EDITOR’S TAKE


Moving Target? Written by Ryan Gray | ryan@stnonline.com T


he electric school bus landscape is fraught with unknowns. Not long ago, that meant range anxiety, infrastructure challenges, supply chain disruption, lengthy delays in receiving orders


from the manufacturers, and not knowing when the pur- chase price would come down. At least student transporters knew Uncle Sam could foot


some or most of the bill for the next couple of years. Last April, the conversation in this magazine on


electric school buses, or ESBs, centered on cold-weather operations. The chill in today’s air, at this writing, has been the freeze of future U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean School Bus Program funding. While the industry received good news in late February


that the Clean School Bus Program portal was reopened for round one and two rebates and grants, 2023 rebate funds were not available for withdrawal at at press time. The yellow school bus and reducing harmful die- sel emissions from them should be an easy sell. The program also has backing on both sides of the congres- sional aisle. One of the most recent calls to release the funding came via a Feb. 27 letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. The letter, signed by 18 Democratic senators and led by Sen. Edward Markey of Pennsylvania, notes the Clean School Bus Program supporting 8,500 clean school bus projects in more than 1,200 school districts through fiscal year 2024. The letter also asked when the rest of funds would be released. Zeldin had not responded at this writing. There was no word when the Clean School Bus Pro- gram would resume, not to mention when awards from the most recent rebate program would be announced. The EPA website still says 2024 rebate selection notifica- tions are scheduled for next month. We will wait and see. Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and


Jobs Act that called for $5 billion over five years. There is $2.2 billion remaining to be spent. It would seem unlikely for Congress to end the program prematurely. But budget trimming has become quite the fashion in Washington, D.C. As of early March, the World Resource Institute’s Elec-


tric School Bus Initiative reports there were 5,123 ESBs delivered or in operation nationwide but another 8,757 committed or awarded. It’s important to note that nearly 96 percent of Clean School Bus Program funds have gone toward purchasing electric school buses, the re-


12 School Transportation News • APRIL 2025


mainder propane buses or a negligible amount of CNG. Meanwhile, last month Zeldin announced he was


halting multiple EPA regulations for further review, especially those deemed by the Trump administration to be an “electric mandate.” There is no such mandate at the federal level, per se. But one could argue that EPA’s Phase III GHG emissions regulation, among three dozen regu- lations under review by Zeldin’s office, essentially forces truck and bus operators to switch to zero-emissions vehicles for a lack of readily available alternatives, at least in the quantities that states and school districts need. The electric school bus movement is too large to fail,


with OEMs investing millions of dollars on R&D and school districts investing millions more of taxpayer money on vehicle purchasing and related infrastruc- ture. Minus the Clean School Bus Program, the impetus to continue electric programs could fall squarely on the shoulders of states based on school district demand. The Californias and New Yorks of the world have al-


ready made up their minds that electric school buses are the path forward, and they have the deep pockets and political will to continue subsidizing programs. For most other states, especially if EPA rolls back Phase III, diesel will remain entrenched as the only choice for many. Adding to the options available in 2027, Cummins’ gasoline engine is slated for full production that year. Last month, the company announced its new diesel engine that meets Phase III will also launch in 2027. We must wait and see if or when more propane options become available to the marketplace. Could this all lead to more renewable diesel? So far, RD


has only made inroads to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard states of California, Oregon, Washington and New Mexi- co, which subsidize the premium price and drive supply to market. That path has always made a lot of sense to me, as the drop-in fuel reduces GHG, NOx and PM compared to regular diesel and meets engine warranty requirements. Student transporters have challenging school bus


purchasing and energy adoption decisions to make over the next four years. That might not seem like a long time until you realize that’s one-third of an average school bus lifecycle. ●


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56