2026-10-12 - Clean Energy Advisory Committee

00:00I'm sorry. Say that again. Rich,

00:02>> do you have anyone on site with you or

00:04are we all remote today?

00:05>> It is just me here on site.

00:07>> Okay. Then we'll go through uh on Zoom

00:10and just do uh attendance for the

00:12committee members. Uh I'll start.

00:14Richard Smith present. Go around the

00:17room.

00:18>> John Sullivan present.

00:20>> Andrea Bennett present.

00:24>> Valene Estes present.

00:29Jess present.

00:33>> DJ Klein present.

00:36>> Right. I think that's everybody. So,

00:38first uh first issue item of business is

00:41um approval of September minutes. Is

00:43there any discussion around

00:47minutes? Not hearing any. September

00:49minutes are approved. And we'll move on

00:51to item number one. Um the uh future

00:55city fellowship presentation.

00:57But David, I don't know if you want to

00:58give a short introduction to that or if

01:00you just want to pass it off.

01:02>> I am going to give a a short

01:04introduction to to to an introduction

01:07and then we'll uh turn it over to the

01:09students. But yeah, just a little bit of

01:11background. Um back in uh like November

01:16of 2025,

01:18uh Dr. Fowler uh from Campbell

01:21University reached out to the to to me

01:24with the city of Wilmington uh to see if

01:27we would be interested in participating

01:30in their pilot program for the future

01:33cities team u which is a a group of

01:37students uh from the engineering

01:40department and perhaps other departments

01:42at at Campbell University. Um but yeah,

01:46with that I'll I'll pass it off to Dr.

01:49Fowler who was uh with the students

01:52there um at at the university to to give

01:57a little bit more in-depth background

01:58about the program and and the students

02:01involved. Off to you Dr. Fowler.

02:04>> Great. Thank you. Uh what you see in the

02:07students behind me is my senior design

02:09class. Uh they're watching this video as

02:12well. Uh the remaining students are

02:14seniors at Campbell who will be actually

02:17making the presentation. Ah we see

02:19David. Hi David.

02:22Uh I'll give just a brief summary on the

02:25program.

02:26The Discovery Future City Fellowship is

02:30a six-month multiddisciplinary

02:32project-based program that has students

02:35perform realworld problems

02:38solving and safety and s sustainability

02:42standards and career connected

02:45experiences. The students consult with a

02:48partner city.

02:50They tackle a challenge facing the city,

02:52search for improvement, and then design

02:55a sustainable solution through 10, 20,

02:58and 30-year phases.

03:02Discovery was launched uh launched the

03:05future city fellowship in n in 2025 to

03:08introduce undergraduate college students

03:11to engineering safety standards early in

03:14their academic journeys. Collaborating

03:16with the Underwriters Laboratory

03:18Research Institutes or ULRI,

03:22the fellowship integrates safety and

03:24sustainability

03:26standards, the resource reources from

03:31ULRI

03:32and experts in into every stage of the

03:35program. The fellows learn that

03:39standards are essential to pro uh tools

03:41for design, risk management, and

03:43protecting the public rather than just

03:45obligatory obligatory

03:48alliance. This year, the fellows were

03:51from Campbell University, George Mason

03:54University in Fairfax, Virginia, and the

03:56University of Colorado in Boulder. Each

03:59developed their own 30-year

04:01electrification plans for a specific

04:04problem facing each one of those

04:06particular cities. Campbell students

04:08worked with the city of Wilmington and

04:10Mr. David Ingram on a clean energy

04:12project. Mr. Ingram was a superlative

04:16partner helping the students understand

04:18Wilmington's particular constraints.

04:21Enough of me. I'm going to turn it over

04:23and let the students present their

04:25future city project.

04:31Can everyone hear me? Okay.

04:34Right. I'm going to go ahead and request

04:35to share my screen.

04:46And if someone would just confirm.

04:48>> I can see J.

04:52>> All right.

04:52>> We see it.

04:54>> All right. Thank you.

04:56We'll go ahead and get started this

04:57afternoon. First off, a special thank

05:00you to Mr. Ingram, as Dr. Fowler

05:02mentioned, being a great partner and

05:04client throughout this entire process,

05:06but also the Clean Energy Advisory

05:08Committee for taking some time out of

05:10this meeting and allowing us to do our

05:11presentation. We hope that something of

05:14value will come from this meeting and

05:16that something in the future may be

05:19implemented. But we are the Campbell

05:21Future City team. My name is Jay

05:23Mitchell. I'm joined here by my

05:24colleagues Matthew Rogers, Rachel

05:26Stokes, Julian Malm, and of course our

05:29adviser Dr. Kim Fowler, our colleague

05:32Omar Rios could not attend today,

05:34unfortunately.

05:36Just to give you sort of a brief

05:37overview of what we'd like to cover

05:39today. We're going to start off with

05:40some of the key problems that we found

05:42early on facing the city of Wilmington

05:44relating to energy goals and then we're

05:47going to move into the research we did

05:48throughout the project and eventually

05:50into our model and our proposed

05:52solution. Without further ado, let's get

05:54started.

05:57We wanted to start off with some

05:59background information about our client.

06:01We've been working with the city of

06:02Wilmington, North Carolina. And it is

06:05located in the southeastern part of the

06:06state. It's a coastal city. And being a

06:09coastal city, there's challenges related

06:12to energy production, but also some

06:14unique opportunities as we'll discuss

06:15later in the presentation.

06:18We included one key statistic and that

06:20is that Wilmington is one of the top 10

06:22fastest growing metros in the entire

06:25country. And while that's an an exciting

06:27statistic, there are a lot of challenges

06:29that are associated with that. We've

06:32been working with David Ingram. He's the

06:34city's sustainability project manager

06:36and we've met with him throughout the

06:38summer and throughout both semesters in

06:40the spring and fall and he's given us

06:42valuable information and feedback.

06:45We also included two main energy goals

06:47that the city of Wilmington is working

06:49towards and they're both related to

06:51municipal operations. Their 2035 goal

06:54was to have 50% clean energy for

06:56municipal operations and 100% clean

06:59energy for municipal operations by 2050.

07:04Early on in the research process for

07:06this project and also our discussions

07:09with Mr. Ingram, we noted some key

07:11problems that the city of Wilmington was

07:13facing relating to their energy goals.

07:17One of the first issues was increased

07:19energy demand over the next 30 years.

07:22This could be true for the entire nation

07:25and especially the southeastern US and

07:27the state of North Carolina. When

07:29looking at North Carolina, this

07:31increased energy demand is due to new

07:34data centers, new manufacturing

07:35facilities. In the case of Wilmington,

07:38this growth is mainly due to population

07:40growth and this is where we focus in our

07:42model as will be discussed later.

07:45With this increased energy demand,

07:47there's rising energy cost overall for

07:50the regional grid. And in response to

07:52this increased demand and also rising

07:55cost, Duke Energy has delayed a number

07:57of clean renewable projects such as wind

08:00energy and they're resorting to new

08:02natural gas plants over the next two

08:04decades.

08:06This leads to the issue of Wilmington

08:08cannot rely on the regional grid with

08:11Duke Energy to meet its renewable energy

08:13goals.

08:16And this ties into our main focus for

08:18our project. The regional grid is moving

08:21backwards, but we see a solution where

08:23Wilmington can still move forwards by

08:25taking its energy goals into its own

08:27hands.

08:29We imagine Wilmington generating its own

08:32clean energy by installing solar panels

08:35on city-owned buildings and city-owned

08:36parking lots. We also noted some key

08:39other goals that we wanted the city of

08:41Wilmington to work towards.

08:43We wanted to use solar to meet the 2035

08:46goal of 50% clean energy for municipal

08:48operations and work towards the 2050

08:51goal of 100% clean energy for municipal

08:53operations. We also wanted to focus on

08:56battery storage for critical facilities

08:58for hurricane and weather resilience and

09:00also load shaving. And we're basing our

09:03model and our focus on the assumption

09:05that 40% of Wilmington's power is

09:08already covered by sustainable energy

09:10being nuclear energy.

09:15One of the earliest forms of research

09:16that we did was looking at where

09:18Wilmington's energy production was

09:20already coming from and what energy

09:23production methods were being used.

09:25There's no large-scale local generation

09:27in the city of Wilmington. They're

09:29completely reliant on the Duke Energy

09:31Grid and nearby Duke Energy owns a

09:35natural gas plant and also a nuclear

09:37plant. I mentioned that 40% figure of

09:40nuclear production. That was an

09:42assumption used from the EPA, the

09:45Environmental Protection Agency. They

09:47have a power profile tool. And you can

09:50look at a regional or statewide level.

09:52And for North Carolina, and the region

09:53that Wilmington was in, nearly 40% of

09:57the energy composition came from nuclear

09:59power. There is some small-cale solar

10:02used for municipal operations, and this

10:04is where we target our increase. I'm now

10:06going to hand this off to my colleague

10:08Rachel who's going to go over some of

10:10the key research that we done throughout

10:11the project.

10:22There we go. Everyone hear me?

10:27>> Good.

10:29All righty. So, we're going to go into

10:32our estimates for the municipal

10:34consumption. What we found was that we

10:37need to first take a look at the amount

10:40of energy that municipal operations was

10:43consuming each year. As of 2025, we

10:45found that estimate to be about 24 gatt

10:47hours a year. However, as J mentioned,

10:51Wilmington is one of the top 10 fastest

10:54growing metros. So, that means with the

10:55population growth, so is the municipal

10:58operations. And that's going to create a

11:00bigger pole on the grid. So based on

11:03that, we estimated that the annual

11:05demand for municipal operations is going

11:07to reach approximately 50 gawatt hours

11:09by the year 2050.

11:12And these operations are mainly

11:14consisting of the city-owned buildings,

11:16could be the fleet vehicles, and then

11:18street lights and traffic signals, just

11:20to name a few of these sources.

11:23From there, we looked into where solar

11:26panels could realistically be installed.

11:29We took a look at all of Wilmington's

11:32major municipal properties and that

11:34represented well over 800,000 square

11:36feet of building area. However, after

11:40looking at the unusable roof space due

11:43to HVAC, roof access, shading, and

11:46several other factors, we determined

11:48that there is about 533,000

11:52square ft of roof area that is suitable

11:54for solar installations.

11:56This gives Wilmington a significant

11:58amount of pre-owned

12:01city space that they can use in order to

12:04install these solar panels without

12:05having to look into buying more land.

12:08From there, we moved on to considering

12:09the environmental and structural

12:11factors. Since the city is located on

12:13the coast and does get hit by

12:15hurricanes,

12:17flooding was a very big concern. So,

12:20taking a look at the buildings, we found

12:21that only four of the 30 municipal

12:22buildings were located within FEMA

12:25designated flood zones. And those

12:26buildings as a result will require

12:28additional permitting and elevated

12:30electrical equipment in order to

12:33mitigate the risks of being in that

12:34flood zone. Meanwhile, all the other

12:37buildings were well suited for rooftop

12:39solar installations. After that, we took

12:41a look at the age of each building and

12:44found that only three of them were

12:45constructed before the year 2000. These

12:47older buildings are going to require

12:50more structural assessments. So when we

12:52start installation before that begins or

12:54when the city would

12:56start it as per recommendation,

12:59they will have to focus the structural

13:02assessments on those three buildings

13:03before starting.

13:07After identifying where we can recommend

13:09that solar panels be installed, we

13:11compared three commercially available

13:13options that we thought were best suited

13:15for Wilmington's coastal environment,

13:17namely the Qatron, Jenko Solar, and the

13:20RECC Alpha Pure. Rather than focusing on

13:24efficiency alone, we looked at several

13:26criteria including the dimensions of

13:28these solar panels, the wind load rating

13:31due to hurricanes, manufacturing

13:33location, cost, warranty, the lifespan,

13:36and available recycling programs to try

13:39and keep everything number one within

13:41the US, but also number two affordable

13:43and able to withstand the environment.

13:47Due to the hurricanes, as mentioned

13:50before, one of our highest priorities

13:52was that wind load rating and

13:54maintaining its structural integrity

13:56while handling those loads.

13:59Uh we also looked for the appropriate

14:01safety and environmental testing

14:03requirements for said wind resistance,

14:06long uh term outdoor exposure, and then

14:08also salt mist corrosion since you do

14:10have to worry about that with the ocean

14:12being right there. Outside of that, we

14:15also considered how these panels would

14:19be disposed of at the end of their

14:20lifespan. We wanted to be able to

14:22recommend a manufacturer with the

14:24established recycling program that would

14:26help Wilmington recover some valuable

14:28materials from the solar panels,

14:31simplify their disposal, and also reduce

14:34the number of retired panels sent to

14:35landfills at the end of the day.

14:38After comparing all three of the

14:39options, we found that the Qron uh was

14:41the best fit based on all the criterion

14:44that were looked at. It's manufactured

14:46in Georgia, so it supports domestic

14:49manufacturing. It's also super local,

14:51but it in addition to that, it meets the

14:53wind load requirements for coastal

14:55installations and provides the long-term

14:58reliability that we were looking for. It

15:00is also backed by a established QC cells

15:04recycling program as well. And together,

15:06these advantages make the QTron the best

15:09choice for Wilmington in the long term.

15:13Moving on,

15:15moving on from there, we took a look at

15:17the batteries and we were researching

15:19different kinds of batteries. What we

15:21determined was we wanted to target a

15:23lithium ion phosphate battery due to

15:26them being the most reliable and having

15:28one of the highest cycle lives out of

15:30the different kinds of batteries. What

15:32we found looking at different criterion

15:34such as being able to withstand the

15:36coastal environment, the wind as

15:38mentioned before, and numerous other

15:40factors was that the Tesla branded solar

15:43batteries best fit our need. And so what

15:47we found is that the Tesla Power Wall 3

15:49would act as our smaller size battery.

15:52It has a total capacity of roughly 13

15:551.5 kilwatt hours and the units are

15:57stackable, which is super nice. Average

15:59installation cost is about 14.5 thousand

16:02and these would go on all 10 of the

16:03power stations and the police

16:05headquarters. Meanwhile, the Tesla Mega

16:07Pack is its older sibling that's a lot

16:09bigger with a total capacity of 3.9

16:12megatt hours and it is unfortunately not

16:15stackable. The average installation cost

16:18for these is 1.8 million. So, these

16:20would probably be used sparingly and

16:22would be used on the operations

16:24buildings that are on the same campus as

16:25the fire stations and headquarters

16:27previously mentioned.

16:30Looking further into that, we originally

16:33did our modeling based on a full 12-hour

16:38emergency backup, but we found that that

16:39would require over 200 power walls for

16:41certain buildings. So, we adjusted our

16:43model and focused on the load shaving

16:47setup instead. The main difference

16:48between these two setups is that the

16:50emergency backup batteries would be

16:52completely isolated from the grid and

16:54would have no interaction. These would

16:56just kick in when power would go out

16:58versus the load shaving setup which

16:59would be grid interactive. They would be

17:01tied into the Duke energy grid and they

17:04would oscillate between 100% and a

17:06specified lower limit that the energy

17:09stored within that battery cannot drop

17:11under. And that lower limit would act as

17:13reserves for should power go out, those

17:16can kick in temporarily and provide

17:19power until the generators on a lot of

17:21the emergency buildings can kick in. So,

17:24it just simply bridges that gap.

17:27Um, outside of that,

17:30we went further into giving you a

17:34breakdown with the fire stations and

17:36then the HQs and roughly how many power

17:39walls that would require for our load

17:41shaving setup. And with that, we're

17:42going to hand it off to Matt.

17:47>> Thank you, Rachel. Uh, is my mic

17:49working?

17:51Are we good?

17:53Okay. Yeah,

17:54>> cool. Uh, sorry about that. We'd like to

17:58go through the installation plan that we

18:00came up with for the city of Wilmington.

18:02We split it into three phases. Phase one

18:05runs from 2027 to 2033. And during this

18:08time, we suggest that Wilmington focuses

18:10on permitting, structural assessments,

18:12and obtaining city approval for the

18:14installation of these panels. This also

18:16includes the Duke Energy interconnection

18:17to the grid. During this time, we

18:20suggest that panels are installed on 15

18:22total buildings. That includes all of

18:24the fire stations, the police

18:25headquarters, and the city's operations

18:27campus. These are also all the buildings

18:29that we have the load shaving batteries

18:31on, as mentioned previously. Phase two

18:34is a much shorter phase that focuses on

18:36structural assessments for buildings

18:38built before the year 2000, if they

18:40weren't completed in phase one already.

18:42During this time, the primary objective

18:44is to meet the 2035 clean energy goal of

18:4750% clean energy for all municipal

18:49operations. We suggest that panels be

18:52installed on eight different buildings

18:53during this phase, those being the parks

18:55and recreations buildings and the

18:56remaining public works facilities. The

18:59last phase runs from 2037 to 2050. We

19:03want to maintain the 50% clean energy

19:05goal that we hit in the previous phase

19:07and we suggest that panels be installed

19:10on the remaining municipal buildings,

19:12those including the parking lots and the

19:14convention center. The majority of the

19:16capacity for this project would be

19:18installed during phase 3, but it's still

19:20not enough for Wilmington to meet its

19:232050 target for 100% clean energy. So,

19:26future research for different long-term

19:29energy solutions will have to be done

19:30during this phase.

19:33This is a graph that we made from the

19:36results of our model. This compares the

19:40linearized municipal usage, which is an

19:42estimate guessing how much energy that

19:44Wilmington is going to be producing each

19:46year. Uh to how much we actually

19:48generated, this is a combined number

19:50between our solar panels and the nuclear

19:53energy. There is no fossil fuels

19:55included in this amount generated line.

19:58The orange line is the 50% mark. As you

20:01can see, the gray and orange lines

20:02intersect right at the year 2035. So

20:05that is us meeting the target and then

20:07the line remains above it for the

20:10remainder of the project duration.

20:16We'd like to briefly mention our model

20:18that we used to come up with these

20:20numbers. We used a Monte Carlo setup

20:22which runs hundreds of thousands of

20:24simulations at a time and it uses

20:27randomized inputs. Those being things

20:30like the

20:32amount generated per square foot, the

20:34inflation rate, and a bunch of other

20:37randomized factors to come up with

20:40differing scenarios. This new model that

20:43we come up with or came up with accounts

20:45for a lot of risks that our older models

20:47miss. This includes natural disasters,

20:50the reinstallation costs, disposal cost,

20:53and battery costs, varying inflation

20:55rates, and individual building

20:57footprints.

20:59The total project cost from our old

21:01models was significantly

21:03lower than what we came up with for our

21:06new model and that is primarily due to

21:09the addition of disposal and

21:11reinstallation costs. We still have no

21:13way to account for grants but Jillian

21:15will talk about that later.

21:17These are the results from our model.

21:20The Excel model, which is just a flat

21:23static model, came up with a price point

21:26of about $36 million. Our Monte Carlo

21:29model came up with a price tag of $86

21:31million with a standard deviation of

21:34about $17 million in either direction.

21:36Uh it's important to note that this

21:38figure was calculated with the disposal

21:41point for our solar panels occurring at

21:4470% of their initial production value.

21:47The disposal cost can be reduced

21:50drastically if the solar panels are

21:52allowed to stay online longer before

21:55they are replaced.

22:04>> Um,

22:09um, so one way that solar can be more

22:11accessible for Wilmington is through

22:14things like grants and incentives. So,

22:16Wilmington partners with Souls Smart,

22:18which can help streamline things like

22:20permitting, zoning, and inspections, and

22:23can even reduce some of the costs um

22:26associated with installing solar. There

22:29are also several state and federal grant

22:31opportunities, which could become

22:33available in future. However, funding

22:36for those programs can change over time.

22:39So grants should be viewed as an

22:42additional funding opportunity rather

22:44than something the city can rely on

22:46every year.

22:48Another important part of this plan is

22:50really making sure that the community

22:52and other stakeholders are involved.

22:54Wington has a clean energy advising

22:56committee, you guys, um and they meet

23:00monthly to discuss clean energy goals.

23:03The county also conducted a survey in

23:05July of 2020 to really understand what

23:08residents wanted in terms of energy

23:11development. The results showed that 83%

23:14of respondents were strongly concerned

23:17about the local impacts of climate

23:19change with 55% ranking solar as the

23:24best option for meeting the area's

23:26energy goals. This really shows that

23:28there is already community interest in

23:30expanding solar.

23:33So, we've identified multiple UL

23:35standards that have become really

23:37important to our research. Some of which

23:40include PV hazard control, energy

23:42storage system safety, and PV module

23:45safety testing.

23:48Our UL proposal really focuses on

23:51creating a new certification

23:53specifically for solar panels used in

23:56coastal environments. Right now there

23:58are different standards from

23:59organizations like UL, IEC and ASM. Our

24:04proposal would combine these existing

24:06standards into one certification for

24:08coastal solar panels. The certification

24:11would focus on three main areas.

24:13Construction requirements, safety and

24:16electrical testing, and environmental

24:17durability. This would help make sure

24:19that solar panels being installed in

24:22coastal areas are designed to handle

24:24specific environmental conditions that

24:26they will face.

24:27That concludes our presentation. Thank

24:29you so much for listening and if there

24:30are any questions, we'll take those now.

24:39>> Okay.

24:47>> Yeah,

24:48>> we can't hear you. We can't hear you.

24:51>> Can you hear me now?

24:52>> Yeah, that's better.

24:54>> Okay. Yeah, I'll I'll jump in real quick

24:56just to say thanks again to Dr. Fowler

24:59and um all of the future city uh team.

25:03Y'all were amazing to work with as as

25:06well. Um thoroughly enjoyed it from my

25:09perspective and

25:12it's a pleasure to see uh such detailed

25:15and diligent research and into the

25:18project that you all had on hand.

25:21I did have a question um just in regard

25:24to

25:25uh the the one graph that you had the

25:27linear graph um I believe you explained

25:31it to me before but just for the group's

25:33benefit what uh the dip at the end of

25:36that

25:38uh of your of your gray line what was

25:40what was the um what was that that dip

25:45from if if you can see that

25:51Um, yeah, I can explain that. Sorry, we

25:53have a bunch of laptops in here, so it's

25:55we're trying to make sure that we don't

25:56have overlapping audio. Uh, but the dip

25:59in the graph, uh, that comes from a I

26:02guess a a gap in this particular

26:05iteration of the model where there was

26:07some solar panels that were ready to be

26:10reinstalled but weren't quite

26:11reinstalled yet. Um, so there's like a

26:14dip in performance because the solar

26:15panels installed were producing less and

26:18then whenever they were removed and then

26:20reinstalled, that's where you see the uh

26:23jump in performance come back.

26:27>> Got it. Thanks.

26:28>> Looks like uh

26:30Andrea has a question.

26:33>> I do. Um, first, thank you for the

26:35presentation. Um, I really enjoyed it.

26:37Uh, I was wondering if there was

26:39anything in particular that was that was

26:42um surprising to you all as you were

26:44going through and um looking at all of

26:47the specific

26:49uh you know traits for Wilmington, North

26:51Carolina.

26:54>> I can answer a little bit on this and

26:57Rachel may have something because I'm

26:58going to answer in related to the energy

27:00production methods that we were looking

27:03towards. We eventually settled on solar.

27:06Um, but early on in the process, we did

27:08a lot of research, Rachel and Matthew,

27:10especially in, you know, what types of

27:13energy can be used um for the city of

27:16Wilmington. I mentioned earlier in the

27:18presentation that being a coastal city

27:20has some unique opportunities. Uh, and

27:24we looked at that in terms of energy

27:26production. Could we do something

27:28offshore wind? Could we do tidal energy?

27:31you know, are there any other options

27:32that we have? And I would I can pass

27:35this off to Rachel to do a little bit

27:37more in-depth explanation of of some of

27:39the research we did with that.

27:44>> Yeah. So, one of the very surprising

27:46things is as Jay mentioned is that

27:48despite being located so close to the

27:51ocean and everything, unfortunately

27:55that offshore wind, that tidal, even uh

27:58looking at the river and using the Cape

28:00Fear to generate power was not an option

28:03partially due to regulations where the

28:07city doesn't have jurisdiction over the

28:10water. I forget how far out that is, but

28:13they don't have jurisdiction uh over the

28:15water off the coast. And then several

28:18other factors, but also it was really

28:21interesting. Well, I was the one looking

28:23specifically at solar batteries to see,

28:27hey, which ones are best suited to

28:30handle the coastal environment because

28:32you do have that salt corrosion just due

28:34to it being in the air. And that was a

28:36very big factor. and to see how far like

28:39that just simply weeded out so many of

28:42the options.

28:49Um I have two questions that might be

28:53out of kind of the scope of your

28:54project, but um the first one was just

28:57um you know your your Monte Caro model

29:01showed like $61 million worth of the

29:04cost is in the environmental dispo in

29:07the disposal of the um panels. you know,

29:10when these things drop to, for your

29:13instance, a 70% threshold, is there

29:15could that that cost be um

29:19displaced by reselling the panels um to

29:24someone that could use a lower capacity

29:26panel or say donating them or something

29:28like that to where you're kind of

29:30avoiding that actual disposal fee. Um,

29:33and then my other question was just um I

29:36I think this is probably outside of the

29:38scope of your project, but maybe just if

29:40you have any kind of your own thoughts

29:42on it. Um, just any thoughts that you

29:46might have on how the city might go

29:48about like what best approach the city

29:50might take towards funding providing

29:52funding for these projects so that it's

29:54something that um, you know, you can

29:57make you can make sellable to the bean

29:59counters, right? like there's a 30

30:01somewhere between 36 and $86 million

30:04total cost to this. Um, you know, what

30:06is besides the obvious environmental

30:09advantages, you know, is there a

30:11financial argument that can be made to

30:13support it as well? And again, thank you

30:15guys so much for your presentation.

30:16Really, really excellent and enjoyed

30:18seeing it. Thank you.

30:23>> Yeah. So, uh, I did most of the work on

30:25the the modeling so I can speak on that.

30:28Um the disposal cost uh I should also be

30:32uh lumped in with the reinstallation. So

30:35um the assumption that the disposal cost

30:39category makes is that not only are you

30:42like you have to pay to recycle solar

30:44panels from what we understand and you

30:48also have to then pay to reinstall the

30:50panels that you just got rid of. So,

30:52this is making the assumption that

30:54you're removing the solar panels,

30:56sending them back to be recycled, and

30:57then reinstalling panels in that same

30:59year. Um, this cost, like I said, can be

31:02cut down on if you were to say let the

31:05panels degrade to 50% of their initial

31:07value instead of 70%. Uh, that removes

31:11almost all of the disposal costs and

31:13then brings the project cost in line to

31:16about $40 million. I think we actually

31:18have an additional slide on this that

31:20Jay is working on pulling up right now.

31:23Maybe there it is. Okay, it just took a

31:25second. So, this is a just an example

31:27that we had ready uh if you disposed

31:30with 50% instead of uh 70. So, you still

31:34meet your clean energy target um with a

31:38median price of about $43 million

31:40instead of 80. Um, but the production

31:44figure that you get is significantly

31:47lowered. Um, in terms of selling them

31:51off to people that could use a lower

31:52capacity panel, I think that's a

31:54completely valid option. Uh, we didn't

31:56do any research into that, but I think

31:58that that could also help with your

32:01second question of making that u I guess

32:04more digestible to your constituents.

32:07Um, which is just saying that part of

32:09this cost will be reimbursed whenever we

32:11sell the panels when we're done with

32:13them.

32:16Okay.

32:19>> Okay. Can you hear Julian talking?

32:29>> Um, yeah. So when talking about the

32:34financial aspect from grants and um like

32:37federal and state grants, I did look

32:40into possible numbers and we found that

32:43it was about 600,000

32:47to 14 million and I know that's very

32:50wide range but it's based on previous

32:53years and unfortunately with the

32:58the way that federal money seems to

33:01trickle down. It does go back and forth

33:03about every 4 to 8 years, which is

33:05unfortunate, but I would recommend to

33:08really snatch up those opportunities as

33:09they come and as they are re-released.

33:12Um, the good thing is that Wilmington is

33:14in a really good position to apply for

33:16those um grants and I don't see

33:20Wilmington having trouble getting that

33:22money. It's just when that money becomes

33:24available. Um we don't know exactly when

33:27that'll become available, but when it

33:29does, cuz it will within the next

33:30hopefully 30 years, um that they really

33:33snatch that opportunity up.

33:41>> Go ahead, DJ.

33:45>> Yeah, great great presentation. Um a lot

33:48of great work went into this. as it

33:50relates to the model, how did you how

33:53was energy efficiency captured in here

33:57um and the the role it plays in reducing

34:00usage rather than just displacing energy

34:03usage with clean energy technology?

34:08>> Uh so let me I guess ask your repeat

34:13your question back to you just to make

34:14sure that I'm getting it right. uh you

34:15want me to explain um how we came up

34:18with the I guess energy efficiency and

34:20how we determined the um I guess the

34:23degradation of the solar panels and how

34:25that factored into our model is that

34:28>> no not not specific not specifically. So

34:30you have x number of kilowatt hours that

34:34are utilized by the city on an annual

34:36basis. Um instead of completely

34:39displacing x number with with some clean

34:42energy technology say 50% of x to give

34:46you to hit your criteria how much of how

34:50much of that dis how much of that energy

34:52reduction was considered in the model.

34:55So if you used 100 million uh kilowatt

34:58hours in a year, did you assume a 5% or

35:0210% energy efficiency improvement over

35:04time? And one of the case points there

35:07is if you look back when the baseline

35:08was set for the city, I believe most of

35:11the lighting within the city was was uh

35:13metal hali lamps and they've all been

35:15replaced with LEDs. So still using

35:18energy but using a significant amount

35:20less than the original baseline. How did

35:23you account for energy efficiency

35:25implementation?

35:27>> Okay, I I think I understand better. So,

35:29the real answer for this is that we made

35:33our energy assumption targets. Uh the

35:35initial energy assumption was based off

35:37of a 2024 study that uh we found online

35:41that just I don't remember the exact

35:44linker location but we found that figure

35:47uh from there and then we just made a a

35:50really rough assumption that it would uh

35:53double between the years 2025 and 2050.

35:57um there wasn't much consideration for

35:59um uh energy improvement efficiency in

36:03terms of how much you guys are consuming

36:05because that is a a good point that

36:06things like traffic lights and other

36:08electrical systems get more efficient as

36:11uh we make improvements to them. Uh but

36:13we just decided because it's pretty

36:17unpredictable uh at what rate those

36:20things will change or improve that we

36:21just made a

36:23static line and then ran everything in

36:27comparison to that line.

36:30>> So there was no displacement for energy

36:32efficiencies or no accounted for you.

36:35You just assumed there was some you

36:36assumed there was some you assumed there

36:38was some rate of increase

36:40>> but you there was no that increase was

36:43was completely linear.

36:46>> That is correct. That is correct.

36:56>> Yeah. One of the things that this

36:58committee is uh very focused on uh just

37:03addressing this to the future cities

37:05team um one of the things that we're

37:08very much focused on is what can we do

37:11to to drive down the amount of energy we

37:13are we're currently using in the city.

37:15So so that the amount of clean energy

37:18that we have to acquire or purchase or

37:21find grants for is is less. So the the

37:25more things that we can do to kind of

37:26lower that uh baseline uh you know the

37:30more economical

37:32it's going to be for us to achieve those

37:33clean energy goals. So I should have

37:36warned y'all beforehand that I'm sure

37:39that question was going to come from

37:41someone in the committee because uh we

37:44have a very strong focus on on that

37:46effort as well.

37:49just uh I mean just to follow up on that

37:51David I think you know for for

37:54clarification purposes for the students

37:56is that um you know in your research you

37:59found that the city is limited in what

38:01it can do from a generational capacity

38:03right like we we're not a regulated

38:05utility so we're kind of limited in what

38:07we can install what we can produce so

38:10then we're you know kind of to your

38:12point we're forced to look at what we

38:14can control and so obviously

38:17installation on our property is

38:18certainly one one consideration. The

38:21other consideration is how much energy

38:22that we're consuming is something that

38:24we can we can directly affect. Um so

38:27energy efficiency becomes a big focus

38:30for us. A because it's something that we

38:31can control. Uh and b because it's

38:34typically when you're looking at energy

38:36efficiency measures or or bang for your

38:38buck, you see that energy efficiency

38:40usually the amount of dollars you're

38:41putting into it versus the amount of

38:43dollars that you're saving is one of the

38:45best return on investments you can get.

38:47So just from a just from just to kind of

38:49follow up on what David said, that's

38:51kind of one of the some of the reasons

38:52that it's such a focus for us.

38:56>> Yeah. And and it's going to have a it's

38:58going to have a payback with no

39:00additional cost. If you if you look at a

39:02solar panel, right, you have that

39:04replace rate over a period of time. Um,

39:07and the sun's not always shining and,

39:10uh, it's turns out it's not sunny at

39:12night, especially in Wilmington,

39:14compared to maybe Alaska, which, you

39:15know, they have almost 24 hours during

39:18summer days, but, uh, that energy

39:20efficiency is always working for you.

39:27>> Yeah. And so that was one thing that we,

39:30like I said, just or like the team said,

39:32just did not like factor into the uh,

39:36model. We assumed like, hey, assuming

39:38everything stays flat since it is super

39:39hard to account for that. But there was

39:41one option that came up during the

39:42research

39:44that was super interesting. And this

39:46might be something that y'all might want

39:48to look into. It is uh GEBS, grid

39:51interactive uh buildings. And pretty

39:55much what that does is it's just like

39:56updating all the systems. So the

39:58lightings, the HVAC systems, like

40:01everything to be more efficient and go

40:04from there. that might be able to give

40:05you a little more of that bang for your

40:06buck like y'all were talking about just

40:08a second ago. Ultimately, we didn't go

40:11with it due to how much it would cost to

40:13outfit all the buildings, but it does

40:16serve as another option.

40:19>> Yeah. No, no worries. And I don't, you

40:20know, I certainly don't want to give the

40:22impression or at least I I won't speak

40:24for PJ, but at least for myself, that um

40:27we're I don't think that energy

40:29efficiency is a alternative to the solar

40:33generation. I think it's something that

40:34goes hand in hand. Um, and it's just

40:38something that

40:40kind of need an all the above approach

40:42to this, right? Um, and so it's just

40:44something that works with the the more

40:46energy we can re the more we can reduce

40:48our energy usage, the more impact that

40:50the the solar installations will have.

40:54>> Yeah. And I agree with Rich, not not

40:56taking anything away from the hard work

40:57you all did. Um, but the way that I've

41:00viewed this over my career is that uh

41:03energy efficiency is that first lever

41:05you pull and you can only get down to a

41:08certain number. There's only so much so

41:11far you can go down. You're still using

41:13energy. Now, now how do you displace

41:15that remainder uh with a clean energy

41:18technology? So, no, great work. I just,

41:21you know, I didn't see anything. Maybe

41:23there was some assumption that was made

41:25and that's but it looks like it you guys

41:28did it a different way which is fine.

41:31The cat could be skinned many different

41:32ways.

41:34>> The other thing I wanted to mention is I

41:36think uh a great follow-up project for

41:38this would be to calculate the impact of

41:40the load shedding. Um you guys did a lot

41:43of you know you factored in the battery

41:45storage and you kind of highlighted that

41:47the load shedding is a advantage of

41:49utilizing that. I think a nice follow-up

41:51project would be to try and quantify,

41:54you know, based on energy, current

41:56energy costs and projected energy costs,

41:59what the demand shedding, like what

42:01percentage of the demand could actually

42:02be shed and then following that up with

42:04how much money um you'd be saving from

42:06it. because I think that really that's

42:08kind of a huge lever that would change

42:11the financial metrics of it pretty

42:12substantially as far as if you're

42:14presenting this to city council and you

42:16say hey you need to make a 30 to $80

42:18million investment versus you know hey

42:21but on an annual basis we can expect to

42:23shave this much amount of load and get x

42:25y and z dollars back on a recurring

42:27annual basis I think makes it a strong

42:30selling point to the to the city council

42:35but great presentation guys really

42:36appreciate it. Um, David, I don't know

42:38if that you have any other final

42:40thoughts, follow-up questions, anything

42:42like that.

42:44I

42:44>> I have a question for you all. Uh, were

42:46were there any surprises here for the

42:48committee?

42:57>> Um,

42:58I'm surprised that we have as much um

43:01parking lot space. I think it showed

43:03something like 500,000 square feet uh

43:06yeah 400,000 square feet of parking and

43:09large assets. Um so that was that's

43:12interesting to me. I know the economics

43:15of um so like parking solar um

43:19installations gets a little bit

43:21different because there's the framing um

43:23and the infrastructure can get pretty

43:25steep. Uh, but it's that that's a little

43:28bit eye openening to me because I know

43:29up to this point we've kind of been

43:31considering it just for for rooftop

43:33sites. So, that was definitely something

43:35that stuck out to me.

43:37>> The one little surprising thing to me

43:39was that the uh the fire stations were

43:42bundled in uh police and and uh the

43:46public safety there. You see those two

43:48buildings and uh what we've been looking

43:51at over the course of the last few years

43:53is that we were prioritizing the the

43:56police station uh and and downtown

43:58building just because of the sheer

44:02kilowatt hours being used. Um we didn't

44:05really look at it I mean we our standard

44:07is to use it square footage is as to get

44:10our energy intensity but didn't really

44:12look at fire stations bundled uh as a

44:15entity. So, our prioritization was a

44:18little bit different, but overall, you

44:20know, you getting to the same point.

44:32Anything else from committee members?

44:38Uh the only other thing I think you had

44:40a slide about a phased approach a phase

44:42one two and three that stretch out over

44:47yes 27 to 2050 and I was

44:52curious about phase 1 was the 27 to 2033

44:58um

44:59is there like an average or something

45:01around the amount of time that

45:04permitting you're anticipating that

45:06amount of time usually takes or like

45:08that city approval normally takes or

45:10something along those lines. Um, I liked

45:12how it was chunked out, but I was just

45:13curious if there was any particular way

45:15that you sliced up the different phases.

45:19>> Yeah, I'll pass that off to Jillian. She

45:21has an question.

45:24>> Hi again. So, the permitting actually

45:28isn't as strenuous as you might think.

45:30It's obviously a range normally from 1

45:33to 3 years. So it's not like a 10year or

45:37ridiculous amount of time. Most places

45:39do see the permitting and everything

45:42being done within two years. So I expect

45:45Wilmington is on top of their business.

45:47So I think that it would be done within

45:48two years.

45:55>> Thank you.

46:03Well, if that's everything from the

46:05committee, um, once again, uh, Dr.

46:08Fowler and the entire team

46:12certainly do appreciate this project. It

46:14was again, uh, a lot of fun to work on.

46:18Y'all are certainly uh, welcome to to

46:22stay on for the the rest of our our

46:25meeting. It's a, you know, public

46:26meeting. Um, but yeah, we do have a a

46:29few other things on the agenda uh for

46:31today as well. So, um

46:35yeah, just wanted to say a final thanks

46:37to everyone.

46:38>> Yeah, thank you. It's been a really good

46:41project. I'm just going to ask if there

46:42are any burning questions.

46:46>> Hey, hold your piece. Good. Yeah, thank

46:49you for the opportunity.

46:52>> Thank you very much, guys. I appreciate

46:54the work. um very promising stuff and um

46:58encourage you all to continue on with

47:00your focus. It's definitely something

47:01that's needed right now. Um and every

47:04every little bit helps. So any

47:06contribute any contributions that you

47:08make in the future will have big

47:10impacts. So keep up the good work. Thank

47:12you.

47:13>> Great. Thank you.

47:16>> All right. So with that, uh, David, I

47:18think we'll move on to item number two,

47:21FY26 total electricity and fuel usage

47:24data review.

47:26>> Yeah. Let me see if I can share my

47:29screen now.

47:51Yeah, I'll see that. Okay.

47:56>> Yep.

48:03>> Great screen.

48:10Uh yeah, just wanted to go over how much

48:16electricity and fuel was used in in

48:18FY26.

48:20Um just to keep you all appraised of

48:26where those where those numbers are are

48:28sitting and

48:32on to the first slide here. So,

48:35so this slide has uh total energy and

48:40MN BTUs. Uh but as you can see in in

48:442026 that is fiscal year uh we we did

48:48have a a slight decrease in in overall

48:51energy use. Um you know there were a few

48:56energy efficiency projects that um were

49:00within this period of time particularly

49:02over at the police headquarters um which

49:07you know again we targeting our our

49:09highest energy using facilities. So

49:11there was some ongoing work to some of

49:13the the building systems over there that

49:16required some some maintenance and uh um

49:20and repairs to particularly the outdoor

49:24outdoor air intake systems, the louvers

49:27and all of that to um increase the

49:30amount of kind of free cooling uh that

49:33would be available at at particularly

49:35you know times of year uh such as now

49:38the kind of the shoulder season. So,

49:41um, yeah, there there wasn't a huge

49:44budget last year for energy efficiency,

49:46but I know, uh, that was one of the

49:49efforts that the facilities team was

49:52working on. Um, and not to mention, you

49:55know, as as things like, uh, bulbs are

49:58burning out, uh, you know, any any

50:02replacements now are going to be LED. So

50:05um there's any uh particularly again

50:08over there at police headquarters and

50:10and here in Skyline Center they are

50:12doing um LED replacement for anything

50:15that that burns out. So

50:19uh

50:21as well as just uh consolidating here

50:24into this facility and and getting rid

50:27of um

50:30some of the other facilities that were

50:32around town. I think some of that was

50:36within this FY26 time frame.

50:41So not not a huge drop. Uh so if we're

50:45looking at at just

50:47KWH

50:49FY25 for example

50:53was

50:5522,775

50:58and change kilowatt hours

51:01whereas 2026

51:05was 21,543

51:09711

51:11kilowatt hours total. So,

51:14>> do you have that normalized?

51:17>> That is

51:19just straight

51:20>> I mean, yeah, it's straight energy, but

51:22do you have a chart that shows the

51:23normalization

51:25based off of square footage or and I

51:28think that's the metric you decide the

51:30useful intensity, but I don't remember.

51:34>> Yeah. Um

51:36I can certainly get that for our next

51:38meeting but no this I did not normalize

51:41it for here and part you know part of

51:45that that was such a moving number over

51:47over the fiscal year

51:49>> as uh we are consolidating

51:53um

51:56>> but that's kind of the point David right

51:57yeah as you're consolidating as things

51:59are changing the normalization gives you

52:02a view of you know when you look at

52:06energy intensity it gives you a

52:07directional of are you getting better

52:09and you getting worse.

52:11>> True. Very true. Um yeah let me uh let

52:16me revise that for our next meeting and

52:19we can look at it comparison based on

52:22square footage.

52:24I mean I think we do I'm not sure if

52:26that's uh we we do have that as you know

52:28within our EUI rankings for each

52:31facility. So that's based on square

52:33footage. So

52:37let me get back to to y'all on on that

52:40for as a followup for our next meeting.

52:44>> That's fine because even if you think

52:45about the Skyline Center as they've made

52:47just minor tweaks, we won't see it

52:50really now, but three or four years from

52:52now, we we should start seeing like

52:54we'll start seeing a trend.

52:58>> Yeah.

52:58>> If you're getting worse, if you're

52:59getting worse, you got a problem. Yep.

53:01>> And maybe it's maybe Skyline Center is a

53:03specific example. Maybe there's more uh

53:06people renting. So, you know, maybe

53:08there's a maybe there's a couple of

53:10different ways to dice it up. Maybe

53:11maybe we could look at it on people,

53:13too. PE people in in that building that

53:16actually they're working that remote and

53:19and square footage. I've seen that

53:21before where the building went up,

53:24square footage didn't change, but we put

53:26more people in

53:27>> or or more equipment running or

53:29something.

53:30>> Yeah. Well, that that's certainly been

53:31the case here in Skyline. It's uh the um

53:36percentage of empty space here in the

53:38facility has really decreased here uh in

53:42this last year.

53:43forget what the current percentage but

53:46it's you know up around

53:49and Rachel I don't know if you have

53:50heard anymore but it's over 80% of the

53:54floor space is leased or or or

53:58you know or about to be leased. So

54:01>> unfortunately we don't

54:03>> we don't have granular granular data to

54:06tell us that uh as an example that the

54:0920% that's unoccupied uses this much

54:12energy compared to 80% that is occupied

54:15>> to get that granular but it should we

54:18should be able to come up with some

54:19metric to show improvement because

54:22>> my money I'm putting I'm putting all my

54:24chips on that we've gotten more

54:25improvement as we've consolidated.

54:28Well, I know our EUI score for Skyline

54:31has definitely improved. So, um

54:37I think that yeah, that speaks to I

54:39think more of the space being filled up

54:42as opposed to being empty. And

54:46unfortunately, we only have the one one

54:48meter for this whole building. So it it

54:51as as you mentioned we don't have that

54:54gran granular ability to look at it on a

54:57floor by floor by floor basis. So

55:01>> one thing I will add this is Rachel

55:03Schuler. Um, David, I don't know if you

55:05have information from some of the upfits

55:07like when Mckim and Creed uh redid their

55:10floor, did they install energy efficient

55:13like the LED, all that kind of stuff?

55:14Like did they do any um construction

55:17practices to help reduce some of that?

55:20Um, and some of the other folks as

55:22they've done some upfits. I guess that

55:23would be something that we'd want to

55:24start tracking and looking at as well.

55:27>> Yeah. Yeah. I I I afferred that yes,

55:31some of the upfits have included LED

55:35retrofits on on the floor. So here,

55:38that's that's a good point. Maybe we can

55:40get a I can I can work with the facility

55:43staff here to kind of get a

55:46update on which of the floors have

55:49experienced those kind of retrofits or

55:52upfits as they've gotten leased down.

55:56Any

56:03other any other thoughts there?

56:05Questions? Has there been uh has there

56:08been any followup or conversations with

56:10Duke about what it costs to or the

56:13feasibility of having submeters

56:15installed on each floor so that you can

56:17track what your leases are spending

56:22electricity every month so that you can

56:24separate that out from municipal

56:26operations?

56:28>> Yeah, not that I know of.

56:36So you could I mean I think the like

56:39even a behind the meter

56:41um

56:43solution

56:45>> is like maximum around like 1,500 to two

56:48grand installed which I think is

56:50probably a no-brainer per floor for

56:54Skyline Center. So that even as you're

56:57you know from from one perspective it's

57:00like you should be separating out the

57:02usage from leases versus city operations

57:05and from another perspective it just

57:07helps the financial department determine

57:10what they should be charging for their

57:12leases. I mean if you have a customer

57:14that you charge X and they use you

57:16charge them $100,000 and they spend

57:18$300,000 worth of electricity because

57:20they're doing who knows what you're not

57:22really make you're costing the city

57:23money not making any. So there's

57:27it just makes sense to me from two

57:28standpoints of from like both a

57:30financial and a energy management

57:32standpoint. Um and really like as far as

57:35city operations goes, it's like peanuts

57:37to install.

57:40>> Yeah. Yeah. I I agree. Um having that

57:43floor by floor data would be would be

57:45great information, great data. Um I

57:49don't know how the leases are currently

57:51written down. I don't have

57:54review.

57:54>> Well, and I know PJ's brought up

57:56concerns about like you can't

57:57necessarily, it's not like you can

57:59charge them for electricity because

58:01we're not a a utility. Um, so I'm not

58:03saying that you actually, you know, say,

58:04"Hey, we're putting in these meters and

58:06we're billing you based on your

58:07utility." But if you put in a meter and

58:10then over the course of a year the fin

58:12the the property management company can

58:14look at and say, "Okay, they spent this

58:17much in electricity. we should increase

58:19the the lease rate by this much to

58:21factor in for that. Um I don't think is

58:25a unreasonable thought process for them

58:27to go through.

58:32>> Yeah. Yeah. Certainly something I can

58:35inquire into if facilities folks are

58:40looking into that or interested in in in

58:43looking into it. Um, you know, I I'm

58:47sure I could reach out to our Duke

58:50representative Wilson for, you know,

58:52what technologies they may have that

58:55would be able to help with that. So, um,

58:59yeah, good good input.

59:04Any

59:09other It's

59:09>> also probably It's also probably a good

59:11opportunity to make sure that we're on

59:12the right rate schedule. We talked about

59:15that before.

59:17>> Yeah. Yeah, they Yeah, I know they give

59:20us a rate schedule for the whole

59:21building. So, um

59:26so yeah, that's something we that's

59:29something we go over um on an annual

59:32basis with with Duke Energy. We do a

59:35rate review, you know, annually and look

59:38for potential energy savings. And, you

59:41know, that was it was actually a big

59:43that was a big deal in this last year

59:45when they went to that those time of use

59:48rates for um a lot more of their rate

59:52schedule. So even our small general

59:55service and medium general service

59:57facilities

59:59uh had the opportunity to move to those

1:00:03new time of use rates which was

1:00:06uh significant cost savings. So,

1:00:11I'm I'm sure you were aware of those

1:00:13rate changes, PJ, for

1:00:16facilities.

1:00:25Y'all still hear me?

1:00:30>> I can.

1:00:31>> Okay.

1:00:32>> Yep.

1:00:32>> Yeah. Okay.

1:00:36Uh I'll move move on here unless there's

1:00:38any more questions on the energy usage

1:00:41and I will follow up with uh additional

1:00:44breakdown based on square footage for

1:00:47our next meeting.

1:00:52But for

1:00:56for our fuel usage,

1:00:59um, one caveat here, this total does not

1:01:04include fire department data yet.

1:01:08Uh, I've I've reached out to them for

1:01:11the breakdown by by vehicle type as well

1:01:15as as well as total gallons and total

1:01:18cost. But um you know previously that's

1:01:22or at least in FY25 that made up you

1:01:25know around 59,000 gallons and another

1:01:29$153,000

1:01:32kind of on top of the totals you see in

1:01:35this chart.

1:01:37But uh what you see here represented is

1:01:40the vast majority 693

1:01:43total assets out of out of you know you

1:01:47know a little little over 700 total

1:01:49probably 750 or so total vehicles across

1:01:52the city. So um wanted to go ahead and

1:01:56present the info that we have to date.

1:01:59Um and it it certainly does kind of

1:02:03highlight

1:02:05um the increase in hybrid vehicles that

1:02:10we have while we while we haven't made a

1:02:12significant move towards electrics yet.

1:02:15We still just have the two Nissan Leafs.

1:02:18Um but uh

1:02:22our fleet department is certainly using

1:02:24uh increased purchase of hybrid vehicles

1:02:27to you know drive down fuel usage and

1:02:29and and reduce costs as well. So that's

1:02:33that's been um that's provided a good

1:02:36impact which I've got a couple slides

1:02:40highlighting those. So just in the chart

1:02:43here, um you can kind of see I've

1:02:46highlighted the hybrid sedans versus our

1:02:48regular sedans. That's our greatest

1:02:52number of vehicles, 206 of kind of the

1:02:55standard sedans. And um we have se seven

1:03:00hybrid sedans as well as an additional

1:03:03number of hybrid SUVs.

1:03:06Um

1:03:08we go to the next slide just to kind of

1:03:09highlight some of those what you can see

1:03:11and the the differences.

1:03:13>> Can you go back? Can you go back one

1:03:15slide real quick? Sorry.

1:03:16>> Y

1:03:17>> I was looking at that the cost per mile

1:03:19at 22 and a half cents.

1:03:22>> Yeah, exactly. That was what that's what

1:03:24I was going to highlight here in these

1:03:26in these breakdown slides.

1:03:28>> Okay. Yeah. And then you got the hybrid.

1:03:29Cool. Okay.

1:03:30>> Yeah. So, as you can see, um, kind of

1:03:32the third bullet for the sedan and and

1:03:35for the hybrid is that average cost per

1:03:37mile. So, about 20 c 22 cents per mile

1:03:41for the regular sedans versus about

1:03:45seven cents per mile for the for the

1:03:48hybrids. So, you know, over three times

1:03:51as much to operate

1:03:54um you know, the standard sedans.

1:03:57Granted, um a caveat here is

1:04:00quite a few of those sedans are these

1:04:03Dodge Chargers used by the police

1:04:06department. Uh which is obviously a very

1:04:08different use usage model than you know

1:04:13our typical hybrid sedans that you know

1:04:16regular staff are just using to you know

1:04:18run around town or you know make you

1:04:20know trips around the state or

1:04:22elsewhere.

1:04:24So there is that. But you know again you

1:04:26can't get away from you know what it

1:04:29costs per mile to operate you know the

1:04:33chargers versus

1:04:35the regular types of sedans.

1:04:38And I did uh I did I don't think the

1:04:40slides that you all have I added an

1:04:42additional bullet to these next two

1:04:46slides. I I I included the the average

1:04:49fu total fuel cost

1:04:52uh for FY26 for both types. So

1:04:56a a average per vehicle was 793

1:05:01$1,793

1:05:03for the Chargers versus average per

1:05:06vehicle for the hybrid sedans was only

1:05:09438.

1:05:13I I am going to be presenting this to

1:05:17our folks in the asset and property

1:05:20management department um as soon as I

1:05:22get the fire department data as well. Um

1:05:26they've asked me to

1:05:29show kind of this cost breakdown of uh

1:05:32the different vehicle types that we

1:05:33have. So hopefully they'll um you know

1:05:37find this information very useful. Just

1:05:41when you kind of break it down that cost

1:05:43per mile is kind of really hits when

1:05:45it's

1:05:47showing three times as much.

1:05:51That was kind of the same case here with

1:05:53our next

1:05:54>> Hold on. Hold on. David Richard and I

1:05:57both have questions and I'm gonna let

1:05:58him go first on slide four probably.

1:06:02He's probably gonna say what I'm gonna

1:06:03say. Thanks PJ. Um

1:06:06so in either in that fleet transition

1:06:08study that was done or just kind of in

1:06:11general, has there been any discussion

1:06:13about

1:06:15um or any review about the need for

1:06:18these specific vehicles? Um, I'm just

1:06:21thinking because like there are other

1:06:22cities that I've been to like Raleigh,

1:06:24Durham, and Charlotte that have actual

1:06:28highways rather than our clogged city

1:06:30streets, and they don't

1:06:34have either any or at least not the same

1:06:37proportion of these kind of sports cars

1:06:40like high high horsepower cars. Has

1:06:43there been any like study showing like

1:06:45do we need like is there a reason we

1:06:48can't be putting people into police

1:06:50officers into hybrids and that we need

1:06:52200 Dodge Chargers or is there an

1:06:56opportunity to move to a hybrid vehicle

1:06:58for at least some of these or was that

1:07:01is that just not a consideration? I

1:07:03mean, I know like we asked about does it

1:07:06make sense for police officers to be

1:07:08driving their cars home with them and

1:07:09they were like, "Well, it's a perk and

1:07:11we don't want to take away the perk."

1:07:12And it's just like, "Okay, but like

1:07:14you're costing taxpayers money. So, at

1:07:17some point, does it become worth the

1:07:19conversation or where?" No,

1:07:24>> there part part of that fleet transition

1:07:27study did include

1:07:32studying you know right sizing the fleet

1:07:35uh in regard to do we need this you know

1:07:37in regard to total number of assets do

1:07:39we need do we need this many vehicles so

1:07:42that was that's one part and and that is

1:07:44one part that our fleet department is

1:07:48looking at um do we do we need this many

1:07:51vehicles in in the fleet are there some

1:07:53that are not being utilized and we just

1:07:55get rid of. So that that's part of that.

1:07:58Um in regard to

1:08:01specific vehicles that the police

1:08:03department is using and whether they're

1:08:06necessary, um I I don't have the answer

1:08:08to that currently. Um you know, I know I

1:08:13know some of the vehicles that they use.

1:08:16Um some of some of theirs are hybrids,

1:08:18too. I think particularly some of the

1:08:20SUVs

1:08:21are are hybrid models. So maybe not uh

1:08:26you know I think all of the

1:08:28I I know these Chargers do have some new

1:08:31engine technologies like when they're

1:08:33you know just idling they cut down to

1:08:36you know just like a portion of the

1:08:37engine as opposed to uh you know the

1:08:40full engine. Um so they're they're

1:08:43they're more fuel efficient than the

1:08:45previous ones that they used to get. But

1:08:48um as far as moving

1:08:51away from them entirely, yeah, I I I

1:08:54don't have uh that information.

1:08:57>> Well, I'd be curious to hear if they

1:08:58already have hybrids within the police

1:09:01fleet, then what determines

1:09:04whether they need to purchase a hybrid

1:09:06vehicle or a Charger and

1:09:10what are the different purposes for

1:09:12them? Is there do we have data on how

1:09:16many times a hybrid vehicle has been

1:09:18inadequate for police duties that a

1:09:21Charger would have been able to

1:09:24solve or you know it's just like we're

1:09:26kind of it seems like you're paying

1:09:27these there's you're purchasing premium

1:09:30vehicles that are fuel inefficient

1:09:33and we don't have a lot of data or like

1:09:35information as to like why these are

1:09:37necessary. Now again, like I understand

1:09:40you're not the fleet manager and like

1:09:42it's not really your role to know all

1:09:43these things off the top of your head,

1:09:45but in my mind, these are questions that

1:09:47should be asked since we're considering

1:09:48the fleet.

1:09:50>> Yeah. And just in regard to their

1:09:53take-home vehicles,

1:09:55um yeah, you're right. They they view

1:09:57that as a perk for the job. Um um I I

1:10:01know other cities certainly do the same

1:10:05with their police departments. I think I

1:10:08I don't know if that's a

1:10:10kind of across the board that a lot of

1:10:12police departments, you know, you know,

1:10:15have that as a perk, but it certainly

1:10:18the the case here. Um,

1:10:22yeah,

1:10:24>> let me peel the onion. Let me peel the

1:10:25onion back on on what you said, Rich.

1:10:28And some of it I agree and some of it

1:10:31I'm on the fence on. But so vehicles

1:10:35being brought home, I get it's a perk,

1:10:37but it's also I think it's a benefit to

1:10:40all community members with those cars

1:10:43staying on the road and and traveling

1:10:45between homes and and business or and to

1:10:48the police station or or them doing

1:10:50their course of business versus needing

1:10:52to go get a car to get the right car,

1:10:54etc., etc. Like I think I think it's a

1:10:56really a good a good thing for the city

1:10:58to keep those cars moving um you know

1:11:01after hours and before hours. Um do they

1:11:04use do they have the right vehicles for

1:11:05the reason? Um interesting question

1:11:08Rich. I had not thought about that one.

1:11:10So I I really do like that one because

1:11:12you're right. We don't have interstate

1:11:14within city limits, you know, multiple

1:11:16interstates, multiple uh highspeed

1:11:19areas. So I think that's a really good

1:11:22point. One thing that's of note, David,

1:11:25is I don't know if we typically have V6

1:11:28or V8 models, but I looked up real quick

1:11:30because that 2.2 miles per gallon like

1:11:34caught my attention real fast and I

1:11:35said, I wonder what is the typical

1:11:38advertised miles per gallon for the city

1:11:41um usage. And it's 15 on the V8 model

1:11:45and 18 for the V6 model. And either way,

1:11:48we are drastically underperforming what

1:11:50the average mile per gallon is. And

1:11:52there's a valid reason. And I don't know

1:11:55how we account for this, but these

1:11:57vehicles, particularly in the summer,

1:12:00they don't turn off. I mean, they could

1:12:02not be in their police vehicle for an

1:12:04hour and a half. They just sit there and

1:12:05run, run, run, run all the time, and

1:12:08they're not gaining any miles, but

1:12:09they're burning. So I don't know how we

1:12:12ac account for that in our our

1:12:15information that says you know because

1:12:18of operations this is what we're should

1:12:21be getting and this is what we're

1:12:22actually getting and maybe it's an

1:12:24accepted okay right but I don't know I

1:12:27think communicating that is important

1:12:30and I'm not saying that we're going to

1:12:32change anything we do but I don't think

1:12:35it's it's been brought out definitely

1:12:38not in this slide right we're getting

1:12:39two 12.2 too. Well, what's the should

1:12:42be, right? The should be 15, maybe 18

1:12:44depending what the model is. And

1:12:46therefore, the cost per mile would be X,

1:12:50right? And so, some penalty we're having

1:12:52for the way that these vehicles are are

1:12:54utilized and operated. Again, I'm not

1:12:56saying the police need to change their

1:12:58their process. I just think that if it's

1:13:00communicated, there may be some thoughts

1:13:04of could we do better.

1:13:07>> Yeah. Yeah. the the the police and

1:13:12department and the fire department and

1:13:14the vehicles that they purchase are, you

1:13:16know, I would say both in the special

1:13:19use categories for a lot of their

1:13:21vehicles. Um, but you know, that

1:13:24certainly leaves

1:13:27vehicles and many of the other

1:13:28departments.

1:13:31I think those are the

1:13:32>> Well, you can say it's special use, but

1:13:33in reality, isn't the police fleet more

1:13:35than half of the total fleet?

1:13:38Yeah, it's a big chunk.

1:13:39>> It's not really like quote unquote a

1:13:41special use case if it's the main use

1:13:43case.

1:13:45>> Well, I would say you know all of their

1:13:47vehicles that they need to have pursuit

1:13:50rated uh though and and the fire

1:13:53department with you know their you know

1:13:56their their vehicles that are special

1:13:58needs with the equipment and everything.

1:14:00Not not I'm not talking just fire

1:14:01trucks, but they have a lot of know

1:14:04pickup trucks and other types of

1:14:05vehicles that are, you know, modified to

1:14:08carry the equipment that they need. All

1:14:11of those I'm saying are kind of

1:14:14outside the norm, special use kind of

1:14:16cases. But point I'm trying to make is

1:14:19there's certainly still many vehicles

1:14:22that we have that to me are like

1:14:25lowhanging fruit almost like doing an

1:14:27LED lighting retrofit in you know in

1:14:29this building here. To me it's

1:14:32lowhanging fruit. So I I hope to really

1:14:34be able to highlight that and so we can

1:14:40you know either look at you know

1:14:42additional hybrids or you know more

1:14:44preferably you know beginning to make

1:14:46some

1:14:48strong uh progress on the

1:14:51electrification of some of these

1:14:53vehicles because I've got some

1:14:55additional slides here that

1:14:58highlight those

1:15:00those as well. So

1:15:02that let me may go ahead and go to the

1:15:05next slide which is the next most

1:15:09you know number of vehicles we have are

1:15:11are our v various pickup trucks. So

1:15:15you know our light duty standard pickup

1:15:18trucks such as a Ford F-150

1:15:22you know we have hundreds of those as

1:15:24well and kind of the same kind of cost

1:15:28per mile. you know, versus, you know,

1:15:30we've begun to purchase some of these

1:15:32hybrid like Ford Mavericks, for example.

1:15:36Again, you know, those are around 8

1:15:38cents a mile. Um, that's what the data

1:15:40has shown in FY26

1:15:43versus the, you know, we we've got

1:15:46F-150s as well as some other, you know,

1:15:51other other pickup trucks. um you know

1:15:53F250s, F350s, but average across that

1:15:59light duty pickup truck category is 21

1:16:02cents per mile to operate those. So, and

1:16:06the average cost for, you know, per

1:16:09vehicle is, you know, nearly 1,300 bucks

1:16:12for the FY26

1:16:15uh versus $274 per per vehicle for the

1:16:20Ford Maverick. So, you know, again, very

1:16:23very much highlights the difference

1:16:25between your typical internal combustion

1:16:28engine versus the hybrid models, how

1:16:31much more energy efficient, cost

1:16:34efficient that they they are.

1:16:39just for to go back to the chart.

1:16:43We've got 147 of the light duty pickups

1:16:47and currently right now we have 15 of

1:16:49the the Ford Mavericks, the hybrids. So

1:16:54>> on those light duties as they as they're

1:16:56rolling off with their leases are

1:16:58needing to be replaced, are they

1:17:00automatically going to the hybrid or is

1:17:02it still an open choice?

1:17:04>> I think it depends on the use case. you

1:17:08know, what's the

1:17:10uh what's the does is there a towing

1:17:13capacity need is, you know, is there a

1:17:17size size need? Because, you know, the

1:17:18Ford Mavericks, they are a little bit

1:17:20smaller. They're kind of a midsize

1:17:23pickup truck. So, if that will fit the

1:17:26use case for the department, um, then

1:17:31it's it's certainly being a

1:17:33consideration. you know, again, I need

1:17:35to present this to uh

1:17:39asset and property management team um to

1:17:44get a little bit more input from their

1:17:46side. But

1:17:49yeah,

1:17:59they they're certainly being much more

1:18:02cost and fuel use efficient. So, it'll

1:18:04it'll be interesting to get their

1:18:06feedback once they they see these

1:18:08numbers

1:18:16and going to our our large fleet of 100%

1:18:21electric vehicles are two Nissan Leafs.

1:18:26So, uh, the total kilowatt hours that

1:18:29were used in FY26 between between the

1:18:32two vehicles was 94.2

1:18:36at a total cost of $91 in electricity

1:18:39cost to operate them.

1:18:44So, that's pretty shocking number, too.

1:18:53I've I've reached out to the department

1:18:54to get what the actual mileage was for

1:18:58that time period and um

1:19:01I should have that here in the next few

1:19:02days as well. But,

1:19:05you know, they were, you know, these

1:19:06were vehicles just used for, you know,

1:19:09perfectly suited for running around town

1:19:12doing the job that they that, you know,

1:19:14this department. These are, I think,

1:19:16mostly kind of storm water compliance

1:19:19folks going around and on and checking

1:19:21the various storm water uh

1:19:25uh storm water ponds and um

1:19:30infrastructure that they they need to

1:19:32check on on a daily basis, but for

1:19:34running around town, they're they don't

1:19:36have a lot of equipment to haul. So,

1:19:38these things have been ideal for the

1:19:41that kind of scenario. So, and there's

1:19:45there's certainly a lot more of those

1:19:47use cases that these would

1:19:50fit the bill just just fine for here in

1:19:53the city. So

1:19:56of course there you know requires the

1:19:59charging infrastructure to go along with

1:20:03additional purchases but you know level

1:20:07two charging as all of these need and

1:20:09that's you know not a significant cost

1:20:12for

1:20:15installing

1:20:17level two chargers

1:20:23And I slid this slide in. Um again, FY26

1:20:28does not include

1:20:30fire department vehicles yet. Um so that

1:20:34number is going to go up, but

1:20:37at least it gives you an idea of kind of

1:20:39historical FY25 going back. We have been

1:20:42seeing, you know, as we've begun

1:20:44purchasing more fuel efficient and

1:20:46hybrid vehicles,

1:20:48um you know, our line is trending down.

1:20:51I hope it as I get these complete

1:20:53numbers for FY26, I hope we see uh um

1:20:58some additional trending down. But yeah,

1:21:02that's that's where we are as as of end

1:21:06of 26. But I I'll follow up with a slide

1:21:10back to you all as well once we get the

1:21:12complete data picture in. But

1:21:18yeah, any any thoughts, questions there?

1:21:26Um, is there a I like the comparison the

1:21:29direct comparison of the vehicles on the

1:21:32slides. Um, and plus one to what they

1:21:34were uh PJ and Rich were saying earlier

1:21:36about like the average cost versus like

1:21:38what we're actually getting out of them.

1:21:40Is there some sort of overall table or

1:21:44overall um like are they asking for any

1:21:47sort of um

1:21:50I'm trying to think like metric around

1:21:52if we

1:21:54you know is

1:21:57I'm trying to think like is there a

1:21:59percentage of if we move to this

1:22:00percentage of the fleet being this the

1:22:02cost savings would be this

1:22:05like the ROI or something along those

1:22:07lines would be this based on the current

1:22:08cost of gas versus, you know, like fuel

1:22:11costs and maintenance.

1:22:13>> Have they asked for like any sort of

1:22:15like general overall?

1:22:17>> They

1:22:19haven't yet because they haven't seen

1:22:21any of this data yet. Um

1:22:25um I would not be surprised if they

1:22:28asked for that. So it wouldn't be hard

1:22:31to

1:22:33um generate a potential cost savings cuz

1:22:36uh you know if we you know if we move to

1:22:40you know

1:22:43say say a quarter of those light duty

1:22:46pickup trucks if we can convert those to

1:22:48Ford Mavericks um you know

1:22:52what would that potential cost savings

1:22:55ROI look like?

1:22:58So, um, yeah, it's a good question,

1:23:02Andrea. I'll I'll have to

1:23:06follow up with with with the committee

1:23:08here as as, uh,

1:23:11I present this data to them and

1:23:14if they come back with any additional

1:23:16questions or and I could certainly have

1:23:18a slide like that ready. That's that's

1:23:22>> I was going to say you can even keep it

1:23:23hidden from the uh presentation and when

1:23:25the question comes through actually I

1:23:27brought some numbers.

1:23:29>> You got you got my brain spinning now.

1:23:31So I'll probably go ahead and whip up a

1:23:33slide like that just to have it on hand.

1:23:35>> Nice.

1:23:37>> Thanks. Hold it for me.

1:24:05Um,

1:24:07yeah. I'm just trying to get back to the

1:24:08agenda here. Sorry.

1:24:18And just uh unless there's any other

1:24:20questions there, just a few few of these

1:24:23updates on item three. Rich, I believe

1:24:26all of y'all received uh the four of

1:24:29you, Rich, Sean, and PJ

1:24:31um received invitations via email for

1:24:35that for that banquet. If not, let me

1:24:39know.

1:24:40And Jeff, I think you had some questions

1:24:43in regard to registering for some of the

1:24:45other events during that nuclear science

1:24:48week. Um open to the public. you can,

1:24:51you know, there's, you know, a a place

1:24:55to register if you go to that link

1:24:56provided here in the agenda.

1:25:04And for any of y'all interested, um,

1:25:07we're having a Wilmington Drive Electric

1:25:10event. There's actually a club here in

1:25:13in this city, uh, EV driving club that's

1:25:16kind of hosting this event.

1:25:19I've got the agenda

1:25:22end here. So, it was supposed to be this

1:25:25last Sunday, but it got rained out

1:25:27because of the weather. But this next

1:25:29Sunday out at Carolina Beach State Park,

1:25:31we're having the Drive Electric

1:25:33Wilmington event. Um we're going to have

1:25:35one of our Nissan lease out there and

1:25:37just be able to talk about um some of

1:25:40the city's goals towards electrification

1:25:43and

1:25:46yeah hopefully just uh you know support

1:25:48uh the EV transition here within the

1:25:51city. So um

1:25:55anyall out that way you're welcome to

1:25:56drop by would be great great to see you.

1:25:58So

1:26:01and

1:26:06We're getting close on time, but um just

1:26:09the last update. I did reach out to our

1:26:11our

1:26:13lead for cities contact. I know this is

1:26:15I kind of had this on the agenda for

1:26:17several months. Um but the last word I

1:26:20had is from them is they're supposed to

1:26:22have our final review back by the 19th

1:26:25of this month. So

1:26:27I hope to hear either next week or by

1:26:30Monday of next week. So, yeah, fingers

1:26:33crossed there.

1:26:35Um,

1:26:36that's that's all I have on the agenda

1:26:38for this month. Um, Rich, I'll pass it

1:26:41off to you for any final thoughts,

1:26:43comments.

1:26:46>> All right. Uh, unless anybody has

1:26:48anything else, I think we can go ahead

1:26:50and adjourn. Thanks everybody for your

1:26:52time and look forward to talking to you

1:26:55all next month.

1:26:58>> All right. Thank you, Rich. See you

1:27:00everyone. Thanks again for joining us

1:27:02this month.