Wilmington sustainability committee weighs SSDN comment letter on Duke Energy carbon plan

Members of Wilmington's sustainability committee met to review a draft public comment letter from the Southeast Sustainability Directors Network (SSDN) addressing Duke Energy's proposed carbon plan. David (staff member) presented the draft as an initial statewide template intended to reflect local governments' concerns and to be refined before being presented to city leadership. "This is kind of the initial draft that the SSDN working group has put together as a starting point," David said.

Committee members front‑loaded concerns about affordability and reliability. David and others said the letter should emphasize how projected electricity rate increases could affect residents and municipal operations. "Number 1 being, you know, affordability," David said, arguing that utility costs matter for housing affordability and household budgets.

Members debated resource mix and grid reliability. PJ (committee member) cautioned that solar and wind are not inherently dispatchable and that meeting peak needs often depends on dispatchable resources such as gas turbines or nuclear. "If your batteries were sized for 8 hours and you went several days without usable sunlight, then those batteries became useless for you after that 8 hour period," PJ said, urging the committee to be explicit about limits to storage in some scenarios. Jeffrey Zuba (committee member) and others urged the letter to call for more transparent modeling and supporting data behind demand projections.

The committee also discussed whether SSDN should seek intervenor status in the utilities docket or stick to a cosigned public comment letter. David said some local governments have traditionally filed as intervenors while others have limited participation to cosigned comments; the SSDN group's approach was not yet final.

Data centers and large-load customers prompted significant discussion. Jessica Cannon (committee member) said other states have created distinct rate classes for proposed data centers and suggested the letter consider mechanisms to ensure large customers pay appropriate system costs. Some members worried that explicitly naming data centers could politicize the letter; others said targeted language could protect residential ratepayers.

Members recommended reordering the draft so local goals and recommended portfolio analysis are more prominent. PJ and others suggested moving the local‑goals section (section 4 in the draft) up in priority so city leadership would see actionable guidance first. David said he would take meeting feedback back to SSDN, circulate updated drafts and work toward a final version that the city could consider presenting to council. "I'll share drafts and see if there's going to be the appetite to sign on to the comment," he said. David noted a target timeframe to advance the item toward city council in the coming months.

The committee did not take a formal vote; members focused on drafting priorities, suggested additions such as affordability, clearer modeling visuals, and stronger language about battery programs and energy efficiency, and requested that SSDN keep the letter concise for local leadership. The next SSDN workshop and subsequent draft revisions were identified as the near-term next steps.