Reading view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.

Propane Grabs Spotlight as Fleets Seek Less Expensive, Cleaner Fuel

By: Ryan Gray

LAS VEGAS — As fleet operators wrestle with volatile diesel prices, tightening emissions rules and the steep costs of electrification, a group of industry experts said the answer to cleaner, cheaper operations may be a fuel that has been around for a century: Propane.

During the ACT Expo panel, “A Simpler Path to Lower Costs: How Fleets Use Propane and Renewable Propane,” representatives from a major public transit system, a national propane supplier and a leading alternative-fuel vehicle manufacturer argued that propane — and increasingly, renewable propane — can deliver immediate cost savings and emissions reductions without the infrastructure headaches of electric or compressed natural gas options.

Moderator Mike Finnern, who leads the alternative fuels fleet and facilities group at global engineering firm WSP, framed the Monday session as a reality check for fleet leaders who feel locked into a diesel vs. electric debate.

“In my job, I help a lot of clients convert their fleets from diesel to something else,” Finnern told attendees. “Oftentimes the conversation is around electrification, but that’s hard in a number of different ways. Infrastructure is a big part of it, vehicle costs are a big part of it. One of the things we talk about a lot is: What’s your base goal? Why [do] you want to electrify? Because there are other options, and some of those options can be remarkably compelling.”

Propane Supplier Pushes Carbon Intensity Metric

For Doug Dagan of Suburban Propane, which has been in the propane business for nearly 100 years, the key to understanding propane’s role in the energy transition is shifting the conversation from technology labels to carbon intensity.

“We’re here to talk about the power of propane as a decarbonization and cost-effective solution for fleet vehicles,” Dagan said. “We really think the distinguishing factor for propane is carbon intensity, and that really should be the metric that everyone uses for making decisions about the climate benefits of a fuel.”

Dagan said traditional propane already offers a significantly lower carbon intensity than gasoline and diesel, and emerging renewable propane pathways drive those numbers even lower. Conventional propane, he noted, carries a carbon intensity score of around 80 in many models. Renewable propane produced from certain waste-based feedstocks can land in the 20 to 40 range and in some cases approach net zero, depending on the production method.

Suburban currently supplies propane, renewable propane and renewable natural gas. It is investing in hybrid solutions as well. But renewable propane faces a structural challenge: Like conventional propane, it is largely produced as a byproduct of refining other fuels, such as renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel. To expand supply, Dagan said, Suburban is investing in “on-purpose” production, including biogas-based routes that mirror the way renewable natural gas is made.

Despite questions about long-term feedstock volumes, Dagan argued that propane offers something many alternative fuels cannot – stability. While diesel and gasoline prices have spiked sharply during the Iran war and even prior to that, he said, propane has not tracked those swings as closely, because it is not as exposed to global crude dynamics and is abundant in the U.S.

Medium-Duty Fleets Find Real Savings

After Dagan laid out the fueling story, Todd Mouw of ROUSH CleanTech made the business case. Parent company ROUSH, known for its performance engineering heritage, spun up its CleanTech division in 2010 to focus on propane and other alternative powertrains.

“When we first started ROUSH CleanTech, we quickly saw that the pain point for fleets was in Class 4 through 7,” Mouw said. “That’s where diesel was creating a lot of cost and complexity. So, we shifted our focus to medium-duty diesel displacement.”

Mouw said ROUSH now has more than 55,000 propane vehicles on the road across more than 4,000 fleets, logging millions of cumulative miles. Many of these are the Blue Bird Propane Vision. The message to fleet managers, he said, is that the technology is proven, the infrastructure is mature and the economics are compelling.

“In a lot of these applications, even before recent run-ups in fuel prices, you’re saving on the order of 30 to 35 cents a mile vs. diesel,” he said. “You have infrastructure that’s easy and fast to deploy, no impact on payload, range comparable to diesel and engines that are already certified at ultra-low NOx.”

Mouw pointed to looming 2027 federal NOx standards that will further increase the cost and complexity of diesel engines. Against that backdrop, he said, propane powertrains with very low NOx certification allow fleets to get ahead of the curve without the sticker shock and infrastructure delays that often come with electrification.

Florida County’s Paratransit Program Banks Millions with Propane

The proof point came from Paul Strobis, assistant general manager of transportation in Broward County, Florida. He oversees paratransit services for riders with disabilities, which he described as the most expensive service per passenger in the public transit portfolio.

“When I was looking to implement an alternative fuel system, I needed the lowest cost solution that still improved our environment,” Strobis said.

He operates primarily Class 4 and 5 cutaway buses and some sedans, with service delivered under contracts that turn over every five to 10 years. That created a requirement for fueling infrastructure that could be flexible and movable enough to follow private contractors. Heavy, permanent compressed natural gas installations did not fit that model.

“What I found was propane met all of those needs,” he said.

Since launching propane service in January 2015, Broward County has consumed roughly 12 million gallons of propane, Strobis reported. Over about 10 years, taxpayers have contributed about $16.2 million, or an average of $1.34 per gallon. Comparable gasoline for the same service would have cost approximately $29 million, at an average of $2.84 per gallon, he said.

“We’ve saved over $13 million for our taxpayers just on the cost of fuel,” Strobis said.

When federal alternative fuel tax credits were active, Broward’s net cost dropped even further, to under a dollar per gallon. Strobis said his current price is about $1.45 per gallon for propane, compared to more than $4 for gasoline. Fueling times are comparable to gasoline, he added, and his contracted maintenance facilities did not need the costly ventilation and gas-detection upgrades required for CNG shops.


Related: Report Highlights Propane and Electric TCO for School Bus
Related: Panel Shares How Propane School Buses Deliver Students, Savings
Related: Transportation Director Shares How Propane Buses Benefit Special Needs Routes


Electrification, CNG and Safety

The panelists repeatedly contrasted propane with battery-electric and CNG options, particularly on infrastructure.

Dagan said fleets often discover that the grid simply cannot deliver enough power where and when they need it, or that the electrons they do get are not as clean as advertised. In many U.S. markets, he said, charging vehicles with grid power still relies heavily on fossil generation, undercutting environmental benefits. Taking propane straight to the vehicle, he argued, can be both cleaner and more efficient in many cases.

Finnern noted that a propane station can often be installed and operational within weeks, while some large EV charging projects remain bogged down for a year or more.

Tucker Perkins, president of the Propane Education & Research Council, said the emissions profiles of propane and natural gas are similar. But CNG infrastructure costs can be an order of magnitude higher because of the need for high-pressure compressors and specialized equipment. In contrast, propane stations operate at much lower pressures and can sometimes be installed by fuel providers at their own expense in exchange for a fuel contract.

Strobis said one of his early challenges was “managing fears and misconceptions” about propane safety. He recalled an incident two weeks before Broward’s propane buses entered passenger service, when an electrical fire destroyed one of the vehicles. The local fire chief, hearing propane was onboard, allowed the bus to burn rather than approach it, only to later find that the three-quarter-full propane tank had remained intact.

“These systems are built very, very safely,” Strobis said, noting that his insurance costs did not rise with the switch to propane.

Perkins pointed to the school bus market, where propane has gained significant share, as a strong endorsement. He said long-standing codes, standards and formal training for mechanics and drivers underpin the safety record, while children and operators benefit from cleaner air inside and around the vehicles.

Looking ahead, Dagan said the biggest lever for expanding renewable propane will be state and provincial low carbon fuel standards that reward lower-carbon fuels. Programs in California, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and parts of Canada are already creating value for renewable propane through carbon credits, he said, which should gradually draw more production into the market.

Finnern closed by urging fleets to focus on fundamentals rather than hype.

“At the end of the day, this is about cost, emissions and practicality,” he said. “Propane offers a remarkably compelling balance of all three, and fleets can do it today.”

This article written with the assistance of an AI transcript.

The post Propane Grabs Spotlight as Fleets Seek Less Expensive, Cleaner Fuel appeared first on School Transportation News.

Updated: EPA Seeks to Expand Fuel Scope of Clean School Bus Program

By: Ryan Gray

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing a request for information from school bus industry stakeholders as it seeks to add biodiesel, renewable diesel (RD) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) as funding options to a revised Clean School Bus Program.

EPA also said it will not be awarding funds for the 2024 CSB Rebate Program. “EPA thanks applicants for their interest and encourages them to apply for the new grant program,” EPA said in a press release Thursday. “The agency will provide more details on the 2026 grants and eligibility requirements in the near future through a Notice of Funding Opportunity.”

In a follow-up email sent by School Transportation News asking for clarification on foregoing the 2024 rebate awards and if those same applications would be recycled, EPA referred to its original statement.

Meanwhile, Thursday’s RFI also mentions hydrogen as an eligible fuel listed by the Investing in Infrastructure and Jobs Act, which created the five-year, $5 billion fund. But there are currently no hydrogen school buses in production. The same goes for liquefied natural gas, which differs from propane. The IIJA also mentions CNG, which won a handful of awards, but manufacturers don’t currently produce that fuel option, either.

Diesel-powered school buses do exist in large numbers nationwide, estimated at about 80 percent of the national fleet of approximately 450,000 vehicles. Many operate with biodiesel blended with regular diesel. The RFI specifically states EPA seeks information on B20, or 20 percent biofuel blend with diesel.

Renewable diesel, or RD, is different from biodiesel as the former is produced by a hydrotreating process, making it a hydrocarbon fuel. Because it is otherwise nearly identical to petroleum diesel, RD is a drop-in fuel alternative that diesel engine manufacturers certify for use in their engines without voiding warranties. But RD is more expensive than petroleum diesel except in California, Oregon, New Mexico and Washington, where Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits are at play.

Electric school buses are not a focus of the RFI because EPA said it has sufficient information on its infrastructure, availability and performance.

EPA added electric school buses have accounted for 90 percent of Clean School Bus Program awards to date, and the next funding round should target other allowed alternative fuels “to allow for the maximum number of affordable bus choices to fit school districts’ specific needs.”

What’s in the RFI?

EPA is asking the current availability and anticipated purchasing within the next year to five years of biodiesel, RD, E85 flex fuel, CNG, LNG, propane or any other biofuel and if those school buses are fueled at the school district facility, an offsite private fueling station, or an offsite public station. EPA also wants to know about fuel supplier arrangements.
Specifically for biodiesel and RD, EPA is asking for details on how the blends or drop-in fuels are used.

It requests information on fueling system components, pricing, construction and installation requirements, performance, domestic content, and other practical considerations.

The RFI also states EPA wants information on how it can further safeguard taxpayer dollars. The agency completed an internal review to assess financial management practices and said it uncovered inconsistent documentation, incomplete adherence to reporting an award conditions, improper or premature drawdowns of funds, and insufficient internal controls by certain awardees, including for profit recipients.

EPA said it is “evaluating additional safeguards and conditions for for-profit entities,” which includes audits of financial statements and conflict of interest policies. It is also considering verification tools or documentation to ensure appropriate bus usage and routes before funds are disbursed; milestone-based payment structures, reimbursement-only models, or phased disbursement mechanisms tied to verified delivery to reduce risk and improve accountability; and enforcement mechanisms such as repayment obligations or clawback provisions in cases of nonperformance, noncompliance, or misuse of funds.

The Clean School Bus Program is set to expire at the end of the current fiscal year, which would require the remaining $2 billion that has yet to be awarded needing to rollout over the next six months.

Public comments are due within 45 days of EPA publishing the RFI in the Federal Register. A webinar is scheduled for March 3.


Related: EPA ‘Revamping’ Clean School Bus Program
Related: Engine, Truck Manufacturers Support EPA Easing Derate of SCR Diesel Emissions Controls
Related: Deploying Electric School Buses in Rural and Suburban Districts

The post Updated: EPA Seeks to Expand Fuel Scope of Clean School Bus Program appeared first on School Transportation News.

❌