Another Lesson Learned in Vermont’s Winter
Here we go again. A valuable lesson emerges about the clash of political ambition and engineering realities, this time in Burlington, Vermont, during winter.
While electric buses may function well in milder climates, the expectation that they can fully replace diesel buses in northern states during long, cold winters is, well, unrealistic. The electric buses have become symbols of progress and environmental virtue, but they’re not helping anyone when they’re idle in the snow, while older diesel vehicles continue to do the job they were meant for. Taxpayers invested millions, and now these electric vehicles aren’t performing as intended.
Green Mountain Transit added five new electric buses to its fleet last year, with much fanfare amid the summer warmth. Those involved hailed the decision as a significant step toward Burlington’s net-zero energy goals and a reduction in carbon emissions. Each bus came with a hefty 520-kilowatt-hour battery boasting a theoretical range of 258 miles on a single charge.
However, theory and reality diverge sharply in harsh winters.
Challenges of Cold Weather
After less than a year of service, all five electric buses were taken out after a recall initiated by the manufacturer, New Flyer Industries, due to a potential fire hazard. This recall mandated a software update that severely restricted charging capabilities. Under the new rules, buses can’t charge when the battery temperature dips below 41 degrees Fahrenheit, and charging capacity is capped at 75%.
These changes created immediate challenges. Green Mountain Transit lacks the fire protection needed to store and charge electric buses indoors under these new restrictions. Consequently, the buses had to stay outside, exposed to the cold, which often fell below the necessary charging threshold. Thus, they couldn’t be charged—and, in turn, couldn’t be used.
A Complicated Situation
Clayton Clark, General Manager of Green Mountain Transit, pointed out that while the charging limitations are software-based and could theoretically be resolved sooner, a solution hasn’t been implemented yet. Replacement batteries won’t be available for 18 to 24 months. Furthermore, Clark noted that the organization is looking for financial relief from the manufacturer, and litigation isn’t off the table.
The situation is complicated by how the buses were procured. Federal transportation grants from 2020 to 2024 have mainly favored low or zero-emission vehicles, often denying requests for diesel buses. To compete for funding, Green Mountain Transit opted for electric buses, with around 90% of their funding coming from federal grants and Volkswagen settlements. Scraping the electric bus subsidy would leave them without options to fund diesel alternatives, stripping those resources entirely.
This entire venture cost a staggering $8 million.
Limited Options
The five recalled buses make up about 10% of Green Mountain Transit’s fleet. Clark mentioned that they are down to “literally the last bus,” leading to service cancellations occasionally. New transit vehicles require years of lead time and federal approval for orders, leaving the diesel buses, which were intended for retirement, working overtime to fill the gaps.
This situation isn’t just about poor driving or local mismanagement. It reflects a policy landscape that promotes electrification on paper while putting transportation at risk when the technology, climate, and infrastructure don’t align.
Electric buses, while promising in theory, struggle where the cold climate draws out their weaknesses. Batteries falter in low temperatures: they charge more slowly, are more prone to damage, and have reduced reliability and range.
Contrasting Performance
In contrast, traditional diesel buses offer nearly triple the range and can refuel in mere minutes instead of hours. Once fueled, they can roll right back into service for hundreds of miles without interruption. It’s not merely ideological—it’s a matter of operational practicality. Public transit systems are designed for reliability, especially in difficult weather, not to be experimental platforms for political ambitions.
Advocates argue that these initiatives are necessary for fighting climate change, but the cost-benefit analyses often go unexamined. The local emissions reductions are, in the grand scheme, minuscule, yet the financial implications for taxpayers are substantial and ongoing. Millions are spent on buses that currently sit idle, while residents also fund both electric vehicles and backup diesel options for the transit system to keep functioning.
This scenario has become all too familiar. Electric buses malfunctioning in cold regions have been reported multiple times, yet every new purchase announcement carries the assumption that the technology has finally made progress. The lessons from this winter may be overlooked, only to recur at significant public cost.
In the depths of winter, Burlington’s transit system now relies on the diesel buses it aimed to replace, while millions of dollars’ worth of electric buses remain frozen and unused. As temperatures drop, the laws of physics remain unyielding. This winter, the only buses running in Burlington are the very ones officials wished to phase out.
