NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

 

Feasibility Study of Solar 

Photovoltaics on Landfills in 

Puerto Rico

A Study sponsored by the U.S. Department 

of Energy Weatherization and 

Intergovernmental Program Technical 

Assistance Project on behalf of the Puerto 

Rico Environmental Quality Board

James Salasovich and Gail Mosey

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-52181

August 2011
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Feasibility Study of Solar 

Photovoltaics on Landfills in 

Puerto Rico

A Study sponsored by the U.S. Department 

of Energy Weatherization and 

Intergovernmental Program Technical 

Assistance Project on behalf of the Puerto 

Rico Environmental Quality Board

James Salasovich and Gail Mosey

Prepared under Task No. IGST.0020

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-52181

August 2011
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iii

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Anthony Lopez, NREL, for providing GIS analysis and Vince 

Pitruzzello and Phil Flax, EPA, for assisting with the site visits and facilitating with the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. We thank everyone from the Commonwealth for being 

welcoming hosts. We also thank the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Weatherization and 

Intergovernmental Program (WIP) Technical Assistance Project (TAP) for providing funding for 

this study. 
iv

Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in accordance with the RE-Powering 

America’s Land initiative, selected the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for a feasibility study of 

renewables on several sites that are targeted for closure under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA).

1

The feasibility of PV systems installed on landfills is highly impacted by the available area for an 

array, solar resource, operating status, landfill cap status, distance to transmission lines, and 

distance to major roads. All of the landfills in Puerto Rico were screened according to these 

criteria in order to determine the sites with the greatest potential. Eight landfills were chosen for 

the first site visit, and a report is published at 

The RCRA regulates the disposal of solid and hazardous waste. 

Citizens of Puerto Rico, city planners, and site managers are interested in redevelopment uses for 

landfills in Puerto Rico that are particularly well suited for solar photovoltaic (PV) installation. 

The purpose of this report is to assess the landfills with the highest potential for possible solar 

PV installation and estimate cost, performance, and site impacts of three different PV options: 

crystalline silicon (fixed tilt), crystalline silicon (single-axis tracking), and thin film (fixed tilt). 

Each option represents a standalone system that can be sized to use an entire available site area. 

In addition, the report outlines financing options that could assist in the implementation of a 

system. Landfill gas is another possible renewable energy option for the landfills in Puerto Rico. 

Landfill gas is briefly addressed in this feasibility study, but PV is the main focus. 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49237.pdf

describing the analysis. Additional funding was received to conduct two additional site visits to 

landfills in Puerto Rico through the Department of Energy’s Technical Assistance Program 

(TAP). Five landfills were chosen for the second site visit based on the screening criteria and 

location. Because of time constraints and the fact that Puerto Rico is a relatively large island, the 

five landfills chosen for this visit were all located in the same region—the western half of the 

island. Six landfills and one landing strip were chosen for the third site visit. The landfills for the 

third site visit were all located on the eastern half of the island. The findings from this report can 

also be applied to landfills throughout the island. The following lists the five landfills from the 

second site visit and the six landfills from the third site visit in alphabetical order: 

Second site visit:

1. Aguadilla 

2. Añasco

3. Isabela

4. Mayagüez 

5. Moca. 

Third site visit:

1. Carolina

2. Cayey

 

1 EPA. “RCRA Online.” http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/online/index.htm. Accessed January 10, 2011.
v 

3. Fajardo

4. Humacao

5. Juncos 

6. Vega Baja. 

After returning from the third site visit, it was determined that four sites on the Puerto Rican 

island of Vieques have potential areas for PV systems. Even though the sites were not visited, the 

following sites on Vieques are also included in this report as a viable option for PV: 

Additional Site:

1. Former Vieques Landing Strip 

2. Former Vieques Naval Training Range 

3. Old Camp Garcia Landfill 

4. Old Vieques Municipal Landfill. 

The electric utility serving Puerto Rico is the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). 

According to the most recent annual report2

 published by PREPA in June 2009, average

residential electric rates were $0.2158/kWh, average commercial rates were $0.2232/kWh, and 

average industrial rates were $0.1831/kWh. These electric rates are similar to those found in the 

Hawaiian Islands, and they are roughly double the average electric rate in the Unites States. The 

net-metering laws in Puerto Rico state that whatever the PV electric output above the customer 

use, PREPA will buy 75% of that at either the avoided fuel cost or $0.10/kWh, whichever is 

greater. The avoided fuel cost is in the range of $0.10/kWh or lower, so $0.10/kWh was 

assumed. The PV system size limit for net metering is 25 kW for residential and 1 MW for 

commercial. 

There is little to no electricity use at a closed landfill, and all of the electricity generated by a 

proposed PV system is assumed to be sold back to the utility. From an economic standpoint, the 

current net-metering laws in Puerto Rico are not advantageous for PV systems that generate large 

amounts of excess energy because of the relatively low buyback rate of 75% of $0.10/kWh. 

Setting up a power purchase agreement (PPA) where PREPA agrees to buy back the power at a 

higher rate would be much more beneficial. There are currently two large-scale PV projects in 

Puerto Rico that were both started in 2010 that use a PPA. The first project3 is a 20 MW PV 

system in Guayama where AES Ilumina entered a PPA with PREPA; PREPA agreed to buy the 

electricity at a rate of $0.13/kWh. The second project4 is a 63 MW PV system in Salinas where 

CIRO One Group entered a PPA with PREPA, but the buyback rate has yet to be established. 

 

2 URS. “Thirty-Sixth Annual Report on the Electricity Property of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority.” 

http://www.aeepr.com/INVESTORS/Financial%20Information/Annual%20Reports/ConsEng_36th_Rpt_2009%20A

nnual%20Report%20Final.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2010. 3 All Business. “Solar Power Project.” http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilities/utilities-industry-electric-powerpower/14753424-1.html. Accessed December 8, 2010. 4 Marino, J. “Work to Start on 63 MW Solar Plant in Salinas.” Caribbean Business. 

http://www.caribbeanbusinesspr.com/news03.php?nt_id=49337&ct_id=1. Accessed December 8, 2010.
vi 

The economics of the potential systems were analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would 

be used and PREPA would buy back the electricity at a rate of $0.13/kWh. Incentives offered by

the federal government, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and PREPA were assumed in this 

analysis. The federal tax credit is currently 30%. State incentives are currently offered for 

commercial solar power systems in Puerto Rico for $4/DC-Watt for up to 50% of the project 

costs or $100,000, whichever is lower. State incentives of $8/DC-Watt for up to $100,000 are 

offered for governmental systems. State incentives of $4/DC-Watt for up to $15,000 are offered 

for residential systems. PREPA currently offers no incentives for PV systems. Not all sites need 

to be developed; beginning with a smaller demonstration system and increasing capacity as funds 

become available may be a better approach. The economics of a potential PV system on landfills 

in Puerto Rico depend greatly on the buyback electric rate. Recently, PREPA has entered into 

PPAs with a buyback rate of $0.13/kWh. Based on past electric rate increases in Puerto Rico and 

other islands in the Caribbean, this buyback rate could increase to $0.15/kWh or higher in a 

relatively short amount of time. 
vii 

Table of Contents

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. ix

1 Background and Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

2 PV Systems ........................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Types of PV Systems ...........................................................................................................4

2.2 PV System Components ......................................................................................................5

2.3 Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................................6

2.4 PV Size and Performance ....................................................................................................7

3 PV Site Locations ................................................................................................................................. 8

3.1 Pre-Site Visit Feasibility Screening .....................................................................................8

3.2 Second Site Visit ................................................................................................................12

3.3 Third Site Visit ...................................................................................................................26

3.4 Vieques Study ....................................................................................................................39

3.5 Summary of All Sites from Second Site Visit ...................................................................45

3.6 Summary of All Sites from Third Site Visit ......................................................................47

3.7 Summary of All Sites from Vieques ..................................................................................49

4 Economics and Performance............................................................................................................ 52

4.1 Assumptions and Input Data for Analysis .........................................................................52

4.2 Incentives and Financing Opportunities ............................................................................53

4.3 Job Creation .......................................................................................................................55

5 Hypothetical Electric Rate Increases ............................................................................................... 58

6 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 62

Appendix A. Assumptions for Calculations for Second Site Visit....................................................... 63

Appendix B. Assumptions for Calculations for Third Site Visit........................................................... 66

Appendix C. Assumptions for Calculations for Vieques ...................................................................... 69

Appendix D. Renewable Energy Incentives ........................................................................................... 72
viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Major components of grid-connected PV system ........................................................... 3

Figure 2. All landfills with roads and transmission lines................................................................ 8

Figure 3. Solar resource availability and landfills in Puerto Rico .................................................. 9

Figure 4. High potential landfill sites for solar PV in Puerto Rico ............................................... 10

Figure 5. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Aguadilla Landfill ......................................... 13

Figure 6. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Aguadilla Landfill ................................. 14

Figure 7. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Añasco Landfill ............................................. 15

Figure 8. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Añasco Landfill ..................................... 16

Figure 9. Views of the northern feasible area for PV at the Isabela Landfill ............................... 18

Figure 10. Views of the southern feasible area for PV at the Isabela Landfill ............................. 19

Figure 11. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Isabela Landfill ................................... 20

Figure 12. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Mayagüez Landfill ...................................... 21

Figure 13. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Mayagüez Landfill .............................. 22

Figure 14. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Moca Landfill .............................................. 24

Figure 15. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Moca Landfill ..................................... 25

Figure 16. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Carolina Landfill ......................................... 27

Figure 17. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Carolina Landfill ................................. 28

Figure 18. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Cayey Landfill ............................................. 29

Figure 19. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Cayey Landfill .................................... 30

Figure 20. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Fajardo Landfill ........................................... 32

Figure 21. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Fajardo Landfill .................................. 33

Figure 22. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Humacao Landfill ........................................ 34

Figure 23. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Humacao Landfill ............................... 35

Figure 24. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Juncos Landfill ............................................ 36

Figure 25. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Juncos Landfill .................................... 37

Figure 26. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Vega Baja Landfill ...................................... 38

Figure 27. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Vega Baja Landfill .............................. 39

Figure 28. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Former Vieques Landing Strip ........... 40

Figure 29. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Former Vieques Naval 

Training Range.................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 30. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Old Camp Garcia Landfill on 

Vieques ............................................................................................................................. 43

Figure 31. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Old Vieques Municipal Landfill ......... 45

Figure 32. Second site visit—Comparison of the feasible areas for PV at landfills in 

Puerto Rico........................................................................................................................ 46

Figure 33. Third site visit—Comparison of the feasible areas for PV at landfills in 

Puerto Rico........................................................................................................................ 48

Figure 34. Comparison of the feasible areas for PV at sites on Vieques ...................................... 50
ix

List of Tables

Table 1. Energy Density by Panel and System for Ground-Mounted PV ...................................... 4

Table 2. Energy Density by Panel Type for Roof-Mounted PV ..................................................... 5

Table 3. Aguadilla Landfill Site PV System Options ................................................................... 14

Table 4. Añasco Landfill Site PV System Options ....................................................................... 17

Table 5. Isabela Landfill Site PV System Options ....................................................................... 20

Table 6. Mayagüez Landfill Site PV System Options .................................................................. 23

Table 7. Moca Landfill Site PV System Options .......................................................................... 26

Table 8. Carolina Landfill Site PV System Options ..................................................................... 28

Table 9. Cayay Landfill Site PV System Options ......................................................................... 31

Table 10. Fajardo Landfill Site PV System Options ..................................................................... 33

Table 11. Humacao Landfill Site PV System Options ................................................................. 35

Table 12. Juncos Landfill Site PV System Options ...................................................................... 37

Table 13. Vega Baja Landfill Site PV System Options ................................................................ 39

Table 14. Former Vieques Landing Strip Site PV System Options .............................................. 41

Table 15. Former Vieques Naval Training Range Site PV System Options ................................ 42

Table 16. Old Camp Garcia Landfill on Vieques Site PV System Options ................................. 44

Table 17. Old Vieques Municipal Landfill Site PV System Options ........................................... 45

Table 18. Second Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics by System Type ........... 47

Table 19. Third Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics by System Type .............. 49

Table 20. Vieques—PV System Performance and Economics by System Type ......................... 51

Table 21. Second Site Visit—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Lower 

Installed Cost .................................................................................................................... 55

Table 22. Second Site Visit—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Higher 

Installed Cost .................................................................................................................... 56

Table 23. Third Site Visit—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Lower 

Installed Cost .................................................................................................................... 56

Table 24. Third Site Visit—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Higher 

Installed Cost .................................................................................................................... 56

Table 25. Vieques—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Lower Installed 

Cost ................................................................................................................................... 57

Table 26. Vieques—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Higher Installed 

Cost ................................................................................................................................... 57

Table 27. Second Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Lower 

Installed Cost and with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWh ............................... 58

Table 28. Second Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Higher 

Installed Cost and with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWh ............................... 59

Table 29. Third Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Lower Installed 

Costs and with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWh ............................................. 59

Table 30. Third Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Higher Installed 

Cost and with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWh .............................................. 60

Table 31. Vieques—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Lower Installed Cost 

and with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWh ....................................................... 60

Table 32. Vieques—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Higher Installed Cost 

and with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWh ....................................................... 61
x 

Table A-1. Second Site Visit—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems 

Assuming $3.50/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt Systems, $5.00/W for Single-Axis 

Tracking Systems, and $3.20/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems ................................ 63

Table A-2. Second Site Visit—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems 

Assuming $7.00/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt Systems, $10.00/W for Single-Axis 

Tracking Systems, and $6.40/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems ................................ 64

Table A-3. Second Site Visit—Other Assumptions, Including Assumptions for Costs and System 

Types ................................................................................................................................. 65

Table B-1. Third Site Visit—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems 

Assuming $3.50/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt Systems, $5.00/W for Single-Axis 

Tracking Systems, and $3.20/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems ................................ 66

Table B-2. Third Site Visit—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems 

Assuming $7.00/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt Systems, $10.00/W for Single-Axis 

Tracking Systems, and $6.40/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems ................................ 67

Table B-3. Third Site Visit—Other Assumptions, Including Assumptions for Costs and System 

Types ................................................................................................................................. 68

Table C-1. Vieques—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems Assuming 

$3.50/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt Systems, $5.00/W for Single-Axis Tracking 

Systems, and $3.20/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems ................................................ 69

Table C-2. Vieques—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems Assuming 

$7.00/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt Systems, $10.00/W for Single-Axis Tracking 

Systems, and $6.40/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems ................................................ 70

Table C-3. Vieques—Other Assumptions, Including Assumptions for Costs and System 

Types ................................................................................................................................. 71

Table D-1. Redevelopment and Renewable Energy Incentives and Financing Tools .................. 72

Table D-2. Renewable Energy Development Incentives and Financing Tools Applicable to 

PV ..................................................................................................................................... 73

Table D-3. State Rebates for Commercial-Sector PV Projects ..................................................... 74

Table D-4. State Tax Credits for Commercial-Sector PV Projects .............................................. 78

Table D-5. U.S. Department of Energy Brightfields Program Grants .......................................... 84

Table D-6. State Policy and Incentive Comparisons: Massachusetts, North Carolina, and 

Colorado ............................................................................................................................ 86

Table D-7. Key Policy Comparison for Subject States ................................................................. 88
1 

1 Background and Introduction

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is an island located in the northeastern Caribbean Sea and, as 

of 2010, has a population of approximately 4 million people. The area of Puerto Rico is 

3,515 mi2

, and the approximate dimensions are 100 mi east to west and 35 mi north to south. The 

climate is a tropical marine climate with very little temperature variation throughout the year. 

The main utility company is the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in accordance with the RE-Powering 

America’s Land initiative, selected Puerto Rico for a feasibility study of solar photovoltaic (PV) 

feasibility on several landfill sites. Puerto Rico is particularly well suited for solar PV installation 

because of the solar resource availability. Due to the presence of suspected or known 

contaminants, landfills have limited redevelopment potential, and solar PV installations are a 

viable reuse. The purpose of this report is to present the results of a feasibility study conducted 

by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to assess several landfill sites in Puerto 

Rico with the highest potential for possible solar PV installation and estimate cost, performance, 

and site impacts of three different PV options: crystalline silicon (fixed tilt), crystalline silicon 

(single-axis tracking), and thin film (fixed tilt). Each option represents a standalone system that 

can be sized to use an entire available site area. In addition, the report outlines financing options 

that could assist in the implementation of a system.

One very promising and innovative use of closed landfills is to install solar PV systems. PV 

systems can be ground-mounted, and these types of systems work well on landfill sites where 

there are commonly large unshaded areas. In some cases, PV can be used to form the cap of the 

landfill. PV may generate revenue on a landfill site that may otherwise go unused. A majority of 

the landfills in Puerto Rico are municipally owned and operated, and these municipalities are 

interested in potential revenue flows from PV systems on landfills. PV systems on landfills may 

give the municipalities a reason to close the landfills in a timely manner and to maintain the 

landfill cap once it is in place. 

The focus of this report is on PV systems, but another use of closed landfills is to install a landfill 

gas plant. The landfill gas could be used in a heating application or used to operate a generator in 

order to make electricity. The key points that need to be investigated to determine whether 

landfill gas capture is feasible are the age of the landfill, the size, and the types of gases 

generated by the landfill. For landfill gas capture, it is best to have a newly capped landfill 

because the landfill gas production greatly declines after 20–30 years. The types of gases that are 

generated by the landfill can be determined by doing a sample test. This involves drilling a hole 

into the landfill, putting a vacuum on the landfill, and sampling the rate and types of gases being 

generated. A detailed landfill gas study should be done in order to determine the feasibility of 

landfill gas capture and use at all relatively newly capped larger landfills in Puerto Rico. 

Like most islands, Puerto Rico relies heavily on foreign sources of petroleum to operate its 

power plants. There are many compelling reasons to consider moving toward renewable energy 

sources for power generation instead of fossil fuels, including: 

• Using oil to produce power may not be sustainable. 
2 

• Burning fossil fuels can have negative effects on human health and the environment. 

• Extracting and transporting oil can lead to accidental spills, which can be devastating 

to the environment and communities. 

• Depending on foreign oil can be a threat to national security.

• High and increasing electric rates are associated with oil-based power plants. 

• Fluctuating electric costs are associated with oil-based power plants. 

• Burning fossil fuels may contribute to climate change. Being an island, Puerto Rico 

is even more sensitive to climate change and the associated rising sea levels and 

increased frequency and severity of hurricanes. 

• Generating energy without harmful emissions or waste products can be accomplished

through renewable energy sources. 

• Abundant renewable resources are available in Puerto Rico. 
3 

2 PV Systems

Solar photovoltaics (PV) are semiconductor devices that convert sunlight directly into electricity. 

They do so without any moving parts and without generating any noise or pollution. They must 

be mounted in an unshaded location; rooftops, carports, and ground-mounted arrays are common 

mounting locations. PV systems work very well in Puerto Rico, where the average global 

horizontal annual solar resource is 5.5 kWh/m2/day. This number, however, is not the amount of 

energy that can be produced by a PV panel. The amount of energy produced by a panel depends 

on several factors. These factors include the type of collector, the tilt and azimuth of the 

collector, the temperature, the level of sunlight, and weather conditions. An inverter is required 

to convert the direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) of the desired voltage compatible 

with building and utility power systems. The balance of the system consists of 

conductors/conduit, switches, disconnects, and fuses. Grid-connected PV systems feed power 

into the facility’s electrical system and do not include batteries. 

Figure 1 shows the major components of a grid-connected PV system and illustrates how these 

components are interconnected.

Figure 1. Major components of grid-connected PV system

Credit: NREL

PV panels are made up of many individual cells that all produce a small amount of current and 

voltage. These individual cells are connected in series to produce a larger current. PV panels are 

very sensitive to shading. When shade falls on a panel, the shaded portion of the panel cannot 

collect the high-energy beam radiation from the sun. If an individual cell is shaded, it will act as 

a resistance to the whole series circuit, impeding current flow and dissipating power rather than 

producing it. By determining solar access—the unimpeded ability of sunlight to reach a solar 

collector—one can determine whether an area is appropriate for solar panels. 

For this assessment, the NREL team used a solar path calculator to assess shading at particular 

locations by analyzing the sky view where the solar panels will be located. The solar path 

calculator is equipped with a fisheye lens that takes a 360o

 photo of the sky and plots out the 

shading obstructions throughout the year on a spherical axis. Shading analysis is typically done 
4 

at locations where shading will most likely be an issue (e.g., close to a stand of trees or a hill on 

the perimeter of a landfill). 

If a site is found to have good solar access for a PV system, then the next step is to determine the 

size of that system, which highly depends on the average energy use of the on-site facilities. 

Providing more power than a site would use is dependent on the economics of most net-metering 

agreements. In the case of the assessed sites, all of the electricity generated at the site would be 

sold to the serving utility, PREPA, because there is little or no electrical load. The system size 

would thus be determined by the amount of electricity the electric company would be willing to 

purchase or by how much land area is available. For the purpose of this report, the NREL 

assessment team assumed PREPA would purchase any electricity that the site can generate. The 

systems will be broken down by site so the system size can be adjusted based on what the utility 

requests. 

2.1 Types of PV Systems

2.1.1 Ground-Mounted Systems

On a $/DC-Watt basis, ground-mounted PV systems are usually the lowest cost option to install. 

Several PV panel and mounting options are available, each having different benefits for different 

ground conditions. Table 1 outlines the energy density values that can be expected from each 

type of system. 

Table 1. Energy Density by Panel and System for Ground-Mounted PV

System Type Fixed-Tilt Energy Density

(DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Single-Axis Tracking 

Energy Density

(DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Crystalline Silicon 4.0 3.3

Thin Film 1.7 1.4

Hybrid HEa 4.8 3.9

a Because hybrid high efficiency (HE) panels do not represent a significant portion of 

the commercial market, they were not included in the analysis. Installing panel types 

that do not hold a significant portion of the commercial market would not be feasible for 

a large-scale solar generation plant.

For the purpose of this analysis, all fixed-tilt systems were assumed to be mounted at latitude 

with a tilt of 18.4 degrees. To get the most out of the available ground area, considering whether 

a site layout can be improved to better incorporate a solar energy system is important. If unused 

structures, fences, or electrical poles can be removed, the unshaded area can be increased to 

incorporate more PV panels. When considering a ground-mounted system, an electrical tie-in 

location should be identified to determine how the energy would be fed back into the grid. For 

this report, only fixed-tilt ground-mounted systems and single-axis tracking systems were 

considered. 

Fixed-tilt systems are installed at a specified tilt and are fixed at that tilt for the life of the system. 

Single-axis tracking systems have a fixed tilt on one axis and a variable tilt on the other axis; the 

system is designed to follow the sun in its path through the sky. This allows the solar radiation to 

strike the panel at an optimum angle for a larger part of the day than can be achieved with a 

fixed-tilt system. A single-axis tracking system can collect nearly 30% more electricity per 
5 

capacity than can a fixed-tilt system. The drawbacks include increased operation and 

maintenance (O&M) costs, less capacity per unit area (DC-Watt/ft2), and greater installed cost 

($/DC-Watt). 

2.1.2 Roof-Mounted Systems 

In many cases, a roof is the best location for a PV system. Roof-mounted PV systems are usually 

more expensive than ground-mounted systems, but a roof is a convenient location because it is 

out of the way and usually unshaded. Large areas with minimal rooftop equipment are preferred, 

but equipment can sometimes be worked around if necessary. If a building has a sloped roof, a 

typical flush-mounted crystalline silicon panel can achieve power densities on the order of 

10 DC-Watt/ft2. For buildings with flat roofs, rack-mounted systems can achieve power densities 

on the order of 8 DC-Watt/ft2 with a crystalline silicon panel. Table 2 lists the energy density by 

panel type for roof-mounted PV. 

Table 2. Energy Density by Panel Type for Roof-Mounted PV

System Type Fixed-Tilt Energy Density

(DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Crystalline Silicon 10.0

Thin Film 4.3

Typically, PV systems are installed on roofs that either are less than 5 years old or have over 30 

years left before replacement. The only roof area analyzed was the Recycling Center at the 

Guaynabo Landfill. 

2.2 PV System Components

The PV system considered here has these components: 

• PV arrays, which convert light energy to DC electricity 

• Inverters, which convert DC to AC and provide important safety, monitoring, and 

control functions 

• Various wiring, mounting hardware, and combiner boxes 

• Monitoring equipment. 

2.2.1 PV Array

The primary component of a PV system, the PV array, converts sunlight to electrical energy; all 

other components simply condition or control energy use. Most PV arrays consist of 

interconnected PV modules that range in size from 50 peak DC-Watts to 300 peak DC-Watts. 

Peak watts are the rated output of PV modules at standard operating conditions of 25°C (77°F)

and insolation of 1,000 W/m2. Because these standard operating conditions are nearly ideal, the 

actual output will be less under typical environmental conditions. PV modules are the most 

reliable components in any PV system. They have been engineered to withstand extreme 
6 

temperatures, severe winds, and impacts. ASTM E1038-055 subjects modules to impacts from 

one-inch hail balls at terminal velocity (55 mph) at various parts of the module. PV modules 

have a life expectancy of 20–30 years, and manufacturers warranty them against power 

degradation for 25 years. The array is usually the most expensive component of a PV system; it 

accounts for approximately two-thirds the cost of a grid-connected system. Many PV 

manufacturers are available.6

2.2.2 Inverters

 

PV arrays provide DC power at a voltage that depends on the configuration of the array. This 

power is converted to AC at the required voltage and number of phases by the inverter. Inverters 

enable the operation of commonly used equipment such as appliances, computers, office 

equipment, and motors. Current inverter technology provides true sine wave power at a quality 

often better than that of the serving utility. The locations of both the inverter and the balance-ofsystem equipment are important. Inverters are available that include most or all of the control 

systems required for operation, including some metering and data-logging capability. Inverters 

must provide several operational and safety functions for interconnection with the utility system. 

The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) maintains standard “P929 

Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of Photovoltaic (PV) Systems,”7

 which allows 

manufacturers to write “Utility-Interactive” on the listing label if an inverter meets the 

requirements of frequency and voltage limits, power quality, and non-islanding inverter testing. 

Underwriters Laboratory maintains “UL Standard 1741, Standard for Static Inverters and 

Charge Controllers for Use in Photovoltaic Power Systems,”8

 which incorporates the testing 

required by IEEE 929 and includes design (type) testing and production testing. A large choice 

of inverter manufacturers is available.9

2.3 Operation and Maintenance 

The PV panels come with a 25-year performance warranty. The inverters, which come standard 

with a 5- or 10-year warranty (extended warranties available), would be expected to last 10–15 

years. System performance should be verified on a vendor-provided website. Wire and rack 

connections should be checked. For this economic analysis, an annual O&M cost of 0.17% of 

total installed cost is used based on O&M costs of other fixed-tilt grid-tied PV systems. For the 

case of single-axis tracking, an annual O&M cost of 0.35% of the total installed cost is used 

based on O&M costs of existing single-axis tracking systems. 

 

5 ASTM Standard E1038. "Standard Test Method for Determining Resistance of Photovoltaic Modules to Hail by 

Impact with Propelled Ice Balls." West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2005, DOI: 10.1520/E1038-05. 

http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1038.htm. Accessed September 2010. 6 Go Solar California, a joint effort of the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities 

Commission, provides consumer information for solar energy systems. See 

http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/equipment/pv_modules.php. Accessed March 2011. 7 “ANSI/IEEE Std 929-1988 IEEE Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of Residential and Intermediate 

Photovoltaic (PV) Systems.” http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/std_public/description/powergen/929-

1988_desc.html. Accessed September 2010. 8

 “Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection System Equipment for Use With Distributed Energy 

Resources: UL 1741.” http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/1741.html. Accessed September 2010. 9 Go Solar California approves inverters.
7 

2.4 PV Size and Performance

PV arrays must be installed in unshaded locations on the ground or on building roofs that have 

an expected life of at least 25 years. The predicted array performance was found using a 

combination of PVWATTS, a performance calculator for grid-connected PV systems created by 

NREL’s Renewable Resource Data Center,

10 and SolOpt, a solar performance tool currently 

being developed at NREL. The performance data was used to calculate the amount of revenue 

that could be expected each year. The project economics were based on this analysis, and the 

calculations can be found in Appendix A. 

 

10 NREL. “PVWatts.” http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/. Accessed September 2010.
8 

3 PV Site Locations

This section summarizes the findings of the second and third NREL solar assessment site visits 

on October 26–29, 2010, and January 31–February 2, 2011, respectively. This section also 

summarizes the findings from a study performed on four sites on the island of Vieques. None of 

the sites on the island of Vieques were visited, but an EPA team on site provided the necessary 

information to carry out a solar PV feasibility study.

3.1 Pre-Site Visit Feasibility Screening

Puerto Rico has over 30 landfills throughout the island; see Figure 2 for a representation of the 

landfills plus roads and transmission lines. Some of these landfills are better suited to solar PV 

system placement than others. To narrow down the list of landfills and identify those sites with 

the most potential for solar PV systems, screening criteria was applied to each of the landfills. 

Figure 2. All landfills with roads and transmission lines

Credit: Anthony Lopez, NREL

The screening criteria consider aspects of the site that make it amenable to solar PV system 

placement and also consider infrastructure around the site, such as distance to roads and 
9 

transmission lines, which make the system more feasible and economical. The screening criteria 

are as follows:

• Solar resource availability

• Acreage of the site

• Distance to graded road

• Distance to transmission lines

• Slope of the site. 

All of the landfills in Puerto Rico have adequate solar resource availability for a solar PV 

system; see Figure 3 for a representation of the solar resource in Puerto Rico super-imposed on 

the landfill locations. 

Figure 3. Solar resource availability and landfills in Puerto Rico

Credit: Anthony Lopez, NREL
10 

The minimum acreage for a site to be considered high potential is 14 acres. This is an adequate 

size for a solar PV system to be feasible11 and is reasonably inclusive of the landfills in Puerto 

Rico. Maximum distance to a graded road for solar PV is a loose criterion because PV systems 

can be transported on secondary roads, and most landfills in Puerto Rico have reasonable road 

access due to the nature of the former or ongoing landfill operation. Distance to transmission is 

another matter because of the expense associated with installing adequate transmission lines. 

Most, but not all, of the landfills in Puerto Rico are close to transmission of 38 kV, so a 

maximum distance of 1 mi to transmission was applied. The slope of the site should be no 

greater than 20% to allow for successful installation of the PV system. After applying the above 

criteria, 16 landfills were deemed as very high potential sites for solar PV, as seen in Figure 4. 

Figure 4. High potential landfill sites for solar PV in Puerto Rico

Credit: Anthony Lopez, NREL

 

11 As a rule of thumb, NREL assumes 65 W/m2 or 263 kW/acre for ground-mounted fixed tilt, 48 W/m2 or 194 

kW/acre for single-axis tracking, and 20 W/m2 or 81 kW/acre for two-axis tracking. Denholm, P.; Margolis, R.M. 

(2008). “Land Use Requirements and the Per-Capita Solar Footprint for Photovoltaic Generation in the United 

States.” Energy Policy (36); pp. 3531–3543.
11 

Once the landfills with the highest potential for PV were determined, a plan for a second site 

visit could be mapped out. Because of time constraints and the fact that Puerto Rico is a 

relatively large island, it was determined that only four to six landfills could be assessed during 

the scheduled two-day site visit. Furthermore, the four to six landfills would have to be located in 

generally the same region of the island. At the start of the second site visit, the high potential 

sites were reviewed, and five landfill sites for solar PV were chosen for site visits, as listed 

below in alphabetical order. 

1. Aguadilla 

2. Añasco

3. Isabela

4. Mayagüez

5. Moca. 

A third site visit was made to Puerto Rico and a total of six landfills were assessed during the 

two-day site visit. The sites from the third site visit are listed in alphabetical order below. 

1. Carolina

2. Cayey

3. Fajardo

4. Humacao

5. Juncos 

6. Vega Baja. 

After returning from the third site visit it was determined that the island of Vieques to the east of 

Puerto Rico has four potential sites for installing PV. A site visit was not made to Vieques. 

However, the feasibility of installing PV on these four sites on Vieques was determined by 

collaborating with an EPA team on Vieques. The sites that were considered on Vieques are listed 

in alphabetical order below. 

1. Former Vieques Landing Strip

2. Former Vieques Navel Training Range 

3. Old Camp Garcia Landfill 

4. Old Municipal Landfill. 

The method for screening the sites and the findings from this report can generally be applied to 

other landfills throughout the island that were not visited due to similar climate and 

environmental conditions. The following sections summarize the findings of the NREL solar 

assessment.
12 

There are currently two large-scale PV projects in Puerto Rico that were both started in 2010 that 

use a power purchase agreement (PPA). The first project12 is a 20 MW PV system in Guayama 

where AES Ilumina entered a PPA with PREPA; PREPA agreed to buy the electricity at a rate of 

$0.13/kWh. The second project13 is a 63 MW PV system in Salinas where the CIRO One Group 

entered a PPA with PREPA, but the buyback rate has yet to be established. The economics of the 

potential systems were analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA 

would buy back the electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. Incentives offered by the federal 

government, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and by PREPA were assumed in this analysis.14

The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and therefore two cost estimates were used. The 

first estimate is in the low range of current installed costs of PV systems and is based on costs of 

the 20 MW system that is currently being installed in Guayama by AES Ilumina. The second 

estimate is in the higher range of current installed costs of PV systems and is based on past costs 

of smaller scale systems. Further discussion regarding assumptions and input data for analysis 

can be found in Section 4. 

 

3.2 Second Site Visit

3.2.1 Aguadilla Landfill

Aguadilla is located on the northwest shore of Puerto Rico west of Isabela and north of Moca 

and Aguada. The approximate population is currently 65,000. The Aguadilla Landfill is located 

to the east of Aguadilla’s city center and is to the east of highway PR-2. The Aguadilla Landfill 

is directly to the north of Moca Landfill. The Aguadilla Landfill is not a highly visible site as it 

is surrounded by trees. Figure 5 shows various views of the Aguadilla Landfill.

 

12 All Business. “Solar Power Project.” http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilities/utilities-industry-electric-powerpower/14753424-1.html. Accessed December 8, 2010. 13 Marino, J. “Work to Start on 63 MW Solar Plant in Salinas.” Caribbean Business. 

http://www.caribbeanbusinesspr.com/news03.php?nt_id=49337&ct_id=1. Accessed December 8, 2010. 14 Calculations for this analysis assume the 30% federal tax credit incentive would be captured for the system.
13 

Figure 5. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Aguadilla Landfill

Credits: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL 

As shown in Figure 5, there are large expanses of flat, unshaded land, and the landfill is closed 

and capped, which makes it a great candidate for a PV system. There is good storm water 

control, which creates more stable ground conditions that are less likely to have settling issues. 

This is important for PV systems since settling could damage or destroy parts of the PV system. 

There are electrical points around the site where a PV system could tie into. Construction could 

potentially be started on this site immediately. This site would need to have a ballast-mounted 

system implemented, as ground disturbances are not permitted. The site was relatively well kept 

and mowed at the time of the site visit. 

The total feasible area for PV is 21,249 m2. Figure 6 shows the Aguadilla Landfill taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible area for PV is shaded in orange. As shown, there is one relatively 

large area at the Aguadilla Landfill that is feasible for PV. See Table 3 for the ground-mounted 

PV system possibilities at the Aguadilla Landfill. The three options outline the types of solar 

technology that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were analyzed 

assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the electricity at 

an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and therefore two 

cost estimates and associated simple paybacks are given. 

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
14 

Figure 6. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Aguadilla Landfill 

Credit: Google Earth

Table 3. Aguadilla Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

800 1,281,600 $166,608 $9,520 $1,860,000 $3,820,000 11 24

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

650 1,296,419 $168,534 $22,750 $2,175,000 $4,450,000 14 31

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 350 560,700 $72,891 $3,808 $684,000 $1,468,000 10 21

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.2.2 Añasco Landfill

The city of Añasco is located slightly inland off the west coast of Puerto Rico in a relatively 

mountainous region. The approximate population is currently 28,000. The Añasco Landfill is 

Aguadilla Landfill

21,249 m2
15 

located to the north of the Añasco city center and just east of interstate PR-2 and is currently 

operating. The Añasco Landfill is not highly visible from interstate PR-2. Figure 7 shows 

various views of the Añasco Landfill.

Figure 7. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Añasco Landfill

Credits: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL

As shown in Figure 7, there are large expanses of flat, unshaded land. However, the Añasco

Landfill is still active and is scheduled to be closed in 2011,15

The total feasible area for PV is 24,168 m2. 

 but this closure date is highly 

unlikely. There are electrical points a relatively short distance away that a PV system could tie 

into. Construction could potentially be started on this site once the landfill is closed and capped. 

This site would need to have a ballast-mounted system implemented on the landfill, as ground 

disturbances are not permitted. 

Figure 8 shows the Añasco Landfill taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible area for PV is shaded in orange. As shown, there is one relatively 

large area at the Añasco Landfill that is feasible for PV. See Table 4 for the ground-mounted PV 

system possibilities at the Añasco Landfill. The three options outline the types of solar 

technology that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were 

analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the 

 

15 The projected closure date is based upon a study done in 2004 by Malcolm Pirnie Assoc. for the Puerto Rico Solid 

Waste Management Authority. 

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
16 

electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and 

therefore two cost estimates and associated simple paybacks are given.

Figure 8. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Añasco Landfill

Credit: Google Earth

Anasco Landfill ~

24,168 m2
17 

Table 4. Añasco Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

900 1,441,800 $187,434 $10,710 $2,105,000 $4,310,000 12 24

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

750 1,495,868 $194,463 $26,250 $2,525,000 $5,150,000 14 31

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 400 640,800 $83,304 $4,352 $796,000 $1,692,000 10 21

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.2.3 Isabela Landfill

Isabela is located on the northwest shore of Puerto Rico to the east of Aguadilla. The current 

population of Isabela is approximately 44,000. The Isabela Landfill is located to the southwest of 

the city center and is currently operating. The landfill is not highly visible from the city or from 

surrounding highways, including Interstate PR-2. Figure 9 shows various views of the northern 

region of the Isabela Landfill, and Figure 10 shows various views of the southern region of the 

Isabela Landfill. 
18 

Figure 9. Views of the northern feasible area for PV at the Isabela Landfill

Credit: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
19 

Figure 10. Views of the southern feasible area for PV at the Isabela Landfill

Credit: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL

As shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10, there are large expanses of flat, unshaded land. However, 

the Isabela Landfill is still active even though it was scheduled to be closed originally in 2008.16

The total feasible area for PV is 21,832 m2. 

 

At the present time, the landfill continues to receive waste and the municipality has approached 

the EPA regarding a possible lateral expansion. There are electrical lines on the site where a PV 

system could tie into. This site would need to have a ballast-mounted system implemented, as 

ground disturbances are not permitted. The site was relatively well kept at the time of the site 

visit. 

Figure 11 shows the Isabela Landfill taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible areas for PV are shaded in orange. As shown, there are three areas at 

the Isabela Landfill that are feasible for PV. The three regions are relatively closely spaced but 

are separated by slopes that are too steep for PV. See Table 5 for the ground-mounted PV 

system possibilities for the Isabela Landfill. The three options outline the types of solar 

technology that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were 

analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the 

electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and 

therefore two cost estimates and associated simple paybacks are given.

 

16 The projected closure date is based upon a study done in 2004 by Malcolm Pirnie Assoc. for the Puerto Rico Solid 

Waste Management Authority. 

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
20 

Figure 11. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Isabela Landfill 

Credit: Google Earth

Table 5. Isabela Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

850 1,361,700 $177,021 $10,115 $1,982,500 $4,065,000 12 24

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

700 1,396,143 $181,499 $24,500 $2,350,000 $4,800,000 14 31

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 350 560,700 $72,891 $3,808 $684,000 $1,468,000 10 21

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.2.4 Mayagüez Landfill

The city of Mayagüez is located slightly inland off the west coast of Puerto Rico and is south of 

Añasco. The approximate population is currently 105,000. The Mayagüez Landfill is located to 

Isabela Landfill

4,881 m2

4,028 m2

12,923 m2

Total Area: 21,832 m2
21 

the north of the city center and just east of interstate PR-2. The Mayagüez Landfill is not highly 

visible from interstate PR-2. Figure 12 shows various views of the Mayagüez Landfill.

Figure 12. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Mayagüez Landfill

Credits: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL 

As shown in Figure 12, there are large expanses of flat, unshaded land; however, the Mayagüez

Landfill is still active. The projected closure date is 2011,17

The total feasible area for PV is 80,193 m2. 

 but this closure date is highly 

unlikely. There are electrical points a relatively short distance away that a PV system could tie 

into. Construction could potentially be started on this site once the landfill is closed and capped. 

This site would need to have a ballast-mounted system implemented on the landfill, as ground 

disturbances are not permitted. 

Figure 13 shows the Mayagüez Landfill taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible area for PV is shaded in orange. As shown, there is one relatively 

large area at the Mayagüez Landfill that is feasible for PV. See Table 6 for the ground-mounted 

PV system possibilities for the Mayagüez Landfill. The three options outline the types of solar 

technology that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were 

 

17 The projected closure date is based upon a study done in 2004 by Malcolm Pirnie Assoc. for the Puerto Rico Solid 

Waste Management Authority.

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
22 

analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the 

electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and 

therefore two cost estimates and associated simple paybacks are given.

Figure 13. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Mayagüez Landfill

Credit: Google Earth

Mayaguez Landfill ..

80,193 m2
23 

Table 6. Mayagüez Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

3,100 4,966,200 $645,606 $36,890 $7,495,000 $15,090,000 12 25

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

2,550 5,085,950 $661,173 $89,250 $8,825,000 $17,750,000 14 31

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 1,300 2,082,600 $270,738 $14,144 $2,812,000 $5,724,000 11 22

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.2.5 Moca Landfill PV System

The city of Moca is located slightly inland off the northwest coast of Puerto Rico and is located 

to the southeast of Aguadilla. The approximate population is currently 38,000. The Moca

Landfill is located to the north of the city center and to the east of interstate PR-2. The Moca 

Landfill is directly to the south of the Aguadilla Landfill. The Moca Landfill is not a particularly 

visible site as it is nestled in the hills. Figure 14 shows various views of the Moca Landfill.
24 

Figure 14. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Moca Landfill

Credits: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL

As shown in Figure 14, there are large expanses of flat, unshaded land. The Moca Landfill is 

scheduled to be closed in 2013,18

The total feasible area for PV is 33,466 m2. 

 but this closure date is highly unlikely. There are electrical 

points a relatively short distance away that a PV system could tie into. Construction could 

potentially be started on this site once the landfill is closed and capped. This site would need to 

have a ballast-mounted system implemented, as ground disturbances are not permitted. 

Figure 15 shows the Moca Landfill taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible area for PV is shaded in orange. As shown, there are two relatively 

large areas at the Moca Landfill that are feasible for PV. See Table 7 for the ground-mounted 

PV system possibilities for the Moca Landfill. The three options outline the types of solar 

technology that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were 

analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the 

electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and 

therefore two cost estimates and associated simple paybacks are given.

 

18 The projected closure date is based upon a study done in 2004 by Malcolm Pirnie Assoc. for the Puerto Rico Solid 

Waste Management Authority.

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
25 

Figure 15. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Moca Landfill

Credit: Google Earth

Moca Landfill

10,346 m2

23,120 m2

Total Area: 33,466 m2
26 

Table 7. Moca Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

1,300 2,082,600 $270,738 $15,470 $3,085,000 $6,270,000 12 25

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

1,050 2,094,215 $272,248 $36,750 $3,575,000 $7,250,000 14 31

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 550 881,100 $114,543 $5,984 $1,132,000 $2,364,000 10 22

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions. b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.3 Third Site Visit

3.3.1 Carolina Landfill

Carolina is located on the northeast shore of Puerto Rico east of San Juan. The approximate 

population is currently 189,000. The Carolina Landfill is located to the northwest of Carolina’s 

city center. Figure 16 shows various views of the Carolina Landfill.
27 

Figure 16. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Carolina Landfill

Credits: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL 

As shown in Figure 16, there are large expanses of flat, unshaded land, and the landfill is closed 

and capped, which makes it a great candidate for a PV system. There are electrical points around 

the site where a PV system could tie into. Construction could potentially be started on this site 

immediately. This site would need to have a ballast-mounted system implemented, as ground 

disturbances are not permitted. The site was relatively well kept and mowed at the time of the 

site visit. 

The total feasible area for PV is 17,712 m2. Figure 17 shows the Carolina Landfill taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible area for PV is shaded in orange. As shown, there is one relatively 

large area at the Carolina Landfill that is feasible for PV. See Table 8 for the ground-mounted 

PV system possibilities at the Carolina Landfill. The three options outline the types of solar 

technology that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were 

analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the 

electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and 

therefore two cost estimates and associated simple paybacks are given. 

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
28 

Figure 17. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Carolina Landfill 

Credit: Google Earth

Table 8. Carolina Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

650 1,041,300 $135,369 $7,735 $1,492,500 $3,085,000 11 24

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

550 1,096,970 $142,606 $19,250 $1,825,000 $3,750,000 14 30

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 300 480,600 $62,478 $3,264 $572,000 $1,244,000 9 21

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.3.2 Cayey Landfill

The city of Cayey is located in the central eastern region of Puerto Rico in a relatively 

mountainous region. The approximate population is currently 47,000. The Cayey Landfill is 

Carolina Landfill

17,712 m2
29 

located to the northeast of the Cayey city center and is currently operating. Figure 18 shows 

various views of the Cayey Landfill.

Figure 18. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Cayey Landfill

Credits: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL

As shown in Figure 18, there are large expanses of flat, unshaded land. However, the Cayey 

Landfill is still active even though it was scheduled to be closed originally in 2008.19

The total feasible area for PV is 9,270 m2. 

 There are 

electrical points a relatively short distance away that a PV system could tie into. Construction 

could potentially be started on this site once the landfill is closed and capped. This site would 

need to have a ballast-mounted system implemented on the landfill, as ground disturbances are 

not permitted. 

Figure 19 shows the Cayey Landfill taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible area for PV is shaded in orange. As shown, there is one relatively 

large area at the Cayey Landfill that is feasible for PV. See Table 9 for the ground-mounted PV 

system possibilities at the Cayey Landfill. The three options outline the types of solar technology 

that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were analyzed assuming 

that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the electricity at an electric 

 

19 The projected closure date is based upon a study done in 2004 by Malcolm Pirnie Assoc. for the Puerto Rico Solid 

Waste Management Authority. 

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
30 

rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and therefore two cost 

estimates and associated simple paybacks are given.

Figure 19. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Cayey Landfill 

Credit: Google Earth

Cayey Landfill

9,270 m2
31 

Table 9. Cayay Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

350 560,700 $72,891 $4,165 $757,500 $1,615,000 11 23

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

300 598,347 $77,785 $10,500 $950,000 $2,000,000 13 30

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 150 240,300 $31,239 $1,632 $236,000 $572,000 9 19

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.3.3 Fajardo Landfill

Fajardo is located on the east shore of Puerto Rico to the east of San Juan. The current 

population of Fajardo is approximately 41,000. The Fajardo Landfill is located to the southwest 

of the city center and is currently operating. Figure 20 shows various views of the Fajardo

Landfill. 
32 

Figure 20. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Fajardo Landfill

Credit: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL

As shown in Figure 20, there are relatively large expanses of flat, unshaded land. However, the 

Fajardo Landfill is still active even though it was scheduled to be closed originally in 2008.20

The total feasible area for PV is 5,348 m2. 

 

There are electrical lines on the site where a PV system could tie into. This site would need to 

have a ballast-mounted system implemented, as ground disturbances are not permitted. 

Figure 21 shows the Fajardo Landfill taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible areas for PV are shaded in orange. As shown, there is one area at the 

Fajardo Landfill that is feasible for PV. See Table 10 for the ground-mounted PV system 

possibilities for the Fajardo Landfill. The three options outline the types of solar technology that 

could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were analyzed assuming that 

a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the electricity at an electric rate 

of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and therefore two cost estimates and 

associated simple paybacks are given. 

 

20 The projected closure date is based upon a study done in 2004 by Malcolm Pirnie Assoc. for the Puerto Rico Solid 

Waste Management Authority. 

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
33 

Figure 21. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Fajardo Landfill 

Credit: Google Earth

Table 10. Fajardo Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

200 320,400 $41,652 $2,380 $390,000 $880,000 11 22

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

150 299,174 $38,893 $5,250 $425,000 $950,000 12 28

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 100 160,200 $20,826 $1,088 $124,000 $348,000 6 18

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.3.4 Humacao Landfill

The city of Humacao is located on the east coast of Puerto Rico. The approximate population is 

currently 62,000. The Humacao Landfill is located to the southeast of the city center. Figure 22

shows various views of the Humacao Landfill.

Fajardo Landfill

5,348 m2
34 

Figure 22. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Humacao Landfill 

Credits: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL 

As shown in Figure 22, there are large expanses of flat, unshaded land; however, the Humacao

Landfill is still active. The projected closure date is 2011,21

The total feasible area for PV is 95,912 m2. 

 but this closure date is highly 

unlikely. There are electrical points a relatively short distance away that a PV system could tie 

into. Construction could potentially be started on this site once the landfill is closed and capped. 

This site would need to have a ballast-mounted system implemented on the landfill, as ground 

disturbances are not permitted. 

Figure 23 shows the Humacao Landfill taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible area for PV is shaded in orange. As shown, there is one relatively 

large area at the Humacao Landfill that is feasible for PV. See Table 11 for the ground-mounted 

PV system possibilities for the Humacao Landfill. The three options outline the types of solar 

technology that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were 

analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the 

electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and 

therefore two cost estimates and associated simple paybacks are given.

 

21 The projected closure date is based upon a study done in 2004 by Malcolm Pirnie Assoc. for the Puerto Rico Solid 

Waste Management Authority.

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
35 

Figure 23. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Humacao Landfill

Credit: Google Earth

Table 11. Humacao Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb Assuming 

Higher Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

3,700 5,927,400 $770,562 $44,030 $8,965,000 $18,030,000 12 25

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

3,000 5,983,470 $777,851 $105,000 $10,400,000 $20,900,000 14 31

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 1,550 2,483,100 $322,803 $16,864 $3,372,000 $6,844,000 11 22

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.3.5 Juncos Landfill

The city of Juncos is located slightly inland off the east coast of Puerto Rico. The approximate 

population is currently 36,000. The Juncos Landfill is located to the north of the city center. 

Figure 24 shows various views of the Juncos Landfill.

Humacao Landfill

95,912 m2
36 

Figure 24. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Juncos Landfill

Credits: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL

As shown in Figure 24, there are large expanses of flat, unshaded land. The Juncso Landfill is 

scheduled to be closed in 2013,22

The total feasible area for PV is 14,599 m2. 

 but this closure date is highly unlikely. There are electrical 

points a relatively short distance away that a PV system could tie into. Construction could 

potentially be started on this site once the landfill is closed and capped. This site would need to 

have a ballast-mounted system implemented, as ground disturbances are not permitted. 

Figure 25 shows the Juncos Landfill taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible area for PV is shaded in orange. As shown, there is one relatively 

large area at the Juncos Landfill that is feasible for PV. See Table 12 for the ground-mounted 

PV system possibilities for the Juncos Landfill. The three options outline the types of solar 

technology that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were 

analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the 

electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and 

therefore two cost estimates and associated simple paybacks are given.

 

22 The projected closure date is based upon a study done in 2004 by Malcolm Pirnie Assoc. for the Puerto Rico Solid 

Waste Management Authority.

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
37 

Figure 25. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Juncos Landfill 

Credit: Google Earth

Table 12. Juncos Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

550 881,100 $114,543 $6,545 $1,247,500 $2,595,000 11 24

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

450 897,521 $116,678 $15,750 $1,475,000 $3,050,000 14 30

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 200 320,400 $41,652 $2,176 $348,000 $796,000 9 20

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.3.6 Vega Baja Landfill

The city of Vega Baja is located in the center of the north coast in of Puerto Rico. The 

approximate population is currently 63,000. The Vega Baja Landfill is located to the northeast

of the city center. Figure 26 shows various views of the Vega Baja Landfill.

Juncos Landfill

14,599 m2
38 

Figure 26. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Vega Baja Landfill

Credits: Jimmy Salasovich, NREL

As shown in Figure 26, there are large expanses of flat, unshaded land. The Vega Baja Landfill 

is scheduled to be closed in 2013,

23

The total feasible area for PV is 15,462 m2. 

 but this closure date is highly unlikely. There are electrical 

points a relatively short distance away that a PV system could tie into. Construction could 

potentially be started on this site once the landfill is closed and capped. This site would need to 

have a ballast-mounted system implemented, as ground disturbances are not permitted. 

Figure 27 shows the Vega Baja Landfill taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible area for PV is shaded in orange. As shown, there is one relatively 

large area at the Vega Baja Landfill that is feasible for PV. See Table 13 for the groundmounted PV system possibilities for the Vega Baja Landfill. The three options outline the types 

of solar technology that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were 

analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the 

electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and 

therefore two cost estimates and associated simple paybacks are given.

 

23 The projected closure date is based upon a study done in 2004 by Malcolm Pirnie Assoc. for the Puerto Rico Solid 

Waste Management Authority.

View to the South View to the North

View to the West View to the East
39 

Figure 27. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Vega Baja Landfill 

Credit: Google Earth

Table 13. Vega Baja Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

600 961,200 $124,956 $7,140 $1,370,000 $2,840,000 11 24

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

500 997,245 $129,642 $17,500 $1,650,000 $3,400,000 14 30

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 250 400,500 $52,065 $2,992 $460,000 $1,020,000 9 21

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.4 Vieques Study

Vieques is a Puerto Rican island and is located to the east of Puerto Rico. The current 

population of Vieques is approximately 9,000. 

Vega Baja Landfill

15,462 m2
40 

3.4.1 Former Viequs Landing Strip

The Former Vieques Landing Strip is located in the south-center of the island and to the 

southwest of the Former Vieques Navel Training Range. The feasibility of a PV system at the 

Former Vieques Landing Strip was determined without visiting the site. An EPA team on site at 

Vieques provided the required information to perform the feasibility study, but there are no 

photos of the site. 

There are large expanses of flat, unshaded land at the Former Vieques Landing Strip. The 

landing strip is no longer functional and therefore construction of a PV system could begin 

immediately. There are electrical lines close to the site where a PV system could tie into. Unlike 

at landfills, ground disturbances are permitted and therefore this site would not require a ballastmounted system to be implemented, as ground disturbances are not permitted.

The total feasible area for PV at the Former Vieques Landing Strip is 233,279 m2. Figure 28

shows the Former Vieques Landing Strip taken from Google Earth; the feasible areas for PV are 

shaded in orange. As shown, there is one large area at the Former Vieques Landing Strip that is

feasible for PV. See Table 14 for the ground-mounted PV system possibilities for the Former 

Vieques Landing Strip. The three options outline the types of solar technology that could 

potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were analyzed assuming that a PPA 

with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the electricity at an electric rate of 

$0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and therefore two cost estimates and 

associated simple paybacks are given.

Figure 28. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Former Vieques Landing Strip

Credit: Google Earth

Former Vieques Landing Strip

233,279 m2
41 

Table 14. Former Vieques Landing Strip Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

9,000 14,418,000 $1,874,340 $107,100 $21,950,000 $44,000,000 12 25

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

7,400 14,759,226 $1,918,699 $259,000 $25,800,000 $51,700,000 14 31

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 3,800 6,087,600 $791,388 $41,344 $8,412,000 $16,924,000 11 23

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.4.2 Former Vieques Naval Training Range

The Former Vieques Naval Training Range is located in the south-center of the island and 

directly to the northeast of the Former Vieques Landing Strip. The feasibility of a PV system at 

the Former Vieques Naval Training Range was determined without visiting the site. An EPA 

team on site at Vieques provided the required information to perform the feasibility study, but 

there are no photos of the site.

There are large expanses of flat, unshaded land at the Former Vieques Naval Training Range. 

The training range is no longer functional and therefore construction of a PV system could begin 

immediately. There are electrical lines close to the site where a PV system could tie into. Unlike 

at landfills, ground disturbances are permitted and therefore this site would not require a ballastmounted system to be implemented.

The total feasible area for PV at the Former Vieques Naval Training Range is 116,643 m2. 

Figure 29 shows the Former Vieques Naval Training Range taken from Google Earth; the 

feasible areas for PV are shaded in orange. As shown, there is one large area at the Former 

Vieques Naval Training Range that is feasible for PV. See Table 15 for the ground-mounted PV 

system possibilities for the Former Vieques Naval Training Range. The three options outline the 

types of solar technology that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems 

were analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the 

electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and 

therefore two cost estimates and associated simple paybacks are given. 
42 

Figure 29. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Former Vieques Naval Training Range

Credit: Google Earth

Table 15. Former Vieques Naval Training Range Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

4,500 7,209,000 $937,170 $53,550 $10,925,000 $21,950,000 12 25

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

3,700 7,379,613 $959,350 $129,500 $12,850,000 $25,800,000 14 31

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 1,900 3,043,800 $395,694 $20,672 $4,156,000 8,412,000 11 22

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.4.3 Old Camp Garcia Landfill on Vieques

The Old Camp Garcia Landfill on Vieques is located in the south-center of the island and to the 

east of the Former Vieques Landing Strip and Naval Training Range. The feasibility of a PV 

system at the Old Camp Garcia Landfill on Vieques was determined without visiting the site. An 

Former Vieques Naval Training Range

116,643 m2
43 

EPA team on site at Vieques provided the required information to perform the feasibility study, 

but there are no photos of the site.

There are large expanses of flat, unshaded land at the Old Camp Garcia Landfill on Vieques. 

The landfill is no longer operational and therefore construction of a PV system could begin 

immediately. There are electrical lines close to the site where a PV system could tie into. This 

site would need to have a ballast-mounted system implemented, as ground disturbances are not 

permitted. 

The total feasible area for PV at the Old Camp Garcia Landfill on Vieques is 257,795 m2. 

Figure 30 shows the Old Camp Garcia Landfill on Vieques taken from Google Earth; the feasible 

areas for PV are shaded in orange. As shown, there is one large area at the Old Camp Garcia 

Landfill on Vieques that is feasible for PV. See Table 16 for the ground-mounted PV system 

possibilities for the Old Camp Garcia Landfill on Vieques. The three options outline the types of 

solar technology that could potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were 

analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the 

electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and 

therefore two cost estimates and associated simple paybacks are given. 

Figure 30. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Old Camp Garcia Landfill on Vieques

Credit: Google Earth

Old Camp Garcia Landfill on Vieques

257,795 m2
44 

Table 16. Old Camp Garcia Landfill on Vieques Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

10,000 16,020,000 $2,082,600 $119,000 $24,400,000 $48,900,000 12 25

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

8,200 16,354,818 $2,126,126 $287,000 $28,600,000 $57,300,000 14 31

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 4,200 6,728,400 $874,692 $45,696 $9,308,000 $18,716,000 11 23

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.4.4 Old Vieques Municipal Landfill

The Old Vieques Municipal Landfill is located in the center of the island on the north shore. The 

feasibility of a PV system at the Old Vieques Municipal Landfill was determined without visiting 

the site. An EPA team on site at Vieques provided the required information to perform the 

feasibility study, but there are no photos of the site.

There are relatively large expanses of flat, unshaded land at the Old Vieques Municipal Landfill. 

The landfill is no longer functional and therefore construction of a PV system could begin 

immediately. There are electrical lines close to the site where a PV system could tie into. This 

site would need to have a ballast-mounted system implemented, as ground disturbances are not 

permitted. 

The total feasible area for PV at the Old Vieques Municipal Landfill is 26,738 m2. Figure 31

shows the Old Vieques Municipal Landfill taken from Google Earth; the feasible areas for PV 

are shaded in orange. As shown, there is one large area at the Old Vieques Municipal Landfill 

that is feasible for PV. See Table 17 for the ground-mounted PV system possibilities for the Old 

Vieques Municipal Landfill. The three options outline the types of solar technology that could 

potentially be used. The economics of the potential systems were analyzed assuming that a PPA 

with PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the electricity at an electric rate of 

$0.13/kWh. The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and therefore two cost estimates and 

associated simple paybacks are given. 
45 

Figure 31. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Old Vieques Municipal Landfill 

Credit: Google Earth

Table 17. Old Vieques Municipal Landfill Site PV System Options

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years)

System Type

Potential 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Energy 

Output 

(kWh)

Annual 

Cost 

Savings

($)

Annual 

O&Ma

($/year)

Assuming 

Lower Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Assuming 

Lower 

Costb

Assuming 

Higher 

Costc

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Fixed Tilt

1,000 1,602,000 $208,260 $11,900 $2,350,000 $4,800,000 12 24

Crystalline 

Silicon—

Single-Axis 

Tracking 

850 1,695,317 $220,391 $29,750 $2,875,000 $5,850,000 14 31

Thin Film—

Fixed Tilt 400 640,800 $83,304 $4,352 $796,000 $1,692,000 10 21

a Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

b $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. c $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.5 Summary of All Sites from Second Site Visit

Five landfills in Puerto Rico were considered for the second site visit, and all five landfills were 

found to be suitable for PV systems. Figure 32 shows a comparison of the landfills in Puerto 

Rico that were visited. The landfills are all at the same scale so that the relative size can be 

Old Vieques Municipal Landfill

26,738 m2
46 

visualized. The economics of the potential systems were analyzed assuming that a PPA with 

PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the electricity at an electric rate of 

$0.13/kWh. 

Figure 32. Second site visit—Comparison of the feasible areas for PV at landfills in Puerto Rico

Credits: Google Earth

Table 18 summarizes the system performance and economics of a potential system that would 

use all feasible landfill areas from the second site visit that were surveyed in Puerto Rico. All 

sites do not need to be developed in one project; beginning with a smaller demonstration system 

• PV areas in orange

• Images at same scale

•Images from Google Earth

Puerto Rico

Mayaguez

80,193 m2

Aguadilla Isabela

Anasco ~ Moca ..

21,249 m2 21,832 m2

24,168 m2 33,466 m2
47 

and increasing capacity as funds become available could be a better approach. Calculations for 

this analysis assume the 30% federal tax credit incentive would be captured for the system.

Table 18. Second Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics by System Typea

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years) 

PV 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Output 

(kWh/year) 

Number 

of Houses 

Poweredb

Annual 

Cost 

Savings 

($/year) 

Annual 

O&Mc

($/year) 

Assuming 

Lower

Costd

Assuming 

Higher 

Coste

 Assuming 

Lower 

Costd

 Assuming 

Higher 

Coste

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt 18.4o) 

6,950 11,133,900 1,009 $1,447,407 $82,705 $16,527,500 $33,555,000 12 25 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 

5,700 11,368,593 1,030 $1,477,917 $199,500 $19,450,000 $39,400,000 14 31 

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt 18.4o

) 

2,950 4,725,900 428 $614,367 $32,096 $6,108,000 $12,716,000 10 22 

a Data assume a maximum usable area of all feasible landfills of 180,908 m2

. b Number of average American households that could hypothetically be powered by the PV system 

assuming 11,040 kWh/year/household.

24

c Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.d $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt 

system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be $5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are 

assumed to be $3.20/W.

 

e $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.6 Summary of All Sites from Third Site Visit

Six landfills in Puerto Rico were considered for the third site visit, and all six landfills were 

found to be suitable for PV systems. Figure 33 shows a comparison of the landfills in Puerto 

Rico that were visited. The landfills are all at the same scale so that the relative size can be 

visualized. The economics of the potential systems were analyzed assuming that a PPA with 

PREPA would be used and PREPA would buy back the electricity at an electric rate of 

$0.13/kWh. 

 

24 U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electricity_use_home. 

Accessed October 22, 2010.
48 

Figure 33. Third site visit—Comparison of the feasible areas for PV at landfills in Puerto Rico

Credits: Google Earth

Table 19 summarizes the system performance and economics of a potential system that would 

use all feasible landfill areas from the third site visit that were surveyed in Puerto Rico. All sites 

do not need to be developed in one project; beginning with a smaller demonstration system and 

increasing capacity as funds become available could be a better approach. Calculations for this 

analysis assume the 30% federal tax credit incentive would be captured for the system. 

Puerto Rico

Vega Baja Carolina

Cayey Humacao

Fajardo

Juncos

17,712 m2

95,912 m2 14,599 m2

15,462 m2

9,270 m2

5,348 m2

• PV areas in orange

• Images at same scale

•Images from Google Earth
49 

Table 19. Third Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics by System Typea

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years) 

PV 

System 

Size 

(kW)

Annual 

Output 

(kWh/year) 

Number 

of Houses 

Poweredb

Annual 

Cost 

Savings 

($/year) 

Annual 

O&Mc

($/year) 

Assuming 

Lower 

Costd

Assuming 

Higher 

Coste

 Assuming 

Lower 

Costd

 Assuming 

Higher 

Coste

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt 18.4o) 

6,050 9,692,100 878 $1,259,973 $71,995 $14,222,500 $29,045,000 12 24 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 

4,950 9,872,726 894 $1,283,454 $173,250 $16,725,000 $34,050,000 14 31 

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt 18.4o

) 

2,550 4,085,100 370 $531,063 $27,744 $5,112,000 $10,824,000 10 22 

a Data assume a maximum usable area of all feasible landfills of 158,303 m2

. b Number of average American households that could hypothetically be powered by the PV system 

assuming 11,040 kWh/year/household.25

c Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

 

d $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. e $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

3.7 Summary of All Sites from Vieques

Four sites on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques were considered, and all four sites were found 

to be suitable for PV systems. Figure 34 shows a comparison of the sites in Vieques that were 

visited. The sites are all at the same scale so that the relative size can be visualized. The 

economics of the potential systems were analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would be 

used and PREPA would buy back the electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. 

 

25 U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electricity_use_home. 

Accessed October 22, 2010. 
50 

Figure 34. Comparison of the feasible areas for PV at sites on Vieques

Credits: Google Earth

Table 20 summarizes the system performance and economics of a potential system that would 

use all feasible sites that were surveyed in Vieques. All sites do not need to be developed in one 

project; beginning with a smaller demonstration system and increasing capacity as funds become 

available may be a better approach. Calculations for this analysis assume the 30% federal tax 

credit incentive would be captured for the system. 

Puerto Rico

Former Vieques 

Landing Strip

Former Naval 

Training Range

Old Camp 

Garcia Landfill

Old Vieques 

Municipal Landfill

Vieques

233,279 m2

26,738 m2 257,795 m2

116,643 m2

• PV areas in orange

• Images at same scale

•Images from Google Earth
51 

Table 20. Vieques—PV System Performance and Economics by System Typea

System Cost Estimates 

with Incentives ($)

Simple Payback 

Estimates (years) 

PV 

System 

Size (kW) 

Annual 

Output 

(kWh/year) 

Number 

of Houses 

Poweredb

Annual 

Cost 

Savings 

($/year) 

Annual 

O&Mc

($/year) 

Assuming 

Lower 

Costd

Assuming 

Higher 

Coste

 Assuming 

Lower 

Costd

 Assuming 

Higher 

Coste

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt 18.4o) 

24,500 39,249,000 3,555 $5,102,370 $291,550 $59,625,000 $119,650,000 12 25 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 

20,150 40,188,974 3,640 $5,224,567 $705,250 $70,125,000 $140,650,000 14 31 

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt 18.4o

) 

10,300 16,500,600 1,495 $2,145,078 $112,064 $22,672,000 $45,744,000 11 23 

a Data assume a maximum usable area of all feasible sites of 634,455 m2

. b Number of average American households that could hypothetically be powered by the PV system 

assuming 11,040 kWh/year/household.26

c Annual O&M is based on the higher cost assumptions.

 

d $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W. e $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

 

26 U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electricity_use_home. 

Accessed October 22, 2010.
52 

4 Economics and Performance

4.1 Assumptions and Input Data for Analysis

The viability of PV depends greatly on the local electricity rate. According to the most recent 

annual report,27 published in June 2009 by PREPA, average residential electric rates were

$0.2158/kWh, average commercial rates were $0.2232/kWh, and average industrial rates were

$0.1831/kWh. These electric rates are similar to those found in the Hawaiian Islands, and they 

are roughly double the average electric rate in the Unites States. The net-metering laws in Puerto 

Rico state that whatever the PV electric output above the customer use, PREPA will buy 75% of 

that at either the avoided fuel cost or $0.10/kWh, whichever is greater. The avoided fuel cost is 

in the range of $0.10/kWh or lower so $0.10/kWh was assumed. The PV system size limit for net 

metering is 25 kW for residential and 1 MW for commercial. 

There is little to no electricity use at a closed landfill and all of the electricity generated by a 

proposed PV system is assumed to be sold back to the utility. From an economic standpoint, the 

current net-metering laws in Puerto Rico are not advantageous for PV systems that generate large 

amounts of excess energy because of the relatively low buyback rate of 75% of $0.10/kWh. 

Setting up a PPA where PREPA would agree to buy back the power at a higher rate would be 

much more beneficial. There are currently two large-scale PV projects in Puerto Rico that were 

both started in 2010 that use a PPA. The first project28 is a 20 MW PV system in Guayama 

where AES Ilumina entered a PPA with PREPA where PREPA agreed to buy the electricity at a 

rate of $0.13/kWh. The second project29 is a 63 MW PV system in Salinas where the CIRO One 

Group entered a PPA with PREPA, but the buyback rate has yet to be established. 

The economics of the potential systems were analyzed assuming that a PPA with PREPA would 

be used and PREPA would buy back the electricity at an electric rate of $0.13/kWh. Incentives 

offered by the federal government, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and PREPA were 

assumed in this analysis. 

The cost of PV systems in Puerto Rico varies and therefore two cost estimates were used. The 

first estimate is in the low range of current installed costs of PV systems and is based on costs of 

the 20 MW system that is currently being installed in Guayama by AES Ilumina. The second

estimate is in the higher range of current installed costs of PV systems and is based on past costs 

of smaller scale systems. The low-range installed cost for fixed-tilt ground-mounted systems 

was assumed to be $3.50/W for crystalline silicon and $3.20/W for thin film. The low-range 

installed cost for single-axis tracking systems was assumed to be $5.00/W for crystalline silicon. 

It was assumed that the low-range installed cost of fixed-tilt roof-mounted systems would be 

$6.00/W for crystalline silicon and $5.40/W for thin film. The high-range installed cost for fixedtilt ground-mounted systems was assumed to be $7.00/W for crystalline silicon and $6.40/W for 

thin film. The high-range installed cost for single-axis tracking systems was assumed to be 

 

27 Thirty-Sixth Annual Report on the Electricity Property of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority. 

http://www.aeepr.com/INVESTORS/Financial%20Information/Annual%20Reports/ConsEng_36th_Rpt_2009%20A

nnual%20Report%20Final.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2010. 28 All Business. “Solar Power Project.” http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilities/utilities-industry-electric-powerpower/14753424-1.html. Accessed December 8, 2010. 29 Marino, J. “Work to Start on 63 MW Solar Plant in Salinas.” Caribbean Business. 

http://www.caribbeanbusinesspr.com/news03.php?nt_id=49337&ct_id=1. Accessed December 8, 2010.
53 

$10.00/W for crystalline silicon. It was assumed that the high-range installed cost of fixed-tilt 

roof-mounted systems would be $9.33/W for crystalline silicon and $8.73/W for thin film. 

These prices include the PV array and the balance-of-system components for each system, 

including the inverter, electrical equipment, and installation. The economics of grid-tied PV 

depend on incentives, the cost of electricity, and the solar resource including panel tilt and 

orientation. 

A system DC to AC conversion of 77% was assumed. This includes losses in the inverter, wire 

losses, PV module losses, and losses due to temperature effects. PVWATTS30

It was assumed for this analysis that federal and state incentives are received. Identifying and 

leveraging state incentives and grants is an important part of making PV systems cost effective. 

A private, tax-paying entity that owns PV systems can qualify for a 30% federal business energy 

investment tax credit (ITC) and accelerated depreciation on the PV system, which are worth 

about 15%. The total potential tax benefits to the tax-paying entity are about 45% of the system 

cost. Alternatively, the tax-paying entity can opt to receive a cash payment of up to 30% of 

eligible project costs from the U.S. Department of Treasury Section 1603 program

was used to 

calculate energy performance. 

31 once the 

eligible system is in service. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act) allows for this cash payment in lieu of the ITC. To receive the payment from the Treasury, 

construction of the property must begin no later than December 31, 2010. Because the federal 

government does not pay taxes, private ownership of the PV system is required to capture tax 

incentives or Section 1603 grant payments.32

4.2 Incentives and Financing Opportunities

Municipalities are not tax-paying entities and 

therefore would have to pursue a PPA in order to get the 30% federal tax credit, which is 

described in Section 4.2. 

The Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE) provides a summary 

of net metering, interconnection rules, and other incentives available to Puerto Rico utility 

customers.33

Renewable energy systems, including commercial solar PV, are subject to interconnection rules 

promulgated at the state level. Interconnection rules for Puerto Rico were found on the DSIRE 

website. PREPA adopted interconnection standards in 2007 that are based on the 

interconnections standards established in the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005.

 The power from these systems could be sold to PREPA. 

34 This requires 

all interconnected systems to comply with the safety and performance requirements put forth in 

the IEEE Standard 1547 as well as local construction and safety standards.

35

 

30 PVWATTS, 

 

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/, Accessed July, 2011. 31 This program was codified in Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 32 DSIRE. “Puerto Rico.” http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=PR14F&re=1&ee=1. 

Accessed September 2010.

33 DSIRE. “Puerto Rico.” http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=PR14F&re=1&ee=1. 

Accessed September 2010.

34 Energy Policy Act of 2005, http://doi.net/iepa/EnergyPolicyActof2005.pdf, Accessed July, 2011. 35 DSIRE. “Puerto Rico.” http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=PR14F&re=1&ee=1. 

Accessed September 2010.
54 

State incentives are currently offered for commercial solar power systems in Puerto Rico for 

$4/DC-Watt for up to 50% of the project costs or $100,000, whichever is lower. State incentives 

of $8/DC-Watt up to $100,000 are offered for governmental systems. State incentives of $4/DCWatt up to $15,000 are offered for residential systems. The 30% tax credit federal incentive can 

be captured if the system is owned by a tax-paying entity. 

The system facilitator could potentially pursue an agreement with PREPA that would negotiate 

both a higher price for the electricity produced by the potential system and the potential to sell 

renewable energy certificates (RECs). Any power that is produced by a solar PV system will 

help the state reach its renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and be a major opportunity for 

PREPA to accelerate the diversification of their energy mix with clean energy. It has been 

demonstrated across the country that people are willing to pay a premium for certified clean 

energy,36 and PREPA could start a voluntary green power purchase pilot program with energy 

from the landfills in Puerto Rico.

37

Technical assistance to support project development is available through the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The activity 

provides technical assistance to commercial power developers, technology projects involving 

liquid fuels developed from biomass, and information to the public on renewable energy 

applications. The DOE Office of EERE can assist commercial wind and solar developers by 

providing detailed renewable resource maps, interfacing with Puerto Rico utilities, and 

contacting local economic developers. 

There are several options for financing a solar PV system. However, obtaining investment from 

landowners with little on-site presence—such as is the case with the landfills in Puerto Rico—

can be difficult. A potential alternative financing option is the third-party ownership PPA. The 

agreement works by having a solar contractor install, finance, and operate the system while the 

utility company purchases the electricity generated by the system. The system is financed by the 

solar contractor, and the payments are paid by the electricity and RECs that are sold to the utility. 

In this configuration, the land that the solar system is on would need to be leased to the owner of 

the system for the duration of the contract. 

Another gap financing tool that may be available is tax increment financing (TIF). Connecticut, 

Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin have been leaders in structuring state-facilitated TIF as an 

effective and efficient means to enhance site reuse and redevelopment programs and to obtain 

successful cleanup and redevelopment results. Municipalities are good candidates for TIF 

because it is an incentive they can implement under their own control. A full list of incentives 

can be found in Appendix B. 

 

36 Transmission & Distribution World. “NREL Highlights Utility Green Power Leaders.”

http://tdworld.com/customer_service/doe-nrel-utility-green-power-0409/. Accessed July 20, 2100. 37 An example of such a program is Xcel Energy’s Windsource program. For more information, see http://www

.xcelenergy.com/Colorado/Company/Environment/Renewable%20Energy/Pages/Wind_Power.aspx. For detailed 

information about federal, state, and local incentives in Puerto Rico, see 

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=PR14F&re=1&ee=1. 
55 

4.3 Job Creation

The implementation of this project would represent a large amount of money entering the clean 

energy industry of Puerto Rico. The Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) calculated the 

number of jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) created due to federal spending using economic 

models developed with real world data. CEA found that $92,000 in federal spending is 

equivalent to one job-year. This means that for every $92,000 of federal money that is spent, 

there is one job created that can be sustained for one year. This project represents a large amount 

of money that would create a significant number of jobs. A portion of these jobs, including the 

installation and system maintenance jobs, will be created within the community. The jobs created 

columns in Tables 21–26 refer to the number of job-years that would be created as a result of the 

one-time project capital investment. This means that the jobs will be created and sustained for 

one year. The jobs sustained columns refer to the number of jobs that would be sustained as a 

result of the O&M of the system. These jobs will be sustained for the life of the system, due to 

the annual cost to keep the system operating. 

4.3.1 Second Site Visit

See Table 21 and Table 22 for an estimate of job creation by system type if all five landfills in 

Puerto Rico from the second site visit were used for solar PV.

Table 21. Second Site Visit—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Lower

Installed Costa

System Type Jobs Createdb

(job years)

Jobs Sustainedc

(number of jobs)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt) 180 0 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 211 1 

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt) 66 0 a $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W.

b Job-years created as a result of project capital investment including direct, indirect, and induced jobs. c Jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) sustained as a result of O&M of the system. 
56 

Table 22. Second Site Visit—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Higher

Installed Costa

System Type Jobs Createdb

(job years)

Jobs Sustainedc

(number of jobs)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt) 365 0 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 428 2 

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt) 138 0 a $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

b Job-years created as a result of project capital investment including direct, indirect, and induced jobs. c Jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) sustained as a result of O&M of the system. 

4.3.2 Third Site Visit

See Table 23 and Table 24 for an estimate of job creation by system type if all six landfills in 

Puerto Rico from the third site visit were used for solar PV.

Table 23. Third Site Visit—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Lower Installed 

Costa

System Type Jobs Createdb

(job years)

Jobs Sustainedc

(number of jobs)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt) 155 0 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 182 1 

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt) 56 0 a $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W.

b Job-years created as a result of project capital investment including direct, indirect, and induced jobs. c Jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) sustained as a result of O&M of the system.

Table 24. Third Site Visit—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Higher Installed 

Costa

System Type Jobs Createdb

(job years)

Jobs Sustainedc

(number of jobs)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt) 316 1 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 370 2 

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt) 118 0 a $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

b Job-years created as a result of project capital investment including direct, indirect, and induced jobs. c Jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) sustained as a result of O&M of the system.

4.3.3 Vieques

See Table 25 and Table 26 for an estimate of job creation by system type if all four sites from the 

Vieques study were used for solar PV.
57 

Table 25. Vieques—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Lower Installed Costa

System Type Jobs Createdb

(job years)

Jobs Sustainedc

(number of jobs)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt) 648 2 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 762 4 

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt) 246 1 a $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W.

b Job-years created as a result of project capital investment including direct, indirect, and induced jobs. c Jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) sustained as a result of O&M of the system.

Table 26. Vieques—Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type Assuming Higher Installed Costa

System Type Jobs Createdb

(job years)

Jobs Sustainedc

(number of jobs)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt) 1,301 3 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 1,529 8 

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt) 497 1 a $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

b Job-years created as a result of project capital investment including direct, indirect, and induced jobs. c Jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) sustained as a result of O&M of the system.
58 

5 Hypothetical Electric Rate Increases 

The economics of potential PV systems on landfills in Puerto Rico depend greatly on the cost of 

electricity and at what rate the utility will buy back the excess electricity. Currently, PREPA has 

entered a PPA where they agreed to buy back the electricity generated by a PV system at an 

electric rate of $0.13/kWh. This rate could hypothetically increase to $0.15/kWh or higher in a 

relatively short amount of time. A rate increase of this magnitude would further improve the 

economics of a solar PV generation plant. 

5.1.1 Second Site Visit

See Table 27 and Table 28 for a summary of the system economics from the second site visit 

assuming a hypothetical buyback electric rate increase to $0.15/kWh. 

Table 27. Second Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Lower Installed 

Costa

 and with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWhb

Array Tilt 

(Deg)

PV System 

Size (kW)

Annual 

Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual 

Cost 

Savings 

($/year)

Annual 

O&M 

($/year)

System 

Cost with 

Incentives 

($)

Payback 

Period with 

Incentive 

(years)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt) 

18.4 6,950 11,133,900 $1,670,085 $41,353 $16,527,500 10

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

0 5,700 11,368,593 $1,705,289 $99,750 $19,450,000 12

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt) 

18.4 2,950 4,725,900 $708,885 $16,048 $6,108,000 9 a $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W.

b Data assume a maximum usable area of all feasible landfills of 180,908 m2

. 
59 

Table 28. Second Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Higher Installed 

Costa and with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWhb

Array Tilt 

(Deg)

PV System 

Size (kW)

Annual 

Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual 

Cost 

Savings 

($/year)

Annual 

O&M 

($/year)

System 

Cost with 

Incentives 

($)

Payback 

Period with 

Incentive 

(years)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt)

18.4 6,950 11,133,900 $1,670,085 $82,705 $33,555,000 21

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

0 5,700 11,368,593 $1,705,289 $199,500 $39,400,000 26

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt)

18.4 2,950 4,725,900 $708,885 $32,096 $12,716,000 19 a $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

b Data assume a maximum usable area of all feasible landfills of 180,908 m2

. 

5.1.2 Third Site Visit

See Table 29 and Table 30 for a summary of the system economics from the third site visit

assuming a hypothetical buyback electric rate increase to $0.15/kWh. 

Table 29. Third Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Lower Installed 

Costsa

 and with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWhb

Array Tilt 

(Deg)

PV System 

Size (kW)

Annual 

Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual 

Cost 

Savings 

($/year)

Annual 

O&M 

($/year)

System 

Cost with 

Incentives 

($)

Payback 

Period with 

Incentive 

(years)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt)

18.4 6,050 9,692,100 $1,453,815 $35,998 $14,222,500 10

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

0 4,950 9,872,726 $1,480,909 $86,625 $16,725,000 12

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt)

18.4 2,550 4,085,100 $612,765 $13,872 $5,112,000 9 a $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W.

b Data assume a maximum usable area of all feasible landfills of 158,303 m2

. 
60 

Table 30. Third Site Visit—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Higher Installed 

Costa and with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWhb

Array Tilt 

(Deg)

PV System 

Size (kW)

Annual 

Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual 

Cost 

Savings 

($/year)

Annual 

O&M 

($/year)

System 

Cost with 

Incentives 

($)

Payback 

Period with 

Incentive 

(years)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt)

18.4 6,050 9,692,100 $1,453,815 $71,995 $29,045,000 21

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

0 4,950 9,872,726 $1,480,909 $173,250 $34,050,000 26

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt)

18.4 2,550 4,085,100 $612,765 $27,744 $10,824,000 19 a $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

b Data assume a maximum usable area of all feasible landfills of 158,303 m2

. 

5.1.3 Vieques

See Table 31 and Table 32 for a summary of the system economics from Vieques assuming a 

hypothetical buyback electric rate increase to $0.15/kWh. 

Table 31. Vieques—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Lower Installed Costa and 

with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWhb

Array Tilt 

(Deg)

PV System 

Size (kW)

Annual 

Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual 

Cost 

Savings 

($/year)

Annual 

O&M 

($/year)

System 

Cost with 

Incentives 

($)

Payback 

Period with 

Incentive 

(years)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt)

18.4 24,500 39,249,000 $5,877,350 $145,775 $59,625,000 10

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

0 20,150 40,188,974 $6,028,346 $352,625 $70,125,000 12

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt)

18.4 10,300 16,500,600 $2,475,090 $56,032 $22,672,000 9 a $3.50/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$5.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $3.20/W.

b Data assume a maximum usable area of all feasible landfills of 634,455 m2

. 
61 

Table 32. Vieques—PV System Performance and Economics Assuming Higher Installed Costa and 

with a Hypothetical Rate Increase to $0.15/kWhb

Array Tilt 

(Deg)

PV System 

Size (kW)

Annual 

Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual 

Cost 

Savings 

($/year)

Annual 

O&M 

($/year)

System Cost 

with 

Incentives 

($)

Payback 

Period with 

Incentive 

(years)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt)

18.4 24,500 39,249,000 $5,887,350 $291,550 $119,650,000 21

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

0 20,150 40,188,974 $6,028,346 $705,250 $140,650,000 26

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt)

18.4 10,300 16,500,600 $2,475,090 $112,064 $45,744,000 19 a $7.00/W is for a crystalline silicon fixed-tilt system. Single-axis tracking system costs are assumed to be 

$10.00/W, and thin-film system costs are assumed to be $6.40/W.

b Data assume a maximum usable area of all feasible landfills of 634,455 m2

. 
62 

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 

The landfills and sites considered in this report are all feasible areas in which to implement solar 

PV systems. Using obtainable and accessible land that is unavailable for other purposes allows 

for reuse of land that would not otherwise contribute to productivity for Puerto Rico. Installing a 

solar generation plant and the associated facilities on landfills and former landing strips and 

naval ranges relieves “greenfields” of land-use impacts. Developing solar facilities on landfills

and abandoned sites can provide an economically viable reuse option for these sites in Puerto 

Rico. The landfills and sites have existing transmission capacity, roads, industrial zoning, and all 

other critical infrastructure in place for PV systems. One obstacle to PV on landfills and the sites 

on Vieques is that sites require little to no electricity once they are capped and closed. Therefore, 

finding a use for the electricity generated by the PV system is a key element. 

It is recommended that the party ultimately responsible for facilitating the implementation of PV 

systems contact PREPA and attempt to set up an agreement in which PREPA would purchase the 

electricity generated at the sites studied. According to the site production calculations, the most 

cost-effective system in terms of return on investment is the thin-film fixed-tilt technology. The 

lower cost of the system combined with the ample land available makes a thin-film system a 

good fit for these sites. Thin-film technology is a proven technology that can be successfully 

implemented with a ballasted-style mounting system. Crystalline silicon system styles—both 

fixed-tilt and single-axis tracking systems—could also be implemented, but the increased cost of 

the crystalline silicon panels may extend the payback period. 

For this feasibility study, system calculations and sizes were based on site area; however, actual 

system installation should be based on the availability of funds or on the amount of power that 

can be sold. Installing a small demonstration system and adding capacity as funding becomes 

available might make sense. When the system goes out to bid, a design-build contract should be 

issued that requests the best performance (kWh/year) at the best price and that allows vendors to 

optimize system configuration, including slope. A third-party ownership PPA provides the most 

feasible way for a system to be financed on these sites. All payback calculations assumed that the 

30% federal tax credit would be captured for the systems. 

In the coming years, increasing electrical rates and increased necessity for clean power will 

continue to improve the feasibility of implementing solar PV systems at these sites. 
63 

Appendix A. Assumptions for Calculations for Second Site Visit38

Table A-1. Second Site Visit—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems Assuming $3.50/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt 

Systems, $5.00/W for Single-Axis Tracking Systems, and $3.20/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems

Location

Array Tilt 

(Deg) 

Max Usable Area 

(ft2) 

Rounded PV System 

Size (kW) 

Annual Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual Cost Savings 

($/year) 

Annual O&M 

($/year) 

System Cost with 

Incentives ($)

Payback Period 

(years) 

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt)

Aguadilla 18.4 205,853 800 1,281,600 $166,608 $4,760 $1,860,000 11 

Añasco 18.4 234,132 900 1,441,800 $187,434 $5,355 $2,105,000 12

Isabela 18.4 211,502 850 1,361,700 $177,021 $5,058 $1,982,500 12

Maygüez 18.4 776,874 3,100 4,966,200 $645,606 $18,445 $7,495,000 12 

Moca 18.4 324,200 1,300 2,082,600 $270,738 $7,735 $3,085,000 12

All Site Total 18.4 1,752,561 6,950 11,133,900 $1,447,407 $41,353 $16,527,500 12 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

Aguadilla 0 205,853 650 1,296,419 $168,534 $11,375 $2,175,000 14

Añasco 0 234,132 750 1,495,868 $194,463 $13,125 $2,525,000 13

Isabela 0 211,502 700 1,396,143 $181,499 $12,250 $2,350,000 13

Maygüez 0 776,874 2,550 5,085,950 $661,173 $44,625 $8,825,000 14 

Moca 0 324,200 1,050 2,094,215 $272,248 $18,375 $3,575,000 14

All Site Total 0 1,752,561 5,700 11,368,593 $1,477,917 $99,750 $19,450,000 14 

Thin Film ( Fixed Tilt)

Aguadilla 18.4 205,853 350 560,700 $72,891 $1,904 $684,000 10 

Añasco 18.4 234,132 400 640,800 $83,304 $2,176 $796,000 10

Isabela 18.4 211,502 350 560,700 $72,891 $1,904 $684,000 10

Maygüez 18.4 776,874 1,300 2,082,600 $270,738 $7,072 $2,812,000 11

Moca 18.4 324,200 550 881,100 $114,543 $2,992 $1,132,000 10

All Site Total 18.4 1,752,561 2,950 4,725,900 $614,367 $16,048 $6,108,000 10 

 

38 The calculations in Appendix A assume that the 30% federal tax credit is secured.
64 

Table A-2. Second Site Visit—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems Assuming $7.00/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt 

Systems, $10.00/W for Single-Axis Tracking Systems, and $6.40/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems

Location Array Tilt 

(Deg) 

Max Usable Area 

(ft2

) 

Rounded PV System 

Size (kW) 

Annual Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual Cost Savings 

($/year) 

Annual O&M 

($/year) 

System Cost with 

Incentives ($)

Payback Period 

(years) 

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt)

Aguadilla 18.4 205,853 800 1,281,600 $166,608 $9,520 $3,820,000 24 

Añasco 18.4 234,132 900 1,441,800 $187,434 $10,710 $4,310,000 24

Isabela 18.4 211,502 850 1,361,700 $177,021 $10,115 $4,065,000 24 

Maygüez 18.4 776,874 3,100 4,966,200 $645,606 $36,890 $15,090,000 25

Moca 18.4 324,200 1,300 2,082,600 $270,738 $15,470 $6,270,000 25

All Site Total 18.4 1,752,561 6,950 11,133,900 $1,447,407 $82,705 $33,555,000 25 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

Aguadilla 0 205,853 650 1,296,419 $168,534 $22,750 $4,450,000 31 

Añasco 0 234,132 750 1,495,868 $194,463 $26,250 $5,150,000 31

Isabela 0 211,502 700 1,396,143 $181,499 $24,500 $4,800,000 31

Maygüez 0 776,874 2,550 5,085,950 $661,173 $89,250 $17,750,000 31 

Moca 0 324,200 1,050 2,094,215 $272,248 $36,750 $7,250,000 31

All Site Total 0 1,752,561 5,700 11,368,593 $1,477,917 $199,500 $39,400,000 31 

Thin Film ( Fixed Tilt)

Aguadilla 18.4 205,853 350 560,700 $72,891 $3,808 $1,468,000 21

Añasco 18.4 234,132 400 640,800 $83,304 $4,352 $1,692,000 21 

Isabela 18.4 211,502 350 560,700 $72,891 $3,808 $1,468,000 21

Maygüez 18.4 776,874 1,300 2,082,600 $270,738 $14,144 $5,724,000 22 

Moca 18.4 324,200 550 881,100 $114,543 $5,984 $2,364,000 22

All Site Total 18.4 1,752,561 2,950 4,725,900 $614,367 $32,096 $12,716,000 22 
65 

Table A-3. Second Site Visit—Other Assumptions, Including Assumptions for Costs and System 

Types

Cost Assumptions

Variable Quantity of Variable Unit of Variable

Buyback Electricity Rate $0.13 $/kWh

Annual O&M (Fixed) 0.17% % of installed cost

Annual O&M (Tracking) 0.35% % of installed cost

System Assumptions

System Type

Annual Energy 

(kWh/kW)

Low Installed 

Cost Assumption 

($/W)

High Installed 

Cost

Assumption 

($/W)

Energy 

Density

(W/ft2

) 

Ground Crystalline Fixed 1,602 $3.50 $7.00 4.0

Ground Single-Axis 

Tracking 

1,994 $5.00 $10.00 3.3

Ground Thin-Film Fixed

Roof Crystalline Fixed

Roof Thin-Film Fixed

1,602

1,602

1,602

$3.20

$6.00

$5.40

$6.40

$9.33

$8.73

1.7

10.0

4.3

Other Assumptions Ground Utilization 90% of available area

Incentives Federal tax credit and state incentives
66 

Appendix B. Assumptions for Calculations for Third Site Visit39

Table B-1. Third Site Visit—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems Assuming $3.50/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt 

Systems, $5.00/W for Single-Axis Tracking Systems, and $3.20/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems

Location

Array Tilt 

(Deg) 

Max Usable Area 

(ft2) 

Rounded PV System 

Size (kW) 

Annual Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual Cost Savings 

($/year) 

Annual O&M 

($/year) 

System Cost with 

Incentives ($)

Payback Period 

(years) 

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt)

Carolina 18.4 171,580 650 1,041,300 $135,369 $3,868 $1,492,500 11 

Cayey 18.4 89,806 350 560,700 $72,891 $2,083 $757,500 11

Fajardo 18.4 51,812 200 320,400 $41,652 $1,190 $390,000 10

Humacao 18.4 929,141 3,700 5,927,400 $770,562 $22,015 $8,965,000 12 

Juncos 18.4 141,431 550 881,100 $114,543 $3,273 $1,247,500 11

Vega Baja 18.4 149,791 600 961,200 $124,956 $3,570 $1,370,000 11

All Site Total 18.4 1,533,563 6,950 9,692,100 $1,259,973 $35,998 $14,222,500 12 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

Carolina 0 171,580 550 1,096,970 $142,606 $9,625 $1,825,000 14 

Cayey 0 89,806 300 598,347 $77,785 $5,250 $950,000 13

Fajardo 0 51,812 150 299,174 $38,893 $2,625 $425,000 12

Humacao 0 929,141 3,000 5,983,470 $777,851 $52,500 $10,400,000 14

Juncos 0 141,431 450 897,521 $116,678 $7,875 $1,475,000 14

Vega Baja 0 149,791 500 997,245 $129,642 $8,750 $1,650,000 14 

All Site Total 0 1,533,563 4,950 9,872,726 $1,283,454 $86,625 $16,725,000 14 

Thin Film ( Fixed Tilt)

Carolina 18.4 171,580 300 480,600 $62,478 $1,632 $572,000 9

Cayey 18.4 89,806 150 240,300 $31,239 $816 $236,000 8

Fajardo 18.4 51,812 100 160,200 $20,826 $544 $124,000 6

Humacao 18.4 929,141 1,550 2,483,100 $322,803 $8,432 $3,372,000 11 

Juncos 18.4 141,431 200 320,400 $41,652 $1,088 $348,000 9

Vega Baja 18.4 149,791 250 400,500 $52,065 $1,360 $460,000 9

All Site Total 18.4 1,533,563 2,550 4,085,100 $531,063 $13,872 $5,112,000 10 

 

39 The calculations in Appendix A assume that the 30% federal tax credit is secured.
67 

Table B-2. Third Site Visit—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems Assuming $7.00/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt 

Systems, $10.00/W for Single-Axis Tracking Systems, and $6.40/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems

Location Array Tilt 

(Deg) 

Max Usable Area 

(ft2

) 

Rounded PV System 

Size (kW) 

Annual Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual Cost Savings 

($/year) 

Annual O&M 

($/year) 

System Cost with 

Incentives ($)

Payback Period 

(years) 

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt)

Carolina 18.4 171,580 650 1,041,300 $135,369 $7,735 $3,085,000 24

Cayey 18.4 89,806 350 560,700 $72,891 $4,165 $1,615,000 23

Fajardo 18.4 51,812 200 320,400 $41,652 $2,380 $880,000 22 

Humacao 18.4 929,141 3,700 5,927,400 $770,562 $44,030 $18,030,000 25

Juncos 18.4 141,431 550 881,100 $114,543 $6,545 $2,595,000 24

Vega Baja 18.4 149,791 600 961,200 $124,956 $7,140 $2,840,000 24

All Site Total 18.4 1,533,563 6,950 9,692,100 $1,259,973 $71,995 $29,045,000 24 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

Carolina 0 171,580 550 1,096,970 $142,606 $19,250 $3,750,000 30 

Cayey 0 89,806 300 598,347 $77,785 $10,500 $2,000,000 30

Fajardo 0 51,812 150 299,174 $38,893 $5,250 $950,000 28

Humacao 0 929,141 3,000 5,983,470 $777,851 $105,000 $20,900,000 31

Juncos 0 141,431 450 897,521 $116,678 $15,750 $3,050,000 30

Vega Baja 0 149,791 500 997,245 $129,642 $17,500 $3,400,000 30 

All Site Total 0 1,533,563 4,950 9,872,726 $1,283,454 $173,250 $34,050,000 31 

Thin Film ( Fixed Tilt)

Carolina 18.4 171,580 300 480,600 $62,478 $3,264 $1,244,000 21

Cayey 18.4 89,806 150 240,300 $31,239 $1,632 $572,000 19

Fajardo 18.4 51,812 100 160,200 $20,826 $1,088 $348,000 18 

Humacao 18.4 929,141 1,550 2,483,100 $322,803 $16,864 $6,844,000 22

Juncos 18.4 141,431 200 320,400 $41,652 $2,176 $796,000 20

Vega Baja 18.4 149,791 250 400,500 $52,065 $2,720 $1,020,000 21

All Site Total 18.4 1,533,563 2,550 4,085,100 $531,063 $27,744 $10,824,000 22 
68 

Table B-3. Third Site Visit—Other Assumptions, Including Assumptions for Costs and System 

Types

Cost Assumptions 

Variable Quantity of Variable Unit of Variable

Buyback Electricity Rate $0.13 $/kWh

Annual O&M (Fixed) 0.17% % of installed cost

Annual O&M (Tracking) 0.35% % of installed cost

System Assumptions

System Type

Annual Energy 

(kWh/kW)

Low Installed 

Cost Assumption 

($/W)

High Installed 

Cost

Assumption 

($/W)

Energy 

Density

(W/ft2

) 

Ground Crystalline Fixed 1,602 $3.50 $7.00 4.0

Ground Single-Axis 

Tracking 

1,994 $5.00 $10.00 3.3

Ground Thin-Film Fixed

Roof Crystalline Fixed

Roof Thin-Film Fixed

1,602

1,602

1,602

$3.20

$6.00

$5.40

$6.40

$9.33

$8.73

1.7

10.0

4.3

Other Assumptions Ground Utilization 90% of available area

Incentives Federal tax credit and state incentives
69 

Appendix C. Assumptions for Calculations for Vieques40

Table C-1. Vieques—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems Assuming $3.50/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt Systems, 

$5.00/W for Single-Axis Tracking Systems, and $3.20/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems

Location

Array Tilt 

(Deg) 

Max Usable 

Area (ft2) 

Rounded PV 

System Size (kW)

Annual Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual Cost 

Savings ($/year)

Annual O&M 

($/year) 

System Cost with 

Incentives ($)

Payback Period 

(years) 

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt)

Former Vieques Landing Strip 18.4 2,259,893 9,000 14,418,000 $1,874,340 $53,550 $21,950,000 12 

Former Naval Training Range 18.4 1,129,982 4,500 7,209,000 $937,170 $26,775 $10,925,000 12

Old Camp Garcia Landfill 18.4 2,497,397 10,000 16,020,000 $2,082,600 $59,500 $24,400,000 12

Old Vieques Municipal Landfill 18.4 259,025 1,000 1,602,000 $208,260 $5,950 $2,350,000 12 

All Site Total 18.4 6,146,297 24,500 39,249,000 $5,102,370 $145,775 $59,625,000 12 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

Former Vieques Landing Strip 0 2,259,893 7,400 14,759,226 $1,918,699 $129,500 $25,800,000 14

Former Naval Training Range 0 1,129,982 3,700 7,379,613 $959,350 $64,750 $12,850,000 14

Old Camp Garcia Landfill 0 2,497,397 8,200 16,354,818 $2,126,126 $143,500 $28,600,000 14 

Old Vieques Municipal Landfill 0 259,025 850 1,695,317 $220,391 $14,875 $2,875,000 14

All Site Total 0 6,146,297 20,150 40,188,974 $5,224,567 $352,625 $70,125,000 14 

Thin Film (Fixed Tilt)

Former Vieques Landing Strip 18.4 2,259,893 3,800 6,087,600 $791,388 $20,672 $8,412,000 11

Former Naval Training Range 18.4 1,129,982 1,900 3,043,800 $395,694 $10,336 $4,156,000 11 

Old Camp Garcia Landfill 18.4 2,497,397 4,200 6,728,400 $874,692 $22,848 $9,308,000 11

Old Vieques Municipal Landfill 18.4 259,025 400 640,800 $83,304 $2,176 $796,000 10

All Site Total 18.4 6,146,297 10,300 16,500,600 $2,145,078 $56,032 $22,672,000 11 

 

40 The calculations in Appendix A assume that the 30% federal tax credit is secured.
70 

Table C-2. Vieques—Assumptions for Calculations for Ground-Mounted PV Systems Assuming $7.00/W for Crystalline Silicon Fixed-Tilt Systems, 

$10.00/W for Single-Axis Tracking Systems, and $6.40/W for Thin-Film Fixed-Tilt Systems

Location Array Tilt 

(Deg) 

Max Usable 

Area (ft2

) 

Rounded PV 

System Size (kW)

Annual Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual Cost 

Savings ($/year)

Annual O&M 

($/year) 

System Cost with 

Incentives ($)

Payback Period 

(years) 

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt)

Former Vieques Landing Strip 18.4 2,259,893 9,000 14,418,000 $1,874,340 $107,100 $44,000,000 25

Former Naval Training Range 18.4 1,129,982 4,500 7,209,000 $937,170 $53,550 $21,950,000 25 

Old Camp Garcia Landfill 18.4 2,497,397 10,000 16,020,000 $2,082,600 $119,000 $48,900,000 25

Old Vieques Municipal Landfill 18.4 259,025 1,000 1,602,000 $208,260 $11,900 $4,800,000 24

All Site Total 18.4 6,146,297 24,500 39,249,000 $5,102,370 $291,550 $119,650,000 25 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)

Former Vieques Landing Strip 0 2,259,893 7,400 14,759,226 $1,918,699 $259,000 $51,700,000 31

Former Naval Training Range 0 1,129,982 3,700 7,379,613 $959,350 $129,500 $25,800,000 31 

Old Camp Garcia Landfill 0 2,497,397 8,200 16,354,818 $2,126,126 $287,000 $57,300,000 31

Old Vieques Municipal Landfill 0 259,025 850 1,695,317 $220,391 $29,750 $5,850,000 31 

All Site Total 0 6,146,297 20,150 40,188,974 $5,224,567 $705,250 $140,650,000 31 

Thin Film ( Fixed Tilt)

Former Vieques Landing Strip 18.4 2,259,893 3,800 6,087,600 $791,388 $41,344 $16,924,000 23

Former Naval Training Range 18.4 1,129,982 1,900 3,043,800 $395,694 $20,672 $8,412,000 22

Old Camp Garcia Landfill 18.4 2,497,397 4,200 6,728,400 $874,692 $45,696 $18,716,000 23 

Old Vieques Municipal Landfill 18.4 259,025 400 640,800 $83,304 $4,352 $1,692,000 21

All Site Total 18.4 6,146,297 10,300 16,500,600 $2,145,078 $112,064 $45,744,000 23 
71 

Table C-3. Vieques—Other Assumptions, Including Assumptions for Costs and System Types

Cost Assumptions

Variable Quantity of Variable Unit of Variable

Buyback Electricity Rate $0.13 $/kWh

Annual O&M (Fixed) 0.17% % of installed cost

Annual O&M (Tracking) 0.35% % of installed cost

System Assumptions

System Type

Annual Energy 

(kWh/kW)

Low Installed 

Cost Assumption 

($/W)

High Installed 

Cost

Assumption 

($/W)

Energy 

Density

(W/ft2

) 

Ground Crystalline Fixed 1,602 $3.50 $7.00 4.0

Ground Single-Axis 

Tracking 

1,994 $5.00 $10.00 3.3

Ground Thin-Film Fixed

Roof Crystalline Fixed

Roof Thin-Film Fixed

1,602

1,602

1,602

$3.20

$6.00

$5.40

$6.40

$9.33

$8.73

1.7

10.0

4.3

Other Assumptions Ground Utilization 90% of available area

Incentives Federal tax credit and state incentives
72 

Appendix D. Renewable Energy Incentives41

Table D-1. Redevelopment and Renewable Energy Incentives and Financing Tools

Agency Incentive Name

Incentive (I), 

Finance Tool 

(FT) Public Private Funding Range

HUD Brownfield Economic Development 

Initiative (BEDI) Competitive Grant 

Program

I X Xa $17.5 million appropriated in 

FY2010; Award cap TBD as of 

2/27/10

HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program FT X Xb

Up to five times public entity’s 

latest approved Community 

Development Block Grants 

(CDBG) amount a Must be used in conjunction with Section 108 loan guarantee commitment.

b Through re-loan from public entity. 

 

41 The calculations in Appendix B assume that the 30% federal tax credit is secured.
73 

Table D-2. Renewable Energy Development Incentives and Financing Tools Applicable to PV

Agency Incentive Name

Incentive (I), 

Finance Tool 

(FT) Public Private Funding Range

DOE Loan Guarantee Program FT X X Not specified

DOE Renewable Energy Production 

Incentive (REPI) I X $0.021/kW 

HUD CDBG I X Based on community needs 

formula

Treasury 1603 Renewable Energy Grant 

Program *option to ITC I X 30% of the cost basis of the renewable energy project

Treasury Business Energy ITC *option to 1603 I X 30% of project expenditures

Treasury Clean Renewable Energy Bonds 

(CREB) FT X Varies

Treasury Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery 

System (MACRS) FT X Various depreciation deductions

Treasury Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds 

(QECB) FT X Varies

USDA Rural Energy for America Program 

(REAP) Grants I X X 25% of project cost; payment 

range $2.5K–$500K

USDA Rural Energy for America Program 

(REAP) Loan Guarantees FT X X Up to 75% of project costs; max. $25 million/min. $5,000

Source: DSIRE. http://www.dsireusa.org/. Accessed September 2010.
74 

Table D-3. State Rebates for Commercial-Sector PV Projects 

The programs included here are ongoing rebate and grant programs administered by state agencies or by third-party organizations on 

behalf of state governments. In addition to the programs highlighted, about 75 utilities in the United States offer PV rebates. In some 

states, such as Colorado and Arizona, solar rebates from utilities are available nearly statewide that must comply with state RPSs, but 

these are not shown in the table. Finally, programs that are purely performance-based, such as Washington's production incentive and 

California's feed-in tariff, are not included in this table.

State Program Name Incentive Amount REC Ownership Funding Source

California California Solar Initiative Varies by sector and system size Remains with project 

owner

Rate-payer funded

California CEC - New Solar Homes 

Partnership

Varies. Incentives are adjusted 

based on expected performance and 

will decline over time based on the 

total installed capacity.

Remains with system 

owner

Rate-payer funded

Connecticut Connecticut Clean 

Energy Fund (CCEF) - 

On-Site Renewable DG 

Program

For-profit owners: $3.00/W for first 

100 kW, $2.00/W for next 100 kW. 

Not-for-profit owners: $4.50/W for 

first 100 kW, $4.00/W for next 100 

kW. Additional $0.10/W premium for 

buildings that meet LEED Silver 

certification; CCEF also 

compensates system owners based 

on the estimated present value of the 

system's RECs.

RECs transfer to CCEF 

for systems 50 kW-PTC 

and larger. CCEF 

compensates system 

owners based on 

estimated present value 

of the system's RECs 

over 15 years.

CCEF (public benefits fund)

Delaware Green Energy Program 

Incentives

Delmarva: 25% of installed cost 

(35% for non-profits and

government); DEC: 33.3% of 

installed cost; Minis: 33.3% of 

installed cost, except 25% for Dover

and Seaford; PV system cost may 

not exceed $12/W

Remains with project 

owner

Green Energy Fund (Delmarva), 

DEC Renewable Resources 

Fund, Municipal Utility Green 

Energy Fund (public benefits 

funds)

District of 

Columbia

Renewable Energy 

Incentive Program

$3/DC-Watt for first 3 kW; $2/DCWatt for next 7 kW; $1/DC-Watt for 

next 10 kW

Remains with system 

owner

Sustainable Energy Trust Fund 

(public benefits fund)

Florida Solar Energy System 

Incentives Program

$4/DC-Watt Remains with system 

owner

General Revenue Funds 

(appropriated annually)
75 

State Program Name Incentive Amount REC Ownership Funding Source

Illinois DCEO - Solar and Wind 

Energy Rebate Program

Note (02/2010): Funding for FY 2010 

has been fully allocated; no 

additional rebates are available. 

Residential and commercial: 30%; 

non-profit and public: 50%

Remains with 

customer/producer

Illinois Renewable Energy 

Resources Trust Fund (public 

benefits fund)

Maine Solar and Wind Energy 

Rebate Program

$2/AC-Watt Remains with 

customer/producer

Funded by assessment of up to 

0.005 cents/kWh on transmission 

and distribution utilities; plus 

$500,000 per fiscal year 

(FY2009–2010 and FY2010–

2011) for two years using 

Recovery Act funding.

Maryland Mid-Size Solar Energy 

Grant Program

$500/kW for first 20 kW; $250/kW for 

next 30 kW; $150/kW for next 50 kW

Remains with project 

owner

Recovery Act

Maryland Solar Energy Grant 

Program

$1.25/DC-Watt for first 2 kW; 

$0.75/W for next 6 kW; $0.25/W for 

next 12 kW

Remains with project 

owner

General Revenue Funds 

(appropriated annually); FY 2009 

funds supplemented with RGGI 

proceeds

Massachusetts CEC - Commonwealth 

Solar II Rebates

$1.00/DC-Watt base; $0.10/DC-Watt

adder for MA components; 

$1.00/DC-Watt adder for moderate 

home value or for moderate income

Remains with project 

owner

Massachusetts Renewable 

Energy Trust

Massachusetts CEC - Commonwealth 

Solar Stimulus

$1.50/DC-Watt for first 25 kW; 

$1.00/DC-Watt for 25–100 kW; 

$0.50/DC-Watt for 100–200 kW

Remains with project 

owner

Recovery Act

Nevada NV Energy – Renewable 

Generations Rebate 

Program

(2010–2011 program year) 

Residential and small business: 

$2.30/AC-Watt; public 

facilities/schools: $5.00/AC-Watt

NV Energy Rate-payer funded
76 

State Program Name Incentive Amount REC Ownership Funding Source

New Jersey New Jersey CustomerSited Renewable Energy 

Rebates

Standard residential: $1.55/DC-Watt; 

Residential with energy efficiency: 

$1.75/DC-Watt; residential new 

construction: varies by efficiency, 

$1.00–1.75/DC-Watt; standard nonresidential: $0.90/DC-Watt; nonresidential with efficiency: $1.00/DCWatt

Remains with project 

owner

New Jersey Societal Benefits 

Charge (public benefits fund)

New Jersey Renewable Energy 

Manufacturing Incentives 

(for end-use PV 

installations)

Varies by equipment type, sector, 

and system size; ranges from $0.05–

$0.55/DC-Watt. 

Not applicable New Jersey Societal Benefits 

Charge (public benefits fund)

New York NYSERDA - PV Incentive 

Program

Residential (first 5 kW): $1.75/DCWatt; non-residential (first 50 kW): 

$1.75/DC-Watt; non-profit, 

government, schools (first 25 kW): 

$1.75/DC-Watt; bonus incentive: 

$0.50/W for Energy Star homes and 

BIPV systems

First 3 years: 

NYSERDA; thereafter 

customer/generator

RPS surcharge

Ohio ODOD - Advanced 

Energy Program Grants - 

Non-Residential 

Renewable Energy 

Incentive

$3.50/DC-Watt, may be reduced by 

shading

Not specified Ohio Advanced Energy Fund

Oregon Energy Trust - Solar 

Electric Buy-Down 

Program

Residential: $1.50/DC-Watt for 

Pacific Power; $1.75/DC-Watt for 

PGE; residential, third-party: $1/DCWatt for Pacific Power; $1.25/DCWatt for PGE; commercial: $0.50–

1.00/W for Pacific Power; $0.75–

1.25/W for PGE; nonprofit/government: $0.75–1.25/W for 

Pacific Power; $1.00–1.50/W for 

PGE

Residential: RECs for 

first 5 years owned by 

customer/producer; 

non-residential: RECs 

for first 5 years owned 

by consumer/producer, 

then Energy Trust owns 

RECs for years 6–20

Energy Trust of Oregon (public 

benefits fund)
77 

State Program Name Incentive Amount REC Ownership Funding Source

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Sunshine 

Solar Rebate Program

Residential: $2.25/DC-Watt; 

commercial: $1.25/DC-Watt for first 

10 kW, $1.00/DC-Watt for next 90 

kW, $0.75/DC-Watt for next 100 kW; 

low-income: 35% of installed costs

Not specified; netmetering customers 

generally retain title to 

RECs

Pennsylvania Energy 

Independence Fund (state bonds)

Puerto Rico Puerto Rico - State 

Energy Program - Sun 

Energy Rebate Program

Solar PV: residential and commercial 

$4/DC-Watt; governmental $8/DCWatt 

Not addressed Recovery Act State Energy 

Program funds

Tennessee Tennessee Clean Energy 

Technology Grant

40% of installed cost Not specified State of Tennessee Economic 

and Community Development 

Energy Division

Vermont Vermont Small-scale 

Renewable Energy 

Incentive Program

Individuals/businesses: $1.75/DCWatt; multi-family, low-income: 

$3.50/DC-Watt

Not addressed Utility settlement funds and the 

Vermont Clean Energy 

Development Fund

Wisconsin Focus on Energy - 

Renewable Energy CashBack Rewards

Residential/businesses: $1.00/kWh

for one year; non-profit/government: 

$1.50/kWh for one year (estimated 

one-year production using 

PVWATTS). Efficiency First 

participants: add $0.25/kWh for one 

year.

Not addressed Focus on Energy Program

Source: DSIRE. http://www.dsireusa.org/. Accessed September 2010.

Note: The information provided in this table presents an overview of state incentives, but it should not be used as the only source of information 

when making purchasing decisions, investment decisions, tax decisions, or other binding agreements. For more information about individual 

programs listed above, visit the DSIRE website at http://www.dsireusa.org/.
78 

Table D-4. State Tax Credits for Commercial-Sector PV Projects 

State Program Name Eligible Recipients

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible

Non-Profit/Government 

Eligible

Arizona Non-Residential 

Solar & Wind 

Tax Credit 

(Corporate)

Any non-residential installation is 

eligible, including those for nonprofits and governments. 

Individuals, corporations and S 

corporations, and partnerships may 

claim the credit. Third-party 

financiers/installers/mfrs. of an 

eligible system may claim the credit.

10% Yes Yes

Florida Renewable 

Energy 

Production Tax 

Credit

A non-residential taxpayer with 

facility placed in service or 

expanded after May 1, 2006. The 

credit is for electricity produced and 

sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated 

party during a given tax year. 

Florida corporate income taxpayers 

who own an interest in a general 

partnership, limited partnership, 

limited liability company, trust, or 

other artificial entity that owns a 

Florida renewable energy facility 

can apply for this credit.

$0.01/kWh Not specified Not specified

Georgia Clean Energy 

Tax Credit 

(Corporate)

Taxpayer who has constructed, 

purchased, or leased renewable 

energy property and placed it in 

service.

35% Yes Not specified

Hawaii Solar and Wind 

Energy Credit 

(Corporate)

Taxpayer that files a corporate net 

income tax return or franchise tax 

return; credit may be claimed for 

every eligible renewable energy 

technology system that is installed 

and placed in service. Third-party 

taxpaying entities may claim the 

credit if they install and own a 

system on a commercial taxpayer’s 

building or on a non-profit or 

35% Yes Yes
79 

State Program Name Eligible Recipients

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible

Non-Profit/Government 

Eligible

government building. Multiple 

owners of a single system may take 

a single tax credit. The credit is 

apportioned between the owners in 

proportion to their contribution to the 

system's cost.

Iowa Renewable 

Energy 

Production Tax 

Credits 

(Corporate)

Producers or purchasers of 

renewable energy from qualified 

facilities; installations must be at 

least 51% owned by a state resident 

or other qualifying owner and placed 

in service on or after July 1, 2005, 

and before January 1, 2012. 

Electricity must be sold to an 

unrelated person to qualify for the 

tax credit.

$0.015/kWh for 

10 years after 

energy 

production 

begins

Yes, credits may be 

claimed by system owner 

or by purchaser of 

electricity. System owners 

must meet certain eligibility 

criteria.

Schools and cooperative 

associations are eligible 

owners. Credits may be 

transferred or sold one 

time.

Kentucky Renewable 

Energy Tax 

Credit 

(Corporate)

Any installation on a dwelling unit or 

on property that is owned and used 

by the taxpayer as commercial 

property. 

$3/DC-Watt Not specified Not specified

Kentucky Tax Credit for 

Renewable 

Energy 

Facilities

Companies that build or renovate 

facilities that utilize renewable 

energy. 

100% Kentucky 

income tax or 

limited liability 

entity tax

Not specified Not specified

Louisiana Tax Credit for 

Solar and Wind 

Energy 

Systems on 

Residential 

Property 

(Corporate)

Taxpayer who purchases and 

installs an eligible system or who 

purchases a new home with such a 

system already in place. 

50% No No

Maryland Clean Energy 

Production Tax 

Credit 

(Corporate)

All individuals and corporations that 

sell electricity produced by a 

qualified facility to an unrelated 

person; net-metering arrangements 

qualify.

$0.0085/kWh 

for 5 years after 

facility is placed 

in service

Not specified No
80 

State Program Name Eligible Recipients

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible

Non-Profit/Government 

Eligible

Montana Alternative 

Energy 

Investment Tax 

Credit 

(Corporate)

Corporation, partnership, or small 

business corporation that makes a 

minimum investment of $5,000. 

35% No No

New 

Mexico

Advanced 

Energy Tax 

Credit 

(Corporate)

Any taxpayer. 6% No No

New 

Mexico

Renewable 

Energy 

Production Tax 

Credit 

(Corporate)

Taxpayer who holds title to a 

qualified energy generator that first 

produced electricity on or before 

January 1, 2018, or a taxpayer who 

leases property upon which a 

qualified energy generator operates 

from a county or municipality under 

authority of an industrial revenue 

bond and if the qualified energy 

generator first produced electricity 

on or before January 1, 2018.

Varies annually 

over 10 years; 

$0.027/kWh 

average

Not specified Not specified

New 

Mexico

Solar Market 

Development 

Tax Credit

Residents and non-corporate 

businesses, including agricultural 

enterprises. 

10% of 

purchase and 

installation 

costs

No No

North 

Carolina

Renewable 

Energy Tax 

Credit 

(Corporate)

Taxpayer who has constructed, 

purchased, or leased renewable 

energy property and placed it in 

service.

35% 

(distributed 7% 

per year for 5 

years for nonresidential 

installations)

Yes. For leasing, a 

taxpayer may take credit 

for property that the 

taxpayer leases if written 

verification is received 

from the owner that states 

that owner will not take 

credit for renewable 

energy installation.

No
81 

State Program Name Eligible Recipients

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible

Non-Profit/Government 

Eligible

North 

Dakota

Renewable 

Energy Tax 

Credit

Corporate taxpayers filing a North 

Dakota income tax return. System 

must be installed on a building or on 

property owned or leased by the 

taxpayer in North Dakota.

15% 

(distributed 3% 

per year for 5 

years)

A pass-through entity that 

installs the system at a 

property it owns or leases 

is considered the taxpayer. 

The credit amount allowed 

is determined at the passthrough entity level and 

must be passed through 

proportionally to corporate 

partners, shareholders, or 

members.

No

Oklahoma Zero-Emission 

Facilities 

Production Tax 

Credit

Non-residential taxpayer who sells 

electricity to an unrelated person; 

non-taxable entities, including 

agencies of the State of Oklahoma, 

may transfer their credit to a 

taxpayer.

$0.0050/kWh 

for first 10 years 

of operation

Yes Yes, nontaxable entities, 

including agencies of the 

State of Oklahoma, or 

political subdivisions 

thereof, can take 

advantage of the tax credit 

by transferring it to a 

taxable entity.

Oregon Business 

Energy Tax 

Credit

Trade, business, or rental property 

owners who pay taxes for a 

business site in Oregon are eligible 

for the tax credit. The business, its 

partners, or its shareholders may 

use the credit. A project owner also 

can be an Oregon non-profit 

organization, tribe, or public entity 

that partners with an Oregon 

business or resident who has an 

Oregon tax liability. This can be 

done using the pass-through option. 

50% 

(distributed 

10% per year 

for 5 years)

Yes A project owner can be a 

non-profit, tribe, or public 

entity that partners with a 

business or resident to 

take advantage of the

pass-through option. The 

pass-through option allows 

a project owner to transfer 

the 35% Business Energy 

Tax Credit project eligibility 

to a pass-through partner 

for a lump-sum cash 

payment. The passthrough option rate for 5-

year Business Energy Tax 

Credits effective October 

1, 2003, is 25.5%. The 

pass-through option rate 
82 

State Program Name Eligible Recipients

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible

Non-Profit/Government 

Eligible

for 1-year Business Energy 

Tax Credits (those with 

eligible costs of $20,000 or 

less) effective October 1, 

2003, is 30.5%. 

Puerto 

Rico

Puerto Rico - 

Solar Tax 

Credit 

(Corporate)

Any Puerto Rican taxpayer who has 

acquired, assembled, and installed 

eligible solar electric equipment.

75% during FY 

2007–2008 and 

FY 2008–2009; 

50% during FY 

2009–2010 and 

FY 2010–2011; 

25% starting FY 

2011–2012

Not specified Potentially; the tax credit 

may be transferred, sold, 

or otherwise given to "any 

other person."

Rhode 

Island

Residential 

Renewable 

Energy Tax 

Credit 

(Corporate)

Taxpayer who (1) owns, rents, or is 

the contract buyer of the dwelling(s) 

served by the system; the dwelling 

or dwellings must be in the main or 

secondary residence of the person 

who applies for the tax credit or of a 

tenant; (2) owns or is the contract 

buyer of the system and pays all or 

part of the cost of the system; or (3) 

is the contractor that owns the 

dwelling for speculative sale in 

which the system is installed. 

25% Yes. Credit is available to 

taxpayers who are the 

contract buyers of eligible 

systems and pay all or part 

of the cost of the system.

No

South 

Carolina

Solar Energy 

and Small 

Hydropower 

Tax Credit 

(Corporate)

Taxpayers who purchase and install 

an eligible system in or on a facility 

owned by the taxpayer. 

25% for 2010; 

was 30% in 

2009

No No

Utah Renewable 

Energy 

Systems Tax 

Credit 

(Corporate)

Any company that owns a qualified 

system. 

Residential: 

25%; 

Commercial: 

10%

No No
83 

State Program Name Eligible Recipients

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible

Non-Profit/Government 

Eligible

Vermont Business Tax 

Credit for Solar 

(Corporate)

Corporations that pay corporate 

income tax in Vermont that do not 

receive grants/funding from CEDF.

30% of 

expenditures for 

systems placed 

into service on 

or before 

December 31, 

2010

Not specified No

Source: DSIRE. http://www.dsireusa.org/. Accessed September 2010.

Note: The information provided in this table presents an overview of state incentives, but it should not be used as the only source of information 

when making purchasing decisions, investment decisions, tax decisions, or other binding agreements. For more information about individual 

programs listed above, visit the DSIRE Web site at http://www.dsireusa.org/.
84 

Table D-5. U.S. Department of Energy Brightfields Program Grantsa

Award 

Year

Award 

Amount 

Project Project Description Project Status

2000 $30,000 Brockton, MA: 

Brownfields to 

Brightfields Project

“This project involved attracting a PV system manufacturer to a Brockton 

Brownfield and building a solar array on a second site. Anticipation: This 

array will bring into productive use up to 27 acres of idle property and 

the array could also generate up to 6 MW of electricity. To create 

sufficient local demand to attract the manufacturer, other potential sites 

for photovoltaic applications will be surveyed.”

425 kW facility 

commercially operational

since September 27, 

2006. Expanded by 35 

kW to 460 kW in July 

2007; grid-connected

selling 100% of output 

into New England Power 

Pool

$50,000 Atlantic City, NJ:

Cityscape SolarPowered Bed and 

Breakfast on an 

Urban Brownfield.

“Involves the construction of a solar-powered bed and breakfast on an 

urban brownfield site in Atlantic City, New Jersey, as part of an overall 

neighborhood redevelopment plan with a sustainability theme. The 

project will showcase the use of PV in supplying renewable energy and 

also contain sustainable features such as recycled building materials 

and Energy Star appliances and will be located in the "Cityscape 

Neighborhood," an area designed to promote renewable energy, 

sustainable building materials, and concepts of New Urbanism.”

Project canceled

$50,000 Hanford, WA: 

Brightfield Project

“This project will ultimately be the largest PV installation of its kind and 

will bring the Brightfield concept to one of the worst Super Fund sites in 

the nation. The funding provided will cover a portion of the pilot phase of 

the project, involving 40 kW. Later phases will use a wind/solar green 

energy blending strategy to finance development up to 1 MW or larger. 

This solar array will act as a nucleation site around which Energy 

Northwest intends to grow a renewable energy industrial park.”

38.7 kW system installed 

in May 2002

2004 $65,400 Cedar Rapids, IA: 

Bohemian 

Commercial Historic 

District Solar 

Development 

Program

“The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) will partner with the 

City of Cedar Rapids, the Iowa Renewable Energy Association, Alliant 

Energy, and Thorland Company to install a 7,200-watt solar array in 

Cedar Rapids on a multiuse converted former warehouse building in a 

designated brownfields redevelopment area. The IDNR has established 

partnerships with the City of Cedar Rapids, Alliant Energy, the Iowa 

Renewable Energy Association, and the building owner to increase the 

economic and environmental viability of a redeveloped brownfield area 

and expand the value and viability of solar projects.”

7.2 kW installed
85 

$59,400 Brockton, MA: Solar 

Energy Park: 

Deploying a Solar 

Array on a Brownfield

“The City of Brockton will build New England's largest solar array at a 

remediated 27-acre brownfield site in fall 2004. The 500-kW solar PV 

array—or ‘Brightfield’—will be installed in an urban park setting with 

interpretive displays. The Brightfield could include as many as 6,720 

solar panels connected in strings that span the site. The Brightfield will 

grow incrementally to 1 MW with expansions financed through positive 

annual cash flow generated by the sale of RECs and electricity.”

425-kW facility 

commercially operational 

since September 27, 

2006. Expanded by 35 

kW to 460 kW in July 

2007; grid-connected

selling 100% of output 

into New England Power 

Pool

$125,000 Raleigh, NC: 

Brightfield Technology 

Demonstration at 

NCSU

“Carolina Green Energy, LLC proposes to partner with the North 

Carolina Solar Center to design and install a 30-kW grid-tied PV system. 

As part of its continued efforts to bolster support for renewable energy, 

the Solar Center will incorporate the "Brownfield to Brightfield" project at 

Lot 86 into its ongoing education and outreach programs.”

75.6-kW PV-generation 

project operational since 

October 2007

Source: U.S. DOE State Energy Program. http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/training/web/energy/programs/doe.cfm. Accessed 

September 2010. 

According to EPA, the term brightfields refers to “the conversion of contaminated sites into usable land by bringing pollution-free solar energy and 

high-tech solar manufacturing jobs to these sites, including the placement of PV arrays that can reduce cleanup costs, building integrated solar 

energy systems as part of redevelopment, and solar manufacturing plants on brownfields.” For more information, see http://epa.gov/ and 

brownfields/partners/brightfd.htm.
86 

Table D-6. State Policy and Incentive Comparisons: Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Colorado

MASSACHUSETTS

Incentive Specifics Sector

New Generation Energy - Community 

Solar Lending Program

$5,000–$100,000 Private

Massachusetts DOER - Solar 

Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs)

$300–$600 (per MWh) Both

Mass Energy Consumers Alliance - 

Renewable Energy Certificate Incentive

Both

Renewable Energy Property Tax 

Exemption

100% exemption for 20 years Private

CEC - Commonwealth Solar II Rebates $5,500 (per host customer), up to 

$250,000 per parent company

Both

CEC - Commonwealth Solar Stimulus $162,500 per project (up to $1 million 

for any host customer entity or parent 

company/organization)

Both

Policy Specifics Sector

Massachusetts - Net Metering Both

Renewable Energy Trust Fund Public benefit fund Private

RPS In-state PV: mandated target of 400 

MW

NORTH CAROLINA

Incentive Specifics Sector

Renewable Energy Tax Credit 

(Corporate)

35% or $2.5 million per installation Private

Local Option - Revolving Loan Program 

for Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency

Interest rate can be no more than 8% Private

Local Option - Clean Energy Financing Debt repaid via property assessment Private

Renewable Energy Tax Credit 

(Personal)

35% or $2.5 million per installation Private

NC GreenPower Production Incentive Payments contingent on program 

success

Both

Progress Energy Carolinas - SunSense 

Commercial PV Incentive Program

$0.18/kWh for 20 years Both

TVA - Generation Partners Program $1,000 plus $0.12/kWh above the retail 

rate for solar and $0.03/kWh above the 

retail rate for all other eligible 

renewables

Private

Property Tax Abatement for Solar 

Electric Systems

80% of appraised value Both

North Carolina Green Business Fund Grant varies Both

Energy Improvement Loan Program 

(EILP)

State Loan Program $500,000 

maximum

Both
87 

Policy Specifics Sector

North Carolina - Net Metering

Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency Portfolio Standard

Solar: 0.2% by 2018

COLORADO

Incentive Specifics Sector

Boulder County - ClimateSmart Loan 

Program

Commercial: $3,000–$210,000 Private

Local Option - Improvement Districts for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy Improvements

Debt repaid via property assessment Both

Renewable Energy Property Tax 

Assessment

Varies Private

Boulder - Solar Sales and Use Tax 

Rebate

15% refund on sales and use tax for the 

solar installation

Private

Local Option - Sales and Use Tax 

Exemption for Renewable Energy 

Systems

Varies Private

Sales and Use Tax Exemption for 

Renewable Energy Equipment

100% Both

New Energy Economic Development 

Grant Program

Competitive grant, Recovery Act funded Private

Xcel Energy - Solar*Rewards Program $2/DC-Watt with a maximum rebate of 

$200,000; REC payments will step 

down over time as certain MW levels 

are reached for each system 

classification.

Private

Policy Specifics Sector

Colorado - Net Metering Private

Mandatory Green Power Option for 

Large Municipal Utilities

Allows retail customers the choice of 

supporting emerging renewable 

technologies

Both

Boulder - Climate Action Plan Fund Public benefits fund Private

Renewable Energy Standard Solar-electric (IOUs only): 4% of annual 

requirement (0.8% of sales in 2020); 

half of solar-electric requirement must 

be located on-site at customers'

facilities

Solar, Wind, and Energy-Efficiency 

Access Laws

Source: U.S. DOE State Energy Program. http://www.sseb.org/files/renewable-portfolio-standards.pdf. 

Accessed September 2010.
88 

Table D-7. Key Policy Comparison for Subject States

RPS Massachusetts North Carolina Colorado 

Policy In Place Yes Yes Yes

Effective Date 4/1/02 2/29/08 12/1/04

Targets 15% by 2020 and an 

additional 1% each year 

thereafter; in-state PV 

mandated target of 

400 MW

12.5% of 2020 retail 

electricity sales by 2021 

with 0.2% from solar

20% by 2020; solarelectric: 4% of annual 

requirement

PBF Massachusetts North Carolina Colorado 

Policy In Place Yes No City of Boulder only

Effective Date 3/1/98 N/A 4/1/07

Charge $0.0005 per kWh

($0.5 million/kWh) in 

2003 and in each 

following year

N/A Maximum tax rates for 

electricity customers:

Residential: 

$0.0049/kWh

Commercial: 

$0.0009/kWh

Industrial: $0.0003/kWh

NET METERING Massachusetts North Carolina Colorado 

Policy In Place Yes Yes Yes

Effective Date 1982 10/20/05 7/2/06

System Capacity 2 MW for "Class III" 

systems; 1 MW for "Class 

II" systems; 60 kW for 

"Class I" systems

1 MW 120% of the customer's 

average annual 

consumption

REC Ownership Customer owns RECs Utility owns RECs 

(unless customer 

chooses to net meter 

under an unfavorable 

demand tariff)

Customer owns RECs 

(must be relinquished to 

utility for 20 years in

exchange for incentives)

TAX INCENTIVES 

APPLICABLE TO PV

Incentives

Massachusetts North Carolina Colorado 

Property – 100% 

exemption for 20 years

Corporate – 35%

Property – 85% of 

appraised value

Property – Amount 

varies depending on rate 

set annually by the 

Division of Property 

Taxation

Effective Date 1984 Corporate 1/1/09

Property 7/1/08

2001

Source: DSIRE. http://www.dsireusa.org/. Accessed September 2010.