ZERO EMISSIONS amass nu 10 MINUTES on LESS - INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY . CLEAN ENERGY Wd?m'f at?? ., . . . -mc?W?aM} "mtg; Electric Buses Clean Transportation for Healthier Neighborhoods and Cleaner Air ?Us Education Fuml AMERICA RESEARCH POLICY CENTER Electric Buses Clean Transportation for Healthier Neighborhoods and Cleaner Air Alana Miller and Hye-Jin Kim, Frontier Group Jeffrey Robinson and Matthew Casale, U.S. PIRG Education Fund May 2018 Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Kelly Blynn, Master of Science in Transportation and Master in City Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Kevin Brubaker, Deputy Director, Environmental Law & Policy Center; Morgan Ellis, Associate Director Clean Transportation for All Campaign, Sierra Club; Michelle Kinman, Charge Ahead California Campaign Director, Environment California; Mark LeBel, Staff Attorney, Acadia Center; Susan Mudd, Senior Policy Advocate, Environmental Law & Policy Center and Will Toor, Transportation Program Director, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project for their review of drafts of this document, as well as their insights and suggestions. Thanks also to Tony Dutzik and Rachel J. Cross of Frontier Group for editorial support. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. Policy recommendations are those of U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Environment America Research & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.  2018, U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Environment America Research & Policy Center. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. To view the terms of this license, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/. With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, U.S. PIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer meaningful opportunities for civic participation. For more information about U.S. PIRG Education Fund or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.uspirgedfund.org. Environment America Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting our air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision-makers, and help the public make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. For more information, please visit www.environmentamericacenter.org. Frontier Group provides information and ideas to help citizens build a cleaner, healthier and more democratic America. We address issues that will define our nation’s course in the 21st century – from fracking to solar energy, global warming to transportation, clean water to clean elections. Our experts and writers deliver timely research and analysis that is accessible to the public, applying insights gleaned from a variety of disciplines to arrive at new ideas for solving pressing problems. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org. Cover: Children - U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Marissa Tucker; Pollution - Rockford’s New Country Q98.5 via YouTube (with permission); Electric bus - Flickr user SounderBruce, CC BY-SA 2.0. Layout: Alec Meltzer/meltzerdesign.net Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 4 Pollution from Transportation Threatens Public Health 6 Children Are Especially Vulnerable to Exhaust Pollution Dirty Buses Expose Children and Neighborhoods to Dangerous Pollution 8 8 Most of America’s Buses Still Run on Dirty Fuels School Buses Transit Buses Clean, All-Electric Buses Make Economic Sense for America’s Schools and Cities Long-Term Affordability Increasing Range Improved Reliability 11 11 12 14 14 19 20 Major Cities and States Take the Lead on Bus Electrification 21 Opportunities to Shift to Electric Buses 23 Recommendations 27 Methodology 28 Appendix A: Bus Fleets of America’s 50 Largest Transit Agencies (by Number of Active Buses), 2016 30 Appendix B: Proposed Electric Bus Plans for Some of America’s Largest Transit Agencies 34 Notes 35 Executive Summary B uses play a key role in in our nation’s transportation system, carrying millions of children daily to and from school and moving millions of Americans each day around our cities. Buses reduce the number of individual cars on our roads, make our communities more livable and sustainable, and provide transportation options for people of all ages and abilities. Yet, the majority of America’s buses remain dirty – burning fossil fuels like diesel that put the health of our children and communities at risk and contribute to global warming: • Approximately 95 percent of America’s school buses, carrying some of the most vulnerable passengers, run on diesel.1 • More than 60 percent of the nation’s nearly 70,000 transit buses run on diesel, and another 18 percent run on natural gas, while just 0.2 percent of buses are all-electric.2 Numerous studies have shown that inhaling diesel exhaust can cause respiratory diseases and worsen existing conditions like asthma. The negative effects are especially pronounced in children. • Diesel exhaust is internationally recognized as a cancer-causing agent and classified as a likely carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.3 • In a study of 61 million people in 2015, researchers found that exposure to diesel soot and ground-level ozone created by diesel exhaust was linked to higher rates of mortality.4 Diesel exhaust from buses poses a particular risk to health. Buses primarily travel where there are lots of people, including in the more densely-crowded areas of cities, on the busiest roads, and near schools. They also circulate continuously and make many trips, and therefore risk exposing many people to emissions. The good news is that America can clean up its buses by making them electric. All-electric buses are here, and they’re cleaner, healthier and often cheaper for transit agencies, school districts and bus contractors to run in the long-term. Executive Summary 1 To clear our air and protect our health, policymakers should accelerate the replacement of diesel and other fossil fuelpowered buses with clean, electric buses. • Replacing all of America’s school buses with electric buses could avoid an average of 5.3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year.5 • Replacing all of the diesel-powered transit buses with electric buses in the United States could save more than 2 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year.6 Dramatic declines in battery costs and improvements in performance, including expanded driving range, have made electric buses a viable alternative to diesel-powered and other fossil fuel buses. • Each electric school bus can save districts nearly $2,000 a year in fuel and $4,400 a year in reduced maintenance costs, saving tens of thousands of dollars over the lifetime of a bus.7 • The Chicago Transit Authority estimates that each electric transit bus in its fleet saves the city $25,000 in fuel costs every year.8 Cities in the United States and around the world are taking the lead, committing to transition to cleaner, quieter and more efficient electric bus fleets. • The idea of all-electric school buses is spreading across the country and pilot programs are now underway in states including California, Massachusetts and Minnesota. Figure ES-1. Estimated Annual Operating Costs of Transit Buses, by Fuel Type9 Annual Operating Cost Fuel & Maintenance $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 Diesel 2 Electric Buses Natural Gas Diesel Hybrid Electric • The mayors of Los Angeles and Seattle have joined a pact with 10 other mayors around the world to purchase only electric transit buses after 2025.10 Los Angeles County’s transit agency, Metro, committed to go all-electric by 2030, while Shenzhen, China, transitioned its 16,000 buses to electric in December 2017.11 With reduced operating costs and no tailpipe emissions, all-electric buses and charging stations can be a smart infrastructure investment for school districts and transit providers across the country. Electrifying buses is also an important first step towards broader adoption of heavy-duty electric vehicles, like trucks. While buses themselves account for a relatively small percentage of vehicle emissions, heavy duty vehicles as a whole are responsible for over a quarter of climate emissions from on-road transportation in the U.S.12 To support more widespread adoption, state governments should: • Allocate settlement money from Volkswagen’s “Dieselgate” settlement to subsidize the purchase of electric school and transit buses, as well as charging infrastructure. • Create incentive programs and grants for transit agencies, school districts and bus contractors to help finance the upfront cost of electric buses and charging infrastructure. • Facilitate the installation of charging infrastructure through programs that help cover the costs. • Encourage utilities to design their rates in ways that support electric buses. • Consider low-cost financing programs that help agencies, districts and bus contractors leverage other sources of funding, like Volkswagen settlement money. • Identify other ways to ensure successful electrification of buses, including technical assistance and research, as well as the publication of data and lessons learned. Transit agencies, school districts and bus contractors should: • Replace buses powered by fossil fuels with the cleanest possible technology for the health of future generations: allelectric. • Consider adopting goals to repower the entire fleet with electric buses over one replacement cycle. • Ask state governments and beneficiary agencies to dedicate funds from the Volkswagen settlement to electric buses. • Prepare for future adoption of electric buses by running electrical conduits necessary for charging infrastructure during any new construction or reconstruction of depots and parking lots. Executive Summary 3 Introduction B uses are the workhorses of America’s transportation system, carrying millions of Americans of all ages to school, work, shopping, recreation and other places they need to go. Buses travel on city streets and rural roads, serving every kind of community – and delivering benefits across the country. Though the humble school bus isn’t the first thing that pops to mind when it comes to public transit, the quintessential yellow bus is what half of all American kids take to public school each day.13 With 480,000 school buses carrying up to 26 million children to school each day, school buses are the largest form of mass transportation in the country.14 The American School Bus Council found that in 2010, school buses saved parents $6 billion in fuel costs and prevented 2.3 billion gallons of gasoline from being burned.15 Trips on transit buses account for nearly half of all public transit use in the U.S. – more than 3.5 billion rides were taken in the first three quarters of 2017, according to the American Public Transportation Association.16 Public transit saves an estimated 37 million metric tons of carbon 4 Electric Buses emissions and 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline each year.17 Energy savings and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases aren’t the only benefits of buses. Buses provide a critical form of transportation to those who cannot or do not wish to drive – including children, the elderly and disabled people. Reliance on buses and other forms of public transportation can free households of the burden of owning a car (or owning an additional car), saving thousands of dollars each year. Buses are also safe. Traditional school buses are designed with high-backed cushioned seats, crush-resistant roofs, and rollover protection to keep children from major harm.18 According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), riding a school bus to school is 70 times safer than traveling by car.19 Transit buses are also safe, with much lower crash rates and fatality rates 60 times lower than cars, per million miles traveled.20 However, buses have traditionally had a major flaw that reduces the benefits they deliver to Americans and our communities: pollution. Numerous scientific studies have shown that diesel exhaust isn’t just smelly, but is also dangerous, with links to lung cancer, asthma and even autism.21 Children – including children riding on school buses – are among the most vulnerable to the health effects of diesel pollution. As research began to pile up on the dangers of diesel soot, government and industry worked together to make diesel buses cleaner and introduce newer fuels that produce less tailpipe pollution. In spite of these efforts, more than half of America’s transit buses continue to run on diesel fuel.22 And though less-polluting models of diesel buses were a welcome improvement, technology now exists that can dramatically reduce the remaining health threats posed by diesel buses: the all-electric, battery-powered bus. In this report, we review the exciting advances in electric bus technology, highlight the cities that are pioneering the use of electric buses in schools and transit agencies, and demonstrate why the transition to electric buses is needed to protect public health and reduce emissions of the pollutants that cause global warming. Some transit and school buses are publicly owned and operated, while others are owned or operated by private contractors. Public policy can play an important role in moving both of these models toward electric buses. By transitioning from dirty fossil fuels to clean electricity, the humble bus can fully deliver on its potential to offer clean, accessible, convenient and low-carbon transportation across America. Introduction 5 Pollution from Transportation Threatens Public Health T ransportation produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector in the United States and diesel buses are highly polluting vehicles. For example, in California, transportation contributes nearly 40 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, with heavyduty vehicles responsible for nearly a fifth of those emissions.23 Heavy-duty vehicles like buses also produce large quantities of air pollution, impacting the health of residents and school children in the populous areas they serve. Diesel exhaust from tailpipes is a dangerous pollutant – one that is common in the air in urban areas and places with frequent truck and bus traffic, including the schools where our children learn and play. The main pollutants emitted by diesel vehicles are particulate matter (very fine particles that can be harmful when inhaled), nitrogen oxides (which contribute to smog and ground-level ozone), hydrocarbons (which can cause cancer) and carbon monoxide (which can be dangerous in high concentrations).24 These pollutants 6 Electric Buses contribute to a variety of known health impacts, including: Mortality risk: A 2017 study in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated the levels of air pollution experienced by 61 million Medicare beneficiaries between 2000 and 2012, based on their zip codes.25 The researchers linked exposure to fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone to higher rates of mortality.26 The study concluded that exposure to particulate matter and ozone, even at levels below national standards, contributes to adverse health impacts.27 Cancer rates: Diesel soot contains more than 40 toxic chemicals, including known or suspected carcinogens such as benzene, arsenic and formaldehyde.28 Diesel exhaust itself is classified as a potential cancer agent by the U.S. EPA, and at least 19 of the hydrocarbons it contains are known to or suspected to cause cancer.29 In 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer elevated the risk of diesel exhaust from “potentially carcinogenic” to “carcinogenic with sufficient evidence.”30 Specifically, exposure to diesel exhaust has been linked to higher rates of lung cancer and greater risk for bladder cancer.31 Respiratory concerns: Diesel pollution can also lead to decreased lung function, respiratory tract inflammation and irritation, persistent wheezing, and aggravated asthma symptoms.32 Tiny particles of diesel soot (fine particulate matter, referred to as PM2.5 for the maximum size of the particles, 2.5 micrometers) are especially hazardous because they can enter deep into lower airways, carrying toxic chemicals such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that irritate the respiratory tract.33 Diesel exhaust also contains ultrafine particulate matter (the smallest airborne particles, measuring from nanometers to a few micrometers), which is unregulated and may pose an even greater health threat, since the small size of the particles allows them to travel deeper into people’s lungs and bloodstream.34 Other impacts: Also present in diesel soot are tiny particles of carbon, metal oxides and heavy metals that have been linked to negative health impacts.35 Diesel pollution contributes to other environmental and public health problems, including smog, acid rain and global warming. Though transit systems using diesel buses avert emissions when compared to driving single-occupancy vehicles, buses in the United States produced 19.8 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2015.36 Limits of “Clean” Diesel Technology I ncreased awareness about the public health threats from diesel pollution has led environmental agencies and industry to limit emissions from diesel engines. While these efforts have reduced the dangers posed by diesel, none have been entirely successful in providing adequate protection for the environment and public health. The EPA adopted more stringent diesel pollution standards in 2000, limiting the amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuel, and the amount of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides that could be emitted from diesel vehicles. Specifically, the regulation required that: • Starting in 2006 and phasing in through 2009, diesel fuel for vehicles had to be low sulfur. Ultra-low sulfur diesel produces 10 to 50 percent less soot when burned compared to traditional diesel.37 • Starting in 2007, diesel vehicles manufactured had to emit 90 percent less particulate matter than previous models.38 • Half of diesel vehicles sold between 2007 and 2009 had to emit 95 percent less nitrogen oxides and reduce emissions of harmful hydrocarbons.39 By 2010, all diesel engines sold were to comply.40 However, despite these efforts, burning diesel for transportation remains dirty. Even in lower concentrations, the soot, chemicals and other emissions from diesel exhaust are potent public health threats. Some components of diesel exhaust, like ultrafine particles, pose health threats but remain unregulated. Furthermore, regulations on diesel exhaust often fail to protect public health, as illustrated by recent scandals in which diesel vehicles were found to emit much higher levels of pollution during real-world driving than during required testing. In 2015, Volkswagen admitted it had intentionally manufactured diesel vehicles that only used pollution controls during laboratory tests, emitting up to 40 times more nitrogen oxide pollution while driving.41 Eleven million Volkswagen cars were affected, while other major car companies have been accused of using similar devices, including Chrysler and Mitsubishi.42 The technology available today to limit air pollution from diesel engines remains inadequate, especially when compared to zero-emission electric buses that are already on the market and are increasingly affordable and reliable. Moreover, electric buses will get cleaner as our electricity grid is increasingly powered by renewable energy. Pollution from Transportation Threatens Public Health 7 Children Are Especially Vulnerable to Exhaust Pollution Children are most vulnerable to the negative health effects caused by air pollution; their respiratory systems are still developing and they inhale more air per pound of body weight than adults.43 Diesel pollution is especially dangerous – for children, there is no established safe level of exposure to diesel exhaust pollutants.44 Credit: ThoseGuys119 via Flickr, CC BY 2.0. Numerous studies have found that air pollution harms a child’s lungs, especially if the child already suffers from asthma. A 2010 study conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, linked exposure to air pollution with altered gene expression among asthmatic children in California.45 Other studies have concluded that exposure to hydrocarbons from diesel exhaust in early childhood could increase the likelihood of developing asthma.46 In 2013, another set of researchers looked specifically at the impact of diesel exhaust particles on children in Cincinnati and concluded the diesel exhaust made the children more susceptible to asthma by turning off certain genes.47 Most recently, a 2017 Rutgers University study on 8 Electric Buses asthmatic children living near an industrial New Jersey seaport with heavy diesel truck traffic found that greater exposure to carbon soot coincided with markers for lung inflammation.48 Air pollution found in diesel exhaust – particulate matter and metals like nickel and manganese – can also be harmful to developing fetuses. Researchers found a significant relationship between a pregnant mother’s exposure to diesel soot and the chances her child could develop autism, adding to the body of evidence that air pollution, as early as in utero, is harmful for child development.49 Concerns about the effects of diesel exhaust on children’s health are particularly troubling since millions of children spend considerable time each day on diesel buses – and many more attend schools where diesel buses pick up and drop off passengers and often idle with their engines running. Studies, such as the ones described above, looking specifically at emissions from diesel buses have verified those concerns. Dirty Buses Expose Children and Neighborhoods to Dangerous Pollution Air pollution from buses is a particular threat since buses transport large numbers of people and make many trips through densely populated areas. There are a number of ways that people are exposed to dangerous pollution from buses: At School: Buses idling in front of schools are one way that children (along with their guardians and teachers) may be exposed to toxic diesel fumes. According to the EPA, air pollution at schools, including concentrations of benzene and formaldehyde, is higher during the hour when children are being picked up.50 A 2013 study by researchers in Cincinnati found that concentrations of particulate matter and carbon at a school with many idling buses significantly decreased after a campaign to stop idling.51 While Riding the Bus: A real-time analysis in 2005 found that air quality inside a vehicle’s cabin worsened when following a diesel bus – a troubling fact given that school bus caravans are common, especially on field trips or for sports events, and also an indicator of the sheer volume of pollution produced by buses, especially older ones.52 The study found that the level of soot, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides to which passengers were exposed was 11 times higher when following a diesel bus compared to following no vehicle, and eight times higher than when trailing a gasoline vehicle.53 A number of studies have indicated that diesel fumes from school buses, particularly older ones, may “self-pollute,” or cause air pollution within the bus itself. A 2001 study by NRDC and the Coalition for Clean Air found that diesel pollution inside school buses was up to four times higher than levels of pollution in cars driving in front of the buses.54 A 2008 study of air pollution in diesel school buses in Austin, Texas also found higher concentrations of ultrafine particulate matter inside buses.55 Higher levels of fine particulate matter and carbon were also found in school buses compared to air pollution in vehicles driving in front of the buses during a 2010 study in Seattle.56 In the Community: Another way people are exposed to dirty diesel pollution from buses is simply by living or working near the busy roads on which buses and other vehicles travel. More than 45 million Americans live within 300 feet of busy roads or other major transportation infrastructure, according to the U.S. EPA, and are at risk of exposure to dangerous pollutants in exhaust.57 Pollution from traffic is highest near roads and can harm lung function, induce asthma in children, and increase the risk of death from heart disease.58 Studies have also linked air pollution to problems with cognition. A 2017 cohort study of 2.2 million people in Ontario, Canada, found that residents living closer to busy roads had higher rates of dementia.59 Reducing the number of cars on the road by expanding transit and other options, and electrifying vehicles, particularly the most-polluting like buses, can help reduce the health threats posed by busy roads. Pollution from Transportation Threatens Public Health 9 Natural Gas Buses Contribute to Global Warming N atural gas buses are often touted as a cleaner alternative to diesel and it was once thought that they would offer a climate benefit. While they can offer reduced nitrogen oxide emissions, natural gas buses may emit more greenhouse gas emissions than their diesel equivalents, largely due to low fuel economy. The primary component of natural gas is methane, which is a powerful global warming pollutant. Over 20 years, methane traps 86 to 105 times more heat in the atmosphere than does the same amount of carbon dioxide.60 As a result, even small methane leaks during the production, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas negate its lower emissions of carbon dioxide during combustion. Considering emissions produced outside of the bus’s operation, natural gas-powered buses likely create more global warming pollution than diesel-powered buses. A study by the environmental consulting firm M.J. Bradley & Associates compared tailpipe emissions of compressed natural gas transit buses and diesel transit buses, finding that carbon dioxide emissions were similar for the two types of buses.61 However, in a lifecycle analysis (well-to-wheels, accounting for emissions from fuel production and driving), the natural gas buses were responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the diesel buses – contributing up to 13.3 additional tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions each year.62 Another study, by the international consulting firm Ricardo, concluded that greenhouse gas emissions are higher for natural gas buses compared to diesel buses.63 In a lifecycle well-to-wheels analysis, the study found that natural 10 Electric Buses gas-powered buses emitted 6 percent more annual greenhouse gas emissions than diesel buses.64 A 2015 study by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University also found that, compared to conventional diesel transit buses, natural gas buses are responsible for 6 percent more lifetime greenhouse gas emissions.65 The extraction and production of natural gas can also cause air pollution and health impacts near gas operations. For example: • In Northeastern Colorado, a study by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado traced high levels of volatile organic compounds, precursors to ground level ozone, back to oil and gas operations.66 • In 2011, ozone levels in rural Wyoming exceeded the worst air pollution days in Los Angeles. 67 The worst days exceeded the EPA’s healthy limit, prompting the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality to urge the elderly and children to stay indoors.68 • A 2014 study in Utah linked oil and gas operations to the accumulation of air pollution and production of ground level ozone.69 Even in a best-case scenario, with near-zero emissions emitted from the buses themselves, reliance on natural gas cannot achieve deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and worsens air pollution and health impacts where it is being extracted. Transitioning America’s electricity grid to renewable energy and switching to electric transportation is the cleanest and safest option. Most of America’s Buses Still Run on Dirty Fuels T oday, most of the nation’s public bus fleet continues to run on diesel, though all-electric models are becoming a viable and permanent solution to diesel pollution. School Buses Nearly a half-million school buses were on the roads in 2017, outnumbering transit buses roughly 12 to 1.70 School buses come in a variety of sizes – some seat 20 children, while others can seat up to 90.71 Around 25 million students ride school buses each day.72 Many of the school buses that children ride each day are old enough to predate the EPA’s latest diesel emission standards.73 According to a 2015 survey, the average age of a school bus in operation was 9.3 years, and school buses can operate for up to 16 years, suggesting that many school buses on America’s streets were likely purchased before the 2007 clean diesel rules took place.74 One estimate puts the number of pre-2007 school buses still on America’s streets at 250,000.75 Even newer buses likely run on diesel, with an estimated 95 percent of school buses in the country using diesel.76 The fuel efficiency of traditional dieselpowered school buses that fit 40 to 50 students is 7 miles per gallon (mpg), while hybrids average 9 mpg.77 This puts a heavy cost burden on school districts: according to the American School Bus Council, districts pay an average of $6,600 each year in diesel fuel costs for every school bus in operation.78 This also results in a significant amount of emissions, since school buses collectively traveled an estimated 3.3 billion miles in 2017.79 Switching to electric school buses offers the greatest opportunity to reduce emissions and schools’ fuel costs. Electric school buses can get the equivalent of 17 miles per diesel gallon equivalent, and as America’s electricity grid shifts to renewable energy, the buses will increasingly run on clean energy.80 Replacing all of America’s school buses with electric buses could avoid more than 5.3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year and save more than $3 billion in diesel costs for school districts.81 Most of America’s Buses Still Run on Dirty Fuels 11 Transit Buses Though public buses help reduce overall transportation emissions by keeping individual cars off the road, all-electric fleets could yield even cleaner air. The transportation sector is responsible for 27 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., and public transportation buses on American streets collectively burned over 430 million gallons of diesel in 2014.82 According to the 2016 National Transit Database compiled by the Department of Transportation, 60 percent of transit buses active in the U.S. – more than 40,000 of 67,000 total – were conventional buses running on diesel.83 Hybrid diesel buses made up another 12 percent of transit buses, while nearly 18 percent were powered by compressed natural gas.84 Less than 1 percent of transit buses were powered entirely by electricity. (See Figure 1.)85 It is possible that more than half of buses on the road predate the latest EPA standard on diesel pollution. According to the 2016 National Transit Database, nearly 38 percent of the nation’s active diesel bus fleet was manufactured prior to 2007 (the year that more stringent diesel standards went into effect) and have not been rebuilt.87 An additional 7,400 buses, or 18 percent of the current fleet, were manufactured between 2007 and 2010, and haven’t been rebuilt, so they may not meet current standards for nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon pollution.88 Diesel buses average an estimated 4 miles per gallon; natural gas-powered buses don’t fare much better, averaging just 4.5 miles per gallon (in diesel-equivalent mileage), while diesel hybrid buses average 5 miles per gallon.89 Electric buses, on the other hand, are four times more energy efficient than diesel or natural gas buses, averaging over 17 miles per diesel gallon equivalent. (See Figure 2.)90 Replacing polluting diesel transit buses with electric buses could greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and benefits would continue to grow as America transitions to clean, renewable energy. Replacing all of the diesel-powered transit buses with electric buses in the United States could save more than 2 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year.91 Figure 1. Percent of Active Transit Buses in the U.S. by Fuel Type86 Unknown/Other 7% Hybrid Electric Diesel 12% Compressed Natural Gas 17% Gasoline 4% Compressed Natural Gas Electric 0% Electric Diesel Fuel Gasoline Hybrid Electric Diesel Unknown/Other Diesel Fuel 60% 12 Electric Buses Figure 2. Distance Traveled per Gallon of Diesel (*or Diesel-Equivalent) Diesel: 4 miles Natural Gas: 4.5 miles* Diesel Hybrid: 5 miles Electric: 17 miles* Electric buses are 3 - 4 times more energy efficient than diesel or natural gas buses On a local level, transit agencies can help cities reduce their contribution to global warming by switching to electric buses. For instance, if Chicago Transit Authority replaced its 1,653 diesel buses with electric buses, it would save nearly 55,000 tons of greenhouse gases each year, equivalent to taking more than 10,000 cars off the roads. The transit agency serving Philadelphia, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, could avert 22,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year, akin to taking more than 4,000 cars off the road; replacing Denver’s 828 diesel buses would save nearly 47,000 tons of global warming emissions each year, equivalent to removing more than 9,000 personal vehicles. (See Table 1. See Appendix A for a full list of America’s 50 largest transit agencies.)92 By expanding transit options and improving bus service, while switching to clean electric buses, cities and towns across the country can help reduce global warming emissions and local air pollution. Table 1. Potential Emissions Savings from Electric Buses for Select Transit Agencies Equivalent Number of Cars Taken Off the Road State Phoenix AZ 9,075 1,752 San Francisco CA 32,049 6,187 Denver Regional Transportation District Denver CO 46,967 9,067 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Atlanta GA 10,889 2,102 Chicago Transit Authority Chicago IL 54,993 10,616 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Boston MA 55,071 10,631 Philadelphia PA 22,256 4,297 Houston TX 21,715 4,192 Agency City of Phoenix Public Transit Department (Valley Metro) San Francisco Municipal Railway Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority* Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Annual Emissions Averted by Switching to Electric Buses (Short Tons) Major City Served Most of America’s Buses Still Run on Dirty Fuels 13 Clean, All-Electric Buses Make Economic Sense for America’s Schools and Cities U ntil recently, significant barriers stood in the way of electric bus adoption: electric buses had limited range, were costly, and faced reliability challenges. Few were available on the market at all. But technological innovations and sharp declines in battery costs are solving many of these issues and manufacturers are producing high-quality, increasingly affordable, all-electric buses for use by school districts and transit agencies. These improvements are helping spur a boom in electric buses across the country. Long-Term Affordability Savings for School Districts All-electric school buses can save school districts money in annual operating costs from reduced maintenance and fuel costs, 14 Electric Buses while also providing more predictability in costs each year since electricity prices are relatively stable compared to fuel prices. The fledgling electric school bus market is growing as more manufacturers begin offering options; for instance, school bus manufacturer Blue Bird started rolling out electric buses in 2018, while Thomas will follow in 2019.93 Initial results from a six-vehicle electric school bus pilot program funded by the Clinton Global Initiative illustrate how schools can potentially save money with electric buses. Their analysis found that an electric bus saves nearly $2,000 a year in fuel and $4,400 a year in reduced maintenance costs.94 If the bus is equipped to send stored energy back to the electricity grid (see text box “Linking Electric Buses to the Electrical Grid Provides Greater Benefits,” page 16), an electric school bus could potentially generate up to $6,000 in revenue each year, depending on their utility’s rates. While a diesel school bus Figure 3. Lifetime Cost of Electric and Diesel School Buses, Including Purchase Price, Operating Costs, and Vehicle-to-Grid Revenue97 $300,000 Total Lifetime Savings $31,000 $250,000 l Bus $200,000 e es $150,000 Di ol ho c lS s Bu Breakeven Point Total Lifetime Cost Electric Schoo $100,000 $50,000 $0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Years of Operation costs $110,000 upfront and an electric school bus today costs $230,000 (including charging infrastructure), reduced operating costs for the electric bus more than make up the difference.95 Factoring in other costs, like replacing the electric bus’s battery, the study estimates that an electric school bus equipped with vehicleto-grid capabilities makes up for its higher purchasing costs within 13 years of operation, saving more than $31,000 over the bus’s lifetime. (School buses operate for up to 16 years. See Figure 3.)96 Government funding and other incentives can make school buses even more affordable (see section “Opportunities to Shift to Electric Buses,” page 23.) For instance, California’s Hybrid and ZeroEmission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) offers up to $220,000 for electric school buses sold in the state (the voucher amounts increased in December 2017, up from $110,000 previously).98 An analysis by industry experts compared lifecycle costs of an all-electric school bus to a conventional diesel bus, using the old voucher amounts. The electric school bus used in the analysis originally cost $348,000, while the diesel bus cost $139,000 up front.99 With California’s voucher program and other incentives, the purchase price of the electric bus dropped to $218,000, or $79,000 more than the diesel bus.100 However, the electric school bus saved $10,500 each year over the course of its 16-year lifespan, paying back the extra upfront cost in less than eight years, and continuing to offer savings for years to come.101 With California’s newly increased voucher amount of $220,000, the upfront cost of the electric bus would actually be lower than the upfront cost of the diesel bus, and would still offer fuel and maintenance savings each year. Finally, costs of electric school buses are expected to fall in coming years as more manufacturers, like Thomas and Blue Bird, enter the market and technologies improve.102 Clean, All-Electric Buses Make Economic Sense for America’s Schools and Cities 15 Linking Electric Buses to the Electrical Grid Provides Greater Benefits E lectric buses are powered by taking energy from the electricity grid; when they are plugged in, their large batteries charge and buses use that stored energy to travel on their routes. By managing when the vehicles are charging, electric buses can help support the electrical grid by charging at off-peak times. With appropriate pricing mechanisms and agreements with utilities, electric bus operators can benefit from financial incentives that support charging when demand is low. (See page 25 for more on agreements with utilities.) Used electric bus batteries could also be repurposed for energy storage at the end of the buses’ useful lives, which can help support the electrical grid. Finally, new technology allows buses to send stored energy back to the grid. When equipped with vehicle-togrid technology, electric buses can use their batteries for energy storage, providing a service to the grid by reserving and selling electricity back at times of high demand. This is particularly valuable for school buses, which typically charge overnight when electricity demand is lower; are parked during the middle of day and evening, when demand is highest; and often aren’t in use during the summer when air conditioning use peaks. For example, if a school bus had extra juice after driving children home in the afternoon, it could connect to the grid and sell excess energy back to the grid during the early evening hours when demand is still high. Vehicle-to-grid features could help school districts make the finances of electric buses pencil out more easily. A 2014 analysis from researchers at the University of Delaware estimated that a school bus could generate more than $15,000 from selling energy back to the grid, providing net benefits after five years of operation.103 Early pilot projects with electric school buses in three school districts in California found each bus could generate more than $6,000 each year by sending extra electricity back to the grid during periods of high demand.104 By providing a source of energy storage, electric buses could support a transition toward a grid powered by renewable energy – helping to incorporate variable sources of renewable energy like wind and solar into the grid. School buses may be particularly important for helping to integrate solar energy, since they are typically parked and can charge during peak solar production at mid-day. 16 Electric Buses Savings for Transit Agencies Electric buses can be more affordable than fossil fuel buses in the long run, since they have 30 percent fewer parts, no exhaust systems, their braking systems last longer, and they don’t require oil changes or fossil fuels.105 According to studies of electric buses currently in operation, electric buses save at least $0.19 per mile in lower maintenance costs.106 Over the lifetime of the bus, an electric transit bus can avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in operating costs over an equivalent diesel or natural gas bus, from lower fuel and maintenance costs. According to an analysis by the California Air Resources Board, an electric bus purchased in 2016 can save $458,000 in fuel and maintenance costs compared to a diesel bus, $336,000 compared to a natural gas bus and $331,000 compared to a diesel hybrid bus. (See Figure 4.)107 Even though electric buses today are still more expensive upfront than their diesel or natural gas-powered counterparts, electric transit buses can pay for themselves within 10 years of operation through fuel savings and reduced maintenance costs. (See Figure 5.)109 New Flyer, the largest transit bus manufacturer in North America, says that its natural gas-powered buses start around $450,000 while their electric version starts at $700,000.111 Over the lifetime of the bus, however, the company estimates the electric bus saves $400,000 in fuel expenses and $125,000 in averted maintenance costs, making up for the upfront cost differential.112 Proterra says its standard electric transit bus costs $750,000, compared to $500,000 for a conventional diesel bus.113 The company estimates that its electric buses offer fuel and maintenance savings of up to $50,000 a year over fossil fuel-powered buses, meaning transit agencies can recoup the extra cost in five to seven years (depending on the bus’s purchase price and operational cost variables), continu- Figure 4. Estimated Lifetime Fuel and Maintenance Costs of Transit Buses, by Fuel Type108 Lifetime Fuel and Maintenance Costs (thousands of dollars) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Diesel Natural Gas Diesel Hybrid Electric Figure 5. Cumulative Cost of Transit Buses, by Type, Including Purchase Price and Operations110 $1,400,000 Total Lifetime Savings $81,000 $1,000,000 us sit B Tran tric Elec $800,000 el es Di $600,000 it ns a Tr s Bu Breakeven Point Total Lifetime Cost $1,200,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Years of Operation Clean, All-Electric Buses Make Economic Sense for America’s Schools and Cities 17 Figure 6. Estimated Annual Operating Costs, for Fuel and Maintenance, of Transit Buses, by Fuel Type115 Annual Operating Cost Fuel & Maintenance $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 Diesel Natural Gas ing to save money every year over the lifespan of the bus.114 Those savings don’t account for the benefits of electric buses to the environment and public health, like cleaner air and less pollution. The Chicago Transit Authority (which in 2014 became the first major transportation agency in the U.S. to run an electric bus) estimates that a single electric bus saves the city nearly $80,000 per year: $25,000 in fuel and $55,000 in avoided healthcare expenses resulting from cleaner air.116 Because transit agencies can utilize federal assistance for capital costs, but not operating costs (through the Urbanized Area Formula Funding program), purchasing a bus with higher upfront costs but lower operating expenses may be a better value for agencies in the long run. Transit agencies in the U.S. can use federal money to 18 Electric Buses Diesel Hybrid Electric pay for up to 80 percent of the purchase price of a bus (or other capital investment for transit).117 A 2017 study from Carnegie Mellon University found that, with federal funding to help purchase the buses, allelectric buses had the lowest lifetime costs when compared with all other buses on the market, including hybrid, diesel, biodiesel or natural gas vehicles.118 The study concluded that all-electric buses are the best option available to transit agencies because of their low lifetime costs and their environmental and public health benefits.119 The upfront cost of electric buses is falling, too. For example, in 2017, bus manufacturer BYD won a bid with LA Metro for 60 all-electric buses, with an estimated pre-tax price around $686,000 per bus, competitive with bids for low-NOX natural gas buses priced around $620,000 before taxes.120 Increasing Range Electric School Buses Get Kids to School and Back Home Again Electric school buses today have ranges long enough to cover most school bus routes. For instance, Blue Bird has come out with two electric school buses, one small and one large, both of which can drive 100 miles on one charge. The company estimates that the 100-mile range can cover 80 percent of school bus routes with just an overnight charge, and up to 90 percent of school bus routes in the county if the bus can charge mid-day.121 The full-size model will have a 150 kWh battery pack; both models will have vehicle-to-grid capability, allowing them to store energy for the grid when plugged in.122 Production is slated for 2018.123 The Canadian company Lion is already selling the first all-electric medium-sized school bus built in North America.124 The batteries of the “eLion” bus can store 130 kWh of electricity, providing range of 50 to 100 miles on a single charge, depending on the model.125 It has an estimated battery life of 15 years and fully charges in four to six hours, though fast-charging development is already underway and is expected to be released soon.126 GreenPower also offers a 72-person school bus that can travel 75 to 140 miles.127 A contactless electric bus charging station in Washington state. Credit: Creative Commons/SounderBruce, CC BY-SA 2.0 Clean, All-Electric Buses Make Economic Sense for America’s Schools and Cities 19 Electric Transit Buses Can Serve Urban Transportation Needs Recent advances in the range capabilities of transit buses make them an increasingly feasible option for transit agencies. Hyundai’s new electric bus can travel 180 miles on a single charge, New Flyer has a bus with a 200-mile range, and Proterra’s electric bus models can travel 200 to 350 miles.128 Typical bus routes in urban and rural areas are shorter than 200 miles a day, meaning that electric buses could serve most routes in the country with today’s technology.129 For longer routes, fast-charging options are available, whereby buses can charge for a few minutes periodically throughout their route, using technologies such as overhead contactless chargers. 130 (See photo on page 19.) BYD has a 60-foot articulated electric bus ,the first of its kind, available in the U.S. today that can travel 200 miles with one charge.131 One model in development from Proterra can store 660 kWh of energy in its battery and holds the world record for electric vehicle range after traveling 1,100 miles on a single charge in September 2017.132 Connected to a high-speed charging system, the bus only takes one hour to be fully charged.133 20 Electric Buses Improved Reliability Electric buses require less maintenance than other types of alternative-fuel buses, in part because they have 30 percent fewer parts than diesel buses and no exhaust systems.134 A 2016 report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found electric transit buses required maintenance just once every 133,000 miles driven, while natural gas buses needed on average to be serviced every 45,000 miles.135 One concern with electric buses historically had been their ability to perform well in cold or wintery weather. Quebec, Canada, is operating 60 electric school buses while electric school buses are also on the road in Minnesota and Massachusetts, demonstrating the capability of electric buses to function in all kinds of weather. As transit operators and manufacturers gain more experience working in difficult environments, such as extreme cold, they learn solutions that improve reliability. For example, in 2015, Worcester, MA, experienced its greatest snowfall of all time, with a January blizzard dropping 34 inches of snow and February setting the record for coldest month ever. The agency had been operating six electric buses and identified the need to be able to heat the areas around fast chargers to clear ice and snow, as well as the charging section on the top of the bus.136 Major Cities and States Take the Lead on Bus Electrification T he market for electric buses is changing rapidly as technology improves and prices continue to fall. A 2018 study by Bloomberg New Energy Finance projected that the number of electric buses in the world will triple by 2025, a span of just seven years.137 Driven by a need to combat air pollution, particularly in China, electric buses will become more popular and more affordable in a short amount of time.138 Bloomberg notes that by 2026, the purchase price for some electric models will likely be cost competitive with diesel versions because of falling battery prices.139 At the end of 2016, there were roughly 300 zero-emission transit buses operating around the country, but hundreds more are on their way.140 In a February 2017 interview, the CEO of Proterra said that by 2020, a third of all new buses sold in the country could be electric, jumping to 100 percent of sales by 2030.141 Demand for electric buses is high across the country. (See Appendix B for more transit agencies’ electric bus plans.) For instance: • In July 2017, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced its transit fleet would be emission-free by 2030, requiring at least 2,300 electric buses.142 In the agency’s announcement, Metro Chairman and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said, “We can wait for others, and follow – at the expense of residents’ health – or lead and innovate, and reduce emissions as quickly as possible. I’d much rather do the latter.”143 • Mayors of 16 cities in California, representing nearly 8 million people, submitted a letter in January 2018 in support of state proposal that would require all fleets in California to be 100 percent electric by 2029.144 • King County Metro Transit, which serves the Seattle area, will acquire 120 all-electric buses by 2020.145 • MTA New York City Transit, the country’s largest transit network, start- Major Cities and States Take the Lead on Bus Electrification 21 ed testing five New Flyer electric buses across its system in February 2018, and similar tests are planned for Boston, Los Angeles, Portland and Salt Lake City in 2018.146 The buses will have access to rapid charging at the beginning and end of their routes and will enable the transit agencies to better define their needs, helping to inform the electric bus market.147 • Since 2016, seven agencies in California, making up one-third of the state’s transit buses, have committed to allelectric fleets by 2040.148 For example, Antelope Valley Transit Authority in southern California plans to convert all of its 85 buses to electric by 2021, saving an estimated $46 million over the lifetime of the buses.149 • In January 2018, the Chicago Transit Authority requested proposals for 45 new all-electric buses.150 Outside the U.S., other cities are leading the way. In December 2017, Shenzhen, China, became the first city in the world to exclusively operate all-electric buses.151 The city currently owns more electric buses than any other city, operat- 22 Electric Buses ing more than 16,000 buses – about three times the size of New York City’s bus fleet, the largest in the U.S.152 The transition in Shenzhen illustrates the technological readiness of electric buses and the immediate feasibility of large-scale transitions. Investment and interest from manufacturers is growing as well, thereby expanding the number of options available and reducing costs. For instance, in May 2017, Hyundai unveiled its first electric bus.153 In October 2017, Volkswagen announced plans for a $1.7 billion investment in electric vehicles including buses and trucks.154 Volvo has also been developing new models of electric buses, expanding their range and improving battery and charging technology.155 School districts are also starting to electrify their buses. The largest pilot program is underway in California, providing three school districts with 29 electric buses from the manufacturers Lion, TransTech and Motiv Power Systems.156 In 2016, four school districts in Massachusetts became the first outside of California to purchase electric school buses – four in total, made by Lion.157 In the fall of 2017, the first electric school bus (also manufactured by Lion) arrived in the Midwest in the suburbs of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.158 Opportunities to Shift to Electric Buses A merica’s fossil fuel buses produce large quantities of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, contributing to climate change and public health problems. Any new diesel buses purchased now will continue polluting for years to come since transit and school buses have lifespans longer than a decade. Fortunately, electric buses produce far fewer carbon emissions over their lifetime and eliminate localized air pollution from fossil fuel burning on city streets. As America transitions to an electrical grid powered by renewable energy, electric buses will offer even greater environmental benefits. Considering all of America’s nearly 70,000 transit buses and 480,000 school buses will have to be replaced in the next 15 to 20 years, there is room for large-scale adoption of electric buses. The time is right for state and local officials to begin making the shift to allelectric public transportation. The falling costs of electric buses, coupled with the availability of new funds to support the transition, provide an opportunity for school districts, transit agencies, cities and others to accelerate the transition to clean electric buses. Opportunities for funding electric buses include: Volkswagen Settlement Money: The recent settlement in the “Dieselgate” case, which resulted from Volkswagen’s (VW) deliberate violation of clean air standards, awarded billions of dollars for state and local officials to invest in zero-emission transportation.159 Of the settlement, $2.7 billion created a Mitigation Trust that allocates funds to states to replace heavy-duty vehicles including school buses and transit buses and charging infrastructure.160 In states across the country, there has been interest in spending the settlement money on replacing diesel buses with allelectric alternatives. For example: • Major utilities, including Duke Energy and Indianapolis Power & Light Company, voiced support for using the VW funds to buy electric school buses.161 Transit agencies are also eager for the funding to switch to electric buses – from Lane County, OR, to Colorado Springs, CO, transit agencies are asking for portions of the settlement money to purchase electric buses.162 • Colorado plans to spend $18 million, or a quarter of its allocated Volkswagen Opportunities to Shift to Electric Buses 23 settlement money, to help pay for cleaner transit buses – including an estimated 30 electric buses – and another $18 million can be used for electric school buses.163 • In Ohio’s first round of public comments, the most common requests were for settlement money to go towards school and transit bus replacements.164 The state’s draft plan from December 2017 allocates $3 million for electric school bus technology.165 • The state of Washington is devoting up to 45 percent of its VW funding to electrification of buses and trucks.166 State Programs: There are several existing programs at the state level that could help transit agencies finance a transition to clean buses. One example is California’s voucher program, the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP), which is funded by the state’s cap-andtrade carbon reduction system and run by the California Air Resources Board.167 The program provides funds to help fleets purchase lower emission vehicles, with the goal of improving the state’s air quality and combating global warming.168 Fleet operators can apply for vouchers, worth between $80,000 to $175,000 for one electric transit bus and $25,000 to $220,000 for electric school buses depending on the size, and up to $20,000 to invest in inductive (contactless) charging systems.169 For fiscal year 2018, $180 million has been budgeted for bus and truck vouchers, with at least $35 million supporting the purchase of zero-emission buses.170 In Colorado, fleets in areas of the state with air pollution concerns can apply for funding to help purchase electric buses, including up to $35,000 per bus for public bus fleets and $22,000 per bus for private bus fleets.171 24 Electric Buses Federal Funding: A number of programs exist at the federal level that may help states, transit agencies and local officials purchase electric buses, such as: • The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Low or No Emission Vehicle Competitive Program makes $55 million in grants available each year, through 2020, to purchase or lease electric buses.172 In 2017, transit agencies in 38 states were granted up to $1.75 million through the program to finance the purchase of electric buses and supporting charging infrastructure.173 • The federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program provides flexible funding for state and local governments for projects that help reduce air pollution in areas that exceed clean air standards. Funding of more than $2 billion a year is available through CMAQ through 2020.174 Chicago’s transit agency, for example, will use funding from this program to purchase 10 electric buses and two charging stations.175 • Cities with populations of more than 50,000 may be able to use funds from the Urbanized Area Formula Funding program, which will cover up to 80 percent of a project, and can be used to replace or rebuild buses.176 The program offers more than $5 billion each year, through 2020.177 • For school buses, the Clean School Bus Act of 2010 also made funding available to help districts pay for buses that operate on alternative fuels.178 The School Bus Rebate Program, for instance, provided more than $7 million to replace and retrofit old school buses in 2017.179 Utilities: Utilities could play a major role in supporting the transition to electric buses. By providing beneficial rate structures for electric bus charging, and supporting charging infrastructure, utilities can help speed the adoption of electric buses. Utilities can also benefit from electricity sales to electric bus fleets. There are a number of ways for utilities to engage with electric buses, including: • Investing in the electrical infrastructure needed for bus charging at bus depots and on routes. • Developing specific rate structures for transit agencies and school buses in order to help make charging electric buses more economical. • Helping to finance the additional upfront cost of electric buses by entering agreements with transit agencies to help finance charging infrastructure and bus batteries. For example, in some agreements, utilities pay for electric bus batteries and charging infrastructure upfront and allow transit agencies to pay monthly, at an amount no greater than the fuel savings the agency is reaping from avoided diesel costs.180 • Introducing smart charging systems to help maximize integration of renewable energy. A number of utilities have begun small scale programs, which could provide the model for larger-scale investment going forwards. For example, Southern California Edison received approval from the California Public Utilities Commission for a pilot program in which the utility will invest in the infrastructure needed to install 20 electric bus charging ports, while providing rebates to the transit agencies for the costs of the actual charging equipment.181 Pacific Gas and Electric has also received approval for a school bus and renewable energy integration pilot.182 The utility will invest in electrical infrastructure for electric bus charging and will work with school districts to ensure the buses are charging during times of peak solar production.183 Portland General Electric will partner with the transit agency Tri-Met to enable Oregon’s first all-electric bus route.184 The utility will install and operate six electric bus charging stations and help Tri-Met purchase an additional electric bus.185 Another way utilities can help facilitate electric bus adoption is by developing more appropriate rate structures for electric bus charging. For typical electricity use, utilities charge for the total amount of energy consumed and charge for usage during peak times. Since buses use significant amounts of electricity, additional charges can be a financial hurdle. By offering rate structures that work better for bus charging, and by using energy storage and incentivizing charging during non-peak times, utilities and agencies operating buses can support one another. For example, Foothill Transit in California negotiated with its utility for lower demand charges during its electric bus pilot.186 Other Programs: Other programs may also be available to help offset the initial investment in purchasing an electric school or transit bus. For instance, in June 2017, the pollution control agency for parts of southern California, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, awarded nearly $9 million total for a number of school districts to purchase electric school buses and charging infrastructure.187 Chicago’s Drive Clean program provided $14 million through the city’s Department of Transportation to help fleets buy electric and alternative fuel vehicles. The program provided $10 million for electric buses and trucks.188 Using funds from a regional greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system, Massachusetts Opportunities to Shift to Electric Buses 25 funded a pilot program that awarded grants to four school districts to purchase vehicle-to-grid electric school buses and chargers.189 Transit agencies can also utilize financing and leasing programs through bus manufacturers themselves. For instance, since the highest incremental cost for electric buses is the battery, Proterra has started a battery leasing program. This system allows customers to purchase an electric bus at the same cost of a diesel bus, while Proterra retains ownership over the battery.190 Customers then pay for the usage of the battery each year, over a 12-year agreement, thereby reducing the barrier of higher upfront capital costs.191 Used electric bus batteries could also be sold for a second life as energy storage systems, which could also help support the grid’s transition to renewable energy.192 Finally, a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance notes that agencies can partner with other cities to create a bigger agreement with private bus contractors in order to secure better rates on electric buses.193 Future Changes: Incentives like those outlined above can help offset the higher purchase price of electric buses today. How- 26 Electric Buses ever, experts like the California Air Resources Board predict that the cost of electric buses will continue to decline and soon incentives will no longer be necessary.194 The commitment by cities such as Seattle and Los Angeles to embrace the electric bus revolution and electrify their entire fleets can help push the electric bus market to develop more efficient and cheaper technology. This kind of innovation would put the zero-emission transition within closer reach much sooner for all cities. Industry experts predict that production and sale of all-electric buses will skyrocket in the next decade.195 That would be good news for transportation that’s cleaner, healthier and cheaper in the long run. With measurable benefits to public health and long-term savings on fuel and maintenance costs, zero-emission buses are a smart transportation investment. But the widespread adoption of electric buses is not inevitable. And, to get the greatest health and environmental benefits out of electric buses, we need to start now. With the right government policies, the upfront costs of all-electric buses and charging stations can be made affordable for every transit provider and school district in the country. Recommendations T o speed the adoption of all-electric buses as the new norm in American public transit, state governments should: • Allocate settlement money from Volkswagen’s “Dieselgate” settlement to subsidize the purchase of electric school and transit buses, as well as charging infrastructure. • Create incentive programs and grants for transit agencies, school districts and bus contractors to help finance the upfront cost of electric buses and charging infrastructure. • Facilitate the installation of charging infrastructure through programs that help cover the costs. • Encourage utilities to design their rates in ways that support electric buses. • Consider low-cost financing programs that help agencies, districts and contractors leverage other sources of funding, like Volkswagen settlement money. • Identify other ways to ensure successful electrification of buses, including technical assistance and research, as well as the publication of data and lessons learned. Transit agencies, school districts and bus contractors should: • Replace buses powered by fossil fuels with the cleanest possible technology for the health of future generations: allelectric. • Consider adopting goals to repower the entire fleet with electric buses over one replacement cycle. • Ask state governments and beneficiary agencies to dedicate funds from the Volkswagen settlement to electric buses. • Prepare for future adoption of electric buses by running electrical conduits necessary for charging infrastructure during any new construction or reconstruction of depots and parking lots. Recommendations 27 Methodology Emissions Averted by Replacing Diesel Buses W e used Argonne National Laboratory’s Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Calculator to estimate the lifecycle well-to-wheels greenhouse gas emissions that would be averted by converting all of the country’s diesel transit buses and diesel school buses to electric buses, as well as the savings from individual transit agencies switching their diesel buses to electric buses. Transit Buses, Nationally: According to the 2016 National Transit Database, the United States has 40,105 active diesel transit buses and we used Argonne’s emissions calculator to estimate emissions savings from replacing all of them with electric buses.196 We assumed a new electric transit bus would have a lifespan of 12 years.197 We used Argonne’s default estimate for the annual miles traveled by new transit buses – 35,000. Finally, we applied the calculator’s “diesel in-use multiplier,” which accounts for real-world inefficiencies in diesel buses, instead of relying on laboratory results. 28 Electric Buses To estimate the emissions resulting from charging electric buses that accounts for states’ varying electricity grids, we calculated emissions savings in the calculator using Florida’s electricity grid, which has around the median level of carbon dioxide equivalents per megawatt hour for states in the country, according to the EPA’s eGRID database.198 This results in a lifetime savings of approximately 24,541,000 short tons of greenhouse gas emissions (over 12 years), or an average of 2,045,000 short tons each year. Transit Buses, By Agency: We followed the same steps for the 50 largest transit agencies in the country (by number of active buses in their fleet according to the 2016 National Transit Database). However, the electricity grid selected for the analysis in the Argonne tool was changed to reflect the state where each transit agency is located, therefore states with less carbon-intensive fuel sources see a greater reduction in emissions by switching to electric buses.199 The 2016 National Transit Database doesn’t reflect recent updates from transit agencies, so in Appendix B we included updates from some of America’s biggest transit agencies that are running electric buses now or have plans to acquire electric buses in coming years. School Buses, Nationally: There are approximately 480,000 school buses on American streets, according to the American School Bus Council.200 The industry publication, School Transportation News, estimates that 5 percent of those buses are powered by non-diesel fuels like natural gas, propane or electricity.201 We assumed the other 95 percent of school buses ran on diesel, so 456,000 diesel buses would be replaced with electric buses, and used a lifespan of 16 years for the new school bus.202 We used Argonne’s default estimate for the annual miles traveled by new school buses – 15,000. We again applied the calculator’s “diesel in-use multiplier” and used Florida to reflect an average electricity grid. This results in a lifetime savings of 84,902,000 short tons of greenhouse gas emissions (over 16 years), or an average of 5,306,000 tons each year. Methodology 29 30 Electric Buses Denver DENVER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT* St. Petersburg Orlando CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Miami MIAMI-DADE TRANSIT Fort Lauderdale San Jose SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BROWARD COUNTY TRANSIT DIVISION San Francisco SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL RAILWAY Washington, D.C. San Diego SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY* Oakland Los Angeles ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT FOOTHILL TRANSIT Anaheim ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Los Angeles Phoenix REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO)* Phoenix CITY OF PHOENIX PUBLIC TRANSIT DEPARTMENT (VALLEY METRO) Agency Major City or Area Served FL FL FL FL D.C. CO CA CA CA CA CA CA CA AZ AZ State 19,326 14,839 36,307 12,799 9,215 46,967 20,420 32,049 2,098 32,049 NA 3,516 1,531 3,516 9,075 Average Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Averted By Switching All Diesel Buses in Fleet to Electric (Short Tons) 3,731 2,865 7,009 2,471 1,779 9,067 3,942 6,187 405 6,187 NA 679 296 679 1,752 Equivalent Number of Cars Taken Off The Road 379 291 712 251 277 828 360 565 37 565 0 62 27 62 160 Diesel Buses 1 4 0 0 482 33 0 0 510 0 353 2,448 367 243 173 Compressed Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 AllElectric 21 46 121 86 864 11 134 19 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 Hybrid Diesel 9 20 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 314 11 0 Gasoline 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 12 13 0 0 174 7 174 Other/ Unknown 410 361 833 337 1,623 874 505 588 559 588 370 2,510 882 340 507 Total Active Buses Appendix A: Bus Fleets of America’s 50 Largest Transit Agencies (by Number of Active Buses), 2016 Chicago Chicago Chicago Boston Baltimore CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY* PACE - SUBURBAN BUS DIVISION PACE-SUBURBAN BUS DIVISION, ADA PARATRANSIT SERVICES MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION* St. Louis Charlotte Newark Las Vegas CHARLOTTE AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION* REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Minneapolis METRO TRANSIT* BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE MISSOURI-ILLINOIS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, (ST. LOUIS METRO) Detroit CITY OF DETROIT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Montgomery County Honolulu CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES** RIDE-ON MONTGOMERY COUNTY TRANSIT Atlanta METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY Agency Major City or Area Served NV NJ NC MO MN MI MD MD MA IL IL IL HI GA State 15,145 43,948 29,023 18,584 20,785 11,012 5,722 10,912 55,071 6,986 31,971 54,993 -1,440 10,889 Average Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Averted By Switching All Diesel Buses in Fleet to Electric (Short Tons) 2,924 8,484 5,603 3,588 4,013 2,126 1,105 2,107 10,631 1,349 6,172 10,616 -278 2,102 Equivalent Number of Cars Taken Off The Road 267 1321 645 413 833 331 172 328 695 210 961 1653 449 242 Diesel Buses 202 0 0 0 0 0 102 0 314 0 20 0 0 424 Compressed Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 AllElectric 188 0 50 0 5 0 64 404 0 0 2 214 92 0 Hybrid Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 156 158 0 0 0 Gasoline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 Other/ Unknown 657 1,321 695 413 838 331 338 732 1,065 366 1,141 1,869 541 666 Total Active Buses Appendix A: Bus Fleets of America’s 50 Largest Transit Agencies (by Number of Active Buses), 2016 Appendix A: Bus Fleets of America’s 50 Largest Transit Agencies (by Number of Active Buses), 2016 31 32 Electric Buses Columbus Portland CENTRAL OHIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON Austin Dallas CAPITAL METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT Pittsburgh Cleveland THE GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY* Cincinnati SOUTHWEST OHIO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY Philadelphia Westchester County WESTCHESTER COUNTY BEE-LINE SYSTEM SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY* New York City METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY New York City METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MTA) NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT* New York City Nassau County NASSAU INTER COUNTY EXPRESS MTA BUS COMPANY Buffalo NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Agency Major City or Area Served TX TX PA PA OR OH OH OH NY NY NY NY NY NY State 2,786 22,644 23,121 22,256 39,990 8,949 10,379 12,742 18,225 21,711 43,740 167,037 633 24,247 Average Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Averted By Switching All Diesel Buses in Fleet to Electric (Short Tons) 538 4,371 4,464 4,297 7,720 1,728 2,004 2,460 3,518 4,191 8,444 32,247 122 4,681 Equivalent Number of Cars Taken Off The Road 63 512 695 669 705 269 312 383 230 274 552 2,108 8 306 Diesel Buses 477 0 0 0 0 124 90 0 0 0 213 532 307 9 Compressed Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 AllElectric 0 0 32 747 0 6 21 27 99 46 0 1,285 0 0 Hybrid Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gasoline 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other/ Unknown 540 512 727 1,416 705 399 467 410 329 329 765 3,925 315 315 Total Active Buses Appendix A: Bus Fleets of America’s 50 Largest Transit Agencies (by Number of Active Buses), 2016 WI WA WA VA UT TX TX State 10,080 14,578 30,007 8,749 22,746 16,717 21,715 1,946 2,814 5,793 1,689 4,391 3,227 4,192 Equivalent Number of Cars Taken Off The Road 404 257 529 263 401 378 491 Diesel Buses 0 0 0 0 47 38 7 Compressed Natural Gas 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 AllElectric 0 30 724 29 31 30 316 Hybrid Diesel 0 41 137 76 10 0 40 Gasoline * For an update on this transit agency’s plans for electric vehicles, please see Appendix B. ** Hawaii: Because Hawaii’s primary source of electricity is petroleum, the benefits of switching to all-electric buses are limited right now. However, the state has plans to switch to 100 percent renewable energy by 2040, which means electric buses will continue getting cleaner as they run on electricity powered by more renewable energy.203 Milwaukee MILWAUKEE COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Seattle KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION* Snohomish County Virginia Beach TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROADS SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION Salt Lake City San Antonio Houston UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY VIA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Agency Major City or Area Served Average Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Averted By Switching All Diesel Buses in Fleet to Electric (Short Tons) 0 0 30 0 0 14 0 Other/ Unknown 404 328 1,423 368 489 463 854 Total Active Buses Appendix A: Bus Fleets of America’s 50 Largest Transit Agencies (by Number of Active Buses), 2016 Appendix A: Bus Fleets of America’s 50 Largest Transit Agencies (by Number of Active Buses), 2016 33 Appendix B: Proposed Electric Bus Plans for Some of America’s Largest Transit Agencies Total Active Buses Agency Major City or Area Served State MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT New York City NY 3,925 In January 2018, MTA started a 3-year pilot running 10 electric transit buses throughout New York City. Los Angeles CA 2,510 In July 2017, Metro approved the purchase of 95 new electric buses, which will be rolled out in coming years. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY Proposed Electric Bus Plans Chicago IL 1,869 Between October 2017 and January 2018, the agency was accepting proposals for up to 45 electric buses. In February 2018, CTA received $400,000 from the U.S. EPA for electric buses; the agency will contribute an additional $490,000. Washington, D.C. D.C. 1,623 D.C. will be bringing 14 all-electric buses online in 2018. KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Seattle WA 1423 By the middle of 2018, the agency will roll out another 10 all-electric buses and has purchased 120. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Philadelphia PA 1416 SEPTA is rolling out 25 all-electric buses in 2018. 1321 In October 2017, NJ Transit announced it would use funds from a Federal Transit Administration grant for the state's first electric buses in Camden, NJ. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION DENVER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT Newark NJ Denver CO 874 Starting in the fall of 2016, RTD made all of the 36 free shuttle buses that run on a main street through downtown Denver into electric buses. Minneapolis MN 838 In 2019, Metro Transit will use $1.75 million in federal funding to purchase six all-electric buses. Baltimore MD 732 In 2017, three all-electric buses rolled out in Howard County. 727 In 2019, Port Authority plans to have one allelectric bus in operation, ahead of a proposed Bus Rapid Transit system with 25 all-electric buses. METRO TRANSIT MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY 34 Electric Buses Pittsburgh PA Notes 1 Robert Pudlewski, “When Will AltFuels Replace Diesel, Gas Powered School Buses?” School Transportation News, 13 April 2017 archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180217002454/http://stnonline.com/ news/latest-news/item/8512-when-will-alt-fuels-replace-diesel-gas-powered-school-buses. 2 Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Transit Database – 2016, October 2017. 3 International: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, “IARC: Diesel Engine Exhaust Carcinogenic” (press release), 12 June 2012, available at http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/ pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “IRIS Assessments: Diesel Engine Exhaust – CASRN NA,” 28 February 2003, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180412031944/https://cfpub.epa.gov/ ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_ nmbr=642. 4 Quian Di et al., “Air Pollution and Mortality in the Medicare Population,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 376:2513-2522, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1702747, 29 June 2017. 5 Emissions savings calculated using Argonne National Laboratory’s Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Calculator available at https:// afleet-web.es.anl.gov/hdv-emissions-calculator. See methodology for full details. 6 Ibid. 7 Clinton Global Initiative V2G EV School Bus Working Group, ZEV School Buses – They’re Here and Possibly Free (presentation), 22 April 2016, available at https://green-technology.org/gcsummit16/images/35-ZEV-School-Buses.pdf. 8 Chicago Transit Authority, Electric Bus, accessed 6 February 2018, archived at https:// web.archive.org/web/20180206213131/http:// www.transitchicago.com/electricbus. 9 California Air Resources Board, 5th Innovative Clean Transit Workgroup Meeting (presentation – slide 40), 26 June 2017. 10 Fred Lambert, “12 Major Cities Pledge to Only Buy All-Electric Buses Starting in 2025,” Electrek, 23 October 2017, archived at https:// web.archive.org/web/20180323201833/https:// electrek.co/2017/10/23/electric-buses-12-majorcities-pledge-2025. 11 Metro: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, “Metro Leads the Nation in Setting Ambitious 2030 Zero Emission Bus Goal; Takes First Step with Purchase of 100 Electric Buses”, (press release), 2 August 2017; Shenzhen: Michael Coren, “One City in China Has More Electric Buses Than All of America’s Biggest Cities Have Buses,” Quartz, 2 January 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180323200300/https://qz.com/1169690/ shenzhen-in-china-has-16359-electric-busesmore-than-americas-biggest-citiess-conventional-bus-fleet. 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990 – 2015, July 2017. Notes 35 13 26 million children ride school buses: National School Transportation Association, The Yellow School Bus Industry, 2013; 50.7 million school children: National Center for Education Statistics, 2017 Fast Facts, archived at https:// web.archive.org/web/20180326182748/https:// nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372, accessed 26 March 2018. 14 National School Transportation Association, The Yellow School Bus Industry, 2013. 15 American School Bus Council, Environmental Benefits, archived at https://web.archive. org/web/20180207232321/http://www.americanschoolbuscouncil.org/issues/environmentalbenefits, 12 January 2018. 16 American Public Transportation Association, Transit Ridership Report: Third Quarter 2017, November 2017, available at http:// www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/ Ridership/2017-q3-ridership-APTA.pdf. 17 American Public Transportation Association, “Public Transportation Industry Is a Green Industry,” (press release), 22 April 2016, available at http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/ pressreleases/2016/Pages/160422_Earth-Day. aspx. 18 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website, School Bus Safety: Overview, accessed at https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/school-buses, 12 January 2018. 19 Ibid. 20 Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, “A New Transit Safety Narrative,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2014, pp.121-142. 21 A. Roberts, K. Lyall, J. Hart, F. Laden, A. Just, J. Bobb, K. Koenen, A. Ascherio and M. Weisskopf, 2014, Environmental Health Perspective, “Perinatal Air Pollutant Exposures and Autism Spectrum Disorder in the Children of Nurses’ Health Study II Participants,” available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC3734496. 22 36 Electric Buses See note 17. 23 California HVIP website, Home Page, accessed at https://www.californiahvip.org, 12 January 2018. 24 İbrahim Aslan Reşitoğlu, Kemal Altinişik, and Ali Keskin“The Pollutant Emissions from Diesel-engine Vehicles and Exhaust Aftertreatment Systems,” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 17(1):15-27, January 2015. 25 See note 4. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, “Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust,” 21 May 2001, accessed at https://oehha.ca.gov/ air/health-effects-diesel-exhaust, 12 January 2018. 29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System: Diesel Engine Exhaust; CASRN N.A, 28 February 2003. 30 See note 3. 31 Lung cancer: Debra T. Silverman, 2017, Occupational Environmental Medicine, “Diesel Exhaust Causes Lung Cancer – Now What?”, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC5352477/; Bladder cancer: L. Latifovic, P.J. Villeneuve, M.E. Parent, K.C. Johnson, L. Kachuri, Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Group, S.A. Harris, 2015, Cancer Medicine, “Bladder cancer and occupational exposure to diesel and gasoline engine emissions among Canadian men,” available at https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26511593. 32 C. Li, Q. Nguyen, P. Ryan, G. LeMasters, H. Spitz, M. Lobaugh, S. Glover and S. Grinshpun, 2009, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, “School Bus Pollution And Changes in The Air Quality at Schools: A Case Study,” available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download;jsessionid=C417AFB3C42426CF6CF 3C26DC2452E3A?doi=10.1.1.611.1415&rep=re p1&type=pdf. 33 S. Steiner, C. Bisig, A. Petri-Fink and B. Rothen-Rutishauser, 2016, Archives of Toxicology, “Diesel exhaust: current knowledge of adverse effects and underlying cellular mechanisms,” available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC4894930/. 34 Health Effects Institute, HEI Perspectives 3: Understanding the Health Effects of Ambient Ultrafine Particles, January 2013. 35 Carbon: see note 33; Metal and oxides: A. Mayer, A. Ulrich, J. Czerwinksi and J. Mooney, 2010, SAE International, “Metal-Oxide Particles in Combustion Engine Exhaust,” available at http://papers.sae.org/2010-010792/; Nickel: K.L. Cheung, L. Ntziachristos, T. Tzamkiozis, J.J. Schauer, Z. Samaras, K.F. Moore and C. Sioutas, 2010, “Emissions of Particulate Trace Elements, Metals and Organic Species from Gasoline, Ddiesel, and Biodiesel as Passenger Vehicles and Their Relation to Oxidative Potential,” Aerosol Science and Technology, available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ pdf/10.1080/02786821003758294. 36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990 – 2015, July 2017. 37 S. Adar, J. D’Souza, L. Sheppard, J.D. Kaufman, T.S. Hallstrand, M.E. Davey, J.R. Sullivan, J. Jahnke, J. Koenig, T.V. Larson and L.J. Liu, 2015, American Thoracic Society, “Adopting Clean Fuels and Technologies on School Buses, Pollution and Health Impacts in Children,” available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC4476560/. 38 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Regulatory Announcement: Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, December 2000, accessed at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/ P1001CXZ.PDF?Dockey=P1001CXZ.PDF, 12 January 2018. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Jack Ewing, “Volkswagen Says 11 Million Cars Worldwide Are Affected in Diesel Deception,” New York Times, 22 September 2015. 42 Zoë Schlanger, “It’s Not Just Volkswagen. Every Diesel Car Company is Emitting More Pollution Than Tests Show,” Quartz, 18 May 2017. 43 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, “Protect Yourself from Wildfire Smoke,” accessed at https://www.cdc.gov/features/wildfires/index.html, 12 January 2018. 44 See note 32. 45 K. Nadeau, C. McDonald-Hyman, EM. Noth, B. Pratt, SK. Hammond, J. Balmes, I. Tager, Ambient Air Pollution Impairs Regulatory T-cell Function in Asthma, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 126(4):845-852.e10, October 2010. 46 K.J. Brunst, Y. Leung, P. Ryan, G. Hershey, L. Levin, H. Ji, G. LeMasters and S. Ho, 2013, Journal of Allergy Clinical Immunology, “FOXP3 hypermethylation is associated with diesel exhaust exposure and risk for childhood asthma,” available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC3563724. 47 Ibid. 48 N. Ji, A. Baptista, M. Greenberg, I. Mincey, C. Cepeda, C.H. Yu, P.A. OhmanStrickland, K. Black, H. Kipen, N. Fiedler, R.J. Laumbach, 2017, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, “Personal Exposure to Black Carbon, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Chronic Psychosocial Stress: Impacts on Childhood Asthma Exacerbation in a Seaport-Adjacent Community,” available at http://www.atsjournals.org/ doi/abs/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2017.195.1_ MeetingAbstracts.A4803. 49 See note 21. 50 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Idle Free Schools,” archived at https://web. archive.org/web/20180206235749/https://www. epa.gov/region8/idle-free-schools. 51 Patrick Ryan et al., “The Impact of an Anti-Idling Campaign on Outdoor Air Quality at Four Urban Schools,” Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, Issue 11, DOI 10.1039/C3EM00377A, 2013. Notes 37 52 L. Sabin, K. Kozawa, E. Behrentz, A. Winer, D. Fitz, D. Pankratz, S. Colome and S. Fruin, 2005, Atmospheric Environment, “Analysis of real-time variables affecting children’s exposure to diesel-related pollutants during school bus commute in Los Angeles. Available at http:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1352231005004711. 53 Ibid. 54 NRDC and the Coalition for Clean Air, No Breathing in the Aisles: Diesel Exhaust Inside School Buses, Feburary 2001, available at www. nrdc.org/sites/default/files/schoolbus.pdf. 55 Donghyun Rim et al., “Characteristics of Cabin Air Quality in School Buses in Central Texas,” Atmospheric Environment, 42(26): 6453-6464, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.04.030, August 2008. 56 L.J. Sally Liu, et al., “Quantification of Self Pollution from Two Diesel School Buses Using Three Independent Methods,” Atmospheric Environment, 44(28): 3422-3431, DOI: 10.1016/j. atmosenv.2010.06.005, September 2010. 57 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Research on Near Roadway and Other Near Source Air Pollution,” archived at https://web. archive.org/web/20180207213138/https://www. epa.gov/air-research/research-near-roadwayand-other-near-source-air-pollution. 58 Health Effects Institute, Traffic-Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects, 17 January 2010, available at https://www.healtheffects.org/ publication/traffic-related-air-pollution-critical-review-literature-emissions-exposure-andhealth. 59 Hong Chen et al., Living Near Major Roads and the Incidents of Dementia, Parkinson’s Disease and Multiple Sclerosis: A Population-based Cohort Study, 389(10070): 7180726, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32399-6, 18 February 2017. 60 86: Gunnar Myhre et al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing,” in T.F. Stocker et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 714; 105: Drew Shindell et al., “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions,” Science 326: 716-718, doi: 10.1126/science.1174760, 2009. 61 M.J. Bradley & Associates, Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses: Efficiency & Environmental Performance, 5 November 2013; The study explains that though the carbon content of natural gas is lower than diesel, natural gas buses also have lower fuel economy, therefore resulting in similar tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions. 62 63 The buses studied were Euro III buses, which meet the European Union’s 2000 emission rule. Ricardo Energy & Environment, The Role of Natural Gas and Biomethane in the Transport Sector, 16 February 2016. 64 Electric Buses Ibid. 65 Tong et al., “Comparison of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gases from Natural Gas Pathways for Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,” Environmental Science & Technology, 49: 7123-7133, doi: 10.1021/es5052759, 4 May 2015. 66 J. B. Gilman, B. M. Lerner, W. C. Kuster, and J. A. de Gouw, “Source Signature of Volatile Organic Compounds from Oil and Natural Gas Operations in Northeastern Colorado,” Environmental Science & Technology, 47 (3), 12971305, doi: 10.1021/es304119a, 2013. 67 Mead Gruver, “Wyoming Plagued by Big-City Problem: Smog,” The Associated Press, 8 March 2011, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180327211739/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/08/ AR2011030802905.html. 68 38 Ibid. Ibid. 69 D. Helmig, C. R. Thompson, J. Evans, P. Boylan, J. Hueber, and J.-H. Park, “Highly Elevated Atmospheric Levels of Volatile Organic Compounds in the Uintah Basin, Utah,” Environmental Science & Technology, 48 (9), 4707-4715, doi: 10.1021/es405046r, 2014. 70 Number of school buses: see note 15. 71 National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, Information Report: School Bus Replacement Considerations, January 2002, available at http://www.nasdpts.org/ documents/paper-busreplacement.pdf. 72 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website, Clean School Bus, accessed at https:// www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/clean-school-bus, 12 January 2018. 73 Ibid. 74 Thomas McMahon, School Bus Fleet, Maintenance Survey, 2017, available at: http:// files.schoolbusfleet.com/stats/SBF0317-MaintenanceSurvey.pdf. 75 Joshua Sharfstein and Frances Phillips, “Dirty School Buses, Sick Kids,” New York Times, 8 January 2016, archived at https://web. archive.org/web/20180207001954/https://www. nytimes.com/2016/01/09/opinion/dirty-schoolbuses-sick-kids.html?_r=0&mtrref=web.archive. org&mtrref=web.archive.org. 76 See note 1. 77 Michael Kay, et al., U.S. Department of Transportation, National Transportation Systems Center, Bus Lifecycle Cost Model for Federal Land Management Agencies, September 2011, available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/ dot/9548. 78 See note 15. 79 School Bus Fleet, Statistics - School Transportation: 2015-16 School Year (factsheet), accessed 12 April 2018, archived at https://web. archive.org/web/20180412175943/https://www. schoolbusfleet.com/research/719358/u-s-stateby-state-transportation-statistics-2014-15. 80 Miles per gallon: TransPower, Economical Electric School Bus (EESB) – Final Project Report, 2 June 2014. 81 See note 5. 82 American Public Transportation Association, 2016 Public Transportation Fact Book, February 2017, available at http://www.apta.com/ resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/2016APTA-Fact-Book.pdf. 83 See note 2. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 See note 77. 90 Charles Morris, “NREL report: Battery-electric Buses Are Four Times More FuelEfficient than CNG,” Charged EVs, 23 February 2016. 91 See note 5. 92 Variations in emissions reductions are the result of state electricity mixes. See Methodology for sources and calculations. 93 Bluebird: “Blue Bird Unveils AllNew, Electric-Powered Type C School Bus at NAPT Conference,” BusinessWire, 7 November 2017, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180327193431/https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171107005511/en/ Blue-Bird-Unveils-All-New-Electric-Powered-Type-School; Thomas: Thomas Built Buses, Thomas Built Buses Debuts New Saf-TLiner® C2 All Electric School Bus, 4 November 2017, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180327193621/https://thomasbuiltbuses. com/bus-news-and-events/news/thomas-builtbuses-debuts-new-saf-t-liner-2017-11-04. 94 See note 7. 95 Ibid. 96 Savings: see note 7; Age: see note 74. 97 Ibid. Notes 39 98 California Air Resources Board, Proposed Fiscal Year 2017-18 Funding Plan for Clean Transportation Incentives, December 2017. 99 Jim Reynolds, Adomani, and Robert Lupacchino, First Priority GreenFleet, Benefits of Electric School Buses (presentation), 20 July, 2016. 113 Michael Coren, “An Electric Bus Just Snagged A World Record by Driving 1,100 Miles on A Single Charge,” Quartz, 19 September 2017, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180215170252/https://qz.com/1078326/ an-electric-bus-just-snagged-a-world-recordby-driving-1100-miles-on-a-single-charge. 100 Ibid. 114 Cost savings: Ibid. 101 Ibid. 115 See note 9. 102 See note 93. 116 See note 8. 103 Lance Noel and Regina McCormack. 2014. “A Cost Benefit Analysis of a V2G-Capable Electric School Bus Compared to A Traditional Diesel School Bus,” Applied Energy, 126: 246265. Available at https://www1.udel.edu/V2G/ resources/V2G-Cost-Benefit-Analysis-NoelMcCormack-Applied-Energy-As-Accepted.pdf. 104 See note 7. 105 Proterra, The Proterra Catalyst 40-Foot Transit Vehicle, accessed 15 February 2018 at https://www.proterra.com/products/catalyst40ftold. 106 California Air Resources Board, Literature Review on Transit Bus Maintenance Cost (Discussion Draft), August 2016. 107 See note 9. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid. 111 New Flyer of America, Country’s Largest Transit Bus System on Electric Buying Spree (press release), 17 October 2017, archived at https:// web.archive.org/web/20180215195104/https:// www.newflyer.com/2017/10/countrys-largesttransit-bus-system-electric-buying-spree. 112 Ibid. 117 Federal Transit Administration, “Urbanized Area Formula Grants – 5307,” accessed 22 February 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20180222224244/https://www. transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/urbanized-areaformula-grants-5307. 118 Traffic21 Institute and Scott Institute for Energy Innovation, Carnegie Mellon University, Which Alternative Fuel Technology is Best for Transit Buses? January 2017. 119 Ibid. 120 Kelly Blynn, “Accelerating Bus Electrification: Enabling a Sustainable Transition to Low Carbon Transportation,” Master in City Planning and Master of Science in Transportation thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, February 2018. 121 Jenna Van Harpen, Director of Alternative Fuels, Blue Bird, Blue Bird Electric School Bus, via Green Buses, Healthy Children: The Road to Electrified School Buses (presentation), 8 February 2018. 122 Fred Lambert, “New All-Electric School Buses Unveiled by Blue Bird with Vehicle-To-Grid Feature,” Electrek, 14 July 2017. 123 Blue Bird Corporation, “Blue Bird Introduces All-New Electric School Bus Solutions” (press release), 11 July 2017, available at https:// blue-bird.com/blue-bird/Press-Releases/BlueBird-Introduces-AllNew-Electric-School-BusSo-104.aspx. 124 C.C. Weiss, “eLion Electric Bus Rolls to School with No Emissions,” New Atlas, 2 February 2017. 40 Electric Buses 125 Lion, Electric School Bus, accessed 12 January 2018, archived at https://web.archive. org/web/20180412195638/https://thelionelectric.com/en/products/electric. 136 Jonathan Church, Worcester Regional Transit Authority, “Battery Electric Bus Deployment Project” (presentation), 28 September 2017. 126 Electric School bus: Ibid, 12 January 2018; New charging stations: See note 123. 137 Mark Chediak, “Electric Buses Will Take Over Half the World Fleet by 2025,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 1 February 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180216202019/https://www.bloomberg. com/news/articles/2018-02-01/electric-buseswill-take-over-half-the-world-by-2025. 127 GreenPower, Product Line, accessed 28 March 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180328214846/http://www.greenpowerbus.com/product-line. 128 Hyundai: Frank Lambert, “Hyundai Unveils All-Electric Bus With 180 Miles of Range on A 256 Kwh Battery Pack,” Electrek, 31 May 2017, archived at https://web. archive.org/web/20180216210205/https:// electrek.co/2017/05/31/hyundai-electric-bus; New Flyer and Proterra: David Roberts, “Electric Buses Are Coming, And They’re Going to Help Fix 4 Big Urban Problems.” Vox, 25 October 2017, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180216215956/https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/24/16519364/ electric-buses. 129 Stu Robarts, “Proterra Catalyst XR Electric Bus Delivers 258-mile Range Results,” New Atlas, 2 October 2015, archived at https:// web.archive.org/web/20180328181455/https:// newatlas.com/oroterra-catalyst-xr-electric-bus258-miles/39692. 130 Robert Prohaska, Kenneth Kelly, Leslie Eudy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Fast Charge Battery Electric Transit Bus In-Use Fleet Evaluation, May 2016. 131 BYD, K11 Electric Transit Bus - World’s First and Only 60ft Electric Transit Bus, accessed 28 March 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180328175732/http://www.byd.com/usa/ bus/k11-electric-transit-bus. 132 Russ Mitchell, “Proterra Claims World Record, Says Its Electric Bus Traveled More Than 1,100 Miles on A Single Charge,” Los Angeles Times, 19 September 2017. 133 Ibid. 134 See note 105. 135 See note 90. 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid. 140 300: U.S. Department of Transportation website, “U.S.-China Race to Zero Emissions,” Zero Emissions Bus Operators, accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/r2ze/status-zero-emission-bus-deployment-america, 12 January 2018. 141 Ryan Popple, Proterra, “Will Electric Buses Take over the Transit World?” The Energy Gang (podcast), 10 February 2017, available at https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ read/electric-buses-are-going-to-dominate#gs. dYS03b0. 142 Laura Nelson, “L.A. Metro Wants to Spend $138 Million on Electric Buses. The Goal: An Emission-Free Fleet By 2030,” Los Angeles Times, 21 July 2017. 143 Ibid. 144 Undersigned mayors of California, Support from Mayors of California For Strong Action on Zero-Emission Buses (letter), accessed 29 January 2018, archived at https://web.archive. org/web/20180328165423/https://www.ucsusa. org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/Mayors-California-CARB-letter-supporting-ZEBs.pdf. 145 Dow Constantine, King County, “King County Executive Announces Purchases of Battery Buses, Challenges Industry to Build NextGeneration Transit” (press release), 10 January 2017, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180216222115/https://www.kingcounty. gov/elected/executive/constantine/news/release/2017/January/10-battery-buses.aspx. Notes 41 146 Mark Kane, “New York City to Test 5 New Flyer Electric Buses,” InsideEVs, 15 February 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180308184715/https://insideevs.com/ new-york-city-to-test-5-new-flyer-electric-buses. 147 Ibid. 159 Martha T. Moore, “Billions from VW Settlement Boost Push to Clean Vehicles,” The Gazette, 7 January 2018. 149 Antelope Valley Transit Authority, “Electric Bus Fleet Conversion,” AVTA.com, January 2018. 160 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Transitioning to Electrification: Funding Resources (factsheet), November 2017. 150 Kevin Stark, “Chicago Seeks to Expand Its Electric Bus Fleet,” Midwest Energy News, 4 January 2018. 161 Kari Lydersen, “Utilities Among Advocates for Electric School Buses Under Volkswagen Settlement,” The Gazette, 11 July 2017. 151 Michael J. Coren, “One City in China Has More Electric Buses Than All of America’s Biggest Cities Have Buses,” Quartz, 2 January 2018; NYC bus fleet: http://www.metro-magazine.com/bus/article/725410/top-100-busfleets-survey-exploring-new-options-technologies-to-be-part-of-multim. 162 Lane County: Lane Transit District, “Use Part of the VW Settlement to Purchase Electric Buses” (letter to state legislature), May 27, 2017, archived at https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/dembrow/workgroupitems/8-15%20 LTD%20on%20VW%20Settlement.pdf. Ibid. 153 Frank Lambert, “Hyundai Unveils All-Electric Bus With 180 Miles of Range on A 256 Kwh Battery Pack,” Electrek, 31 May 2017, archived at https://web.archive. org/web/20180216210205/https://electrek. co/2017/05/31/hyundai-electric-bus 154 Christopher Rauwald, “VW to Roll Out Electric Trucks, Buses in $1.7 Billion Push,” Bloomberg, 11 October 2017, archived at https:// web.archive.org/web/20180216210359/https:// www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-11/ vw-to-roll-out-electric-trucks-buses-in-1-7-billion-project. 155 Jo Borras, “Volvo Upgrades Its 7900 Series Electric Bus,” GAS2, 16 October 2017, archived at https://web.archive. org/web/20180216222715/https://gas2. org/2017/10/16/volvo-upgrades-its-7900-serieselectric-buses. 156 Ryan Gray, “Largest U.S. Electric School Bus Pilot Comes to California,” School Transportation News, 12 May 2017. Electric Buses 158 Frank Jossi, “Minnesota District to Get Midwest’s First Electric School Bus This Fall,” Midwest Energy News, 11 July 2017. 148 Union of Concerned Scientists, Sixteen California Mayors Say Their City Buses Should Be Zero-Emission (press release), 30 January 2018. 152 42 157 Molly Loughman, “Concord, Acton Officials Get Look at Electric Bus,” Wicked Local: Concord, 17 August 2016. 163 $18 million: See note 157; 30 buses: State of Colorado, Colorado Electric Vehicle Plan, January 2018. 164 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Beneficiary Mitigation Plan, 7 December 2017. 165 Ibid. 166 State of Washington Department of Ecology, VW Mitigation Fund Plan, accessed 28 March 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180329031007/https://ecology.wa.gov/ Air-Climate/Air-quality/Vehicle-emissions/VWfederal-enforcement-action/VW-plan. 167 See note 23. 168 Ibid. 169 California Air Resources Board, Implementation Manual for The Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) And Low NOx Engine Incentives Implemented Through HVIP, 10 January 2018. 170 Ibid. 171 Clean Air Fleets, ALT Fuels Colorado, accessed 27 March 2018, archived at https://web. archive.org/web/20180327202013/http://cleanairfleets.org/programs/alt-fuels-colorado. 172 Federal Transit Administration, Low or No Emission Vehicle Program – 5339(c), accessed 12 January 2018, archived at https://web.archive. org/web/20180412200723/https://www.transit. dot.gov/funding/grants/lowno. 173 Federal Transit Administration, Fiscal Year 2017 Low or No Emission (Low-No) Bus Program Projects, accessed 12 January 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180412200755/https://www.transit.dot. gov/funding/grants/fiscal-year-2017-low-or-noemission-low-no-bus-program-projects. 174 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act or “FAST Act,” accessed 22 February 2018, archived at https:// web.archive.org/web/20180222220256/https:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/cmaqfs. cfm. 175 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, “Metropolitan Chicago To Benefit From $256 Million Investment In 39 Transportation Projects to Reduce Congestion and Improve Air Quality” (press release), 28 November 2017, archived at https://web.archive. org/web/20180222220043/http://www.cmap. illinois.gov/updates/all/-/asset_publisher/ UIMfSLnFfMB6/content/metropolitan-chicago-to-benefit-from-256-million-investment-in-39-transportation-projects-to-reducecongestion-and-improve-air-quality. 176 Federal Transit Administration, “Urbanized Area Formula Grants – 5307,” accessed 22 February 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20180222224244/https://www. transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/urbanized-areaformula-grants-5307. 177 See note 158. 178 U.S. Government Publishing Office, Energy Policy Act of 2005, accessed 12 January 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180412200919/https://www.gpo.gov/ fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW109publ58.pdf. 179 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Clean Diesel Rebates,” accessed 22 February 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180222225101/https://www.epa.gov/ cleandiesel/clean-diesel-rebates. 180 Clean Energy Works, “Tariffed On-Bill to Help Accelerate Clean Transit,” accessed 27 March 2018, archived at https://web.archive.org/ web/20180329131535/http://cleanenergyworks. org/clean-transit. 181 Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company for Approval of SB 350 Transportation Electrification Proposals, 20 January 2017. 182 Ibid. 183 Ibid. 184 Betsy Lillian, “Portland General Electric’s Transportation Electrification Plan Moves Forward,” NGTNews, 27 February 2018. 185 Ibid. 186 Leslie Eudy et al., National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Foothill Transit Battery Electric Bus Demonstration Results, January 2016. 187 SCAQMD, SCAQMD Approves $8 Million to Fund 33 New Electric School Buses (newsletter), Vol. 24, Number 4, July/August 2017. 188 Drive Clean Chicago, “Drive Clean Chicago,” accessed 22 February, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20180222231206/ http://www.drivecleanchicago.com. 189 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Baker-Polito Administration Awards Electric School Bus Grants to Four Schools” (press release), 11 May 2016, archived at https://web. archive.org/web/20180222231759/https://www. mass.gov/news/baker-polito-administrationawards-electric-school-bus-grants-to-fourschools. 190 Proterra, Financing Your Electric Bus, accessed 28 March 2018 at https://www.proterra. com/financing. 191 Ibid. Notes 43 192 David Roberts, “Millions of Used Electric Car Batteries Will Help Store Energy for the Grid. Maybe.” Vox, 29 August 2016, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20180329132658/ https://www.vox.com/2016/8/29/12614344/ electric-car-batteries-grid-storage. 193 Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Electric Buses in Cities, 29 March 2018. 194 The California Air Resources Board, Innovative Clean Transit Regulation Discussion Document, December 15, 2017. 195 David Roberts, “Electric Buses Are Coming and They’re Going to Help Fix 4 Big Urban Problems,” Vox, 25 October 2017. 196 Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Transit Database – 2016, October 2017. 197 See note 105. 198 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database – eGRID 2016; As America’s electricity grid switches to cleaner renewable energy sources like wind and solar, the savings from electric buses will grow. 199 Because electric buses are four times more efficient than diesel (or natural gas) powered buses, even states with carbon-intensive electricity sources, like coal, can reduce emissions by switching to electric buses. The one exception in our analysis was Hawaii, which generates electricity primarily with petroleum and coal. The state plans to switch to 100 percent renewable energy by 2040, which means electric buses will continue getting cleaner as that transition happens. 200 See note 15. 201 See note 1. 202 See note 74. 203 Petroleum: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Hawaii State Profile and Energy Estimates – Net Electricity Generation by Source, Nov 2017, accessed 8 March 2018; Renewable energy plan: Public Utilities Commission, Instituting a Proceeding to Review the Power Supply Improvement Plans for Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc., and Maui Electric Company, Limited – Docket No. 2014-0182, filed 14 July 2017. 204 MTA, “MTA Testing 10 New, AllElectric Buses to Reduce Emissions & Modernize Public Transit Fleet” (press release), 8 January 2018. 205 Steve Hymon, Metro Board approves purchase of 95 electric buses and goal of full electric fleet by 2030, The Source, 27 July 2017. 206 Proposals: see note 149; Grant: The Associated Press, “Chicago Gets $1M in EPA Grants to Reduce Diesel Pollution,” 15 February 2018. 207 District Department of Transportation, DC Circulator 2017 Transit Development Plan Update, December 2017. 208 Rob Gannon, “With Some All-Electric Buses, Metro Transit Rides into the Future,” Seattle Times, 2 October 2017. 209 Mike DeNardo, “SEPTA Offers Look into Planned Station Upgrades, Electric Buses,” KYW Newsradio, 24 January 2018. 210 Joseph Bebon, “NJ Transit Nets Grant to Deploy Battery Electric Buses,” NGTNews, 3 October 2017. 211 CBS4, “Electric Buses Coming to 16th Street Mall,” 29 August 2016. 212 Karen Zamora, “Minneapolis’ Metro Transit to Add Electric Buses in 2019,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, 26 September 2017. 213 Metro Magazine, “BYD Delivers 3 Electric Buses to Md. Transit Agency,” 20 April 2017. 214 Ed Blazina, “Port Authority to Buy First Electric Bus,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 24 September 2017. 44 Electric Buses