Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plumas County probes costs and contract terms of $10.7 million NG energy project after early implementation
Summary
Supervisors directed county counsel and facilities staff to review the NG energy contract after staff and the auditor raised concerns about high financing costs, unbudgeted exclusions and change orders, subcontractor sourcing, and whether guaranteed long‑term savings are realistic.
Plumas County supervisors on March 4 ordered a fast‑track review of the county’s NG energy project after an hour‑long public and staff discussion raised questions about costs, contract exclusions and the financing terms.
Facilities Director Nick Collin told the board ENGIE crews have been installing LED lighting at the annex, submitted solar plans to the building department and replaced two HR HVAC units that cost the county roughly $24,000. Collin said the ENGIE contract lists a far larger price for the same units and that several items in the contract were excluded or designated as change‑order work, creating potential additional unfunded costs.
“You can buy all the generators and all the lighting as a county and probably save half of what ENGIE’s charging you,” a member of the public said during comment, echoing concerns raised by facilities and audit staff. Supervisors and the auditor noted the financing for the project carries roughly $5.33 million in financing costs over 20 years while projected gross savings were presented to the board as $4.8 million over 30 years, raising questions about net benefit under current assumptions.
Why it matters: The project was approved to reduce long‑term energy costs and modernize county facilities, but supervisors said they need clearer, line‑by‑line accounting of what ENGIE will do as part of the $10.7 million scope, what the county has already purchased separately, and what change orders and maintenance obligations (including an annual maintenance fee) may add to long‑term costs.
What the board asked for: By formal direction, the board asked county counsel to analyze contractual options — including the county’s cancellation rights and the costs ENGIE could claim if the project were halted — and asked the facilities director to produce a prioritized, itemized assessment of the ENGIE project list with recommendations on items that could be removed, modified or locally procured. The board signaled it would seek the debt service schedule and other financing details for public record and set an aggressive target to return with findings in approximately two weeks.
Voices: Facilities Director Nick Collin described the installation work: “They’ve been at work for probably about a month now… at the annex, working nights… replacing lights there for the next 3 weeks.” Auditor and Treasurer staff said they had previously raised concerns about scope and financing and asked that those prior analyses be reexamined in light of current implementation details.
Next steps: County counsel will report back on legal exposure and financing obligations; facilities will produce a line‑by‑line recommendation; and the board will revisit the item at the next feasible meeting to decide whether to proceed, modify, or halt further drawdown of loan funds.
