Moore Calls $28.5 Million in EV Grants “Lowering Costs.” Maryland’s Electric-Bus Record Deserves More Scrutiny.

By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews

---

Gov. Wes Moore has a new answer to rising gas prices: spend $28.5 million funding electrification projects across Maryland.

The administration announced 63 grants and 1,903 rebates across five Maryland Energy Administration programs, including electric school buses, EV chargers, zero-emission trucks and other transportation projects. Among the awards: $2.5 million for six electric transit buses in Baltimore City, more than $1.5 million for five electric school buses serving Anne Arundel County Public Schools, and nearly $950,000 for a Baltimore resiliency-hub EV pilot.

Those may be worthwhile environmental investments. But calling the package a response that will “lower costs” for Maryland families as gas prices rise is doing a lot of rhetorical work.

For the Marylander filling up a gasoline-powered car today, this announcement provides no direct rebate, no gas-tax cut, and no immediate reduction in the price at the pump.

The administration’s actual theory is longer-term: electrify more government and commercial transportation, reduce fuel consumption, and potentially lower operating expenses for participating fleets. That is substantially different from suggesting that $28.5 million in public funding will provide immediate relief to households struggling with gasoline prices. Moore’s own release emphasizes school districts, businesses, EV infrastructure and fleet electrification — not a direct reduction in retail gasoline prices.

Montgomery County’s electric-bus warning

Maryland already has a cautionary example of what can happen when officials promise that electric buses will save taxpayers money.

Montgomery County Public Schools entered into a contract worth more than $160 million to transition hundreds of school buses to electric vehicles. The program was promoted as both an environmental initiative and a money saver.

Then the county inspector general looked under the hood.

The July 2024 investigation found that electric buses scheduled for fiscal years 2022 through 2024 were not delivered by contractual deadlines, while mechanical and charging problems repeatedly left buses unable to run routes. More than 280 service disruptions occurred between February 2022 and March 2024, and many repairs exceeded contractual timelines.

The consequences were not theoretical.

Because electric-bus deliveries fell short, MCPS spent nearly $14.75 million on 90 diesel buses to meet transportation needs. The inspector general also found that MCPS failed to structure or enforce contract provisions that could have offset costs from late deliveries and prolonged equipment failures.

The watchdog’s conclusion was not that electric buses themselves inherently caused waste. It was that MCPS’s contract-management failures resulted in millions of dollars in wasteful spending.

That distinction matters.

A program promoted partly as a way to save fuel and money ultimately required MCPS to spend nearly $14.75 million on diesel buses after electric-bus deliveries fell short, while the county inspector general blamed poor contract enforcement and management for millions in wasteful spending.

That does not prove every electric-bus project will fail.

It does prove Maryland officials should be much more cautious before putting “lowering costs” in giant letters above another round of EV spending.

Spending is not the same thing as saving

There is a recurring habit in Annapolis of describing public spending as though the expenditure itself constitutes savings.

• Give out grants for electric vehicles? “Lowering costs.”
• Subsidize chargers? “Affordability.”
• Spend public money replacing conventional equipment with electric alternatives? “Saving at the pump.”

But taxpayers deserve a more basic accounting.

• How much does each electric vehicle cost compared with the conventional alternative?
• What are the expected maintenance costs?
• What is the charging-infrastructure cost?
• How long before projected fuel savings recover the upfront public subsidy?
• Who bears the risk if equipment is delivered late or fails?
• And, perhaps most importantly after Montgomery County, what contractual protections ensure taxpayers are not left buying replacement vehicles when the promised fleet does not materialize?

The Moore administration’s announcement focuses heavily on estimated lifetime emissions reductions. Those are legitimate policy metrics. But if the administration wants to sell these grants as an affordability initiative, then taxpayers deserve equally detailed cost-and-performance metrics.

The distinction matters

There is nothing inherently contradictory about supporting electric transportation while demanding fiscal discipline.

If an electric school bus genuinely costs less over its usable life, performs reliably, and saves taxpayers money, make the case with numbers.

If an EV charger will generate enough public benefit to justify a subsidy, show the analysis.

But environmental policy should not receive a free pass from the same scrutiny applied to every other government program.

Montgomery County Public Schools contracted for hundreds of electric buses. Delivery delays, charging problems and mechanical failures followed, while the inspector general faulted MCPS for failing to enforce the contract properly.

Now Annapolis is putting another $28.5 million behind electrification while invoking rising gasoline prices as the justification.

Maybe these projects will succeed.

But Marylanders have earned the right to ask for more than promises.

Because spending $28.5 million is a fact.

Calling it “savings” is something the state still has to prove.

---

Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free

MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.

If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.

👉 Support Local Journalism

Have a tip or documents to share?

We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.

 👉 Submit a Tip