AN U RBAN ENERGY SYSTEM AND POLICY RESEARCH PROJECT PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION BY THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY JUNE, 2010
FRONT PAGE PHOTO CREDIT: GOOGLE EARTH, 2010
Page | 2
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Hillary Ellison Laura Foster Joshua Huneycutt Angel Idrovo Ron Koenig Shannon ǯ Marc Perez Ehren Seybert Nishant Shah Sharani Zaman
EDITORIAL TEAM Hillary Ellison ǯ Ehren Seybert
FACULTY ADVISOR Dr. Stephen A. Hammer
SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY JUNE 2010
Page | 3
Page | 4 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ...... 7
2. Introduction ...... 11
3. Solar in New York ...... 15
3.1 Lessons Learned ...... 17 4. Solar on Landfills...... 19
4.1 Considerations for Solar Development on Landfills ...... 22 4.2 Physical Issues at Freshkills ...... 23 4.3 Regulatory Issues ...... 28 4.4 Lessons Learned ...... 29 5. Solar Development at Freshkills - A Feasibility Study ...... 31
5.1 Introduction ...... 32 5.2 Technical and Design Feasibility ...... 32 5.3 Financial Feasibility ...... 38 6. Public Image and Engagement ...... 49
6.1 Public Image ...... 50 6.2 Interactivity ...... 52 6.3 Opportunities, Partnerships, Community ...... 52 7. Next Steps ...... 55
8. Works Cited ...... 57
9. Appendix ...... 63
Appendix A Ȃ Solar PV Information ...... 63 Appendix B Ȃ NYS Solar Projects In Development ...... 65 Appendix C Ȃ Completed Solar-Landfill Projects ...... 66 Appendix D Ȃ Solar-Landfill Projects, Incomplete ...... 67 Appendix E Ȃ Site Considerations from Solar-Landfill Facilities ...... 69 Appendix F Ȃ Solar Mounting Systems ...... 74 Appendix G Ȃ Twelve Month Shading Analysis ...... 76 Appendix H Ȃ Power Production Analysis Background ...... 77 Appendix I Ȃ Property Valuation of Closed Landfills ...... 80 Appendix J Ȃ Examples of New York Projects Receiving Financial Support ...... 82 Appendix K Ȃ Sample Project Funding Models ...... 83 Appendix L - Grant Price Matrix...... 84
Page | 5 Appendix M Ȃ Feed-In Tariff Details ...... 85 Appendix N Ȃ Environmental Benefits ...... 86 Appendix O Ȃ RFPs and Additional Research ...... 87
Page | 6
1. Executive Summary
The City of New York (the City), like many urban areas across the world, is facing increasing energy demands and environmental pressures as its population and economy grow, and as its energy infrastructure continues to age. Addressing the projected gap between energy demand and supply while working to avoid the dangerous impacts of global climate change are top priorities to ensure the long- term well-being of the citizens of New York.
In 2007, the City set out to confront these challenges in its comprehensive long-term sustainability plan, PlaNYC 2030. PlaNYC sets out objectives to encourage the development of new power plants, build alternative energy markets, and expand clean distributed in-city generation in order to deliver clean, reliable energy to the City of New York (The City of New York 2010). As part of its endeavor to transition to a more sustainable energy future, the City is examining opportunities for large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) installations. dŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐĞĨĨŽƌƚƚo meet its projected energy needs by analyzing the potential for deployment of solar PV on city-owned property at Freshkills Park, home of the former Freshkills Landfill on Staten Island. This feasibility study is divided into four sections. The first two sections provide context about the state of solar PV development in New York and on landfills, the solar PV financing landscape, and the technical constraints specific to the Freshkills site itself. The third section provides an explanation of the project model used to test the technical and financial feasibility of a solar installation at Freshkills, and comes to the conclusion that a 3rd party ownership structure appears to be the most cost effective approach to developing solar on at the Park. The fourth section introduces additional
Page | 7 elements that may impact development decisions, such as public interaction and engagement considerations.
ĂƐĞĚŽŶŽƵƌƚĞĂŵ͛ƐƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĂŶĚƉůĂŶŶĞĚůĂƌŐĞ-scale PV projects in the US, and our financial and technical analyses, it is our conclusion that a 24 MW solar PV facility is theoretically and technically feasible at Freshkills Park. This target number was derived from early power production estimates based on the total amount of land that could be made available for development on the North, East, and South Mounds of Freshkills Park, and through a preliminary interconnection analysis with Con Edison (ConEd), which provided cost estimates in 6 MW segments. In order to ensure an accurate financial analysis, a 24 MW installation was chosen as it conforms to the geographic constraints of the site and the interconnection requirements provided by ConEd. dŚĞƌĞƉŽƌƚ͛ƐŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞŝƐƉƌĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĂƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚĂƐŽůĂƌŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚ&ƌĞƐŚŬŝůůƐŝƐƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůůLJ and financially feasible if structured with 3rd party ownership. Our analysis suggests that a developer- led ownership model is the most financially feasible option because it allows for cost recovery in the form of tax benefits, which are critical to the financial viability of the project. Such a model will likely require the City to engage a 3rd party to own and operate the solar installation through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process. A well-crafted RFP will be central to generating high quality, economically attractive bids. This report identifies several key areas to address in the RFP to ensure its success.
KEY ISSUES FOR THE RFP:
x Ensure Eligibility for Private Developer Financial Incentives: The RFP must be written so as to ensure that bidders are eligible to receive the tax credits and federal, state and local financial incentives necessary to make Freshkills project financially viable. Based on our research, a buyout-structured project of a 24 MW solar facility will cost approximately $133 million to build. There will be average annual maintenance costs of approximately $100,000 per year, and an inverter replacement at year 15 at a cost of $7.4 million. After taking advantage of all available incentives, a private developer will need to earn 22.59 cents per kWh for all power generated in order to recap its investment.
x Survey, Repurpose and Engage Consultants: The solar RFP drafting process is new ground for many issuing entities, and as of yet, there is no standard approach. A common practice, and timesaver, for the RFP drafting process is to survey successful solicitations to use as models and engage consultants with expertise in a particular area to be covered in the RFP.
x Provide Comprehensive Technical/Site Information: The RFP should provide as much technical information about the host site as possible. While the risk associated with undertaking a solar project on a landfill site may be higher compared to undeveloped sites, developers are motivated and able to manage inherent risks through careful design and planning. There are technical and system design solutions that can work to overcome environmental constraints such as shade, the angle of the sun, point loading on the geomembrane cover, the slope of the mounds, landfill settling, wind, and snow. Including comprehensive site and technical information in the RFP will provide bidders with the requisite intelligence to design engineering solutions that would best manage settlement risks and deliver the most realistic power price estimates.
Page | 8 x Be Price and Capacity Driven: The requirements identified for project developers in the RFP should be price and capacity driven. While providing too little of the technical information critical to returning a bid can halt or slow down the RFP process, over-designing the RFP can also have negative outcomes. Over-design of the RFP will make it difficult for bidders to return the most cost-effective responses. Allowing for flexibility in the way developers reach the ŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ͛ƐŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐĐĂŶďĞďĞŶĞĨŝĐŝĂůƚŽƚŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƐŽĨĂƐŽůĂƌWsƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘
x Require Proven Engineering Analyses: Project bidders should provide comprehensive, proven engineering analyses to support the site design and installation components proposed. Equipment and design details can be left to the bidder, however, technology guidelines should not be ignored, as it is important that bidders deliver proposals that use proven solar PV technology.
x Examine Opportunities to Jointly Issue the RFP: From a project stakeholder standpoint, ĚĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐŵŽƚŝǀĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƉƵƌƐƵŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚŵĂLJŵĂŬĞƐĞŶƐĞƚŽĂůŝŐŶǁŝƚŚ other stakeholders for the issuance of the RFP. For example, if the City decides its main motivation is to provide low-cost power to the state, it may make sense to partner with the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to jointly issue the RFP.
EĞǁzŽƌŬŝƚLJŚĂƐƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJĂƚ&ƌĞƐŚŬŝůůƐWĂƌŬƚŽƚƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵǁŚĂƚǁĂƐĨŽƌŵĞƌůLJƚŚĞǁŽƌůĚ͛ƐůĂƌŐĞƐƚ landfill into the largest in-ĐŝƚLJƐŽůĂƌWsŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞƉůĂŶĞƚ͘'ŝǀĞŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů energy supply, and the potential for energy prices to rise in coming years, large-scale solar PV may be a viable energy generating option for the city. The Freshkills project is one opportunity to provide reliable power to the city, avoid local environmental pollution, reduce climate change impacts, and potentially generate revenue to fund future renewable energy and/or economic development initiatives.
Page | 9
Page | 10 2. Introduction
New York City is facing future population and economic growth as well as an aging energy infrastructure. It is projected that the City will need to add between 2,000 and 3,000 MW of supply capacity by 2015 to compensate for the retirement of outmoded power plants and to meet new demand. With much of the ŝƚLJ͛ƐĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ ďĞĐŽŵŝŶŐ ŽƵƚĚĂƚĞĚ͕ Ă ƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶ ŽŶ ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ ůĂŶĚ ĨŽƌ ŶĞǁ plants, and a requirement that there be sufficient in-city capacity to meet 80% of tŚĞ ŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ƉĞĂŬ demand, the New York faces a challenge in meeting this future energy demand. This need, coupled with increasing concerns about avoiding the dangerous impacts of climate change, and addressing other environmental pressures, requires an integrated planning approach.
In April of 2007, the City released PlaNYC 2030, its long-ƚĞƌŵƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐƉůĂŶĨŽƌĂ͞ŐƌĞĞŶĞƌ͕ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌEĞǁ zŽƌŬ͘͟ ĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ŶĞĞĚƐ ŽĨ Ă ŐƌŽǁŝŶŐ ĐŝƚLJ͕ ƚŚĞ ƌĞƉŽƌƚ ůĂŝĚ ŽƵƚ Ă ƉůĂŶ ĨŽƌ ĞŶƐƵƌŝŶŐ ŝƚƐ ůŽŶŐ-term sustainability and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by addressing the following environmental dimensions: Land, water, transportation, energy, air, and climate change. In order to tackle the energy gap, PlaNYC set objectives of expanding clean distributed generation, increasing awareness of energy conservation, and encouraging renewable energy markets in New York City (The City of New York 2010). To meet its commitment to reducing local greenhouse gas emissions and satisfy its energy needs, the City is exploring employing multiple renewable energy technologies; large-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) has the potential to be a viable option for helping the City achieve these PlaNYC objectives.
OPPORTUNITY IN NEW YORK Solar power currently makes up less than 1% of our country͛ƐĞŶĞƌŐLJƐƵƉƉůLJŵŝdž͖ŵƵĐŚŽĨǁŚĂƚĂĐĐŽƵŶƚƐ for this small role is that solar power is still relatively expensive compared to more traditional, fossil-fuel based energy generation. However, the decreasing cost of solar components, combined with federal, state, and local financial incentives, are making energy generated from solar PV increasingly competitive with these other technologies. Because of these cost reductions and incentives, the U.S. saw an 81% increase in grid-connected solar PV installations between 2007 and 2008 with many larger-scale facilities entering the planning phase (SEIA 2009).
Although it only accounts for a small share of total national generation, New York State has more than sufficient solar resources to justify pursuing solar PV projects. In fact, there is only a 35% difference in the amount of energy delivered from the sun between Phoenix, Arizona and New York City. New York ŝƚLJ͛ƐƐŽůĂƌWsƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŚĂƐďĞĞŶĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚĂƚďĞƚǁĞĞŶϲ͕ϬϬϬĂŶĚϴ͕ϬϬϬDt(Rickerson 2007), but as of 2009, only 2 MW of PV capacity had been installed in the city (CH2MHILL 2009). This slow growth in the PV market can be attributed to various financial, regulatory, and technical barriers that have historically challenged the City, like insufficient funding sources, higher comparative installation costs, and obstacles that come along with interconnecting to the more complex network grid (Rickerson 2007). For a basic solar technology overview see Appendix A.
In recent years, the regulatory environment has been shifting and the current economic and policy climate has become more favorable for solar development in New York. New mandates at the state and city-level have resulted in a strong upward tick in solar iŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨ'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌWĂƚƚĞƌƐŽŶ͛Ɛ ͞ϰϱďLJϭϱ͟ŵĂŶĚĂƚĞ͕ƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŐĂŝŶƐŝŶƌĞŶĞǁĂďůĞƉŽǁĞƌŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞEĞǁzŽƌŬWŽǁĞƌ Authority is looking to develop 100 MW of solar PV across the state. PlaNYC has laid out strategies for eliminating barriers to increasing solar generation in New York City. To move this forward, the City is
Page | 11 looking across agencies for opportunities to leverage public land for the development of solar PV projects.
FRESHKILLS PARK Located in Staten Island, and at 2.5 times the size of Central Park, Freshkills Park will be the largest park created in New York City in the last century. This 2,200 acre site is undergoing a three-phase development plan, which emphasizes environmental sustainability. As the steward of Freshkills Park, the ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨWĂƌŬƐĂŶĚZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ;WĂƌŬƐͿŝƐƚƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵŝŶŐǁŚĂƚǁĂƐŽŶĐĞƚŚĞǁŽƌůĚ͛ƐůĂƌŐĞƐƚůĂŶĚĨŝůů into an attractive and productive public space. In the planning for the future use of Freshkills Park, Parks has recognized an opportƵŶŝƚLJƚŽŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚĞdžĞŵƉůŝĨLJWůĂEz͛ƐǀĂůƵĞƐĂŶĚŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐĨŽƌ responsible energy planning, like solar PV. Methane gas produced by the landfill is already captured and utilitized for energy generation purposes. Although solar installations on landfill properties represent an emerging practice, there is growing interest in pursuing these types of projects amongst the public and private sectors. Developers, landfill owners, and municipalities are supportive of repurposing landfill sites for power generation in order to maximize the use of low-value land and avoid political issues surrounding power plants on undeveloped land.
In the fall of 2009, the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation approached Columbia hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ĞŶƚĞƌ ĨŽƌ Ŷergy, Marine Transportation and Public Policy (CEMTPP) seeking assistance analyzing the potential for deployment of large-scale solar PV at Freshkills Park. By allocating a portion of its acreage to solar PV, the City can make a statement about its commitment to clean energy, while at the same time creating the potential for community and ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ dŚŝƐ ƌĞƉŽƌƚ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐ ƚŚĞ WĂƌŬƐ͛ ĞĨĨŽƌƚ ƚŽ ŵĞĞƚ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚ ĞŶĞƌŐLJ ŶĞĞĚƐ ďLJ analyzing the potential for deployment of solar PV on city- owned property at Freshkills Park. This feasibility study is divided into four sections. The first two sections provide context about the state of solar PV development in New York and on landfills, the solar PV financing landscape, and the technical constraints specific to the Freshkills site itself. The third section provides an explanation of the base-case project model used to test the technical and financial feasibility of a solar installation at Freshkills, and analyzes the role that 3rd party ownership structure must play in developing solar at the Park. The fourth section introduces additional elements that may impact development decisions, such as public interaction and engagement considerations.
LIMITATIONS OF THIS ANALYSIS While solar energy can be captured to generate electricity through both solar thermal and solar PV technologies, only solar PV was analyzed for the purposes of this report. The analysis was limited to solar PV because of the diffuse character of New York City sunlight. Solar thermal requires Figure 1 & 2. Freshkills Park. Source: Freshkills direct sunlight, while solar PV can be used with diffuse Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009 sunlight conditions. The research and analysis of this report were undertaken within the limited timeframe of
Page | 12 September through December of 2009. Interviews were conducted with RFP issuing entities, including government agencies and utilities, and with private solar system developers. A literature search on past large-scale solar PV projects supplemented the expert interviews. As this is a developing field, there is little in the way of established precedent for solar on landfill and the landscape is changing rapidly. Likewise, the solar industry is facing changes as technology improves, costs decrease, and new governmental policies are adopted.
The report provides an in-depth exploration of a 3rd party ownership model for the solar installation. However, it does not examine other ownership models in as much detail since the financial model developed by the team suggests that a developer-led ownership model allows for cost recovery in the form of tax benefits, which are critical to the financial viability of the project.
Rather than recommend a specific course of action, this report identifies several key areas to address which may help ensure the successful issuance and evaluation of an RFP, should the City choose to pursue the 3rd Party ownership model.
Page | 13
Page | 14
3. Solar in New York
Page | 15 3. Solar in New York
EĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞ͛ƐƐŽůĂƌŝŶĚƵƐƚƌLJŝƐƐƚŝůůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐ͘ůƚŚŽƵŐŚŶŽƵƚŝůŝƚLJ-scale solar PV projects currently exist1, city and state-level policy mandates are spurring the development of a first-wave of large-scale ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘ DĂLJŽƌ ůŽŽŵďĞƌŐ͛Ɛ WůĂEz ƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƐ ŝŶ-city renewable energy generation, and Governor WĂƚƚĞƌƐŽŶŚĂƐƐĞƚĂŐŽĂůŽĨƐĂƚŝƐĨLJŝŶŐϰϱƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞ͛s energy needs through energy efficiency and renewable energy by 2015 (New York State 2009). This section will focus on a number of solar PV projects in development at the city and state levels, highlighting lessons that are applicable to Freshkills.
New York State is home to approximately 22 MW of solar capacity (Milliken 2009), making it the 7th largest generator of solar PV in the country (Solar Energy Industries Association 2008). There are a total of 2 MW installed solar power in the City of New York itself (CH2MHILL 2009). It is clear that New York is taking steps to create a friendlier financial environment for solar developers. In order to meet Governor WĂƚƚĞƌƐŽŶ͛Ɛ͞ϰϱďLJϭϱ͟ŵĂŶĚĂƚĞ͕ƚŚĞEĞǁzŽƌŬWŽǁĞƌƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ;EzWͿŝƐƉƵƌƐƵŝŶŐĂƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŽĚĞǀelop 100 MW of solar across New York State. Additionally, New York has a net metering law, which allows ƐŵĂůůĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƐƚŚĂƚŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƚŚĞŝƌŽǁŶƌĞŶĞǁĂďůĞĞŶĞƌŐLJƚŽƐĞůůƉŽǁĞƌƚŚĞLJĚŽŶ͛ƚƵƐĞďĂĐŬ to the grid. For a summary of New York City and State projects in development see Appendix B. For a description of how the proposed New York State Feed in Tariff will effect the financial landscape for solar development in New York State see Section 5.3.1 .
STATE-LEVEL SOLAR PROJECTS There are three major public solar PV projects underway at the state level:
x A 50 MW initiative in Long Island being undertaken by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA); x A 100 MW initiative at sites across the State, being undertaken by the New York Power Authority (NYPA); and x A 1.1 MW ground-mounted installation at the University of Buffalo, which is also a NYPA project.
LIPA is in the process of negotiating contracts with two power providers to deliver 50 MW of solar power by 2011. The first agreement is with the energy company BP to develop two 18 MW ground- mounted facilities at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. The second agreement is with the solar developer enXco to build 13 MW of distributed generation solar on public and private facilities across Long Island. EnXco and LIPA have identified, and are currently reviewing, suitable host sites for the solar installations.
NYPA has issued a RFP for 100 MW of ground and roof mounted solar PV on municipal, public, and private facilities. This project is the largest proposed solar PV initiative to-date in the state of New York. dŚĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƚŚĂƚ ŝƐ ĨƵƌƚŚĞƐƚ ĂůŽŶŐ ŝƐ EzW͛Ɛ ϭ͘ϭ Dt ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ ŽĨ ƵĨĨĂůŽ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚ ŝƐ scheduled to begin operating in the fall of 2010 (NYPA 2009). This project is a result of Governor WĂƚƚĞƌƐŽŶ͛Ɛ ͞ϰϱ ďLJ ϭϱ͟ ŵĂŶĚĂƚĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƚŚĞ ůĂƌŐĞƐƚ ŐƌŽƵŶĚ-mounted solar PV installation in the
1The largest operating single-site solar project in the City is a 300 kW roof-mounted project on the New York City Transit ƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ͛Ɛ;EzdͿ'ƵŶ,ŝůůZŽĂĚƵƐĞƉŽƚŝŶƚŚĞƌŽŶdž͘dŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁĂƐŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚŝŶϭϵϵϲǁŝƚŚĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ^ŽůĂƌ ůĞĐƚric WŽǁĞƌƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ͛Ɛd D-UP program.
Page | 16 State. The energy generated by the system will supply power to 735 on-campus student apartments (Solar Liberty 2009).
CITY-LEVEL SOLAR PROJECTS There are two solar PV projects in development at the New York City level:
x A 2 MW distributed generation project by the NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS); and x A 500 kW project being led by the NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC).
At the time of the writing of this report, DCAS is in the process of drafting a revised RFP to install approximately 2 MW of distributed generation solar on the rooftops of municipal buildings across New York City. This RFP will be based on responses to a recent Request for Information (RFI) DCAS issued ĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůZ&WĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĨĂŝůĞĚƚŽƌĞƚƵƌŶĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĂůůLJǀŝĂďůĞďŝĚƐ͘ ͛ƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐĨŽĐƵƐĞĚ on installing 500 kW of solar PV on the roof of the Brooklyn Army Terminal.
3.1 Lessons Learned
SURVEY, REPURPOSE, AND ENGAGE CONSULTANTS The solar RFP drafting process is new ground for many issuing entities, and as of yet, there is no standard approach. A common practice, and timesaver, for the RFP drafting process is to survey successful solicitations to use as models and engage consultants with expertise in a particular area to be covered in the RFP. For its 2 MW RFP, DCAS used solicitations from the New Jersey Meadowlands solar ƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͛ƐϱDtƉƌŽũĞĐt as models (Dean 2009).
LIPA has had extensive experience drafting traditional power procurement RFPs, but the 50 MW solar Z&W ŝƚ ŝƐƐƵĞĚ ŝŶ ϮϬϬϴ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞ ƵƚŝůŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ĨŝƌƐƚ͘ &Žƌ ƚŚŝƐ͕ >/W ƌĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞĚ ďŽŝůĞƌƉůĂƚĞ ůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ ĨƌŽŵ ŝƚƐ solicitations for other types of power generation projects, and then incorporated the 50 MW solar ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͛ƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐŐŽĂůƐĂŶĚŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐ͕ďŝĚĚŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂŶĚƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĚĞƚĂŝůƐ;ƌĞĐŚƚĞƌϮϬϬϵͿ͘
Consultants with expertise in a particular area to be covered in the RFP are regularly engaged by issuing organizations. Some relevant examples include:
x DCAS worked with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for input on what to include in their RFP through their partnership in the Solar America Cities program. x LIPA contracted with Navigant Consulting to benchmark its RFP against other solar solicitations in the U.S.
BE PRICE AND CAPACITY DRIVEN The requirements identified for project developers in the RFP should be price and capacity driven. While providing too little of the technical information critical to returning a bid can halt or slow down the RFP process, over-designing the RFP can also have negative outcomes. Over-design of the RFP will make it difficult for bidders to return the most cost-effective responses. Allowing for flexibility in the way ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƌĞĂĐŚƚŚĞŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ͛ƐŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐĐĂŶďĞďĞŶĞĨŝĐŝĂůƚŽƚŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƐŽĨĂƐŽůĂƌWsƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘
Page | 17 However, technology guidelines should not be ignored, as it is important that bidders deliver proposals that use proven solar PV technology.
Developers recommend that government focus on being price and capacity driven in the RFP and not to get too specific on other requirements for the project, as this can limit the amount of responses that will be received (Moran 2009).
LESSONS FROM DCAS, LIPA, AND NYPA
Because its original 2008 call for responses returned unsatisfactorily high proposed energy prices, DCAS is in the process of issuing a revised RFP for solar PV development. When DCAS issued the original RFP, it was expecting to receive rates from bidders that were about 3 times more expensive than the $.1235/kWh blended rate the City pays to NYPA for energy (DCAS 2008). The rates that it actually received were higher than this benchmark, which effectively halted the project (Dean 2009).
Part of the explanation for the high rates was the high cost of lending that came with the financial crisis in ϮϬϬϴ͕ĂƐŝƚƵĂƚŝŽŶŽƵƚŽĨ^͛ĐŽŶƚƌŽů͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƌƌĂƚĞƐĂůƐŽƐƚĞŵŵĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŽŽůŝƚƚůĞƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂů information in the RFP. Although DCAS was very specific in its 2008 RFP in its requirements from bidders for sites to use, it had not completed comprehensive technical site reviews and midway through the bid process realized that many of their sites were nonviable, resulting in a batch of economically unattractive responses. DCAS is currently conducting comprehensive site assessments in advance of its reissuance of the 2MW RFP.
In contrast, LIPA and NYPA provided lists of proposed host sites, but did not oblige bidders to use only the sites on the lists. By being price and capacity driven, and allowing flexibility in project proposals, LIPA generated 38 viable, high quality responses to its RFP (Brechter 2009).
Page | 18
4. Solar on Landfills
Photo Credit: Army Environmental Update, Flickr Fort Carson Solar on Landfill Installation, Fort Carson, CO
Page | 19 4. Solar on Landfills
The 14.2 MW Nellis Air Force Base solar installation located on a 33-ĂĐƌĞĐĂƉƉĞĚůĂŶĚĨŝůů͕ĂŶĚŚŝĐĂŐŽ͛Ɛ West Pullman facility, sited on an abandoned industrial property, represent a small but growing trend: Using landfill, or otherwise polluted industrial sites, for solar development. These sites are considered by some to be ideal platforms for energy production, and the practice is gaining national attention. Solar facilities, particularly on landfill, can enable development of sites in dense areas where land is scarce, provide possible lower cost leases, and help to shift the pressure of development away from ƵŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ͕Žƌ͞ŐƌĞĞŶĨŝĞůĚ͕͟ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ; WϮϬϬϵͿ͘&ƵƌƚŚĞƌŵŽƌĞ͕ƚŚĞƐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂƌĞƐĞĞŶĂƐƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ a productive use for the site that can potentially benefit the community.
There has been growing interest in the repurposing of otherwise low value land resources for energy generation. Many communities with closed landfills have floated the idea as a showcase for the ŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJ͛ƐƚŚŽƵŐŚƚĨƵůƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƌĞŶĞǁĂďůĞĞŶĞƌŐLJ͘&ŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ůŽĐĂů civic leaders in Queens, NY, have suggested the Edgemere landfill, near John F. Kennedy Airport, as a possible site for a LIPA solar installation (Brosh 2009). Like many others in the news, this project is currently nothing more than a local proposal, evidencing the fact that few projects are completed or even at the bid stage. However, there have been a some successful projects, and this landscape may change rapidly as the technical and logistical hurdles to development of solar PV on landfills are better understood.
COMPLETED SOLAR-LANDFILL PROJECTS OF NOTE There are approximately 22.5 MW of installed solar capacity on landfill properties in the U.S. (including the large non-landfill portions of the Nellis facility). Completed projects of note:
x A 14.2 MW facility at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada; x 2.6 MW system at the Pennsauken landfill, Pennsauken, NJ; x 2 MW at the Ft Carson Army Base landfill, Ft Collins, CO; x 550 kW at the Evergreen landfill in Canton, NC x A 250 kW installation at Rothenbach Park, the former Bee Ridge landfill in Sarasota, FL; x 3MW of solar capacity at the Exelon-Conergy Solar Energy Center, Bucks County, PA; x ĨůĞdžĨŝůŵ͚ƉĞĞůĂŶĚƐƚŝĐŬ͛ƐŽůĂƌĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƚƚŚĞdĞƐƐŵĂŶ>ĂŶĚĨŝůůŝŶ^ĂŶŶƚŽŶŝŽ͕ TX.
NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE Nellis Air Force base is home to the largest landfill-based solar facility. It is sited on 140 acres in the Nevada desert on land owned by the Air Force, which includes a 33-acre capped landfill. The $100 million project was financed with funds from private sector companies, who received federal tax credits (Price n.d.). The project was built by SunPower Corp, and is owned and operated by MMA Renewable Ventures. The power produced is purchased at a fixed rate by the Air Force base and satisfies 25-30% of its electricity needs (Price n.d.).
Page | 20
PENNSAUKEN PPL Renewable Energy built a 2.6 MW solar facility at the Pennsauken Landfill, in conjunction with a new 2.8 MW landfill gas (LFG) power plant. The solar and LFG facilities were built in 4 stages, on several sites, across 10 acres of the 39-acre municipally-owned and operated landfill (PPL/Messics 2009). 500 kW of the solar energy produced powers the blowers for the LFG plant, and the remainder of the combined solar and LFG power is sold to the adjacent industrial facility, Aluminum Shapes, at below utility retail pricing (Messics 2009). An additional 500 kW of solar capacity is situated on the Aluminum Shapes property itself.
FT. CARSON The 2MW solar facility on 12 acres of the Ft Carson landfill, in Ft Collins, CO, was developed by Conergy in a deal that included seven public and private entities, including the Western Area Power Administration (Galentine 2008)(Conergy n.d.). The power goes to the Ft. Carson Army base and supplies 2.3% of its energy needs (Galentine 2008).
EVERGREEN The Evergreen landfill in Canton North Carolina is a 7 acre private landfill for a packaging manufacturer. First Light Solar (FLS) installed the 550 KW plant on 3 acres of the landfill and sells the power to the local utility, Progress Energy Carolinas (Gardner 2009). This installation, which was originally planned as a 1 MW facility, but was constrained by the acreage, is estimated to have cost $5 million and is notable in its use of local and regionally sourced materials and components (Malcolm 2009).
ROTHENBACH PARK The 250 MW solar installation at the former Bee Ridge landfill, now Rothenbach Park, in Sarasota FL, was built in 2006 by the utility and energy developer, Florida Power and Light (FPL). FPL used proceeds from a voluntary customer surcharge program to finance development (Florida Power and Light 2009). The 28,000 square foot facility is part of a 450-acre public park. The land for this site was given to FPL for free and the county has the option to buy the facility or the energy produced after 8 years (Mayk 2006).
EXELON-CONERGY The 3 MW Exelon-ŽŶĞƌŐLJ^ŽůĂƌ ŶĞƌŐLJĞŶƚĞƌŝƐƐŝƚĞĚŽŶϭϲ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽtĂƐƚĞDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͛Ɛ G.R.O.W.S. landfill. The site for the $20 million project was chosen in order to overcome real estate constraints in the greater Philadelphia area (Conergy 2008)͘ŽŶĞƌŐLJ͛ƐƐƵďƐŝĚŝĂƌLJ͕ ƉƵƌŽŶ͕ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚƚŚĞ solar facility and sells the power to the local utility, Exelon (Conergy n.d.).
TESSMAN The solar demonstration project at the Tessman Landfill in San Antonio, TX uses a less costly United Solar Ovonic solar cell laminate applied directly to the geomembrane landfill cover. This approach allows a recently closed landfill to generate solar power as soon as the cover is on without the need for a soil cap or settlement periŽĚ͘ZĞƉƵďůŝĐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ƚŚĞŽǁŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚĨŝůů͕ŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚƚŚĞЬ͟ƚŚŝĐŬ͕͞ƉĞĞůĂŶĚ ƐƚŝĐŬ͟ƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕ĂŶĚŝƐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐŝƚŝŶĐŽŶũƵŶĐƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĂŶĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ>&'ƉůĂŶƚ͘dŚĞƚŽƚĂůƉŽǁĞƌŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚ from the 5.6-acre facility is 9 MW, which is sold to CPS Energy, the San Antonio area utility (MSW Management 2009). It is reported that the solar energy produced is only 134 kW of the total 9 MW facility (Breslin 2009). Solar accounts for only a small percentage of the power generated because the
Page | 21 technology is highly inefficient and the solar cells cover only a small portion of the landfill cover. If successful, this project could be a source of revenue for Republic Services, which operates 213 landfills across the country (MSW Management 2009). For a summary of completed solar projects on landfill see Appendix C.
SOLAR LANDFILL PROJECT OF NOTE AT THE BID OR CONTRACT STAGE As the development of solar PV on landfills is an emerging field, it will be important to monitor the success of developing projects. The following are several projects of interest at the bid or contract stage:
x A 250 MW solar thermal concentrating facility planned for the SR-85 landfill outside of Phoenix; x Two projects at the New Jersey Meadowlands: a 1.6 MW project on the Erie landfill and a 3 MW project at the Kearny Landfill; and x A large development in Massachusetts by Ansar Energy.
For more information and a summary of solar landfill projects of note at the bid or contract stage see Appendix D.
4.1 Considerations for Solar Development on Landfills
In order to provide sufficient technical information for the RFP, and to adequately evaluate responses to the RFP, it is important to understand the specific technical and logistical hurdles that confronted the projects discussed in the previous section. These experiences will inform the more site-specific issues unique to building solar PV on landfills, and on Freshkills itself. For example, in addition to the more common solar site-related challenges like wind, snow and weeds, developing solar on Freshkills introduces new factors, such as settlement, erosion, and point loading. Each of these issues must be addressed by developers in their bids responding to a Freshkills solar PV RFP. In this section, we introduce the technical constraints and solutions that will need to be considered, and the degree to which they will impact a RFP.
If understood properly, many of these challenges can be addressed and resolved upfront through the design, engineering and maintenance planning of the solar facility. The base design and structure of the solar module, as well as the choice of PV technology, can be tailored to the particular landfill site. When a system is designed well, it can reduce the risk involved to the developer and the amount of maintenance necessary. Furthermore, because landfill regulations are so stringent, landfill operators we ƐƉŽŬĞǁŝƚŚďĞůŝĞǀĞĚƚŚĂƚĨƵůůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŽƵůĚŐƌĞĂƚůLJĚŝŵŝŶŝƐŚĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͛ƐƌŝƐŬ;>ĞǀLJ 2009). As the practice of installing solar on landfills is young, there are few precedents, and developers are learning lessons as they go. For case study examples of how existing solar-landfill facilities have resolved technical constraints see Appendix E.
Page | 22
Figure 4. Examples of Technical Considerations on Landfills. Figure 3. Examples of Technical Considerations on Landfills. Source: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
4.2 Physical Issues at Freshkills
DEPLOYING SOLAR ON A SETTLING LANDFILL After a landfill is closed and capped, the mound of refuse continues to compress. Landfill settling is less of an issue from the technical perspective at Fresh Kills as most mounting systems can be adjusted or engineered to accommodate minimal settling, and momentary disruptions generally have little impact on the overall power production (Malcom 2009). For ĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ ŝƚ ǁĂƐ ŽŶĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͛Ɛ ŽƉŝŶŝŽŶ ƚŚĂƚ ĞǀĞŶ ŝĨ ĚŝƐƌƵƉƚŝŽŶƐ ĨƌŽŵ ƐĞƚƚůĞŵĞŶƚ ŚĂĚ occurred, it would have only dropped the overall power production efficiency of the panels from 18% to 17%, which was considered insignificant to their economic model (Messics ϮϬϬϵͿ͘ ^ƚŝůů͕ ƚŽ ĞŶƐƵƌĞ ƚŚĂƚ ůĂŶĚĨŝůů ƐĞƚƚůŝŶŐ ĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚ ďĞĐŽŵĞ Ă ƉƌŽďůĞŵ ŽǀĞƌ ƚŝŵĞ͕ ƌĞŐƵůĂƌ monitoring and adjustments of the solar modules will need to be incorporated into the annual maintenance expense within the financial budget. The financial analysis in Section 5.3 includes these maintenance expenses.
A second reason why landfill settling is less of an issue at Freshkills is that the North and South mounds have been capped since the mid-1990s, so that the highest rate of settlement has already occurred. Although the precise amount of settlement within landfills is difficult to determine, due to the heterogeneous nature of refuse material and the number of models that exist to explain landfill settlement, most models typically agree that the highest rate of settlement occurs within the first ten years, and slowly declines thereafter (Chakma and Mathur 2007).
Page | 23 Although developers interviewed cited no particular rule of thumb for picking a landfill based on its age or contents (Messics 2009), most solar landfill projects in our survey were at least 10 years old, with many over 20 years old. It is likely that developers who chose to pursue solar landfill installations selected their projects with a fuller understanding of landfill engineering so that they were not deterred by the concept of a potentially shifting ground level.
POINT LOADING OVER LANDFILL GAS LINE A modern landfill is more than just a pile of garbage covered with dirt. To comply with federal mandates, modern landfills are enclosed by a bottom liner made from durable synthetic plastic and a top layer made of an impervious clay liner (the landfill cap). Embedded between these two layers is a sophisticated system of gas collection pipes, which work to collect and remove the buildup of methane gas and leachate. Maintaining the integrity of the impermeable cap and the network of landfill gas collection pipes is one of the most notable differences between undertaking a solar project on a landfill site compared to an undeveloped site, and is an issue that must be addressed by developers in their bids when responding to a Freshkills solar PV RFP. However, most of these issues can be overcome using the right type of solar module base and by strategic design of the solar array.
To maintain the integrity of the landfill cap, we recommend solar modules with concrete ballasted footings, which can support the weight of solar modules without penetrating the landfill topsoil. Fixed tilt ballasted mounting system designs and tracking ballasted mounting designs are two of the most common ballasted mounting systems used over landfills. Fixed tilt designs are cheaper and easier to install, however, tracking ballasted designs can move in the direction of the sun, resulting in greater power production.
Too much weight in one spot, or point loading, is also a concern for solar on landfills, since excessive weight can damage the impermeable cap or the landfill gas collection pipes. At Freshkills, to protect the impermeable cap the suggested maximum allowable pressure is 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf), with a minimum of 2 ft of separation between the foundation of the solar base and the impermeable cap (Geosynthec 2009). To protect the landfill gas leachate pipes, the base foundations should be strategically placed to avoid areas directly over gas pipes, since the pipes are only designed to withstand short-term vehicle loading, or a 20,000 lb single axle load at a separation distance of 1.5 ft (about 3,000 psf). Installations should also avoid placement over the leachate transmission lines located around the base perimeter of the landfill, the slurry walls, and down chutes (Geosynthec 2009).
Although the existing infrastructure at Freshkills will require solar designs that are more complex than alternative undeveloped sites, it is entirely feasible to maintain the integrity of the landfill cap and avoid power disruptions using thoughtful engineering and design-based approaches for the solar array and module. Including comprehensive site and technical information, such as the maximum point loading constraints, in the RFP will improve the quality of bids received by providing bidders with the requisite intelligence to design engineering solutions that would best manage settlement risks and deliver the most realistic power price estimates. For an in-depth look at solar fixed tilt and tracking mounting systems see Appendix F. For general guidelines on positioning panels see Appendix H.
Page | 24 SNOW If properly designed and maintained, snowfall should not be a serious concern for the deployment of solar PV on Freshkills. Most mounting systems can be readily adjusted to accommodate multiple angles (Malcom 2009), and in areas where heavy snowfall occurs, such as New York City, solar panels should be mounted on a steep enough incline so that snow can fall off naturally. Still, failure to properly account for snowfall can lead to expensive, undesirable outcomes.
First, due to the manner in which solar panels are interconnected, even a small obstruction on a single solar panel can diminish the efficiency of the entire solar array. For this reason, if snow panels are not properly angled, even the smallest collection of snow on a single panel can result in a potentially significant energy loss.
Second, snow build up on the module can create extreme point loading conditions. According to ASCE- 72, the ground snow loading for Long Island is 20 pounds/sq. ft (Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers 2006, 81-83). Solar modules and base structures should be specified by the developer to accommodate these load conditions, but, if not properly addressed, the additional weight could potentially cause damage to the underlying landfill cap or gas collection systems.
To properly address these issues, developers should submit bids that account for potential snowfall by designing solar modules that have a steeper angle of orientation. Additionally, as a precautionary measure, developers should design systems that can withstand the possibility of full snow loading conditions by specifying solar modules that can accommodate at least 20 pounds/sq. ft, and by designing solar arrays to avoid existing landfill gas lines.
WIND Wind is an important concern for any solar development, and is an issue that will require more extensive study at the Freshkills site͘&ĂŝůƵƌĞƚŽĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĨŽƌĂƌĞŐŝŽŶ͛ƐƚŽƉǁŝŶĚƐƉĞĞĚƐ͕ usually measured by three-second intervals, can result in damaged or upturned solar modules.
At Freshkills, the prevailing wind conditions are largely dictated by the jet stream that runs over the Northeast, causing a confluence of warm, moist air from the tropics and cold, dry air from polar regions that often lead to extreme temperature and humidity variations between the summer and winter months (Gurka, et al. 1995, 22-24). The wind conditions are further altered from the topography of the mounds at Freshkills, where steep slopes cause changes in air movements and, depending on their location, act as wind breakers or shelters (Rueda, et al. 2005, 139-140). These variations in temperature, freeze-thaw conditions, and wind gusts will impact the type and structure of solar system that is deployed.
Currently, the best available estimate of top wind speeds for the area comes from a July 26, 2007 feasibility study for a potential wind farm on Freshkills. Using a 60 m mast (Mast 8725) located on Freshkills, AWS Truewind, LLC recorded the average 10 minute wind speeds at s of 58.9 m, 40.2 m and
2 The most recent ground snow loads cited under the 2007 New York State Building Code follow the ASCE-7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings, developed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (New York Department of State Division of Code Enforcement and Administration 2007).
Page | 25 20.1 m from April 6, 2006 through May 31, 2007 on Freshkills. Results from the year-long study indicate that the maximum 10 minute wind speed occurred in December 2006 at 21.2 m/s, or 47.42 mph (BQ Energy, LLC 2007).
However, because top wind speeds were measured 60 m off the ground, once every ten minutes, the study does not accurately reflect the top wind speeds on the ground level, where the solar panels would actually be located. Moving forward, the city should either conduct the necessary wind study prior to the release of an RFP, or require developers to conduct their own wind study as part of the project proposal. Solar developers will then choose modules and design base structures rated for the appropriate wind conditions.
EROSION Erosion is a key concern for developers installing on the side slope of the landfill mound, as on-mound structures can potentially exacerbate the effects of heavy rainfall (Malcom, 2009). Heavy rains can erode the soil cover of the mound and create ruts throughout the side slopes, endangering the integrity of the capping systems, which are often dependent upon the integrity of the soil cover. However, developers agree that these risks can be mitigated through appropriate design and engineering of the base structures (Malcom, 2009). Issues to take into consideration include:
x Slope stability x Erosion control x Stormwater control x Weight of the structure, including with snow load (PPL/Messics 2009)
Successful bids should include a detailed analysis by an engineer or landscape architect on the effects that the solar structure design will have on slope stability, erosion control, and stormwater control at Freshkills. It is important to note that installations on a slope may require more complicated engineering due to changing slope angles. Costs for these structures are typically higher than systems built for flat ground or plateaus.3
SHADING As would be expected, solar panels can produce more energy the longer they have access to solar radiation. Due to the relative changes in topography, one potential concern at Freshkills is avoiding the deployment of solar panels on the north-facing slopes of the landfill mounds, which can become shaded during certain times of the day. Existing solar landfill projects have made use of the southern slopes and the plateaus.
To eliminate uncertainty about which areas of the mound become shaded during the day, and to ensure that the solar array achieves its full power production capacity, solar developers should undertake a shading analysis of Freshkills prior to the creation of any solar array designs. Developers should include this shading analysis in the bid response. A shading analysis can help identify areas that are appropriate for solar installations but will result in less available acreage for each mound.
3 PPL cites costs of $7-8 per watt for plateau installations and a higher cost of $8-9 on sloped terrain (PPL /Messics, 2009) .
Page | 26
Figure 4. Shading Analysis. Source: Figure 4 is a representative shading analysis for Freshkills. The sun Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009 was assumed as coming from the Southeast, with an altitude of 45 degrees and an azimuth4 of 315 degrees. Lighter areas on the map are points that receive less average shading during the course of the day, and are therefore optimal for solar deployment. For a more detailed, month by month, shading analysis see Appendix G.
VEGETATION Although weed growth is not a problem specific to landfills, it was the concern most often cited by the solar landfill developers we interviewed. Vegetation overgrowth can shade solar panels and diminish their power production capacity.
Mitigating the loss of efficiency from vegetation overgrowth can be addressed through the design of the base structure, layout of the modules, and in planning for the annual maintenance budget of the solar facility. Important issues to consider:
x Vegetation, or weeds, will most likely grow regardless of any preventative landscaping measures taken (Messics 2009). x A base design that elevates the solar panel above the vegetation growth level could reduce, or eliminate, the need for mowing. It is helpful to have an understanding of what is likely to grow at the site to make this approach successful. x If desired, mowing must be planned for in the annual budget. x /Ĩ ƚŚĞ ƐŽůĂƌ ŵŽĚƵůĞƐ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ ĂƌĞ ƚŽŽ ĐůŽƐĞ ƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌ Ă ŵŽǁĞƌ ŵĂLJ ŶŽƚ Ĩŝƚ ĂŶĚ ŚĂŶĚ ͞ǁĞĞĚ ǁŚĂĐŬŝŶŐ͟ŵĂLJďĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂry. x Because of sensitive environmental conditions at landfill sites, herbicides to control weeds are ill advised, as any excess chemicals found in groundwater tests could send a false signal that the landfill cap has been breached (Messics 2009).
4 Azimuth, as it is used here, refers to the orienting angle of the light source (sun) pointing toward the Freshkills project site, expressed in positive degrees from 0 to 360. Here, the direction of the sun is coming from the Southeast.
Page | 27
4.3 Regulatory Issues
LANDFILL REGULATION The existing landfill regulatory procedures on Freshkills are an important concern for the final solar array design. For example, the post-closure operations listed under 6, NYCRR Part 360, Solid Waste Management Facilities, by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requires frequent monitoring of the landfill gas and leachate collection systems (NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 2009). As a result, the final system design should incorporate the monitoring wells to make sure they are kept clear at all times. Other applicable regulations prohibit the interference of existing drainage control structures, or changes in grade that exceeds 50% for more than a 20 foot vertical rise (Ibid); these too will affect system design.
To ensure that the solar array is in accordance with the all of the applicable landfill regulations the developer should contact the following agencies prior to any design renderings:
x New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Solid Waste, Reduction & Recycling ʹ General Office, Phone: (518) 402-8704 x New York City Department of Sanitation ʹ Ronald Blendermann, Department of Sanitation Chief Contracting Officer, Phone: (917) 237-5353
INTERCONNECTION The primary regulatory hurdle for most solar projects in New York is interconnection with the electric grid. Interviewees highlighted that depending upon the infrastructure upgrades identified by the utility, interconnection costs could make the realization of the project cost prohibitive (Brechter 2009). There are two ways that interconnection affects project economics:
x Costs incurred when upgrades must be made to the grid. This is an issue when a project is far from a large load or a large transmission line (which is not the case for Freshkills). x Costs incurred from project delays associated with the length of time required from System Reliability and Impact Studies. The NYISO requires an interconnection study for projects over 20 MW (Brechter 2009).
The financial section of this paper has attempted to incorporate the majority of the applicable interconnection costs into its financial model (Section 5.3). However, to account for the costs of inflation, and to ensure that the solar equipment follows in accordance with the existing interconnection regulations, the developer should contact the following agencies prior to the electrical system design.
Interconnection Requirements: x Department of Buildings Electrical Permits Division ʹ General Administration Office, Phone: (212) 566-5475 x Con Edison - - Margarett Jolly, DG Ombudsman, Phone: (212) 460-3328
Page | 28
4.4 Lessons Learned
PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE TECHNICAL/SITE INFORMATION Although landfills present many physical challenges, developers have found that these challenges can be overcome through careful engineering and planning. When drafting the RFP it is important to offer as much information about the site as possible so that the developer is aware of the constraints and can provide as accurate a bid as possible.
The developers of the solar-landfill projects we interviewed all felt that the risk of installing a solar facility on a landfill were manageable. However, other developers interviewed, who were not engaged with a landfill development, considered the risks of installation on landfill, particularly landfill settling, too great to overcome. Comprehensive information about the constraints, especially an analysis of the age and potential for settlement at each of the mounds at Freshkills, may encourage more bidders, giving Parks and the City a greater pool of bids from which to choose.
REQUIRE PROVEN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Project bidders should provide comprehensive, proven engineering analyses to support the site design and installation components proposed. Equipment and design details can be left to the bidder, however, technology guidelines should not be ignored, as it is important that bidders deliver proposals that use proven solar PV technology.
PLANNING LESSONS Ȃ VEGETATION: Pennsauken, NJ and Ft Carson Army Base, CO
Both the Pennsauken development and the Ft Carson development have encountered tremendous vegetation growth after the installation of the solar panels. At Pennsauken, the developer attempted to prevent the growth of vegetation by layering landscaping fabric and gravel. The weeds grew extensively despite all preventative measures. The overgrowth problems faced by the Pennsauken development were enhanced by the base structure design. In order to reduce costs and accommodate the constraints required by the landfill gas pipe systems, panels were set into tray like structures filled with concrete for ballast. These structures were placed flat on the ground in narrow rows. As the weeds grew, the panels were quickly obscured reducing energy generation. In order to keep the panels functional, the developer had to increase their maintenance budget to incorporate hand weed trimming, as the layout of the panels would not allow for mowing.
Ǥ ʹǤͷǯ concrete ballasts sunk 2 feet deep. The site was seeded with prairie grass. The site is now covered with vegetation, but at its highest point, the grass is only touching the bottom of the panels.
Freshkills Park has extensive knowledge of and plans for vegetation at the site. It would be highly effective to incorporate this type of information in the RFP so that the bidders could accurately plan for plant growth.
For more case studies of solar-landfill facilities see Appendix E
Page | 29
Page | 30
5. Solar Development at Freshkills A Feasibility Study
Photo Credit: Freshkills, Illustrations and design courtesy of N. Claire Napawan, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture at U.C. Davis
Page | 31
5. Solar Development at Freshkills - A Feasibility Study
5.1 Introduction dŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚ͛ƐŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞŝƐƉƌĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĂƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚĂƐŽůĂƌŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚ&ƌĞƐŚŬŝůůƐŝƐƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůůLJ and financially feasible, provided that an RFP is issued so that the financing for the project is structured under 3rd party ownership. This section will describe how the team tested the technical and financial feasibility of the project, and how it came to the conclusion that the 3rd party ownership structure appears to be the most cost effective approach to developing large-scale solar on Freshkills.
In order to determine the technical limitations of solar development at Freshkills Park, the team ĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚƚŚĞůĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐĂŶĚŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚĂŶŽƉƚŝŵĂůƐŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶďĂƐĞĚŽŶ&ƌĞƐŚŬŝůůƐ͛ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌƐƉĂĐĞ and technical requirements. The intention of the site design was to maximize the power output for the space available incorporating conservative estimates of the impacts of shading, elevation, and landfill gas pipeline infrastructure. The proposed site design places solar modules on 3 of the 4 mounds of Freshkills Park, covering a total of 165 acres. The analysis determined that 24 mw of solar energy is feasible at the site given the constraints.
Using this physical model as input, the team then generated a financial model to test out different ownership structures. The results of this model determined that the project was feasible from an economic perspective if the project was structured under 3rd party ownership with a power purchase ĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ ;WWͿ͘ WW͛Ɛ ŚĂǀĞ ƉƌŽǀĞŶ to be the preferred ownership models for all of the currently developing large-scale solar projects in New York State.
Our financial model for the preferred 3rd party ownership structure estimates total costs for the development at approximately $133 million, and projects a price of $0.2259 per kWh of the electricity ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚĂƚ&ƌĞƐŚŬŝůůƐ͘dŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐƉƌŝĐĞĨĂĐƚŽƌĞĚŝŶWsĂŶĚŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶĐŽƐƚƐ͕ƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͛ƐƉƌŽĨŝƚ margin, and included all of the financial tax incentives available to a private developer. Although higher than retail prices from ConEd, this price is within a range that is comparable with retail rates. This would allow for payment of slightly higher rates based on government or power offtaker priorities for supporting renewable energy, or provide the opportunity to employ creative financing mechanisms to drive the price down to cost parity.
The following sections will describe the ideal characteristics and requirements of the physical model, the options and opportunities that would helƉƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͛ƐĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ͕ĂŶĚůĞƐƐŽŶƐĨŽƌ the RFP.
5.2 Technical and Design Feasibility
5.2.1 ASSESSING OPTIMAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND POTENTIAL OUTPUT Ultimately, the amount of land devoted to energy generation at Freshkills will depend upon how the Parks Department envisions the overarching goals and land use plans of the park. However, for this feasibility study, our analysis made certain acreage determinations in order to have concrete numbers upon which to base our financial analysis. These estimates used conservative assumptions about how to
Page | 32
maximize the output given the land constraints and the gross acreage available. In considering the extent of desired energy production, Parks can use this baseline analysis as a model to help guide their decision making process.
In this analysis, three mounds have been considered for solar deployment at Freshkills Park5 (See Figure 5). Utilizing the topography and resulting shading characteristics for each of the proposed mounds, reasonable estimates were made for the best regions for solar PV development. Optimal zones identified for solar development target sites across the three mounds for a total of 165 acres.
Potential PV system capacities (sizes) for each of the available mounds were estimated from the acreage of the three mounds. The original target cumulative capacity was 25 MW. However, the proposed system design was re-configured into blocks of 6 MW, as ConEd bases their interconnection costs on this structure. The resulting 24 MW system will connect into the existing utility lines Figure 5. Mounds Considered for Solar that run through Freshkills. Ideally, the system would be separated Development. Source: Freshkills and connected to four 33 kVA feeders in four 6 MW blocks. Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009 However, because each of the mounds on Freshkills has variable acreage available for development, due to shading and topographic constraints, we have divided the system into the following sub-arrays on each mound:
x North Mound: 7.0 MW x East Mound: 8.0 MW x South Mound: 9.0 MW Site Total: 24.0 MW
These regions have the least elevation climb, since solar structures most easily accommodate flat surfaces, and are south-facing to reduce solar capacity loss due to shading of the mounds. Because potential design configurations will be further limited by the presence of existing landfill gas extraction pipes, the proposed system capacity ratings have been derived using a conservative 6 acres per Megawatt-peak, and increments of 0.5 MW (a constraint imposed by inverter size). Sub zones have been delineated by geomembrane cover type.
This analysis also takes into account the orientation of the installation in relation to the sun as well as local meteorological conditions, and includes standard loss (de-rate) factors6. The results of this analysis were derived using these factors and the site information as inputs to a calculator developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory7 (NREL). For further information on the methodology for this analysis see Appendix H. For the environmental benefits of a project of this size see Appendix N.
5 West mound was not considered due to the planned September 11th memorial. 6 De-rate factor is an aggregated energy production loss based due to infrastructure and temperature variation. (See appendix H for more information on de-rate factors). 7 The calculator is a Renewable Resource Data Center7 (RREDC), developed by the Energy Infrastructure Systems Research Center (EISRC) at NREL.
Page | 33
North Mound
The 233-acre North Park has an optimal on-mound development zone of 59 acres, with a potential capacity of 9.5 MW. The ideal area for PV deployment (Figure 6) is delineated into 2 sections, according to the type of geomembrane cap used to cover the landfill. Area I covers a surface area of 35 acres, indicating a possible PV capacity of 5.5 MW for this region. Area II covers a surface area of ~24 acres. At 6 acres per MW, this is equivalent to approximately 4 MW of PV capacity.
Figure 6. North Mound Optimal On- Mound Development. Source: East Mound Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
The largest of the three parks in our analysis, the 482-acre East Park, has an optimal on-mound development zone of 56 acres. At 6 acres per Megawatt-peak, this equates to approximately 9 MW in possible capacity for this mound. The ideal area for PV deployment in the East Park (Figure 7) is also delineated into sections, according to the type of geomembrane cap type. Zones S1 and S2 are partially shaded by the ŵŽƵŶĚ͛Ɛ ƉĞĂŬ͘ Ɛ ƐƵĐŚ͕ ŵŽĚƵůĞƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĂƌĞĂƐ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ ƐƉƌĞĂĚ ŽƵƚ from the east and west slopes of the peak part of the mound.
South Mound
Figure 7. East Mound Optimal On- Mound Development. Source: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
The 425-acre South Park has an optimal development zone of 50 acres. Total possible capacity for the south mound, therefore, is approximately 7 MW. The ideal area for on- mound PV deployment in the South Park (Figure 8) is again defined into sections, according to the geomembrane cap type that covers the landfill. Zone Ib covers about 31 acres with a possible capacity of 5 MW. Zone II covers approximately 19 acres for a possible capacity of approximately 2 MW. Figure 8. South Mound Optimal On-Mound Development. Source: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
Page | 34
Over the course of year, an array of this size would be expected to produce 31,876 MWh (See Figure 9). The peak production for the North Mound is expected to be 6.3 MW, peak production for the East Mound--7.2 MW, and peak production for the South mound, 8.1 MW (See Figure 10). Note that this is AC production at the meter, after losses are accounted for. For further data on daily energy production see appendix H.
Figure 9. Month-by-Month Production Analysis. Credit: Figure 10. Month-by-Month Peak Energy Productions. Credit: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009 Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
SUMMARY STATISTICS BY MOUND
North Mound x 7.0 MW nameplate capacity x 8.9 GWh annual production x 6.3 MW peak production (February)
East Mound x 8.0 MW nameplate capacity x 10.2 GWh annual production x 7.2 MW peak production (February)
South Mound x 9.0 MW nameplate capacity x 11.5 GWh annual production x 8.1 MW peak production (February)
Page | 35
5.2.2 SITE DESIGN The optimal PV capacity for the three mounds was determined in the section above by making assumptions about how the solar module layout would accommodate the landfill infrastructure and topography constraints. To further test the feasibility of the solar deployment on and around landfill infrastructure, potential site designs were explored. It was determined that numerous design adaptations and forms are possible despite the point loading and monitoring requirements present on Freshkills. The spacing between the footings on large-scale ballasted designs is wide enough to safely avoid existing gas and leachate infrastructure, while still accommodating for topographic inclines. Steeper areas may be overcome by applying the same terraforming design that was used to create the circulatory road system running through Freshkills. See section 4.2 for details on point loading and other physical issues at Freshkills.
An example array design for the North mound is shown below in Figure 13, following all of the site constraints8. The design was conservatively made for a portion of the optimal development established for the North mound, and utilizes south facing portions of the mound that contain the least topographical variation. All preexisting utilities were given a minimum 5 ft setback.
The final array design follows the naturally existing topography and setback to form fingerprint geometries. The final array area itself encompasses 12,288 panels with a production output over 3 MW on an area of approximately 18.5 acres, which is in line with our original projections. Figures 11 through 13 provide illustrations of the final solar array area.
Figure 11. North Mound Site Constraints. Credit: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
8 Illustrations and design courtesy of N. Claire Napawan, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture at U.C. Davis
Page | 36
Figure 12: Final Array Design in AutoCAD. Figure 12: Final Array Design in AutoCAD. Credit: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009 Credit: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
Figure 13. Final Array Overlay. Source: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
Figure 13. Final Array Overlay. Source: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
Page | 37
5.3 Financial Feasibility
There are three primary mechanisms Parks should consider to finance development of the solar system at Freshkills Park: self-financing, private third-party financing, and an agreement whereby the New York Power Authority (NYPA) would finance the system. Our research indicates that a private 3rd party structure with a power purchase agreement (PPA) offers the best prospects for this project. Because private entities, unlike government agencies, are able to take advantage of tax incentives, a third party arrangement with a private developer will likely result in the lowest price of power.
In the section below we explain why this is true, and how power produced by the system would be priced under different ownership arrangements. We conclude with suggestions on how these facts should inform any RFP the Parks Department might employ to solicit 3rd party financial support for this project.
5.3.1 FINANCIAL INCENTIVES APPLICABLE TO SOLAR PV PROJECTS We estimate that a 24 MW system at Freshkills Park would cost approximately $133 million, with an average annual maintenance cost of approximately $100,000 per year and an inverter replacement cost of $7.4 million at year fifteen. At this price, and assuming a 30-year lifespan for the system, power produced by the system would average $0.64/kWh, a rate much higher than current market prices. As a result, Parks must try to leverage currently available subsidies and tax credits to bring the cost of the system down to more price-competitive levels. Both the federal and New York State government have established tax incentives to support renewable energy development, particularly through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. In order to take advantage of these incentives, it is important to understand the set of rules that make solar PV projects financially viable. This section provides a primer on the incentives, the rules and the terminology, as applicable to New York City solar PV projects, and Freshkills in particular. For examples of New York solar projects receiving financial support see Appendix J.
It is important to note that, although we provide a broad picture of the current financial and regulatory landscape for project financing, many of the components highlighted within this report are subject to rapid change. Incentives may expire or be extended, interest rates may shift, and new legislation (e.g. feed in tariffs) may be introduced that could significantly alter the calculus of project financing and implementation.
FEDERAL INCENTIVES Federal incentives, when correctly applied, can provide up to 50% of the financing towards a solar PV project, particularly with the new, and enhanced, incentives introduced as part of ARRA (Rahus 2008; Bolinger 2009). Historically, the U.S. government has chosen to implement renewable energy incentives via tax deductions. Currently, the primary federal tax incentives for private renewable energy developments are the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS). As these tax deductions do not apply to tax-exempt public entities, municipalities are not able to directly capitalize on most of the federal incentives. To provide incentives to public entities, the federal government offers the opportunity to fund their renewable energy projects by issuing Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs). This section will examine these tax incentives.
Page | 38
FEDERAL INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT (ITC) The investment tax credit allows solar PV investors the opportunity to recover a large portion of their investment in the first year of operation. The ITC allows taxpayers to take a one-time tax credit equal to 30% of the total project cost in its first year (DOE 2009). The ITC can be deducted in the first tax reporting period after the solaƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚĂƌƚƐƉƌŽĚƵĐŝŶŐĞŶĞƌŐLJ͘dŚŝƐƚĂdžŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞŝƐƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽĂ͞ĐůĂǁ ďĂĐŬ͟ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂůůŽǁƐƚŚĞĨĞĚĞƌĂůŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƚŽƌĞĐůĂŝŵĂƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƚĂdžĐƌĞĚŝƚƐŝĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ownership structure changes within 5 years of the ITC award (Bollinger 2009). Therefore, it is only helpful for solar project developers with large tax obligations who intend to retain ownership of the system for more than 5 years.
MODIFIED ACCELERATED COST RECOVERY SYSTEM (MACRS) The Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) allows businesses to accelerate the capital depreciation schedule for investment in solar PV projects. Under a standard depreciation schedule, capital expenditures of large solar PV projects are depreciated over a period of about 20 years, which is the estimated lifespan of the equipment. In contrast, the ARRA renewable energy tax incentives program reduces the depreciation period from a 20-year to a 5-year depreciation schedule. This allows taxable entities to receive the full financial benefit of the depreciation in the first five years of operation. Moreover, the depreciation schedule is front-end weighted, meaning that 50% of the benefit is obtained ŝŶƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚLJĞĂƌŽĨƚŚĞƐLJƐƚĞŵ͛ƐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘&ŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ŝĨĂŶŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůŝŶǀĞƐƚƐŝŶĂŶĞǁƐŽůĂƌ power plant and spends $1,000,000, the normal depreciation schedule would allow them to benefit from a tax deduction of $50,000/yr for 20 years. On the other hand, the 5-year MACRS allows the solar PV investor to fully recover the investment through depreciation in five years.
CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS Recognizing the inability of municipalities and other non- taxable institutions to take advantage of tax incentives, the federal government created the CREB program. CREBs are zero-interest bonds that allow municipalities to initiate renewable energy projects. The non-taxable entity does not have to pay interest on the bonds it issues for these types of projects; instead, the federal government will give tax credits to the bondholder in lieu of interest. This incentive provides a lower cost of capital to municipalities for their PV projects. Through tax deductions, the federal government makes the interest
Figure 14. Diagram of CREBs Flow. Source: DOE payments until the bond reaches maturity. For example, if an investor purchases CREBs, then in each tax reporting period it would have the right to receive a tax credit for that year. With CREBs, the municipality must still make principal payment to the bank (Cory 2008).
In October 2009, the DOE allocated $2.2B of the $2.4B of CREBs funding made available through ARRA. Thus, although most of the funding has been distributed, there remains another $200MM of undistributed funding. To date, the DOE has not announced any plans for allocation of the remaining money (DSRE 2009).
Although CREBs provide another option to the renewable energy finance mix, they have significant administrative costs associated with their issuance. The IRS requires accountants and lawyers to review
Page | 39
documentation to ensure that the bonds qualify for tax benefits. As a result, CREBs must be issued in large amounts to make them cost effective.
OTHER INCENTIVES AND FUNDING MEASURES Beyond financial support in the form of tax incentives offered to private power producers, cash grants have also been allocated to projects by city, state or federal government. While the support amount has varied in size, the grants, also known as buy downs, have helped to make project more economically viable by reducing their up-front capital cost. For example, NYPA is financing the entire $7.5 million cost of a 1.1 MW solar project that will power student apartments at the University of Buffalo. This funding ĐŽŵĞƐŽƵƚŽĨEzW͛ƐΨϮϭŵŝůůŝŽŶƐƚĂƚĞǁŝĚĞƌĞŶĞǁĂďůĞĞŶĞƌŐLJƉƌŽŐƌĂŵďƵĚŐĞƚ͘
NEW YORK RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD (RPS) AND RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES (RECS) In 2004, New York State issued a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which established a goal of increasing renewable energy usage from 19.3% to at least 25% by 2013. Governor Patterson recently upgraded this to 30% by 2015 (NYSERDA 2010). In most states, utilities have to comply with the state Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goal and are responsible for supplying a percentage of their electricity from renewable resources. In New York, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is manager of the RECs program. RPS goals are met through issuing renewable energy certificates (RECs), which can be used to raise solar project financing.
Unlike the REC market in neighboring New Jersey, the REC market in New York is fairly weak and is unlikely to be a major source of revenue in a large-scale solar installation. The low price for New York RECs is related to the large capacity for renewable development in the state, particularly upstate wind. As renewable portfolio standards are fairly strict in New York, renewable development is likely to continue, saturating the market with RECs and keeping prices low (Wobus 2009).
Many states require that RECs be sold within the state the power was generated in, or that the power associated with out-of-state RECs be transmitted into the state where the RECs are to be sold. This is the case in both New Jersey and in the New England market. Therefore, selling New York RECs into other markets would currently be costly and impractical for Freshkills (Sullivan 2009). However, there may be potential for selling SRECs into the Washington DC SREC market, where there is no requirement to deliver power associated with SRECs, and where prices may be significantly higher (SRECTrade 2009). For sample project funding models see Appendix K.
FEED-IN TARIFF A feed-in tariff (FIT) does not yet exist in New York State, but the New York State Senate is considering legislation, which proposes a fairly robust FIT.
A FIT is a policy instrument that aims to incentivize renewable energy development by providing developers with a guarantee of revenues through the sale of power, therefore removing uncertainty over project returns. Specifically, FITs typically provide a guarantee of:
x Payments to project owners based on total kWh of renewable electricity to be produced
x Access to transmission and distribution grids
x Stable, long-term contracts, often 15-20 years in length (Cory 2009)
Page | 40
Under current proposed legislation, solar PV projects may be eligible for a base rate FIT of 27 cents per kWh, with additional tariffs potentially applicable to Freshkills. The availability of such a strong FIT would likely be an encouragement to developers as they could be guaranteed that such a project would generate more than sufficient revenues. For a further discussion of the proposed New York State feed- in tariff and how it may apply to Freshkills, please see Appendix M.
5.3.2 OWNERSHIP STRUCTURES The following section details three potential ownership structures for the Freshkills project - City ownership, NYPA development, and 3rd party ownership ʹ and concludes that the 3rd party ownership structure will result in the lowest price point while allowing the City to retain some control over the financing, construction, and operation of the facility at Freshkills through the issuance of an RFP.
CITY OWNERSHIP In this model, New York City would be the owner of the project. Installation and maintenance would be handled by private developers, whose activities would be funded through money raised by NYC via grants and bonds, such as CREBs. Money generated from the sale of electricity would go towards the repayment of bonds and offset any operating costs.
Given the enormous capital expenditure that would be required for a large-scale solar project, and the high transaction costs and uncertainties surrounding bonds and grants, this option is relatively unfavorable. Since the City is unable to take advantage of various tax incentives due to its status as a non-taxable entity, the price of power per kWh to recoup investment would be significantly higher than customers are currently paying to ConEd or NYPA.
Various issues would also arise with regards to regulators and competing utilities. As the City currently buys most of its power from NYPA, the City could potentially violate the terms of its contractual agreements if it acted as a power producer. POWER PURCHASE Furthermore, the City would need to contract services to deal AGREEMENTS with power purchasing agreements [See Box], which would add to the costs and complications of the project. A Power Purchase Agreement is a Pros legal contract where a purchaser x agrees to buy energy at a set price The City accrues all financial benefits, has for a specific period of time from a more control over land use, and is assured power generator. PPAs are often that management will be done to City viewed as the way to generate standards or criteria. electricity at the lowest cost as private power producers qualify for tax credits that governments, Cons as tax-exempt entities, do not. x City financed ownership generally results in a Furthermore, the electricity higher price of power than privately funded generated can be sold for a price in projects. between the ǯ retail cost structures, benefiting x The City would take all the risk and would both the seller and the purchaser. PPAs also help developers gain likely need to seek other financing options financing as they guarantee long grants from the federal government, state or term purchases at a set price. city.
Page | 41
Game Changing Conditions x A FIT could pass in New York State, which would result in a guaranteed higher price of power. However, the City may or may not be able to take advantage of the FIT depending on how the bill is written.
x NYPA could make a special arrangement with the City to purchase all of the power generated by the system. The potential for this depends on existing contractual obligations between the City and NYPA.
NYPA DEVELOPMENT NYPA has a mandate to develop solar energy in New York Sate. Although their 100 MW RFP for solar development has closed, NYPA may still be interested in Freshkills as a host site for a solar project. PĂƌƚŶĞƌŝŶŐǁŝƚŚEzWŵĂLJŽĨĨĞƌĂŶĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƌŽƵƚĞƚŽƌĞĂůŝnjŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐǀŝƐŝŽŶĨŽƌĂůĂƌŐĞ-scale, in-city solar project.
In this case, NYPA would be at the center of the agreement. NYPA would enter into a PPA with a private developer and into a site agreement with Freshkills Park, including a negotiated annual lease fee. The transaction costs in this situation would be significantly less in total than a standard third party arrangement and all of the costs and risk would be taken on by NYPA and the developer.
If partnering with NYPA on this project, the inclusion of all landfill and other requirements will need to be very detailed, as NYPA will be negotiating the site options with the developer. The site contract would also be for a period of 20 years. This option makes the contractual negotiations much easier, but the City will have to decide if it is prepared to offer the land for a 20 year period prior to entering into discussions with NYPA.
Pros x NYPA will take care of the financing, development, and maintenance of solar development on Freshkills.
x NYPA will serve as a guaranteed purchaser of power.
x dŚĞŝƚLJĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƚŽĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚĞƌĂŶZ&W͘
x The City would not be responsible for day-to-day operations of the PV system.
Cons x The City has no control over the project and receives none of the financial benefits.
x The City has less control over the structure of the agreement, the size of the solar development, or what the solar array will look like (since NYPA will issue the RFP).
Game Changing Conditions x NYPA has filled their 100MW target and is uninterested in further solar development at this time.
Page | 42
PRIVATE 3RD PARTY OWNERSHIP In the 3rd party ownership structure, the Parks Department would act as host, and a third-party entity would be responsible for financing, designing, permitting, and construction of the project. The developer will in most cases function as the system owner. The developer would likely take control of financing and ownership of the project, including taking responsibility for finding appropriate tax-equity investors who can take advantage of the tax benefits, thus ensuring the project is profitable. Based on site speĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƚĞƌŵƐŽĨEz͛ƐĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌͬƐLJƐƚĞŵŽǁŶĞƌ͕ƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ will then proceed to construct the system. Figures 15 and 16 illustrate how a third-party solar PPA might be arranged.
Figure 15. Third-Party Ownership Model Diagram Source: Rahus Institute, 2008.
Page | 43
Fresh Kills / NYC Lender Tax Equity Investor Provides Site Provides funding to developer Financial institution Does not own system Sufficient profits to benefit Nota power purchaser from tax incentives No Capital Outlay Receives Concession payments Runs Public Outreach Loan Contract
Tax Benefits Concession Developer Agreement Arranges Financing Designs System Manages Construction Issue Joint RFP Processes Incentives with Power Monitors System Purchaser Equipment Suppliers Solar panels, inverters, mounting equipment Power Purchaser Provides warranties Utility (Con Ed or NYPA) Power Purchasing Purchase & FK as Qualified Facility (QF) Agreement (PPA) Service OR Contracts Installers Local Industrial (e.g. Visy) 3rd party & developer Net Metering with Utility Includes maintenance
Figure 16. Third-Party Solar PPA. Source: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
While some direct control over the day-to-day operation of the solar installation is sacrificed, important considerations can be worked into the RFP to ensure that the project is financed, constructed, and operated in accordance with City standards. Additionally, not having to worry about the day-to-day operational aspect and financing is typically thought of as a major advantage to such arrangements (Koenig 2009).
In this arrangement a land lease, or concession, for Freshkills Park would be a fairly simple agreement in which the developer pays an annual lease fee to Freshkills Park for the use of the land. An important conƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ WĂƌŬƐ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͕ ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ͞ůĂŶĚŽǁŶĞƌ͕͟ ŝƐ ŚŽǁ ƚŽ ǀĂůƵĞ ůĂŶĚĨŝůů ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞ landfill property is not often leased for reuse, there is little precedent to follow. Our research found that there are two general approaches to the financial valuation of landfill property. Older solar-landfill projects have been leased at nominal rates, while some of the newer projects are seeking higher rental fees. These valuation approaches determine, in part, the amount of income a landfill property can generate, and can serve as a reference point for Freshkills when considering concession rates. It is important to note that high land lease rates would likely be passed along to consumers in a higher price of power. For a further discussion of the revenue from leasing a site please see Appendix I.
Pros x City does not have to worry about day-to-day operations, financing, or securing the PPA agreement.
x City would receive land concession payment.
Cons x City gives up direct control of project and day-to-day operations.
x City receives only a minimal payment for land concession.
Page | 44
Game Changing Conditions x Financing and low cost of power is dependent on federal tax incentives, which could change for better or worse depending on political climate.
x A FIT could pass, which would result in a guaranteed higher price of power and would guarantee that the developer would make its money back. Depending upon how the legislation is written, a large-scale project may or many not be able to take advantage of the FIT.
CONCLUSION The choice of ownership structure depends largely on the priorities of the Parks Department and the City of New York. The City will need to determine how much it values having control over the project and the amount of financial investment and administrative commitment it is willing to make. Based on the current state of project development and financing options available to the City, our conclusions regarding the viability of the previously discussed ownership scenarios are as follows:
ParksͶ͞hŶĨĂǀŽƌĂďůĞ͟ x Since the introduction of federal tax incentives for renewable energy projects, there has not been much of a precedent for City ownership of solar structures. With City ownership, the burden would be on the City to finance the project and maintain day-to-day operations. This is a risky scenario for the City, especially at a time when it is facing more pressing priorities and budgetary concerns.
NYPAͶ͞WŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ͟ x KǁŶĞƌƐŚŝƉďLJEzWŝƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͕ďƵƚǁŝůůĚĞƉĞŶĚŽŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ͘dŚĞŝƚLJǁŝůůŶĞĞĚto determine whether it wants to give up control over the land at Freshkills Park, and for how long. Does the City want to offer up park land without maintaining control or receiving revenue from the sale of power?
3rd PartyͶ͞>ŝŬĞůLJ͟ x Ownership by a private 3rd party developer is the most typical solar PV development scenario. The City takes on little of the risk and responsibility associated with project development, but still has some form of control over the project, as it will be writing the RFP and the contract.
5.3.3 HOW TO MAKE THE 3RD PARTY SCENARIO WORK As the 3rd party ownership structure appears to be the most viable project option available to the City, this section will present the elements integral to pursuing such a scenario. It will introduce the total cost of the potential solar PV installation, describe how 3rd party ownership tax incentives reduce the price of the project and price of power, and make recommendations on how to structure the RFP solicitation.
THE COST OF THE PROJECT WITH ZERO FINANCIAL INCENTIVES In order to understand how the various financial incentives available to a private developer would impact the price of power, our team calculated the total cost of a 24 MW solar PV system at Freshkills Park without any financial incentives. Generating 956.31 MWh of power over the 30 year life of the system, this model estimates an upfront cost of approximately $132.867MM, including $10.4MM in interconnection costs paid to ConEd. Structured debt was assumed at 7%, and the ongoing operating
Page | 45
and maintenance costs associated with the project would be minimal, with the exception of an inverter replacement in year 15 at a cost of $7.4MM. By doing a straightline analysis, the power generated from the system would cost 63.83 cents per kWh. For comparison, the current price of power paid by retail customers to ConEd is approximately 18.1 cents per kWh, while the City of New York pays approximately 13 cents per kWh to NYPA.
THE COST OF THE PROJECT UNDER A 3RD PARTY OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE To determine the cost of the project and the price of power that would be charged when financial incentives are utilized, our team developed a financial analysis that assumes a scenario in which a third party investor/developer model is pursued by New York City. The analysis assumes that the electricity price must provide a 10% return on investment to the developer and assumes that the developer is able to obtain both tax equity financing and suitable debt financing. Implicit to this assumption is the need to sign a long-term contract for power purchase (PPA) with an off-taker who has a strong credit rating.
Under this model, we project an electricity price of 22.59 cents per kWh, a price which factors in ITC, REC and MACRS incentives, $66.5MM in debt, and no upfront cash grants. ConEd quoted interconnection costs in units of 6 MW blocks at $2.2-$2.6MM per block. If the solar plant is reduced to units less than 6 MW, then the required electricity price will increase. For example, reducing the plant from 24 MW to 20 MW would increase the cost of power produced by the system by ½ cent.
The financial benefits of the project are highly dependent on the tax benefits. The net present value (NPV) of the electricity revenue of $64MM is less than the $71MM of benefits received from tax incentives, which is why it is essential that the City engage a developer who is capable of benefiting from the tax credits. This can be either the developer itself, or via a partnership with a tax equity investor. The tax benefits are highly skewed to the early years, with $60MM occurring in year 1 and most of the remaining accruing by year 6. For more detailed information on the Financial Analysis Results please see Appendix L.
While 22.59 cents per kWh is high compared to the NYPA rate ($0.13) and the ConEd retail rate ($0.18), it is comparable to what LIPA is paying for its recent 50 MW solar PV development on Long Island, and may be in the range of what NYPA would be willing to pay if it were to identify supporting renewable energy generation within New York City as one of its priorities.
UPFRONT CASH GRANT The City can improve the viability of this project by providing an upfront cash grant to the project. The cash for the grant could be solicited from the Federal, State, or even City government, in the name of stimulating solar market and local economic development. The resulting lower price, closer to the retail price of electricity, would make it easier to find purchasers for the power. For example, our financial model reveals that, with the current cost of technology, a price goal of $0.13/kWh (the NYPA price) ǁŽƵůĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂΨϮϳDDƵƉĨƌŽŶƚŐƌĂŶƚ͕ǁŚŝůĞĂŐŽĂůŽĨΨϬ͘ϭϴͬŬtŚ;ŽŶ Ě͛ƐƌĞƚĂŝůƉƌŝĐĞͿǁŽƵůĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂ grant of $14MM.
BENEFITS TO NEW YORK CITY THROUGH A PROJECT BUYOUT /Ŷ ƚŚĞ ƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐ ƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶĐĞƉƚ ŽĨ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ ĂŶ ƵƉĨƌŽŶƚ ĐĂƐŚ ŐƌĂŶƚ ƚŽ ͞ďƵLJ-ĚŽǁŶ͟ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŝĐĞ ŽĨ electricity was introduced. In that scenario, the public is the primary financial beneficiary of the grant, through access to cleaner, more affordable power.
Page | 46
The buyout feature, which is included in many PPAs, provides the host (i.e. Parks) with the option to buy-out the project at Fair Market Value (FMV). Once the host exercises the option, all revenues (power and RECs) and all costs (maintenance, including inverter replacement) belong to the City.9 In addition, the developer would pay off its debt with the buyout money. Realistically, the host would not exercise its option to buyout the project until after year 5, such that the developer and tax equity investor receive the tax benefits without any risk of IRS action to reclaim (claw back) the tax benefits accrued by the project.10 It is important that the contract specifically use tŚĞ͞ŽƉƚŝŽŶƚŽďƵLJĂƚ&Ds͟ůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐŽĂƐ to avoid a classification as contingent debt, which may require a public vote (Koenig 2009; Boylston 2008).
It is instructive to compare the buyout scenario to a scenario where the City would use municipal bonds to finance the solar project directly. In the municipal bond scenario, the City would need to pay $132.8MM in year 1, and the price of power would be $0.304/kWh. Moreover, all the risk of construction and power output would be borne by the City. The Buyout Scenario would maintain the lower price of power ($0.2259/kWh) and would require only $65MM in year 7. It would also allow the City to buy the project only when/if the power output risk has been successfully managed by the developer.
The developer is apt to agree to this provision for two reasons: x It is able to achieve its required return and receive its investment back earlier, which can then be reinvested. x The currently available debt structure (within the current credit market) requires a re-financing in year 7, which puts substantial risk onto the developer. The buy-out option removes that risk from the developer. However, not all developers will be equally open to the option. Some developers are primarily interested in the tax benefits while others seek to operate the site long term. Thus, if the City intends to exercise this option, it is important that the RFP specifically state the requirement. This will serve to attract developers who value the structure (Koenig 2009).
5.3.4 STRUCTURING THE RFP The City has a number of potential ownership scenario options. It may choose to develop the solar project on its own, develop the project in conjunction with a utility like NYPA, or engage a private 3rd party to develop the project. This section makes recommendations on how to structure the RFP solicitation for City ownership, NYPA development, and 3rd party ownership of the solar installation.
CITY OWNERSHIP Should the City choose to develop, own and operate the solar installation itself, it would be responsible for issuing an RFP for bids on design and installation of the facility. The main constraint associated with pursuing this route is not in the mechanics of issuing the RFP itself, but in actually securing the funding from the City to finance the entire costs of the project.
9 It is possible that NYC can leverage operations support across multiple PV projects including Fresh Kills, Brooklyn Army and others. This can be accomplished either via a city department or via a contracted 3rd party. In either case, it is assumed that both labor and materials savings (e.g. inverters) can be achieved as the city deploys additional projects over the next few years.
Page | 47
NYPA DEVELOPMENT &ƌŽŵ Ă ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌ ƐƚĂŶĚƉŽŝŶƚ͕ ĚĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ŵŽƚŝǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĨŽƌ ƉƵƌƐƵŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƐŽůĂƌ project, it may make sense to align with other stakeholders for the issuance of the RFP. For example, if the City decides its main motivation is to provide low-cost power regardless of ownership and revenue opportunities, it may make sense to partner with NYPA by offering Freshkills as a host-site for development.
Under this scenario, the City would not need to issue an RFP. The first step to pursuing this scenario would be to initiate contact with NYPA to explore opportunities for project development.
3RD PARTY OWNERSHIP As discussed earlier in this report, the 3rd party ownership structure appears to be the most viable project development scenario from a financial standpoint. With this in mind, the RFP must be written so as to ensure that bidders may be eligible to receive the tax credits and federal, state and local financial incentives necessary to make the Freshkills project financially viable.
Page | 48
6. Public Image and Engagement
Photo Credit: Flickr user rpeschetz Solar Panels on yellow building, Vienna, Austria
Page | 49
6. Public Image and Engagement
Housed within a leading global city, but with a unique and interesting history of its own, the ƚƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ &ƌĞƐŚŬŝůůƐ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ǁŽƌůĚ͛Ɛ ůĂƌŐĞƐƚ ůĂŶĚĨŝůů ŝŶƚŽ Ă ƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ ĂŶĚ ƉŝĐƚƵƌĞƐƋƵĞ recreational destination has drawn attention from Staten Island, New York City, and the rest of the ǁŽƌůĚ͘ĚĚŝŶŐƐŽůĂƌĞŶĞƌŐLJƚŽƚŚĞƉĂƌŬǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞƉĂƌŬ͛ƐĐƵůƚƵƌĂůŝŵĂŐĞ͕ĂƐĂƐLJŵďŽůŽĨ renewal and an expression of how balance can be restored to our urban landscapes. But the success of a solar project on Freshkills will ultimately depend upon the vision from which it stems, where many options exist, but most come with tradeoffs.
Two specific issues that we think are critical to consider during this initial conceptual phase of the project are:
x Is the ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͛Ɛ ŝŶƚĞŶƚ ƚŽ ĐƌĞĂƚĞ a large and efficient solar installation (potentially the largest urban solar installations in the world), or to produce one of the most visually attractive and recognizable installations in the world? Abandoning the traditional solar array block design will decrease the generation productivity of the project, but may add powerful and iconic visual statements from above and below. x What is the level of public interactivity with the solar elements of the installation, and how does this engagement fit in within the broader mission of Freshkills?
6.1 Public Image FROM THE GROUND: PEDESTRIAN AND ROADWAY VIEWS
Figure 17. View of Freshkills Park from the West Shore Expressway. Source: Google Street Views Figure 18. View from within Freshkills Park. Source: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
The solar modules will be easily recognizable from above, by park users on trails, pathways and other areas of the park. Depending on the sites selected, they may also be seen from nearby homes, roadways and the West Shore Expressway (See Figures 17 and 18). Solar developers and site owners rarely consider the view of the solar facility, unless there is community pressure to hide or reduce the visual impact.
Page | 50
AESTHETICS AND DESIGN Solar developers generally base their plans on maximizing the dollar per acre, and the watt per dollar, of the installation. Because of this, most ground mount solar PV facilities are strictly functional in their design, often utilizing the standard block and row design (See Figures 19 and 20). Maximizing return on investment is a key consideration. Figure 19. Exelon-Conergy Bucks Co, PA. Source: Conergy However, despite being both simple and functional in design, ballasted solar mounting structures can easily be arranged and customized to certain lengths in order to accommodate imaginative alternative design solutions. In this role, the pairing of a landscape architect or designer with a solar engineer
may go a long way Figure 20. Pennsauken landfill, Pennsauken, NJ. towards creating a Source: PPL Renewable Energy unique and iconic solar structure worthy of national attention. Figures 21 and 23 show how landscape designs can be viewed from above to create striking imagery. No matter what the layout of the solar structures is, if large enough, it will likely become a dominant aesthetic element of &ƌĞƐŚŬŝůů͛ƐƐŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶ(figure 22). However, aesthetics often, but not always, add a cost premium to a project, and an alternate layout ĐŽƵůĚĂĨĨĞĐƚƚŚĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶ͛ƐĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJĂŶĚƉŽǁĞƌŽƵƚƉƵƚ͘dhese will be key considerations for Freshkills.
It may be important to showcase to local residents that an attractive solar system can generate both a high level of environmental awareness and reinforce the natural features of the park, and therefore maintaining local visibility of the panels as a positive factor. One proposal that considered the positive role of solar-landfill public visibility was the EPA-supported Holmes Road solar project. Seeing the project as a way to generate public relations benefits to the city, the report recommended a solar system design that would place solar modules within the view of the road and highway (SRA n.d.). The location on the site was determined so that the fronts of the solar modules would be visible, rather than the backs, which were deemed unsightly (SRA n.d.). Figure 21 ;ƚŽƉͿ͘ZŽďĞƌƚ^ŵŝƚŚƐŽŶ͛Ɛ^ƉŝƌĂů:ĞƚƚLJ͘^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞdƌŝďƵŶĞ͕^ĞƉƚ͘ϮϬϬϮ Figure 22 (middle). Aerial image of the conceptual plan for Freshkills Park. Source: Centralparkny.com Figure 23 (bottom). A Ribbon-like earthworks sculpture by Maya Lin. Source: Maya Lin Studio
Page | 51
6.2 Interactivity ACCESS TO THE SITE AND SOLAR MODULES Another issue Parks must contend with is whether, or how, to allow public access to the installation while maintaining public safety. The Bureau of Electrical Control provides regulations to ensure that the public will have limited exposure to electrical infrastructure, particularly when in close proximity to landfill gas lines. Access to the modules themselves will need to be restricted in some form. The second concern for most solar developers is theft and vandalism. For safety and liability reasons solar facilities are typically closed to the public and many developers will fence in a solar facility to protect it from vandalism (PPL /Messics 2009).
Are there ways to still allow site interaction with these constraints? Will Freshkills Park want to completely restrict access to the areas with solar modules? Potentially, design features could be employed to protect the public and the solar system, while still providing access to the mounds with the solar systems. Solar modules could be clustered in smaller groups or formed into a ribbon-like shape, which might allow for access in and around the installations.
The only solar-landfill project to consider public access as a feature is the proposed Phoenix SR-85 landfill solar development. Phoenix intends to use its showcase project as an educational and research tool. The public access plan, however, has not as of yet been determined by the city. It could involve opening the site to the public or allowing selected groups access for educational activities. The access plan will be proposed by the developer and subject to the approval of the city (Kusmider 2009). 6.3 Opportunities, Partnerships, Community
Figure 24. Gates by Christo and Jean-Claude - in Central Park. S ource: Centralparkny.com
Engaging with the public provides additional benefits. The follow section details a few of examples of how a solar installation at Freshkills could generate additional public benefits through solar art/design competitions, opportunities for educational engagement, additional revenue streams from art and educational funding sources, and by engaging the solar community as a hub for solar technology demonstration purposes.
EDUCATION Opportunities for educational engagement can be extended outside of the park to the community and city. For example, real time web-based monitoring of the energy data from the site could be made ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞŽŶƚŚĞǁĞďŽƌĨŽƌĐůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵĂĐĐĞƐƐĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨĐŝƚLJƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͛ƐĐŝĞŶĐĞĐƵƌƌŝĐƵůĂ͖ĂƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚŝƉǁŝƚŚ a New York area science institution, such as the Liberty Science Center or the New York Hall of Science, could provide a science-based foundation to on-site interactive exhibits; and, the Freshkills solar plant
Page | 52
could be showcased through exhibitions at the partner science institution. Engaging in educational opportunities may also open up additional funding sources.
PUBLIC ART Public art has been an integral component to the New York City Parks department. There are opportunities for public art to be incorporated into the solar program of Freshkills Park through art and design competitions, solar sculptures, and functional art (see Figures 25 through 26). Art installations can increase the aesthetics of a public area and work to educate the public about the science and uses of solar power.
SOLAR ENERGY SHOWCASE AND DEMONSTRATION SITE Finally, Freshkills Park may also want to consider opportunities to showcase the solar program, marketing itself as a hub for the solar industry and on the forefront of technological advances.
An unconventional approach has been proposed by Deutsche Solar Werke ĨŽƌǁŚĂƚƚŚĞLJĂƌĞĐĂůůŝŶŐĂ͚^ŽůĂƌdŚĞŵĞWĂƌŬ͛ŽŶĂϯ͘ϳ-acre construction debris landfill in Oder, Germany (Deutsche Solar Werke n.d.) (World Trade Center Frankfurt 2008)͘ dŚĞ ͚ƚŚĞŵĞ ƉĂƌŬ͛ ǁŽƵůĚ ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJ ďĞ Ă ϯϬϬ Ŭt Figure 25. (A,B) Solar ĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƐŝƚĞ ĨŽƌ 'ĞƌŵĂŶLJ͛Ɛ ƐŽůĂƌ ŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞƌƐ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ sculptures and functional art Deutsche Solar Werke, their component manufacturers, and their Figure 26. Kinetic art. Source: Gregory Curci competitors, to showcase and benchmark state-of-the-art solar products and systems (Deutsche Solar Werke n.d.). The 2008 plan would be open to the public and encourages the development of solar attractions that would add to the visitor experience. It is unclear if this project is moving forward.
EĞǁzŽƌŬŝƚLJŚĂƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂĚĞĂůĨŽƌĂĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƐŝƚĞĨŽƌǁŝŶĚ͕ƐŽůĂƌĂŶĚƚŝĚĂůĞŶĞƌŐLJŽŶtĂƌĚ͛Ɛ Island in the East River. The project will be funded with a $1.4 million grant from New York City and $990,000 from the US Department of Energy (Olshan 2009). The project designer, Natural Currents Energy Group, will showcase primarily tidal power, but a small 5 kW solar array and a wind turbine is also included in the project. Because the energy generated from the project will only be enough to power 100 homes, the emphasis for the project is primarily centered on public education and proof of ĐŽŶĐĞƉƚĨŽƌĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĞŶĞƌŐLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶtĂƌĚ͛ƐŝƐůĂŶĚ(Olshan 2009).
Page | 53
Page | 54
7. Next Steps
Photo Credit: Flickr user Lance Cheung Panels on Air Force Base in South Pacific
Page | 55
7. Next Steps
This report has identified the key financial and technical challenges of successfully installing 24MW of solar PV at Freshkills Park. While the research and analysis presented here demonstrates that a large- scale solar installation is financially and technically possible, the next step in moving this project forward will be for the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation to define its priorities based on the issues identified in this feasibility study.
Critical matters for consideration:
x Determine how many acres of land at Freshkills Park are acceptable to devote to a solar project. This asƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨWĂƌŬƐΘZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ͛Ɛ valuation of the public benefits that come along with putting part of the park͛Ɛ land to productive use. The amount of land allocated to the project will directly impact the amount of solar capacity that can be installed. It will be critical to establish how important the environmental benefits and energy security that come along with a solar project are compared to the importance of leaving park land available for public access.
x Determine if the project is an artistic statement, an effort to maximize the economic return on investment, or both. This decision will impact the spatial design of the array, the length of time needed to recoup the initial investment, and the statement that the project will make to the general public.
x Determine who it makes sense to partner with. The Department of Parks & Recreation should consider how partnering with a public utility versus a private utility, or any utility at all to issue an Z&W ǁŽƵůĚ ĂůŝŐŶ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ĂŐĞŶĐLJ͛Ɛ ŵission and project goals. It would be beneficial to consider how/if there is the opportunity to work with an industrial facility in Staten Island who could serve as the off-taker of the energy produced at Freshkills under a long-term contract.
x Determine a suitable project timeline. Many of the technical and financial constraints identified are dynamic, and are likely to change over time as rules and regulations pertaining to financial incentives and environmental compliance evolve; and as solar PV technologies continue to become more efficient. The further from the date of this report that a project is initiated, the more essential it will be to revisit the issues raised in the report, as any shift in one of these areas should be expected to alter the viability of the project.
x Monitor the development of other solar on landfill projects. There are a number of solar on landfill projects in development at the time of the publishing of this report. Given that this is an emerging practice, the successes or failures of these projects may shift the project landscape. Additional lessons can be learned on how these projects monetarily value their land and structure their ownership deals.
Page | 56
8. Works Cited Birdsey, R.A. (1996) Regional Estimates of Timber Volume and Forest Carbon for Fully Stocked Timberland, Average Management After Final Clearcut Harvest. Forests and Global Change: Volume 2, Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigating Carbon Emissions, eds. R.N. Sampson and D. Hair, American Forests, Washington, D.C.
Bolinger, M. "Financing Non-Residential Photovoltaic Projects: Options and Implications." Ed. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. January 2009.
Bourg, Joe. "Renewable Energy on Renewable Energy on Contaminated Lands: Contaminated Lands: Solar Feasibility Study for the Solar Feasibility Study for the Holmes Road Landfill, Houston, TXHolmes Road Landfill, Houston, TX." Vita Nuova . December 4, 2009. http://www.vitanuova.net/resources/pdf/houstonsolarwebinar.pdf (accessed January 15, 2010).
Boylston, Patrick. "Transcript From: Navigating the Legal, Tax and Finance Issues Associated with Installation of Municipal PV Systems." Ed. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Conference Call: Stoel Rives LP, June 13, 2008.
Brechter, Monique, interview by Shannon O'Rourke. Director of Environmental Affairs, LIPA (October 30, 2009).
Breslin, Mike. PV turns old dumps into solar assets. September 2009. http://www.americanrecycler.com/0909/pv.shtml (accessed October 18, 2009).
Brosh, Brendan. Will Landfill Light up Lives? Proposal would put solar panel field near JFK in Rockaways . New York Daily News. June 1st, 2009. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2009/06/02/2009-06- 02_will_landfill_light_up_lives_proposal_would_put_solar_panel_field_near_jfk_in_ro.html (accessed November 12, 2009).
The Center for Sustainable Energy at Bronx Community College. New York City's Solar Energy Future, Part II: Solar Energy Policies and Barriers in New York City. New York: The Center for Sustainable Energy at Bronx Community College, 2007.
CH2MHILL. Solar American Cities: Integration of Solar Energy in Emergency Planning. CH2MHILL, 2009.
Chernova, Yuliya. CNNMoney. November 6, 2009. http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200911060915DOWJONESDJONLINE000459_FORTUNE5.htm (accessed November 11, 2009).
Conergy. Case Studies. Conergy. http://www.conergy.us/casestudies_projects.aspx (accessed December 9, 2009).
Ȅ. "Utility Grid-Direct Photovoltaic System: Exelon- Conenergy Renewable Energy Center." 2008. http://www.conergy.us/PortalData/3/Resources/projects/Exelon-AR-USA-0903-v2-small.pdf.
Cory, Karlynn. "Renewable Energy Feed in Tariffs: Lessons Learned from the Us and Abroad." Ed. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) WebinarOctober 28, 2009.
ǡǢǡ ǤǢǤDz ǣ ǤdzǤergy Laboratory. May 2008.
Davies, Martha Symko. "Solar Technology Today." Ed. Presentation at New York City Solar Summit. New York: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, September 25, 2009.
DCAS. "Request for Proposals - City of New York RFP For Rooftop Solar Electricity on Public Buildings, PIN #: 856080000633 ." Request for Proposal. New York, April 8, 2008.
Dean, Emily, interview by Shannon O'Rourke. Senior Program Manager, DCAS (October 19, 2009).
Delay, Beth. Patrick signs landmark energy legislation. july 2, 2008. http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2008/07/patrick_signs_landmark_energy_1.html (accessed 11 7, 2009).
Deutsche Solar Werke. "Solar Theme Park ." Deutsche Solar Werke. http://www.deutschesolarwerke.eu/files/file/DSW_Tender_components.pdf (accessed January 15, 2010).
DSIRE. Federal Incentives/Policies for Renewables & Efficiency. November 12, 2009. http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?state=us&re=1&EE=1 (accessed November 12, 2009).
Page | 57
--. "Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency". 2009. (November 19, 2009): North Carolina Solar Center.
EPA. "Brownfileds Sustainability Program- Solar Power on a Closed Landfill in Houston." EPA. October 2009. http://epa.gov/brownfields/sustain_plts/factsheets/houston_susfs.pdf (accessed October 18, 2009).
ENS. Florida's Largest Solar Power Array Dedicated in Sarasota. February 13, 2008. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008- 02-13-092.asp (accessed November 15, 2009).
Ȅ. "RE-Powering Amer ǯǣǤ̶EPA.gov. 2009. http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/docs/repower_contaminated_land_factsheet.pdf (accessed 11 10, 2009).
Ȅ. "State Incentives for Achieving Clean and Renewable, Energy Development on Contaminated Lands." EPA.gov. 11 2008. http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/incentives/ny_incentives.pdf (accessed 11 10, 2009).
Ȅ. Success Stories--Siting Renewable Energy on Contaminated Land Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/success_nellis_nv.pdf (accessed December 8, 2009).
Evich, Mitch. Ex-landfills may serve as solar fields. Massachusetts Municipal Association. November 30, 2009. http://www.mma.org/public-works-energy-a-utilities/4244-ex-landfills-may-serve-as-solar-fields (accessed January 11, 2009).
Fallon, Scott. Meadowlands complex steps back from grid. July 24, 2009. http://www.northjersey.com/news/environment/51538117.html (accessed November 12, 2009).
Florida Power and Light. Desoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center. 2009. www.fpl.com/environment/solar/desoto_faqs.shtml (accessed November 30, 2009).
Ȅ. "FPL selects Rothenbach Park for first Sunshine Energy® solar location." FPL.com. April 11, 2009. http://www.fpl.com/news/2006/contents/06025.shtml (accessed 11 3, 2009).
Galentine, Susan. Solar Power Array Constructed on Ft Carson Landfill. U.S. Army Environmental Command. Winter 2008. http://aec.army.mil/usaec/newsroom/update/win08/win0812.html (accessed December 12, 2009).
Gardner, Kim. Solar field getting under way. First Light Solar. September 22, 2009. http://firstlightsolar.com/blog/?p=28 (accessed December 12, 2009).
ǡ Ǣ ǡǤDzʹͲͲͺǤdzǡ Ƭgy. July 2009.
Gorman, Tom. "Holbrook selectmen give green light for proposed solar station." Enterpprise.com. 10 15, 2009. http://www.enterprisenews.com/business/x1325278776/Holbrook-selectmen-give-green-light-for-proposed-solar-station (accessed 11 12, 2009).
Guthrie, Vince, interview by Hillary Ellison. Directorate of Public Works, Ft Carson (November 13, 2009).
ǡ ǤDz ǡ ǤdzǤǤ Ǥ r 2009.
Holdridge, M. What Grass Farmers Have Known All AlongȄResearch Shows Grass Sequesters Carbon. Grassfed Gazette, Summer 2008. American Grassfed Association.
Koenig, Ronald;Canavan, Brendan;Cory, Karlynn. "State and Local Government Solar System: Checklist for Power Purchase Agreement." Forthcoming in 2009. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Kou, Li, interview by Josh Huneycutt. Senior R&TD Engineer, NYPA (October 9, 2009).
ǡǤDz dzǤ Ed. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. May 2009.
Kusmider, Janet, interview by Hillary Ellison. City of Phonix (November 10, 2009).
Page | 58
Laidler, John. "Holbrook Seeking Solar Plant at Landfill Site". Boston, MA, October 4, 2009. Ed. Boston.com. November 8, 2009.
Levy, Adam, interview by Hillary Ellison. Assistant Director of Legal Affaris, New Jersy Meadowlands Comission (November 4, 2009).
Malcolm, Joanna, interview by Hilalry Ellison. FLS Energy (November 17, 2009).
Mayk, Lauren. FPL has sunny spot for solar panel project. March 18, 2006. http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060318/BUSINESS/603180635&tc=ar (accessed November 12, 2009).
ǯ -Term Planning and Sustainability, Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions, PlaNYC initiative, September 17, 2008
Messics, Mark, interview by Hillary Ellison. PPL Renewable Energy (October 2009).
Milliken, JoAnn. "The Future of Solar Energy "Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy"." September 25, 2009.
Moran, John, interview by Shannon O'Rourke. Solar Power Developer, enXco (October 22, 2009).
MSW Management. Landfill Cap with Flexible Solar Cover. MSW management. April 11, 2009. http://www.mswmanagement.com/the- latest/solar-landfill-cap.aspx (accessed November qw, 2009).
ǯǤDz ǤdzǡʹͲͲͻǤδǣȀȀǤ nergy.com/renewable-energy/project- activity-reports/srec-pricing/srec-pricing>
New Jersey Meadowlands Comission. "2009 Dec Monthly Meeting Agenda." Lyndhurst, NJ, December 16, 2009.
New York State. "Press Release: GOVERNOR PATERSON ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR LARGEST SOLAR PROJECT IN STATE HISTORY." New York State. May 15, 2009. http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/press_0515091.html (accessed November 14, 2009).
NMWDA, Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority. "Howard County Solar RFP Addendum #5 ." NMWDA- Procurement Opportunities. 11 4, 2009. http://www.nmwda.org/contact/documents/AddendumNo.5HowardCountySolar.pdf (accessed 11 12, 2009).
Ȅ. "Request for Proposal, Development of Solar Energy at Publicilly Owned Closed Landfill in Howard Co, Maryland- Addendum #2." Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority- Procuremetn Opportunities. September 25, 2009. http://www.nmwda.org/contact/documents/HWG10110KOUAddendumNo.2.pdf (accessed 5 09, November).
NYPA. New York Power Authority and UB to Partner in Major Solar Energy Project to Power Student Apartments. May 7, 2009. http://www.nypa.gov/press/2009/090507acaption.htm (accessed November 14, 2009).
Ȅ. NYPA and Solar Power. http://www.nypa.gov/services/profiles/gunhillsolar.htm (accessed November 14, 2009).
Ȅ. "Request for Expressions of Interest to Support the Preparation of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a 100 MW Solar Power Initiative in New York State." NYPA. 2009. http://www.nypa.gov/100mwsolarrfei.htm (accessed November 14, 2009).
NYISO. "Installed Capacity (Icap) Spot Auction Summary". Auction Results for Nov 2009.
--. "Installed Capacity Manual." Section 4.4.6 Intermittent Resources. Ed. NYISO Auxiliary Market Manual. August 2009.
ǤDz ǤdzǤNYSERDA. November 2009.
--ǤDz ʹͲͲͻǤdz ʹͲͲͻǤ
--. "Economic Recovery and Energy." NYSERDA. http://www.nyserda.org/Economicrecovery/documents/Comprehensive%20Plan%20Synopsis.pdf (accessed November 14, 2009).
--. "The New York Renewable Portfolio Standard." NYSERDA. 2010. http://www.nyserda.org/rps/index.asp.
Olshan, Jeremy. "Wind reigns at city's green 'power park'." New York Post. October 14, 2009. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/item_bznmewrDf1ZERe365NC2UN (accessed January 15, 2010).
Page | 59
Perez, R., R. Stewart, C. Arbogast, R. Seals and J. Scott, 1986. An Anisotropic Hourly Diffuse Radiation Model for Sloping Surfaces -- Description, Performance Evaluation, Site Dependency Evaluation. Solar Energy, 36, pp. 481-498.
Pernick, Ron and Wilder, Clint. Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study. PDF, Washington, DC: Clean Edge inc. and Co-op America Foundation, 2008.
Phoenix/Kusmider, Janet. "Green Phoenix Initiative, Proposed Utility-Scale Solar Plant Development at SR-85 Landfill, Buckeye, AZ Conceptual Overview." Phoenix.gov. 2009. http://www.phoenix.gov/publicworks/solarfctb.pdf (accessed November 5, 2009).
PPL /Messics, Mark. "Site Considerations What Makes a Site Desirable for a Solar Project?" Mass.gov. June 2009. http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/solarsite.pdf (accessed October 20, 2009).
PPL/Messics, Mark. "Case Study Pennsauken Landfill Solar Project." Mass.gov. june 17, 2009. http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/pennsauk.pdf (accessed 10 20, 2009).
Price, Michelle. "Nellis AFB Solar Power System & Renewable Energy." ww.nellis.af.mil. Nellis AFB. http://www.nellis.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090501-098.pdf (accessed November 12, 2009).
Rahus. "The Consumer's Guide to Solar Power Purchase Agreements." Ed. The Rahus Institute. October 2008.
Republic Services. Republic Services Caps Landfill with Flexible Solar Cover. April 2, 2009. http://republicservices.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=21 (accessed October 10,2009).
Rider, Tate, interview by Josh Huneycutt. Senior Project Manager, Renewable Energy, New York City Economic Development Corporation (October 16, 2009).
Rider, Tate; Lee, Fred. "Columbia University Conference Call with New York City Economic Development Corporation." Ed. Josh Huneycutt Ron Koenig, Steven Hammer. New York City. October 16th, 2009.
Solar Energy Industries Association. US Solar Industry Year in Review 2008. Solar Energy Industries Association, 2008.
SRA. "Technical Assistance:Solar Power Analysis and Design Specifications." EPA.gov. http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/sustain_plts/factsheets/houston_solar.pdf (accessed 11 9, 2009).
ǤDz ǤdzʹͲͲͻǤδǣȀȀǤ Ǥ ȀȀ -markets/dc/dc-srec- state-certification-instructions>
State of New York. "Press Release: GOVERNOR PATERSON ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR THE LARGEST SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT IN STATE HISTORY." LIPA. February 27, 2009. http://www.lipower.org/newscenter/pr/2009/022709_gov.html (accessed November 14, 2009).
ǡ Ǣǡ ǤDz - the Market Signal from the State Renewable Portfolio Standard Program ǡǤdzǣ ȋ ȌǡʹͲͲͺǤ
ǡǤDz ǤdzǤ cut, Ron Koenig. New York City. October 8, 2009.
U.S. Department of Energy. Climate Challenge. 1996. http://www.climatevision.gov/climate_challenge/newsletters/autumn.htm (accessed November 14, 2009).
--. "Tax Breaks for Business, Utilities, and Governments". Ed. US Department Of Energy. October 19, 2009.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. (2009). Emissions from Energy Consumption at Conventional Power Plants and Combined-Heat-and-Power Plants. Electric Power Annual with Data for 2007. Washington, D.C.
-- (2009). Retail Sales of Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Total by End-Use Sector. Electric Power Monthly with data for August 2009. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2008) Annual Vehicle Distance Traveled in Miles and Related Data Ȃ 2007. Highway Statistics 2007. Washington, D.C.
Page | 60
U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. (2005) Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel. EPA420-F-05-001. Washington, D.C.
Wang, Ucilia. GreenTech Media. October 1, 2009. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/starwood-lockheed-cancels-290mw- solar-project/ (accessed November 12, 2009).
Whitt, Toni. From a landfill to a public park. December 26, 2006. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20061227/NEWS/612270322?p=1&tc=pg (accessed November 11, 2009).
Willey, Tara. Large Systems Cost Report 2001 Update. Solar Electric Power Association, Washington DC: Solar Electric Power Association, 2001.
Wiser, R.; Barbose, G.; Peterman, C. "Tracking the Sun: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the Us from 1998-2007." Ed. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Berkeley, CA 2009.
ǡ ǤDz ǣ ǤdzǤǤͳͺǡʹͲͲͻǤ http://www.renewableenergymarkets.com/docs/presentations/2009/Wednesday_Procurement_Nicole%20Wobus.pdf
World Trade Center Frankfurt. "Newsletter." World Trade Center Germany. 3rd Quarter 2008. http://www.wtcbb.de/pdf/wtc_nl_III_08_en.pdf (accessed January 15, 2010).
Page | 61
Page | 62
9. Appendix
Appendix A Ȃ Solar PV Information
SOLAR SYSTEMS ͚^ŽůĂƌ ^LJƐƚĞŵ͛ ŝƐ ĂŶ ĂďƌŝĚŐĞĚ ǁĂLJ ŽĨ ƐĂLJŝŶŐ ͚ƐŽůĂƌ ĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐ ƉŽǁĞƌ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͛͘ ^ŽůĂƌ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ comprise the power generation equipment (the cells) and any mechanical or electrical components integral to operation. Within a solar system, the solar cells aƌĞĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŽŽŶĞƵŶŝƚĐĂůůĞĚĂ͚module͛ Žƌ͚panel͛͘dŚĞŵŽĚƵůĞƐĂƌĞƚŚĞŶĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƐĞƌŝĞƐƚŽĨŽƌŵ͚ƐƚƌŝŶŐƐ͛͘dŚĞƐĞƐƚƌŝŶŐƐĂƌĞƚŚĞŶƚŝĞĚŝŶ parallel to an inverter, which converts direct current from the modules to the alternating current of an electrical grid. The inverter connects to local building distribution panels or the electrical grid.
The key differentiating factor in different solar systems, aside from the cell, is the way the modules are constructed and the way in which they are oriented. Most solar modules are oriented on a fixed-tilt, immobile with respect to the surroundings. To maximize the amount of sunlight hitting the panels some systems employ tracking mechanics. In these systems, the entire solar system rotates on either one or ƚǁŽĂdžĞƐ͕ĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůůLJĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƵŶ͛ƐƉĂƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƐŬLJ͘/ŶEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞ͕ĂŽŶĞ-axis tracker will gain approximately 20% more power production than an idyllic fixed-tilt system and a two-axis tracker will gain nearly 30%.
While a tracking system may provide more power, the general drawback to employing this type of system is the moving parts, leading to increased costs for the supporting structure. The situation in the Northeast U.S. is further complicated by the increased maintenance and replacement costs due to the brutal freezing and thawing conditions inherent in winter weather in this part of the country. Again, it is important to consider the cost per watt of these modules compared to standard fixed tilt.
Another type of PV system is called concentrating PV (CPV). This technology uses optical concentrators of varying types that concentrate sunlight up to 1000 times on very small, highly efficient and correspondingly very expensive cells. Because CPV uses concentrating optics, it needs all of the sunlight to come from the same directionͶdirectly into the concentrator. Thus, these not only require tracking systems, but also require minimal cloud cover because they simply cannot accept diffuse radiation, which comes in from all directions of the sky. Because of the aforementioned high preponderance of diffuse radiation in the Northeast, even with solar tracking, CPV systems will have limited production capability given their high cost.
Concentrating solar power (CPS) uses optical concentrators to heat liquid to super high temperatures. Unlike CPV technology, however, these concentrating systems do not directly generate electricity, but rather create energy through heat driven engines, much like traditional electrical plants. These systems have the potential to store the high temperature liquid for later use, and are favored for utility scale plants across the Southwestern United States. Like the CPV technology, CPS needs direct sunlight and is therefore not suitable to the Northeast.
Page | 63
SOLAR CELLS Photovoltaic (PV) refers to the field of technology and research that uses solar cells, or photovoltaic cells, to convert sunlight directly into electricity. Photovoltaic cells are made of materials called semiconductors that when combined in a particular fashion can absorb a portion of the solar spectrum and generate an electrical current (Markvart 2000, 27; Aldous 2009). Although solar cells are composed of varying types of semiconductor materials, the semiconductor material Silicon (Si) has historically dominated the market (Alshourbagy, et al. 2007, 641).
The two cell types below are the oldest and most established technologies with a proven long-term performance track record. Note that it is not the efficiencies of these technologies that is the important factor to consider for Freshkills, it is the cost per watt of power capacity ($/W)(Kodis 2009, 25).
x Monocrystalline Silicon (single-crystal) cells are made from ultra-pure Silicon and are capable of achieving a high level of energy conversion and efficiency. x Multicrystalline Silicon cells are more cost-efficient to make, but are marked by the emergence of defects during the crystallization process that make them slightly less efficient than the pure monocrystalline cells.
Apart from these Silicon cells, there are a wide variety of solar cell materials that are gaining ground in the marketplace due to lower manufacturing costs and subsequent lower $/W. In 2008, thin-films accounted for 14% of the global PV market; they are expected to account for over 35% of the market by 2013 (Osborne 2009). The primary thin-film technologies are:
x Amorphous Silicon: or `a-Si´ cell, is 50 times thinner than the width of a human hair. In this way, low material costs keep production costs low. However, the efficiency of amorphous cell is lower than that of the other two silicon-based cell types (National Centre for Catalysis Research 2007, 70-71). x CdTe: (Cadmium Telluride) Žƌ ͚ĚdĞ͛ ĐĞůů ŝƐ ĂŶŽƚŚĞƌ ƚLJƉĞ ŽĨ ƉŽůLJĐƌLJƐƚĂůůŝŶĞ ƚŚŝŶ-film cell technology which also uses nanoscale layers of semiconductor material. x CIGS: Cadmium Indium Gallium Di-Selenide is another promising polycrystalline thin-film tools that shares many of the same advantages as CdTe, although it has achieved higher efficiencies in the lab.
Because thin-film technologies use less material, and are manufactured using less energy-intensive processes than traditional wafer-based technologies, they can achieve a more attractive price point.
Page | 64
Appendix B ʹ NYS Solar Projects In Development
TABLE B-1. NEW YORK STATE SOLAR PROJECTS IN DEVELOPMENT. SOURCE: FRESHKILLS FEASBILITY STUDY, SIPA, 2009
Issued by Size Location Stage of Ownership Development Structure EDC 500 kW Brooklyn Army LLC, by EDC and Terminal tax credit investors
NYPA 1.1 MW University of Contract Buffalo negotiated DCAS 2 MW Municipal Received PPA, contract buildings across responses to RFI term TBD New York City after failed initial RFP, currently developing 2nd RFP LIPA 50 MW (two 18 Long Island Currently in 20 Year PPA MW sites & 13 contract MW of negotiations, distributed slated to begin generation) operating in May 2011 NYPA 100 MW Across New Received Proposed 20 York State responses to year PPA RFEI, currently developing RFP
Page | 65
Appendix C ʹ Completed Solar-Landfill Projects
TABLE C-1. COMPLETED SOLAR-LANDFILL PROJECTS. SOURCE: FRESHKILLS FEASBILITY STUDY, SIPA, 2009 Project Location Developer Status Size Landfill Site Details of note
Nellis Air Las Vegas, Sun Power Complete 14.2 MW On and Off Both fixed and tracking Force Base NV Corp Mound devices. 33 acres of the 140 acre site is a capped landfill Pennsauken Camden PPL Complete 2.6 MW On Mound Developer Installed LFG Landfill Co, NJ Renewable (slope and capture and power plant Energy plateau) and at time of the solar on flat land installation. Ft Carson Ft Collins, Conergy Complete 2 MW On Flat Fill Base structure designed Landfill CO Site to avoid problems associated with vegetative growth and snow build up. Evergreen Canton, NC First Light Installation 550 kW On Mound Using regionally sourced Landfill Solar (FLS) begun Fall materials and Energy 2009 components
Rothenbach Sarasota Florida Complete 250 kW Adjacent flat Part of public park. Park (former Co, FL Power and land County has option to buy Bee Ridge Light (FPL) facility after 8 years Landfill)
Exelon- Bucks Co, Conergy Complete 3 MW Adjacent flat Inexpensive land in Conergy PA (formerly land proximity to greater Epuron) Philadelphia area
Tessman San Republic Complete Reported to On mound Flexible solar affixed to Landfill Antonio, Services (also be 134 kW geomembrane cover TX landfill out of 9 MW owner) combined LFG/Solar plant
Page | 66
Appendix D ʹ Solar-Landfill Projects, Incomplete
SOLAR-LANDFILL PROJECTS OF NOTE AT BID OR CONTRACT STAGE A 250 MW concentrating solar power (CPS) facility is planned for an unused portion (up to 1200 acres) of an active landfill outside of phoenix. The City of Phoenix is in concurrent negotiations with the top two bidders from their 2009 Request for Proposal: Tessera Solar and Johnson Controls (Kusmider 2009). The city intends to seek market rate for the land lease, as well as a royalty, from energy produced (Kusmider 2009). The winning bidder will consider educational and public access opportunities as part of its development (Kusmider 2009).
The New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, as part of its energy plan, has two solar landfill projects underway. The 1.3 MW facility on the Erie landfill is part of a barter deal with DonJon Marine. After dumping sediment dredged from New York Harbor at the Erie landfill, DonJon Marine will cap the landfill and apply flex film solar to the geo-membrane cover (Fallon 2009). The installation of this project is on hold (Levy 2009).
The second Meadowlands solar developmentat the 1-A Kearny Landfill has been awarded $8.5 million of federal ARRA money by Governor Corzine. Despite the high profile of this project, the RFP attracted only 1 bidder, SunDurace (New Jersey Meadowlands Comission 2009). The developer plans a 3 MW ground mount solar PV facility atop the closed landfill. The project has been scaled down from the 5 MW anticipated in the original proposal (New Jersey Meadowlands Comission 2009).
The proposal for a 10 MW solar development at the Holmes Road landfill, near downtown Houston, was funded with a 50,000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of its Brownfields ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJWŝůŽƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƚŽĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞ͚ďƌŽǁŶĨŝĞůĚ͛ĞŶĞƌŐLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶt (EPA 2009). In addition, the EPA provided technical and regulatory analysis and site review (EPA 2009). The project was to be sited on 150 acres of the heavily wooded 300 acre landfill (SRA n.d.) with possible expansion of the project to 20 MW over the full 300 acre site (SRA n.d.). Ultimately the 2009 RFP resulted in a successful bid from NRG, who requested a location change. The project is going forward but not at the Holmes Road site. The location change resulted in a lower cost structure.
Ansar Energy is looking to bundle 10-12 sites across Massachusetts in an effort to amass a 50 MW solar project (Evich 2009). Several of the sites proposed, including the Hill Street site in Norton, MA, and the Maple Ave site in Holbrook, MA, are capped landfills. Although the projects are not yet at the contract stage, local officials in Norton and Holbrook have agreed to letters of intent with Ansar. These small municipalities are eager to strike a deal with Ansar, as the land leases would be financially beneficial to the towns. Ansar is waiting on a RFP from National Grid in order to secure financing (Evich 2009).
Page | 67
TABLE D-1. SOLAR-LANDFILL PROJECTS OF NOTE AT THE BID OR CONTRACT STAGE. SOURCE: FRESHKILLS FEASBILITY STUDY, SIPA, 2009
Project Location Developer Status Size Landfill Details of note Site SR-85 Landfill Phoenix, City in Contract 150-200 MW Flat land The city is seeking a AZ negotiations Phase Concentratin Adjacent portion of revenue and with Tessera g solar to market rate rents. Will Solar and operating possibly incorporate Johnson landfill public access and Controls, educational components. New Jersey Kearney, SunDurance Contract 3 MW On mound $8.5 million of ARRA Meadowlands NJ (subsidiary Phase (out of 5 MW funding awarded to NJMC - of the Conti proposed) NJMC for project. NJMC Kearny Group) received only 1 bid Landfill from RFP.
New Jersey North DonJon Installation 1.3 MW Flex Film Barter deal for Meadowlands Arlington, Marine on hold applied to sediment dumping. Erie Landfill NJ geo- Ownership reverts to membrane NJMC after 6 years. Norton Norton, Ansar Proposed Part of a 50 Possibly Ansar is seeking to Landfill; MA; Energy sites by MW multi- on mound spread 50 MW across Maple Ave Holbrook, developer site bundle. multiple sites in MA, Landfill; MA; (Ansar) Sites would which include several Wisdom Way Greenfield, be minimum landfill sites Landfill MA 20 acres Holmes Rd Houston NRG RFP bid 10 MW Proposed $50,000 EPA grant for Landfill TX accepted, on mound research and planning but project assistance moved to a new site
Page | 68
Appendix E ʹ Site Considerations from Solar-Landfill Facilities
SITE CONSIDERATIONS AND SOLUTIONS FROM EXISTING SOLAR LANDFILL FACILITIES
Ft Carson Army Base Landfill, Ft Collins Colorado
Figure E-1 Frameless panels ŽŶϮ͛ĚĞĞƉĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƉĂĚƐ͘^ŽƵƌĐĞ: Ft Carson, US Army, AEC
The Ft. Carson installation is built on a landfill that was closed in 1973 and has had no settlement problems. The solar panels were installed on a construction debris fill area that was essentially flat, but needed an additional 2 feet of soil to level it for the installation (Guthrie 2009). The added fill was seeded with prairie grass.
The fix-ƚŝůƚƉĂŶĞůƐĂƌĞŵŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶ͚ƐĞůĨ-ďĂůůĂƐƚĞĚ͛ĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƉĂĚƐƐƵŶŬϮĨĞĞƚĚĞĞƉŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĞĂƌƚŚ;'ƵƚŚƌŝĞ 2009). The panels are 2.5 feet off the ground at their lowest point and are rated for 100 mph winds and 1 inch hail (Guthrie 2009). Fort Carson has also had extreme vegetative growth. One year after installation, the site is completely grassy with a few weeds reaching to the lowest point of the panel. Because of the design of the structure, its height and angle, Fort Carson has not had to perform any weed maintenance.
Furthermore, the frameless panel design also allows snow to easily slide off as soon as the sun shines on them (Guthrie 2009). Like many solar panels systems, these are self-cleaning when it rains and have only needed manual cleaning only once, after construction activity nearby left them covered in dust. The dust, however, only reduced their efficiency by 5%, which Ft Carson considered insignificant (Guthrie 2009).
Page | 69
Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, NV
Figure E-2. Ariel view of Nellis Air Force base solar installation. Source: Nellis AFB Figure E-3. Solar tracking device at the Nellis facility. Source: Nellis AFB
The Nellis Air Force Base landfill was closed in 1966 and capped in 1998 (EPA n.d.). The facility makes use of solar tracking devices that follow the suns movements, maximizing the efficiency of the cells (Price n.d.). These devices are ideal for desert conditions, like Nevada, but would be challenging to maintain in a climate like the North East, which is susceptible to freeze-thaw conditions and greater precipitation.
Pennsauken Landfill, Pennsauken, NJ
Figure E-4. Poured Concrete Pad Base Structures for Slope installation. Source: PPL Renewable Energy Figure E-5͘ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞĨŝůůĞĚ͚ƚƌĂLJ͛ďĂƐĞƐĨŽƌƉůĂƚĞĂƵŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶ͘Source: PPL Renewable Energy
The Pennsauken, NJ solar facility was built on a landfill that had been closed for more than 15 years. Because of the age of the landfill, the developer, PPL Renewable Energy, was confident in installing solar modules on the capped landfill. The project was built in 4 phases, across several locations of the landfill site, as well as on the power ƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞƌ͛Ɛ;ůƵŵŝŶƵŵ^ŚĂƉĞƐͿŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘dŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞ the landfill gas plant rooftop, the plateaus of two of the landfill mounds, the south slope of one of the
Page | 70
mounds, flat land adjacent to the landfill, and an additional 500 kW traditional ground mount system on flat land at the Aluminum Shapes site.
Two types of base structures were used for the landfill portion of this project. Simple metal trays, filled with concrete for ballast, were used for the flat landfill areas like the plateau. A more complex structure was required for the slope installation in order to accommodate the uneven slope conditions and avoid exacerbating erosion of the slope. These structures used pre-ĐĂƐƚ ͚ĨŽŽƚŝŶŐƐ͛ ǁŝƚŚ ĂĚũƵƐƚĂďůĞ ĂŶĐŚŽƌ points (PPL/Messics 2009). To date, these structures have successfully addressed the settlement, erosion, and wind conditions presented by the site.
Despite their intentions and planning, PPL has struggled with weed growth, as their ground level design required a vegetation free site. Their plan to achieve this included the installation of landscaping weed prevention fabric and 3-6 inches of gravel. However, according to the developer, the site is now covered in extreme vegetative growth. The weeds obscure the panels, thereby diminishing the power output. ZĞŐƵůĂƌǁĞĞĚĐƵƚƚŝŶŐďLJ͚ǁĞĞĚǁŚĂĐŬĞƌ͛ŝƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ(Messics 2009). This was an unplanned expense and is likely to increase their $100,000 maintenance budget for the facility (PPL/Messics 2009). In future projects PPL plans to increase its maintenance budget to accommodate landscaping (Messics 2009). In addition, because the structures are at ground level, they are subject to snow build-up, which can obscure the panels and diminishes power generation.
Tessman landfill, San Antonio, TX The Tessman site San Antonio is an active landfill. Recently closed portions of it have been covered with a Firestone geomembrane cover. Adhered to the cover are 1000 Uni-Solar (Ovonics) flexible solar strips (Republic Services 2009)͘dŚĞЬ͟ĨůĞdžŝďůĞƐŽůĂƌĐĞůůƐĐŽŶĨŽƌŵƚŽƚŚĞƐŚĂƉĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚĨŝůůĐŽǀĞƌĂŶĚĐĂŶ easily flex to accommodate the settlement of the newly clapped landfill.
Figure E-6. Ariel view of geo-membrane cap and flexible solar cells. Source: Republic Services Figure E-7. View of geo-membrane covered mound and flexible solar cells. Source: Republic Services dŚĞĨůĞdžŝďůĞƐŽůĂƌƐƚƌŝƉƐĂƌĞĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůůLJ͚ƉĞĞůĂŶĚƐƚŝĐŬ͛ƐŽůĂƌĐĞůůƐ͘dŚĞLJŚĂǀĞĂŶĂĚŚĞƐŝǀĞďĂĐŬŝŶŐĂŶĚĂƌĞ applied directly to the geo-membrane cap. They are inexpensive, and are an attractive technology for active, or newly closed, landfills wishing to begin energy generation without the waiting period necessary for a ground mound installation. They are less efficient that other types of solar cells, which may or may not be a factor when considering the watt per dollar ratio of the technology.
There are, however, some other drawbacks to this technology. Landfills without a traditional soil cover may have stormwater control problems, as rain water will slide straight off the geo-membrane cover
Page | 71
without the chance for absorption. This has the potential to damage to perimeter of the landfill mound. The facility at San Antonio will likely have less a problem than a landfill in a different climate. Additionally, there is anecdotal evidence that these cells have a tendency to lose their adhesive and detach from the geo-membrane cover.
Evergreen Landfill, Canton, NC
Figure E-8. Evergreen's solar systems installed on plateau of landfill mound. Source: FLS Energy &>^͕ƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌŽĨƚŚĞ ǀĞƌŐƌĞĞŶ>ĂŶĚĨŝůůŝŶEŽƌƚŚĂƌŽůŝŶĂ͕ƵƐĞĚĂ͞ƐƚƵƌĚLJďĂůůĂƐƚĞĚƐLJƐƚĞŵ͟ĨŽƌŝƚƐ base structures (Malcolm 2009). According to the developer, the design and engineering of the solar module bases would accommodate the anticipated settlement, thus minimizing risk (Malcolm 2009).
FLS anticipated a weed problem and included mowing in its budget. They also spaced the modules sufficiently to accommodate mowing rather than weed whacking (Malcolm 2009). All components and materials were sourced locally or regionally (Malcolm 2009).
Rothenbach Park, Sarasota, FL &ůŽƌŝĚĂWŽǁĞƌĂŶĚ>ŝŐŚƚ͚ƐƐŽůĂƌĂƌƌĂLJŽŶƚŚĞϯϮϬ-acre former Bee ridge landfill is now part of a public park.
Figure E-9. Tree growing in the middle of solar array. Source: Sarasota Magazine Figure E-10. Ariel view of Rothenbach Park. Credit: Google Earth
Page | 72
The park has trails and facilities, although the access to the landfill mound is limited. Concerned that the solar installation at Rothenbach Park in Sarasota, FL, was vulnerable to hurricane force winds, the developer used a roof-mount system of crystalline panels. The panels are installed flat, only 4-ϲ͟ŽĨĨƚŚĞ ground, edge to edge with no gaps, in order to better protect the site from high winds (Florida Power and Light 2009). While their wind strategy has been successful, the installation has suffered from weed growth. A single small tree can be seen sprouting up in the center of the 28,000 square foot installation.
Page | 73
Appendix F ʹ Solar Mounting Systems
More than any other piece of solar equipment, the mounting system directly addresses the physical challenges at Freshkills. The mounting structure will need to withstand wind speeds up to 50 mph and snow loading factors up to 20 pounds/sq ft, often on elevated inclines. Furthermore, the mounting system must ensure that the integrity of the geomembrane cap, the material used to block the migration of fluids in and out of the landfill, is maintained. The safest option that effectively meets all of these criteria is a ballasted mounting design. Figure F-1. Fixed Tilt Ballasted Mounting Design. Source: Sunlink Ballasted mounting systems can take a wide variety of forms and designs, and are a viable option for the range and degree of topographies at Freshkills. While the more basic forms of ballasted mounting systems are fixed tilt designs, typically stabilized through the use of concrete footings, ballasted tracking technology has also been successfully used over landfills.
FIXED TILT BALLASTED MOUNTING DESIGNS Ballasted mounting designs are typically stabilized with the use of concrete footings, and can adapt to varying site specific wind speeds and snow loads by changing the size of their concrete foundation. The simple design is easy to construct (many companies even choose to prefabricate their mounting systems before they arrive at the site), can accommodate elevation climbs, and requires little maintenance over time since there are no moving parts.
The solar arrays at the army base in Ft. Carson, Co, which generates 2 MW of solar electricity (Pach 2008), and Pennsauken Landfill Renewable Energy Park in Pennsauken, NJ, which generates 2.6 MW of Figure 19. Fixed Tilt Solar solar electricity (PPL Renewable Energy 2008), have successfully installed solar panels using non- Mounting penetrating precast concrete ballast designs. System Developed by Sunlink. Credit: TRACKING BALLASTED MOUNTING DESIGNS Tracking mounting systems are designed to move in the direction of the sun by connecting a string of modules to a central motor. The tracker follows the location of the sun using an algorithmic or pyranometer (measuring thermal radiation) tracking device.
Nellis Solar Power Plant, located within Clark County, Nevada, is using a combination of the T20 tracking ballast and fix-tilt arrays to produce 14.2 MW of solar electricity covering an area of 140 acres, some of which are on top of a landfill. In comparison to traditional ballast designs, the T20 produces more than 30% more Figure F-2: SunPower Tracking Solar Mounting System. power and uses 35% less land (See Figure F-2) Source: SunPower (Sunpower 2009). Another academic study has
Page | 74
indicated that solar tracking systems can increase daily power gain up to 20% compared to fixed mounting systems (Al-Mohamad 2004, 354).
The modules themselves are relatively small, measuring 31.8 x 6.9 x 14.4 ft, and can be installed quickly. With an approximate total module weight of 706 lb, the module easily falls below the suggested maximum allowable pressure of 2,500 psf at Freshkills. Seven to nine motors are required for 1 MWp (Sunpower 2009).
One concern for tracking devices is a mechanical parts failure due to the moderation of frequent freeze- thaw conditions in the Northeast (Williams 1964, 609). However, some tracking system producers have attempted to address this issue; Array Technologies, for example, has designed their DuraTrack HZ drive system to slip during freezing conditions in order to avoid module damage or motor stall. The drive system will periodically try to move until the ice melts (Array Technologies 2009). The bidder must thoroughly address freeze-thaw concerns associated with tracking systems in the response to the RFP.
Due to the interconnectedness of each module, another concern for tracking systems is their ability to navigate contiguous elevation climbs. To overcome this obstacle, Array Technologies, for example, has used flexible drive joints, which connect and move each module, so that they can move a maximum of 40° off angle. The articulated drive joints are able to conform to land contours without the need to grade undulating terrain (Array Technologies 2009). Finally, because tracking modules have moving parts, they require more upfront and regular maintenance costs than passive mounting designs.
Pertaining to the bidding process, contractors who utilize tracking ballasted mounting systems in their proposal should be able to prove that they can adequately address the freeze-thaw and elevation climb constraints present on Freshkills in order to ensure a successful solar project. Selection of the type of mounting system should also be made on the basis of long-term output vs. the desired upfront and regular costs. Qualifications of these numbers will be based on the bids received.
Page | 75
Appendix G ʹ Twelve Month Shading Analysis
Figure G-1. Shading analysis of Freshkills Park. Credit: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
Page | 76
Appendix H ʹ Power Production Analysis Background We identified potential PV system capacities (sizes) for each of the available mounds. Here, we detail the methodology and results of a comprehensive projected power production analysis for the proposed array on each of the available mounds and an overview of the production characteristics of the site as a whole.
Our original target cumulative capacity was 25 MWp. However, after conversations with ConEd, which have provided us with interconnection costs based off of 6 Figure H-1. PV array facing south at fixed MWp blocks, we re-modeled the system as 24 MWp to tilt. Source: NREL/RREDC reflect the updated financial analysis including these additional interconnection costs. As such, we have divided the Freshkills site into the following sub- arrays based on identified available area on each mound:
x North Mound: 7.0 MWp
x East Mound: 8.0 MWp
x South Mound: 9.0 MWp
x Site Total: 24.0 MWp
Orientation Were there no seasonal variations in solar radiation due to fluctuating weather patterns, the ideal tilt for ĂWsĂƌƌĂLJĂƚ&ƌĞƐŚ<ŝůůƐǁŽƵůĚŝŶĚĞĞĚďĞĞƋƵĂůƚŽEĞǁzŽƌŬŝƚLJ͛Ɛ>ĂƚŝƚƵĚĞŽĨϰϬ͘ϴΣE͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĚƵĞƚŽ a relative higher prevalence of cloud-cover during the winter months, the ideal tilt for maximum yearly cumulative production for a system at this precise location is 34.2°. This angle has been arrived at by a production-optimization procedure using the same methodology for production analysis as described below. The tilt angle is measured between the plane containing the solar module and the horizontal plane.
Since our location is in the Northern hemisphere, the sun always follows an arc in the southern portion of the sky. As such, for optimal production, each array assumes an azimuthal11 orientation of due south.
The arrays are modeled as fixed-tilt and retain this orientation throughout their lifetimes.
Meteorological Inputs System production is dependent not only on the quantity of solar radiation impinging on the surface of the array, but also on the ambient temperature. All meteorological data is from the TMY-II12 dataset ĨƌŽŵEĂƚŝŽŶĂůZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞ ŶĞƌŐLJ>ĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌLJ͛Ɛ;EZ >) The National Solar Radiation Database13 (NSRDB.)
11 Azimuth refers to the orienting angle of the light source (sun.) 12 TMY-II: The Typical Meteorological Year ʹ II dataset: This dataset comprises historical hourly meteorological data (Solar radiation, temperature, humidity, wind speed) from 1961-1990. It is a concatenation of the most typical months in the NSRDB selected from individual years to form a complete (typical) year. It is the standard database for assessing projected solar radiation conditions by the PV industry and academia. 13 The National Solar Radiation Database: Measured hourly meteorological from 1961 onwards from 237 National Weather Service sites across the U.S.
Page | 77
Loss (de-rate) factors The DC-side rating (24 MWp) of the system as a whole is the sum of the manufacturer-specified ratings of each individual module. The modules are given this rating after having been tested and proved to produce the given power at Standard Testing conditions14 (STC.) After conversion, however, several factors further degrade the amount of power produced. These are known as de-rate factors.
We have used an industry accepted aggregated de-rate factor of 80% for modeling this system. (RREDC, 2009) The 20% loss in production results from the following metrics:
x Production tolerance: Deviation in actual module performance vs. manufacturer-specified performance: 5% x Inverter and transformer derived lossesͶ4% x System mismatch (standard deviation of production tolerances)Ͷ2% x Diodes and connectionsͶ0.5% x DC WiringͶ2% x AC WiringͶ2% x SoilingͶ5% x System availability (incorporates anticipated maintenance-related shut-down time)Ͷ2%
In addition to the above losses, solar cells have a negative correlation between temperature and the amount of power they can produce. I.E. if the same radiation is hitting two solar modules of identical orientation, one of which is warmer than the other, the warmer will under-perform the cooler module. The amount by which they vary with temperature is dependent on the semiconductor material. For crystalline Silicon modules, this temperature correction factor is approximately 0.5% per °C.
Calculation All of the input data and experimental parameters are easily input to the PVWatts Version 1 calculator. PVWatts is an online tool developed for the Renewable Resource Data Center15 (RREDC) by the Energy Infrastructure Systems Research Center (EISRC) for estimating power generation at any location near one of the National Weather Service meteorological stations. The calculator uses the TMY-II dataset and the Perez anisotropic tilted-plane radiation model. It was first implemented via the PVform initiative at Sandia National Laboratories (Perez, 1986).
In the site selection process, mound areas with minimal topography-induced shading loss have already been chosen, the production values do not reflect any such loss.
14 Standard Testing conditions: 25°C, 1000 W/m2 15 A branch of the Science and Technology division at NREL
Page | 78
Results- Average Daily Power Production dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚƌĞĞƉůŽƚƐŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƚĞƚŚĞƐLJƐƚĞŵ͛ƐŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨĂƚLJƉŝĐĂů day representing characterizing three important times of year: An average day in winter, spring/fall and summer.
Figure L-2.The FreshkillƐ ƐLJƐƚĞŵ͛Ɛ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ capacity throughout an average winter day. Source: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
Figure L-3.The Freshkills ƐLJƐƚĞŵ͛Ɛ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ capacity throughout an average Spring/Fall day. Source: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
Figure L-4. The Freshkills ƐLJƐƚĞŵ͛Ɛ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ capacity throughout an average summer day. Source: Freshkills Feasibility Study, SIPA, 2009
Page | 79
Appendix I ʹ Property Valuation of Closed Landfills
Low Value Approach The landfill site is considered by property owners to be of low value, and if not used for the solar project, might otherwise find no productive use. The landowner finds benefit in the productive use of the land and the community goodwill from transforming a blighted landscape into a productive ƌĞŶĞǁĂďůĞĞŶĞƌŐLJĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͘>ŽǁƌĞŶƚƐĂůƐŽďĞŶĞĨŝƚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͛ƐďŽƚƚŽŵůŝŶĞ͕ŵĂŬŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŵŽƌĞ economically viable. There are several examples of projects that have approached land valuation this way:
x The Evergreen Landfill in North Carolina leases 3 acres of landfill property to solar developer FLS Energy for $1 per year (Malcom 2009).
x PPL Renewable Energy, the developer of the Pennsauken, NJ, solar-landfill facility pays a lease aŵŽƵŶƚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĂŵĚĞŶ ŽƵŶƚLJ >ĂŶĚĨŝůů ƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞLJ ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞ ĂƐ ͞ŶŽŵŝŶĂů͟ (Messics 2009). According to a PPL representative, the county benefits from both the added value the facility brings to the unused site and the good will it generates in the community (Messics 2009).
x Sarasota County, Florida gave a 28,000 square foot parcel of its former Bee Ridge landfill to the utility Florida Power and Light (FPL) for its Rothenbach Park solar demonstration project. The county provided the flat buffer zone land to FPL, free of charge in exchange for the option, after eight years, to purchase either the facility or the power produced from it (Florida Power and Light 2009).
Higher Value Approach The landfill property is seen as comparable to neighboring open space and valued accordingly (Levy 2009; Kusmider 2009). In dense metropolitan areas where large tracts of open land are scarce, multi acre landfill sites are particularly desirable. Some proponents of the higher-value approach see it as a way to encourage the growth of the solar-landfill industry. Examples of projects that have approached land valuation this way:
x Developer Ansar Energy is aggressively entering the Massachusetts solar market and using generous lease compensation to acquire municipal sites (Gorman 2009). Ansar is offering municipalities $10,000 to $15,000 per acre per year, in addition to maintenance and monitoring fees. With sites averaging 20 acres, this is a sizable annual income for small municipalities that currently receive no benefit from their landfill properties (Gorman 2009).
x WŚŽĞŶŝdž͛ƐŶĞǁ^Z-85 landfill uses only 640 of the approximately 2600 acres of its full site for operations, with the rest leased as farmland (Phoenix/Kusmider 2009). Phoenix will use the current market value as a metric for determining the land lease rate for its 1200 acre site and does not expect to offer any lease discounts (Kusmider 2009).
Page | 80
TABLE I-1. DIFFERING LAND LEASE VALUES. SOURCE: FRESHKILLS FEASIBILITY STUDY, SIPA, 2009 Project Location Developer MW Acres Lease Amount Annual Total Evergreen North FLS 550 kW 3 acres $1 Annually $1 Carolina Pennsauken Camden Co., PPL 2.6 MW 10 acres ͞EŽŵŝŶĂů͟ ͞EŽŵŝŶĂů͟ NJ Rothenbach Sarasota, FL FPL 250 kW 28,000 sq Free for 8 years Free Park ft Holbrook, Massachusett Ansar TBD Approx $10-15,000 per $240,000- Norton, s (Proposed) 20 acres acre/per year 340,000 Greenfield each plus $40k maintenance SR-85 Phoenix, AZ TBD ʹin 150-200 1200 Market rate for TBD- Contract MW acres farmland Market rate
Page | 81
Appendix J ʹ Examples of New York Projects Receiving Financial Support
x LIPA will receive $15 million from NYSERDA to cover costs for its 50 MW project in Long Island. This funding will cover costs associated with interconnection to the grid, and comes as part of ƚŚĞ ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ ĂŶĚ ZĞŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ Đƚ͛Ɛ ;ZZͿ ^ƚĂƚĞ ŶĞƌŐLJ Program (SEP) Formula Grant (NYSERDA n.d.). x ^ ŝƐ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐ ƵƐŝŶŐ ƐŽŵĞ ŽĨ EĞǁ zŽƌŬ͛Ɛ YƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚ ŶĞƌŐLJ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ ŽŶĚƐ ;Y Ϳ16 allotment from ARRA to fund a portion of its 2 MW project. The Solar Electric Power Association, in a funding partnership with the US Department of Energy (DOE), has financed the New York City Transit (NYCT) projects at the Gun Hill Bus Depot and Maspeth warehouse. The Gun Hill Bus ĞƉŽƚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚ ΨϯϳϬ͕ϬϬϬ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ^ŽůĂƌ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐ WŽǁĞƌ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ͛Ɛ d D-UP (Technology Experience to Accelerate Markets in Utility Photovoltaics)17 (Willey 2001). x Federal funding though the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) is being used, in at least one instance, the Meadowlands Kearny landfill, to finance solar-landfill development. Some private developers note, however, that federal money often comes with burdensome ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĂŶĚ ƉĂƉĞƌǁŽƌŬ ƚŚĂƚ ĐĂŶ ƐŽŵĞƚŝŵĞƐ ŶĞŐĂƚŝǀĞůLJ ĂĨĨĞĐƚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͛Ɛ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƐ (Messics 2009). For more information on the Meadowlands ARRA funding see Appendix D.
16 QECBs have been authorized under ARRA to be used by local and state government agencies for a variety of projects, including municipal solar and energy efficiency projects (New York: The Center for Sustainable Energy at Bronx Community College, 2007). 17 The TEAM UP program started in 1995, and run through 2000, as a partnership between the US DOE and the electric utility industry to provide cost-sharing for solar PV projects to encourage the deployment of solar PV. (Hester, Progress in Photovoltaics)
Page | 82
Appendix K ʹ Sample Project Funding Models
TABLE K-1. SAMPLE PROJECT FUNDING MODELS. SOURCE: FRESHKILLS FEASIBILITY STUDY, SIPA, 2009 Project Amount Funding Source
PS 13 & PS 14 Staten Island 6 kW $500,000 (The Center for Sustainable NYPA funding as part of Petroleum each Energy at Bronx Community College Overcharge Restitution (POCR) fund 2007) appropriation NYCT Maspeth Warehouse 17 kW Installed as demonstration project (The Funding from Solar Electric Power Center for Sustainable Energy at Bronx ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ͛Ɛd D-UP program Community College 2007) NYCT Gun Hill Depot 300 kW $370,000 of $2.6 million total budget Funding from Solar Electric Power (US DOE 1996) ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ͛Ɛd D-UP program Brooklyn Army Terminal 500 kW $2 million (Rider 2009) of total $5 EDC million budget University of Buffalo 1.1 MW $7.5 million(NYPA 2009) of total $7.5 NYPA funding as part of its $21 million million budget statewide renewable energy program DCAS 2 MW Considering applying for ARRA funding ARRA (Dean 2009) LIPA 50 MW $15 million (State of New York 2009) for ARRA funding via NYSERDA interconnection costs
Page | 83
Appendix L - Grant Price Matrix x Project Returns for SELECTED Price Levels and Government Grants x At $132.5 MM Project Cost and Base Case Assumptions x Cells Contain Rate of Return at the Specific Price/Grant Levels x The Green Cells Exceed the Minimum 10% Return. x The Red Cells are Under the Minimum 10% Return.
TABLE L-1. GRANT-PRICE MATRIX FOR THE BASE CASE FOR SELECTED PRICES. SOURCE: FRESHKILLS FEASIBILITY STUDY, SIPA, 2009
10.34% $ 0.05 $ 0.10 $ 0.13 $ 0 .15 $ 0 .20 $ 0 .21 $ 0.25 $ 0 .27 $ 0.30 $ 0 .37 $ 0 .47 $ 42,500,000 12.04% 36.30% 60.01% 83.40% 209.14% 260.42% 266.16% 269.01% 273.25% 283.02% 296.73% $ 42,000,000 11.44% 35.25% 58.38% 81.11% 201.93% 252.21% 263.85% 266.69% 270.92% 280.66% 294.31% $ 41,500,000 10.85% 34.22% 56.80% 78.90% 195.05% 242.75% 261.57% 264.40% 268.61% 278.32% 291.92% $ 41,000,000 10.27% 33.22% 55.26% 76.74% 188.50% 233.80% 259.32% 262.14% 266.33% 276.00% 289.55% $ 40,500,000 9.70% 32.23% 53.76% 74.65% 182.25% 225.32% 257.09% 259.89% 264.08% 273.72% 287.21% $ 40,000,000 9.14% 31.27% 52.29% 72.62% 176.28% 217.28% 254.88% 257.68% 261.85% 271.45% 284.90% $ 30,000,000 -0.36% 15.78% 29.43% 41.73% 95.95% 114.24% 215.28% 217.93% 221.87% 230.91% 243.50% $ 26,000,000 -3.41% 11.12% 22.87% 33.16% 76.55% 90.63% 190.49% 204.11% 207.98% 216.85% 229.17% $ 25,500,000 -3.77% 10.58% 22.12% 32.20% 74.44% 88.09% 184.07% 202.45% 206.32% 215.17% 227.45% $ 25,000,000 -4.12% 10.06% 21.40% 31.26% 72.40% 85.63% 177.94% 200.81% 204.67% 213.50% 225.76% $ 24,500,000 -4.47% 9.54% 20.68% 30.34% 70.41% 83.24% 172.09% 199.18% 203.04% 211.85% 224.07% $ 24,000,000 -4.81% 9.04% 19.99% 29.45% 68.48% 80.93% 166.49% 197.57% 201.42% 210.21% 222.41% $ 16,500,000 -9.44% 2.41% 11.05% 18.14% 45.18% 53.32% 104.76% 151.49% 178.77% 187.34% 199.14% $ 16,000,000 -9.71% 2.03% 10.55% 17.51% 43.94% 51.86% 101.73% 146.72% 177.35% 185.92% 197.70% $ 15,500,000 -9.99% 1.65% 10.05% 16.89% 42.72% 50.44% 98.81% 142.14% 175.96% 184.51% 196.26% $ 15,000,000 -10.26% 1.28% 9.56% 16.29% 41.54% 49.06% 95.98% 137.75% 174.57% 183.11% 194.85% $ 14,500,000 -10.53% 0.91% 9.08% 15.69% 40.39% 47.72% 93.24% 133.52% 173.19% 181.72% 193.44% $ 10,000,000 -12.79% -2.15% 5.13% 10.85% 31.25% 37.09% 72.17% 101.77% 161.28% 169.74% 181.29% $ 9,500,000 -13.02% -2.46% 4.72% 10.36% 30.35% 36.05% 70.17% 98.83% 160.01% 168.46% 180.00% $ 9,000,000 -13.26% -2.77% 4.33% 9.88% 29.48% 35.04% 68.23% 95.99% 158.75% 167.19% 178.71% $ 8,500,000 -13.49% -3.08% 3.94% 9.41% 28.62% 34.06% 66.34% 93.23% 157.49% 165.93% 177.44% $ 8,000,000 -13.72% -3.38% 3.56% 8.95% 27.79% 33.10% 64.52% 90.57% 156.25% 164.68% 176.18% $ 5,000,000 -15.04% -5.10% 1.40% 6.35% 23.17% 27.80% 54.59% 76.27% 129.81% 157.38% 168.80% $ 4,500,000 -15.25% -5.37% 1.06% 5.95% 22.46% 26.99% 53.10% 74.14% 125.85% 156.20% 167.60% $ 4,000,000 -15.45% -5.64% 0.72% 5.55% 21.77% 26.20% 51.64% 72.08% 122.03% 155.02% 166.42% $ 1,500,000 -16.47% -6.93% -0.88% 3.65% 18.53% 22.51% 44.95% 62.63% 104.92% 149.26% 160.61% $ 1,000,000 -16.66% -7.18% -1.18% 3.29% 17.92% 21.82% 43.72% 60.90% 101.84% 148.14% 159.48% $ 500,000 -16.85% -7.42% -1.48% 2.94% 17.33% 21.15% 42.52% 59.23% 98.87% 147.02% 158.35% $ - -17.05% -7.66% -1.78% 2.59% 16.74% 20.49% 41.36% 57.60% 96.00% 145.91% 157.24%
Page | 84
Appendix M ʹ Feed-In Tariff Details
FEED-IN TARIFF- IN MORE DETAIL Feed-ŝŶ ƚĂƌŝĨĨ ůĞŐŝƐůĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐĞĚ ďLJ Ez^ ^ĞŶĂƚŽƌ ŶƚŽŝŶĞ dŚŽŵƉƐŽŶ͕ ƚŚĞ ͞EĞǁ zŽƌŬ ZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞ ŶĞƌŐLJ ^ŽƵƌĐĞƐ Đƚ͕͟ S 2715, aims to promote widespread and rapid renewable energy and job development. Under the proposal, NYC and/or a third-party owner of a solar system would be ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĂ͞ƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚŽǁŶĞƌ͘͟ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůLJ͕ƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵůĞŶŐƚŚŽĨĂWWǁŽƵůĚďĞϮϬLJĞĂƌƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ date of commissioning of power generation
The NYS FIT would provide the following tariffs for solar power generation:
x $0.27/kWh base rate for solar (for capacity > 2MW, connected to distribution system, and not net-metered) PLUS x $0.10/kWh additional for projects located in NYSDEC-defined non-attainment areas x $0.10/kWh additional for projects located in NYISO-defined load pockets x $0.10/kWh additional for projects publically-owned or not-for-profit owned
The Freshkills proposed project is in a non-attainment area and a load pocket, so if FIT passes, the project could benefit from additional tariffs, beyond the base rate.
Potential NYS FIT Caveats In one potential caveat for large-scale solar development, there is a proposed statewide capacity caps on solar PV eligibility. This would mean that New York would only allocate a FIT for a set MW of solar electricity each year. This would start at 94MW in 2010, rise to 113MW in 2010, 135MW in 2012, and would theoretically continue to increase. Additionally, the bill stipulates that no one developer or its subsidiaries may be offered PPAs totaling 20% of the statewide cap for the year, and that no more than 25% of the cap can be allocated to solar PV greater than 2MW. This could impose restrictions on eligibility for the 25MW Freshkills project if it were to be constructed very early on in the life of the FIT, as there would likely be much competition to receive the FIT for new solar PV development. However, preferential treatment may be given to a project such as the Freshkills project given its high-profile nature and the fact that it would likely become a showpiece for what FIT are able to accomplish in the United States.
Politics Various groups (e.g. New York Solar Energy Industries Association (NYSEIA), SolarOne, Vote Solar) are making a strong lobbying effort for its enactment. Additionally, pending climate legislation and ŽďůŝŐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽ ŵĞĞƚ EĞǁzŽƌŬ ^ƚĂƚĞ͛Ɛ ZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞ WŽƌƚĨŽůŝŽ ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐ Ϯϱй ŽĨ NYS retail electricity to come from renewable sources by 2013, could provide additional incentives for passage.
Page | 85
Appendix N ʹ Environmental Benefits
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF A 24 MW SOLAR INSTALLATION
PER YEAR POLLUTANT OFFSETS: 13,647 Tonnes CO2, or 162,032 lbs SO2, or, 143,826 lbs NOx
TOTAL (30-YEAR) LIFETIME OFFSETS: 409,413 Tonnes CO2, or 2,205 Tonnes SO2, or 1,957 Tonnes NOx
VEHICULAR EQUIVALENCIES: 2,850 Passenger Cars off the road permanently, or 2,550 Light Trucks off the road permanently, or 1000 Buses off the road permanently, or
ARBOREAL EQUIVALENCIES: 21,850 Trees planted (afforestation), or 16,400 Trees planted (reforestation)
Page | 86
Appendix O ʹ RFPs and Additional Research
Table of Contents dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂƌĞZ&W͛ƐĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŽĨŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ͕ƉĞƌƚĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŽ&ƌĞƐŚŬŝůůƐ Park solar development. PDF files will be available on an accompanying CD or electronic zip file. Where applicable we have added Internet links to this listing.
1. DCAS RFP for 2MW, 4/8/08 o DCAS Solar RFP Final 4-8-08.pdf 2. LIPA RFP for 50MW, 7/31/08 o Revised LIPA Solar RFP 07-31-2008 FINA.pdf 3. NYPA RFEI for 100MW, 7/7/09 o NYPA REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTER.pdf 4. ^ŽůĂƌ WŽǁĞƌ ŶĂůLJƐŝƐ ĂŶĚ ĞƐŝŐŶ ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ-Report for Holmes road; SRA /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůdŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶŐĞŶĐLJ͛ƐƌŽǁŶĮĞůĚƐWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͖;ŶŽ date) o houston_solar feasibility report.pdf o http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/sustain_plts/factsheets/houston_solar.pdf 5. City of Houston RFP, Due Date Nov 2009 o Holmes Rd RFP.pdf o http://www.houstontx.gov/generalservices/rfq/RFP%20- %2010%20MW%20Solar%20Facility.pdf 6. NJ Meadowlands Erie RFI, October 2008 o solar rfi 2 erie NJMC.pdf o http://www.njmeadowlands.gov/public/notices/solar%20rfi%202.pdf 7. NJ Meadowlands Kearny RFP o NJMC 2009_solar_rfp.pdf o http://www.njmeadowlands.gov/public/notices/2009/2009_solar_rfp.pdf 8. New Jersey Meadowlands Commission Energy Master Plan; Rutgers, November 24, 2008 o Final NJMC Energy Master Plan adopted 11-24-08.pdf o http://www.njmeadowlands.gov/doc_archive/NJMC%20Doc%20Archive/econgr ow_docs/office_sustain_docs/Final%20NJMC%20Energy%20Master%20Plan%2 0adopted%2011-24-08.pdf 9. Ft Carson land lease for solar development o fort_carson_environmental (lease).pdf o http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fort_carson_environmental.pdf 10. Howard County MD RFP o RFPHowardCountySolar8-31-09.pdf o http://www.nmwda.org/contact/documents/RFPHowardCountySolar8-31- 09.pdf 11. Solar Theme Park proposal, Deutche Solar Werke (no date) o Solar Theme Park Plan DSW.pdf o http://www.deutschesolarwerke.eu/files/file/DSW_Tender_components.pdf 12. CITY OF PHOENIX REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
Pheonix SR-85 Solar Utility RFP-1
Page | 87
Page | 88