This document serves as the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) resource for the Saskatoon Transit Full Fleet Zero Emissions Bus Implementation Plan. It addresses frequently raised questions and concerns regarding the study commissioned by Saskatoon Transit and undertaken by the Canadian Urban Transit Research & Innovation Consortium (CUTRIC).
The information contained here clarifies the study's scope, methodology, assumptions and key findings, particularly concerning the long-term feasibility of fleet electrification in Saskatoon's unique environmental and economic context.
1.
Has Saskatoon Transit given up on electrifying its fleet entirely?
No, Saskatoon Transit has not abandoned its goal of fleet electrification. Saskatoon Transit has adopted a long-term approach centered on incremental planning. This strategy involves actively monitoring three key factors that will determine the viability of future electrification:
1. Technological advancements: Improvements in vehicle efficiency and battery technology.
2. Funding programs: The availability of new government grants or subsidies.
3. Grid decarbonization: Progress in making Saskatchewan’s electrical grid less carbon-intensive.
The current approach is intended to prepare for a large-scale transition at a future date when financial, technological and environmental conditions are more favourable.
2.
What did CUTRIC assume Saskatoon/Saskatchewan's energy grid composition would look like over the 15 years of their modelling? On the power grid, does this consider coal phasing out by 2029?
No. The study is based on Saskatchewan’s current electricity grid composition and does not assume a future phase-out of coal. Recent announcements confirming the province’s intention to extend the life of its coal-fired power plants further underscore the study’s relevance.
The report’s primary conclusion is that Saskatchewan’s carbon-intensive grid presents the most significant barrier to achieving short-term environmental benefits from electric bus deployment. By continuing to operate coal facilities beyond earlier expectations, the province reinforces this challenge—prolonging the conditions that limit the climate impact of electrified transit.
3.
What about electric heaters? The report details diesel heaters.
CUTRIC’s Pan-Canadian Electric Bus Demonstration and Integration Trial highlights that dieselelectric hybrid heaters (referred to as diesel heaters in the report) consume an annual average of 0.015 L/km. Using these heaters leads to a BEB range extension of up to 31 per cent during winter with the exact range extensions varying based on ambient temperature, battery size and duty cycle. Phase 1 of the Pan-Canadian Battery Electric Bus Demonstration and Integration Trial, which ran from 2016 to its successful conclusion in 2024, was a landmark initiative aimed at standardizing a single technical protocol for high-powered charging systems and demonstrating the interoperability of BEBs and chargers. This project was the first of its kind globally to implement and test high-powered chargers, revolutionizing the electrification of public transit systems.
CUTRIC’s Pan-Canadian Electric Bus Demonstration and Integration Trial
Phase One: Commercialization
Transit Agencies
Technical partners
Funding partners
The use of electric heaters, which decrease vehicle range, significantly increases costs, the number of buses required for service and the supporting infrastructure for zero emissions buses (ZEBs). The additional space needed due to a higher BEB-to-diesel replacement ratio would also result in the need for more facility storage space for those additional vehicles. This additional real estate necessitates more heating and cooling within facilities, which can increase emissions across the zero emissions transit system, despite the fact that electric heaters reduce emissions on a per-bus basis.
It is anticipated that manufacturers will develop more efficient auxiliary heating and cooling technologies in ZEBs, such as heat pumps. Should these technologies advance as expected, further reductions in GHG emissions are possible across ZEB fleets.
4.
When should Saskatoon Transit consider updating the reporting?
Canadian Urban Transit Research & Innovation Consortium strongly advises that all modelling be updated regularly and ideally on a three to four year basis. This reflects the rapid nature with which vehicle, battery, hydrogen fuelling, materials and data-driven block optimization methods are evolving. These advancements are expected to improve efficacy and reduce costs associated with zero emissions technologies.
Modelling work can be updated and reconsidered at the same time that major service updates are being planned or when a significant service or technology change is implemented, whichever comes first.
This proactive approach ensures the accuracy and relevance of models based on existing marketready technologies, allowing for informed decision-making, funding decisions and electrified transit system performance.
5.
How is the base case fuel production GHG emissions calculated and why is it lower than that of battery electric buses (BEBs)?
While BEBs produce zero tailpipe emissions during operation, their overall environmental impact must be assessed from a full life cycle perspective. The study adopts a “cradle-to-grave” approach, accounting for emissions from vehicle production, energy generation and operational deployment. The study finds that total greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from BEBs are limited to approximately 10 to 15 per cent. This outcome is primarily driven by two factors: operational modeling assumptions that affect how many electric buses are needed to replace diesel units and the carbon intensity of Saskatchewan’s electricity grid, which relies heavily on coal and natural gas.
To maintain service levels on energy-intensive routes, the analysis incorporates reblocking strategies (adjustments to scheduling and vehicle deployment) that result in a higher number of BEBs required per diesel bus. This elevated replacement ratio increases overall lifecycle emissions.
While BEBs produce no emissions at the tailpipe, charging them introduces significant upstream emissions due to the fossil-heavy nature of local electricity generation. These emissions are fully accounted for in the analysis. In jurisdictions with cleaner power grids, such as those dominated by hydro, wind or solar, the life cycle emissions of BEBs are substantially lower and the environmental benefits of electrified transit are correspondingly greater.
In Saskatchewan’s context, the combination of a high replacement ratio and a carbon-intensive grid significantly limits the net climate benefit of BEB deployment in the short term.
6.
Does CUTRIC weigh any adverse impacts of not pursuing decarbonization for bus fleets, such as the impacts of a hotter planet?
Yes, the study directly addresses the environmental impacts of different fleet options based on commitments made by the Paris Agreement (2015), a legally binding global international treaty, which identifies limiting global warming to well below two degrees Celsius, ideally 1.5 degrees, above pre-industrial levels is the absolute baseline to prevent catastrophic damage to human life. The analysis leverages CUTRIC’s RoutΣi.Social™ toolkit to assess the economic, social and environmental aspects of fleet electrification, identifying communities best suited for ZEB deployment based on critical socioeconomic indicators.
The report's central environmental finding is that, due to Saskatchewan's carbon-intensive power grid, a full transition to BEBs would yield 10 to 15 per cent reductions in overall emissions. However, further considerations or analyses (including modelling) of the impacts on human life of a hotter planet are beyond the scope of work for which CUTRIC was hired.
7.
Do these case studies account for the carbon footprint of the entire production process, not just the bus operation?
Yes, the analysis is a comprehensive cradle-to-grave life cycle analysis. This includes emissions from vehicle manufacturing, battery production, infrastructure construction, well-to-wheel fuel production (including different energy pathways for creating hydrogen) and even the energy needed for facility heating, cooling and end-of-life cycle recycling.
8.
Why was an electric trolley system not considered as a scenario for the 38 kilometers of the BRT system?
CUTRIC is supportive of electric trolley systems. It is an unfortunate part of Canadian history that trolleys were decommissioned in past decades, as they are proving resilient and relatively lowcost zero emissions technologies today.
In the study CUTRIC was commissioned to complete, the modelling of a trolley system was not included in the Scope of Work identified by Saskatoon Transit. This is in part because the federal government does not fund trolley buses within its Zero Emission Transit Fund (ZETF).
Trolley buses are, however, a technology with a long history in Canada. CUTRIC has found that more agencies are considering a potential future for this or similar technologies (e.g., trackless trolley) as part of their zero emissions solutions for the future.
Should Saskatoon Transit ask CUTRIC to integrate modelling of electric trolleys in the future, a new scope of work could be developed. CUTRIC has encouraged transit agencies to consider these options in the future as part of a suite of potential options in the drive towards zero emissions.
9.
Why do we go through these start-up problems in Canada, when Europe and China have already solved their problems?
While Europe and China have more experience, Canada faces a unique set of challenges in electrifying its bus fleets, boiling down to three main factors.
1. Severe climate: Canada's harsh winters are a primary hurdle. Extreme cold drastically reduces a battery's effective range as significant energy is diverted to heating the cabin and the battery chemistry itself becomes less efficient. This requires larger, more expensive batteries and different operational strategies than required in the more temperate climates where the technology has been widely adopted.
2. Demanding geography: Canadian cities are often less dense and more sprawling than their European or Asian counterparts. This results in longer bus routes with greater daily mileage requirements. These demanding routes put more strain on battery capacity and make a simple one-to-one replacement for a diesel bus much more difficult to achieve without significant operational changes or on-route charging.
3. Different operational expectations: Many North American transit agencies initially expected electric buses to be a direct, "drop-in" replacement for diesel, matching their range and refueling patterns. In contrast, many European systems adapted their operations to the technology's capabilities sooner, using more on-route charging. This difference in expectation forces the technology to meet a very high bar, whereas other markets built systems that worked with the technology's existing strengths and limitations.
Additionally, data from China on the performance of ZEBs is currently unverified. While qualitative assessments of China's electrification initiatives highlight challenges such as vehicle waste, premature vehicle retirement and inconsistent performance metrics, the absence of independent scientific transparency and publicly verifiable data from China complicates external efforts to rigorously evaluate and confirm the reported outcomes. CUTRIC encourages the community, environmental organizations, political parties and other stakeholders to avoid comparisons with Chinese electrification efforts as data cannot be verified.
10.
Is
it fair to extrapolate out initial high maintenance costs based on early adoption challenges and present them as if they will apply over the very long term?
The report's figures are based on empirical modelling from real-world data in Saskatoon and other Canadian cities, where early-generation electric buses have often faced high maintenance costs. Some transit agencies choose to ignore these early-year data sets, but the vast majority of transit agencies in Canada require the integration of these datasets precisely because “early adoption” can last several years and the costs and complexities along with that integration curve. In some cases, as in the case of cities like Edmonton, many electric buses face such significant challenges that they are permanently unusable leading to high costs to taxpayers for no emissions savings. Ignoring these realities would be disingenuous science and empirically unsound.
In the CUTRIC public webinar presentation, a detailed sensitivity analysis was shown to address this specific concern. This analysis explored several "what-if" scenarios to determine whether the overall conclusion would change under more optimistic conditions for electric buses. For example:
1. Reduced BEB maintenance cost: One scenario modeled a zero emissions bus maintenance cost of just $0.18/km, representing the ultimate goal of cheap electric vehicle maintenance after initial issues are resolved.
2. Increased diesel maintenance cost: Another scenario increased the maintenance cost for a diesel bus to $1.00/km to simulate possible rising future costs.
3. BEB break-even point: The analysis also calculated the extreme point at which the BEB solution would be ranked first based on the decision-making analysis. It found that diesel maintenance costs would need to reach $5.87/km to make BEBs the preferred choice given the criteria.
The analysis concluded that even under more favourable assumptions for electric buses, the final ranking of the scenarios did not change significantly.
11.
How do we account for the significant increase in costs not in the SRC report?
The Saskatchewan Research Council’s (SRC) Saskatoon Transit Electric Bus Performance Report was prepared in 2022 and includes assumptions from as early as 2019. Significantly more information has become available since this report was generated and the CUTRIC study relies on these updated findings and extensive real-world data in its analysis. CUTRIC's economic analysis includes a more comprehensive assessment by including the upfront capital costs for the ZEBs along with charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure, electricity and hydrogen costs, maintenance costs, facilities upgrade costs and replacement ratio costs.
As detailed in the facilities assessment segment of this report, facility electrification costs are significant and material.
12.
How did the social impact indicators consider the accessibility of students and children in the final conclusion? Was this population differentiated?
The social analysis for this study considered several vulnerable populations but these did not include a segment associated with “students and children.”
The CUTRIC RoutΣ.i Social™ analysis includes a differentiated analysis for the following segments of society:
1. Noise-sensitive areas
2. Low-income communities
3. Communities exposed to high levels of air pollution and contamination
4. Communities with a high concentration of seniors
5. Communities with lower levels of formal education
6. Communities spending over 30% of their income on housing
As the collective understanding of social equity in transit evolves, CUTRIC encourages transit agency partners to incorporate more granular and specific demographic analyses in all future planning work. Ensuring that the benefits of new transit technology are distributed equitably among all community members, including youth, is a goal CUTRIC is committed to pursuing.
13.
What is the impact of tariffs?
Ongoing trade tensions between Canada and the United States, marked by recent tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, automotive and transportation manufacturing sectors, imposed or threatened by United States President Donald Trump’s administration, are creating a challenging environment for the Canadian economy and the ZEB manufacturing industry locally.
Demand may drop due to tariff-related inflation costs for buses, including ZEBs, will certainly rise over time with the imposition of these tariffs and/or any retaliatory measures.
While Canadian officials are engaged in discussions with their American counterparts to find resolutions, the situation introduces uncertainty for the Canadian zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) landscape, particularly regarding potential increases in material costs and disruptions to established supply chains.
14.
What is the impact of inflation?
During the COVID-19 pandemic, costs for ZEBs did increase by approximately 30 per cent, as did costs for associated infrastructure.
Cost increases related to tariffs recently imposed are still undetermined. While original estimates of cost implications for these tariffs were cited as high as 40 per cent, CUTRIC manufacturing members are currently reporting price increases varying from five per cent to more than 15 per cent potential inflationary effects this year.
The cost of ZEB technologies may fluctuate over time due to economic inflation and tariffs (which drive up costs) and volumes based on elevated demand (which drive down costs).
15.
What is the impact of manufacturer delays?
Manufacturers may opt to prioritize large orders, impacting the ability of small- to medium-sized transit agencies to implement ZEB procurement and remain aligned with growth planning overall due to supply chain constraints.
However, delays of significance reported to CUTRIC for ZEB deliveries tend to be in line with delays for other bus products.
This isn’t a peer-reviewed study and it is clearly flawed.
The Canadian Urban Transit Research & Innovation Consortium (CUTRIC) is a nationally recognized research organization that brings together a network of leading universities as part of its membership. CUTRIC’s modelling architecture is grounded in peer-reviewed research and developed iteratively through close collaboration with transit agencies and vehicle manufacturers.
These models are rigorously quality-controlled by highly qualified personnel with advanced research degrees and deep expertise in complex methodological design. To ensure real-world relevance and accuracy, CUTRIC’s predictive outcomes are regularly assessed against empirical data and validated in partnership with agencies, whose operational experiences consistently align with modelled results over time.
