Kenmore‑Tonawanda hears study estimating $12M for electric‑bus infrastructure; 15 of 70 routes not yet feasible

District and firm presentations: At its regular meeting, the Kenmore‑Tonawanda Union Free School District board heard a detailed transition study from Wendell, a consultant team hired to analyze what a shift to zero‑emission school buses would require.

“Of those 70, 15 of them cannot be completed with current technology,” said Katie Ekham, Wendell’s energy engineer and technical lead, after presenting a route analysis and charger‑sizing model. The study analyzed start/end times and mileage for 70 district routes, including 26 spare buses and six contracted buses that might be added in future.

What the study found: Using worst‑case winter conditions, Wendell modeled a peak district charging load of roughly 1,500 kilowatts (about 1,200–1,300 kVA). Electrical engineers recommended installing a new service with approximately a 2,000 kVA transformer, new switchgear and seven switchboards feeding charging equipment. Wendell proposed a three‑phase rollout with phase 1 installing 35 chargers, phase 2 adding 31 more, and a final total of 96 chargers for all route and spare buses. The firm estimated infrastructure costs at about $12,000,000 (not including any incentives or grants).

Timing and procurement: John Havrilla, Wendell’s alternative fuels director, listed lead times that shape the schedule: utility design (≈2 months), transformer procurement (≈12 months), utility construction (≈6 months) and a 18–22 month lead time for major switchgear, with detailed phase‑1 design requiring 5–6 months. “You’re almost looking at 2 years to get the switchgear to start the build out,” Havrilla said; overall, Wendell estimated roughly three years to begin building phase 1.

Incentives and funding options: Wendell highlighted several incentive programs that could reduce bus and infrastructure costs. Examples cited in the presentation included EPA bus grants that may cover about 75% of bus cost (up to roughly $280,000 per bus), New York State incentives through NYSERDA (example figures cited: a roughly $147,000 base voucher for a Type C bus plus a $61,000 scrappage bonus) and a utility rebate cited as $440 per kilowatt toward charging infrastructure. The consultants recommended pursuing available incentives promptly because program availability can change.

Board concerns and operational questions: Board members and district staff probed practical issues not resolved by the study. Questions included cold‑weather range and reliability, the feasibility of long athletic or rural trips, whether routes might be split or require additional vehicles, who would pay for mid‑day or shared charging capacity, mechanics’ training and fire‑safety protocols, and maneuverability on narrow, older streets.

“We’re actually helping the state understand what their mandates are really saying,” Havrilla told the board, noting districts’ studies feed state planning. The superintendent and board members repeatedly emphasized that any capital work would require community approval as part of the district’s regular budgeting and capital‑project processes.

What’s next: Wendell’s final report and the district’s submission to the State Education Department were noted in the meeting; district staff said the state has posed questions and that the district hopes policy conversations will emphasize infrastructure readiness. The study’s findings are intended to inform future board decisions about timing, budget planning, grant applications and the scope of a capital project if the board elects to proceed.

Ending: The board did not take any formal action on the electric‑bus recommendations at this meeting; members requested further analysis, conversation about cost‑sharing and workforce training, and continued coordination with state and utility partners.