Electric school buses are often described as “cleaner” and “more efficient,” and the recent article on Durango School District’s plans reflects that framing (Herald, Dec. 19). Those goals sound positive. What deserves closer attention, however, is how much these projects cost Coloradans and what obligations remain after the grant money is spent.
In this case, $900,000 in state grant funding is being used to purchase three electric school buses, roughly $300,000 per bus. While the buses themselves are covered by the grant, the article notes that additional electrical upgrades will be required and that long-term cost savings are still being evaluated. Those future infrastructure and maintenance expenses are not grant-funded and will ultimately fall on local taxpayers.
These grants are paid for through state-collected delivery and transportation fees that Coloradans see every time they order groceries, household goods or other necessities. Those fees raise the cost of living statewide, particularly in rural areas like ours where delivery services are essential and unavoidable.
The question isn’t whether electric buses are “cleaner”; it’s whether this is the most efficient use of limited dollars. School districts already operate safe, reliable buses that meet emissions standards. Meanwhile, Colorado’s roads and bridges are deteriorating, and many rural communities still lack reliable high-speed internet, investments that deliver clear, measurable benefits to safety, education and economic opportunity.
Calling a project “cleaner” does not make it cost-free. When state fees raise everyday expenses, Coloradans deserve a serious conversation about priorities and whether our money is being spent wisely.
Kenneth Fusco
Durango
