, the final section of the report offers key guidance for future ESB deployments in Montana, including in the areas of training and support, charge management, regenerative braking, and charging strategies.

Dan Rispens, superintendent of East Helena (Montana) Public Schools, noted his district received a grant through Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality that was derived from the Volkswagen settlement of 2016-2017.

“Grant funds offset approximately 80 percent of the purchase price of our bus,” said Rispens. “We were motivated by the prospect of new technology and reduced operating costs, but the primary force in our decision was grant funding.”

Its Lion Electric C bus was ordered in 2021 and delivery was accepted last August. Rispens said the district received EPA rebates to supply three additional Lion Electric buses, but East Helena passed on purchasing them given Lion Electric’s current financial status.

Speaking to the challenges East Helena Public Schools has encountered with its electric bus, “delivery timelines are challenging due to backlog in manufacturing and supply chain disruptions,” Rispens said.

“Our vendor does not have a nationwide network of dealers, so any technical assistance or warranty work is done by remote consult or sending technicians out on the road, making it cumbersome and complicated.”

Local mechanics do not know how to fix or repair the bus and do not have service manuals for it, Rispens added.

“Our bus has been here since last summer and has only been used for about a month on an actual route,” he said. “The heat system was found to be non-functional.

We are still waiting on repairs. This left the bus unusable during Montana’s harsh winter.” Last July, the World Resources Institute’s Electric School Bus Initiative reported that while the EPA had by that point funded more than 8,000 electric school buses through the EPA Clean School Bus Program, demand for ESBs is outpacing funding.

States, financing entities and utilities continue driving momentum for ESBs, noted WRI spokeswoman Katherine Roboff. “The Maryland Energy Administration recently launched a new funding program in support of school bus electrification,” she said. “We are tracking $2.3 billion in state-level funding for which ESBs are eligible. California and New York are good examples of robust state-level funding.

“We have also been in conversation with a wide range of green banks and financial institutions across the country who are also exploring the topic of financing electric school buses,” Roboff continued. “The Connecticut Green Bank, for example, has developed a new ESB financial product.”

However, the EPA is revoking $20 billion in contracts the Biden administration approved with at least eight green banks. Many Republican leaders call green banks “slush funds,” the Associated Press reported last month. At press time, the Connecticut Green Bank was one of seven green banks still listed on the EPA website.

States Continue Funding Work
The Public Service Commission of Maryland recently approved an electric school bus utility pilot program, Roboff added. The program is one of a dozen nationwide that recently closed or soon will close applications for funding. Districts also continue to explore electrification through transportation-as-a-service providers and other innovative business models built around subscription fees, Roboff said.

“School districts across the country continue to grow their electric school bus fleets,” she added. For example, the Beaverton School District in Oregon has been adding ESBs on an annual basis, leveraging a range of funding sources. In 2021, Beaverton was the first school district in Oregon to acquire an ESB and has added them yearly for a current total of 15 electric buses and 31 charging stations. Among the funding sources was a voter-approved $723 million bond, a portion of which is designated for replacement of diesel-powered buses with propane and electric buses.

Other funding sources include the Oregon Department of Energy’s Public Purpose Charge Program, Portland General Electric’s Electric School Bus Fund—funded through the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s Clean Fuels Program—and the EPA.

Beaverton also has 65 clean-burning propane buses using renewable propane. While the district plans to replace 225 diesel-powered buses with ESBs and propane-powered buses, some will be retained for long-distance field trips and athletic events. The district uses renewable diesel fuel, noting its higher cost is expected to drop as its supply expands.

That plan may be revisited if future battery technology improves to extend the distances ESBs can travel on a single charge. Molly Hale, marketing communications manager for Cummins’ Accelera zero-emissions business, noted Blue Bird has the company’s integrated powertrain, the PowerDrive 7000, that includes the BP97E battery, assembled in Columbus, Indiana, at its main manufacturing facility.

“Additionally, Thomas Built Buses recently announced the launch of their new Jouley Gen 2 bus with the new addition of our 14Xe eAxle and ELFA inverter,” she said. “We are pleased to be partnering with two major school bus OEMs and are excited to see the success of these buses gaining momentum and adoption. Blue Bird has delivered more than 2,000 ESBs with our powertrain.”

As speed bumps increase on the path to school districts incorporating more ESBs into their fleets, districts are pursuing a variety of approaches, such as this pilot project in New Mexico, which signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ESB manufacturer GreenPower Motor Company. The state will seek an appropriation of $5 million to conduct a pilot program funding the purchase of ESBs, charging station installations and management costs.

Rolling with the Punches
Uncertainty over the future of ESB funding has affected many school districts, including the Ritenour School District in Overland, Missouri. The district on Feb. 4 announced the arrival of the first three Thomas Built Buses Jouleys of a 24-ESB fleet funded by a nearly $9.5 million EPA Clean School Bus Program grant sought to replace 24 diesel buses.

The district announced 24 new charging stations as well. However, the district indicated uncertainty over receiving the remaining 21 ESBs from the Clean School Bus Program due to its funding pauses. Brooks McQuinn, transportation director for the Malone Central School District in Malone, New York, noted the district has four ESBs and had received the EPA grant. The district received $1.4 million dollars for the purchase of the buses and chargers, covering most of the project cost. McQuinn pointed out existing infrastructure accommodated the chargers. The district also has its own lot and inside storage space for the buses.

The district’s fleet includes 43 65-passenger buses fueled by propane, gas, diesel and now the four ESBs. “We cover 386 square miles in this district, with a lot of different terrain,” said McQuinn. “We have used propane buses for years because it was a cleaner source of fuel, and we get tax credit for that fuel type. We have geared to gasoline engines due to the size of our district and sporting events. We have phased out our diesels and only have three left.” McQuinn noted the district is surprised the power capability of the ESBs is limited to about 75 miles a day.

“We have also not had a very cold winter here since we received these buses last March,” he added. “Our winters here can hit 30 degrees below [zero]. Overall, [ESBs] have a place in this district, but we certainly cannot meet the [state of New York] deadlines of 2035 for a complete EV bus world.” McQuinn said the cost of a propane or gasoline bus is about $185,000, including added options. The ESB costs about $465,000 and has limited options.

“The New York State [Department of Transportation] is very strict about what has to be on a school bus,” he said. “If the federal grants go away, it would put our district in a very vulnerable state. We are currently maxed out with our energy output, and if we were to add anymore [electric] buses we would have to put all new infrastructure here that would cost the district and local taxpayers millions of dollars.

“We would also have to look for alternative means for sporting events, field trips and any other trips outside of to and from school transportation,” he continued. The Electrification Coalition notes ESB procurement can take up to 18 months. This includes installing the charging infrastructure and getting enough power from the local utility. The organization noted Climate Mayors Electric Vehicle Purchasing Collaborative offers cooperative purchasing contracts for Blue Bird, IC Bus, Lion Electric, and Thomas Built Buses. The Collaborative also includes resources for the procurement process, policy guidance and a variety of other informative resources.

The Coalition advises districts to identify the appropriate type of EV charging stations, determine their locations and explore charging software to help achieve electricity cost savings.

Three types of charging stations include Level 1 (120V), Level 2 (240V), and direct current fast charging (DCFC). Engagement with the local utility is critical to assist
with the connection process for EV charging equipment, determine whether infrastructure upgrades are needed, determine charging rates and best charging times, and available software platforms.

Other Options
A video interview conducted by Steven Whaley, Blue Bird’s alternative fuels manager for eastern North America, and Anthony Jackson, executive director of transportation at Bibb County School District in Georgia, highlights operational benefits of propane school buses, including the elimination of diesel regeneration issues, reduced maintenance costs due to fewer parts and quieter operation. Bibb County School District purchased 31 propane buses in 2014, with the driving factor being issues with regeneration on the diesel engines. Benefits derived included no need for NOx sensors or having to replace particulate matter filters.

Bus drivers love that the bus is much quieter compared to diesel buses, Jackson said.
Now, most of the district’s fleet is comprised of propane-fueled buses, with propane fuel provided by Bobtail loads to the district’s four 1,000-gallon tanks. There also are diesel buses and those running on unleaded gasoline are used for field trips.

The district spent $790,599 to run over 2 million miles at a cost of 39 cents a mile, a 27 cents per-mile cost savings with more than a $500,000 in annual fuel savings. The Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit for propane vehicles is 36 cents a gallon for even more cost savings.

“The fate of the Alternative Fuel Tax Credit for propane vehicles is tenuous at best,” Whaley noted. “But the value proposition for propane without any incentives stands impressively on its own.” Clean diesel has also become a more attractive option, especially when using renewable diesel. But incentives for RD only currently exist in California, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico, the only states that have passed the
Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

Still, tougher EPA emissions standards have been a driving factor in diesel being more
than 90 percent cleaner today than a decade ago. Those emissions are expected to only get cleaner starting in 2027, when EPA’s Phase III GHG standard is scheduled to go into effect. But at this report, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin signaled the rule and others are under reconsideration. If rolled back, diesel school buses could be easier and less expensive to obtain, especially in states that were previously forecasting limited availability.

As the industry awaits word on Phase III , Cummins announced last month its much-anticipated B7.2 diesel engine on the company’s HELM or fuel-agnostic platform. The emissions reduction to less than 0.035 grams of NOx per horsepower/hour, as required by EPA Phase III represents, an approximately 83-percent-cleaner engine than 2010 engines with 50-percent fewer particulate matter.

These are achieved by using a “clean sheet base engine,” a culmination of all the components, a Cummins spokesperson said.

The emissions warranty and useful life requirements also increase, with automatic engine shutdown and stop-start that can further lower emissions and GHG. Meanwhile, in anticipation of the Trump administration, the California Air Resources Board ceased seeking the additional federal waivers it needed to fully implement its Advanced Clean Fleet rule that about a dozen states were set to adopt. Many of those states are now not implementing it, which set out to reduce the number of diesel heavy-duty trucks that could be sold in California and the other so-called CARB states.

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act reauthorization was also introduced in Congress last month. That program, which ran through fiscal year 2024, had been marked for review by the Trump administration. It has been responsible for replacing over 5,100 high emissions school buses since 2010.

Editor’s Note: As reprinted in the April 2025 issue of School Transportation News.

---

Related: EPA Extends 2024 Clean School Bus Program Rebate Application Deadline
Related: EPA, Treasury Disseminate Electric School Bus Tax Credit Information
Related: (STN Podcast E251) Making Safety Safer: Seatbelts, Technology, Training & Electric School Buses
Related: Fourth Funding Opportunity for EPA Clean School Bus Program Opens

The post Future of Clean School Bus Program? appeared first on School Transportation News.

School districts that have purchased some 2,000 Lion Electric school buses are in a wait-and-see mode regarding repairs and warranties following the company filing for and receiving protection from its creditors under the Canadian Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

Compounding the challenge in securing electric school buses are climate-related initiatives on the Trump administration radar.

In late January, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget listed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean School Bus Program—which has helped fund electric bus purchases—as one of the many federal spending programs the Trump administration attempted to freeze in January. Despite a federal judge blocking that move, the funds were slow to start flowing again at this report.

Meanwhile, Lion could be acquired through an auction of its assets by next month. A Lion representative said the company was not bankrupt or in liquidation, per “the recognition of the CCAA proceedings in the U.S. pursuant to Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.”

A School Transportation News report about Lion Electric’s financial status outlined the company’s many layoffs and an SEC filing announcing the resignation of company president Nicolas Brunet in November. At this report, all U.S. employees had been laid off, with only a handful of executives based in Canada still working.

In 2023, Lion Electric opened its Joliet, Illinois plant, a move celebrated with much fanfare and investment by elected officials and local business leaders. The 900,000-square-foot facility was hailed as the largest all-electric U.S. plant dedicated to medium and heavy-duty commercial vehicle production. The plant was expected to produce 20,000 school buses a year.

In all, Lion Electric has more than 2,200 electric commercial vehicles on the roads across North America, logging more than 62,000 miles a week and more than 32 million driven miles transporting 130,000 children, noted company spokesman Patrick Gervais.

Continued delays and challenges associated with the granting of subsidies to Lion’s clients related to the Canadian Zero-Emission Transit Fund program, Gervais added. “Given the capital-intensive nature of its business, the Lion Group has required significant investment and capital over the years to operate its business,” he explained. “Such investment and capital have come in the form of longterm debt.”

He said the timing of EPA Clean School Bus Program funding rounds was also a challenge.

Funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the program had been designed to provide $5 billion from fiscal years 2022 to 2026 to replace existing school buses with zero-emission and clean school buses. To date, 1,039 awards have been issued to 1,344 school districts and nearly $2.785 billion of the total $5 billion has been awarded, replacing 8,936 buses. But as of this report, when and if 2024 rebates and subsequent funds are in doubt. The EPA did not respond to a request for comment on Lion, referring STN instead to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Public Affairs, which also had not responded at this report.

Meanwhile, the phase-one bid deadline for the company and its assets was Feb. 5 with a phase-two bid deadline of March 7. Auctions as required take place during the week of March 10 with the selection of final bids on March 19. Approval application of successful bids takes place during the week of March 31. The earliest closing is April 7.

The application for sale and investment solicitation for the CCAA monitored by court-appointed Deloitte Touche states that Lion leases the Joliet plant as well as its Saint-Jerome, Quebec headquarters—which included manufacturing, R&D, and testing and experience centers—and Mirabel, Quebec battery manufacturing facility. Gervais said Lion continues to assist customers with the maintenance and servicing of their vehicles for school buses and trucks, including warranty, adding that customers can follow the same claims process for warranty repairs.

“We are conducting the necessary follow-ups and aim to provide the highest level of support possible in the circumstances to customers with their fleet,” he added. “Our service team remains in action to support customers.”

Gervais added Lion is also committed to providing clients with as much information as possible to assist them remotely in resolving their issues. “Complex repairs and technology-related breakdowns will be prioritized for on-site support during this period,” he said.

Lion Electric established experience/service centers: Three in California as well as one each in Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Texas, Vermont and Washington. Only the Sacramento, California, location remained open at this report.

“It is important to emphasize that customer service is maintained for all customers, trucks and buses, regardless of the state or city they are located in,” Gervais said.

What’s Next for Lion and Its Customers?
Lion Electric sent an email to customers in December regarding its financial situation, stating that its management remained in control of the company during the CCAA process with the anticipation the customer’s existing “point person” at Lion would not change.

Despite the subsequent layoffs, Gervais said school transportation departments can work directly with parts suppliers as needed.

Yet many school districts find themselves with little to no customer support because their reps no longer work for the company. Or they have active purchase orders for new electric school buses that won’t be delivered.

Peoria Public Schools in Illinois was awarded a 2023 EPA Clean School Bus Program grant to purchase 15 electric buses and infrastructure. Joshua Collins, director of transportation and fleet services, said Peoria chose Lion because its electric vehicle manufacturing experience.

“At the time, they were building the plant in Joliet, so they were local and looked like they were the people to go with,” he added. “Fast forward a year later, and things didn’t go their way and didn’t work out.”

Collins noted he doesn’t know what’s left of the company. “It left us in limbo because we had made a purchase agreement with them,” he continued. “We’re navigating with our attorneys on what steps we should take and what we need to do. How do we separate ourselves from this? How do we end these service purchase agreements?

“We’ve moved on to another partner we are working with. We have to vacate our purchase agreement with Lion, which we’re still in the process of doing through our attorneys. We don’t want to get stuck with two purchase agreements.”

Collins said he was also concerned about a potential federal pause in funding “and we [hope we] are able to use those and move forward. It’s just been one thing after another, after another.”

Half of the 50-bus fleet operated by Herscher Community Unit School District 2 fleet in Illinois is comprised of Lion Electric buses, said Superintendent Dr. Richard Decman. He added that the school district selected Lion Electric because of manufacturing at now shuttered plant in nearby Joliet.

“Our district was given $9.875 million for the purchase of 25 electric buses and the related charging stations. Lion Electric worked directly with us to write the grant,
so that we did not have to worry about spending an inordinate amount of time on grant writing for something that may or may not happen,” he explained.

Decman said an additional benefit included projected long-term savings of operating electric buses compared to internal combustion engine buses. He said an analysis completed after one semester of use showed $125,000 to $150,000 in total savings per year.

Long-term health benefits to the school community are derived from less emissions from electric buses compared to diesel buses and the ability to get air-conditioned buses, he added.

“Weight is evenly distributed, the bus is quiet, and the bus is slightly larger, so the aisles and seats are more comfortable for the movement of passengers,” Decman added. “We wanted to get a head start on working out the kinks of implementing this type of technology as we believe it is likely a matter of time before more schools see the benefits.”

Decman indicated to Canadian media that while he’s been pleased with bus performance to date, it’s taking longer to secure replacement parts for minor maintenance issues, like replacing a stop arm motor, a door open/close motor, a heat sensor, and a strobe light fuse.

“Most if not all of our new contacts are no longer in the state,” said Decman. “Since we have our own mechanics, as long as we can get parts and have their experts show our guys what is needed, via Zoom is fine, location is not really an issue for most repairs.

“We just want to make sure we can get the parts in a timely fashion as well,” he continued. “Obviously, if a bus gets in an accident or needs major repairs, that will be a different story. Hopefully this all gets resolved one way or another.”

Decman added that his biggest concern is whether the warranties on the district’s buses will carry over if the company is sold.

Dr. Andrew Brooks, superintendent of schools for the Wethersfield District #230 in Kewanee, Illinois, said the purchase last fall of three Lion Electric buses was funded by EPA. Upon finding out the company was in financial trouble, he reached out to his service contact, who relayed that he had been laid off.

If Lion Electric cannot find a buyer, Brooks said the district will seek another supplier. “We are looking at Blue Bird, IC, and Thomas [Built Buses] models of EV buses,” he added.

Brooks said there is no delay in student transportation operations as Wethersfield awaits Lion Electric’s status “as they can still provide them on our timetable, if they power back up.”

Yarmouth School Department in Maine bought two Lion Electric buses in 2023 with federal grant money, said Superintendent Dr. Andrew Dolloff. The community’s Climate Action Committee along with students and school staff “placed a priority on awareness and action pertaining to climate change and use of renewable energy,” he said. “A quality EV bus program aligns with the town’s goal of being carbon neutral in the coming decade.”

Dolloff told Canadian media the Lion Electric buses often display messages indicating heating, electrical or battery problems, necessitating they be pulled out of service.

It has taken weeks to months to get someone from Lion Electric to visit the area and fix the issue, he said. “We have asked for the buses to be replaced, not likely or for compensation to be made so we can purchase others, also not likely, and have communicated with Maine’s Department of Education and the Governor’s Office, who have reached out to the EPA to see if there might be some relief provided through their grant programs,” Dolloff said.

Customers do have other options. “We are able to assist districts with maintenance on Lion EV buses. Maintenance on electric school buses is part of our offering to all districts, regardless, if you contract with First Student for home to school services or not,” noted
Danielle Becker, senior marketing manager for First Student, of the fee-based service. “We can provide maintenance for all vehicles including diesel/ gasoline yellow and white fleet. We are able to provide comprehensive preventative and corrective maintenance. Districts can contract directly with First Services or use the buying cooperative Sourcewell to contract with First Services for maintenance services.”

Much of the customer service Lion provided was via a proprietary remote diagnostics tool. Frank Naelitz, the director of electric vehicle maintenance for First Student, said any school bus customer should be wary about losing turnkey service when the provider ceases operation. Because the school bus contractor owns and operates 350 Lions—all of which operate in Quebec—Naelitz helped to create a technical assistance center and First Student’s own remote diagnostics tool, available at all 600 of its locations.

“That same infrastructure is able to provide some of that technical support to groups outside of First Student, if there is that need,” he explained. “That program does anything from finding service information to remoting into a diagnostics computer at the point of repair and helping them trouble shoot while connected to the vehicle, reviewing log files from various components. We could probably source parts at some point.”

Todd Hawkins, First Student’s senior vice president of maintenance, explained that all company technicians use tablets for work orders. “A tech can log in to the help desk and Frank can take over their iPad, take pictures of what they’re working on, draw on it, write in specs. He can walk them through a repair. We may end up dispensing these programs where we could talk to [techs] directly,” he added, noting the company won’t work on high-voltage issues without the customer first taking basic arc flash and other relevant training.

Editor’s Note: As reprinted in the March 2025 issue of School Transportation News.

---

Related: (STN Podcast E251) Making Safety Safer: Seatbelts, Technology, Training & Electric School Buses
Related: Next-gen Jouley: The Future of Electric School Buses
Related: Electric Vehicle Onboarding: The Keys to Success for Fleets
Related: Updated: Rising Insurance? Additional Balancing Act Needed Amid Electric School Bus Push

The post On the Block appeared first on School Transportation News.