Here we go again. Another expensive lesson in what happens when political ambition outruns engineering reality — this time playing out in the dead of winter in Burlington, Vermont. Electric buses may perform adequately in mild environments, but expecting them to replace diesel buses in northern states with long, cold winters ignores basic physics.Electric buses unveiled with great fanfare as symbols of progress and climate virtue are now sitting idle in the snow, while the supposedly outdated diesel fleet does the actual work of moving people. Taxpayers paid millions for these vehicles, and right now, they can’t do the job they were purchased to do.Green Mountain Transit added five new electric buses to its fleet last year, announcing the move in the warmth of summer. Officials praised the decision as a major step toward Burlington’s net-zero energy goals and reduced carbon emissions. The buses were billed as modern, clean, and capable, each equipped with a 520-kilowatt-hour battery and a theoretical range of up to 258 miles on a single charge. So much for theory. This year's harsh winter has delivered a lesson in reality. Out coldLess than a year after entering service, all five electric buses were pulled from operation following a battery recall by manufacturer New Flyer Industries. The recall cited a potential fire hazard and prompted a software update that significantly restricted how the buses could be charged. Under the revised settings, the buses are no longer allowed to charge when battery temperatures fall below 41 degrees Fahrenheit, and charging capacity is capped at 75%.Those restrictions created an immediate operational problem. Green Mountain Transit’s garage does not have the fire-mitigation equipment required to store or charge electric buses indoors under the recall conditions. As a result, the buses have been forced to remain outdoors, exposed to Vermont’s winter temperatures. With ambient temperatures frequently below the charging threshold, the buses cannot be charged safely and therefore cannot be used.Perverse incentivesWhile Green Mountain Transit general manager Clayton Clark noted that the charging restriction is software-based and could theoretically be resolved sooner, no such remedy has yet been implemented; replacement batteries will not be installed for 18 to 24 months. Clark said GMT is seeking a financial remedy from the manufacturer and has not ruled out litigation.The problem is compounded by how the buses were acquired in the first place, explained Clark. Federal transit grants from 2020 through 2024 prioritized low- or zero-emission vehicles, with requests for diesel buses often denied. To remain competitive for funding, Green Mountain Transit pursued electric buses, which are approximately 90% funded through federal grants and Volkswagen settlement money. Canceling the electric-bus grant would mean forfeiting those funds entirely, without the option to redirect them toward diesel replacements.The price tag for this experiment? A cool $8 million. Stretched thinThe five recalled buses represent about 10% of Green Mountain Transit’s fleet. With all of them sidelined, Clark said the system is now “literally down to our last bus,” forcing occasional service cancellations. Replacement buses cannot be ordered quickly; new transit vehicles require multi-year lead times and federal approvals. In the meantime, the diesel buses that were slated for retirement are being run harder than ever to keep service operating.This is not a story about careless drivers or mismanagement by local transit employees. It is about a policy framework that rewards electrification on paper while leaving transit agencies exposed when technology, climate, and infrastructure fail to align.Electric buses may perform adequately in mild environments, but expecting them to replace diesel buses in northern states with long, cold winters ignores basic physics. Batteries lose efficiency in cold weather. Charging becomes slower and more fragile. Range drops. Reliability suffers.RELATED: This city bought 300 Chinese electric buses — then found out China can turn them off at will Photo by Guo Haipeng/VCG via Getty ImagesWin dieselBy comparison, a conventional diesel bus typically has nearly three times the range and can be refueled in minutes rather than hours. Once fueled, it can return immediately to service and run hundreds of additional miles without interruption. That is not ideology. It is an operational fact. Public transit systems exist to provide reliable service — especially in harsh conditions — not to serve as test beds for political signaling.Supporters of these programs frame them as necessary sacrifices in the fight against climate change, but the cost-benefit analysis rarely receives serious scrutiny. The emissions reductions claimed at the local level are negligible in a global context, while the financial burden on taxpayers is real and long-lasting. Millions of dollars have been spent on buses that are currently unusable, and residents are left paying for both the electric fleet and the diesel backup required to keep the system functioning.What makes this situation particularly troubling is how familiar it has become. Cold-weather failures of electric buses have been reported repeatedly across northern regions, yet each new purchase is announced as if the technology has suddenly overcome its limitations. The lessons of previous winters are ignored, only to be relearned at significant public expense.In the middle of winter, Burlington’s transit system depends on the very diesel buses officials were eager to replace, while millions of dollars’ worth of electric buses sit frozen and unused. When temperatures drop, physics doesn’t negotiate. And this winter in Burlington, the only buses that work are the ones officials tried to phase out.