Rising electric rates revive Waynesville solar push
The Town of Waynesville is again considering solar power as a hedge against rising electricity costs.
File photo
Waynesville did not reject solar last year; it hesitated. Twelve months later, amid skyrocketing electricity costs, a shortened federal incentive window, a roof nearing the end of its life and more rate spikes on the way, council is again weighing whether the town’s recreation center should become its own power producer.
The solar push aligns with the town’s goal of carbon neutrality and net zero emissions by 2050.
“This is the continuation of the project that we talked about a year ago,” said ouncil member Chuck Dickson, a major proponent. “We have even better figures for you this year.”
Environmental Sustainability Board Chair William Hite returned to Waynesville’s budget retreat on Feb. 27 to make the case for panels atop the town’s sprawling recreation center, describing the proposal as, “simply put, an opportunity to lower municipal emissions, generate savings and inspire the community.”
Council heard a similar pitch in 2025, when solar was proposed for both the recreation center and the public works building. The ESB later secured a $500,000 Dogwood Health Trust grant for solar plus battery storage at the public works building on Legion Drive. That project is expected to be completed by summer, but the recreation center remains unresolved.
Hite said two developments have now changed the calculus.
Related Items
HCAC gets ‘Weird & Wacky’
Waynesville mural project ends with community paint day
Play ball: Haywood softball players celebrate reopening of Helene-damaged field
Partner content: Taste of Local
The first is electricity demand driven by artificial intelligence and data centers. Data centers consumed 4% of U.S. electricity in 2024, he said, and that figure is projected to reach 12% by 2028.
“When supply doesn’t keep up with demand, the price rises,” Hite said. “This is important, because in none of our lifetimes have we experienced such a steep change in electricity demand. The last time this occurred was the introduction of central heating and air in the 1950s.”
The second is the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which accelerated deadlines tied to clean energy incentives originally extended through 2032.
“Currently there is still available a 30%-to-40% investment tax credit,” Hite said.
According to Hite’s presentation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act “unwittingly forced communities to decision points on key provisions originally part of the [Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act]. No longer projected to sunset in 2032, the OBBBA forces municipalities and nonprofits to the decision table in 2026.”
Under the proposal, the recreation center’s aging roof would be replaced at a cost of about $430,000, even though it still has about five years left of useful life.
A 382.4-kilowatt solar array would cost roughly $630,000 before incentives. With a 40% investment tax credit, the net solar cost drops to about $378,000.
The system would offset approximately 65% of the building’s electricity use and produce an estimated 521,575 kilowatt-hours annually.
Hite emphasized that the town’s wholesale electric rate of 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour is not the whole story. Demand charges push the levelized cost closer to 8.1 cents per kilowatt-hour.
“When energy costs more, the rate of return for solar increases, lowering the payback period,” he said.
Savings scenarios presented to council showed payback periods between seven and 10 years depending on future electric rates. At current rates with a 2% annual escalator, projected total proceeds over 25 years exceeded $1.2 million.
Finance staff reported that the recreation center alone paid about $151,000 for electricity last year. Hite said solar would offset 65% of that cost, or roughly $98,000 annually in avoided costs.
Financing would be available at approximately 3.9%, with amortization options over 10 or 25 years. The first-year payment would be higher to account for receipt of the tax credit, after which monthly payments would decrease.
Council member Anthony Sutton asked if there was an alternative to putting the panels on the roof, however installers from Rhino Renewables present at the meeting said such options are possible but generally more expensive due to structural requirements.
The current proposal does not include batteries, which remain expensive; Hite pointed out that the public works project’s cost was driven largely by battery storage.
Sutton also asked about energy production guarantees.
“We are so far in the hole,” Sutton said. “We need some kind of guarantee that this will pay for itself.”
Equipment warranties would extend up to 30 years on panels and 20 years on inverters, but generation guarantees would need to be negotiated in an RFP. The concerns arose in context of the town’s broader financial position — currently weakened due to lagging federal reimbursements related to Hurricane Helene.
Hite also highlighted secondary benefits, including reduced cooling loads because panels shade and protect the roof membrane. As the discussion wound down, officials agreed the next step would be securing a structural analysis and refining financing assumptions.
“It’s a great opportunity for the town,” Hite said. “It is a way to save money, both today and tomorrow.”
Council took no formal action, but unlike last year, the numbers — and the deadlines — appear to be pushing the conversation closer to a decision.
