"That's the plan," I said.

"You don't believe that, do you?" the woman asked, the contempt in her voice obvious.

I don't know.

I have no reason to doubt private company Energy Education when it says it can help the schools save $24.5 million on energy spending over the next 10 years. Most of us already know how to save some money on our light bill -- wash our clothes in cold water instead of hot; turn the thermostat down in winter and up in summer; buy energy-efficient appliances - refrigerators, washers and dryers - if we can afford them. Energy Education is simply a company that shares those tips, and more, with folks who use electricity on a grand scale.

But the school folks are clearly mindful of the suspicion that they're about to waste millions of taxpayer dollars.

Last fall, Energy Education said the schools would need to spend about $6 million over the next 10 years to save $24.5 million. We reported that spending number last fall and again last month, when the school board inked a deal with Energy Education.

That's when the school system sent an e-mail saying our numbers were wrong. In asking for a correction, the schools said they had no idea where we had gotten $6 million from. The figure, they said, was $2.16 million.

I thought to myself that we could have made a mistake. But a $4 million mistake?

So our reporter went through her background materials on the story and the number she found was $6 million. That includes $2.16 million guaranteed to Energy Education and another $2.16 million to the company if it makes good on its energy-saving promises. The last big cost is about $1.5 million to pay two full-time energy managers for 10 years. The idea, of course, is that savings from energy efficiency will pay for all of this spending.

So I wondered what was wrong with our story. The schools said it was outdated; that the numbers had changed since last fall. "What are they now?" I asked. "They're still being negotiated," the schools said. The inference was that negotiation would yield a number substantially smaller than $6 million.

OK, so the Herald ran a correction saying the schools had, at this point, agreed only to spend $2.16 million.

This whole back-and-forth shows how sensitive the schools are about their spending habits, especially with budget season looming. County Commissioners might say the schools don't need more money if they can afford to spend $6 million on the promise of energy savings. I, for one, look forward to seeing exactly what the schools negotiate with Energy Education.

"You're going to hold their feet to the fire," the caller said.

"Yes ma'am, we are."