Alaska Center for Energy and Power Technical Report University of Anchorage Solar PV Pre-Feasibility Assessment

Henry Toal Erin Whitney Michelle Wilber Chris Pike

May 28th, 2020

1

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 3 Introduction ...... 5 Existing Solar PV Systems in Alaska ...... 5 Overview of a Typical Solar PV System ...... 5 Photovoltaic (PV) Panels ...... 5 Mounting and Racking ...... 5 Inverters ...... 5 What to Expect from this Pre-Feasibility Assessment ...... 6 Why There are Two Simulations for Each Rooftop Model ...... 6 Wall-Mounted System Models ...... 6 Parameters Used to Compare Buildings ...... 7 Policies for Installing Solar PV on Alaska’s Railbelt ...... 7 Net Metering ...... 7 Qualified Facility...... 7 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) ...... 7 Assumptions and Technical Details ...... 8 Panels ...... 8 Rooftop Systems ...... 8 Tilt ...... 8 Row Spacing ...... 8 Shading ...... 8 Rooftops ...... 9 Weather Data ...... 9 Wall-Mounted Systems ...... 9 Walls ...... 9 Buildings Ranked by Productivity at 10% Maximum Shading ...... 10 Appendix – Aurora Solar Reports ...... 12

2

Executive Summary As solar photovoltaic (PV) technology matures, the amount of energy harvested per square foot of roof space is increasing while, at the same time, installation costs are decreasing. As this trend continues, the economics of installing a solar PV array in a high-latitude location, such as Alaska, continue to improve. Before committing resources to a solar energy project, it is important understand which locations on a property would be most ideal for siting a solar array, both in terms of (1) the size of array and (2) how much energy per 1 square foot can be generated. This report provides an Rank Building Name Productivity in-depth analysis of 27 buildings on the University of [kWh/kWp] Alaska Anchorage (UAA) campus based primarily on Eugene F. Short Hall 1 these two criteria and also contains a ranked list of (ESH) 900 the buildings based on their respective productivity Gordon W Hartlieb 2 (how much energy can they produce relative to their Hall (GHH) 896 theoretical maxima). 3 Central Parking Garage (CPG)* 894 This analysis was completed using Aurora Solar, a 4 Auto/Diesel program which integrates three-dimensional Technology Building 892 modeling, satellite imagery, solar irradiance data, and (ADT) elevation data to accurately simulate solar 5 Seawolf Sports productivity and shading of a given roof surface and Complex (SSC) 885 automatically generate solar array configurations for 6 Social Science Building maximum efficiency. Each building was rendered in (SSB) 883 Aurora and tested under 365 days of simulated 7 Health Sciences sunlight with one varying parameter: maximum Building (HSB) 883 allowed shading of the solar array. For each building’s Engineering & roof surface, this shading parameter variation 8 Industry Building (EIB) 878 allowed for a comparison between an array design 9 Administrative/ where panels where placed strategically to minimize Humanities Building 878 shading and an array design on the same roof where (ADM) panels covered the entire usable roof surface. Where 10 Wendy Williamson possible, wall-mounted systems were also modeled Auditorium (WWA) 878 and simulated under similar conditions. Table 1 – Top 10 UAA Campus Buildings for Productivity To ensure an accurate comparison between *Assuming a solar canopy were to be installed over the top level of CPG buildings, each Aurora simulation was done using identical technical parameters such as the spacing between rows of solar panels, the offset from the edges of roofs, solar irradiance data, and the way in which objects, such as trees, impacted productivity. These technical details as well as the assumptions made during this analysis are explored in further depth below. This assessment is the first step in making an informed decision about expanding UAA’s solar PV capacity. It provides an analysis of the solar resource potential of each roof but does not take into account engineering factors such as the condition of the roof, wind shear, weight requirements, etc. It also does not consider the economics behind any of the rooftop systems. For an actual project, the next steps would include the solicitation of a detailed bid from qualified solar installers.

1 Measured as kilowatt-hours per peak kilowatt (kWh/kWp). This is a widely accepted standard metric for the relative productivity of a solar PV array.

3

Figure 1 – UAA Campus Map with Buildings Color Coded by Productivity

4

Introduction Before exploring the technical details of how the UAA campus roofs were analyzed, it is important to understand the current state of solar PV power production in Alaska. Existing Solar PV Systems in Alaska In recent years, the number and size of installations on Alaska’s Railbelt have been growing rapidly. The region had almost no grid tied solar PV systems in 2010 when Alaska’s net metering law went into effect, and now there are almost 63 MW of installed capacity. Many of these systems are small residential and commercial systems under 25 kW, but more recently larger systems have been constructed, including a 563 kW array installed in October of 2018 that is owned and operated by Golden Valley Electric Utility, and a 1,300 kW system completed in Willow, Alaska in 2019. The latter system is owned and operated by Renewable IPP, a private developer with a mission to “increase the renewable energy contribution to Alaska's power supply by developing economically viable, commercial scale solar PV energy projects.” Overview of a Typical Solar PV System To better understand this assessment’s findings, it is helpful to summarize the basic components that make up a solar PV system and how they function together to produce usable electricity. While the exact system equipment will vary depending on user needs and system size, commercial grid-tied systems such as any of the potential systems found in this report will always have a few necessary standard components. Photovoltaic (PV) Panels Typically constructed from a grid of silicon wafers, PV panels use sunlight to excite electrons and create an electric current. They produce direct current (DC) electricity, as opposed to the alternating current (AC) that is distributed via the electric grid and provided from wall outlets. In order to utilize power produced from solar panels, DC power must be converted to AC power using an inverter. Mounting and Racking Mounting racks provide a secure platform on which to anchor PV panels in place and orient them correctly. Most of the buildings on the UAA campus have flat roofs, which allow for relatively easy installation of panels. Panels can either be secured directly to the rooftop or, in cases where direct attachment is impossible, ballast (typically in the form of concrete blocks) is used to keep the system in place. Usually, arrays in urban or suburban areas are mounted on the south-facing roof of the building, parallel to the roof’s slope. This approach is sometimes considered most aesthetically pleasing and is usually the least expensive. In the case of a flat roof, panels are often positioned as close to due south as possible to maximize their productivity. Manufactures have designed a wide range of flashing and attachments to provide leak-free mounting attachments for every conceivable type of roof. In areas with space or orientation constraints, pole or ground-mounted arrays are another choice. In addition to traditional roof-mounted arrays, solar PV systems can also be installed vertically in a wall-mounted array. These types of arrays have the advantage of greatly reducing losses in energy production due to snow or debris buildup and can also allow for the installation of larger arrays than would otherwise be possible in scenarios where a building’s usable roof space is limited. Wall-mounted arrays tend to work best on buildings with high, rectangular, south-facing walls away from other buildings and larger trees. Inverters Inverters transform DC electricity produced by PV modules into the alternating current (AC) electricity commonly used throughout the power grid. Grid-tied inverters synchronize the electricity they produce with the grid’s utility- grade AC electricity, allowing the system to feed solar-made electricity to the home and back to the utility grid when the PV system is producing more electricity than the building is using. Grid-tied inverters can generally be broken into two categories, microinverters and central inverters (sometimes called string inverters).

5

As of 2020, there are many manufactures that produce micro inverters for a variety of situations and system types. The inverters usually attach to the racking directly behind the PV panel. When a central inverter is used, the PV panels are wired together in parallel and series, and high-voltage DC power is sent to the inverter, where it is converted to AC power. Choosing an inverter is dependent of multiple factors, such as local building code, shading reduction, cost, and personal preference, most of which are not considered in this assessment. What to Expect from this Pre-Feasibility Assessment The purpose of a solar PV pre-feasibility assessment is to gain an idea of the potential a building has for generating solar energy. All buildings have unique design elements that make them particularly suitable, or unsuitable, for installing solar panels. This report provides such an analysis for each of the UAA primary campus buildings2 as well as a ranking of each building based on two standard parameters for building suitability: performance and maximum system size. This report does not include any architectural analysis, such as the structural integrity of the roofs or the difficulty or ease of connecting panels from the roofs to the power grid. It also does not include any structural analysis of the solar arrays themselves, such as potential loading due to wind or snow or the ideal racking used to mount them. Finally, this report does not contain an economic analysis that would take into account equipment, labor costs, building energy consumption, and the potential energy offset due to the system. This assessment is only intended to provide a high-level comparison of resource availability. This assessment was done by creating a three-dimensional model of each building using Aurora, a site assessment program commonly used by solar installers. Aurora allows the user, with the aid of built-in LIDAR3 data, to precisely model not only the building being assessed, but also any surrounding buildings, trees, or any other obstruction that might block sunlight from reaching the building’s rooftop. Once the building and any obstructions were modeled, Aurora was used to simulate a full year of sunlight for each building, finding which sections of the building that were exposed to the most sun. This information was used to create a model array of solar panels for each building from which Aurora estimated yearly production. Why There are Two Simulations for Each Rooftop Model In order to compare each system more precisely, two different systems were modeled for each. The first system was created so that no panel would lose more than 10% of its potential yearly energy output to shading from trees, nearby buildings, or other obstructions. While there is no industry standard for maximum shading, extensive testing in Aurora showed that 10% struck the best balance between high-productivity systems and rooftop space utilization, as limiting shading to lower than 10% often reduces the amount of usable space to nearly nothing. The second system was created only by considering the amount of physically usable space on the given roof. This two- system analysis allowed buildings to be compared both by their potential productivity as solar array sites as well as the fraction of their usable roof space that would make a good solar array site. Wall-Mounted System Models To ensure a thorough analysis of the UAA campus’s potential for solar energy production, vertical wall-mounted arrays were also modeled for buildings that were shown to have minimal shading on large, smooth walls. Due to the high variation in productivity of vertical solar PV arrays mounted on different walls of the same building, it was found to be impractical to create a 10% maximum shading simulation and a no maximum shading simulation to be compared directly as was done for the roof-mounted models. Modeling sample, wall-mounted arrays without regard to shading and simply coving all non-northern walls with panels often resulted in productivity values as low as 250 kWh/kWp and obfuscated the difference in productivity between building walls. For this reason, shading analysis on each wall face was done manually and only arrays which met the 10% maximum shading criterion were simulated and ranked as a separate system under the name “[BUILDINGCODE] (Wall).” Not all of the UAA campus

2 Buildings numbered 1 through 30 on the UAA campus map, excluding all parking garages except for Central Parking Garage (CPG). 3 Elevation data derived from a surveying method that measures distance by illuminating a target with lasers.

6

buildings met the criteria to be simulated (see Assumptions and Technical Details section) and so not all of the 27 buildings have an associated wall simulation. Parameters Used to Compare Buildings As mentioned above, this assessment evaluated each simulation based on two criteria: (1) system performance, measured in kilowatt-hours produced each year per installed kilowatt [kWh/kWp] and (2) the maximum system size that the building roof could hold, in kilowatts [kW]. While there is also a separate ranking table for each criterion, the overall rankings are based on the 10% maximum shading simulations for each building, since the authors believe that those simulations are more closely aligned with real-world system production than the simulations without shading limits.

Policies for Installing Solar PV on Alaska’s Railbelt Before moving forward with a solar PV project, it is important to be aware of the relevant local regulations. A grid tied solar PV installation on Alaska’s Railbelt can be classified into one of three regulatory frameworks, depending on the maximum AC output of the array and whether there is already an existing solar PV array installed on the site. Each of the three regulatory structures is described below. Net Metering Net metered systems are often thought of as rooftop installations, but they can be ground mounted as well. Net metering is regulated in Alaska by 3 AAC 50.900- 3 ACC 50.949, which mandates that regulated utilities with annual retail sales in excess of 5,000,000 kWh must allow renewable energy systems with capacities of up to 25 kW. For net metered customers, the renewable energy system production and customer consumption are reconciled monthly, and if the customer generates more energy than consumed, the utility credits the customer-generator's account for the excess kWh generation at the "nonfirm power rate." Utilities are required to allow net-metered installations until the installed capacity of the utility-wide net metering enrollment is 1.5% of a utility's retail sales from the previous year. 3 AAC 50.920(2) states that, to be eligible for interconnection under a net metering program, a consumer system must “be operated and either owned or leased by the consumer and have a total nameplate capacity of no more than 25 kilowatts per consumer premises.” Qualified Facility Systems with an installed capacity between 25 kW and 100 kW are classified under “qualified facility (QF)” regulations. QFs are often free-standing renewable energy systems but can also be used to offset a building’s instantaneous load. A QF is not net metered, and any instantaneous generation that exceeds the building load will be credited using the Small Facility Power Purchase Rate (SFPPR), which is essentially the avoided cost, or the electrical generation cost that the renewable energy is displacing. This rate changes quarterly and during the 1st quarter of 2020 stands at $0.03494/ kWh for ML&P. A QF is required to procure a purchase and sales agreement from the utility. Unlike the case for net metered systems, utilities can pass on charges for the associated engineering time for QF systems to the system owner. Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) Systems larger than 100 kW must negotiate a separate Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the utility, subject to approval by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). In addition, larger grid tied renewable energy systems are required to pay for a grid study as well as the utility engineering time associated with the project. PPA systems are similar to QF systems whereby if they are used to offset a customer load, any instantaneous generation that exceeds that load is credited at the negotiated PPA rate.

7

Assumptions and Technical Details In order to ensure consistency throughout this assessment, a number of technical assumptions were made. Firstly, a general system-wide electrical loss of 4% was assumed when simulating expected yearly production. This figure accounted for wire lengths, losses due to inverters, etc. Panels In order to keep the simulations as hardware independent as possible, this assessment used a generic 96-cell solar module for each of the building models. These modules were assumed to be 1.56 meters (5.12 feet) long, 1.05 meters (3.44 feet) high, and 0.05 meters (2 inches) thick. Each module also had an STC4 rating of 335 Watts and an efficiency of 18%. These parameters are generally accepted to be good estimations of an average, industry- standard module in 2019. Rooftop Systems Each rooftop system was modeled with identical parameters except where adjustments to the panels’ orientation was necessary due to the geometry of the roof. Ideally, panels were aligned as closely as possible with 0° South, but in certain cases, this alignment was either impossible or highly impractical due to the roof slope facing in a different direction. In these cases, panels were aligned with the slope of the roof but otherwise subject to the same5 specifications detailed below. Tilt A panel tilt angle of 45° was chosen for each system except in the few cases where panels were mounted on walls. This angle is generally accepted to be ideal for maximizing summer6 solar production in Anchorage. It is worth noting that a lower angle may be more desirable from a structural perspective, as higher panel angles can increase wind loading or external hardware costs, but would not affect relative productivity much at all, even if such a system produced a different amount of power. Row Spacing If rows of solar panels are placed too close together, they can cast shadows on the panels behind them and drastically impact system production. In order to determine the ideal row spacing for UAA campus roofs, several of the building models were selected as test sites and the productivity of each was compared at one-foot spacing increments. For all the test sites, there was a significant drop-off in productivity when rows of panels were brought within 6 feet of each other and very little improvement in productivity when rows were moved more than 7 feet apart. For this reason, a standard spacing of 7 feet was chosen for each system modeled in this assessment. Shading When modeling trees, lone or particularly large trees were modeled individually while large groups of trees were modeled as singular obstructions. This distinction had little impact on the accuracy of each model since Aurora does not take into account light that may shine between the branches of trees and models them as solid objects. Obstructions on rooftops were modeled as simple solid objects, even if they were transparent or irregularly shaped in reality (a piece of scaffolding and a brick wall of the same dimensions were modeled similarly). In all cases, anything could have impacted solar production was modeled to its maximum size and height based on satellite imagery and elevation data to avoid overestimating the potential output of any particular roof.

4 Standard Test Conditions. 1000 W/m2 of solar irradiance at 25°C. 5 This is true for most of the systems that fall under this description, but for some, row spacing was able to be reduced as the roof was significantly tilted already. 6 March 1st to October 31st

8

Rooftops A standard setback from all roof edges and obstructions of 3 feet was used when modeling all roofs both to account for general building code limits on placing panels close to rooftop ventilation, roof edges, etc., and to give as general margin of error for the models. This choice of setback generally had little impact on the maximum system size for the 10% maximum shading simulations, as precipice walls and other obstructions often created enough shading to cause placing panels close to them to be unfeasible regardless. Weather Data All production simulations in this assessment were made using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Typical Meteorological Year 3 (TMY3) solar irradiance data set from Elmendorf Airforce Base. The TMY3 data sets are a widely accepted industry standard for solar modeling and the Elmendorf data set most closely matches ACEP’s observations of real-world solar PV systems across Anchorage. Wall-Mounted Systems Due to Aurora’s inability to automatically design arrays for vertically mounted solar PV arrays, optimum array placement was determined manually by simulating solar array coverage on east, west, and south-facing walls and eliminating panel placements that either fell outside of the 10% maximum shading threshold, or that were smaller than 6 panels. For obvious reasons, manually assessing shading and placing panels introduces a certain amount of human error into the wall-mounted simulations. However, because vertical arrays cannot fully utilize the higher- angle sunlight during the summer months, the majority of wall-mounted simulations fell significantly short of the roof-mounted counterparts on the same building and so, by nature, provided a very conservative estimate. It was also assumed that, to avoid damage from human activity, panels should be placed well above the ground. For this reason, panels were generally not placed lower than 10 feet from the ground except in circumstances where this restriction would not allow any wall-mounted solar PV panels on the building. Walls While Aurora provided ample tools for modeling a building’s rooftop, it offered no built-in functionality for creating the specific geometry of a building’s walls. This means that there was a degree of estimation made when choosing placements for wall-mounted arrays that were both minimally shaded and physically possible. External images of each building were used to aid in the placement, but substantial review of wall obstructions was not performed. Walls were usually assumed to be smooth and, as with the roof-mounted arrays, no consideration was given to the engineering practicality of physically attaching the array to the wall.

9

Buildings Ranked by Productivity at 10% Maximum Shading

- Productivity Array Size [kWh/kWp] [kW] Productivity Building Building Maximum No Maximum Maximum No Maximum Ranking Name Number 10% Shading Shading 10% Shading Shading 1 ESH 3 900 877 49.58 58.29 2 GHH 7 896 841 85.42 135.68 3 CPG* 22 894 872 240.53 250.25 4 ADT 6 892 886 93.13 99.16 5 SSC 11 885 749 416.07 441.19 6 SSB 23 883 609 66.00 130.99 7 HSB 16 883 478 12.06 42.55 8 EIB 15 878 698 85.76 103.52 9 ADM 29 878 771 69.34 127.30 10 WWA 2 878 812 40.53 70.35 11 ARTS 28 877 811 185.59 243.54 12 CUDY 8 877 790 66.67 103.52 13 AHS 10 876 765 27.80 73.70 14 BKS 12 871 710 57.62 74.03 15 ECB 17 870 739 54.27 61.64 16 NSB 21 868 728 87.44 96.14 17 LIB 24 867 787 263.98 416.74 18 PSB 1 866 820 203.34 282.40 19 SU 13 859 701 117.92 138.02 20 ANSEP 14 858 728 34.84 36.52 21 SMH 4 856 693 90.78 117.25 22 BMH 5 855 647 34.51 63.65 23 CPISB 25 848 727 54.60 137.01 24 RH 9 795 719 67.33 150.41 25 EBL 19 785 683 22.45 54.27 26 AAC 30 769 759 1,165.46 1,208.01 27 AMB 27 754 741 27.14 33.16 28 EIB (Wall) 15 670 - 50.25 -

10

29 HSB (Wall) 16 664 - 43.55 - 30 PSB (Wall) 1 640 - 20.10 - 31 AAC (Wall) 30 631 - 144.91 - 32 CPISB (Wall) 25 627 - 13.73 - 33 ADT (Wall) 6 625 - 24.12 - 34 WWA (Wall) 2 620 - 15.07 - 35 BKS (Wall) 12 615 - 6.03 - 36 ADM (Wall) 29 611 - 38.52 - 37 ARTS (Wall) 28 605 - 21.77 - 38 SSC (Wall) 11 605 - 21.11 - 39 CUDY (Wall) 8 578 - 11.72 - 40 GHH (Wall) 7 577 - 11.05 - 41 RH (Wall) 9 563 - 64.99 - 42 AHS (Wall) 10 551 - 5.03 -

Table 2 – All UAA Campus Buildings Ranked by Productivity [kWh/kWp] at 10% Maximum Shading

*Central Parking Garage (CPG) was modeled as if it were equipped with a solar canopy covering the entire upper level, a common solution for parkin garage solar PV systems.

11

Appendix – Aurora Solar Reports This appendix includes the Aurora simulation reports for each of the buildings modeled, ordered by campus building number. Each report contains one section for the 10% maximum shading simulation and one section for the no maximum shading simulation, both of which are indicated as such in the upper right-hand corner of each Aurora report. If a wall-mounted system was also modeled for the buildings, a third simulation will also appear indicated as “Wall-Mounted” in the upper right-hand corner. Each section is further broken down into a system page and production page and includes two views of the building as modeled in Aurora, the variables used to rank the system, expected yearly production of the system, and a bar graph showing expected monthly production.

12

A-1 A-2 Professional Studies Building (PSB) No Maximum Shading

Address 2533 Providence Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 1

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 820

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 282.40

Number of Modules 843

A-3 Expected Production No Maximum Shading Yearly Production (kWh) 231,441

kWh

36,000 34,000 32,000 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-4 Professional Studies Building (PSB) Wall-Mounted

Address 2533 Providence Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 1

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 640

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 20.10

Number of Modules 60

A-5 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 12,867

kWh 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 Wendy Williamson Auditorium (WWA) Wall-Mounted

Address 2533 Providence Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 2

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 620

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 15.07

Number of Modules 45

A-11 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 9,348

kWh 1,300

1,200

1,100

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-19 A-20 A-21 A-22 A-23 A-24 A-25 A-26 A-27 A-28 Auto Diesel Technology Building (ADT) Wall-Mounted

Address 2460 W Campus Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 6

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 625

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 24.12

Number of Modules 72

A-29 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 15,083

kWh

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-30 A-31 A-32 A-33 A-34 Gordon W Hartlieb Hall (GHH) Wall-Mounted

Address 3300 Seawolf Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 7

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 577

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 11.05

Number of Modules 33

A-35 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 6,382

kWh

800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-36 A-37 A-38 A-39 A-40 Lucy Cuddy Hall (CUDY) Wall-Mounted

Address 3400 Seawolf Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 8

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 578

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 11.72

Number of Modules 35

A-41 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 6,777

kWh

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-42 A-43 A-44 A-45 A-46 Edward & Cathryn Rasmuson Hall (RH) Wall-Mounted

Address 3416 Seawolf Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 9

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 563

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 64.99

Number of Modules 194

A-47 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 36,594

kWh

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-48 A-49 A-50 A-51 A-52 Allied Health Sciences Building (AHS) Wall-Mounted

Address 3500 Seawolf Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 10

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 551

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 5.03

Number of Modules 15

A-53 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 2,770

kWh

360 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-54 A-55 A-56 A-57 A-58 (SSC) Wall-Mounted

Address 2801 Spirit Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 11

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 605

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 21.11

Number of Modules 63

A-59 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 12,763

kWh 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-60 A-61 A-62 A-63 A-64 Bookstore (BKS) Wall-Mounted

Address 2901 Spirit Way Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 12

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 615

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 6.03

Number of Modules 18

A-65 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 3,708

kWh

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-66 A-67 A-68 A-69 A-70 A-71 A-72 A-73 A-74 A-75 A-76 A-77 A-78 Engineering & Industry Building (EIB) Wall-Mounted

Address 2900 Spirit Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 15

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 670

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 50.25

Number of Modules 150

A-79 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 33,673

kWh

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-80 A-81 A-82 A-83 A-84 Health Sciences Building (HSB) Wall-Mounted

Address 3795 Piper St Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 16

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 664

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 43.55

Number of Modules 130

A-85 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 28,932

kWh

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-86 A-87 A-88 A-89 A-90 A-91 A-92 A-93 A-94 A-95 A-96 A-97 A-98 A-99 A-100 A-101 A-102 A-103 A-104 A-105 A-106 A-107 A-108 A-109 A-110 A-111 A-112 A-113 A-114 ConocoPhillips Integrated Science Building (CPISB) Wall-Mounted

Address 3101 Science Cir Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 25

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 627

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 13.73

Number of Modules 41

A-115 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 8,607

kWh

1,100

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-116 East Parking Amenities Building (AMB) 10% Maximum Shading

Address 3550 Alumni Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 27

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 754

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 27.14

Number of Modules 81

A-117 Expected Production 10% Maximum Shading Yearly Production (kWh) 20,453

kWh

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-118 East Parking Amenities Building (AMB) No Maximum Shading

Address 3550 Alumni Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 27

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 741

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 33.16

Number of Modules 99

A-119 Expected Production No Maximum Shading Yearly Production (kWh) 24,581

kWh

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-120 A-121 A-122 A-123 A-124 Fine Arts Building (ARTS) Wall-Mounted

Address 3700 Alumni Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 28

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 605

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 21.77

Number of Modules 65

A-125 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 13,164

kWh

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-126 A-127 A-128 A-129 A-130 Administrative/Humanities Building (ADM) Wall-Mounted

Address 3800 Alumni Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 29

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 611

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 38.52

Number of Modules 115

A-131 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 23,538

kWh 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-132 A-133 A-134 A-135 A-136 Center (AAC) Wall-Mounted

Address 3550 Providence Dr Anchorage, AK 99508

Campus Building 30

Productivity (kWh/kWp) 631

*Measured as projected average kilowatt-hours produced per installed kilowatt per year.

Maximum System Size

Nameplate Size (kW) 114.91

Number of Modules 343

A-137 Expected Production Wall-Mounted Yearly Production (kWh) 72,476

kWh

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Production

A-138