The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) warns blackouts could increase by 100 times in 2030 if the nation “continues to shutter reliable power sources and fails to add additional firm capacity.” The forecast is a driving factor for school transportation departments seeking to incorporate cleaner alternatives for fueling buses.

The DOE report “Evaluating U.S. Grid Reliability and Security” released July 7, fulfills Section 3(b) of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Strengthening The Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid,” designed to deliver a uniform methodology to identify at-risk regions and guide federal reliability interventions.

• • The report finds the current path—retiring more generations without dependable replacements—threatens both grid reliability and the ability to meet growing AI-driven energy demand. Without intervention, the bulk power system cannot support AI growth, maintain reliability, or keep energy affordable.
  • Projected load growth is too large and fast for existing grid management and capacity planning methods to handle. A transformative shift is urgently needed.
  • The retirement of 104 giga-watts (GW) of firm capacity by 2030, without one-to-one replacement, worsens the resource adequacy challenge. Loss of this generation could cause major outages during unfavorable weather for wind and solar.
  • While 209 GW of new generation is projected by 2030, only 22 GW would be firm baseload power. Even without retirements, the model found increased risk of outages in 2030 by a factor of 34.
  • Current methods for assessing resource adequacy are outdated. Modern evaluations must consider not just peak demand, but also the frequency, magnitude and duration of outages, and model increasing interdependence with neighboring grids.

“Though demands on the electric grid are increasing, we do not foresee a meaningful logistics problem for school transportation directors,” noted Michelle Levinson, the World Resources Institute’s senior manager of eMobility Finance and Policy. “The report headline averages numbers across the whole of the U.S. The risk of additional outages is low and is brought up by high assumed data center demand in Electric Reliability Council of Texas and in PJM South (Virginia and Maryland).”

Levinson commented that the most recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration indicates electricity customers on average experienced approximately 5.5 hours of electricity interruptions in 2022.

“Even if all these outages occur on school days, which is unlikely, outages would account for only 0.19 percent of the hours when a bus is in the yard and potentially charging,” she added. “Luckily, transportation directors are already accustomed to navigating the impacts of electric outages on their fueling capabilities through their experience with liquid fossil fuel pumps, which also needs electricity to function.”

Levinson acknowledged change can be “scary” and the transition to electric school buses requires a shift in logistics but should not be a problem in and of itself and as with all logistics comes down to planning.

Overnight and midday down times of most school buses offer substantial opportunities for directors to charge batteries in advance of any conditions that might indicate higher grid risks, such as extreme weather events, she added.

However, others warn that even a short outage will greatly disrupt transportation operations. The DOE’s predicted blackout rate “introduces serious questions about how to keep buses moving in the face of growing grid instability,” noted Joel Stutheit, senior manager of autogas business development at the Propane Education & Research Council (PERC).

“The school day is built around a routine,” he continued. “Imagine what happens to that routine if the grid goes down as often as this DOE report suggests. If a transportation director is relying on an electric school bus fleet, blackouts could leave them unable to charge buses and reliably transport students. Even a short-term outage could introduce last-minute scheduling changes, rerouting [of] buses, and adding extra pressure on drivers and operations teams.”

Transportation directors need to shift from thinking about the electric grid as a guarantee to thinking about it as a variable for which they must plan, Stutheit said.

Ewan Pritchard, the chief subject matter expert on school bus electrification for consultant Energetics, said he believes the intent of the report was to make electric vehicles look bad.

“The DOE’s report is politically charged,” he shared. “My company is the evaluator for the electric vehicle infrastructure program for the state of California. My team is collecting data from all the vehicle charging stations across the state of California that are put in by the electric utilities. We track the time of usage of all of those stations, and we issue a report annually on the progress.”

---

Related: EPA Proposal Seeks to Eliminate GHG Regulations for Vehicles, Engines
Related: EPA Provides Update on Clean School Bus Program
Related: Previous Lion Electric School Bus Warranties Voided by Company Sale
Related: Propane School Buses Save Districts 50% on Total Cost of Ownership
Related: Roundup: Informative Green Bus Summit Held at STN EXPO West

---

The team’s work, he said, demonstrates electric school buses can benefit the utility grid — a shoring-up effect in the sense that it depends on when a school bus is plugged in.

For example, it can be a problem if school districts charge electric vehicles between 4 p.m. to 9 p.m., actively drawing power from the utility grid during peak demand times when usage and prices are highest, he noted.

Instead, Pritchard recommended school transportation departments would do well to use charge management systems, which essentially keep track of the strain on the utility grid, the cost of electricity and carbon production.

Doing so saves districts money, he added.

“We’re seeing tremendous change in the way people are charging vehicles, especially when it comes to school buses, because school buses have a very predictable schedule,” Pritchard said. “There’s plenty of time between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. to recharge their vehicles.”

A Back Up Plan?

The challenge of student safety is “likely not as extreme as the report makes it seem,” Levinson agreed.

“If operators have not charged their vehicles ahead of a significant outage event, battery capacities may be low or zero, meaning this particular type of transport would not be able to run its typical route,” she pointed out. “School may not be in session in the event of such a significant outage.”

Alternatively, schools districts may find that electric buses can provide an additional level of safety and resiliency for students and communities during extreme events when the larger grid is out, Levinson said.

“Localized microgrid capabilities that connect bi-directional buses and essential school or community facilities are especially relevant in situations where extreme weather conditions isolate people and businesses,” she added.

PERC’s Stutheit, who previously was the director of transportation for Bethel School District in Washington, noted students are immediately impacted if buses can’t operate due to a power outage as “many students rely on transportation to and from school not only for their education, but to access meals and other essential services.”

If the grid goes down due to severe weather, the stakes are even higher for transportation directors to provide evacuations or emergency transportation, Stutheit said, adding student transporters need reliably-powered school buses that can respond quickly to keep students safe.

“Propane autogas buses provide that layer of resiliency,” he argued. “These buses can operate and refuel even when the grid is down. In the event of an emergency evacuation or shelter-in-place situation, propane autogas buses allow districts to respond without waiting on fuel deliveries or power restoration. That kind of reliability supports student safety.”

Pritchard noted most schools have backup generators if power goes out. He said the real student safety issue is when the tailpipe of a combustion vehicle is putting out emissions at that student’s height, adding studies show the concentration of pollutants inside of a vehicle are worse than the concentration outside of a vehicle when it comes to school buses.

“I think it’s more of a student safety issue to not electrify your fleet,” he added.

And then there is the possibility of using electric school buses to power microgrids available to provide surplus power to school buildings.

Getting Smart

To mitigate challenges, school districts should implement smart charging strategies and familiarize themselves with charge management tools and capabilities, Levinson said, adding it is best to charge when the grid is least constrained, such as overnight or midday when there is the most solar production.

“School districts can also create standard operating procedures and emergency management procedures. They can also conduct emergency preparedness drills to practice for such scenarios and identify places for procedural improvements,” she added.

Other steps include identifying additional charging locations beyond the primary charging yard and installing site-level resilience via batteries, solar and/or generators.

Stutheit shared that propane also complements EVs as part of a multi-fuel strategy, as it can be go-to energy in emergency situations when the grid is down. It can also provide transportation directors with an affordable option that won’t need infrastructure updates to keep up with grid instability.

There are ways to lessen the risk from outages that apply to both diesel and electric school buses, involving alternative power from outside the grid, Levinson said, adding grid outages affect all functions, not just charging buses.

“In cases in which electric school buses are vehicle-to-load or vehicle-to-building capable, they can be a potential asset to provide site power to run phones, computers, and HVAC systems during an outage. Increasingly electric vehicles, such as electric school buses, can be part of the grid support solution.”

The post Safety Concerns of the Electric Grid? appeared first on School Transportation News.

As school transportation departments gear up for the new school year, those with Lion Electric buses have additional challenges: How to address warranties, maintenance and repair concerns in the wake of the company’s financial struggles and recent acquisition by Canadian real estate developer Groupe MACH.

Customers’ worst fears were realized Friday, when Deloitte Restructuring released a letter detailing that all previous warranties for all purchases made outside of Quebec are null and void.

The writing has been on the wall since at least May, said Valerie Tremblay, Green Communities Canada sustainable mobility lead and co-coordinator for the Canadian Electric School Bus Alliance. She noted a press release that stated Lion Electric, now branded as Lion, is focusing exclusively on electric school buses, fully assembled locally and intended for the Quebec market.

“This means the company will no longer manufacture other electric vehicles and will limit electric school bus (ESB) sales to Quebec,” she added.

The impact is immense. Lion Electric has more than 2,200 electric commercial vehicles on the roads across North America, logging more than 62,000 miles a week with more than 32 million driven miles transporting 130,000 children, then company spokesman Patrick Gervais said earlier this year.

Herscher CUSD No. 2 district in Herscher, Illinois, already implemented Plan B ahead of Friday’s confirmation letter about voided warranties, said Superintendent Dr. Richard Decman.

“We are working with alternate vendors at the expense of the school district to help keep our electric buses functional and on the road,” Decman noted. “Currently, six of our 25 (Lion) electric buses need some type of repair.”

Lion ESBs represent half of Herscher’s overall fleet of 50 buses. The district had been given $9.875 million for the purchase of 25 electric buses and the related charging stations.

Herscher CUSD is one of many dealing with similar challenges. What started as an effort to replace old diesel school buses with clean and quieter ESBs has turned into a major challenge, both in dealing with Lion Electric as well as with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean School Bus program.

Funded by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the program was 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.

Meanwhile, the EPA stopped accepting applications for the 2024 rebate program on Jan. 14. Originally, awards were to be announced by last month. No additional information has been given about their status.

In a response to School Transportation News Friday, EPA said it, “is not able to offer legal advice to school districts regarding their warranty contracts with Lion Electric” and referred the question to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Public Affairs, which also said it could not respond to the matter.

Lion also has not responded to STN requests for input.

Meanwhile, Yarmouth School Department in Maine bought two Lion Electric buses in 2023 with a state of Maine grant reimbursing the purchase 100 percent, said Superintendent Andrew Dolloff. The town’s Climate Action Committee prioritized awareness and action pertaining to climate change and use of renewable energy, he noted, adding a quality ESB program aligns with the town’s goal of being carbon neutral in the coming decade.

But the Lion ESBs often display messages indicating heating, electrical or battery problems, necessitating they be pulled out of service. Dolloff said Lion has not responded to the department’s inquiries regarding repairs.

“We’ve had some sporadic service over the past two years, but as soon as the tech leaves, the buses produce error codes again, and then the technician quits or is released, and we wait a few months for the next response,” said Dolloff, adding the buses did not operate during the 2024-2025 school year.

Dolloff previously told STN, “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.”

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

Brooks said the district would seek another supplier, such as Blue Bird, IC Bus or Thomas Built Buses.

Of Los Angeles Unified School District’s 250 electric buses, 28 — about 11 percent of the district’s electric fleet or 2 percent of its total fleet — are Lion Electric ESBs. A spokesperson said Los Angeles Unified is proactively working with vendor partners that have retained qualified technicians and engineering staff with Lion-specific experience to ensure continuity of maintenance and support of the Lion buses.

Looking ahead, the district is working to include long-term maintenance and support requirements for future electric school buses contracts, helping ensure operational stability and vehicle performance across its fleet.

---

Related: Update: Quebec Government Passes on Saving Lion Electric, Company’s End Imminent
Related: Positive Reinforcement Takes the Wheel: Netradyne Customers Awarded Over 100 Million DriverStars
Related: State Budget Calls for Real-world Range Testing for Electric School Bus Sales

---

As for Group MACH’s decision to only sell ESBs in Quebec, Tremblay noted the shift appears to be driven by two factors. The first is market concentration. Quebec is home to more than 1,000 Lion buses, making it the largest single jurisdiction for ESBs in North America. She said focusing operations locally allows Lion to maintain service and support for this fleet.

The province also offers targeted incentives, up to $240,000 per ESB assembled in Canada. Lion is one of only two companies eligible for this funding, the other being Type A school bus manufacturer Micro Bird. Until recently, Quebec also mandated that all new school bus purchases be electric. Most U.S. states and other Canadian provinces don’t offer the same level of consistent, per-bus subsidies. Without these incentives, Tremblay said Lion lacks confidence in sustained demand outside Quebec.

She also noted Lion’s press release states that maintenance services in Quebec will resume shortly and warranties for Quebec-based vehicles will be honored. But, she added, not honoring warranties outside Quebec and non-existent or minimal maintenance support “has contributed to the company’s assets being undervalued in its recent acquisition.”

For Lion bus owners outside of Quebec, Tremblay advised school bus operators to review purchase agreements to understand Lion’s contractual obligations regarding warranties and service.

They should contact third-party service providers to explore options for ongoing maintenance and repairs and reach out to dealers or manufacturers to confirm whether they offer service support for Lion ESBs in their region, she added.

While school bus contractor First Student can take on Lion warranty work for a fee, a spokesperson said the company will only offer any EV maintenance work on a case-by-case evaluation basis with school districts.

CALSTART is leading an effort to support school districts affected by the ongoing Lion Electric bankruptcy and subsequent ownership changes, noted Stephanie Ly. senior manager of eMobility strategy and manufacturing engagement for the World Resource Institute’s Electric School Bus Initiative.

“They are supported by our Electric School Bus Initiative and the Alliance for Electric School Buses,” she added. “CALSTART held a national forum focused on the Lion Electric issue and has an online form for school districts to fill out if they want to receive any potential future guidance or resources.

Ly advised existing Lion electric bus owners to try to ensure they have as many resources as possible to continue operating and maintaining their buses, including keeping documentation such as training materials, owners’ manuals and similar information.

The post New Owner Voids U.S. Warranties of Lion Electric School Buses appeared first on School Transportation News.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a letter of non-enforcement for school bus child safety restraint systems tied to updates made to FMVSS 213.

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. Charlie Vits, a child passenger safety technician and consultant to school bus seating manufacturer IMMI, said during STN EXPO West in Reno, Nevada, that NHTSA issued a letter of non-enforcement for school bus CSRS, allowing for the continued use of the safety restraints designed for school buses.

On July 2, NHTSA stated that it “recognizes that because the date on which the comment period closes is the same as the compliance date for FMVSS No. 213a, it will not be possible to publish a final rule prior to the current compliance date. NHTSA is concerned that the regulatory uncertainty likely to arise for the period of time in between the June 30 compliance date and any published final rule will lead to a decrease in overall levels of CRS safety as fewer CRS options are available for the public,” it stated.

It noted that in the public interest, NHTSA is exercising its discretion to temporarily pause enforcement of the applicability of FMVSS No. 213a for CRSs produced on or after June 30, 2025, and until the date of publication of any rule finalizing the May 30 proposal.

“NHTSA emphasizes, however, that under 49 U.S.C. 30115(a), a manufacturer may not certify to a standard if, in exercising reasonable care, the manufacturer has reason to know that the certification is false or misleading in a material respect. As such, even while the enforcement of the applicability of FMVSS No. 213a is paused, if a manufacturer continues to certify to the standard, the manufacturer must have a good faith basis that the CRS meets the standard,” NHTSA added.

Meanwhile, in addition to delaying the side-impact protection compliance date for all other child restraint systems from June 30, 2025, to Dec. 5, 2026, the proposal 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.

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.”

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include the letter of non-compliance. Taylor Ekbatani contributed to this report. 

The post Update: 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.