Bluebird/Blossom reps present propane‑bus case to Caswell County Schools board

Representatives from Bluebird and a local propane supplier presented propane‑powered school buses to the Caswell County Board of Education, outlining fuel pricing, safety features and estimated lifetime cost savings, and saying state incentives would cover the additional conversion cost.

The presentation, delivered by Kirk Burns of Bluebird and a representative from Blossom (the local fuel supplier), explained that a propane bus offers lower lifetime fuel and maintenance costs than diesel, meets future EPA emissions requirements, and can be deployed incrementally with portable fueling stations. Board staff reported the district is expected to decide by the end of December whether to replace one EC (lift) bus with a propane model.

Board members asked about costs, fuel economy and mechanic training. Burns said the Bluebird 72‑passenger propane conversion adds $14,984 to the vehicle price but that North Carolina’s state contract currently covers that extra cost for counties. He said propane at the state contract runs about $1.40–$1.45 per gallon, and gave an average fuel‑economy comparison of about 7.5–8 mpg for diesel buses vs. about 6 mpg for propane buses. Burns said a 72‑passenger bus with the propane configuration uses a roughly 100‑gallon tank and can travel about 425 miles on a full tank.

Burns and the Blossom representative told board members mechanics training and on‑site support would be provided: Bluebird (and its conversion partner Roush CleanTech) provides a five‑year/100,000‑mile warranty and arranges mechanic training after warranty; Blossom and partnering fuel suppliers would install fueling equipment under a contract arrangement with no upfront equipment cost to the district, though electrical work could be an upfront county expense.

The presenters emphasized safety and regulatory compliance. Burns said Bluebird fuel tanks are tested and positioned within the frame rails and that the company has recorded no propane‑related explosion incidents among the roughly 22,000 propane school buses running in North America. He described multiple automatic shutoff features in the fuel system and steel reinforcements around tanks.

Board staff and the presenters discussed timing and next steps. A staff member said DCI (the bus procurement contact cited during the meeting) had suggested the district was up for a one‑bus replacement and that the EC replacement would be a suitable candidate for propane because the elevator/lift places students near the rear seating area. That staff member said the district’s final decision on bus style would be required by the end of December.

The board did not take a formal vote on procurement during the presentation; board members thanked the presenters and requested follow‑up information if the district proceeds to procurement planning.

For now, the presentation left the district with cost and safety data, an outline of warranty and training arrangements, and a timeline tied to the upcoming single‑bus replacement decision.