February 2004 • NREL/SR-550-35037 

The Potential Economic Impact 

of Constructing and Operating 

Solar Power Generation 

Facilities in Nevada 

R. K. Schwer and M. Riddel 

Center for Business and Economic Research 

University of Nevada 

Las Vegas, Nevada 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Boulevard 

Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory

Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
February 2004 • NREL/SR-550-35037 

The Potential Economic Impact 

of Constructing and Operating 

Solar Power Generation 

Facilities in Nevada 

R. K. Schwer and M. Riddel 

Center for Business and Economic Research 

University of Nevada 

Las Vegas, Nevada 

NREL Technical Monitor: M. Mehos 

Prepared under Subcontract No. ACX-3-33466-01 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Boulevard 

Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory

Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
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: 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/ordering.htm 

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste 
Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3 

II. ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND THE REMI MODEL ............................................... 3 

III. THE SCENARIOS..................................................................................................... 5 

IV. SCENARIO A............................................................................................................ 6 

Construction Direct Costs ..................................................................................... 6 

Operations and Maintenance Costs ....................................................................... 7 

Economic Impacts ................................................................................................. 8 

Employment...................................................................................................... 8 

Personal Income.............................................................................................. 10 

Gross State Product......................................................................................... 10 

V. SCENARIO B.......................................................................................................... 11 

Construction Direct Costs ................................................................................... 11 

Economic Impacts ............................................................................................... 14 

Employment.................................................................................................... 14 

Personal Income.............................................................................................. 15 

Gross State Product......................................................................................... 16 

VI. SCENARIO C.......................................................................................................... 16 

Construction and O&M Direct Costs .................................................................. 17 

Economic Impacts ............................................................................................... 19 

Employment.................................................................................................... 19 

Personal Income.............................................................................................. 20 

Gross State Product......................................................................................... 20 

VII. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................ 22 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 23 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Nevada has a vast potential for electricity generation using solar power. An examination 

of the stock of renewable resources in Nevada proves that the state has the potential to be 

a leader in renewable-electric generation. Solar resources for concentrating collectors 

range between 7,000 and 7,500 watt hours per square meter (whm

2

), making southern 

Nevada one of the best sources for this type of generation in the world (see Riddel and 

Schwer, 2003). 

The purpose of this study is to estimate the economic impact, in terms of employment, 

personal income, and gross state product (GSP) of developing some portion of Nevada’s 

solar energy generation resources. At present, it is impossible to know what level of 

investment in solar generation capacity will occur in Nevada over the coming decades. 

The level of investment will depend on federal and state energy policy, energy prices, 

technology, and a host of other variables. “Sustainable” development would be 

something on the order of 5GWs over 10 years so 500MW/year (communication Mark 

Mehos NREL November 2003). This level of investment is unlikely in the near future 

given current prices and policy. Thus, this report focuses on likely investment scenarios 

to gain an understanding of possible economic impacts from different levels of 

investment in CSP generation in Nevada. We examine three scenarios by varying the 

number of 100-MWe plants constructed and operated in the state. We find that 

developing the state’s solar resources will have a significant, positive effect on Nevada’s 

economy. The degree of impact depends on the scenario and the timing of the 

construction and operations and maintenance (O&M) schedule. 

Under Scenario A, one “representative plant,” a 100 megawatt (MWe) trough facility, is 

constructed. The direct construction impact, including labor, capital, land, and 

contingencies, totals $485.6 million. Each year, 817 jobs are directly tied to constructing 

the facility. Indirect and induced job creation totals another 1,570 jobs during the 

construction phase, suggesting an employment multiplier of 2.9. Not surprisingly, 

employment impacts during the O&M phase are significantly less than during the 

construction phase. Employment impacts average 140 jobs annually. Total personal 

income in Nevada attributable to the construction phase (2004 through 2006) and the 

O&M phase (2007 through 2035) is estimated to be $1.15 billion. GSP will be boosted 

by $1.14 billion. 

Scenario B assumes that 10 representative plants are constructed over an 11-year 

construction cycle. This scenario offers the highest economic impact. Employment 

impacts are largest during the early years of the construction phase. Initial employment 

impact is 3,830 jobs in the first year of construction, rising quickly to a peak of over 

6,940 jobs in 2005. The first post-construction year enjoys employment impacts of 1,090 

jobs. Over the O&M phase, employment impacts average 1,800 jobs. Total personal 

income and GSP generated between 2004 and 2035 totals $9.37 and $9.85 billion, 

respectively. 

1
Scenario C represents and intermediate case between A and B where three 100-MWe 

plants are constructed over a two-tear build cycle, with new plants beginning construction 

in 2004, 2005, and 2006. All construction is complete by 2008. This level of investment 

is equivalent to meeting approximately 2/3 of the Nevada Renewable Portfolio Standard 

(RPS) of 15 percent of the electricity generated in Nevada by investor owned utilities 

come from renewable sources. 

As in Scenario B, employment impacts in Scenario C peak early in the construction 

phase. In 2005, nearly 7,000 jobs may be attributed to the construction of the facilities. 

The average annual employment impact over the construction phase is 4,900 jobs. The 

average employment impact over the O&M phase is 475 jobs. Taken together, the 

construction and O&M for the three plants injects $3.4 billion in personal income into the 

Nevada economy from 2004 through 2035. GSP is augmented by $3.5 billion over that 

same period. 

The results reveal significant economic benefits, in terms of GSP, new employment, and 

personal income to the state of Nevada. As such, CSP generation is a potential source of 

economic development throughout the state. Rural Nevada has been shedding highpaying natural-resource-based jobs for the past decade. Solar power generation does not 

contribute to global warming or diminish air quality, but provides opportunities for the 

skilled labor force that has been left unemployed in rural Nevada. Thus, tallying the 

economic and environmental benefits of solar-power generation, it is clear that it could be 

an important contributor to sustainable economic development in rural Nevada. 

2
I. INTRODUCTION 

Disenchantment with the environmental degradation associated with fossil-fuel use has 

led to interest in alternatives to fossil fuel. In Nevada, almost 90 percent of the electricity 

generated comes from coal (53 percent) or natural gas (36 percent). Fossil-fuel 

consumption is associated with air-quality problems and acid rain, and may affect global 

temperatures in the long run. Perhaps even more importantly, fossil fuels are 

nonrenewable. As resources become scarce, prices will certainly rise and alternatives 

will be necessary. 

Nevada has a vast potential for electricity generation using solar power. An examination 

of the stock of renewable resources in Nevada proves that the state has the potential to be 

a leader in renewable electric generation. Solar resources for concentrating collectors 

range between 7,000 and 7,500 watt hours per square meter (whm2

), making southern 

Nevada one of the best sources for this type of generation in the world (see Riddel and 

Schwer, 2003). 

The purpose of this study is to examine the potential of solar power generation facilities 

for economic development in Nevada. We focus on one type of solar power generation 

that has enjoyed success in experimental facilities: concentrating solar power (CSP) 

generation. We estimate direct, indirect, and induced impacts, in terms of employment, 

personal income, and gross state product (GSP) within the state of Nevada. The economic 

impacts are estimated using the REMI model, a multivariate, multi-equation model of the 

Nevada economy. 

We examine three different levels of CSP-generation capacity: Scenario A with 100 

MWe of capacity, Scenario B with 1,000 MWe of capacity, and finally Scenario C where 

enough capacity is built to meet one-half of Nevada’s legislated goal of 15 percent of the 

total state’s generation from renewable sources. 

We find that the economic impact of constructing and operating CSP facilities within 

Nevada could provide a substantial and needed economic driver for rural Nevada. 

II. ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND THE REMI MODEL 

Economic impacts arise from new expenditures over and above existing expenditures. 

They may also include shifts in the level of environmental externalities such as changes 

in air or water quality. For simplicity, we focus on tangible and easily quantifiable 

economic impacts on employment, personal income, and GSP. Employment impacts 

may arise from a variety of sources. There will be direct employment impacts from 

constructing and maintaining renewable-energy generation facilities. Second round, or 

indirect employment impacts, can follow as Nevada firms that supply labor and or 

materials to generation facilities expand. Finally, new jobs can be created in the retail, 

services, and other sectors that support consumption activities. Similarly, direct GSP 

impacts will arise from the construction, maintenance, and operation of CSP-generation 

facilities. Indirect and induced effects from increased demand for renewable-energy 

3
generation products and increased household wealth, respectively, are also an important 

source of economic activity. 

We estimate the economic impacts using the REMI model from Regional Economic 

Models, Inc. The REMI model is a state-of-the-art econometric forecast model that 

accounts for dynamic feedbacks between economic and demographic variables. The 

REMI model is nationally recognized by the business and academic community as the 

best regional forecast tool available. The REMI model forecasts county employment 

based on a model that includes over 100 stochastic and dynamic relationships and a 

number of identities. The national economy is taken as exogenous. The relationships span 

53 sectors of employment figures, detailed population and demographic forecasts that 

include economic and non-economic migration, capital formation, and county-level 

import export relationships. A complete explanation of all of the relationships contained 

in the model is given in Regional Economic Modeling: A Systematic Approach to 

Economic Forecasting and Policy Analysis by George I. Treyz. 

The REMI model allows for an open economy, thus the model explicitly accounts for 

trade amongst the counties in Nevada and throughout the U.S. If, for instance, a 

downturn in California causes employment and personal income to fall, this is reflected 

by a drop in tourism to northern Nevada and Washoe County. The same is true for all 

other industries in Washoe County; if demand for exported products from local industries 

falls anywhere in the U.S., it is automatically included in the forecast. This type of 

detailed trade modeling, though rare, is particularly important for a small economy such 

as Nevada which is very dependent on exports for its economic base. 

The REMI model works particularly well for economic impact modeling because it is a 

dynamic model. The word “dynamic” in economics means that past events are allowed 

to influence current and future events. So, for example, an increase in demand for 

electricity will cause electricity prices to rise in the model in the next period. The price 

rise will translate into less electricity demanded in the future, all else equal. 

Another important component of the REMI model is the detailed provision for capital 

investment. Investment in the economic sense is buildings and equipment that are used 

for producing goods and services. Therefore, the model incorporates data on past 

investment, including the cost of new casino and hotel construction, in the estimation 

process. Demand for labor and capital investment is included through a block of 

equations in the model. Another important block of equations is the population and laborsupply block. This block relates migration and changes in population to the supply of 

workers for the different industries in the county. A unique feature of this block of 

equations is the decomposition of migrants into those drawn by economic variables and 

those from non-economic, including retired persons. Again, this feature is helpful when 

modeling the economy of a state with a disproportionately high percentage of retired 

persons. Finally, the REMI model has a block of equations that accounts for wages, 

prices, and profits of firms. 

4
In the REMI, the labor and capital-demand block, the population and labor-supply block, 

and the wage, prices and profits block are allowed to interact, thereby mimicking the 

economic relationships. The dynamic relationships allow for eventual return to 

equilibrium. For example, if wages are high relative to those in Utah, the model will draw 

migrants from Utah to work in Nevada. Over time, as new migrants come and increase 

the supply of labor, wages are forced down and are eventually equilibrated with those of 

Utah. This allows for economic-impact estimates that are reflective of theoretically 

sound economic relationships. 

The model employed divides Nevada into five regions—Clark County, Nye County, 

Lincoln County, Washoe County and Carson City, and the remaining counties are 

combined to form a fifth region. The data used to construct the model begin in 1969. 

Because Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) personal income data are reported with a twoyear lag, the most recent historical data in the model are from 1998. In an effort to 

ensure that the most current data are used in the forecast, we update the model with 

employment figures from the Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and 

Rehabilitation. 

The exogenous parameters of the REMI model are estimated using a variety of 

simultaneous and single-equation techniques. The endogenous parameters are found by 

choosing values so that the system of labor, capital-demand, population, labor-supply, 

wage, prices and profits equations is satisfied. For a detailed description of parameter 

estimation and model solution methods (see Treyz 1993). 

Once solved, the REMI model provides forecasts for economic and demographic 

variables, such as population, inflation-adjusted GSP, and industry-specific final demand, 

on which we may base our tax forecasts. It is very important to note that the finaldemand forecasts used to ultimately forecast taxable sales, sales tax, and room tax 

encompass all of the information contained in the REMI model. Thus, the economic 

impacts arising from the model are based on complicated, but statistically accurate 

models of the Nevada and U.S. economies. 

III. THE SCENARIOS 

At present, it is impossible to know what level of investment in solar generation capacity 

will occur in Nevada over the coming decades. The level of investment will depend on 

federal and state energy policy, energy prices, technology, and a host of other variables. 

“Sustainable” development would be something on the order of 5GWs over 10 years so 

500MW/year (communication Mark Mehos NREL November 2003). This level of 

investment is unlikely in the near future given current prices and policy. Thus, this report 

focuses on likely investment scenarios to gain an understanding of possible economic 

impacts from different levels of investment in CSP generation in Nevada. We examine 

three scenarios by varying the number of 100-MWe plants constructed and operated in 

the state. 

5
Scenario A: We describe economic impacts from a typical single-plant CSP-generation 

facility built in Nevada. The “representative plant” is a 100 MW trough facility built 

according to that described in “Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar 

Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts” released by the Sargent and Lundy 

Consulting Group (hereafter called S&L). We assume construction and operations and 

maintenance expenditures correspond to a plant beginning a three-year construction 

period in 2004. 

Scenario B: This scenario explores the economic impacts of developing multiple CSP 

plants within Nevada resulting in a total installed capacity of 1000MW. We assume that 

1,000 MWe of CSP generating capacity is added to Nevada’s energy infrastructure by 

constructing ten new 100-MWw plants each with a two-year build cycle. The first plant 

begins construction in 2004 and a new plant begins construction each of after that for 

nine years. Operations for the first plant built begin in 2006 with a new plant starting 

operations each of the nine years following. 

Scenario C: Scenario C represents and intermediate case where three 100-MWe plants. 

This level of investment is equivalent to meeting approximately 2/3 of the Nevada 

Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of 15 percent of the electricity generated in Nevada 

by investor owned utilities come from renewable sources. Construction begins with one 

plant in 2004 and a new plant begins construction in each of the two years following. All 

construction is complete by 2008. 

For each of the three scenarios described above, we tabulate economic impacts in terms 

of gross state product, employment by major industries, and fiscal impacts. The 

economic impact is decomposed into: 1) direct impacts from constructing facilities, and 

2) indirect impacts from stimulating secondary economic activity within the state, and 3) 

induced effects arising from changes in income and consumption by Nevada residents. 

IV. SCENARIO A. 

Scenario A estimates the economic impact on Nevada of building one 100-MWe plant in 

the state. Economic impacts arise during the construction, then the O&M phases. Capital 

and labor costs differ significantly over the two phases. As such, we describe each in 

turn. 

Construction Direct Costs 

Construction costs for a 100-MWe trough CSP plant are given in Table 1. The costs are 

broken down into capital and labor costs by major cost component of the construction 

project. Contingencies are added that vary over the major cost component. Columns 7 

and 8 in Table 1 give the total costs, with the contingency, for capital and labor, 

respectively, by major cost component. Labor cost totals $107 million, whereas capital 

costs come to $344 million. 

6
Table 1. Construction Capital and Labor Costs for One 100MWe Trough Collecting Solar 

Power Plant. (From Sargent & Lundy draft study and NREL). 

Total Total 

Adjusted Capital Labor 

Equip Labor Total Total SpendingSpending 

Category ($Thous)($Thous)($Thous)Contingency($Thous)($Thous) ($Thous) 

Structures & Improvements 0 7,243 7,243 0.20 8,692 0 8,692

Collector System 205,509 42,529 248,038 0.05 260,440 215,785 44,655

Thermal Storage System 74,296 21,511 95,807 0.10 105,388 81,725 23,663

Steam Gen or HX System 8,570 2,742 11,313 0.10 12,444 9,427 3,017

Aux Heater/Boiler 0 0 0 0.10 0 0 0

EPGS 24,371 12,342 36,713 0.10 40,384 26,808 13,577

Master Control System 0 0 0 0.10 0 0 0

Engineering & Project Maint. 32,911

Land Cost 1,854

Balance of Plant 9,140 12,206 21,346 0.10 23,481 10,054 13,427

Total Direct Costs 321,886 98,575 420,461 485,594 343,799 107,030 

The S&L study assumes that engineering, construction, and project management will cost 

an additional 7.3 percent of the $451 million in Table 1 amounting to $32 million dollars. 

Land costs are expected to total $1.854 million. 

Construction capital costs enter the REMI model through the output variables: 

construction sales, new electric-utility facilities. Labor costs are entered by transforming 

labor spending into full-time employment (FTE) using the REMI construction wage as 

follows: FTE=Total Labor Spending/Annual Construction Wages. We assume a threeyear build cycle. The plant is constructed in years 1, 2, and 3 and begins operation in 

year 4. 

Operations and Maintenance Costs 

Operations and maintenance capital costs and expenditures are also taken from the S&L 

study. Table 2 gives a tally of the expected operations and maintenance costs. 

Table 2. Operation and Maintenance Costs for One 100MWe Trough Collecting Solar 

Power Plant. ( From Sargent & Lundy draft study and NREL). 

Administrativ Technical 

e (FTE) (FTE) Capital Costs ($ Thous) 

7 37.9 $5,472 

Wage (2004 $Thous) $45 $66 

Total Cost (2004 $ Thous) $314 $2,496 $5,472 

Grand Total Annual O&M Costs $8,282 

The labor O&M costs are entered into the REMI model as FTE. Administrative 

employment enters the model through the employment category: services, miscellaneous 

business services. Technical employment is entered using the REMI category 

7
employment: public utilities. The wages given in Table 2 are those used in the REMI 

model. As such, the total O&M budget under our assumptions differs slightly from that 

of the S&L study. Nevertheless, the REMI wage data is Nevada-specific and we feel that 

it is appropriate to use wages that reflect the Nevada, rather than a national, labor market. 

Capital expenditures for O&M enter the model through the output block: public utility 

sales. Total capital expenditures are $5.5 million annually beginning in 2006 and are set 

to grow at the rate of general-price inflation through the final model year, 2035. 

Economic Impacts 

The total economic impact on the state of Nevada from constructing, operating, and 

maintaining a 100-MWe CSP facility are given in Table 3 and Figures 1 through 3. 

Employment. 

The largest employment impact is during the three-year construction phase. In the first 

year of construction, over 2,500 jobs are created either directly or indirectly as a result of 

the economic activity surrounding the CSP construction. The number drops off modestly 

during the next two years, but stays well above 2,000 jobs. Each year, 817 jobs are 

directly tied to constructing the facility. Indirect and induced job creation totals another 

1,570 jobs, suggesting an employment multiplier of 2.9. 

The end of the construction phase induces a mild downturn as a fall in the number of jobs 

temporarily contributes to job losses in industries supplying construction workers. By 

2012, employment impacts have returned to positive territory. Not surprisingly, 

employment impacts during the O&M phase are significantly less than during the 

construction phase. Employment impacts average 140 jobs annually. Since 45 FTE are 

created directly during the O&M phase, the employment multiplier is approximately 3.1. 

100-MWe Concentrating Solar Power Plant 

Employment Impact: Construction and O&M Phases 

State of Nevada 

2004 - 2035 

-0.5 

0.0 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

3.0 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 

Thousands of 

Jobs 

Figure 1. Employment Impact on the State of Nevada of Scenario A: Constructing, 

Operating, and Maintaining One 100-MWe CSP Generation Facility 

8
9

Table 3. P Impacts of Scenario A: g, 

Operating, and Maintaining One 100-MWe CSP Plant in Nevada 

Year 

Employment

(Thous) 

Personal 

Income

 (Bil Nominal $

GSP 

(Bil Nominal 

$) 

2004 0.125 0.165

2005 0.138 0.162

2006 0.143 0.155

2007 0.029 0.007

2008 0.017 0.004

2009 0.013 0.005

2010 0.012 0.008

2011 0.012 0.011

2012 0.014 0.014

2013 0.015 0.017

2014 0.018 0.019

2015 0.020 0.022

2016 0.022 0.023

2017 0.023 0.025

2018 0.024 0.026

2019 0.025 0.026

2020 0.026 0.027

2021 0.026 0.027

2022 0.026 0.028

2023 0.027 0.028

2024 0.027 0.028

2025 0.028 0.028

2026 0.029 0.028

2027 0.030 0.029

2028 0.031 0.029

2029 0.032 0.029

2030 0.033 0.029

2031 0.034 0.029

2032 0.035 0.029

2033 0.037 0.029

2034 0.038 0.029

2035 0.039 0.029

Employment, Personal Income, and GS Constructin

2.55 

2.40 

2.22 

-0.12 

-0.14 

-0.10 

-0.04 

0.02 

0.07 

0.11 

0.15 

0.18 

0.20 

0.21 

0.22 

0.22 

0.23 

0.23 

0.23 

0.22 

0.22 

0.22 

0.21 

0.21 

0.20 

0.19 

0.19 

0.18 

0.17 

0.17 

0.16 

0.15 
Personal Income. 

The volume of construction activity from 2004 – 2006 means that personal income 

impacts are largest during the CSP facility construction phase. Personal income averages 

$140 million annually during this time. The number falls considerably in the O&M 

phase as capital expenditures decline and employment effects taper off. Personal-income 

impacts remain in positive territory even after the end of the construction phase, falling 

from just over $143 million to $29 million annually. Personal income averages $30 

million each year over the baseline forecast for the state during the O&M phase. Total 

personal income in Nevada attributable to the construction phase (2004 through 2006) 

and the O&M phase (2007 through 2035) is estimated to be $1.15 billion. 

100-MWe Concentrating Solar Power Plant 

Personal Income Impact: Construction and O&M Phases 

State of Nevada 

2004 - 2035 

0.00 

0.02 

0.04 

0.06 

0.08 

0.10 

0.12 

0.14 

0.16 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 

Billions of Dollars 

Figure 2. Personal-Income Impact on the State of Nevada of Scenario A: Constructing, 

Operating, and Maintaining One 100-MWe CSP Generation Facility 

Gross State Product. 

Mirroring personal-income activity, the construction phase offers the highest economic 

impact in terms of GSP. In the initial year of construction, over $160 million of GSP is 

generated either directly or indirectly from constructing the CSP facility. The average 

annual construction impact totals $160 million. 

As with employment and personal income, the phase-out of construction activity causes 

the economic impact to fall markedly: GSP impacts fall from $155 million in 2006 to $7 

million in 2007. The impact steadily increases to $29 million annually by 2027. The 

average annual economic impact, in terms of GSP, is $22.7 million during the O&M 

phase. In all, Nevada GSP will be boosted by $1.14 billion. 

10
100-MWe Concentrating Solar Power Plant 

Gross State Product Impact: Construction and O&M Phases 

State of Nevada 

2004 - 2035 

0.00 

0.02 

0.04 

0.06 

0.08 

0.10 

0.12 

0.14 

0.16 

0.18 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 

Billions of Dollars 

Figure 3. GSP Impact on the State of Nevada of Scenario A: Constructing, Operating, and 

Maintaining One 100-MWe CSP Generation Facility 

V. SCENARIO B. 

Under Scenario B, we assume that 1,000 MWe of CSP generating capacity is added to 

Nevada’s energy infrastructure. We assume that the plants are constructed on a two-year 

build cycle with construction ongoing during years 1 and 2 and operation beginning in 

year 3. The first plant begins construction in 2004 and a new plant begins construction 

each of the following nine years. In all, ten 100-MWe plants are constructed adding 

1,000 MWe to Nevada’s generation capacity. 

Construction Direct Costs 

Engineering-cost estimates assume that costs of construction will fall as engineers, 

project managers, and installers familiarize themselves with installation and construction. 

This is true for many new technologies: learning at all levels of the development and 

construction phases helps to contain costs. Further, economies of scale can lead to lower 

costs for production of CSP capital and equipment. Taken together, it is reasonable to 

assume that learning and economies of scale should make subsequent plants less costly. 

That said, it is difficult to predict the actual costs savings but they are important when 

analyzing economic impacts. Increased efficiency means lower construction costs and 

fewer dollars spent in Nevada. As a result, cost-savings act to dampen economic 

impacts. Engineering-based estimates put these between 10 and 20 percent for 

subsequent plants. For our model, we assume a conservative value of 10 percent, but 

allow the base cost to grow at the rate of general-price inflation. The result is prices 

falling by between 7 and 8 percent for each plant. 

11
12

Table 4. nstructing, Operating, and Maintaining Ten 

100-MWe CSP Facilities in Nevada 

Year 

O&M 

Technical 

FTE 

O&M 

Administrative 

FTE 

Construction 

FTE 

O&M 

Capital 

($000) 

Construction 

Capital 

($000) 

2004 0 1,230.341 0.000 171,899.650 

2005 0 2,283.777 0.000 329,727.080 

2006 38.9 2,049.619 5,471.916 305,887.655 

2007 77.8 1,840.140 11,163.138 283,780.544 

2008 116.7 1,651.323 17,081.839 263,318.470 

2009 155.6 1,485.459 23,237.795 244,404.259 

2010 194.5 1,336.767 29,645.187 226,956.173 

2011 233.4 1,203.355 36,338.150 210,992.559 

2012 272.3 1,085.250 43,307.069 196,276.835 

2013 311.2 979.669 50,560.116 182,616.380 

2014 350.1 501.485 58,103.541 96,332.674 

2015 389 0 65,940.871 0 

2016 389 0 67,346.289 0 

2017 389 0 68,778.950 0 

2018 389 0 70,235.248 0 

2019 389 0 71,722.395 0 

2020 389 0 73,242.394 0 

2021 389 0 74,806.062 0 

2022 389 0 76,418.206 0 

2023 389 0 78,070.815 0 

2024 389 0 79,765.890 0 

2025 389 0 81,500.227 0 

2026 389 0 83,283.441 0 

2027 389 0 85,123.946 0 

2028 389 0 87,008.520 0 

2029 389 0 88,937.966 0 

2030 389 0 90,908.275 0 

2031 389 0 92,929.064 0 

2032 389 0 95,007.945 0 

2033 389 0 97,136.104 0 

2034 389 0 99,307.932 0 

2035 389 0 101,517.820 0 

Table 4 gives the employment and capital costs over the construction and O&M phases. 

The construction phase begins in 2004 with the construction of the first plant and ends in 

2014 with the completion of the tenth plant. Direct employment peaks in 2006 when the 

second and third plants are under construction. Cost savings from learning acts to lower 

Direct FTE and Capital Costs for Co

0 

0 

7 

14 

21 

28 

35 

42 

49 

56 

63 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 
13

labor costs and corresponding FTE so that direct construction employment falls modestly 

over time. , direct employment falls markedly to 459 

jobs per year. 

Table 5. Personal Income, and GSP Impacts of Scenario B: Constructing, 

Operating, and Maintaining Ten 100-MWe CSP Plants in Nevada 

Employment

(Thous) 

Pers Inc 

(Bil Nominal $)

GSP 

(Bil Nominal 

$) 

2004 0.188 0.248

2005 0.376 0.463

2006 0.383 0.433

2007 0.377 0.402

2008 0.368 0.379

2009 0.357 0.361

2010 0.349 0.353

2011 0.345 0.352

2012 0.344 0.356

2013 0.347 0.365

2014 0.275 0.283

2015 0.189 0.194

2016 0.187 0.205

2017 0.194 0.219

2018 0.203 0.232

2019 0.214 0.244

2020 0.225 0.256

2021 0.235 0.265

2022 0.244 0.273

2023 0.253 0.280

2024 0.261 0.286

2025 0.269 0.291

2026 0.277 0.296

2027 0.285 0.300

2028 0.294 0.304

2029 0.302 0.307

2030 0.311 0.310

2031 0.321 0.313

2032 0.333 0.317

2033 0.344 0.319

2034 0.356 0.322

2035 0.369 0.325

When the construction phase ends

Employment, 

3.83 

6.94 

6.11 

5.35 

4.74 

4.25 

3.89 

3.65 

3.50 

3.43 

2.26 

1.09 

1.26 

1.44 

1.60 

1.73 

1.84 

1.91 

1.96 

1.99 

2.00 

2.00 

1.99 

1.97 

1.95 

1.92 

1.88 

1.84 

1.81 

1.76 

1.72 

1.68 
Capital costs parallel the employment trends. Capital spending is highest during the early 

years of the construction phase before cost savings from learning and economies of scale 

set in. Direct construction-capital spending ranges from a high of $2.2 billion in 2005 to 

a low of $501 million in the last year of construction, 2014. Capital cost are still 

substantial in the O&M phase, averaging $82 million. As in Scenario A, capital costs are 

assumed to grow with the rate of general-price inflation. 

Economic Impacts 

The total economic impact on the state of Nevada from constructing, operating, and 

maintaining ten 100-MWe CSP facilities are given in Table 5 and Figures 4 through 6. 

Employment. 

Table 5 and Figure 4 give the employment impacts of Scenario B. Employment impacts 

are largest during the early years of the construction phase. Initial employment impact is 

3,830 jobs in the first year of construction, rising quickly to a peak of over 6,940 jobs in 

2005. Employment impacts taper off after that point as construction costs, including 

labor costs fall in response to learning savings and economies of scale. 

Unlike the one-plant scenario A, O&M employment impacts are significant. The first 

year post construction enjoys direct, indirect, and induced employment impacts of 1,090 

jobs. The number falls modestly, mainly as a result of the downturn from the end of 

construction cycle, but the employment impact quickly revives. By 2025, nearly 2,000 

jobs are created over and above the baseline forecast for that year. Over the O&M phase, 

employment impacts average 1,800 jobs. Direct O&M jobs total 459, suggesting an 

employment multiplier of 3.9 during the O&M phase of the facility. 

1,000 MWe: 10 Concentrating Solar Power Plants 

Employment Impact: Construction and O&M Phases 

State of Nevada 

2004 - 2035 

0.0 

1.0 

2.0 

3.0 

4.0 

5.0 

6.0 

7.0 

8.0 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 

Thousands of 

Jobs 

Figure 4. Employment Impact on the State of Nevada of Scenario B: Constructing, 

Operating, and Maintaining Ten 100-MWe CSP Generation Facilities 

14
Personal Income. 

Table 5 and Figure 6 give the personal-income impacts from Scenario B on the state of 

Nevada. The personal income impact climbs from $188 million in 2004 to over $383 

million at the peak of construction in 2006. Impacts fall off and drop to just under $200 

million annually after the construction phase ends. 

O&M personal impacts for the 10-plant scenario are significant. Impacts climb steadily 

throughout the O&M phase from just under $189 million in 2015 to $369 million in 

2035. Much of the increase can be attributed to general-price inflation. But, the average 

growth rate of 4 percent is well in excess of the average general-price inflation rate 

forecast rate of 2.2 percent. 

1,000 MWe: 10 Concentrating Solar Power Plants 

Personal Income Impact: Construction and O&M Phases 

State of Nevada 

2004 - 2035 

0.00 

0.05 

0.10 

0.15 

0.20 

0.25 

0.30 

0.35 

0.40 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 

Billions of Dollars 

Figure 5. Personal-Income Impact on the State of Nevada of Scenario B: Constructing, 

Operating and Maintaining Ten 100-MWe CSP Generation Facilities 

15
1,000 MWe: 10 Concentrating Solar Power Plants 

Gross State Product Impact: Construction and O&M Phases 

State of Nevada 

2004 - 2035 

0.00 

0.05 

0.10 

0.15 

0.20 

0.25 

0.30 

0.35 

0.40 

0.45 

0.50 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 

Billions of Dollars 

Figure 6. GSP Impact on the State of Nevada of Scenario B: Constructing, Operating, and 

Maintaining Ten 100-MWe CSP Generation Facilities 

Gross State Product. 

The pattern of GSP impacts is in line with that of employment and personal income. The 

construction phase contributes considerable economic benefit to Nevada: at its peak, 

GSP impacts from Scenario B inject $463 million into the Nevada economy. Over the 

construction phases, GSP impacts average $349 million annually. The total economic 

impact, in terms of GSP, in the construction phase is $3.99 billion. 

Like employment and income, the O&M phase also offers a substantial source of 

economic growth for Nevada. GSP impacts total $5.86 billion in the 22 years of full 

operation, 2014-2035. The average annual GSP impact is $283 million over that same 

period. 

VI. SCENARIO C 

The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) was part of the 1997 Electric Restructuring 

Legislation passed by the Nevada Legislature. The goal of the RPS was to increase the 

use of renewable energy in Nevada. Electric providers within the state were required to 

acquire renewable-electric generation or purchase renewable-energy credits representing 

1 percent of total consumption. The law was revised June 8, 2001. The revised law, 

purported to be the most aggressive RPS in the country, requires a steady shift toward 

renewable generation through 2013. The law requires renewable energy generation to 

increase by five percent by 2003, seven percent by 2005, nine percent by 2007, eleven 

percent by 2009, thirteen percent by 2011, culminating in a fifteen percent increase by 

2013. 

16
The third and final scenario links economic impact of CSP-generation development to 

RPS requirements. We ask: What is the economic impact of constructing enough CSPgeneration capacity to meet approximately 2/3 of the Nevada’s long-term RPS 

requirement of 15 percent of total generation from investor-owned utilities? 

First, we must estimate how much solar power generation must increase to meet 10 

percent (or 2/3 of the fifteen percent) required by the RPS. We estimate that 29,000 

GWH of electricity will be generated in Nevada in 2003. Therefore, meeting the RPS 

requirement would mean generating 2,900 gigawatt hours (GWH) using CSP technology. 

Generating this much electricity would require constructing 290 MWe of new generation 

capacity. We assume that three 100-MWe plants will meet this goal. Therefore, 

Scenario C represents an intermediate case between scenarios A and B. 

Our assumptions under Scenario C are modeled after those in B. The major difference is 

that three plants, rather than 10, are constructed under Scenario C. The plants have a 

two-tear build cycle, with new plants beginning construction in 2004, 2005, and 2006. 

All construction is complete by 2008. 

Construction and O&M Direct Costs 

We assume that learning and economies of scale in Scenario C affect costs at the same 

rate as in Scenario B. Namely, each successive plant enjoys 10 percent lower capital and 

labor construction costs than its predecessor. Table 6 offers a tally of capital and labor 

costs for the construction and O&M phases from 2004 through 2035. Employment cost is 

translated into FTE using REMI industry wages as in Scenario B. 

17
18

Table 6. Direct FTE and Capital Costs for Scenario C: Constructing, Operating, and 

Maintaining Three 100-MWe CSP Facilities in Nevada 

Year 

O&M 

Technical 

FTE 

O&M 

Administrative 

FTE 

Construction 

FTE 

O&M 

Capital 

($000) 

Construction 

Capital 

($000) 

2004 0 0.00 171,899.65 1,230.34 

2005 0 0.00 329,727.08 2,283.78 

2006 38.9 5,471.92 305,887.65 2,049.62 

2007 77.8 11,163.14 150,762.59 977.60 

2008 116.7 17,081.84 0.00 0.00 

2009 116.7 17,428.35 0.00 0.00 

2010 116.7 17,787.11 0.00 0.00 

2011 116.7 18,169.08 0.00 0.00 

2012 116.7 18,560.17 0.00 0.00 

2013 116.7 18,960.04 0.00 0.00 

2014 116.7 19,367.85 0.00 0.00 

2015 116.7 19,782.26 0.00 0.00 

2016 116.7 20,203.89 0.00 0.00 

2017 116.7 20,633.68 0.00 0.00 

2018 116.7 21,070.57 0.00 0.00 

2019 116.7 21,516.72 0.00 0.00 

2020 116.7 21,972.72 0.00 0.00 

2021 116.7 22,441.82 0.00 0.00 

2022 116.7 22,925.46 0.00 0.00 

2023 116.7 23,421.24 0.00 0.00 

2024 116.7 23,929.77 0.00 0.00 

2025 116.7 24,450.07 0.00 0.00 

2026 116.7 24,985.03 0.00 0.00 

2027 116.7 25,537.18 0.00 0.00 

2028 116.7 26,102.56 0.00 0.00 

2029 116.7 26,681.39 0.00 0.00 

2030 116.7 27,272.48 0.00 0.00 

2031 116.7 27,878.72 0.00 0.00 

2032 116.7 28,502.38 0.00 0.00 

2033 116.7 29,140.83 0.00 0.00 

2034 116.7 29,792.38 0.00 0.00 

2035 116.7 30,455.35 0.00 0.00 

0 

0 

7 

14 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 
19

Economic Impacts 

The total economic impact on the state of Nevada from constructing, operating, and 

maintaining three 100-MWe CSP facilities are given in Table 7 and Figures 7 through 9. 

Employment. 

Table 7 and Figure 7 give the sum of the direct, indirect, and induced employment 

impacts from building three 100-MWe plants in the state. s in Scenario B, employment 

impacts peak early in the construction phase. ay be 

attributed to the construction of the facilities. e average annual employment impact 

over the construction phase is 4,900 jobs. 

Table 7. Personal Income, and GSP Impacts of Scenario C: Constructing, 

Operating, and Maintaining Three 100-MWe CSP Plants in Nevada 

Year 

Employment

(Thous) 

Pers Inc 

(Bil Nominal 

$) 

GSP 

(Bil Nominal 

$) 

2004 0.188 0.248

2005 0.376 0.463

2006 0.383 0.433

2007 0.232 0.218

2008 0.068 0.023

2009 0.048 0.022

2010 0.040 0.027

2011 0.039 0.035

2012 0.042 0.044

2013 0.047 0.052

2014 0.052 0.060

2015 0.059 0.066

2016 0.064 0.072

2017 0.069 0.076

2018 0.073 0.080

2019 0.076 0.082

2020 0.078 0.084

2021 0.080 0.086

2022 0.081 0.087

2023 0.083 0.089

2024 0.085 0.090

2025 0.087 0.091

2026 0.090 0.092

2027 0.093 0.093

2028 0.097 0.093

2029 0.100 0.094

2030 0.103 0.094

A

In 2005, nearly 7,000 jobs m

Th

Employment, 

3.832 

6.938 

6.105 

2.679 

-0.272 

-0.234 

-0.104 

0.044 

0.190 

0.323 

0.434 

0.520 

0.584 

0.629 

0.657 

0.674 

0.681 

0.685 

0.685 

0.681 

0.674 

0.665 

0.654 

0.641 

0.625 

0.607 

0.587 
2031 0.569 0.106 0.095 

2032 0.551 0.110 0.095 

2033 0.533 0.115 0.096 

2034 0.515 0.118 0.096 

2035 0.499 0.122 0.097 

Three 100-MWe Concentrating Solar Power Plants 

Employment Impact: Construction and O&M Phases 

State of Nevada 

Thousands of 2004 - 2035 

Jobs 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

-1.0 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 

Figure 7. Employment Impact on the State of Nevada of Scenario C: Constructing, 

Operating, and Maintaining Three 100-MWe CSP Generation Facilities 

With the end of construction in 2008, the decline in employment opportunity has a shortlived contractionary impact on the Nevada labor market. As a result, the employment 

impact is negative for three years following the end of the construction phase. The labor 

market quickly picks up, however, and by 2020, over 680 jobs can be ascribed to direct, 

indirect, and induced impacts from the three plants’ operations. The average employment 

impact over the O&M phase is 475 jobs. 

Personal Income. 

Table 7 and Figure 8 give personal-income impacts from the three 100MWe Scenario 3. 

Average annual personal income exceeds the baseline forecast by $295 million during the 

construction phases and $79.5 million during the O&M phase. Taken together, the 

construction and O&M for the three plants injects $3.4 billion into the Nevada economy 

from 2004 through 2035. 

Gross State Product. 

Table 7 and Figure 9 give the GSP impacts of the three-plant Scenario C. Much like 

Scenario A, the lion’s share of the GSP lift comes during the construction phase. From 

2004 through 2007, construction and subsequent operation of the three facilities inject 

over $340 million into the Nevada economy. The total economic impact, in terms of GSP 

during the construction phase amounts to $1.36 billion. 

20
Economic impacts during the O&M phase are smaller, but still significant. On average, 

operating and maintaining the facilities account for $75 million through direct, indirect, 

and induced economic activity. The total GSP injection during the O&M phase is $2.1 

billion. In sum, construction and O&M of the three-plant scenario lead to increased 

spending activity of $3.47 billion. 

Three 100-MWe Concentrating Solar Power Plants 

Personal Income Impact: Construction and O&M Phases 

State of Nevada 

2004 - 2035 

0.00 

0.05 

0.10 

0.15 

0.20 

0.25 

0.30 

0.35 

0.40 

0.45 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 

Billions of Dollars 

Figure 8. Personal Income Impact on State of Nevada of Scenario C: Constructing, 

Operating, and Maintaining Three 100-MWe CSP Generation Facilities 

Three 100-MWe Concentrating Solar Power Plants 

Gross State Product Impact: Construction and O&M Phases 

State of Nevada 

2004 - 2035 

0.00 

0.05 

0.10 

0.15 

0.20 

0.25 

0.30 

0.35 

0.40 

0.45 

0.50 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 

Billions of Dollars 

Figure 9. Gross State Product Impact on State of Nevada of Scenario C: Constructing, 

Operating, and Maintaining Three 100-MWe CSP Generation Facilities 

21
VII. CONCLUSION 

This report provides an assessment of the potential economic impact of three levels of 

developing Nevada’s solar power resource. We show that the economic benefits can be 

significant, particularly if multiple plants are considered. In the most conservative oneplant Scenario A, total personal income in Nevada attributable to the construction phase 

(2004 through 2006) and the O&M phase (2007 through 2035) is estimated to be $1.15 

billion. GSP will be boosted by $1.14 billion. If approximately 2/3 of the Nevada RPS is 

met with CSP generation, the state can expect additional personal income and GSP of 

$3.41 and $3.47, respectively. At the largest investment level, Scenario B, ten 100-MWe 

plants would be constructed. Direct, induced, and indirect benefits in terms of personal 

income and GSP would reach $9.37 and $9.85, respectively. 

We limited this study to an examination of the tangible benefits of moving toward 

renewable-power generation. Nevertheless, the intangible benefits of improving air 

quality and reducing the threat of global warming are certainly important. Taken 

together, the tangible and intangible benefits to the state make CSP generation an 

attractive option. 

Another factor to consider is the regional economic development potential of CSP 

generation in rural Nevada. The CSP-generation industry could support sustainable 

economic development in places that are currently seeking opportunities for economic 

development. New jobs in the relatively highly paid utility industry could provide a core 

of income for counties that are fast losing traditional income sources such as mining. 

22
REFERENCES 

Mary Riddel and R. Keith Schwer. 2003. “The Potential Economic Impact of Nevada’s 

Renewable Energy Resources,” Research Paper, Center for Business and Economic 

Research, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 

Sargent and Lundy Consulting Group, LLC. 2002. “Draft Assessment of Parabolic 

Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts.” 

George Treyz. 1993. “Regional Economic Modeling: A Systematic Approach to 

Economic Forecasting and Policy Analysis,” Kluwer Aceademic Press, Norwell, MA. 

23
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB NO. 0704-0188 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 

February 2004 

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

Subcontract report 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

The Potential Economic Impact of Constructing and Operating Solar Power Generation 

Facilities in Nevada 

5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

ACX-3-33466-01 

CP03.2000

6. AUTHOR(S) 

R. K. Schwer and M. Riddel 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Center for Business and Economic Research, 

University of Nevada 

Las Vegas, Nevada 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

NREL/SR-550-35037 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

NREL Technical Monitor: Mark Mehos 

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 

Nevada has a vast potential for electricity generation using solar power. An examination of the stock of renewable resources in Nevada 

proves that the state has the potential to be a leader in renewable-electric generation—one of the best in the world. This study provides 

estimates on the economic impact in terms of employment, personal income, and gross state product (GSP) of developing a portion of 

Nevada’s solar energy generation resources. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS 

solar; solar power; electricity generation; renewable energy; renewable resources; 

concentrating solar collectors (CSP); Nevada 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

16. PRICE CODE 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF REPORT 

Unclassified 

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 

298-102