County hears feasibility study for zero-emission buses; board raises cost, rural-fit and policy concerns

Stantec consultants presented a zero-emission bus (ZEB) feasibility study to the Trinity County Board of Supervisors on July 1, outlining a phased plan that mixes battery-electric and hydrogen fuel-cell buses, recommended yard infrastructure and an initial procurement timeline beginning in the early 2030s.

Sarah Saad, Trinity County transportation planner, introduced Jonathan Garrett and Annalie Castillo of Stantec, who said the study models local routes, topography, temperatures and passenger loads to translate current operations into energy and charging/refueling requirements. Garrett said the firm used an in-house tool (ZebDecide) to model route-level and vehicle-level energy use and found that while many individual routes could be handled by battery electric buses, when blocks of routes were combined into single vehicle day assignments "none of the vehicles could successfully transition to battery electric and still complete service on a single charge" without interventions such as larger batteries, additional vehicles or midday charging at the yard.

Stantec recommended a hybrid approach: battery-electric buses for shorter routes (with 150 kW depot chargers and midday yard charging) and fuel-cell electric buses for longer routes—particularly the Willow Creek–Weaverville–Redding corridor—because hydrogen refueling is faster and fuel cells provide greater energy density. The consultants stressed that commercial fuel-cell cutaway buses with sufficiently large tanks are not yet widely available and that the plan is a "living document" that depends on technology evolution.

Key projected outcomes and costs included a recommended small fleet composition that ultimately would total about nine vehicles (eight revenue buses and one support vehicle) and a procurement phasing beginning with battery-electric vehicle infrastructure installation around 2031, first BE procurements about 2032 and first fuel-cell procurements about 2033. Stantec calculated lifetime greenhouse gas savings of roughly 134 metric tons of CO2 per year for the transition and estimated a capital-and-operations cost through 2040 of roughly $12.0 million for the ZEV case versus $7.3 million in a fossil-fuel base case—a difference of about $4.8 million.

Board members raised several concerns during the public discussion. Supervisors said the projected emission reductions were modest for a small rural fleet and questioned whether the same or greater carbon benefits could be achieved by investing in fuels-reduction or other local climate resilience measures. Several supervisors cited operational experience from other rural Northern California agencies and school districts in which electric buses struggled with heating loads and route completion in cold weather; Stantec said the model incorporates temperature and auxiliary loads and that the firm validated its approach with real-world data and peer review.

Fiscal and funding issues drew significant attention. Stantec and staff outlined federal and state funding options—FTA's Low-No and Buses and Bus Facilities programs, CARB's HVIP and other state programs—and noted many competitive grants require a local match. Board members and the county transportation planner said they have raised rural fit and matching-fund concerns directly with CARB, Caltrans and peer counties.

The board concluded the presentation by asking staff to continue state engagement and to brief the board on policy advocacy with other rural counties. County staff said they will provide the final Stantec report and continue communications with CARB and potential funding partners.

Why this matters: CARB's Innovative Clean Transit regulation and state/federal funding timelines are driving transit agencies in California to plan ZEB transitions. For a small rural operator, technology limits, route topography, cold‑weather auxiliary loads and grant-match requirements can make procurement and infrastructure decisions complex.