Electric bus reliability problems in Ithaca and New York City are fueling state Sen. Thomas O’Mara’s call to reconsider New York’s school bus transition, raising questions about winter performance, infrastructure costs and whether districts can meet the state’s deadlines.
In his weekly column for Sept. 28, O’Mara argues that transit agencies’ difficulties should serve as a warning for schools across the Southern Tier and Finger Lakes. An August audit by state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s office documented substantial problems with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s electric bus rollout. But the regional experience also includes continued electric bus purchases, and New York has already extended its school bus deadlines.
Ithaca’s failed pilot offers lessons, with limits
O’Mara points to Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit’s experience with seven Proterra electric buses acquired in 2021.
According to TCAT’s account of its fleet history, a design flaw forced the agency to decommission those buses in March 2024, worsening an existing vehicle shortage.
That failure did not end TCAT’s investment in electric transportation. The agency says its fleet now includes six new Gillig electric buses, alongside recent diesel and hybrid additions. The distinction matters: TCAT’s experience documents the failure of a particular fleet, while its subsequent purchases show the agency continues to pursue the technology.
Cornell research published in May 2025 provides a more detailed explanation of the challenges. Researchers analyzed two years of TCAT operating data and compared actual energy use with modeled performance at optimal temperatures.
The pilot buses consumed 48% more battery energy at approximately 25 to 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Across a broader range of roughly 10 to 50 degrees, the increase was nearly 27%.
Heating batteries and passenger cabins accounted for much of the additional consumption. Regenerative braking also became less efficient in cold weather.
Researchers recommended warmer storage, charging batteries while they remained warm, and adjusting operating schedules and infrastructure. They also found smaller cold-weather energy increases on rural routes than urban ones, suggesting route selection could help operators manage a mixed fleet.
Those findings are relevant to regional school transportation planning. They do not establish that every electric school bus will perform like TCAT’s transit buses.
MTA audit identifies reliability and safety gaps
The comptroller’s audit, covering January 2019 through June 2025, found the MTA at risk of missing its goal of a zero-emission fleet by 2040.
Among the findings: Only one of 485 buses planned for the first transition stage had arrived by June 2025. Electric buses at five depots were available for service less than 60% of the time anticipated.
Auditors also identified supplier constraints, infrastructure delays and inadequate involvement of the MTA’s safety office in planning fire detection, suppression and emergency response.
Their recommendations included contingency planning, evaluating alternatives and reconsidering procurement timelines.
O’Mara argues those problems justify broader changes to state mandates. The audit itself examined MTA implementation; it did not evaluate school districts or recommend repealing their requirements.
The MTA’s next purchases also require context. A Sept. 10 announcement from Hochul’s office, distributed by Public Technologies, outlined plans to seek proposals for 650 compressed natural gas buses replacing older CNG vehicles.
The same announcement said the MTA’s 2025-29 capital plan includes 500 zero-emission buses and charging infrastructure.
MTA Chairman and CEO Janno Lieber framed the CNG purchases as a way to improve service while the electric bus industry matures. Proposals are due Oct. 19. The procurement represents continued reliance on combustion vehicles during the transition, rather than a complete abandonment of electric buses.
What New York currently requires of schools
For school districts, the controlling dates are now July 1, 2032, for new purchases and leases, and July 1, 2040, for the entire operating fleet.
Under New York’s current school bus law, districts must also incorporate those requirements into transportation contracts. The statute defines qualifying vehicles to include battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell buses, rather than exclusively battery-powered models.
Districts may seek up to two extensions of as much as 24 months each for the purchasing requirement. Factors include vehicle availability, infrastructure, funding, procurement efforts and operational changes. A second extension requires engagement with NYSERDA on fleet electrification planning.
O’Mara acknowledges that the state has extended the timeline but argues the additional time does not resolve questions about affordability, reliability and student transportation safety.
He also uses the column to criticize New York’s broader climate policy and its effects on ratepayers. The bus audit and Cornell study provide evidence about transportation challenges; neither measures the climate law’s contribution to household utility bills.
State funding helps, but does not cover every expense
O’Mara warns that districts and property taxpayers could face an enormous unfunded mandate. State assistance exists, although its availability does not establish that every district’s transition will be fully covered.
NYSERDA says the 2022 Environmental Bond Act provides $500 million toward school bus electrification for public districts and contracted operators. The agency also identifies cleaner air and reduced exposure to exhaust pollutants as benefits of replacing diesel and gasoline buses.
The New York School Bus Incentive Program offers vehicle and charging vouchers. Base vehicle vouchers cover a portion of the additional purchase cost, with bonuses available under specified conditions.
Charging assistance can cover equipment, installation and electrical upgrades on the customer’s side of the meter. However, the program excludes expenses including permitting, project management, extended warranties and utility-side infrastructure. Separate utility incentives may help with some infrastructure costs.
For local districts, those distinctions make the remaining bill a district-specific question. Vehicle selection, winter routes, electrical service and available assistance all affect what taxpayers ultimately must finance.
O’Mara seeks a much longer delay
O’Mara’s Senate bill, S1908, would postpone the new-purchase requirement until July 1, 2045, or until state agencies have fully converted their medium- and heavy-duty fleets, whichever comes later.
The proposal would also remove the full-fleet conversion requirement and require district cost-benefit assessments and additional safety measures. Its language was drafted against the earlier deadlines, before the current law’s extension.
Assemblyman Phil Palmesano sponsors the companion measure, A5168. Neither has become law. The Senate measure remains in the Education Committee, while the Assembly bill was held for consideration in its Education Committee on May 18.
O’Mara also supports Sen. George Borrello’s S4748, which would repeal the mandate and require a feasibility study. That proposal was defeated in the Senate Education Committee on May 5.
For now, districts remain responsible for preparing under the 2032 and 2040 deadlines. The documented failures give substance to questions about equipment, winter performance and implementation costs, while TCAT’s continued purchases show that operators are also pursuing improvements rather than uniformly walking away.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to news@fingerlakes1.com.