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.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Feasibility Study of Economics 

and Performance of Solar 

Photovoltaics at the TechCity 

East Campus Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act 

Site in Kingston, New York

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 W. 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-09-1750 and Task No. 

WFD6.1001.

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A40-60599

January 2014
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.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

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 TechCity 

East Campus Resource 

Conservation and Recovery

Act Site in Kingston, New York

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 W. Geiger, 

Gail Mosey, and Victoria Healey

Prepared under Task No. WFD6.1001

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A40-60599

January 2014
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.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

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

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

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

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

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

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

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 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 facility managers, engineers, and operators 

for their generous assistance and cooperation. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
iv

Executive Summary

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

America’s Land initiative, selected the TechCity East Campus site in Kingston, New York, 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 TechCity campus is located in Kingston, New York, which is the county seat of Ulster 

County. Kingston is located 90 miles north of New York City. The TechCity campus is

138 acres, is composed of 28 buildings, and has approximately 2.4 million ft2 of building space. 

The TechCity campus was originally an International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) 

campus for building mainframe computers that opened in 1956. The Kingston IBM plant reached 

its peak in 1985 when 7,100 people were employed there, and it was closed in 1994 when IBM 

was going through a major restructuring. A developer purchased the Kingston IBM plant in 1998 

and renamed it TechCity. The current plan of the site is to offer building space to tech companies 

that can put to use the existing infrastructure. 

The feasibility of installing a PV system on a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

site is highly impacted by the available area for an array, solar resource, distance to transmission 

lines, and distance to major roads. In addition, the remediation status, ground conditions, and 

restrictions associated with redevelopment of the RCRA site impact the feasibility of a PV 

system. Based on an assessment of these factors, the TechCity East Campus is suitable for 

deployment of a large-scale PV system.

There is a high potential to build out the TechCity East Campus site with roof-mounted PV but 

very little potential to build out the site with ground-mounted PV because of the high 

concentration of buildings on the site. There are 17.5 acres (762,300 ft2

) potentially available for 

roof-mounted PV systems. This area represents a unique opportunity to deploy utility-scale solar 

on a rooftop. There are currently no areas available for a ground-mounted PV system at the site. 

While the entire area does not need to be developed at one time, due to the feasibility of staging 

installation as area or funding becomes available, calculations for this analysis reflect the solar 

potential if the total feasible area is used. 

Of the five scenarios considered, two had a positive net present value and all had a payback in 

the analysis period. No single-axis tracking systems were considered because they cannot be 

installed on roof space. The economic feasibility of a PV system on the TechCity East Campus 

depends greatly on the price of electricity from Gateway Energy Services and Central Hudson 

Gas & Electric. The economics were analyzed using the Central Hudson Gas & Electric retail 

rate found on their website of $0.0653/kWh1 and a wholesale electricity rate of $0.0232/kWh for 

energy sold back to the utility. Table ES-1 shows the current incentives considered. 

 

1 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation. Accessed October 9, 2013: 

http://www.cenhud.com/energy_choice/price_history.html. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
v 

Table ES-1. Summary of Incentives Evaluated

Incentive Title Modeled Value Expected End 

1. PV Incentive Program $1.5/W, $75,000 cap 12/31/2015

2. Federal Investment Tax Credit 30% of total investment 2016

3. Net Metering Net meter up to 2 MW -

4. Sales Tax Exemption 0% sales tax -

5. Property Tax Incentive 100% of assessed value -

Net metering was applied to only the cases 2 MW and smaller. Other incentives that TechCity

was not clearly eligible for were not considered at this time.

Table ES-2 summarizes the system performance and economics of a potential system that would 

use all available areas surveyed at the TechCity East Campus and smaller variations. 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. The size of a 

net-metering system was varied to determine a breakeven PV array size and best case economic 

scenario. The economic breakeven PV array size was found to be 161 kW and the best case 

economic scenario is a 50-kW system, which is the maximum size to take advantage of the state 

capacity-based incentive. If incentives were available for larger systems, however, a larger 

system would be recommended. The 50-kW system generates 59,387 kWh of electricity and has 

a net present value of $24,498, with 4.5 years to pay back. This includes the current cost of 

energy, expected installation cost, site solar resource, and existing incentives for the proposed 

PV system. The savings and payback is deemed reasonable and as such, a solar PV system 

between 50 kW and 117 kW represents a viable reuse for the site under analyzed conditions. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
vi 

Table ES-2. TechCity East Campus PV System Summary

Following completion of the feasibility study, the RE-Powering team identified a potential 

funding source to improve project economics for large-scale solar systems at the former 

TechCity site. As part of the NY-Sun Initiative, the New York State Energy Research and 

Development Authority (NYSERDA) is accepting applications for solar projects of 50 kW or 

more. Through a state-side competitive bidding process, NYSERDA plans to provide 

performance-based incentives on a dollar-per-kilowatt-hour basis. This type of incentive 

program might improve project economics sufficiently for the deployment of large-scale systems 

(2–5 MW) at the TechCity site. 

A preliminary analysis shows that an incentive of $0.087/kWh for a 2-MW system or 

$0.195/kWh for a 5-MW system could provide sufficient returns, in the case where the incentive 

is not taxable. If taxed, the incentives required to breakeven would increase to $0.150/kWh and 

$0.332/kWh, respectively. 

While the cost of solar energy installations has decreased significantly in recent years, incentives 

at the federal, state, and/or local level are typically required to be competitive with conventional 

fuel sources or provide sufficient returns for investors. To achieve the site owner’s vision for a 

utility-scale rooftop system, use of state incentives, such as the NY-Sun Initiative, will likely be 

required for near-term development. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
vii 

Table of Contents

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

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ viii

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

2 Development of a PV System on RCRA Sites ................................................................................... 3

3 PV Systems ........................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 PV Overview.................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Major System Components.............................................................................................................. 6

3.2.1 PV Module.......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2.2 Inverter................................................................................................................................ 8

3.2.3 Balance-of-System Components......................................................................................... 9

3.2.4 Operation and Maintenance .............................................................................................. 11

3.3 Siting Considerations..................................................................................................................... 12

4 Proposed Installation Location Information.................................................................................... 13

4.1 TechCity East Campus Site PV System......................................................................................... 13

4.2 Utility-Resource Considerations.................................................................................................... 17

4.3 Useable Acreage for PV System Installation................................................................................. 17

4.4 PV Site Solar Resource.................................................................................................................. 17

4.5 TechCity East Campus Energy Usage ........................................................................................... 19

4.5.1 Current Energy Use .......................................................................................................... 19

4.5.2 Net Metering..................................................................................................................... 19

4.5.3 Virtual Net Metering......................................................................................................... 20

5 Economics and Performance............................................................................................................ 21

5.1 Assumptions and Input Data for Analysis ..................................................................................... 21

5.2 SAM-Forecasted Economic Performance...................................................................................... 22

5.2.1 Solar Investor Versus Developer Owned.......................................................................... 23

5.2.2 Possible Ways to Improve the Economics Not Modeled.................................................. 23

5.3 Job Analysis and Impact ................................................................................................................ 24

5.4 Financing Opportunities................................................................................................................. 25

5.4.1 Owner and Operator Financing......................................................................................... 25

5.4.2 Third-Party Developers With Power Purchase Agreements............................................. 25

5.4.3 Third-Party “Flip” Agreements......................................................................................... 26

5.4.4 Hybrid Financial Structures.............................................................................................. 26

5.4.5 Solar Services Agreement and Operating Lease............................................................... 26

5.4.6 Sales/Leaseback ................................................................................................................ 27

5.4.7 Community Solar Gardens................................................................................................ 27

6 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 28

Appendix A. Assessment and Calculations Assumptions................................................................... 29

Appendix B. Results of the System Advisor Model .............................................................................. 32

Appendix C. Results of the Jobs and Economic Development Impact Model ................................... 42

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Generation of electricity from a PV cell ...........................................................................5

Figure 2. Ground-mounted array diagram .......................................................................................6

Figure 3. Mono- and multi-crystalline solar panels .........................................................................7

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

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

Figure 5. String inverter ...................................................................................................................9

Figure 6. Aerial view of the feasible areas for PV at the Tech City East Campus ........................14

Figure 7. Views of the feasible area for roof-mounted PV on Building 1 at the TechCity 

East Campus.............................................................................................................................15

Figure 8. Views of the feasible area for roof-mounted PV on Building 52 at the TechCity 

East Campus.............................................................................................................................16

Figure 9. View of the feasible area for roof-mounted PV on Building 43 at the TechCity 

East Campus.............................................................................................................................16

Figure 10. Location of the Lincoln Park substation in relation to the TechCity East Campus .....17

Figure B-1. LCOE for 5.5-MW roof system ..................................................................................32

Figure B-2. After-tax cash flow for 5.5-MW roof system .............................................................33

Figure B-3. Monthly energy output for 5.5-MW roof system .......................................................34

Figure B-4. LCE for 1.2-MW roof system ....................................................................................35

Figure B-5. After-tax cash flow for 1.2-MW roof system .............................................................36

Figure B-6. Monthly energy output for 1.2-MW roof system .......................................................37

Figure B-7. LCOE for 2-MW net-metering roof system ...............................................................38

Figure B-8. After-tax cash flow for 2-MW roof system ................................................................39

Figure B-9. Monthly energy output for 2-MW roof system ..........................................................40

Figure B-10. Net-metering size determination for 2-MW roof system .........................................41

List of Tables

Table 1. Ground-Mounted Energy Density by Panel and System .................................................10

Table 2. Rooftop Energy Density by Panel ...................................................................................11

Table 3. Site Identification Information and Specifications ..........................................................18

Table 4. Performance Results for 20-Degree Fixed-Tilt PV .........................................................19

Table 5. Summary of Incentives Evaluated ...................................................................................22

Table 6. Summary of SAM Results ...............................................................................................23

Table 7. JEDI Analysis Assumptions ............................................................................................24

Table A-1. Cost, System, and Other Assessment Assumptions ....................................................29

Table A-2. Cost, System, and Other Assessment Assumptions ....................................................30

Table C-1. Photovoltaic Project Data Summary 161-kW Roof-Mounted System ........................42

Table C-2. Local Economic Impacts—Summary Results .............................................................43

Table C-3. Detailed PV Project Data Costs ...................................................................................44

Table C-4. PV System Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs ...............................................45

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
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 TechCity East Campus site in Kingston, New 

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

Energy Laboratory (NREL) provided technical assistance for this project. The REPowering team assessed the site for a photovoltaic (PV) system installation and estimated 

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

recommended financing options that could assist in the implementation of a PV system at 

the site. This team did not assess environmental conditions at the site. 

The TechCity campus is located in Kingston, New York, which is the county seat of 

Ulster County. Kingston is located 90 miles north of New York City. The TechCity

campus is 138 acres and is composed of 28 buildings and has approximately 2.4 million 

square feet of building space. Kingston had a population of just under 24,000 people in 

2011. Kingston experiences summers that are warm and humid with high temperatures 

typically near 80o

F. The winters are cold and snowy with low temperatures in the 15oF to 

20oF range. Kingston has on average 175 days of sunshine each year. Central Hudson 

Gas & Electric Corporation is the utility that provides electricity to TechCity, and it is a

deregulated utility.

The TechCity campus was originally an International Business Machines Corporation 

(IBM) campus for building mainframe computers that opened in 1956. The Kingston 

IBM plant reached its peak in 1985 when 7,100 people were employed there, and it was 

closed in 1994 when IBM was going through a major restructuring. A developer 

purchased the Kingston IBM plant in 1998 and renamed it TechCity. The current plan of 

the site is to offer building space to tech companies that can put to use the existing 

infrastructure. 

The major contaminants at the site are related to years of manufacturing computers and 

related components by IBM. The major contaminants include trichloroethane, 

trichloethylene, and perchlorethylene, which are industrial solvents. The contamination is 

located in a shallow water table aquifer, and a majority of the contaminants are located 

under Buildings 1, 2, and 3.2

 The scope and concentration of the contamination has 

significantly reduced over time through natural attenuation and a pump-and-treat system 

operated by IBM. The success of these reductions has resulted in the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) issuing “No Action” and “No 

Further Action” declarations for the site.

The closest electrical tie-in location is right across the street at the Lincoln Park 

substation. Having a substation within 1,000 ft makes it an ideal location for a PV system 

to tie into. A detailed interconnection study will have to be performed through a local 

electric utility, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, to determine the feasibility of 

utilizing the onsite substation as a tie-in point for a PV system. The site currently has 

 

2 EPA. “IBM Corporation – Kingston.” Accessed October 9, 2013: 

http://www.epa.gov/region2/waste/fsibmkin.htm. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
2 

buildings on it, and there are new buildings planned for the future. The buildings on the 

site are potential off-takers of the electricity produced by a PV system. 

Feasibility assessment team members from NREL, Ulster County, TechCity, and EPA 

conducted a site visit on Thursday, April 5, 2012, to gather information integral to this 

feasibility study. The team considered information, including solar resource, transmission 

availability, community acceptance, roof conditions, and ground conditions. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
3 

2 Development of a PV System on RCRA Sites 

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

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

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

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

residential redevelopment and could be adequately zoned for renewable energy 

• Are often located near existing roads and energy transmission or distribution 

infrastructure

• Can provide an economically viable reuse for sites that have significant cleanup 

costs or low real estate development demand

• Can provide job opportunities in urban and rural communities 

• Can advance cleaner and 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—in many cases generating significant revenue on a site that would otherwise go 

unused. 

The TechCity East Campus is owned by a developer, Alan Ginsberg, who is interested in 

potential revenue flows on the site. For many RCRA 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. For the 

TechCity East Campus, the vision of the community aligns well with the vision of the 

developer. The purpose of this study is to analyze all options so that an informed decision 

can be made on how to best utilize the site. 

Understanding opportunities studied and realized by other similar sites demonstrates the 

potential for PV system development. The City Solar project in Chicago, Illinois, is the 

largest urban PV system in the United States, and it is built on a contaminated site. The 

brownfield site is a former industrial site that had been vacant for 30 years. The 41-acre 

site is owned by the City of Chicago and leases the land to a solar developer. The City 

Solar project was completed in 2010 and is a 10-MW single-axis tracking system.3

 

The TechCity East Campus 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. There is 

potential to build light industrial buildings on the site. 

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

for power generation instead of fossil fuels, including: 

 

3 Exelon. “Exelon City Solar.” Accessed July, 2012: 

http://www.exeloncorp.com/PowerPlants/exeloncitysolar/Pages/Profile.aspx. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
4 

• 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

• Long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) linked to renewable energy 

systems can mitigate fluctuating electric costs by locking in electricity rates

• Renewable energy sources generate energy without harmful emissions or 

waste products.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
5 

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., 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. 

(-)

(+)

-

- -

-

Electron

Current flow

-

Solar cell

- - -

Load

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
6 

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 for a consistent and high efficiency for more than 

30 years in the field. The performance degradation, a reduction in power generation due 

to long-term exposure, is under 1% per year. Silicon modules have a lifespan in a range 

of 25–30 years but can keep producing energy beyond this range. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
7 

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.

 

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

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

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

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
8 

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 

may 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 would 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, as well as have high efficiency and 

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 the 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 the 

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 to 20 years. Small projects with irregular modules and shading issues 

typically benefit from micro-inverters. 

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.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
9 

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 or 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 RCRA 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 RCRA 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 

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

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

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
10 

Table 1. Ground-Mounted 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 may 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. The TechCity East Campus has no areas for large ground-mounted PV systems 

due to the high concentration of buildings on the site. 

3.2.3.1.2 Roof-Mounted Systems

The TechCity East Campus has potential to use the roof area of current and future 

buildings for PV. Installing PV on rooftops has many of the same considerations as 

installing ground-mounted PV systems. Factors, such as available area for an array, solar 

resource, shading, distance to transmission lines, and distance to major roads at the site, 

are just as important in roof-mounted systems as in ground-mounted systems. Rooftop 

systems can be ballasted or fixed to the roof, and it is recommended that the roof be 

relatively new (less than 5 years old) to avoid having to move the PV system in order to 

repair or replace the roof. 

The development plan at the TechCity East Campus has renovated existing buildings and 

new construction buildings. There are many relatively easy low-cost/no-cost measures 

that can be taken during the design phase so that the buildings are optimally built for 

rooftop PV systems. Design strategies, such as orienting the buildings so that the 

southern exposure is maximized and reducing the amount of mechanical equipment on 

the roof, are measures that can be taken to optimize rooftop PV systems. A solar-ready 

design guide was published in order to help design teams optimize rooftop PV systems 

when designing buildings.4

 

4 Lisell, L.; Tetreault, T.; Watson, A. Solar Ready Buildings Planning Guide. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, December 2009. Accessed October 14, 2013: 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46078.pdf. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
11 

Table 2. Rooftop Energy Density by Panel

System Type Fixed-Tilt Energy Density 

(DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Crystalline Silicon 10.0 

Thin Film 4.3 

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 RCRA

applications, the 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. 

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 smart phone 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 of $20/kW/year, which is based on the historical 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
12 

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, available incentives, and 

utility policy. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
13 

4 Proposed Installation Location Information

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

April 5, 2012. 

4.1 TechCity East Campus Site PV System

As discussed in Section 1, the TechCity East Campus site is owned by a developer named 

Alan Ginsberg. IBM is responsible for the remediation at the site and for the operation of 

any remediation systems. 

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

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

structures that can be removed, the un-shaded area can be increased to incorporate more 

PV panels. 

The TechCity East Campus site is approximately 138 acres and there is a high potential 

to build out the site with roof-mounted PV but very little potential to build out the site 

with ground-mounted PV due to the high concentration of buildings on the site. There are 

17.5 acres (762,300 ft2

) potentially available for a roof-mounted PV system. There are 

currently no areas available for a ground-mounted PV system at the site. While the entire 

area does not need to be developed at one time due to the feasibility of staging 

installation as area or funding becomes available, calculations for this analysis reflect the 

solar potential if the total feasible area is used. It should be noted that the purpose of this 

report is not to determine how to develop the site but to investigate both options and 

present the results in an unbiased manner. Because some of the buildings are new 

construction, they could easily be designed to be “solar ready,” even if the budget for a 

rooftop PV system is not available at the time of construction. 

Figure 6 shows an aerial view of the potential areas for PV at the TechCity East Campus

site taken from Google Earth. There is no feasible area for ground-mounted PV. The 

feasible area for roof-mounted PV on new construction buildings is shaded in yellow, the 

feasible area for roof-mounted PV on new construction parking garages is shaded in blue, 

and the feasible area for roof-mounted PV on existing buildings is shaded in red. As 

shown, there are large expanses of un-shaded roof area, which makes it a suitable 

candidate for roof-mounted PV. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
14 

Figure 6. Aerial view of the feasible areas for PV at the Tech City East Campus 

Illustration done in Google Earth

PV systems are well suited to the Kingston, New York, 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 4.48 kWh/m2/day. Figure 7–Figure 9

show various views of the TechCity East Campus site where roof-mounted PV 

is feasible. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
15 

Figure 7. Views of the feasible area for roof-mounted PV on Building 1 at the TechCity East 

Campus. Photos by James Salasovich, NREL

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
16 

Figure 8. Views of the feasible area for roof-mounted PV on Building 52 at the TechCity 

East Campus. Photos by James Salasovich, NREL

Figure 9. View of the feasible area for roof-mounted PV on Building 43 at the TechCity East 

Campus. Photos by James Salasovich, NREL

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
17 

4.2 Utility-Resource Considerations

The closest electrical tie-in location to the site is across the street at the Lincoln Park 

substation. Having a substation within 1,000 ft makes it an ideal location for a PV system 

to tie into. A detailed interconnection study will have to be performed through the local 

electric utility, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, to determine the feasibility of 

utilizing the onsite substation as a tie-in point for a PV system. The site currently has 

buildings on it, and there are new construction buildings in the future. The buildings on 

the site are potential off-takers of the electricity produced by a PV system. 

Figure 10. Location of the Lincoln Park substation in relation to the TechCity East Campus 

Illustration done in Google Earth

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 under-utilized or unoccupied land, vacant lots, and/or 

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

building rooftops. 

4.4 PV Site Solar Resource

The TechCity East Campus site has been evaluated to determine the adequacy of the solar 

resource available using both onsite data and industry tools. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
18 

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

points and found a solar access of 90% or higher. All data gathered using this tool is 

available in Appendix C.

The predicted array performance was found using PVWatts Version 2 for Kingston, New 

York. 5 Table 3 shows the station identification information, PV system specifications, 

and energy specifications for the site. For this summary array performance information, a 

hypothetical system size of 1 kW was used to show the estimated production for each 

kilowatt installed. It is scaled linearly to match the proposed system size. 

Table 3. Site Identification Information and Specifications

Station Identification

Cell ID 0268367

State New York

Latitude 42.0° N

Longitude 74.1° 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 South

Energy Specifications

Cost of Electricity $0.0653/kWh

Table 4 shows the performance results for a 20-degree fixed-tilt PV system in Kingston, 

New York, as calculated by PVWatts.

 

5 NREL. “PVWatts.” Accessed October 15, 2013: http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
19 

Table 4. Performance Results for 20-Degree Fixed-Tilt PV

Month Solar Radiation

(kWh/m2

/day)

AC Energy

(kWh)

Energy Value

($)

1 2.61 67 4.38 

2 3.49 81 5.29 

3 4.70 118 7.71 

4 5.19 121 7.90 

5 5.90 136 8.88 

6 6.13 133 8.68 

7 6.03 135 8.82 

8 5.70 127 8.29 

9 5.13 114 7.44 

10 3.90 93 6.07 

11 2.65 62 4.05 

12 2.23 56 3.66

Year 4.48 1243 81.17

4.5 TechCity East Campus Energy Usage

The TechCity East Campus site currently has buildings on the site that use electricity. 

There are future plans to build a significant number of buildings on the site. It is 

important to understand the energy use of the site to enable for a full analysis of whether 

or not energy produced would need to be sold or if it could offset onsite energy use. 

4.5.1 Current Energy Use

There are currently buildings on the site that use electricity. No monthly current 

electricity usage or cost data was available for the site, but the current annual electricity 

use is estimated at 800,000 kWh/month. 

4.5.2 Net Metering

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

"Net," in this context, 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. 

New York’s net-metering law, which began in 1997, requires that an investor-owned 

utility offer net metering for all customers of up to 1% of the utility’s 2005 total 

aggregate demand. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
20 

New York does not allow any new or additional demand charges, standby charges, 

customer charges, minimum monthly charges, interconnection charges, or other charges 

that would increase an eligible customer-generator's costs beyond those of other 

customers in the rate class to which the eligible customer-generator would otherwise be 

assigned. The New York Department of Public Service has explicitly ruled that 

technologies eligible for net metering (up to 2 MW) are exempt from interconnection 

application fees, as well as from initial and supplemental interconnection review fees.

Any net excess generation (NEG) in a 12-month period is carried forward into the next 

12-month cycle. 

4.5.3 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 

a 1-MW limit 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. New York currently does not offer VNM to PV generators. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
21 

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 the NREL 

System Advisor Model (SAM).6 

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 calculates the cost 

of generating electricity based on information you provide about a project's location, installation 

and operating costs, type of financing, applicable tax credits and incentives, and system 

specifications.

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. 

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 installed cost of the baseline fixed-tilt roof-mounted systems was assumed 

to be $2.79/W. This price includes 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. 

Single-axis tracking systems were not included in this analysis. The site does not have enough 

space to make use of any ground-mounted systems, and single-axis tracking systems are not 

installed on roofs. 

TechCity is expected to get electricity service from Gateway Energy and supplied by Central 

Hudson Gas & Electric. The utility retail rate used in the economic analysis is $0.0653/kWh with 

a $6.65/kW demand charge. This rate is based upon Central Hudson’s S.C No. 2 base delivery 

 

6 For additional information on the SAM, see https://sam.nrel.gov/cost. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
22 

rate of $0.00148/kWh and demand charge of $6.65/kW7

 and Central Hudson’s average supply 

charge of $0.0638/kWh for the past year.8 This number is a fair representation of the local utility

market and not expected to be the actual rate attained by TechCity, as utility service contracts 

can be negotiated. 

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

entities. It is important to consider all applicable incentives or grants to make PV as cost 

effective as possible. The full list of incentives used in this study can be found on Table 5. The 

net-metering program was only applied to the 2,000-kW system case. 

Table 5. Summary of Incentives Evaluated

Incentive Title Modeled Value Expected End 

1. PV Incentive Program $1.5/W, $75,000 cap 12/31/2015

2. Federal Investment Tax Credit 30% of total investment 2016

3. Net Metering Net meter up to 2 MW -

4. Sales Tax Exemption 0% sales tax -

5. Property Tax Incentive 100% of assessed value -

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

systems can reasonably be expected to continue operation past this point. A full list of standard 

assumptions can be found in Appendix B. For the purposes of modeling how much PV could 

cover rooftops and spaces onsite, it was assumed that 80% of the land space could contain PV. 

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, SAM predicts net present 

value (NPV), PPA, and levelized cost of energy (LCOE). Five scenarios total were run for the 

TechCity East Campus. The site has enough rooftop space available for PV development of a 

6.76-MW system. This maximum system was modeled with two cases, splitting up the flat 

(0-degree tilt) and tilted panels. Three net-metering cases were run to determine the results for a 

maximum net-metering case at 2 MW, a breakeven PV array size at 85 kW, and the best 

economic case for TechCity at 50 kW. There are multiple factors that go into choosing a 

scenario(s) beyond NPV, PPA, and LCOE; however, Table 6 shows the results from the different 

options mentioned above. 

 

7 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation. “Re: Cases 09-E-0588/09-G-0589 Compliance Filing Changes.” 

Accessed October 15, 2013: http://www.cenhud.com/pdf/ratesummary09.pdf. 8 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation. “Energy Choice.” Accessed October 15, 2013: 

http://www.centralhudson.com/energy_choice/price_history.html. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
23 

Table 6. Summary of SAM Results

The best economic case for the TechCity campus is the 50-kW PV array, which is sized to the 

maximum incentive available through the New York PV Investment Program—$75,000. This 

increases the portion of the system cost reimbursed through incentives to over 80%, excluding 

tax exemptions. The breakeven case represents the maximum size PV array that could be built 

before the economics of the system become unfavorable. Any system between 50 kW and 

161 kW are expected to be economically favorable under current conditions. For the entire 

system build out models, the tilted panels are more economical than the flat panels but both 

maxed size systems are not currently economic. With improved incentives the site could take 

further advantage of the net-metering policy and with enough incentive utilizing the entire roof 

space for a PV system is possible. Further analysis should be performed around the site to 

determine exact levels of funding that would incite investment. 

5.2.1 Solar Investor Versus Developer Owned

The choice between going with a solar investor or developer ownership will depend on the desire 

for involvement and the risk appetite of the developer. While ownership of the system will bring 

a higher payback for the developer, it will also require hiring the contractors to permit, install, 

and maintain the system. A solar investor inherits that risk and profit, and the TechCity East 

Campus in turn will receive power from the PV system at a rate determined by the investor. The 

recommendation of the feasibility team is to not pursue a PPA because the PPA is much higher 

than the current utility price. If a PPA was pursued, the tilted PV panels are recommended 

because that system is modeled to be slightly cheaper than including the flat panels. The 

predicted price is $0.1525/kWh. 

5.2.2 Possible Ways to Improve the Economics Not Modeled

The economics for a PV system at the TechCity East Campus could be feasible under a much

lower installed price or much higher electricity prices. The breakeven installation price for the

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
24 

full net-metering case is $2.15/W. Likewise, if the annual cost of energy were to increase to 

$0.106/kWh, the full 2-MW net-meter cases would become economically feasible. Under that 

utility electricity cost scenario, the NPV of the 2 MW would be $4,348 and have a payback of 

14.4 years. 

The entire results and summary of inputs to SAM is available in Appendix E. 

5.3 Job Analysis and Impact

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

analysis, the NREL Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) models are used.9 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 that 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, including 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 impacts. It is important to note that JEDI 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. 

Table 7 shows the assumed values for the TechCity East Campus site. 

Table 7. JEDI Analysis Assumptions

Input Assumed Value

Capacity 161 kW

Placed In Service Year 2013

Installed System Cost $449,190

Location Kingston, NY

Using the assumptions from Table 7, 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 

 

9 JEDI has 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 JEDI, see 

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

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
25 

The estimates of jobs associated with this project are presented as either construction-period 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 D, the total proposed 

system is estimated to support 3.0 direct and indirect jobs per year for the duration of the 

procurement and construction periods. Total wages paid to workers during the construction 

period are estimated to be $172,400, and total economic output is estimated to be $418,700. The 

annual O&M of the new PV system is estimated to support 0.1 FTEs per year for the life of the 

system. The jobs and associated spending are projected to account for approximately $3,500 in 

earnings and $6,000 in economic activity each year for the next 25 years. 

5.4 Financing Opportunities

The procurement, development, construction, and management of a successful utility-scale 

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 

the owners’ and operators’ assets and equity in the project. In addition, private entities can utilize 

any of the federal tax credits offered. 

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 program, or 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 tax-exempt entities, public entities are 

unable to benefit directly from the various tax-credit-based 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 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
26 

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 for making the site available to the solar developer via a lease 

payment. 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 an 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 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 each investor’s return is 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” 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 their treatment of tax 

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

companies. Under IRS guidelines, municipalities cannot enter capital leases with for-profit 

entities when the for-profit entities capture tax incentives. As a result, a number of business 

models have emerged as a work-around to this issue. One model is the SSA wherein a private 

party sells “solar services” (i.e., energy and renewable energy certificates [RECs]) to a 

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

accrue the tax credits). The non-profit utility typically purchases the solar services with either a 

one-time up-front payment equal to the turn-key system cost minus the 30% federal tax credit or 

in annual installments. The municipality can buy out the system once the third party has accrued 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
27 

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

Under the sales/leaseback model, the municipality develops the project and sells it to a thirdparty tax equity investor who then leases the project back to the municipality under an operating 

lease. At the end of the lease period, and after the tax benefits have been absorbed by the tax 

equity investor, the municipality can purchase the solar project at fair market value. The lessee 

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. 

5.4.7 Community 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 may be able to make land available 

for a large solar project, which 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 pro-rated share of the project’s energy output. This business model is targeted to meet demand 

for solar projects by customers who rent/lease homes or businesses, do not have good solar 

access at their site, or do not want to install a solar system on their facilities. Customer pro-rated 

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 pro-rated share of the solar project 

produces each month; it 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 owned solely by the 

utility, owned solely 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 third-party 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 

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

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
28 

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 

The inclusion of a small PV array is currently an economically viable option, but small changes 

in policy, PV cost, or electricity could make the full net-metering case viable. With these 

changes, a larger system could be feasible in the near future.

Installing the 85-kW PV system on the TechCity East Campus could generate 138,965 kWh 

annually. As summarized in Section 5, the SAM economic analysis predicts the best NPV and 

LCOE of $24,498 and less than $0.0297/kWh, respectively, for the 50-kW net-metering case. In 

a solar investor/PPA case for the entire 5,540-kW PV buildout, the PPA price is modeled to be 

$0.1525/kWh. 

The site has enough rooftop space available for PV development of a 6.76-MW system. This 

system would produce 3,926 MWh of energy annually—enough to power 711 homes. The 

economics for a larger PV system at the TechCity East Campus could be feasible under lower 

installed prices, higher electricity prices, or incentives from policies. The breakeven price for the 

net-metering case (2 MW is the max net metering size) is $2.15/W. Likewise, if the price for 

electricity were to increase to $0.106/kWh, both of the net-metering cases (the 2 MW and 

slightly smaller 1.2MW) would become economically feasible. 

Following completion of the feasibility study, the RE-Powering team identified a potential 

funding source to improve project economics for large-scale solar systems at the former 

TechCity site. As part of the NY-Sun Initiative, the New York State Energy Research and 

Development Authority (NYSERDA) is accepting applications for solar projects that are 50 kW 

or more. Through a state-side competitive bidding process, NYSERDA plans to provide 

performance-based incentives on a dollar-per-kilowatt-hour basis. This type of incentive 

program may improve project economics sufficiently for the deployment of large-scale systems 

(2–5 MW) at the TechCity site. 

A preliminary analysis shows an incentive over a 3-year period of $0.087/kWh for a 2-MW 

system or $0.195/kWh for a 5-MW system could provide sufficient returns, in the case where the 

incentive is not taxable. If taxed, the incentives required for breakeven would increase to 

$0.150/kWh and $0.332/kWh, respectively. 

While the cost of solar energy installations has decreased significantly in recent years, incentives 

at the federal, state, and/or local level are typically required to be competitive with conventional 

fuel sources or provide sufficient returns for investors. To achieve the site owner’s vision for a 

utility-scale rooftop system, use of state incentives, such as the NY-Sun Initiative, will likely be 

required for near-term development. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
29 

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 0.0653 $/kWh

Annual O&M (fixed) 20 $/kW/year

System Assumptions

System Type Annual energy 

kWh/kW

Installed Cost 

($/W)

Energy Density 

(W/sq. ft.)

Roof Fixed 1,243 $2.79 4.00

Other Assumptions

1 acre 43,560 ft2

1 MW 1,000,000 W

Ground 

utilization

90% of available 

area

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
30 

Table A-2. Cost, System, and Other Assessment Assumptions

Item PPA/Investor

Municipal 

Purchase Notes

Analysis period 

(years) 25 25

Inflation 2.50% 2.50%

Real discount rate 5.85% 3%

Federal tax rate 35% 0%

State tax rate 8% 0%

Insurance (% of 

installed cost) 0.50% 0.50%

Property tax 0 0

Construction loan 0 0

Loan term 15 25 25-year bonds

Loan rate 6% 6% May be lower for bonds

Debt fraction 55% 100%

45%–60% PPA, 100% 

municipal ownership, DSCR of 

~1.3 (>1.2)

Minimum internal 

rate of return 15.00% 15.00%

PPA escalation 

rate 1.50% 1.50%

Federal

depreciation

5-year MACRS w/ 

50% first-year 

bonus N/A N/A for municipal ownership 

State depreciation 5-year MACRS N/A N/A for municipal ownership

Federal

investment tax 

credit 30% N/A N/A for municipal ownership

Payment 

incentives 0 0

Degradation 0.50% 0.50%

Availability 100% 100%

Cost - fixed axis 

per kW $2.79–$3.20 $2.79–$3.20

Cost – single-axis 

tracking per kW $3.35–$3.84 $3.35–$3.84

Cost - landfill 

ballasted per kW $3.49–$4.00 $3.49–$4.00

Grid 

interconnection 

cost $ - $ - 

Land cost $ - $ - 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
31 

O&M

$30/kW/yr first 15 

yrs and $20/kW/yr

yrs 16-25

$30/kW/yr first 15 

yrs and $20/kW/yr

yrs 16-26

Derate factor 0.8 0.8

Fixed tilt 20° 20°

Single-axis tilt 0° 0°

Acres per MW 

fixed 5.74 5.74 

Acres per MW 

tracking 6.96 6.96 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
32 

Appendix B. Results of the System Advisor Model

Figure B-1. LCOE for 5.5-MW roof system

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
33 

Figure B-2. After-tax cash flow for 5.5-MW roof system

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
34 

Figure B-3. Monthly energy output for 5.5-MW roof system

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
35 

Figure B-4. LCE for 1.2-MW roof system

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
36 

Figure B-5. After-tax cash flow for 1.2-MW roof system

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
37 

Figure B-6. Monthly energy output for 1.2-MW roof system

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
38 

Figure B-7. LCOE for 2-MW net-metering roof system

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
39 

Figure B-8. After-tax cash flow for 2-MW roof system

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
40 

Figure B-9. Monthly energy output for 2-MW roof system

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
41 

Figure B-10. Net-metering size determination for 2-MW roof system

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
42 

Appendix C. Results of the Jobs and Economic 

Development Impact Model

Appendix C shows the JEDI results from installing a 161-kW roof-mounted system. 

Other PV system sizes will be relative to this.

Table C-1. Photovoltaic Project Data Summary 161-kW Roof-Mounted System

Project Location New York

Year of Construction or Installation 2013

Average System Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (kW) 161.0

Number of Systems Installed 1

Project Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (kW) 161.0

System Application Utility

Solar Cell/Module Material

Crystalline 

Silicon

System Tracking Fixed Mount

Total System Base Cost ($/kWDC) $2,850 

Annual Direct Operations and Maintenance Cost 

($/kW) $25.00

Money Value – Current or Constant (Dollar Year) 2012

Project Construction or Installation Cost $458,859

 Local Spending $217,143

Total Annual Operational Expenses $56,195

 Direct Operating and Maintenance Costs $4,025

 Local Spending $3,703

 Other Annual Costs $52,170

 Local Spending $64

 Debt Payments $0

 Property Taxes $0

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
43 

Table C-2. Local Economic Impacts—Summary Results

Jobs Earnings Output

During Construction and Installation Period $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts

 Construction and Installation Labor 0.6 $40.9

 Construction and Installation Related Services 0.6 $34.0

 Subtotal 1.2 $74.9 $124.8

 Module and Supply Chain Impacts

 Manufacturing Impacts 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Trade (Wholesale and Retail) 0.1 $8.9 $25.5

 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Professional Services 0.2 $10.5 $31.7

 Other Services 0.3 $26.9 $87.9

 Other Sectors 0.4 $12.2 $24.3

 Subtotal 1.0 $58.4 $169.3

 Induced Impacts 0.7 $39.1 $124.6

 Total Impacts 3.0 $172.4 $418.7

Annual Annual

Annual Earnings Output

During Operating Years Jobs $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 PV Project Labor Only 0.0 $2.2 $2.2

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 0.0 $0.8 $2.2

 Induced Impacts 0.0 $0.5 $1.5

 Total Impacts 0.1 $3.5 $6.0

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 might not add up due to independent rounding.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
44 

Table C-3. Detailed PV Project Data Costs

Purchased 

Locally (%)

Manufactured 

Installation Costs Cost Locally (Y or N)

Materials and Equipment

 Mounting (rails, clamps, fittings, etc.) $16,381 100% N

 Modules $179,903 100% N

 Electrical (wire, connectors, breakers, etc.) $18,677 100% N

 Inverter $26,755 100% N

 Subtotal $241,716

Labor

 Installation $40,929 100%

 Subtotal $40,929

Subtotal $282,645

Other Costs

 Permitting $1,891 100%

 Other Costs $41,798 100%

 Business Overhead $122,856 100%

 Subtotal $166,545

Subtotal $449,190

Sales Tax (materials and equipment 

purchases) $9,669 100%

Total $458,859

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
45 

Table C-4. PV System Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs

Cost Local Share

Manufactured 

Locally 

(Y or N)

Labor

 Technicians $2,415 100%

 Subtotal $2,415

Materials and Services

 Materials and

Equipment $1,610 100% N

 Services $0 100%

 Subtotal $181

Sales Tax (materials and

equipment purchases) $9 100%

Average Annual Payment 

(interest and principal) $5,178 0%

Property Taxes $0 100%

Total $5,588

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 4.00% 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%

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.