District study finds electrifying buses could cost roughly $22 million after incentives; board weighs a five‑charger pilot

District leaders and outside consultants presented an 80‑page zero‑emission vehicle (ZEV) study outlining what it would take for Niagara‑Wheatfield to electrify its bus fleet, and recommended a phased approach that begins with a small pilot.

The presenter told the board the study analyzed every route, battery size and seasonal constraints and concluded that approximately 13 current routes would present challenges for immediate conversion to electric buses; one run was described as unlikely to be feasible with today's technology. The study also modeled utility and on‑site electrical upgrades the district would need to support charging.

Presenters put the engineering and infrastructure estimate at about $12 million (site electrical service, new transformers, switchboards and distribution upgrades), and estimated a full electric fleet replacement at roughly $26 million. Estimated rebates and incentives shown in the presentation totaled about $5.83 million; subtracting those incentives from the combined infrastructure and fleet numbers produced a net cost roughly in the $22 million range in the presentation materials. Presenters cautioned that the slide totals excluded certain optional items and that some line items (for example, an "optional fire upgrade") were listed with differing numbers in the slide deck.

The district noted current unit costs cited in the presentation: approximately $175,000 for a conventional diesel/gas bus and about $400,000 for an electric bus before incentives. Presenters described a voucher/incentive program that could cover much of the price gap for the district's first 10 buses, with an estimated reimbursable figure cited for a Type‑C bus example of about $245,000 after base voucher and scrappage bonus were applied.

Because of utility uncertainties the consultants recommended a phased procurement schedule. A Phase 0.1 pilot would install up to five Level‑2 chargers on existing service (the consultants said existing district service could host up to five Level‑2 chargers without major upgrades) and would cost an estimated $100,000–$500,000 for the district side of the pilot (presenters noted that figure likely did not include bus purchase costs). Presenters also described a "make‑ready" utility program that could cover roughly 90% of utility‑side upgrade costs and up to 50% of customer‑site costs, but emphasized that confirmation of substation and feeder capacity requires a formal, often lengthy, National Grid study.

Board members asked about lifecycle, charging practices and reliability. Several members raised concerns that grid outages and the shorter usable life of EV batteries compared with legacy buses could complicate operations and school transportation aid formulas. District staff said a detailed utilities study and pilot would be prudent before committing to a large rollout.

Next steps discussed included returning to the board with a precise cost estimate for a Phase 0.1 pilot, initiating a National Grid capacity study if the board approves further planning work, and pursuing available vouchers and grants for an initial tranche of electric buses.

"We found in this study that there were 13 bus routes that cannot currently be performed," the presenter told the board when summarizing route analysis. The presenter also said that a pilot would be useful to "see exactly the pitfalls" before larger investments.

The board did not take a formal vote to commit to a purchase schedule during this meeting; members asked administration to return with a clearer Phase 0.1 cost and utility‑study timeline.