Unionville‑Chadds Ford updates electric‑bus pilot after second vehicle returned for battery repairs

Unionville‑Chadds Ford School District officials on March 18 gave the board an update on the district’s electric‑bus pilot, reporting early operational data and vendor‑related problems that have taken one vehicle out of service.

Transportation director Mister Weitzel told the board the district contracted a bus‑as‑a‑service pilot with Highland Electric Fleets in October 2022. Under that arrangement there are no upfront capital costs and the vendor covers charger installation and, in broad terms, electricity and maintenance under an annual payment structure.

To date the district said one of the two electric buses is operating in regular service and that the pilot has recorded about 358 trips and more than 4,000 miles driven, which the district estimated avoided roughly 15,000 pounds of CO2 and produced an average efficiency near 1.9 kilowatt‑hours per mile. Driver training and mechanic training were completed before the buses entered service.

But Weitzel described multiple technical problems. The first operating bus has experienced a recurring low‑voltage (12‑volt) drain that has required jumpstarts after weekends; the vendor and district have been testing a weekend charge‑profile change to address the issue. The second bus, delivered after Christmas, was unable to charge; after vendor troubleshooting the bus was removed from the district’s site and returned to the supplier for what Highland and the manufacturer have described as a suspected battery problem that needs factory service.

Weitzel said the pilot has also encountered occasional charger “handshake” issues and that extreme cold reduces available state of charge on routes. He emphasized the value of the bus‑as‑a‑service model because the district has a single contracting partner to coordinate across charger, battery and bus manufacturers, which simplifies accountability. He said the district has not yet paid for the second bus because it never reached reliable service and that the vendor’s charge‑readiness guarantee remains a contractual backstop.

Board members asked about vendor obligations, loaner vehicles and lifecycle maintenance costs. Weitzel said the contract includes a charge‑readiness guarantee and that the vendor was arranging a temporary replacement vehicle in this case; he also said potential lifetime savings on brake maintenance and other service items remain a reason to continue evaluation but that it is too early to quantify those savings.

The district said next steps are to return the second bus to service after factory repairs, deploy it on different routes so more drivers, families and routes can be evaluated, continue monitoring kWh usage and demand charges, and collect rider and driver feedback for a future decision about scaling electrification.

Provenance: Board presentation and Q&A, transportation update provided by Mister Weitzel (topicintro SEG 2212; topfinish SEG 2636).

Ending: The board did not take a vote on the pilot at this meeting; directors requested additional details on vendor guarantees and long‑term operating costs before any decision on expanding the fleet.