Summary
- CUTRIC has been assessed on its research and publications regarding transit bus decarbonization
- EU and US reports show that hydrogen refueling and buses have not met performance or cost targets
- An article pointed out the flaws in CUTRIC’s report favoring hydrogen and natural gas buses over battery electric buses
- CUTRIC hired a PR agency to address the fallout from the flawed report, but their response was defensive and criticized
- Board members and paying members of CUTRIC are advised to reconsider their affiliation with the organization due to its governance problems and flawed assessments
Article
In the past three weeks, a comprehensive analysis was conducted on the Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium (CUTRIC) and its stance on transit bus decarbonization. Several articles were published citing various reports and studies that raised concerns about the effectiveness of hydrogen and renewable natural gas in the decarbonization mix. Reports from the EU and US Department of Energy highlighted challenges with hydrogen refueling and maintenance costs, while studies on renewable natural gas questioned its viability as a low-carbon fuel option.
Specific articles focused on the failure of hydrogen bus trials over the past 20 years, with transit agencies opting for battery-electric and overhead tram-buses instead. A critical assessment of CUTRIC’s $9 billion report for the city of Brampton found significant discrepancies favoring a battery-electric-only fleet, raising questions about the accuracy and methodology of the report. Suggestions were made to shift focus to battery electric buses and address operational and fiscal challenges rather than pursuing hydrogen or natural gas solutions.
Following the publication of these articles, CUTRIC hired a PR agency to address the criticisms. However, instead of acknowledging the flaws in their reports and studies, CUTRIC responded defensively, using vague and dismissive language to address the concerns raised. The response failed to address the specific criticisms and numerical discrepancies highlighted in the assessments, further undermining the organization’s credibility in the transit decarbonization space.
Recommendations were made to CUTRIC’s Board of Directors to reassess their governance structure, modeling techniques, and strategic focus. Concerns were raised about conflicts of interest with members representing fossil fuel companies and fuel cell vendors on the Board, casting doubt on the organization’s impartiality in promoting alternative fuels. The response from CUTRIC indicated a lack of willingness to acknowledge failures in their reports and studies, further eroding trust in their expertise and recommendations.
Moving forward, it was suggested that CUTRIC needed to re-evaluate its approach to transit decarbonization, prioritize empirical evidence, and align with global experts in the field. As long as governance issues, modeling deficiencies, and bias towards certain technologies persist, the organization’s credibility and effectiveness in guiding transit agencies towards sustainable solutions will remain in question. Paying members and stakeholders were advised to reconsider their affiliation with CUTRIC until significant improvements are made to address these concerns.
Read the full article here
