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.
Login
