Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Efficiency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects $9.2 million energy‑savings contract for Water Resources site
Summary
After a lengthy presentation and public comment, Bakersfield City Council voted to reject a proposed $9.2 million energy‑savings contract with Willdan that would have paid for solar carports, a Tesla megapack battery and chargers at the Water Resources Administrative Office; councilors pressed staff on payback assumptions and contingency planning.
Bakersfield city staff told the council that a proposed Willdan Energy Solutions contract to install solar carports, a roughly 612‑kW battery and EV chargers at the Water Resources Administrative Office would reduce that facility's electric costs by about $414,000 a year and lower the site's carbon footprint.
"The interface will generate about 734,000 kilowatt hours per year, which is about a 44% offset of its usage," Assistant Water Director Daniel Maldonado said while outlining system size and projected generation. Project presenters provided renderings and a 25‑year cash‑flow model showing a 13‑year payback in the plan's best case and a longer payback if anticipated incentives did not materialize.
In public comment, resident Terry Maxwell urged caution, noting declining panel efficiency and risks in long payback projections: "The solar panels...lose about 2% of their efficiency," he said, and warned the council against depending on best‑case assumptions.
Council members questioned contingency sizing, incentives and warranties. Willdan's presenter said the procurement is a "GMAX" fixed, not‑to‑exceed contract and that a contingency line was built into the proposal: "This is a GMAX contract, and so it is a not to exceed," the consultant stated. Staff said some incentives are secured but others depend on meeting operational milestones (such as PTO and energization by 12/31/2027) to capture federal and utility credits.
After discussion, Council Member Komen moved not to approve the item. On roll call the motion passed with recorded yes votes from Council members Arias, Weir, Komen and Basharash and no votes from Vice Mayor Gore, Council members Gonzales and Smith; the motion was announced as approved by the clerk. The council did not adopt the energy‑savings contract, leaving the project to be revisited if staff again brings a substantially different financing or scope package.
The council also heard concerns from other members about ratepayer impacts and the need to ensure the Water Enterprise Fund was the appropriate funding source. Staff said the water enterprise fund (municipal drinking water fund) would be charged for the project and that realized savings would be reallocated within the enterprise to avoid further near‑term rate increases.
