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 Economics 

and Performance of Solar 

Photovoltaics at the Price 

Landfill Site in Pleasantville, 

New Jersey

A Study Prepared in Partnership with the 

Environmental Protection Agency for the 

RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: 

Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially 

Contaminated Land and Mine Sites

James Salasovich, Jesse Geiger, Gail Mosey, 

and Victoria Healey

Produced under direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

under Interagency Agreement IAG-09-1751 and Task No. 

WFD4.1001.

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A40-58480 

May 2013
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

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Feasibility Study of Economics 

and Performance of Solar 

Photovoltaics at the Price 

Landfill Site in Pleasantville, 

New Jersey

A Study Prepared in Partnership with the 

Environmental Protection Agency for the 

RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: 

Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially 

Contaminated Land and Mine Sites

James Salasovich, Jesse Geiger, Gail Mosey, 

and Victoria Healey

Prepared under Task No. WFD4.1001

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A40-58480 

May 2013
NOTICE

This manuscript has been authored by employees of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (“Alliance”) under 

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”).

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.

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

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) thanks the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for its interest in securing NREL’s technical expertise. In 

particular, NREL and the assessment team for this project are grateful to the Price 

Landfill facility managers, engineers, and operators for their generous assistance 

and cooperation. 

Special thanks go to Katie Brown, AAAS Science & Technology Policy fellow hosted by 

EPA, and Shea Jones, Perry Katz, John Koechley, Lura Matthews, Jessica Trice, and 

Fernando Rosado from EPA for hosting the site visit. The authors would also like to 

thank Carlton Bergman and Sarah Gentile from New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, Ian Jerome from Jerome Associates, and James Rutala from 

Rutala Associates LLC for their involvement in the project. 
iv

Executive Summary

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

America’s Land initiative, selected the Price Landfill site in Pleasantville, New Jersey, 

for a feasibility study of renewable energy production. The National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) provided technical assistance for this project. The purpose of this 

report is to assess the site for a possible photovoltaic (PV) system installation and 

estimate the cost, performance, and site impacts of different PV options. In addition, the 

report recommends financing options that could assist in the implementation of a PV 

system at the site. This study did not assess environmental conditions at the site. 

The Price Landfill is a privately owned Superfund site that is approximately 26.4 acres

and is currently inactive. The Price Landfill was in operation from 1969–1976. The main 

contaminants at the site are heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOC), which 

resulted from dumping industrial chemicals, sewage, greases, and oils into the landfill. It 

is estimated that over 9 million gallons of chemical waste was disposed of at the landfill.

The site recently received $16.3 million in American Reinvestment and Recovery Act 

(ARRA) funds for the construction and operation of a groundwater extraction and 

treatment system.

1 The City of Pleasantville is interested in using the currently 

underutilized site for solar PV in order to minimize its impact on the environment. 

The feasibility of a PV system installed is highly impacted by the available area for an 

array, solar resource, available incentives and renewable energy certificates (RECs),

distance to transmission lines, and distance to major roads. In addition, the operating

status, ground conditions, and restrictions associated with redevelopment of the landfill

site impact the feasibility of a PV system. Based on an assessment of these factors, the 

Price Landfill is suitable for deployment of a large-scale PV system. 

Of the total acreage at the Price Landfill site, approximately 8.2 acres is currently

appropriate for installation of a PV system. While this entire area does not need to be 

developed at one time due to the feasibility of staging installation as land or funding 

becomes available, calculations for this analysis reflect the solar potential if the total 

feasible area is used. The 8.2 acres on the north side of the site is currently the most 

suitable location for a large-scale PV system. This area is flat but still has trees and other 

shading obstructions, which would need to be cleared before the installation of a 

PV system.

The economic feasibility of a potential PV system on Price Landfill depends greatly on 

the purchase price of the RECs gained. The economics of the potential system were 

analyzed using the current average REC purchase price of $0.225/kWh and an expected 

electricity generated purchase rate from Atlantic City Electricity at $0.04594/kWh. Many 

incentives have expired in New Jersey this past year, and while they are expected to be 

extended, they were not included in the analysis. The incentives considered include: the 

federal 30% of installed cost tax credit, New Jersey property tax exemption of 100% of 

the increased value attributed to a solar system, the New Jersey solar energy sales tax 

exemption of 100% of sales tax for all related solar equipment, and bonus depreciation 

 

1

 “Superfund Program Implements the Recovery Act.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.

Accessed August, 2012: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/eparecovery/price_landfill.html. 
v 

modified accelerated cost recovery system schedule. Table ES-1 summarizes the system 

performance and economics of a potential system that would use all available areas that 

were surveyed at Price Landfill. The table shows the annual energy output from the 

system, along with the number of average American households that could be powered 

off of such a system and estimated job creation. 

As indicated in Table ES-1, the investor-owned system is expected to have a payback of 

7 years and an annual energy revenue of $95,000 for a 1,182-kW PV system producing 

approximately 1,901,489 kWh estimated annual energy generation. This includes the 

current cost of energy, expected installation cost, site solar resource, and existing 

incentives for the proposed PV system. 

Table ES-1. Price Landfill PV System Summary
vi 

Table of Contents

1 Study and Site Background ................................................................................................................. 1

2 Development of a PV System on Superfund Sites ............................................................................ 2

3 PV Systems............................................................................................................................................ 4

3.1 PV Overview ................................................................................................................................. 4

3.2 Major System Components ............................................................................................................ 5

3.2.1 PV Module ........................................................................................................................ 5

3.2.2 Inverter .............................................................................................................................. 7

3.2.3 Balance-of-System Components....................................................................................... 8

3.2.4 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................................ 10

3.3 Siting Considerations ................................................................................................................... 10

4 Proposed Installation Location Information ....................................................................................11

4.1 Price Landfill Site PV System ..................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Utility-Resource Considerations .................................................................................................. 13

4.3 Useable Acreage for PV System Installation ............................................................................... 14

4.4 PV Site Solar Resource ................................................................................................................ 15

4.5 Price Landfill Energy Usage ........................................................................................................ 17

4.5.1 Net Metering ................................................................................................................... 17

4.5.2 Virtual Net Metering ....................................................................................................... 18

5 Economics and Performance ............................................................................................................19

5.1 Assumptions and Input Data for Analysis ................................................................................... 19

5.2 SAM-Forecasted Economic Performance.................................................................................... 20

5.2.1 Fixed Tilt vs. Single-Axis Tracking ............................................................................... 21

5.2.2 Renewable Energy Certificate Market Fluctuations ....................................................... 21

5.3 Job Analysis and Impact .............................................................................................................. 22

5.4 Financing Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 23

5.4.1 Owner and Operator Financing....................................................................................... 23

5.4.2 Third-Party Developers with Power Purchase Agreements ............................................ 24

5.4.3 Third-Party “Flip” Agreements ...................................................................................... 24

5.4.4 Hybrid Financial Structures ............................................................................................ 24

5.4.5 Solar Services Agreement and Operating Lease ............................................................. 25

5.4.6 Sales/Leaseback .............................................................................................................. 25

5.4.7 Community Solar/Solar Gardens .................................................................................... 25

6 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................27

Appendix A. Assessment and Calculations Assumptions ...................................................................28

Appendix B. Results from the System Advisor Model ..........................................................................29

Appendix C. Results from the Jobs and Economic Development Impact Model ...............................40
vii 

List of Figures

Figure 1. Generation of electricity from a PV cell ................................................................................ 4

Figure 2. Ground-mounted array diagram ............................................................................................. 5

Figure 3. Mono- and multi-crystalline solar panels ............................................................................... 6

Figure 4. Thin-film solar panels installed on (left) solar energy cover and (middle/right) 

fixed-tilt mounting system ................................................................................................. 7

Figure 5. String inverter ......................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 6. Aerial view of the current feasible area (yellow) for PV at the Price Landfill site .............. 12

Figure 7. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Price Landfill ........................................................ 13

Figure 8. Price Landfill, transmission lines, and the Wisteria Street Substation ................................. 14

Figure 9. Wisteria Street Substation and electrical transmission lines at the Price Landfill ............... 14

Figure B-1. Modeled output for a fixed-axis ground system ............................................................... 29

Figure B-2. Modeled output for a single-axis tracking PV system ..................................................... 30

Figure B-3. LCOE for owner purchase of a fixed-axis system ........................................................... 31

Figure B-4. After-tax cash flow for owner purchase of a fixed-axis system ....................................... 32

Figure B-5. LCOE for a developer-purchased fixed-axis system ........................................................ 33

Figure B-6. After-tax cash flow for a developer-purchased fixed-axis system ................................... 34

Figure B-7. LCOE for owner-purchased single-axis tracking PV system ........................................... 35

Figure B-8. After-tax cash flow for owner-purchased single-axis tracking PV system ...................... 36

Figure B-9. LCOE for a developer-purchased single-axis tracking PV system .................................. 37

Figure B-10. After-tax cash flow for a developer-purchased single-axis tracking PV system ............ 38

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Price Landfill PV System Summary ............................................................................v

Table 1. Energy Density by Panel and System ................................................................................9

Table 2. Site Identification Information and Specifications ..........................................................15

Table 3. Performance Results for 20-Degree Fixed-Tilt PV .........................................................16

Table 4. Performance Results for Zero-Degree Single-Axis PV ...................................................16

Table 5. Installed System Cost Assumptions .................................................................................20

Table 6. Summary of Model Results .............................................................................................21

Table 7. PV System Summary .......................................................................................................22

Table 8. JEDI Analysis Assumptions ............................................................................................23

Table A-1. Cost, System, and Other Assessment Assumptions ....................................................28

Table B-1. PPA Price Variation Based on SREC Price Variation .................................................39

Table C-1. Data Summary for JEDI Model Analysis of Fixed-Tilt PV System............................40

Table C-2. Summary of Local Economic Impacts for JEDI Model Analysis of Fixed-Tilt 

PV System ..................................................................................................................41

Table C-3. Detailed Summary of Costs for JEDI Model Analysis of Fixed-Tilt PV 

System.........................................................................................................................42

Table C-4. Annual O&M Costs for JEDI Model Analysis of Fixed-Tilt PV System ...................43

Table C-5. Data Summary for JEDI Model Analysis of Single-Axis Tracking PV System .........44

Table C-6. Summary of Local Economic Impacts for JEDI Model Analysis of SingleAxis Tracking PV System ..........................................................................................45

Table C-7. Detailed Summary of Costs for JEDI Model Analysis of Single-Axis Tracking 

PV System ..................................................................................................................46

Table C-8. Annual O&M Costs for JEDI Model Analysis of Single-Axis Tracking PV 

System.........................................................................................................................47
1 

1 Study and Site Background

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

America’s Land initiative, selected the Price Landfill site in Pleasantville, New Jersey, 

for a feasibility study of renewable energy production. The National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) provided technical assistance for this project. The purpose of this 

report is to assess the site for a possible photovoltaic (PV) system installation and 

estimate the cost, performance, and site impacts of different PV options. In addition, the 

report recommends financing options that could assist in the implementation of a PV 

system at the site. This study did not assess environmental conditions at the site. 

The Price Landfill is located in Pleasantville, New Jersey. Pleasantville is approximately 

6 miles northwest of Atlantic City and has a population of 20,249 as of the 2010 census. 

On average, Pleasantville has approximately 205 sunny days per year, and the climate is 

hot and humid in the summer and moderately cold in the winter. Atlantic City Electric, a 

regulated utility, is the energy-holding company that provides electricity to Pleasantville. 

The Price Landfill is a privately owned Superfund site that is approximately 26.4 acres 

and is currently inactive. The Price Landfill was in operation from 1969–1976. The City 

of Pleasantville is interested in using the currently underutilized site for solar PV in order 

to minimize its impact on the environment. 

The remediation of the Price Landfill is being addressed through federal and state actions. 

The main contaminants at the site are heavy metals and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC), which resulted from dumping industrial chemicals, sewage, greases, and oils into 

the landfill. It is estimated that over 9 million gallons of chemical waste was disposed of 

at the landfill. The site recently received $16.3 million in American Reinvestment and 

Recovery Act (ARRA) funds for the construction and operation of a groundwater 

extraction and treatment system.2 It is estimated that the pump and treat system has a 

1-MW load. The site is scheduled to be capped starting in 2013. There are concerns with 

trenching and disturbing the soil at the site due to the contaminants present and the future 

installation of a landfill cap.

Atlantic City Electric owns the transmission lines that run through the site. The Wisteria 

Street Substation is located less than 0.1 mile to the west of the Price Landfill. 

Interconnection is governed by Atlantic City Electric. Performing an interconnection 

study is a relatively slow process that would have to be performed through Atlantic City 

Electric and would involve considerable cost. There is currently approximately 1 MW of 

electrical load at the site associated with the pump and treat system. There are also 

surrounding buildings that could be potential off-takers of electricity produced by a 

utility-scale PV system. 

To gather information integral to this feasibility study, feasibility assessment team 

members from NREL and EPA conducted a site visit on February 8, 2012. The team 

considered information such as solar resource, transmission availability, community 

acceptance, and ground conditions. 

 

2

 “Superfund Program Implements the Recovery Act.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.

Accessed August, 2012: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/eparecovery/price_landfill.html. 
2 

2 Development of a PV System on Superfund 

Sites 

Through the RE-Powering America’s Lands initiative, EPA has identified several 

benefits for siting solar PV facilities on Superfund sites, noting that they: 

• Can be developed in place of limited greenfields, preserving the land carbon sink 

• Could have environmental conditions that are not well-suited for commercial or 

residential redevelopment and might be adequately zoned for renewable energy

• Generally are located near existing roads and energy transmission or 

distribution infrastructure 

• Might provide an economically viable reuse for sites that may have significant 

cleanup costs or low real estate development demand 

• Can provide job opportunities in urban and rural communities 

• Can advance cleaner and more cost-effective energy technologies and reduce the 

environmental impacts of energy systems (e.g., reduce greenhouse gas emissions). 

By taking advantage of these potential benefits, PV can provide a viable, beneficial reuse, 

and, in many cases, generate significant revenue on a site that would otherwise 

go unused. 

The Price Landfill is owned by Rutala Associates, LLC, which is interested in potential 

revenue flows on the site. For many Superfund sites, the local community has significant 

interest in the redevelopment of the site, and community engagement is critical to match 

future reuse options to the community’s vision for the site. 

Understanding opportunities studied and realized by other similar sites demonstrates the 

potential for PV system development. For example, the Aerojet solar project near Rancho 

Cordova, California, is a 6-MW PV system built on a Superfund site. The Aerojet 

Superfund site is a manufacturing site for liquid and solid propellant rocket engines that 

is currently in operation. The site is 5,900 acres and owned by Aerojet General 

Corporation, who teamed up with Solar Power to implement the PV system. The Aerojet

solar project was built in two phases; the final phase was completed in 2010 and is a 

6-MW single-axis tracking system.

3

 

The subject site has potential to be used for other functions beyond the solar PV systems 

proposed in this report. Any potential use should align with the community vision for the 

site and should work to enhance the overall utility of the property. Installing large-scale 

wind turbines at the site could be another possible use of the site but would require a 

detailed wind feasibility study.

 

3 “Celebrating Success: Aerojet General Corporation Site Rancho Cordova, California.” U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Accessed August, 2012: 

http://epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/aerojet-success.pdf. 
3 

There are many compelling reasons to consider moving toward renewable energy sources 

for power generation instead of fossil fuels, including: 

• Renewable energy sources offer a sustainable energy option in the broader 

energy portfolio 

• Renewable energy can have a net positive effect on human health and 

the environment 

• Deployment of renewable energy bolsters national energy independence and 

increases domestic energy security

• Fluctuating electric costs can be mitigated by locking in electricity rates 

through long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) linked to renewable 

energy systems 

• Generating energy without harmful emissions or waste products can be 

accomplished through renewable energy sources.
4 

3 PV Systems

3.1 PV Overview

Solar PV technology converts energy from solar radiation directly into electricity. Solar 

PV cells are the electricity-generating component of a solar energy system. When 

sunlight (photons) strikes a PV cell, an electric current is produced by stimulating 

electrons (negative charges) in a layer in the cell designed to give up electrons easily. The 

existing electric field in the solar cell pulls these electrons to another layer. By 

connecting the cell to an external load, this current (movement of charges) can then be 

used to power the load (e.g., a light bulb). 

Figure 1. Generation of electricity from a PV cell

Source: EPA 

PV cells are assembled into a PV panel or module. PV modules are then connected to 

create an array. The modules are connected in series and then in parallel as needed to 

reach the specific voltage and current requirements for the array. The direct current (DC) 

electricity generated by the array is then converted by an inverter to useable alternating 

current (AC) that can be consumed by adjoining buildings and facilities or exported to the 

electricity grid. PV system size varies from small residential (2–10 kW), to commercial 

(100–500 kW), to large utility scale (10+ MW). Central distribution plants are also 

currently being built in the 100+ MW scale. Electricity from utility-scale systems is 

commonly sold back to the electricity grid. 
5 

3.2 Major System Components

Figure 2. Ground-mounted array diagram

Source: NREL

A typical PV system is made up of several key components, including: 

• PV modules 

• Inverter

• Balance-of-system (BOS) components. 

These, along with other PV system components, are discussed in turn below. 

3.2.1 PV Module

Module technologies are differentiated by the type of PV material used, resulting in a 

range of conversion efficiencies from light energy to electrical energy. The module 

efficiency is a measure of the percentage of solar energy converted into electricity. 

Two common PV technologies that have been widely used for commercial- and utilityscale projects are crystalline silicon and thin film. 

3.2.1.1 Crystalline Silicon

Traditional solar cells are made from silicon. Silicon is quite abundant and nontoxic. It 

builds on a strong industry on both the supply (silicon industry) and product side. This 

technology has been demonstrated to be consistent and highly efficient for over 30 years 

in the field. The performance degradation, a reduction in power generation due to long-
6 

term exposure, is under 1% per year. Silicon modules have a lifespan in the range of 25-

30 years but can keep producing energy beyond this range. 

Typical overall efficiency of silicon solar panels is between 12% and 18%. However, 

some manufacturers of mono-crystalline panels claim an overall efficiency nearing 20%. 

This range of efficiencies represents significant variation among the crystalline silicon 

technologies available. The technology is generally divided into mono- and multicrystalline technologies, which indicates the presence of grain-boundaries (i.e., multiple 

crystals) in the cell materials and is controlled by raw material selection and 

manufacturing technique. Crystalline silicon panels are widely used based on 

deployments worldwide. 

Figure 3 shows two examples of crystalline solar panels: mono- and multi-silicon 

installed on tracking mounting systems.

Figure 3. Mono- and multi-crystalline solar panels. Photos by (left) SunPower Corporation, 

NREL 23816 and (right) SunPower, NREL 13823

3.2.1.2 Thin Film

Thin-film PV cells are made from amorphous silicon (a-Si) or non-silicon materials, such 

as cadmium telluride (CdTe). Thin-film cells use layers of semiconductor materials only 

a few micrometers thick. Due to the unique nature of thin films, some thin-film cells are 

constructed into flexible modules, enabling such applications as solar energy covers for 

landfills, such as a geomembrane system. Other thin-film modules are assembled into 

rigid constructions that can be used in fixed tilt or, in some cases, tracking system 

configurations. 

The efficiency of thin-film solar cells is generally lower than for crystalline cells. Current 

overall efficiency of a thin-film panel is between 6% and 8% for a-Si and 11% and 12% 

for CdTe. Figure 4 shows thin-film solar panels.
7 

Figure 4. Thin-film solar panels installed on (left) solar energy cover and (middle/right) 

fixed-tilt mounting system. Photos by (left) Republic Services, Inc., 23817; (middle) Beck 

Energy, NREL 14726; and (right) U.S. Coast Guard Petaluma site, NREL 17395

Industry standard warranties of both crystalline and thin-film PV panels typically 

guarantee system performance of 80% of the rated power output for 25 years. After 

25 years, they will continue producing electricity at a lower performance level.

3.2.2 Inverter

Inverters convert DC electricity from the PV array into AC and can connect seamlessly to 

the electricity grid. Inverter efficiencies can be as high as 98.5%. 

Inverters also sense the utility power frequency and synchronize the PV-produced power 

to that frequency. When utility power is not present, the inverter will stop producing AC 

power to prevent “islanding,” or putting power into the grid while utility workers are 

trying to fix what they assume is a de-energized distribution system. This safety feature is 

built into all grid-connected inverters in the market. Electricity produced from the system 

could be fed to a step-up transformer to increase the voltage to match the grid. 

There are two primary types of inverters for grid-connected systems: string and microinverters. Each type has strengths and weaknesses and might be recommended for 

different types of installations.

String inverters are most common and typically range in size from 1.5 kW to 1,000 kW. 

These inverters tend to be cheaper on a capacity basis, be highly efficient, and have lower 

operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. String inverters offer various sizes and 

capacities to handle a large range of voltage output. For larger systems, string inverters 

are combined in parallel to produce a single point of interconnection with the grid. 

Warranties typically run between 5 and 10 years, with 10 years being the current industry 

standard. On larger units, extended warranties up to 20 years are possible. Given that the 

expected life of PV panels is 25–30 years, an operator can expect to replace a string 

inverter at least one time during the life of the PV system. 

Micro-inverters are dedicated to the conversion of a single PV module’s power output. 

The AC output from each module is connected in parallel to create the array. This 

technology is relatively new to the market and in limited use in larger systems due to 

potential increase in O&M associated with significantly increasing the number of 

inverters in a given array. Current micro-inverters range in size between 175 W and 

380 W. These inverters can be the most expensive option per watt of capacity. Warranties 

range from 10–20 years. Small projects with irregular modules and shading issues 

typically benefit from micro-inverters. 
8 

With string inverters, small amounts of shading on a solar panel will significantly affect 

the entire array production. Instead, it impacts only that shaded panel if micro-inverters 

are used. Figure 5 shows a string inverter. 

Figure 5. String inverter. Photo by Warren Gretz, NREL 07985

3.2.3 Balance-of-System Components

In addition to the solar modules and inverter, a solar PV system consists of other parts 

called BOS components, which include: 

• Mounting racks and hardware for the panels 

• Wiring for electrical connections. 

3.2.3.1 Mounting Systems

The array has to be secured and oriented optimally to maximize system output. The 

structure holding the modules is referred to as the mounting system. 

3.2.3.1.1 Ground-Mounted Systems

For ground-mounted systems, the mounting system can be either directly anchored into 

the ground (via driven piers or concrete footers) or ballasted on the surface without 

ground penetration. Mounting systems must withstand local wind loads, which range 

from 90–120 mph for most areas to 130 mph or more for areas with hurricane potential. 

Depending on the region, snow and ice loads must also be a design consideration for the 

mounting system. For Superfund site applications, mounting system designs will be 

primarily driven by these considerations coupled with settlement concerns. 

Typical ground-mounted systems can be categorized as fixed tilt or tracking. Fixed-tilt 

mounting structures consist of panels installed at a set angle, typically based on site 

latitude and wind conditions, to increase exposure to solar radiation throughout the year. 

Fixed-tilt systems are used at many Superfund sites. Fixed-tilt systems have lower 

maintenance costs but generate less energy (kWh) per unit power (kW) of capacity than 

tracking systems. 

Tracking systems rotate the PV modules so they are following the sun as it moves across 

the sky. This increases energy output but also increases maintenance and equipment costs 

slightly. Single-axis tracking, in which PV is rotated on a single axis, can increase energy 

output up to 25% or more. With dual-axis tracking, PV is able to directly face the sun all 

day, potentially increasing output up to 35% or more. Depending on underlying soiling 
9 

conditions, single- and dual-axis trackers might not be suitable due to potential settlement 

effects, which can interfere with the alignment requirements of such systems. 

Table 1. Energy Density by Panel and System

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 3.3 2.7

Hybrid High 

Efficiency

4.8 3.9

The selection of mounting type is dependent on many factors, including installation size, 

electricity rates, government incentives, land constraints, latitude, and local weather. 

Contaminated land applications could raise additional design considerations due to site 

conditions, including differential settlement. 

Selection of the mounting system is also heavily dependent on anchoring or foundation 

selection. The mounting system design will also need to meet applicable local building 

code requirements with respect to snow, wind, and seismic zones. Selection of mounting 

types should also consider frost protection needs, especially in cold regions such as 

New England. 

3.2.3.2 Wiring for Electrical Connections

Electrical connections, including wiring, disconnect switches, fuses, and breakers, are 

required to meet electrical code (e.g., NEC Article 690) for both safety and 

equipment protection. 

In most traditional applications, wiring from (1) the arrays to inverters and (2) inverters 

to point of interconnection is generally run as direct burial through trenches. In Superfund 

site applications, this wiring might be required to run through above-ground conduit due 

to restrictions with cap penetration or other concerns. Therefore, developers should 

consider noting any such restrictions, if applicable, in requests for proposals in order to 

improve overall bid accuracy. Similarly, it is recommended that PV system vendors 

reflect these costs in the quote when costing out the overall system. 

3.2.3.3 PV System Monitoring 

Monitoring PV systems can be essential for reliable functioning and maximum yield of a 

system. It can be as simple as reading values, such as produced AC power, daily kilowatthours, and cumulative kilowatt-hours, locally on an LCD display on the inverter. For 

more sophisticated monitoring and control purposes, environmental data, such as module 

temperature, ambient temperature, solar radiation, and wind speed, can be collected. 

Remote control and monitoring can be performed by various remote connections. 

Systems can send alerts and status messages to the control center or user. Data can be 

stored in the inverter’s memory or in external data loggers for further system analysis. 
10 

Collection of this basic information is standard for solar systems and not unique to 

landfill applications.

Weather stations are typically installed in large-scale systems. Weather data, such as solar 

radiation and temperature, can be used to predict energy production, enabling comparison 

of the target and actual system output and performance and identification of underperforming arrays. Operators can also use this data to identify required maintenance, 

shade on panels, and accumulating dirt on panels, for example. Monitoring system data 

can also be used for outreach and education. This can be achieved with publicly 

available, online displays, wall-mounted systems, or even smartphone applications. 

3.2.4 Operation and Maintenance

PV panels typically have a 25-year performance warranty. Inverters, which come 

standard with a 5-year or 10-year warranty (extended warranties available), would be 

expected to last 10–15 years. System performance should be verified on a vendorprovided website. Wire and rack connections should be checked annually. This economic 

analysis uses an annual O&M cost computed as $20/kW/yr, which is based on the 

historical O&M costs of installed fixed-axis grid-tied PV systems. In addition, the system 

should expect a replacement of system inverters in year 15 at a cost of $0.25/W. 

3.3 Siting Considerations

PV modules are very sensitive to shading. When shaded (either partially or fully), the 

panel is unable to optimally collect the high-energy beam radiation from the sun. As 

explained above, PV modules 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. If an individual cell is shaded, it acts as resistance to the whole 

series circuit, impeding current flow and dissipating power rather than producing it. 

The NREL solar assessment team uses a Solmetric SunEye solar path calculator to assess 

shading at particular locations by analyzing the sky view where solar panels will be 

located. By finding the solar access, the NREL team can determine if the area is 

appropriate for solar panels.

Following the successful collection of solar resource data using the Solmetric SunEye 

tool and determination that the site is adequate for a solar installation, an analysis to 

determine the ideal system size must be conducted. System size depends highly on the 

average energy use of the facilities on the site, PPAs, incentives available, and 

utility policy. 
11 

4 Proposed Installation Location Information

This section summarizes the findings of the NREL solar assessment site visit on 

February 8, 2012. 

4.1 Price Landfill Site PV System

As discussed in Section 1, the Price Landfill site is owned by Rutala Associates LLC, and 

the remediation of the site is being addressed by federal and state actions. 

The 8.2 acres on the north side of the landfill will be flat and cleared of trees and other 

shading obstructions after the landfill cap is constructed, currently making this area the 

most suitable location for a large-scale PV system. There is no major infrastructure on the 

8.2-acre site that would have to be removed. There are Atlantic City Electric transmission 

lines that run through the 8.2-acre site, but the shading from the lines is minimal. The

remaining 18.2 acres to the south is planned for other uses by the owner. The 8.2-acre site 

is close to existing roads, and transmission lines run through the site. An interconnection 

study would have to be performed to determine if a large-scale PV system could tie into 

these lines without major upgrades. 

In order to get the most out of the ground area available, it is important to consider 

whether the site layout can be improved to better incorporate a solar system. If there are 

unused structures, fences, or electrical poles that can be removed, the unshaded area can 

be increased to incorporate more PV panels. 

Figure 6 shows an aerial view of the Price Landfill site taken from Google Earth; the

current feasible area for PV is shaded in yellow, and the landfill is shaded in black. 

Currently, the area shaded in yellow has vegetation and needs to be leveled. After the 

landfill cap has been installed, there will be large expanses of relatively flat, unshaded 

land, which makes it a suitable candidate for a PV system. The area of the site that

currently appears feasible (yellow) for PV has an area of 8.2 acres. 
12 

Figure 6. Aerial view of the current feasible area (yellow) for PV at the Price Landfill site

Image generated in Google Earth

PV systems are relatively well-suited to the Pleasantville, New Jersey, area, where the 

average global horizontal annual solar resource—the total solar radiation for a given 

location, including direct, diffuse, and ground-reflected radiation—is 4.59 kWh/m2/day. 

Figure 7 shows various views of the Price Landfill site. As shown, the site will have to be 

leveled and cleared of tall vegetation and trees before the installation of a PV system. 
13 

Figure 7. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Price Landfill. Photos by James

Salasovich, NREL

4.2 Utility-Resource Considerations

The expected electrical tie-in point for the PV system at the Price Landfill site is located

less than 0.1 mile to the west of the site at the Wisteria Street Substation. Atlantic City 

Electric owns the transmission lines that run through the site. The location of the Wisteria 

Street Substation relative to the Price Landfill and the transmission lines that run through 

the site are shown in Figure 8. Photos of the Wisteria Street Substation and the 

transmission lines are given in Figure 9. Interconnection is governed by Atlantic City 

Electric. A detailed interconnection study would have to be performed in order to 

determine if this would be a suitable location for interconnection. Performing an 

interconnection study is a relatively slow process that would have to be performed 

through Atlantic City Electric and would involve considerable cost. The tie-in location is 

limited by the available capacity at the substation. 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. 
14 

Figure 8. Price Landfill, transmission lines, and the Wisteria Street Substation

Image generated in Google Earth

Figure 9. Wisteria Street Substation and electrical transmission lines at the Price Landfill. 

Photos by James Salasovich, NREL

4.3 Useable Acreage for PV System Installation 

Typically, a minimum of 2 useable acres is recommended to site PV systems. Useable 

acreage is typically characterized as "flat to gently sloping" southern exposures that are 

free from obstructions and get full sun for at least a 6-hour period each day. For example, 

eligible space for PV includes underutilized or unoccupied land, vacant lots, and/or 

unused paved area (e.g., a parking lot or industrial site space, as well as existing building 

rooftops). After the landfill cap is installed, the 8.2-acre site is flat and free of all major 

shading obstructions. 
15 

4.4 PV Site Solar Resource

The Price Landfill site has been evaluated to determine the adequacy of the solar resource 

available using both on-site data and industry tools. 

The assessment team for this feasibility study collected multiple Solmetric SunEye data

points and found a solar access of 90% and above on the 8.2-acre area. 

The predicted array performance was found using PVWatts Version 24 for the city closest 

to Pleasantville, New Jersey. Table 2 shows the station identification information, PV 

system specifications, and energy specifications for the site. For this summary, array 

performance information and a hypothetical system size of 1 kW was used to show the 

estimated production for each kW so that additional analysis can be performed using the 

data indicated below. It is scaled linearly to match the proposed system size. 

Table 2. Site Identification Information and Specifications

Station Identification

Cell ID 93730

City

State

Atlantic City

New Jersey

Latitude 39.37° N

Longitude 74.41° W

PV System Specifications

DC Rating 1.00 kW

DC to AC Derate Factor 0.8 

AC Rating 0.8 kW

Array Type Fixed Tilt 

Array Tilt 20°

Array Azimuth 180°

Energy Specifications

Cost of Electricity $0.0459/kWh

 

4 For more information on NREL’s PVWatts Version 2, see http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/. 
16 

Table 3 shows the performance results for a 20-degree fixed-tilt PV system in 

Pleasantville, as calculated by PVWatts.

Table 3. Performance Results for 20-Degree Fixed-Tilt PV

Month Solar Radiation

(kWh/m2

/day)

AC Energy

(kWh)

Energy Value

($)

1 3.00 76 3.49

2 3.71 85 3.90

3 4.57 112 5.15

4 5.33 123 5.65

5 5.84 137 6.29

6 6.04 132 6.06

7 6.01 134 6.16

8 5.62 126 5.79

9 5.10 112 5.15

10 4.15 97 4.46

11 3.05 72 3.31

12 2.62 65 2.99

Year 4.59 1,271 58.39

Table 4 shows the performance results for a zero-tilt single-axis tracking PV system in 

Pleasantville, as calculated by PVWatts. 

Table 4. Performance Results for Zero-Degree Single-Axis PV

Month Solar Radiation

(kWh/m2

/day)

AC Energy

(kWh)

Energy Value

($)

1 2.95 76 3.49

2 3.87 91 4.18

3 5.17 130 5.97

4 6.39 150 6.89

5 7.22 172 7.90

6 7.60 168 7.72

7 7.49 170 7.81

8 6.66 152 6.98

9 5.91 134 6.16

10 4.45 106 4.87

11 3.04 73 3.35

12 2.54 63 2.89

Year 5.28 1,485 68.22
17 

4.5 Price Landfill Energy Usage

The Price Landfill currently has approximately 1 MW of electrical load at the site 

associated with the pump and treat system. Monthly electric bills showing the usage and 

cost were not available. There are also surrounding buildings that could be potential offtakers of electricity produced by a utility-scale PV system. 

 It is important to understand the energy use of the site to allow for a full analysis of 

whether or not energy produced would need to be sold or if it could offset on-site 

energy use.

4.5.1 Net Metering

Net metering is an electricity policy for consumers who own renewable energy facilities. 

In this context, "net" is used to mean "what remains after deductions"—in this case, the 

deduction of any energy outflows from metered energy inflows. Under net metering, a 

system owner receives retail credit for at least a portion of the electricity it generates. As 

part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, under Sec. 1251, all public electric utilities are 

required upon request to make net metering available to their customers: 

(11) NET METERING.—Each electric utility shall make available upon 

request net metering service to any electric consumer that the electric 

utility serves. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘net metering 

service’ means service to an electric consumer under which electric energy 

generated by that electric consumer from an eligible on-site generating 

facility and delivered to the local distribution facilities may be used to 

offset electric energy provided by the electric utility to the electric 

consumer during the applicable billing period.5

New Jersey's net-metering law, which took effect in 1999 and was significantly expanded 

in 2004, requires utilities to offer net metering to all customers with PV, solar thermal 

electric, wind, geothermal electric, wave, tidal, biomass, landfill gas, anaerobic digestion, 

and fuel cells. There is no system capacity limit in New Jersey, but the system size cannot 

exceed the customer’s annual onsite energy use. In July of 2012, New Jersey started to 

develop rulemaking to allow public entities to engage in “net metering aggregation” of 

solar systems. 

In July 2012, New Jersey enacted legislation (S.B. 1925) requiring the 

Board of Public Utilities to develop rules within 270 days to require 

electric utilities to allow public entities, such as state and local 

governments, local agencies, and school districts, to engage in "net 

metering aggregation" of solar facilities. In order to qualify for net 

metering aggregation, the solar facility must be on property owned by the 

customer, be owned by the single customer, and with the exception of 

state entities, be located within the customer's territorial jurisdiction. For 

state entity projects, all facilities must be located within 5 miles of one 

another. In addition, for all customers, all facilities must be located within 

 

5 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdf. 
18 

the territory of the same electric utility, be served by the same basic 

generation service provider or electric power supplier, and all facilities 

must be within the same customer class of the applicable electric utility 

tariff. The law also outlines certain other requirements and procedures for 

net metering aggregation. A rulemaking will be necessary to implement 

the new provisions of the law.6

 

RECs,

7 also known as green certificates, green tags, or tradable renewable certificates, 

are tradable commodities in the United States that represent proof of electric energy 

generation from eligible renewable energy resources (renewable electricity). The RECs 

that are associated with the electricity produced and are used on site remain with the 

customer-generator. If, however, the customer chooses to receive financial compensation 

for the net energy gain remaining after a 12-month period, the utility will be granted the 

RECs associated with only that surplus they purchase. 

Currently, New Jersey has one of the most aggressive renewable portfolio standards 

(RPS) in the United States, and therefore has a very good REC market. The Database of 

State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE)

8

 website provides a good summary of 

the RPS in New Jersey:

New Jersey's renewable portfolio standard (RPS)—one of the most 

aggressive in the United States—requires each supplier/provider serving 

retail customers in the state to procure 22.5% of the electricity it sells in 

New Jersey from qualifying renewables by 2021 (“energy year” 2021 runs 

from June 2020-May 2021). In addition, the standard also contains a 

separate solar specific provision, which requires suppliers and providers to 

procure at least 4.1% of sales from qualifying solar electric generation 

facilities by energy year 2028.

4.5.2 Virtual Net Metering

Some states and utilities allow for virtual net metering (VNM). This arrangement can 

allow certain entities, such as a local government, to install renewable generation of up to 

1 MW at one location within its geographic boundary and to generate credits that can be 

used to offset charges at one or more other locations within the same geographic 

boundary. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania currently 

allow VNM. 

 

6 http://www.dsireusa.org/

7 For a description of RECs, see http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/

certificates. 8 For a full description of the renewable portfolio standard in New Jersey, see 

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=NJ05R&re=0&ee=0. 
19 

5 Economics and Performance

The economic performance of a PV system installed on the site is evaluated using a 

combination of the assumptions and background information discussed previously, as 

well as a number of industry-specific inputs determined by other studies. In particular, 

this study uses NREL’s System Advisor Model (SAM).

9

 

 SAM is a performance and economic model designed to facilitate decision making for 

people involved in the renewable energy industry, ranging from project managers and 

engineers to incentive program designers, technology developers, and researchers. 

SAM makes performance predictions for grid-connected solar, solar water heating, wind, 

and geothermal power systems and makes economic calculations for both projects that 

buy and sell power at retail rates and power projects that sell power through a PPA. 

SAM consists of a performance model and financial model. The performance model 

calculates a system's energy output on an hourly basis (sub-hourly simulations are 

available for some technologies). The financial model calculates annual project cash 

flows over a period of years for a range of financing structures for residential, 

commercial, and utility projects. 

The model calculates the cost of generating electricity based on information provided 

about a project's location, installation and operating costs, type of financing, applicable 

tax credits and incentives, and system specifications.

5.1 Assumptions and Input Data for Analysis

The cost of a PV system depends on the system size and other factors, such as geographic 

location, mounting structure, and type of PV module. Based on significant cost 

reductions seen in 2011, the average cost for utility-scale ground-mounted systems have 

declined from $4.80/W in the first quarter of 2010 to $2.79/W in the first quarter of 2012. 

With an increasing demand and supply, potential of further cost reduction is expected as 

market conditions evolve. For this analysis, the following input data were used. The 

installed cost of fixed-tilt ground-mounted systems was assumed to be $3.20/W, and the 

installed cost of single-axis tracking was assumed to be $3.84/W. These costs represent 

plausible scenarios for purchase price on EPA landfills. The estimated increase in cost 

from this baseline for a ballasted system is 25%. This increased cost is due to limitations 

placed on design and construction methods due to the ground conditions at the site. Such 

limitations include restrictions on stormwater runoff, weight loading of construction 

equipment, inability to trench for utility lines, additional engineering costs, permitting 

issues, and nonstandard ballasted racking systems. The installed system cost assumptions 

are summarized in Table 5. 

 

9 For additional information on the NREL System Advisor Model, see https://sam.nrel.gov/cost. 
20 

Table 5. Installed System Cost Assumptions

System Type Fixed-Tilt 

($/Wp)

Single-Axis Tracking 

($/Wp)

Baseline system 3.20 3.84

With ballast (+25%) 0.80 0.96

Total installed cost 4.00 4.64

These prices include the PV array and the BOS components for each system, including 

the inverter and electrical equipment, as well as the installation cost. This includes 

estimated taxes and a national average labor rate but does not include land cost. The 

economics of grid-tied PV depend on incentives, the cost of electricity, the solar resource, 

and panel tilt and orientation. 

It was assumed for this analysis that relevant federal incentives are received for taxable 

entities. It is important to consider all applicable incentives or grants to make PV as costeffective as possible. If the PV system is owned by a private tax-paying entity, this entity 

could qualify for federal tax credits and accelerated depreciation on the PV system, which 

can be worth about 56% of the initial capital investment. The total potential tax benefits 

to the tax-paying entity can be as high as 60% of the initial system cost. Because state 

and federal governments do not pay taxes, private ownership of the PV system would be 

required to capture tax incentives. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the project is expected to have a 25-year life, although 

the systems can be reasonably expected to continue operation past this point. Inflation is 

assumed to be 2.5%, 5.85% discount rate for private investors, financing secured via a 

15-year loan at a 6% interest rate and 55% debt fraction. The panels are assumed to have 

a 0.5% per year degradation in performance. The O&M expenses are estimated to be 

$30/kW/yr for the first 15 years to replace the inverter and $20/kW/yr for the remaining 

10 years of the study. A system DC-to-AC conversion of 80% was assumed. This 

includes losses in the inverter, wire losses, PV module losses, and losses due to 

temperature effects. PVWatts Version 2 was used to calculate expected energy 

performance for the system. 

5.2 SAM-Forecasted Economic Performance

Using varied inputs and the assumptions summarized in Section 5.1 of this report, the 

SAM tool predicts net present value (NPV) and after-tax internal rate of return (IRR). 

When considering only the two main solar options and no other clean energy 

opportunities, all solar scenarios were economically feasible. The economics for this site 

are determined by the assumed solar REC market price of $0.225/kWh for the solar 

energy produced, while it is estimated that produced electricity will sell for 

$0.04594/kWh. Because it is assumed that a solar investor will be undertaking this 

project, the economic simulations centered on fixed or single-axis tracking systems. As 

seen in Table 6, single-axis tracking gives the higher NPV and IRR at the expected PPA 

price and is recommended by the feasibility team. An IRR of 15% is considered 

acceptable for a solar investor to invest in a project, so both options are highly favorable. 
21 

Table 6. Summary of Model Results

Economics Cases IRR (%) NPV ($)

PPA 

($/kWh) 

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed Tilt) 25.02 471,732 0.04594

Crystalline Silicon (Single Axis) 29.13 705,119 0.04594

5.2.1 Fixed Tilt vs. Single-Axis Tracking 

According to the simulations, single-axis tracking for the ground-mounted system will 

provide the best payback for a slightly lower levelized cost of energy (LCOE). While this 

might seem like an obvious choice, single-axis systems could be considered a higher-risk 

option. Installation costs might be higher than modeled due to availability of installers 

and equipment. Despite having similar O&M costs to fixed-axis systems, more moving

parts generally lead to higher malfunctions. While these higher-risk considerations are 

important for evaluation, it is the recommendation of the feasibility study to pursue 

single-axis tracking systems for Price Landfill. If the installation cost for a single-axis 

tracking system were to increase above the fixed-tilt system by more the $1.25, the fixedtilt system would become the more economically beneficial option. 

5.2.2 Renewable Energy Certificate Market Fluctuations

The REC market price of $0.225/kWh is the average price suggested on the DSIRE

website and is not a guaranteed price. Sensitivity studies were performed around the REC 

price in both the fixed-tilt and single-axis cases. The full table can be found in 

Appendix A. An approximately $0.06/kWh decrease would increase the PPA price to 

nearly the current utility purchase price. This would still be a favorable project to a 

developer and purchaser. While the solar renewable energy certificate (SREC) price is 

expected to lower and fluctuate, this site is still recommended for further investigation for 

PV development. 

A summary of the results of the economic analysis and the system considered is available 

in Table 7. The entire results and summary of inputs to the SAM is available in 

Appendix B. 
22 

Table 7. PV System Summary

5.3 Job Analysis and Impact

To evaluate the employment and economic impacts of the PV project associated with this 

analysis, NREL’s Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) models are used.10

JEDI estimates the economic impacts associated with the construction and operation of 

distributed-generation power plants. It is a flexible input-output tool that estimates, but 

does not precisely predict, the number of jobs and economic impacts that can be 

reasonably supported by the proposed facility. 

JEDI represents the entire economy, including cross-industry or cross-company impacts. 

For example, JEDI estimates the impact the installation of a distributed-generation 

facility would have on not only the manufacturers of PV modules and inverters but also 

the associated construction materials, metal fabrication industry, project management 

support, transportation, and other industries that are required to enable the procurement 

and installation of the complete system. 

For this analysis, inputs, such as the estimated installed project cost ($/kW), targeted year 

of construction, system capacity (kW), O&M costs ($/kW), and location, were entered 

into the model to predict the jobs and economic impact. It is important to note that the 

JEDI model does not predict or incorporate any displacement of related economic activity 

or alternative jobs due to the implementation of the proposed project. As such, the JEDI 

results are considered gross estimates as opposed to net estimates. 

For the Price Landfill site, the values in Table 8 were assumed. 

 

10 The JEDI models have been used by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

NREL, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as well as a number of universities. For 

information on the NREL Jobs and Economic Development Impact tool, see 

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/about_jedi.html.
23 

Table 8. JEDI Analysis Assumptions

Input Assumed Value

Capacity 1,182 kW

Placed In Service Year 2013

Installed System Cost $5,484,480

Location Pleasantville, New Jersey

Using these inputs, JEDI estimates the gross direct and indirect jobs, associated earnings, 

and total economic impact supported by the construction and continued operation of the 

proposed PV system. 

The estimates of jobs associated with this project are presented as either constructionperiod jobs or sustained-operations jobs. Each job is expressed as a whole, or fraction, 

full-time equivalent (FTE) position. An FTE is defined as 40 hours per week for one 

person for the duration of a year. Construction-period jobs are considered short-term 

positions that exist only during the procurement and construction periods. 

As indicated in the results of the JEDI analysis provided in Appendix C, the total 

proposed system is estimated to support 37.9 direct and indirect jobs per year for the 

duration of the procurement and construction period. Total wages paid to workers during 

the construction period are estimated to be $2,157,700, and total economic output is 

estimated to be $5,525,300. The annual O&M of the new PV system is estimated to 

support 0.3 FTEs per year for the life of the system. The jobs and associated spending are 

projected to account for approximately $20,000 in earnings and $34,700 in economic 

activity each year for the next 25 years. 

5.4 Financing Opportunities

The procurement, development, construction, and management of a successful utilityscale distributed-generation facility can be owned and financed a number of different 

ways. The most common ownership and financing structures are described below. 

5.4.1 Owner and Operator Financing

The owner/operator financing structure is characterized by a single entity with the 

financial strength to fund all of the solar project costs and, if a private entity, sufficient 

tax appetite to utilize all of the project’s tax benefits. Private owners/operators typically 

establish a special purpose entity (SPE) that solely owns the assets of the project. An 

initial equity investment into the SPE is funded by the private entity using existing funds, 

and all of the project’s cash flows and tax benefits are utilized by the entity. This equity 

investment is typically matched with debt financing for the majority of the project costs. 

Project debt is typically issued as a loan based on each owner’s/operator’s assets and 

equity in the project. In addition, private entities can utilize any of federal tax 

credits offered. 
24 

For public entities that choose to finance, own, and operate a solar project, funding can be 

raised as part of a larger, general obligation bond, as a standalone tax credit bond, 

through a tax-exempt lease structure, bank financing, grant and incentive programs, 

internal cash, or some combination of the above. Certain structures are more common 

than others and grant programs for solar programs are on the decline. Regardless, as taxexempt entities, public entities are unable to benefit directly from the various tax-creditbased incentives available to private companies. This has given way to the now common 

use of third-party financing structures, such as the PPA. 

5.4.2 Third-Party Developers with Power Purchase Agreements

Because many project site hosts do not have the financial or technical capabilities to 

develop a capital intensive project, many times they turn to third-party developers (and/or 

their investors). In exchange for access to a site through a lease or easement arrangement, 

third-party developers will finance, develop, own, and operate solar projects utilizing 

their own expertise and sources of tax equity financing and debt capital. Once the system 

is installed, the third-party developer will sell the electricity to the site host or local utility 

via a PPA—a contract to sell electricity at a negotiated rate over a fixed period of time. 

The PPA typically will be between the third-party developer and the site host if it is a 

retail “behind-the-meter” transaction or directly with an electric utility if it is a 

wholesale transaction. 

Site hosts benefit by either receiving competitively priced electricity from the project via 

the PPA or land lease revenues via a lease payment for making the site available to the 

solar developer. This lease payment can take on the form of either a revenue-sharing 

agreement or an annual lease payment. In addition, third-party developers are able to 

utilize federal tax credits. For public entities, this arrangement allows them to utilize the 

benefits of the tax credits (low PPA price, higher lease payment) while not directly 

receiving them. The term of a PPA typically varies from 20–25 years.

5.4.3 Third-Party “Flip” Agreements 

The most common use of this model is a site host working with a third-party developer 

who then partners with a tax-motivated investor in a SPE that would own and operate the 

project. Initially, most of the equity provided to the SPE would come from the tax 

investor, and most of the benefit would flow to the tax investor (as much as 99%). When 

the tax investor has fully monetized the tax benefits and achieved an agreed-upon rate of 

return, the allocation of benefits and majority ownership (95%) would “flip” to the site 

host (but not within the first 5 years). After the flip, the site host would have the option to 

buy out all or most of the tax investor’s interest in the project at the fair market value of 

the tax investor’s remaining interest. 

A “flip” agreement can also be signed between a developer and investors within an SPE, 

where the investor would begin with the majority ownership. Eventually, the ownership 

would flip to the developer once investors’ returns are met.

5.4.4 Hybrid Financial Structures

As the solar market evolves, hybrid financial solutions have been developed in certain 

instances to finance solar projects. A particular structure, nicknamed “The Morris Model” 
25 

after Morris County, New Jersey, combines highly rated public debt, a capital lease, and a 

PPA. Low-interest public debt replaces more costly financing available to the solar 

developer and contributes to a very attractive PPA price for the site hosts. New markets 

tax credits have been combined with PPAs and public debt in other locations, such as 

Denver and Salt Lake City. 

5.4.5 Solar Services Agreement and Operating Lease

The solar services agreement (SSA) and operating lease business models have been 

predominately used in the municipal and cooperative utility markets due its treatment of 

tax benefits and the rules limiting federal tax benefit transfers from nonprofit to for-profit 

companies. Under IRS guidelines, municipalities cannot enter capital leases with forprofit entities when the for-profit entities capture tax incentives. As a result, a number of 

business models have emerged as a workaround to this issue. One model is the SSA,

wherein a private party sells “solar services” (i.e., energy and RECs) to a municipality 

over a specified contract period (typically long enough for the private party to accrue the 

tax credits). The nonprofit utility typically purchases the solar services with either a onetime up-front payment equal to the turn-key system cost minus the 30% federal tax credit 

or may purchase the services in annual installments. The municipality might buy out the 

system once the third party has accrued the tax credits, but due to IRS regulations, the 

buyout of the plant cannot be included as part of the SSA (i.e., the SSA cannot be used as 

a vehicle for a sale and must be a separate transaction).

Similar to the SSA, there are a variety of lease options that are available to municipalities 

that allow the capture of tax benefits by third-party owners, which result in a lower cost 

to the municipality. These include an operating lease for solar services (as opposed to an 

equipment capital lease) and a complex business model called a sales/leaseback. 

5.4.6 Sales/Leaseback

In the widely accepted sales/leaseback model, the public or private entity would install 

the PV system, sell it to a tax investor, and then lease it back. As the lessee, they would 

be responsible for operating and maintaining the solar system, as well as have the right to 

sell or use the power. In exchange for use of the solar system, the public or private entity 

would make lease payments to the tax investor (the lessor). The tax investor would have 

rights to federal tax benefits generated by the project and the lease payments. Sometimes, 

the entity is allowed to buy back the project at 100% fair market value after the tax 

benefits are exhausted. 

5.4.7 Community Solar/Solar Gardens

The concept of “community solar” is one in which the costs and benefits of one large 

solar project are shared by a number of participants. A site owner might be able to make 

the land available for a large solar project that can be the basis for a community solar 

project. Ownership structures for these projects vary, but the large projects are typically 

owned or sponsored by a local utility. Community solar gardens are distributed solar 

projects wherein utility customers have a stake via a prorated share of the project’s 

energy output. This business model is targeted to meet demand for solar projects by 

customers who rent/lease their homes or businesses, do not have good solar access at 

their site, or do not want to install solar system on their facilities. Customer prorated 
26 

shares of solar projects are acquired through a long-term transferrable lease of one or 

more panels, or they subscribe to a share of the project in terms of a specific level of 

energy output or the energy output of a set amount of capacity. Under the customer lease 

option, the customer receives a billing credit for the number of kilowatt-hours their 

prorated share of the solar project produces each month; this is also known as VNM.

Under the customer subscription option, the customers typically pay a set price for a 

block of solar energy (i.e., 100 kWh per-month blocks) from the community solar 

project. Other models include monthly energy outputs from a specific investment dollar 

amount or a specific number of panels. 

Community solar garden and customer subscription-based projects can be solely owned 

by the utility, solely owned by third-party developers with facilitation of billing provided 

by the utility, or be a joint venture between the utility and a third-party developer leading 

to eventual ownership by the utility after the tax benefits have been absorbed by the thirdparty developer. 

There are some states that offer solar incentives for community solar projects, including 

Washington State (production incentive) and Utah (state income tax credit). Community 

solar is also known as solar gardens depending on the location (e.g., Colorado). 
27 

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 

The feasibility study team recommends Price Landfill as a solar PV development site that 

could potentially generate 1,901 MWh annually using a single-axis tracking system. The 

site should be an attractive option for investors under the current REC market conditions. 

As summarized in Section 5, the SAM economic analysis predicts a significant NPV for 

an expected PPA price of nearly $0.05/kWh for both the fixed-axis and single-axis 

tracking systems. Securing REC prices similar to the DSIRE average will be important 

for the feasibility of this site, but the price is flexible to a 36% decrease in REC prices. 
28 

Appendix A. Assessment and Calculations 

Assumptions

Table A-1. Cost, System, and Other Assessment Assumptions

Cost Assumptions

Variable Quantity of 

Variable

Unit of Variable

Cost of Site Electricity 0.0459 $/kWh

Annual O&M (fixed) 25 $/kW/year

System Assumptions

System Type Annual energy 

kWh/kW

Installed Cost 

($/W)

Energy Density 

(W/ft2

) 

Ground Fixed 1,271 $3.00 4.0

Ground Single Axis 1,485 $3.84 3.3

Other Assumptions

Ground utilization 90% of available 

area
29 

Appendix B. Results from the System Advisor 

Model

Figures B-1 to B-10 show the graphs from the SAM models. 

Figure B-1. Modeled output for a fixed-axis ground system
30 

Figure B-2. Modeled output for a single-axis tracking PV system
31 

Figure B-3. LCOE for owner purchase of a fixed-axis system
32 

Figure B-4. After-tax cash flow for owner purchase of a fixed-axis system 
33 

Figure B-5. LCOE for a developer-purchased fixed-axis system 
34 

Figure B-6. After-tax cash flow for a developer-purchased fixed-axis system
35 

Figure B-7. LCOE for owner-purchased single-axis tracking PV system
36 

Figure B-8. After-tax cash flow for owner-purchased single-axis tracking PV system
37 

Figure B-9. LCOE for a developer-purchased single-axis tracking PV system
38 

Figure B-10. After-tax cash flow for a developer-purchased single-axis tracking PV system
39 

Table B-1. PPA Price Variation Based on SREC Price Variation

Fixed-Tilt PV Panel Single-Axis PV Panel

Installed 

Cost

SREC 

Price 

$/kWh

PPA 

$/kWh

Installed 

Cost

SREC 

Price 

$/kWh

PPA 

$/kWh

 $ 4.00 0 0.19642 $ 4.64 0 0.177262

0.01 0.188089 0.01 0.168931

0.02 0.179758 0.02 0.1606

0.03 0.171427 0.03 0.152269

0.04 0.163096 0.04 0.143938

0.05 0.154766 0.05 0.135607

0.06 0.146435 0.06 0.127277

0.07 0.138104 0.07 0.118946

0.08 0.129773 0.08 0.110615

0.09 0.121442 0.09 0.102284

0.1 0.113111 0.1 0.093953

0.11 0.10478 0.11 0.085622

0.12 0.09645 0.12 0.077291

0.13 0.088119 0.13 0.06896

0.14 0.079788 0.14 0.06063

0.15 0.071457 0.15 0.052299

0.16 0.063126 0.16 0.043968

0.17 0.054795 0.17 0.035637

0.18 0.046464 0.18 0.027306

0.19 0.038133 0.19 0.018975

0.2 0.029802 0.2 0.010644

0.21 0.021472 0.21 0.002313

0.22 0.013141 0.22 7.45E-10

0.225 0.008975 0.225 7.45E-10
40 

Appendix C. Results from the Jobs and Economic 

Development Impact Model

Tables C-1 to C-8 provide results from the JEDI model. 

Table C-1. Data Summary for JEDI Model Analysis of Fixed-Tilt PV System

Project Location NEW JERSEY

Year of Construction or Installation 2013

Average System Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 1,434.0

Number of Systems Installed 1

Project Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 1,434.0

System Application Utility

Solar Cell/Module Material Crystalline Silicon

System Tracking Fixed Mount

Total System Base Cost ($/KWDC) $4,151

Annual Direct Operations and Maintenance Cost ($/kW) $20.00

Money Value - Current or Constant (Dollar Year) 2012

Project Construction or Installation Cost $5,952,064

 Local Spending $2,865,435

Total Annual Operational Expenses $694,859

 Direct Operating and Maintenance Costs $28,680

 Local Spending $26,386

 Other Annual Costs $666,179

 Local Spending $803

 Debt Payments $0

 Property Taxes $0
41 

Table C-2. Summary of Local Economic Impacts for JEDI Model Analysis of Fixed-Tilt PV 

System

Jobs Earnings Output

During construction and installation period $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts

 Construction and Installation Labor 8.1 $522.7

 Construction and Installation Related Services 7.4 $469.4

 Subtotal 15.4 $992.1 $1,593.3

 Module and Supply Chain Impacts

 Manufacturing Impacts 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Trade (Wholesale and Retail) 1.7 $115.1 $331.9

 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Professional Services 2.2 $129.7 $402.0

 Other Services 3.6 $329.6 $1,112.0

 Other Sectors 6.7 $233.0 $417.9

 Subtotal 14.2 $807.4 $2,263.9

 Induced Impacts 8.8 $437.4 $1,460.8

 Total Impacts 38.5 $2,236.9 $5,318.0

Annual Annual

Annual Earnings Output

During operating years Jobs $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 PV Project Labor Only 0.3 $16.0 $16.0

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 0.1 $5.3 $16.3

 Induced Impacts 0.1 $2.9 $9.8

 Total Impacts 0.4 $24.2 $42.1

Notes: Earnings and Output values are thousands of dollars in year 2012 dollars. Construction and

operating period jobs are full-time equivalent for one year (1 FTE = 2,080 hours). Economic impacts "During 

operating years" represent impacts that occur from system/plant operations/expenditures. Totals may not 

add up due to independent rounding.
42 

Table C-3. Detailed Summary of Costs for JEDI Model Analysis of Fixed-Tilt PV System

NEW JERSEY Purchased Manufactured

Installation Costs Cost Locally (%) Locally (Y or N)

Materials & Equipment

 Mounting (rails, clamps, fittings, etc.) $209,179 100% N

 Modules $2,297,301 100% N

 Electrical (wire, connectors, breakers, etc.) $238,500 100% N

 Inverter $341,650 100% N

 Subtotal $3,086,630

Labor

 Installation $522,654 100%

 Subtotal $522,654

Subtotal $3,609,283

Other Costs

 Permitting $24,151 100%

 Other Costs $533,740 100%

 Business Overhead $1,568,825 100%

 Subtotal $2,126,717

Subtotal $5,736,000

Sales Tax (Materials & Equipment Purchases) $216,064 100%

Total $5,952,064
43 

Table C-4. Annual O&M Costs for JEDI Model Analysis of Fixed-Tilt PV System

Cost Local Share

Manufactured 

Locally (Y or N)

Labor

 Technicians $17,208 100%

 Subtotal $17,208

Materials and Services

 Materials & Equipment $11,472 100% N

 Services $0 100%

 Subtotal $11,472

Sales Tax (Materials & Equipment Purchases) $803 100%

Average Annual Payment (Interest and Principal) $665,376 0%

Property Taxes $0 100%

Total $694,859

Other Parameters

Financial Parameters

Debt Financing

 Percentage financed 80% 0%

 Years financed (term) 10

 Interest rate 10%

Tax Parameters

 Local Property Tax (percent of taxable value) 0%

 Assessed Value (percent of construction cost) 0%

 Taxable Value (percent of assessed value) 0%

 Taxable Value $0

 Property Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes) 100%

 Local Property Taxes $0 100%

 Local Sales Tax Rate 7.00% 100%

 Sales Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes) 0%

Payroll Parameters Wage per hour Employer Payroll Overhead

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction Workers / Installers $21.39 45.6%

 O&M Labor

 Technicians $21.39 45.6%
44 

Table C-5. Data Summary for JEDI Model Analysis of Single-Axis Tracking PV System

Project Location NEW JERSEY

Year of Construction or Installation 2013

Average System Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 1,182.0

Number of Systems Installed 1

Project Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 1,182.0

System Application Utility

Solar Cell/Module Material Crystalline Silicon

System Tracking Single Axis

Total System Base Cost ($/KWDC) $4,640

Annual Direct Operations and Maintenance Cost ($/kW) $20.00

Money Value - Current or Constant (Dollar Year) 2012

Project Construction or Installation Cost $5,484,480

 Local Spending $2,963,253

Total Annual Operational Expenses $660,502

 Direct Operating and Maintenance Costs $23,640

 Local Spending $21,749

 Other Annual Costs $636,862

 Local Spending $662

 Debt Payments $0

 Property Taxes $0
45 

Table C-6. Summary of Local Economic Impacts for JEDI Model Analysis of Single-Axis 

Tracking PV System

Jobs Earnings Output

During construction and installation period $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts

 Construction and Installation Labor 6.6 $425.3

 Construction and Installation Related Services 8.8 $560.3

 Subtotal 15.4 $985.7 $1,703.3

 Module and Supply Chain Impacts

 Manufacturing Impacts 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Trade (Wholesale and Retail) 1.8 $130.6 $376.6

 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Professional Services 2.7 $154.8 $479.9

 Other Services 4.3 $393.2 $1,326.4

 Other Sectors 4.9 $55.3 $175.8

 Subtotal 13.6 $733.9 $2,358.9

 Induced Impacts 8.9 $438.1 $1,463.2

 Total Impacts 37.9 $2,157.7 $5,525.3

Annual Annual

Annual Earnings Output

During operating years Jobs $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 PV Project Labor Only 0.2 $13.2 $13.2

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 0.1 $4.4 $13.4

 Induced Impacts 0.0 $2.4 $8.1

 Total Impacts 0.3 $20.0 $34.7

Notes: Earnings and Output values are thousands of dollars in year 2012 dollars. Construction and

operating period jobs are full-time equivalent for one year (1 FTE = 2,080 hours). Economic impacts "During 

operating years" represent impacts that occur from system/plant operations/expenditures. Totals may not 

add up due to independent rounding.
46 

Table C-7. Detailed Summary of Costs for JEDI Model Analysis of Single-Axis Tracking 

PV System

NEW JERSEY Purchased Manufactured

Installation Costs Cost Locally (%) Locally (Y or N)

Materials & Equipment

 Mounting (rails, clamps, fittings, etc.) $293,785 100% N

 Modules $1,876,486 100% N

 Electrical (wire, connectors, breakers, etc.) $71,889 100% N

 Inverter $279,067 100% N

 Subtotal $2,521,227

Labor

 Installation $425,350 100%

 Subtotal $425,350

Subtotal $2,946,577

Other Costs

 Permitting $29,921 100%

 Other Costs $661,243 100%

 Business Overhead $1,846,739 100%

 Subtotal $2,537,903

Subtotal $5,484,480

Sales Tax (Materials & Equipment Purchases) $0 100%

Total $5,484,480
47 

Table C-8. Annual O&M Costs for JEDI Model Analysis of Single-Axis Tracking PV System

Cost Local Share

Manufactured 

Locally (Y or N)

Labor

 Technicians $14,184 100%

 Subtotal $14,184

Materials and Services

 Materials & Equipment $9,456 100% N

 Services $0 100%

 Subtotal $9,456

Sales Tax (Materials & Equipment Purchases) $662 100%

Average Annual Payment (Interest and Principal) $636,200 0%

Property Taxes $0 100%

Total $660,502

Other Parameters

Financial Parameters

Debt Financing

 Percentage financed 80% 0%

 Years financed (term) 10

 Interest rate 10%

Tax Parameters

 Local Property Tax (percent of taxable value) 0%

 Assessed Value (percent of construction cost) 0%

 Taxable Value (percent of assessed value) 0%

 Taxable Value $0

 Property Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes) 100%

 Local Property Taxes $0 100%

 Local Sales Tax Rate 7.00% 100%

 Sales Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes) 0%

Payroll Parameters Wage per hour Employer Payroll Overhead

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction Workers / Installers $21.39 45.6%

 O&M Labor

 Technicians $21.39 45.6%