In Sacramento, California, the Twin Rivers, Elk Grove and Sacramento City Unified School Districts are receiving 29 total electric school buses along with associated charging infrastructure, which demonstrates a zero-emissions school transportation market that despite still being in its infancy is growing up fast.
Twin Rivers Unified School District is upbeat about the purchase. It will bring buses with zero emissions against the new federal regulations as well as the tough state requirements of California. Timothy Shannon, director of transportation for Twin Rivers, said the district is receiving a total of 16 electric school buses, with eight already in the fleet.
The first eight are eLion all-electric school buses manufactured by Canadian company Lion Bus. The remainder are TransTech Type-A school buses with electric drives provided by Motiv Power Systems.
“Currently we have a temporary infrastructure that will charge five buses at a time,” he added. “We are working with our local power company to upgrade infrastructure.”
Funded in-part by a grant from the California Air Resources Board, the project is touted as the largest U.S. deployment of zero-emission school buses to date, to provide sustainable transportation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is representative of what the industry is likely to see more of over the next decade as manufacturers, dealers, technology providers and school transporters respond to the impending Phase 2 federal Greenhouse Gas Emission regulations, which, barring any governmental delay or repeal, target a reduction in NOx emissions to the 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard. It is set to go into effect in next year.
The regulations aim to achieve long-standing goals to lower overall emissions from diesel engines. In short, Phase 2 mandates manufacturers and dealers of buses and associated technology to offer the specified power of the bus with more efficient and clean technology. Technologies have been introduced to use less fuel, burn cleaner alternative fuels, or consume no fuel at all via electric power.
The regulation took effect by executive order of President Obama. However, the possibility exists that it could be repealed by the new administration. President Trump ordered a review of fuel efficiency standards for cars in mid-March, implying that such regulation serves as an obstacle to automobile manufacturing and jobs.
Footing the Bill
For schools, however, new technology and especially new buses are costly. Funding assistance for new technology and new assets, though limited, is available from several sources.
Joe Annotti is a consultant with Gladstein, Neandross and Associates, which specializes in market development for low-emission and alternative fuel vehicle technologies, infrastructure and fuels for both on- and off-road applications. Annotti, a former U.S. EPA staffer who was a chief architect of the National Clean Diesel Rebate Program, speaks of two principal sources of funding to replace aging buses.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) was passed by Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 with the goal of reducing diesel exhaust from older engines used in on- and non-road vehicles, including trucks, school buses, marine engines, construction equipment, and locomotives, among others. It currently allocates about $11 million for emissions reduction project and the House Appropriations Committee approved a 20-percent hike for FY 2017.
The DERA program operates under the administration of EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC). It started funding grants in 2009 and has since awarded over $500 million to replace, re-power, or retrofit nearly 60,000 pieces of diesel equipment.
“Each year since 2009, EPA has opened the Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, which is a competitive grant application open to eligible entities nationwide,” says Annotti. “School bus projects of all fuel types are eligible to compete against other on- and non-road vehicles and equipment. Beginning in 2012, the DERA Program created the School Bus Replacement Program, which offered rebates to school districts to replace older school buses with newer vehicles. In this first round of funding, EPA offered a total of $2 million and rebates covered 25 percent of the new school bus cost. EPA now offers this program on an annual basis.”
The funding appears to be hardly enough to go around to all schools. A new school bus may cost upwards of $100,000. Plus, there’s infrastructure that goes with the price tag to enable electric buses, for example, to recharge with sufficient charging stations. In addition, though DERA is one of the only funding sources with some allocation earmarked just for school buses, other transport modes compete for funding.
Another funding source with more resources is the Volkswagen Mitigation Trust Fund. The $2.7 billion fund is made possible by legal settlements by VW for tampering with fuel consumption standards in 2.0-liter and 3.0-liter passenger vehicles. Most of the $2.7 billion is available nationwide, with about $800 million earmarked for California’s stringent emission requirements.
The VW Mitigation Trust Fund, like DERA, must be shared with different commercial transportation modes. But its future is finite and, thus, it’s not consistent and ongoing source of funding. It will dry up over the next decade. “The VW Mitigation Trust Fund will be managed at the state level so it will ultimately be up to each state to decide how to use their funds,” adds Annotti. “The states can select from among 10 different project types, including school buses, medium- and heavy-duty trucks, drayage trucks, marine shore power, and locomotives, among others. The important point to note here is that, while school buses are eligible, each state may choose to direct its funds to some of the other project types. In other words, it is very important that school transportation and fleet managers reach out to their state funding agencies to recommend that funds be directed to school bus projects.”
“It’s kind of early to determine who’s going to get what,” comments Robert T. Pudlewski, an industry consultant and the retired vice president of procurement for Laidlaw Transit Services. “It’s not like going to the store to get some money.”
Pudlewski explains that, in the past, public transit has implemented more technologies to assist in cleaner burning power trains. The Federal Transit Administration, which receives budgets funding from the U.S. Treasury, and differs from the relatively scant funds available from the EPA, aided public transit bus investment.
He adds that school districts rely on their local governments to make investments. School boards are very prudent about what they fund; they have a long list of capital improvements and programs that take priority.
For alternative technologies and lower emissions, grants and trust funds are one of the only way that schools can get new and improved buses. Simply put, if grant money was paying for a cleaner burning school bus, the school districts would go for it. If not, it the school board via the local government budget must fund new buses by other means. Likely candidates include taxes, bond referendums or other sources, and in a local municipal environment that already has many needs to fill. “Whenever I speak before a group of school transportation professionals about the topic I always ask. ‘Who would buy a clean burning bus with such new technology if a grant was not paying for it?’ There would never be a hand up,” says Pudlewski.
Implementing New Technology
School districts are responding to available grant and trust funds, when and where available. Like those districts around Sacramento, a slowly increasing number of schools are buying new alternative fuel buses such as propane and CNG, and a smaller number in California and New England are securing grants for electric drives. Others are opting for lower-emission technology such as improved transmissions. The technology is often made possible through funding assistance. Lion Bus, the Canadian manufacturer, produces electric school buses as well as diesel. For the former, the company touts its products as having a range of 75 miles, which can save $28,000 in fuel costs annually. It also boasts low maintenance with a longer lifecycle. Of course, it’s also free of emissions. This is not only good for the environment, but also for the safety of students who avoid inhaling higher levels of toxic fumes from vehicle exhaust. For electric buses, range remains a constant consideration, which currently can limit the viability of electric technology, not to mention the necessary infrastructure to support it. Electric does not yet make sense for student transporters operation school bus routes or more than 30 miles one way, especially those in rural areas. More charging stations not only around town but throughout counties are required. Despite all this, school districts are slowly buying buses with clean technology and better energy conservation—but usually with assistance.
Alternative fuel is another option. Some school districts are turning to clean burning propane instead of diesel fuel. West Virginia’s Monongalia County Schools operates 11 propane school buses, with two more recently ordered. District officials say they are pleased with the quieter, cleaner-burning buses.
The purchase decision was influenced by a reduced total cost of ownership. Though the initial outlay of the propane buses versus diesel was between $8,000 and $8,500 more, the propane combustion costs about 18 cents per mile with a payback in about nine years. During an STN webinar in March, Steve Smith, the director of transportation for MSD Warren Township School Corporation in Indiana that operates more than a dozen propane school buses, said he’s seen the incremental cost fall to just more than $5,000 per bus.
In South Carolina, the state legislature is stepping in, despite tight budgets, to buy buses that burn propane. In South Carolina, the state owns, operates and maintains nearly all of the 5,600 school buses.
Most are older diesel buses—beyond 15 years—with odometer readings in excess of 200,000 miles. Ten years ago, the state legislature passed a law requiring the State Board of Education to replace a fraction of their total school bus fleet each year with new models—not just for energy. Until now though lawmakers had only produced enough funding to meet the very mandate they imposed.
They are finally coming through on their promise. The South Carolina Department of Education recently purchased 26 propane school buses for Berkeley County School District and Dorchester District 2. OEMs are anticipating an up-tick in demand for new technology to meet regulatory demands as Phase 2 comes into being. They have the burden of providing new technology that meets the new stricter requirements on NOx emissions.
For instance, Allison transmissions, which are the prevalent drivetrains currently used in school buses across the nation, this spring introduced its updated FuelSense 2.0 technology that delivers new fuel savings and up to six percent additional fuel savings over the original software. It has enhanced its transmissions with mechanical control that lowers fuel consumption and emissions by reducing or eliminating the load on the engine when the vehicle is stopped, and limits the rate of acceleration by the operator by limiting the applied torque.
This news came on the heels of Cummins and Eaton announcing a 50-50 joint venture that infuses $600 million of Cummins money into the transmission manufacturer to develop next-generation products as well as for Eaton’s existing Procision dual-clutch automatic transmission.
As technology ramps up, more electric and clean-burning school buses will come on the scene as will additional fuel-saving solutions. But school districts and their aging fleets will continue to face a common dilemma: Too many needs chasing too few fiscal resources. With upcoming Phase 2 greenhouse gas emissions regulations, school buses will be one of those needs competing for scarce resources to bring the compliant technologies into effect, to ultimately and safely transport a growing population base of students.
Reprinted from the June 2017 issue of School Transportation News
